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.
Have you noticed that some republicans are actually RINOs and some democrats are Blue dogs?
How do you know for certain what the "majority of the people" want? Did you personally call everybody in the country? If so, you missed quite a few of us.
Pelosi and Schumer should be listening to the BP agents. They see what happens at the border up close and personal. Nancy and Chuck don't have a clue about what goes on there.
And Trump didn't either. I read someplace he never once visited the border before coming up with his great build-the-wall campaign issue. What happened to Presidential candidates doing "listening tours."
As for the statute that he would build under (The Secure Fence Act of 2006, as amended) it mandates consultation with local officials (not just the CBP), property owners, and Indian tribes.
There's no similar requirement for Nancy and Chuck to "listen" to anyone.
The burden is on Trump (specifically, Homeland Security), as chief executive.
All good points. It's very hard to want to take a closer look at why it didn't happen when all you can hear are the rally cries of "Build that Wall!"
A lot of politics is only about show. Not so much real policy. That is what Trump instinctively grasped where he arguably is the master.
Unfortunately, it can backfire. Coulter and Limbaugh threatened Trump's poll numbers. Trump's responses (government shutdown etc.) threatened Republican mainstream politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliverjazz2019
Hopefully Trump goes balls deep into the next shutdown and cuts those workers financial stability.
Real people were hurt with the government shutdown. And what might happened under the national emergency scenario could be even messier. A terrorist attack against some military base where planned infrastructure was not built due to now-wall diverted funds could make the Benghazi backlash look like a blip. At a minimum, there will be endless House hearings over the possibility ...
It's you who needs, the chill pill, "friend". You were the one who got your knickers in a twist over what I posted. It's very clear that I had struck a nerve with you ,"friend" --- if it didn't bother you, you would have ignored the post.
Calm down, "friend".
And you could have ignored my post, but didn't.
You read an awful lot into lighthearted posts don't you?
So why was there a shutdown and now possible national emergency instead of a Republican-passed bill for wall funding using reconciliation that would not have required 60 votes in the Senate? It's fairly clear that Republicans were too divided as a party to pass immigration "reform" that included appropriations for the wall. And that there was not widespread Republican support for Trump's version of the wall.
Still, in theory, Republicans could have used reconciliation to appropriate wall funds but appear to have chosen not to. Per this article, no passed budget resolution in either the House nor Senate created a complication.
Once it was clear the Republicans were about to lose the House, a representative from Alabama introduced a bill that would have created a shell budget resolution allowing for $25 billion in wall funds that could have passed the Senate thru reconciliation but it died. No idea why. Or why there wasn't like strategizing throughout Trump's first two years.
There has to be a backstory. Maybe it was to the benefit of Republicans to not build a wall creating downstream problems (the eminent domain issue in Texas, for example) that might lead to an electoral backlash. Trump supporters might not want to hear those issues but they do exist. Maybe not building but creating a rally issue against Democrats was better politics?
Good point! But they shot their wad with reconciliation with their failed attempt to kill the ACA. They should have seen that coming and used it for Trump's "signature issue", i.e "the great wall of Trumplandia" instead but they had to do a quid pro quo to repay campaign donations from health insurers who wanted to be able to start selling junk policies again. If nothing else, Republicans are predictable, they never pass up an opportunity to prostitute themselves to get lobbyist jobs when they retire or big fat donations from their corporate masters.
Good point! But they shot their wad with reconciliation with their failed attempt to kill the ACA. They should have seen that coming and used it for Trump's "signature issue", i.e "the great wall of Trumplandia" instead but they had to do a quid pro quo to repay campaign donations from health insurers who wanted to be able to start selling junk policies again. If nothing else, Republicans are predictable, they never pass up an opportunity to prostitute themselves to get lobbyist jobs when they retire or big fat donations from their corporate masters.
I've read that ... but then there can be one reconciliation per fiscal year for each of three areas - taxation, spending and a third (???). The wall would be spending, the ACA ??? And that bill introduced in October by the congressman from Alabama envisioned some path forward.
I don't begin to understand ... but then none of this begins to sell the way a simple image does ... Democrats want an invasion of illegal immigrants. Trump proposes a big beautiful wall. Nancy and Chuck bad ... which they may well be but that's not the point.
I've read that ... but then there can be one reconciliation per fiscal year for each of three areas - taxation, spending and a third (???). The wall would be spending, the ACA ??? And that bill introduced in October by the congressman from Alabama envisioned some path forward.
I don't begin to understand ... but then none of this begins to sell the way a simple image does ... Democrats want an invasion of illegal immigrants. Trump proposes a big beautiful wall. Nancy and Chuck bad ... which they may well be but that's not the point.
I know, I read that it can be used three times, but I've never seen it used that many times, maybe a senate rule restricting it to once a year is the reason?
Quote:
Even if Trump had managed to unite Republicans by appealing to their party loyalty (or by threatening retribution), the border wall’s low approval ratings meant that congressional Democrats were hardly tempted to lend their support without significant policy concessions. Republicans could have used the budget reconciliation process to push wall funding through Congress, thereby making it impossible for the Democrats to filibuster it. But Republican leaders were limited by Senate rules to one reconciliation bill per yearly budget resolution — and they had planned to use those vehicles for their own top legislative priorities: repealing the Affordable Care Act and enacting tax reform. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.2913e7e700cf
So why was there a shutdown and now possible national emergency instead of a Republican-passed bill for wall funding using reconciliation that would not have required 60 votes in the Senate? It's fairly clear that Republicans were too divided as a party to pass immigration "reform" that included appropriations for the wall. And that there was not widespread Republican support for Trump's version of the wall.
Still, in theory, Republicans could have used reconciliation to appropriate wall funds but appear to have chosen not to. Per this article, no passed budget resolution in either the House nor Senate created a complication.
Once it was clear the Republicans were about to lose the House, a representative from Alabama introduced a bill that would have created a shell budget resolution allowing for $25 billion in wall funds that could have passed the Senate thru reconciliation but it died. No idea why. Or why there wasn't like strategizing throughout Trump's first two years.
There has to be a backstory. Maybe it was to the benefit of Republicans to not build a wall creating downstream problems (the eminent domain issue in Texas, for example) that might lead to an electoral backlash. Trump supporters might not want to hear those issues but they do exist. Maybe not building but creating a rally issue against Democrats was better politics?
Bingo.
Republicans didn't pursue it because it is a dumb idea, expensive, and involves the government stealing land from Americans, never really popular.
BTW, just a heads up. I'm copying this and posting every time that "No 60 for cloture" is parroted.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 01-28-2019 at 01:17 PM..
I know, I read that it can be used three times, but I've never seen it used that many times, maybe a senate rule restricting it to once a year is the reason?
Looking further ... The 50 Votes for the Wall Act ... was introduced in October, the start of a new fiscal year so perhaps the reconciliation clock was reset? It was referred to subcommittee and never acted on further. https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congre...l-act/1604156/
A quick google shows no press except when it was first introduced. One comment about the bill:
"By using the reconciliation process, Republicans could dodge a potential partial government shutdown in early December as Democrats are unlikely to support a spending measure that unconditionally funds the wall. In September, President Trump threatened to shut down the government after Congress didn't approve border wall funding. He ultimately opted to keep the government open, pushing the next funding battle until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...ps-border-wall
And Trump didn't either. I read someplace he never once visited the border before coming up with his great build-the-wall campaign issue. What happened to Presidential candidates doing "listening tours."
As for the statute that he would build under (The Secure Fence Act of 2006, as amended) it mandates consultation with local officials (not just the CBP), property owners, and Indian tribes.
There's no similar requirement for Nancy and Chuck to "listen" to anyone.
The burden is on Trump (specifically, Homeland Security), as chief executive.
I'm fine with the idea of him never visiting the border before he ran for president. At least he knew the need to have more walls/fences there. It was refreshing to hear a candidate actually talk about border security and the need to do something about it. The vast majority of candidates refuse to address the elephant in the room (border security, illegal immigration, hyper immigration).
Nancy and Chuck both have been in office for many years. Yet, after all this time neither one has a clue. In fact, they both put illegal aliens ahead of Americans. No, there isn't a requirement for them to "listen" to anyone. However, any politician on both sides of the aisle does need to be clued in to what their constituents want plus be fully aware of the problems facing this country. There is no excuse for not doing that. My 2 senators don't listen to their constituents. They've both already made up their mind as to what they personally want, thus feel it is okay to ignore what is going on right under their noses.
Looking further ... The 50 Votes for the Wall Act ... was introduced in October, the start of a new fiscal year so perhaps the reconciliation clock was reset? It was referred to subcommittee and never acted on further. https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congre...l-act/1604156/
A quick google shows no press except when it was first introduced. One comment about the bill:
"By using the reconciliation process, Republicans could dodge a potential partial government shutdown in early December as Democrats are unlikely to support a spending measure that unconditionally funds the wall. In September, President Trump threatened to shut down the government after Congress didn't approve border wall funding. He ultimately opted to keep the government open, pushing the next funding battle until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...ps-border-wall
A mystery ...
Good find! Sort of makes you go 'hmm...' doesn't it?
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.
My 2 senators don't listen to their constituents. They've both already made up their mind as to what they personally want, thus feel it is okay to ignore what is going on right under their noses.
