There's something I don't get about this. Trump is saying that the dems are the ones holding back the budget. But, isn't the senate and the house composed of a majority of republicans? So even if all the dems voted against it, is it not the republicans that actually defeated the funding? Perhaps I just don't understand US politics enough.
The border wall...
- Thread starter lady_lover
- Start date
While you are usually safe just assuming Trump is spewing bullshit, there is a sort of logic here.
In the Senate, many bills can be held up from ever passing by filibuster. That is basically a refusal to stop debating the bill and allowing it to actually go for a vote. To override that and say "enough talking now, we vote" takes 60 votes. So you need to vote to stop talking about it, and then you vote to pass it. The vote to pass it only takes a simple majority so the republicans could win that even if the democrats did everything they could to stop it. BUT, the vote to end debate needs some democrats to agree. So as long as the bill has funding for "The wall",the Democrats won't agree. They have been completely fine with funding border security and the rest of the budget, just not if it has money for the wall.
In the Senate, many bills can be held up from ever passing by filibuster. That is basically a refusal to stop debating the bill and allowing it to actually go for a vote. To override that and say "enough talking now, we vote" takes 60 votes. So you need to vote to stop talking about it, and then you vote to pass it. The vote to pass it only takes a simple majority so the republicans could win that even if the democrats did everything they could to stop it. BUT, the vote to end debate needs some democrats to agree. So as long as the bill has funding for "The wall",the Democrats won't agree. They have been completely fine with funding border security and the rest of the budget, just not if it has money for the wall.
Valcazar got most of it. What was left out is wall funding is a budget bill and per current Senate rules, requires 60 votes to end filibuster. Not all Senate bills require 60 votes. Judicial nominees only need a simple Senate majority for confirmation and that is due to changes promulgated by both parties.
Just a thought, perhaps the Dems will not provide the funding because they are scared it may work?
As stated by Trumpet himself the wall was supposed to be paid by the Mexican. Now that we know that will never fucking happen Trumpet cannot lose anymore... That's why he is saying a shutdown of over a year is possible. Again that's pure bullshit but giving who is spreading that bullshit is not surprising.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Trump wants his name on EVERYTHING !
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rder_maybe_theyll_call_it_the_trump_wall.html
In this video, he compares his wall with the Great Wall of China... would be proud to leave as a legacy the Trump wall !
He's self-centered, egotistical.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rder_maybe_theyll_call_it_the_trump_wall.html
In this video, he compares his wall with the Great Wall of China... would be proud to leave as a legacy the Trump wall !
He's self-centered, egotistical.
*What* might work? We've reached the point where Trump just keeps lying about what he is asking for, so what do you think would work? Are you talking about a physical, 15-foot high concrete wall the entire length of the border? What? (That would fit the Wall of China idea.)
I know, right? Good luck trying to use eminent domain for all that vast land. A lot of areas the Wall would go through is currently private property. Plus, some of that area is just water. There's a practical reason barriers already exist in some border towns and not in remote points along the border. Even if the Wall is somehow feasible and realized, there is the issue of efficacy. Not only are border crossings down but ever so often they discover tunnels in San Diego that lead right back to Mexico. The Wall would be in place and it wouldn't stop illegal crossings.
I can't think of a single person who doesn't think illegal immigration needs to be addressed. It's just that the Trump base wants an impractical non-solution. Of course, if they were honest they'd realize they've been had when Mexico paying for the Wall now equals the American taxpayer
I can't think of a single person who doesn't think illegal immigration needs to be addressed. It's just that the Trump base wants an impractical non-solution. Of course, if they were honest they'd realize they've been had when Mexico paying for the Wall now equals the American taxpayer
No, I was thinking more of one of those 9 inch plastic pieces you put around your flowers.
Other countries have been doing it for years.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&sour...aw1fYa8UJJqrkOVVngszjgPm&ust=1546785622054976
The Dems even voted for it in 2006, Obama included.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&sour...aw1fYa8UJJqrkOVVngszjgPm&ust=1546785622054976.
^^^ Yes, walls exist. Why you think that has any bearing on the question confuses me.
Firstly, the fact that walls of different sizes exist in different countries at different points is largely irrelevant to the idea of a new, thousand-mile long wall along the Southern border.
I mean, the article you linked to has the following quote "Walls are public relations exercises where governments demonstrate that they are actually doing something," Vallet said. "They usually create more problems."
It isn't weird the Dems for not wanting to fund a PR exercise, but kind of gross that Trump would shut down the government over one.
But more importantly - what wall? Is it a physical barrier the whole length? If so how big and in what form? Is it some barriers some places but not everywhere? Is it reinforced building of what already exists? Is it new construction?
What?
Because Trump and the GOP keep changing what they say they are asking for whenever anyone tries to negotiate with them. It's a major problem and one of the reasons negotiations have stalled. As far as anyone can tell, he wants a blank check for... something. Because it is a PR exercise, he can't even come clean about what he wants. Laws kind of need to be specific. If he wants to build something specific, he has to say what he wants. You can't negotiate with someone who keeps contradicting himself. There is a reason people are joking about him changing his mind to a "beaded curtain".
Since you linked to the same story twice, I can only guess that you mean the Secure Fence act in 2006. Yes. No one has ever said there should be no barriers on the border anywhere at any time. Is Trump just saying he wants to reauthorize the Secure Fence act? Or reintrodcue the idea that it should have two layers of fencing? He explictly said on the campaign trail that law sucked because it wasn't a wall and it wasn't long enough. Has he changed his mind?
Remember, the Dems gave him 1.6 (or was it 1.3?) billion last year to spend on increased border security and reinforcing and expanding the existing fences and stuff. I don't think he even has spent much of it.
Firstly, the fact that walls of different sizes exist in different countries at different points is largely irrelevant to the idea of a new, thousand-mile long wall along the Southern border.
I mean, the article you linked to has the following quote "Walls are public relations exercises where governments demonstrate that they are actually doing something," Vallet said. "They usually create more problems."
It isn't weird the Dems for not wanting to fund a PR exercise, but kind of gross that Trump would shut down the government over one.
But more importantly - what wall? Is it a physical barrier the whole length? If so how big and in what form? Is it some barriers some places but not everywhere? Is it reinforced building of what already exists? Is it new construction?
What?
Because Trump and the GOP keep changing what they say they are asking for whenever anyone tries to negotiate with them. It's a major problem and one of the reasons negotiations have stalled. As far as anyone can tell, he wants a blank check for... something. Because it is a PR exercise, he can't even come clean about what he wants. Laws kind of need to be specific. If he wants to build something specific, he has to say what he wants. You can't negotiate with someone who keeps contradicting himself. There is a reason people are joking about him changing his mind to a "beaded curtain".
Since you linked to the same story twice, I can only guess that you mean the Secure Fence act in 2006. Yes. No one has ever said there should be no barriers on the border anywhere at any time. Is Trump just saying he wants to reauthorize the Secure Fence act? Or reintrodcue the idea that it should have two layers of fencing? He explictly said on the campaign trail that law sucked because it wasn't a wall and it wasn't long enough. Has he changed his mind?
Remember, the Dems gave him 1.6 (or was it 1.3?) billion last year to spend on increased border security and reinforcing and expanding the existing fences and stuff. I don't think he even has spent much of it.
There's no fucking way that the Democrats will spend a penny on allowing Trump to build a wall because 75% of Americans are against shutting down the government in favor of a 'wall'.
The Democrats also got elected by people who are against building a wall so that's also why it will never happen. Giving Trump a penny for his wall would also give him a victory and in the process totally piss off their own base, which is the majority. That's why it won't happen.
The 'wall' is also totally un-american and it's racist. That's why the idea of the Democrats or moderate Republicans ever supporting the idea of a 'wall' is nonsense.
If Trump doesn't smarten up his party will turn on him. Or maybe one of those government workers not being paid or out of a job will snap and go after a member of the Trump family. You never know what people can do when they're desperate.
The Democrats also got elected by people who are against building a wall so that's also why it will never happen. Giving Trump a penny for his wall would also give him a victory and in the process totally piss off their own base, which is the majority. That's why it won't happen.
The 'wall' is also totally un-american and it's racist. That's why the idea of the Democrats or moderate Republicans ever supporting the idea of a 'wall' is nonsense.
If Trump doesn't smarten up his party will turn on him. Or maybe one of those government workers not being paid or out of a job will snap and go after a member of the Trump family. You never know what people can do when they're desperate.
I think the spirit of the President's comment was based on how Mexico will lose money or how the US will make money on tariffs, the new NAFTA agreement, etc. Not how Mexico will simply write a check to cover the expense for a wall.
I'm not defending the President, I'm only trying to add a little clarity on the comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...27a6ccb38eb_story.html?utm_term=.a111cc6f5c53
He very clearly, and many times said to his base that Mexico would be paying for the wall. He had phone conversations with the president of Mexico about that, and a meeting was cancelled because they could not agree on that matter.
If the wall would be paid by an increase of tarifs on mexican goods entering the USA, guess who will pay for these tarifs? Americans customers will finish by paying a higher price for the products they import from Mexico.
This is why I avoid political shit on the web. The back and forth is bullshit. Tariffs go both ways. Higher tariffs to the US from Mexico means someone else will step up and send us similar goods for a more competitive price if they want the business. If not, the US will fuck Mexico some other way. Fuck them enough that the US recovers the cost of a wall. That's what I'm saying, Mexico loses in the end. The Presidents original comments go back to when he wasn't even the President. Your gonna pay for that doesn't mean your literally going to hand over cash to pay for it. It"s meant that you'll pay for it one way or another. It's obvious to me. Backing up what your talking about from a Washington Post article almost a year ago is weak IMHO. I could do a google search and come up with the same crap to prove a point.
All I'm saying is that nobody in their right mind thought that Mexico was going to write a check for a fucking wall. Write what you want, I tried to be politically correct, I'm not replying.
Just to clarify for those who want to use thegreatwalloo's argument that it meant something else, I remind you of the proposal Trump posted up during his campaign about how he would do it.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf
To quote from the Trump campaign's own policy paper - "It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."
So yes, he did insist that he meant Mexico was actually going to flat out cough up the money.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf
To quote from the Trump campaign's own policy paper - "It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."
So yes, he did insist that he meant Mexico was actually going to flat out cough up the money.
^^^^^^^ Yes but only a fool would have believed that Mexico would have paid for it. Build the wall and get over it ( directed to the Dems, not you )
If Republicans and Democrats cave in to Trump's unreasonable demands they'd be creating a bad precedent: give any current or future President ammunition to shut down the federal government any time he doesn't get what he or she wants.
Remember: We've already had three government shut downs under Trump. Three. And they've all happened (including the current one) with the Republicans holding all three branches of the American government. The majority of Republicans & Democrats both are against giving Trump his fucking useless racist wall in return for reopening the government. Republicans are not stupid: they are quite aware that a democrat President will take over the WH in our not-too-distant future and if they let Trump have his fucking stupid wall then any democrat President could also hold the country hostage to get what he or she wants in the future.
Remember: We've already had three government shut downs under Trump. Three. And they've all happened (including the current one) with the Republicans holding all three branches of the American government. The majority of Republicans & Democrats both are against giving Trump his fucking useless racist wall in return for reopening the government. Republicans are not stupid: they are quite aware that a democrat President will take over the WH in our not-too-distant future and if they let Trump have his fucking stupid wall then any democrat President could also hold the country hostage to get what he or she wants in the future.
Similar threads
- Locked
