I think we agree on the game, but disagree on the tactics we're seeing. Like I'd said earlier, I see that in polarized debates, people adopt more extreme rhetorical positions than what they really want. Part of that is to simplify the message, part of it is pique at the irrational demands of the opponent, part of it is for staging the negotiation so you can give up things you never wanted in the first place for concessions. Trump does this, staking out a $30+ billion stand first so he can "compromise" to $6 billion. He also took away DACA so he could sell it back to Democrats. Democratic politicians are doing the same thing in saying extreme things, in my view, hoping they can concede their way to something they want. The 'walls are immoral' thing, I think, might be a tactical mistake. She says it to justify not budging an inch on building a wall, but she makes it harder on herself to make concessions to reach a negotiated settlement. If walls are immoral then she can't concede without looking like a giant hypocrite. But then, it's also a negotiating strategy of playing chicken. She's taken her steering wheel and thrown it out the window by essentially saying "I cannot hope to survive compromising on the wall." Trump sees that and maybe thinks to himself that she is not going to blink. Having seen Trump for the last 2 years, I don't think he'll think that. I think he says to himself, "I'm going to make her blink goddamnit!" I don't think she's done enough to convincingly throw her steering wheel out the window. But it might be enough because she doesn't have to make Trump blink, she has to make McConnell blink. This shutdown is going to get brutal. Pelosi isn't getting much of the pressure and Trump is insensitive to pressure. The weak link are Senate Republicans who fear the whole mess will cost them their seats.
Because it was a losing issue for the GOP before the elections. Now they are content to let the dumpster fire that is Trump just burn itself out. An article: https://www.boston25news.com/news/p...ly-start-until-after-gop-lost-house/903210928
Trump sure 'blinks' when he is facing Vlad. I would contend that among the 3 players (Pelosi, Mitch, Trump) Trump still holds the mantle for the unpopular shutdown. He started it. He was on tv a bunch of times for it. And his "Dems are for open borders" claim is not sticking because Trump went to the border and there appear to be lots of walls there.. So his claim is not very visual/grabbing. It's a weak hand he has. He needs a crisis somewhere (border or elsewhere) really bad OR a real simple visual aid to connect Dems with open borders like AOC proposing legislation to abolish ICE in the congress. Pelosi can probably contain her socialist caucus for a while longer. Mitch wants no part of a losing fight and won't blink as long as the mantle is with Trump. Graham did his PR 'gang' thing - so this way GOP can remain guilt free longer than Trump.
To me it shows the importance of the "... and Mexico will pay for it!" part of his campaign promise. His voters would have been over the moon in the fantastical scenario where Mexico actually pays for it. Having Republicans green light spending Americans' dollars on it doesn't feel like nearly the same victory. Some might feel like Trump didn't really win. Pretending like Mexico is paying for it with USMCA helps a little, but you have to be really financially illiterate to believe that. But, if you can make the Democrats pay for it, if you can take it from them against their will, force them to vote for it with blackmail -- that is a sweet victory. That's almost like making Mexico pay for it. Then you can own the dems.
I mean, I do have plenty of conversations, it's just that there's a certain range in which I am willing to discuss and socialism apologists fall outside of that range. For example, I'm willing to discuss the shape of the earth if people want to, but the range of the acceptable conversation is between "round" and "spheroid" people who want to come with flat earth nonsense are clearly outside of that range and as such no conversation with them is going to be productive. With economics conversations, I'm willing to discuss many different types of capitalist systems such as the welfare state in Noric countries to more libertarian capitalist systems and everything in between.....that said any actual socialist system falls well outside of that range and as such no conversation with them is going to be productive. It's just how it works.
This "us against them" mentality that POTUS is an embodiment of is what's wrong with this country. You seem to be condoning "blackmailing" tactics in congress as if the two parties weren't representatives of the same country. I can only hope that the next presidents' slogan will be "MAKE AMERICA WHOLE AGAIN" Currently the slogan seems to be "MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN (and have mexico pay for it)"
Agree with your post generally. I'm not condoning blackmail at all, and I think it needs to be resisted at all costs.
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-c...tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672 Largest single group of migrants ever tunnels under border wall in Arizona, says Border Protection The largest single group of asylum seekers ever to cross into the U.S. tunneled beneath the border wall near San Luis, Arizona, on Monday, voluntarily turning themselves into Customs and Border Protection, according to the agency. Migrants can be seen marching toward Border Patrol agents by the hundreds, according to video obtained by ABC News. Smugglers dug a series of seven holes, only a few feet long beneath the steel border fence, with hundreds going beneath the wall and a smaller number clambering over it, according to CBP. ...
Probably would demonstrate the opposite. Gives Trump an opportunity to say fences are inadequate and you need a strong wall with a concrete foundation and defenses that plunge X feet underground. How about this as a cheaper solution: Open asylum application offices in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Carve out an exception to the 'physically present in the US' requirement for asylum applications. Allow people to apply without walking a thousand miles first. A real US judge will give them a real adjudication (maybe by VC). Benefits include: (1) aliens won't be in the US will they await a decision, (2) aliens won't form big caravans or dig under your walls, (3) we can still respect our own laws to extend sanctuary to genuine refugees instead of trying to block them from applying, (4) no need for facilities and expenses to jail, house, feed, etc these applicants. The number of applicants will go way up, yes. But, if you're applying the rules for awarding asylum, most will still be turned away, and the ones you're taking in are (in our view) genuine refugees. It'll be expensive, yes, especially with increased applicants. But, nothing compared to the cost of the wall.
Totally agree. A reasonable compromise would be to repair or beef up existing physical structures, supplement with technology, strengthen enforcement of hiring laws, and work with Mexico and other countries to reduce the number of illegal immigrant (and all immigrants). But trump wants his vanity wall.
In desperate need of a diversion, trump teases a "major announcement" (worst kept secret... his declaration of "emergency"). In other words, he has a legal emergency so time to yell out "squirrel!"
Honestly this is probably the best thing at this point. With Trump’s ego he would probably keep the government shut down another year rather than give in to Pelosi. This way he can declare an emergency, the courts will shoot it down and his wall never gets built, but he can save face with his base of morons and people get back to work.
