Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

... man, I'm trying to figure out a way to read that that doesn't come across as kinda' fucking horrible. What exactly are you calling "leverage", here?

This is something Dems do consistently. They will ask some condition to bring themselves to the table, Republicans will give it to them, then nothing will happen because the thing the Dems got as a door prize was the thing they wanted in the first place. The same thing would surely happen here. A promise to 'negotiate on immigration' after a budget gets passed, then 'oops lmao why would we negotiate wtih le Drumpf? Borders are racist anyway.' This is hardly a perfect solution, in fact it's pretty terrible, but it's quite obvious that this is a problem Dems have no interest in solving. If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

[Trekkin]

This is hardly a perfect solution, in fact it's pretty terrible, but it's quite obvious that this is a problem Dems have no interest in solving. If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

Except it wasn't. The bill Trump vetoed had funding for border security, including the improved technology and infrastructure CBP actually wants. It just didn't have anything for the Wall itself.

[hector13]

Yeah, this isn’t about border security, it’s a vanity project. There are significantly better ways, both fiscally and in efficacy, that can secure the border than Trump’s Wall, but Trump ain’t interested in discussing them.

McConnell finds himself in the unenviable position that he can say there’s no point in voting on something Trump won’t sign to make it look like he’s supporting him while insulating the Republicans at large from the blame for Trump’s Art of the Deal.

Edit for grammar

[Rolan7]

@Baffler
First off, thanks for sharing a Contrapoint.  I hate when this gets too echo-chamber-y.

But yeah, Democrats had reached a compromise with Republicans.  This isn't a matter of party, and it isn't even a matter of ideology.  It is literally only a matter of ego in the POTUS.

Border security is a false issue when so many illegal workers arrive here via overstayed visas, or overseas.  A wall is not a real solution.

I say this as a Lib who insists that an illegal workforce undercuts the power of the proletariat.  It's globalization, and also de-facto slavery.  The Republicans don't want to stop it, they only want to appear tough on it while allowing it to feed their factories.

[MrRoboto75]

Border security is a false issue when so many illegal workers arrive here via overstayed visas, or overseas.  A wall is not a real solution.

Ironically, Trump has made it easier to leak in via airport, what with the shutdown and all.

[Frumple]

... man, I'm trying to figure out a way to read that that doesn't come across as kinda' fucking horrible. What exactly are you calling "leverage", here?

This is something Dems do consistently.

I mean, that's certainly a sidestep from the question presented. I guess I'll just agree with you that old era republicans might actually have decided to treat people that are american in just about every way but the paperwork with some modicum of fucking dignity, and went on to wrestle with some problem that didn't involve shitting on people, that they didn't go out of their way to cause.

You might have to go pretty far back considering the ethical character of the GOP establishment in general since, like... before nixon or something... but hey, maybe. It's extra maybe due to the "leverage" you seem to be implying involving minorities, but eh.

Though I'm sure your consistently done thing has a slate of examples, considering, as per trekkin's note, the current situation isn't one of them.

[Baffler]

This is hardly a perfect solution, in fact it's pretty terrible, but it's quite obvious that this is a problem Dems have no interest in solving. If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

Have you got a link? It seems I missed some news, but looking I don't actually see anything about such a thing.

[ChairmanPoo]

... man, I'm trying to figure out a way to read that that doesn't come across as kinda' fucking horrible. What exactly are you calling "leverage", here?

This is something Dems do consistently. They will ask some condition to bring themselves to the table, Republicans will give it to them, then nothing will happen because the thing the Dems got as a door prize was the thing they wanted in the first place. The same thing would surely happen here. A promise to 'negotiate on immigration' after a budget gets passed, then 'oops lmao why would we negotiate wtih le Drumpf? Borders are racist anyway.' This is hardly a perfect solution, in fact it's pretty terrible, but it's quite obvious that this is a problem Dems have no interest in solving. If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

You can't possibly be serious. Leaving aside questions concerning the viability of the project (which we really shouldn't), do you actually believe border security is reliant or will be impacted in any significant manner by Trump's asinine wall plans?

[Trekkin]

This is hardly a perfect solution, in fact it's pretty terrible, but it's quite obvious that this is a problem Dems have no interest in solving. If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

Have you got a link? It seems I missed some news, but looking I don't actually see anything about such a thing.

Yes and no; it would appear the reporting on this has gotten muddled. I'm looking over the relevant amendments to HR 695 now and they don't match up properly, although the timeline is right, which makes me think this press release (and this one) are talking about something else.

DOUBLE EDIT: Turns out I just can't read.  HR 695's just using HR 6776 and changing the dates, because, you know, it's a CR.

procurement, construction, and improvements

For necessary expenses of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for procurement, construction, and improvements, including procurements to buy marine vessels, aircraft, and unmanned aerial systems, $5,510,244,000, of which $462,022,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2021, and of which $5,048,222,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2023.

[Max™]

Awww, I wasn't on to check and missed what was said, don't gotta worry about being mean to me, I can't care what other people think of me if I don't value opinions, remember?

[Trekkin]

Awww, I wasn't on to check and missed what was said, don't gotta worry about being mean to me, I can't care what other people think of me if I don't value opinions, remember?

So you say, albeit with a frequency and vehemence that inhibits my ability to believe that you believe it, but I was worried less about sparing your feelings and more about avoiding the kind of petty point-scoring that soaks up so much time and energy to no one's benefit outside of momentary schadenfreude. Sick burns aren't worth setting the thread on fire. 

[Folly]

If hostage taking is the only way to get them to do the basic job of securing the border, then again, I guess that's just where we are as a political entity.

We already have basic border security, and much more. According to all credible security experts, what Trump is demanding is both excessive and highly inefficient.

Moreover, if the Dem's give in to this ploy then Trump and presidents after him are just going to shut down the government every time they want to get something without giving any concessions. This is not a tactic that can be tolerated if we ever want to have a healthy and stable government.

[wierd]

SO--

Remember when there was rampant unemployment, and people asserted that it was NOT a skills gap, despite what everyone in politics and wallstreet said?

Well, turns out the politicians, wallstreet, and the fortune 500s of the world were just fucking lying, and turned their "requirements" knobs to 11, because they could.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/7/18166951/skills-gap-modestino-shoag-ballance

[sluissa]

Oh, you mean when entry level, and sometimes even intern positions required multiple years of experience? That was all the doing of the companies making their requirements too high?


Who'd have thought? /sarcasm

software development and IT job requirements STILL sometimes ask for more years of experience with a given piece of software/language/platform than years that software has existed. It does seem to be getting better, as that article implies, but it's still happening.

[JoshuaFH]

SO--

Remember when there was rampant unemployment, and people asserted that it was NOT a skills gap, despite what everyone in politics and wallstreet said?

Well, turns out the politicians, wallstreet, and the fortune 500s of the world were just fucking lying, and turned their "requirements" knobs to 11, because they could.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/7/18166951/skills-gap-modestino-shoag-ballance

Surprising noone I'm sure, it was an obvious lie motivated by opportunism.