That's like a thimble of water in a waterfall of tax cuts that Trump gave corporations so they could inflate their own stock prices. You guys could have built a hundred walls with all that money. MAGA!
look, there's multiple, separate issues here. I've already said several times that with libertarian leanings, I think the wall is a stupid idea. I also think it's stupid that Trump has drawn a line in the sand about the wall funding--but I also think it's stupid that the Chuck-Nancy team has drawn their line in the sand about no-compromise-with-the-Donald. The point that I think is impressive about the GoFundMe effort is NOT that 340,000+ people have chosen to pony up their own personal cash toward something I believe is misguided. The point is not whether the money makes an actual, appreciable dent in building "the wall." The point I have been trying to make and the thing I find most impressive about the whole thing is that you can get 340,000+ people to pony up their own personal cash toward ANYTHING. Voluntarily. From a sense of civic duty (misguided or not). Period. That's what's impressive. And at its peak the GoFundMe effort was collecting donations at the rate of $1 million every two hours. I've never seen anything like that . . . have you? has anyone else? And I think both the total raised and the number of donors tells us a lot about Trump's support. I saw something this morning about Trump's support among Republicans solidifying and hardening at something like 70%. "The increase in support is sharpest among Republicans, whose backing for Trump’s long-standing campaign promise jumped 16 points in the past year, from 71 percent to 87 percent. Not only has GOP support increased, it has also hardened. Today, 70 percent of Republicans say they strongly support the wall, an increase of 12 points since January 2018." I think the wall thing and the government shutdown is appealing to that part of the Republican base that hates Big Government. That's why all the wailing about "out of work Federal employees" is falling on deaf ears, at least when it comes to the I-hate-the-government crowd. One more thing, the "you guys" reference is misdirected.
I have no doubt that trump's support with his core is strong. Heck, they voted for him, they support him, and its hard for them to admit they were wrong in doing so. No matter what evidence, no matter what he does, they will dig their heels in. I understand that. But the president of the United States represents all Americans. Or at least he/she is supposed to. And the majority of Americans do not want the wall. And that means that not only do the vast majority of Democrats not wanting the wall, but also the majority of Independents do not want the wall. He can continue to only want to be president of his "I-hate-government crowd" that you cite, but that's not what an American president is supposed to do.
He won the election. Part of what the opposition party is supposed to do is work with the President. In some cases that means giving in and supporting (or at least cooperating) with that President. Not opposing at all costs. If it were Hillary in there, Americans would be having to put up with all her shitte right now, out of a general respect for her as President. Right now I don't see any of that.
Uhhh, Trump, Clinton, Obama, even Bernie Sanders in a primary all raised $100MM+ from millions of small donors. Personal cash, voluntary, sense of civic duty. It's not unusual or unheard of. Really? Obamacare? Tanking the US economy with debt ceiling fights? Not putting a Supreme Court nominee to a confirmation vote? Where was all this GOP cooperation on ... anything? Beyond that, working with opposition and compromise involves giving both sides something they want. What has Trump offered to the Democrats in exchange for wall funding? (hint: the answer is nothing, because HE doesn't know what he wants)
Scoreboard. "Elections have consequences". Who would have thunk. No... that is my they are called "loyal opposition". And in areas where they can find agreement, Democrats can and do work with the president. For example, if trump had begun his presidency working on an infrastructure program (one that he ran on, btw), he would have had strong Democrat support. Trump instead ignored areas where there could be agreement, and instead only focused on areas where Democrats would oppose him. More so, he has done everything he can to push Democrats away, to alienate them, to demonize them. And no... *if* Clinton won, republicans would oppose. Just like they did with Obama. Heck, the turtle even was quoted as saying his goal was to make Obama a one-term President. "Out of respect" is simply empty way of saying Democrat, heck all Americans have to support trump's vanity wall.
@NewRoxFan , Dave Schuler pretty much captures my position on the shutdown right here: I don’t have a great deal to say about the federal government shutdown. Those who say that President Trump is only pursuing his wall to to fulfill a campaign promise are right. Those who say that the Democrats are only refusing to give him the $5 billion for political reasons are right. The total federal budget is around $4 trillion. $5 billion is .125% of that—a significant amount to you and me but completely insignificant in the larger scheme of things. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the shutdown itself costs us more than $5 billion. I have made my views of illegal immigration and what to do about it clear and I won’t repeat them here. I don’t believe any real principle is at stake in the conflict. It’s primarily a headbutting contest between Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi. The news media who are overwhelmingly blaming Trump for the shutdown are rather obviously taking an overtly partisan stance. The president is under no obligation to knuckle under to the Speaker of the House and, contrariwise, the Speaker of the House is under no obligation to defer to the president. They should craft a compromise that allows both of them to save face, an ironic diction under the circumstances. Both should get something they notionally want and both should relinquish something they notionally want. My confidence that will take place approaches zero.
We have seen multiple compromises between Democrats (and republicans). But trump turned them all down. And since trump has shown he (1) isn't willing to negotiate in good faith and (2) stubbornly demanding a wall/metal slats and (3) has proven to be dishonest in virtually all situations, it would seem difficult if not impossible for Democrats to craft a "compromise". What is needed is for republicans in congress to step up to the plate and begin real discussions with Democrats and then pressure the turtle to stop preventing their bills from going forward. real discussions about border security (both sides want, despite trump and republican partisan claims) and immigration reform.
The non fascists/those with some semblance of a conscience are getting off the trainwreck. You're left with the true dead enders like Steve King, Stephen Miller, @Os Trigonum, Matt Whitaker, Mick Mulvaney. It will make the trials easier I guess .
This is an out of the box solution. In order to raise enough money to build the wall, we should develop a program which allows Trump supporters to voluntarily pay for agricultural products that is relative to what it would cost if the farm helpers were to have been paid minimum wage. That means paying a whole lot more for produce. The extra money will be tagged as "MONEY for WALL" and will be sent to an independent escrow service which will hold all these funds. All they have to do before paying is to announce they want to support the wall and extra charges will incur.
Don't agree at all. There isn't really any "supposed to" here. The president had his victory, the Reps and Senators each had their victories. Now each will use their assigned powers to contribute to governing as best they can, likely in which ever they think will get them re-elected. Some might want to cooperate or support or oppose, depending. As much as it pissed me off to have the Party of No sit across from Obama when he tried to get stuff done I liked, I don't think their staunch opposition was wrong. The did what they were allowed to do and I did what I was allowed to do -- vote against them at the next opportunity. The same will be true for me in 2020: any congressperson who caves won't get my vote. If they're going to vote yes, they'd better get something in trade I want.
Maybe you weren't posting on D&D back then, because I don't recall you arguing that back then. That republicans in congress should have supported ACA. That they should approved all of his nominees, including Merrick Garland (heck, at least give the guy a hearing). As I posted previously, the party out of power is the "loyal opposition" and within the rules of the legislative body should approve where they agree and oppose where they don't. Had trump approached Democrats differently, with different proposals, I believe they would have.
