Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

It wouldn't matter if the venue was The Shrew, er View, but what someone like Obama said on it. That is what you vainly seek to gloss over.

Is it news that Obama was on the show? Sure. Is it news what he said? Sure. The same is true of the correspondents. But just because someone is a correspondent or a president or anything else for that matter does not mean they are barred from expressing opinions. I stand behind my position: if a person is on a talk program, they are free to talk. If they are positioning themselves as "delivering news," then their opinions should be set aside and the news they report should be as objectively reported as possible.

Not sure why that position seems to you to be an odd one. If it is - then we disagree. With respect to your two correspondents - they appear to have made comments that are politically skewed. If they did so in a talk program, I have no issue. So if they were on The View or Good Morning America or Hannity, I have no problem with them expressing their opinion. If they did so during a news broadcast, I would have an issue. So if it happened during "The Evening News" or "World News Tonight" or "This Week," I would have an issue. As best I can tell - it was during a talk program. Do you know it to be otherwise?

[Tassman]

"Priority" isn't the issue. During the shutdown support has increased substantially (up between 5 and 8% depending on the poll) and opposition has shrunk markedly (down between 6 to 9%).

Yes, priority is the issue. “More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a poll of 1,075 adults by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. That poll was conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 4”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05c88b70798d1

Give him a chance to present his case,

He’s been presenting his case from the beginning of his campaign. He wants a great big beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it. That was his case...at least until recently.

Just a hair under 90% of those actually on the border trying to enforce the law support the idea of a wall. Most of the Democrats agree. But Pelosi, Schumer et al have declared they won't provide a single dollar for what is overwhelmingly wanted.

No, as previously linked, what they want is a wall system in strategic locations as necessary to securing the border. And most members of the Democratic caucus in Congress also believe that a “wall system in strategic locations” is necessary…including Pelosi. The Dems have made several offers previously, which included increasing the existing Bollard Fencing, but which was rejected by the WH.

I can't help but notice you suddenly switched from a wall to fencing. The latter has not worked. Everyone has been calling for a wall and not fencing.

Trump himself has talked about fencing many times. Although what Trump wants is impossible to discern, he keeps changing his demands.

“From concrete wall to steel fences: A timeline of Trump's evolving border barrier concept.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ne/2503855002/

Pelosi is worried that the SOTU would allow Trump to get his message out unfiltered by a hostile press. And heaven help her when they discover that she flatly refused Trump's attempt to compromise without even hearing what his offer was.

Trump walked out of the last negations with Pelosi and Schumer. But they will re-enter into negations when Trump ends his shutdown and is no longer holding 800,000 workers hostage to his demands.

Trump has offered a compromise which Pelosi without even bothering to hear the details summarily shot down. This was the point when she took ownership of the shutdown.

Trump “owns” the shutdown by his own admission; Pelosi will resume negotiations when Trump ends it.

[rogue06]

Yes, priority is the issue. “More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a poll of 1,075 adults by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. That poll was conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 4”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05c88b70798d1

Only have time for this.

No priority is a distraction. For instance my getting gas this morning isn't a priority (getting to work is) but that does not mean it isn't important.

[Tassman]

Only have time for this.

No priority is a distraction. For instance my getting gas this morning isn't a priority (getting to work is) but that does not mean it isn't important.

I disagree. In the context of border security, which is the issue here, more than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority. There are other forms of surveillance available for reducing the need for a physical wall e.g. drones, sensors and various human presence detection devices etc. This is apart from some strategic sections of fencing as agreed by the Dems and the majority of US Border Patrol.

[Bill the Cat]

I disagree. In the context of border security, which is the issue here, more than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority. There are other forms of surveillance available for reducing the need for a physical wall e.g. drones, sensors and various human presence detection devices etc. This is apart from some strategic sections of fencing as agreed by the Dems and the majority of US Border Patrol.

Then why did they just declare "some fencing" a NON-STARTER? They proved this weekend that they are not interested in ANY physical barrier. The solution to BOTH problems is easily at hand. Agree to Trump's number and you get 3 years for DACA and plenty of money for the other items. But the Dems are the hostage takers, not Trump. He's given in on Dreamers and other Dem requests, and they aren't budging on his.

[Bill the Cat]

No inch to give. With tRump his wall is the only option, no negotiation beyond that, and only that.

Why do you even bother to talk anymore Frank? What you just said was completely and totally void of fact. He offered a suitable compromise with the Dreamers. Nancy is the one not giving an inch.

[JimL]

Why do you even bother to talk anymore Frank? What you just said was completely and totally void of fact. He offered a suitable compromise with the Dreamers. Nancy is the one not giving an inch.

No, it is not a suitable compromise. Temporary relief for dreamers for a permanent wall that the majority of people are against is not a suitable compromise. And Nancy is not stupid, she's not going to negotiate with a hostage taker who is only to willing to hurt the innocent, the economy, and the country in order to get his way.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree. In the context of border security, which is the issue here, more than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority. There are other forms of surveillance available for reducing the need for a physical wall e.g. drones, sensors and various human presence detection devices etc. This is apart from some strategic sections of fencing as agreed by the Dems and the majority of US Border Patrol.

Based on what I am seeing from the Dems - it is seeming more and more to me that they are opposed to providing funding for ANY fencing or wall construction whatsoever. I think that's a mistake, and not in our best security interests. However, I also think that Trump's "offer" is pretty ludicrous. I suggest that the Dems need to step up and put forward their own detailed proposal for border security. If they don't do it soon, the tide of public opinion is very likely to turn against them.

[Bill the Cat]

No, it is not a suitable compromise.

Then you have no clue what the word "compromise" means... which comes as no surprise to any of us here.

Temporary relief for dreamers for a permanent wall that the majority of people are against is not a suitable compromise.

Yes it is. That a majority are against it doesn't mean squat. A majority were against integration in the military in the 40s. It's the right thing to do.

And Nancy is not stupid,

No, she's just mean as a snake and a shriveled up old shrew who is acting like an ass.

she's not going to negotiate with a hostage taker

Turning down the compromise shows HER to be the hostage taker.

who is only to willing to hurt the innocent, the economy, and the country in order to get his way.

All she has to do is give Trump the money that Border Patrol needs to better secure the border. But that stops the flow of ready-made voters for her, so of course the pimp is against depleting her harem of prostitutes.

[Bill the Cat]

... I also think that Trump's "offer" is pretty ludicrous...

How so? It solves the shutdown, provides the desperately needed back pay to those who have been without, gives border patrol the funds they need to better secure the worst areas, provides for funding technological advances in detection, and dollars for hiring additional resources. Trump himself gets nothing out of it except a kept promise.

[Mountain Man]

Trump himself gets nothing out of it except a kept promise.

And that's exactly why Pelosi and her gang of crooks are against it. They think this is something they will be able to hold over the President's head in 2020, but that's going to be hard sell when every indication is that she and the Democrat party are the obstructionists.

[Charles]

And that's exactly why Pelosi and her gang of crooks are against it. They think this is something they will be able to hold over the President's head in 2020, but that's going to be hard sell when every indication is that she and the Democrat party are the obstructionists.

They wont allow Mexico to pay for the wall?

[carpedm9587]

How so? It solves the shutdown, provides the desperately needed back pay to those who have been without, gives border patrol the funds they need to better secure the worst areas, provides for funding technological advances in detection, and dollars for hiring additional resources. Trump himself gets nothing out of it except a kept promise.

Because, BTC, the situation with the people affected by DACA was created by Trump, as was the situation with the TPS. Both programs were functioning and he elected to cancel them to appeal to his base and "because they were not legal." Now he's reversing himself and using these people as pawns to get his funding. He is not solving the problem permanently, and he's not actually "giving" the Dems anything - it's like saying "I'll give the hostages a 3 year reprieve - then they have to be hostages again." Meanwhile, the increasingly "no wall at all" stance of the Dems is equally stubborn.

That is why I think it is time for the Dems to stop saying "no" and put a specific plan on the table for consideration. I agree with them that Trump's plan is a non-starter, but digging in their heels is also not a viable strategy.

[carpedm9587]

And that's exactly why Pelosi and her gang of crooks are against it. They think this is something they will be able to hold over the President's head in 2020, but that's going to be hard sell when every indication is that she and the Democrat party are the obstructionists.

It takes two sides to obstruct. And yes, of COURSE Pelosi and the Dems are responding to the demands of their base. That's exactly what Trump is doing. That's exactly what politicians do. I'm amazed this is a surprise to anyone.

[Bill the Cat]

Because, BTC, the situation with the people affected by DACA was created by Trump, as was the situation with the TPS.

And remains so at present. He was willing to back off of what he did initially. That's a compromise.

B programs were functioning and he elected to cancel them to appeal to his base and "because they were not legal."

And as of now, it's still canceled. And without this compromise, they will remain canceled.

Now he's reversing himself and using these people as pawns to get his funding.

It's called a compromise. Giving up something he received already.

He is not solving the problem permanently,

Nor is only 5 Billion for border security. There will be long term costs involved.

and he's not actually "giving" the Dems anything - it's like saying "I'll give the hostages a 3 year reprieve - then they have to be hostages again."

Unless we discuss their status in that 3 year window. As of now, they have 35 days left before their protection is over.

Meanwhile, the increasingly "no wall at all" stance of the Dems is equally stubborn.

No. It is MORE stubborn because it isn't even resembling a compromise. It's an ultimatum.

That is why I think it is time for the Dems to stop saying "no" and put a specific plan on the table for consideration. I agree with them that Trump's plan is a non-starter, but digging in their heels is also not a viable strategy.

And I think their declaring it a non-starter shows they have no real interest in deterring illegal immigration.