Time is ticking away. When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?

[bongsaway]

Time is ticking away. When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?

This already looks like delaying tactics by the GOP. If it's so blasted important when are the talks going to start about border security?

 

[Bullseye]

Time is ticking away. When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?

This already looks like delaying tactics by the GOP. If it's so blasted important when are the talks going to start about border security?

I believe they already have, I've seen graphic Dems v GOP in several sources.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Time is ticking away. When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?

This already looks like delaying tactics by the GOP. If it's so blasted important when are the talks going to start about border security?

As soon as they can figure out what to do.......these people in Congress are generally far from our best you know......thinking is a challenge.

 

[trixare4kids]

As soon as they can figure out what to do.......these people in Congress are generally far from our best you know......thinking is a challenge.

:lamo

 

[trixare4kids]

I believe they already have, I've seen graphic Dems v GOP in several sources.

Yep
These members of Congress are seeking a deal on border security and Trump's wall

 

[mike2810]

Time is ticking away. When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?

This already looks like delaying tactics by the GOP. If it's so blasted important when are the talks going to start about border security?

OP. Thought the "Team" was to be bipartisan. Seems you missed this:

"Shortly after each chamber passed the bill to re-open the government, the Senate and House also named which lawmakers would negotiate on behalf of the Republicans and the Democrats.'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/dhs-bill-conference-committee-list/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/trump-congress-border-wall.html

 

[iguanaman]

OP. Thought the "Team" was to be bipartisan. Seems you missed this:

"Shortly after each chamber passed the bill to re-open the government, the Senate and House also named which lawmakers would negotiate on behalf of the Republicans and the Democrats.'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/dhs-bill-conference-committee-list/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/trump-congress-border-wall.html

A bipartisan solution cannot include money for "the wall" since only one side wants it. Remember that going forward. Trump is going to need to offer something huge that he does not want first before the wall money can even be discussed as a possibility.

 

[mike2810]

A bipartisan solution cannot include money for "the wall" since only one side wants it. Remember that going forward. Trump is going to need to offer something huge that he does not want first before the wall money can even be discussed as a possibility.

Care to tell us how you came to this epiphany? Or is it just your opinion.

The OP said, ". When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?" I pointed that a committee has been formed with members of both parties.

 

[iguanaman]

Care to tell us how you came to this epiphany? Or is it just your opinion.

The OP said, ". When is the GOP going to put their negotiating team together?" I pointed that a committee has been formed with members of both parties.

Bipartisan means both sides agree. Democrats will never agree with the wall so an agreement cannot include it. If Trump offers something the Democrats really want it also has to be something Republicans and Trump never would agree to. Something HUGE or both sides can settle to NOT get what they want in this case more money for border security that does not include a wall.

 

[mike2810]

Bipartisan means both sides agree. Democrats will never agree with the wall so an agreement cannot include it. If Trump offers something the Democrats really want it also has to be something Republicans and Trump never would agree to. Something HUGE or both sides can settle to NOT get what they want in this case more money for border security that does not include a wall.

While I do not support a wall for the whole southern border a wall does have its place in some locations. If the Dems are going to totally reject any "wall", then the stalemate is on them. Want to bet if a compromise is reached, there will be some funding for a "wall"?

There are so many pork projects Congress has passed over the years that 5.7 billion is insignificant.

 

[iguanaman]

While I do not support a wall for the whole southern border a wall does have its place in some locations. If the Dems are going to totally reject any "wall", then the stalemate is on them. Want to bet if a compromise is reached, there will be some funding for a "wall"?

There are so many pork projects Congress has passed over the years that 5.7 billion is insignificant.

There may very well be funding for barriers in selected areas but it will not be what Trump is asking for. There will be no "sea to shining sea" wall ever approved and the funding will not be a "down payment " on any such thing either. Remember that Trump called the 5.7 billion a "down payment" on what would certainly require 10's of billions more.

 

[mike2810]

There may very well be funding for barriers in selected areas but it will not be what Trump is asking for. There will be no "sea to shining sea" wall ever approved and the funding will not be a "down payment " on any such thing either. Remember that Trump called the 5.7 billion a "down payment" on what would certainly require 10's of billions more.

What Trump asked for initially and what he is now willing to accept would be a guess. What is stupid is for the Dems to say No to any physical barrier.
"But some Democrats said their starting point in the new negotiation is no money for physical barriers of any kind."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.645bebe1eb33

My point stands. If the 17 member committee cannot come up with something Trump will sign and the stumbling block was physical barriers. The next shutdown is on the Dems.

 

[iguanaman]

What Trump asked for initially and what he is now willing to accept would be a guess. What is stupid is for the Dems to say No to any physical barrier.
"But some Democrats said their starting point in the new negotiation is no money for physical barriers of any kind."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.645bebe1eb33

My point stands. If the 17 member committee cannot come up with something Trump will sign and the stumbling block was physical barriers. The next shutdown is on the Dems.

Actually no. Trump is still insisting on a wall from sea to shining sea like Roger Stone told him to do in 2015. It is not happening and if he tries to shut the Govt down over that script cue again he will be thwarted by the Senate. There is no stomach for another shutdown in Washington.

 

[mike2810]

Actually no. Trump is still insisting on a wall from sea to shining sea like Roger Stone told him to do in 2015. It is not happening and if he tries to shut the Govt down over that script cue again he will be thwarted by the Senate. There is no stomach for another shutdown in Washington.

"TRUMP: “These barriers are made of steel, have see-through visibility, which is very important. …We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea. We never did. We never proposed that. We never wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where natural structures are as good as anything that we can build.” — remarks Friday in Rose Garden."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trumps-shift-on-a-concrete-border-wall

So much for your continuous wall spout. Like I said, try reading something more than Dem talking points. I also realize Trump contradicts himself daily. That is why I said who knowns what he will accept. You don't, neither do I. My guess is IF the committee can reach an agreement, Trump will sign the spending bill.

 

[RAMOSS]

While I do not support a wall for the whole southern border a wall does have its place in some locations. If the Dems are going to totally reject any "wall", then the stalemate is on them. Want to bet if a compromise is reached, there will be some funding for a "wall"?

There are so many pork projects Congress has passed over the years that 5.7 billion is insignificant.

The WALL is the entire boarder. Smaller walls that are defined in specific probably could be on the table, depending on how it's defined and negotiated .

And, Rule 1, Trump lies.

 

[iguanaman]

"TRUMP: “These barriers are made of steel, have see-through visibility, which is very important. …We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea. We never did. We never proposed that. We never wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where natural structures are as good as anything that we can build.” — remarks Friday in Rose Garden."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trumps-shift-on-a-concrete-border-wall

So much for your continuous wall spout. Like I said, try reading something more than Dem talking points. I also realize Trump contradicts himself daily. That is why I said who knowns what he will accept. You don't, neither do I. My guess is IF the committee can reach an agreement, Trump will sign the spending bill.

OK I will make this clearer. There will be no wall or barrier constructed across the whole state of Texas it is not feasible or needed and no money will be allocated for such a structure. Now do you understand? Trump will sign the spending bill or his veto will be overridden in Congress. There will be no more shutdowns over this stupid script cue.

 

[mike2810]

The WALL is the entire boarder. Smaller walls that are defined in specific probably could be on the table, depending on how it's defined and negotiated .

And, Rule 1, Trump lies.

Rule 1. yep he does.

 

[mike2810]

OK I will make this clearer. There will be no wall or barrier constructed across the whole state of Texas it is not feasible or needed and no money will be allocated for such a structure. Now do you understand? Trump will sign the spending bill or his veto will be overridden in Congress. There will be no more shutdowns over this stupid script cue.

I agree.
Some of my other posts have stated pretty much what you did. There are places where it would be impossible or impractical to build. Hopefully you are correct that there will be no more shutdowns.

 

[Fishking]

A bipartisan solution cannot include money for "the wall" since only one side wants it. Remember that going forward. Trump is going to need to offer something huge that he does not want first before the wall money can even be discussed as a possibility.

False. There are things that only the other side wants as well. They both get something and make a deal. That's how things work. Why is everyone on the left so afraid of the wall? Afraid it will work?

 

[iguanaman]

False. There are things that only the other side wants as well. They both get something and make a deal. That's how things work. Why is everyone on the left so afraid of the wall? Afraid it will work?

LOL Keeping Govt. open and employees paid is not a perk it is a responsibility. The budget bills are also from the Republicans. What has Trump offered? It's got to be big and also something he really hates to do. That makes it bipartisan.

 

[Rich2018]

False. There are things that only the other side wants as well. They both get something and make a deal. That's how things work. Why is everyone on the left so afraid of the wall? Afraid it will work?

The wall is not something...for Trump it's the ONLY thing.

Of course it won't "work".


But it is an opportunity to exercise some potent political expediency. The wall is Trump's signature promise...his "Alamo".

Defeat him on this and we defeat Trump in 2020.


Agree to the wall and Trump bombasts his way through to the 2020 election boasting about how he built the anti-Latino Protection Device and saved the country...

No. Trump has to be defeated.

 

[Fishking]

LOL Keeping Govt. open and employees paid is not a perk it is a responsibility. The budget bills are also from the Republicans. What has Trump offered? It's got to be big and also something he really hates to do. That makes it bipartisan.

Trump has repeatedly offered a path for DACA to permanently stay.

 

[Rich2018]

Trump has repeatedly offered a path for DACA to permanently stay.

When ?

 

[iguanaman]

Trump has repeatedly offered a path for DACA to permanently stay.

And then drew it away like Lucy and her football. He's not really interested in the wall, its about demonizing the opposition and getting a scapegoat for his failures. There will be no wall of Trump built. You can bank on it. He'll move on to another way to distract, weaken and divide us. He's worse than having no President at all and I can't imagine ever saying that.

 

[Fishking]

When ?

Over a year ago now:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/white-house-immigration-framework/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is proposing giving 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship in exchange for $25 billion for his long-promised wall and a host of other strict immigration reforms, according to a White House framework proposed Thursday.

In what the White House framed as a "dramatic concession" and "compromise," Trump would accept a path to citizenship not just for the roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants were covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program when it was ended. But the proposal would also cover those undocumented immigrants who meet the DACA criteria but did not sign up and even more who would be newly eligible under the proposal's timeframe requirements -- giving legal status and a pathway to citizenship to about 1.8 million people.