The Trump Presidency

Hawk said:
I'm saying that nominality doesn't define bipartisanship.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I think it's a strange fight to pick if you support taking real steps toward a solution. as you generally seem to.

Moderate Republicans are Republicans. They may not represent the base on this, but the base can't shoehorn a solution. If you'd rather replace those moderate Rs with Ds and live with the results, that's probably an option. Earlier in this thread you were giving me a hard time for you using hardline language that was detrimental to getting a deal. Now you seem to be pooh-poohing the people who can get a deal done.
 
Julio3000 said:
But that's the main reason, on my end, that the comprehensive immigration debate exists. Because there are people here who are working, paying taxes, and contributing to society that don't have a vote or a voice in our civic processes. You think they should stay here and work and contribute, but not have the opportunity to have a vote. I think that's fundamentally wrong. I'd trade border security and stricter immigration enforcement for a solution.

Do a deal or no?
Click to expand...

I don't see how the two are related at all. People kill to get into this country through our legal immigration system. Its a slap in the face of all people who were rejected to just give citizenship. Allowing these people to remain here and enjoy the fruits of our wonderful country is reward enough.

So no - No deal.
 
Here's Schumer in 2013 saying the Dems would Never use immigration as a chip in government shutdown negotiations.
Click to expand...

this is a lie

"it would be governmental chaos"
Click to expand...

this is what was actually said

i will always find it weird that people can change their opinion in some peoples minds. just staying to some positions after getting more info shouldn't be celebrated

Pelosi is awful

i really don't get why you keep bringing up dems i don't like as if they speak for me.
 
goldfly said:
this is a lie

this is what was actually said

i will always find it weird that people can change their opinion in some peoples minds. just staying to some positions after getting more info shouldn't be celebrated

Pelosi is awful

i really don't get why you keep bringing up dems i don't like as if they speak for me.
Click to expand...

The problem is the only thing that has changed is the letter next to government leadership
 
sturg33 said:
Amazing when Dems show their CONSTANT hypocrisy its wiped away with "evolving"

Remember when Pelosi said 3 bucks a day is a big victory? She's since evolved to crumbs lol
Click to expand...

Evolve? Its called radicalization to pander to a voting block. The movement on core principles have changed so dramatically in a short period of time. If it could move that fast then what does the left actually stand for? Will the chnage in a few years?
 
Julio3000 said:
I get what you're saying, but I think it's a strange fight to pick if you support taking real steps toward a solution. as you generally seem to.

Moderate Republicans are Republicans. They may not represent the base on this, but the base can't shoehorn a solution. If you'd rather replace those moderate Rs with Ds and live with the results, that's probably an option. Earlier in this thread you were giving me a hard time for you using hardline language that was detrimental to getting a deal. Now you seem to be pooh-poohing the people who can get a deal done.
Click to expand...

Again though, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake do not represent those people to the majority of Republicans/conservatives (just my opinion).

It's hard to agree with the idea that real conservatives on immi. reform are unjustly 'shoehorning' a solution when we don't even really know what's actually on the table and what the 'moderate' Democrats are proposing in compromise.

Or are they?

I also don't think we can discard the hardliners’ earned right to a significant space in this debate. Immigration was a hallmark issue that helped push Trump over the top.
 
Over the top to, again, a popular-vote loss.

Hardliners have a voice in the debate. As of now it's enough of a voice to keep anything from happening. The most prominent hardliners are from states with less skin in the game (something something nativism). Jeff Flake is an anti-Trump type but has always been a pretty doctrinaire conservarive.
 
Julio3000 said:
Over the top to, again, a popular-vote loss.

Hardliners have a voice in the debate. As of now it's enough of a voice to keep anything from happening. The most prominent hardliners are from states with less skin in the game (something something nativism). Jeff Flake is an anti-Trump type but has always been a pretty doctrinaire conservarive.
Click to expand...

Your level of disdain for those that disagree with you is awesome. If you can't read the tea leaves about how immigration has changed the political discourse in the world then I'm not sure what to say.
 
Julio3000 said:
Over the top to, again, a popular-vote loss.

Hardliners have a voice in the debate. As of now it's enough of a voice to keep anything from happening. The most prominent hardliners are from states with less skin in the game (something something nativism). Jeff Flake is an anti-Trump type but has always been a pretty doctrinaire conservarive.
Click to expand...

And has been for more than a decade now. George W. Bush understood the need for reform.
 
bravesnumberone said:
And has been for more than a decade now. George W. Bush understood the need for reform.
Click to expand...

I mean, you could easily say that about the more moderate/liberal voices. We could always just be like California. Obviously illegal immigration greatly benefited their state.
 
Julio3000 said:
Over the top to, again, a popular-vote loss.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant ... again.

Hardliners have a voice in the debate. As of now it's enough of a voice to keep anything from happening.
Click to expand...

Says you.

The most prominent hardliners are from states with less skin in the game (something something nativism).
Click to expand...

Err. What?

Jeff Flake is an anti-Trump type but has always been a pretty doctrinaire conservarive.
Click to expand...

Ok, but he's from Arizona and ... it's immigration.
 
Its crazy to me that of all issues that are facing this country and the AMERICAN people that this is the hot button issue that is causing the left to flip out.
 
I mean you are the one that apparently thinks we're going to perish by allowing more immigrants in.

The most important issue I believe is facing this country right now is something you think is a hoax and a witch hunt. But we've already discussed that at length in the other thread.
 
bravesnumberone said:
The most important issue I believe is facing this country right now is something you think is a hoax and a witch hunt. But we've already discussed that at length in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Even if it was determined that Trump took money from the Russians and intended on cooperating with them (as President) in return (which is well beyond the scope of what a worse case scenario would entail at this point) I can still think of atleast a half-dozen other issues which I find to be more important for the US, right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Hawk said:
Even if it was determined that Trump took money from the Russians and intended on cooperating with them (as President) in return (which is well beyond the scope of what a worse case scenario would entail at this point) I can still think of atleast a half-dozen other issues which I find to be more important for the US, right now.
Click to expand...

But what if cooperation entails creating more gridlock and taking certain positions that have an effect on those half-dozen other issues you're referring to? What if cooperation means stalling or creating bogus controversy to create a smokescreen or cloud over non-issues which further debilitates us from solving the others? Cooperation by instability can be a real thing. We let the Soviets implode by letting them shoot themselves in the foot. What if cooperation meant Trump indirectly doing the same?
 
If we have a corrupt administration and a president susceptible to blackmail because of potential financial crimes (only part of what Mueller is investigating), there can be no confidence to handle those issues which should hold more importance.
 
bravesnumberone said:
If we have a corrupt administration and a president susceptible to blackmail because of potential financial crimes (only part of what Mueller is investigating), there can be no confidence to handle those issues which should hold more importance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Noticed thethe didn't call out Trump for the last minute revision in the tax bill that was thrown in to help benefit real estate investors like Trump.
 
Forever Fredi said:
But what if cooperation entails creating more gridlock and taking certain positions that have an effect on those half-dozen other issues you're referring to? What if cooperation means stalling or creating bogus controversy to create a smokescreen or cloud over non-issues which further debilitates us from solving the others? Cooperation by instability can be a real thing. We let the Soviets implode by letting them shoot themselves in the foot. What if cooperation meant Trump indirectly doing the same?
Click to expand...

How would it? Give me an example.

Also, what's the Russian take here? How does Putin benefit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top