Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
they were there to negotiate. it was Trump who didnt want to budge for his $5.7B wall. its his wall or shutdown
He asked them, if he opens the govt temporarily to negotiate, were they going to compromise from their position of no wall. Pelosi flat out said No. The Dems were not there to negotiate. They were there to stand firm and hope Trump caved. A simple "potentially, it depends on what we get in return" would have been wiser.
No, he walked out of the room when they made it clear they have no intention to negotiate.
He walked out of the room when Pelosi said "No" to the wall. Negotiations remain "open" as long as there's someone to negotiate with. Trump is renown for making "extreme" demands that disconcert his opponents. Well, Pelosi just matched him. She's signaled the wall is a nonstarter by calling it "immoral." And told Trump "no." His move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Show me where they asked for something in return.
One side wants $5B for a wall. The other side wants $0 for a wall.
One compromise would be for some amount in between but another compromise might be $5B for a wall one side wants and $5B for xyz that the other side wants. Show me where Dems have considered that sort of compromise? I said it earlier - $5B for a wall AND $5B for global warming.
That sort of compromise almost certainly is not on the table. This isn't about money. To add a non-immigration related issue like global warming to this stew would be beyond incendiary.
My guess is that the Democrats would compromise when Trump negotiates an item NOT the government shutdown - like DACA. It has to be a compromise. Not an extortion.
An alternative is that there is some compromise over "border funding" where funds flow but not in a way that allows for extensive wall construction. This appears to be what some Republicans are proposing but that Trump is rejecting.
Just seen on the news how the Democrats are vacationing on the beach in Puerto Rico during the shutdown.
Gee, what "news" did you "seen" that on?
I agree that any travel is bad optics, but doing a little research shows that 39 Democrats are in attendance, not all of them. I wouldn't call this a vacation, but some partisan news places and the President would. They are also there to hear from the many citizens who have been impacted by Hurricane Maria and the ongoing recovery efforts. Something the president could give a crap about.
But, during shutdowns, optics are important than reality and I think everyone should stay in town no matter what else is planned. Everyone.
He asked them, if he opens the govt temporarily to negotiate, were they going to compromise from their position of no wall. Pelosi flat out said No. The Dems were not there to negotiate. They were there to stand firm and hope Trump caved. A simple "potentially, it depends on what we get in return" would have been wiser.
He walked out of the room when Pelosi said "No" to the wall. Negotiations remain "open" as long as there's someone to negotiate with. Trump is renown for making "extreme" demands that disconcert his opponents. Well, Pelosi just matched him. She's signaled the wall is a nonstarter by calling it "immoral." And told Trump "no." His move.
That sort of compromise almost certainly is not on the table. This isn't about money. To bring an issue like global warming to this stew would be beyond incendiary.
My guess is that the Democrats would compromise when Trump negotiates an item NOT the government shutdown - like DACA. It has to be a compromise. Not an extortion.
An alternative is that there is some compromise over "border funding" where funds flow but not in a way that allows for extensive wall construction. This appears to be what some Republicans are proposing but that Trump is rejecting.
Negotiation is not each side reiterating their position. If Pelosi wanted to negotiate then "it depends" would have been wiser than a "no".
How can she consider any wall to be "immoral" now when Dems were offering up to $25B (even if over 10 years) for a wall nearly all last year? Do Dem morals change that quickly? And Dems have supported barriers in the past. This is about morality even less than it is about money.
As for negotiating against DACA, it is up to the Dems to bring up what they want in return. I haven't heard any Dems mentioning DACA lately. They couldn't care less about DACA.
You're right, Trump is not interested in a compromise that provides political cover to all but doesn't result in actual significant wall construction.
Negotiation is not each side reiterating their position. If Pelosi wanted to negotiate then "it depends" would have been wiser than a "no".
How can she consider any wall to be "immoral" now when Dems were offering up to $25B (even if over 10 years) for a wall nearly all last year? Do Dem morals change that quickly? And Dems have supported barriers in the past. This is about morality even less than it is about money.
As for negotiating against DACA, it is up to the Dems to bring up what they want in return. I haven't heard any Dems mentioning DACA lately. They couldn't care less about DACA.
You're right, Trump is not interested in a compromise that provides political cover to all but doesn't result in actual significant wall construction.
negotiating is NOT GIVE ME MY WALL OR NOTHING-----drumfs needs to lose that one word , focus on other security,measures,and negotiate on the price.BUT apparently he needs to consult with rash and cowlter.
HE NEEDS TO STOP HOLDING THOSE WHO ARE REPONSE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY FROM GETTING PAID AND DOING THEIR JOBS
Negotiation is not each side reiterating their position. If Pelosi wanted to negotiate then "it depends" would have been wiser than a "no".
How can she consider any wall to be "immoral" now when Dems were offering up to $25B (even if over 10 years) for a wall nearly all last year? Do Dem morals change that quickly? And Dems have supported barriers in the past. This is about morality even less than it is about money.
As for negotiating against DACA, it is up to the Dems to bring up what they want in return. I haven't heard any Dems mentioning DACA lately. They couldn't care less about DACA.
You're right, Trump is not interested in a compromise that provides political cover to all but doesn't result in actual significant wall construction.
Agree completely. Just like the wall really isn't about protecting the country. It's all optics. My interest is not in defending a Pelosi tactic but to watch it.
To say the Democrats did not care about DACA is wrong. Again it is Dick Durbin who drives Democratic negotiation positions. He's been quiet (I believe) during this impasse, so yes that's why you haven't heard the Dems mentioning DACA.
The real negotiators - the Durbins, the Senate Republicans should appear on the scene - once there is the possibility of some progress. I've seen references to backdoor shuttle diplomatic efforts to start that process but that Trump is balking.
Trump has played this issue with so much emotion, that only the wall can keep this country safe from those who appear as invaders etc. Again, Pelosi has matched him. Kicking the Dreamers out of the country would - per the Democrats - be immoral. The wall is immoral. Let's talk. Or not.
And even that is not a simple negotiation. What about those eligible for DACA-status but who did not apply. How to handle their parents. How to mitigate the impact from any instant-creation of a bunch of Democratic voters.
Some say another way out of this is to agree to create a bi-partisan commission to study the issue. That echoes the bi-partisan effort that formed in the Senate last winter after the Dick Durbin-Trump negotiations on the The Wall-Daca broke down in January. THAT effort (the Senatorial bipartisan effort) was opposed by Senate hardliners like Tom Cotton and Trump Administration hardliners like Miller.
Agree completely. Just like the wall really isn't about protecting the country. It's all optics. My interest is not in defending a Pelosi tactic but to watch it.
To say the Democrats did not care about DACA is wrong. Again it is Dick Durbin who drives Democratic negotiation positions. He's been quiet (I believe) during this impasse, so yes that's why you haven't heard the Dems mentioning DACA.
The real negotiators - the Durbins, the Senate Republicans should appear on the scene - once there is the possibility of some progress. I've seen references to backdoor shuttle diplomatic efforts to start that process but that Trump is balking.
Trump has played this issue with so much emotion, that only the wall can keep this country safe from those who appear as invaders etc. Again, Pelosi has matched him. Kicking the Dreamers out of the country would - per the Democrats - be immoral. The wall is immoral. Let's talk. Or not.
And even that is not a simple negotiation. What about those eligible for DACA-status but who did not apply. How to handle their parents. How to mitigate the impact from any instant-creation of a bunch of Democratic voters.
Some say another way out of this is to agree to create a bi-partisan commission to study the issue. That echoes the bi-partisan effort that formed in the Senate last winter after the Dick Durbin-Trump negotiations on the The Wall-Daca broke down in January. THAT effort (the Senatorial bipartisan effort) was opposed by Senate hardliners like Tom Cotton and Trump Administration hardliners like Miller.
As for DACA parents, DAPA has been resolved. SCOTUS could end DACA this year so this might be the Dems last chance to play that chip.
It's not that only the all can keep this country safe, it's that the wall must be settled (funded and started not completed) before the big guns turn on the next problem. There are many aspects to the problem of illegal immigration that will require many solutions but we are done with having one aspect played against the other to achieve status quo of doing nothing.
A bi-partisan commission to "study" the issue is too little too late. That sounds like a stalling tactic and the Dems are stalling border security in the hopes of winning control in 2020.
As for DACA parents, DAPA has been resolved. SCOTUS could end DACA this year so this might be the Dems last chance to play that chip.
Agree, which is why my guess is that any resolution now might well involve DACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
It's not that only the all can keep this country safe, it's that the wall must be settled (funded and started not completed) before the big guns turn on the next problem. There are many aspects to the problem of illegal immigration that will require many solutions but we are done with having one aspect played against the other to achieve status quo of doing nothing.
That makes sense. And I think it was the theory behind the Fence Act of 2006, that was bipartisan. It was in the interests of both parties not to mention the country to curb illegal immigration inflows. With that removed, there would be a better environment to move on to other immigration issues. The problem, though, is that trying to build a wall led to all the logistical issues that have been discussed endlessly (particularly on the other sticky) resulting in the 2007 amendment and reduced wall construction. This left the door open for Trump to march in (bad pun), using it as a campaign issue.
True that various aspects have been played against each ... that reflect a real divide in this country. The problems run deep. Personally, I might well be middle-of-the road on immigration (which I don't follow that closely) ... but I do fault Trump for inflaming immigration in a manner that is profoundly non-helpful. And think his version of the wall less than functional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
A bi-partisan commission to "study" the issue is too little too late. That sounds like a stalling tactic and the Dems are stalling border security in the hopes of winning control in 2020.
Agree, too late - unless desperation sets in. The suggestion has been made by independent observers. It's not a Democratic proposal.
they were there to negotiate. it was Trump who didnt want to budge for his $5.7B wall. its his wall or shutdown
Trump you get nothing for "your" wall. All those years you didnt pay those contractors that did work for you. We all know about those. Those hundreds of millions in loans you defaulted on, and pleaded bankruptcy to save your bacon. All those people wanted their money too. Not to mention all the people not getting paid because of your shut down. You get nothing. See what it feels like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
