• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s border wall gambit fails to end record shutdown

There can be no compromise with hostage takers. Reopen the government, then negotiations over a wall can happen.

And which part of "the price is outrageous" did you not understand? It doesn't matter if the car I want has all the right features if you want too much money for it.

The idea that Trump, the Republicans or anyone who supports Trump is a "hostage taker" is insane. It's bumper sticker politics and it belies a level of disrespect for anyone with a dissenting opinion that should be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of common decency.
 
Ann Coulter is ranting about how there's no point in building a wall if you grant amnesty. Donny's gonna stop talking about this pretty quick.

Yeah.

They Dems should start negotiations with Coulter and Hannity. If they agree, Trump won't be far behind.
 
The idea that Trump, the Republicans or anyone who supports Trump is a "hostage taker" is insane. It's bumper sticker politics and it belies a level of disrespect for anyone with a dissenting opinion that should be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of common decency.

What would you call "Give me my money or I will hurt these people!"?

That is literally Trump's strategy, the best the author of "The Art of the Deal" can come up with. No wonder he needed a ghost writer, he doesn't have a clue on how to negotiate.
 
The idea that Trump, the Republicans or anyone who supports Trump is a "hostage taker" is insane. It's bumper sticker politics and it belies a level of disrespect for anyone with a dissenting opinion that should be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of common decency.

People are actively being harmed by the shutdown. Trump will not allow the harm to stop until he gets what he wants. Negotiation simply cannot be done on this basis. All it would do is give incentive to keep shutting down the government every time Trump wants something. Or future Democrats in office. Can you imagine? Shutdown till we get amnesty. Another shutdown till we get higher taxes on the wealthy. Another to get the wall torn the **** down.

As for respect for dissenting opinions, how about you throw a rock through that glass house of yours and stop making up insane liberal positions.
 
Both sides are trying to kick things down the road. Trump wants the wall in exchange for the Dems giving him money for a wall that will be here long after those three years. Stupid trade. And the Dems want Trump to reopen the government in exchange for just more negotiating. If they aren’t going to give him the wall to end the shutdown they certainly won’t give him the wall once the government is funded. Whatever Trump’s odds are of getting the wall, his odds will be even less if he caves to the Dems.

Neither side is offering a good faith deal at the moment.

The problem as I see it is Trump often behaves like a five year old, and in this case is throwing a Temper Tantrum like a five year old: ie "give me what I want or I will make you suffer" (in this case laid off government workers).

Every good parent knows you never give in to a five year old's Temper Tantrums, because if you do, the next one is going to bigger, louder, and last longer. Add in that Trump appears to be a moron, so do you honestly believe that the next time he wants something, he's going to easily give up on strategy that worked?
 
Threaten to strip Congress of their pay until the shutdown is over and you can bet it would end tomorrow
 
Threaten to strip Congress of their pay until the shutdown is over and you can bet it would end tomorrow

Threaten Congress with the idea that Congress will strip the pay of Congress until Congress does Congress' job.

Yeah I dunno about that one. It's the same problem with gerrymandering. The people who would have to end it are the people who benefit from it. So, instead, we get Mitch "I'm not passing a single bill that the president isn't ok with" McConnell sitting around, sipping lattes until a couple airliners smash into each other.
 
What would you call "Give me my money or I will hurt these people!"?

That is literally Trump's strategy, the best the author of "The Art of the Deal" can come up with. No wonder he needed a ghost writer, he doesn't have a clue on how to negotiate.

People are actively being harmed by the shutdown. Trump will not allow the harm to stop until he gets what he wants. Negotiation simply cannot be done on this basis. All it would do is give incentive to keep shutting down the government every time Trump wants something. Or future Democrats in office. Can you imagine? Shutdown till we get amnesty. Another shutdown till we get higher taxes on the wealthy. Another to get the wall torn the **** down.

As for respect for dissenting opinions, how about you throw a rock through that glass house of yours and stop making up insane liberal positions.

Are you really going to be so intellectually dishonest as to use the "all or nothing = hostage taker" line with regard to Trump, who has actually come off his original position, while ignoring it with regard to Pelosi who has actually demanded MORE than her original position? I mean, it doesn't really make much sense to keep having these discussions if we're going to disregard reality.
 
Are you really going to be so intellectually dishonest as to use the "all or nothing = hostage taker" line with regard to Trump, who has actually come off his original position, while ignoring it with regard to Pelosi who has actually demanded MORE than her original position? I mean, it doesn't really make much sense to keep having these discussions if we're going to disregard reality.

Pelosi did not demand more than her original position. Where on earth did you get that idea?
 
The problem as I see it is Trump often behaves like a five year old, and in this case is throwing a Temper Tantrum like a five year old: ie "give me what I want or I will make you suffer" (in this case laid off government workers).

Every good parent knows you never give in to a five year old's Temper Tantrums, because if you do, the next one is going to bigger, louder, and last longer. Add in that Trump appears to be a moron, so do you honestly believe that the next time he wants something, he's going to easily give up on strategy that worked?

I agree Trump is like a child, but if we can get permanent DACA protections then I say give the child what he wants. There will only be one more funding period during Tump’s term in which he could pull something like this. If the Dems can get something they really want then they should take it.

But Trump hasn’t offered permanent DACA protections yet.
 
I did watch the news pelosi isn't doing her job. she passed a bill she knew would not make it through the senate or get approved by the president.
yes dem's are the party of no. since they are the ones that started this whole thing to begin with.

you should watch the news more often and i mean real news not the leftist crap that gets posted on this board.

It is responsible to say "no" to something that does not work, has only 35% support and for which the opposition failed to do the work necessary to get it approved via regular order. Trying to legislate for the minority by the minority, in a representative democracy, is what is irresponsible.

Ya don't got the votes. Deal with it!

Threaten to strip Congress of their pay until the shutdown is over and you can bet it would end tomorrow

Congress is who decides what congress gets paid. There is no one to "hold it back".... that said, most of these guys, particularly the ones in power, don't do this for the pay. Therefore, holding back their pay would do very little.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...wn-congressional-presidential-pay/2421657002/
 
Last edited:
The idea that Trump, the Republicans or anyone who supports Trump is a "hostage taker" is insane. It's bumper sticker politics and it belies a level of disrespect for anyone with a dissenting opinion that should be disturbing to anyone with a modicum of common decency.

Ah, no.... its quite appropriate.

Sorry that you have this rather perverse view of what a hostage is, but that doesn't make you correct. Let's try the definition...

"....Definition of hostage

1a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement
b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands
2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostage

Sorry, but it fits. You will see this term has been used by many to describe what we are dealing with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...down-stories-federal-workers-life-without-pay
https://www.koat.com/article/being-...lk-to-media-some-taking-on-side-jobs/25957498
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/...tage-the-ethics-of-the-US-government-shutdown
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/10/federal-government-shutdown-rally-denver/
https://www.msn.com/nl-nl/lifestyle...s-feel-sting-as-shutdown-continues/vp-BBS8g49
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...cuomo-media-both-sides-trump-border-wall.html
https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/wat...egotiate-in-a-hostage-situation-1427172419930
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/ex-fbi-negotiator-chris-voss-on-trump-pelosi-shutdown-talks.html


had enough? Fortunately, not too many will die, but many, many, many will be hurt or serious hurt. Praying on the livelihood and lives on the innocent for political gain is what makes government shut downs reprehensible. Trump knows he has an advantage here because he is a man completely devoid of empathy, preying on those that are empathetic. That is how hostage situations work.... the sane (those with empathy) trying to negotiate with the crazy (those that care little about others). Fortunately for the good guys, hostage taking rarely works out well for the hostage taker.

It is a hostage taking tactic with just as much desperation. You should accept it for what it is and own it. Sorry that your "leader" embarrasses you with his tactics. Maybe you need a new leader.
 
Last edited:
Pelosi did not demand more than her original position. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I haven't heard anything reasonable from him in regards to Trump since shortly after Trump looked like he had a chance at the nomination. Everything is a conspiracy to *get* Trump.
 
What would you call "Give me my money or I will hurt these people!"?

That is literally Trump's strategy, the best the author of "The Art of the Deal" can come up with. No wonder he needed a ghost writer, he doesn't have a clue on how to negotiate.

People are actively being harmed by the shutdown. Trump will not allow the harm to stop until he gets what he wants. Negotiation simply cannot be done on this basis. All it would do is give incentive to keep shutting down the government every time Trump wants something. Or future Democrats in office. Can you imagine? Shutdown till we get amnesty. Another shutdown till we get higher taxes on the wealthy. Another to get the wall torn the **** down.

As for respect for dissenting opinions, how about you throw a rock through that glass house of yours and stop making up insane liberal positions.

Pelosi did not demand more than her original position. Where on earth did you get that idea?

She was OK with $25B for the wall back in June but didn't like the restrictions on which family members could be sponsored in and she didn't like getting rid of the visa lottery. Since Trump dropped the two "pillars" she was pissed off about I figure it's fair to say that last week she was asking for MORE than her original position.
 
She was OK with $25B for the wall back in June but didn't like the restrictions on which family members could be sponsored in and she didn't like getting rid of the visa lottery. Since Trump dropped the two "pillars" she was pissed off about I figure it's fair to say that last week she was asking for MORE than her original position.

...the current "offer" doesn't actually do anything on DACA. This is less than her original position.
 
So your idea of compromise, like Nancy's, is that if you don't get 100% of what you want then it isn't worth doing. I'm not sure if that fits within the Webster's definition of "compromise" but if it works for you...

Now where did you get that idea.

If my primary consider was the car's price, I might be more than willing to take "less than ideal" conditions of make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories, and upgrades IF the person who owned the car was willing to meet my price condition.

Let's put it this way, if I were to insist that the car actually be in running condition, what combination of price, make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories, and upgrades would satisfy me enough to make me buy the car if the car wouldn't run?

If you had to have a car to get to work and back, and I offered you one that had exactly the price, make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories that you wanted and which I had originally asked for double what you were prepared to pay, but which I had finally agreed to sell to you for half the price that you had been prepared to pay for a car to get to work and back - BUT that car WOULD NOT RUN - would YOU buy that car? Would you consider that MY definition of "compromise" was "reasonable"?

If so, please come see me at "Happy Harry's New & Used Cars" because I just know that we can "make a deal".
 
Now where did you get that idea.

If my primary consider was the car's price, I might be more than willing to take "less than ideal" conditions of make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories, and upgrades IF the person who owned the car was willing to meet my price condition.

Let's put it this way, if I were to insist that the car actually be in running condition, what combination of price, make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories, and upgrades would satisfy me enough to make me buy the car if the car wouldn't run?

If you had to have a car to get to work and back, and I offered you one that had exactly the price, make, model, colour, trim options, add-ons, accessories that you wanted and which I had originally asked for double what you were prepared to pay, but which I had finally agreed to sell to you for half the price that you had been prepared to pay for a car to get to work and back - BUT that car WOULD NOT RUN - would YOU buy that car? Would you consider that MY definition of "compromise" was "reasonable"?

If so, please come see me at "Happy Harry's New & Used Cars" because I just know that we can "make a deal".

You're pretty wrapped up on this car thing, aren't you?
 
Both sides are trying to kick things down the road. Trump wants the wall in exchange for the Dems giving him money for a wall that will be here long after those three years. Stupid trade. And the Dems want Trump to reopen the government in exchange for just more negotiating. If they aren’t going to give him the wall to end the shutdown they certainly won’t give him the wall once the government is funded. Whatever Trump’s odds are of getting the wall, his odds will be even less if he caves to the Dems.

Neither side is offering a good faith deal at the moment.

Why doesn't Mr. Trump simply call the Democrat's bluff and offer 100% of what they are asking for in return for 100% of what he wants BOTH in the same piece of legislation?

Heck, he could go even further and grant "credit" (not necessarily at 100% but at at least 50%) for the time that the "illegal" had lived in the United States of America towards the residence requirement for a citizenship application.

If he really wanted to "solve the problem" then he should extend eligibility for the program right up to __[fill in the blank]__ BUT combine that with a "no appeal under any conditions" deportation clause for ANYONE remaining in the United States of America after that date.

The Democrats would have a hard time taking any position that they want MORE "illegals" and would have a hard time opposing rock-solid, iron-clad, statutory guarantees that the "unfortunates" already in the US would be protected from the negative consequences of their parents' actions.

Heck, if Mr. Trump were to propose that "The Wall" be funded (initially) by a 5% of GROSS income tax on anyone making more than $1,000,000 (as an individual) or on any family with a GROSS income of more than $1,500,000 - with the tax to be removed immediately upon it having collected enough money to pay for the actual construction of "The Wall", the Democrats would be incredibly hooped if they were to oppose "taxing the rich".
 
Why doesn't Mr. Trump simply call the Democrat's bluff and offer 100% of what they are asking for in return for 100% of what he wants BOTH in the same piece of legislation?

Heck, he could go even further and grant "credit" (not necessarily at 100% but at at least 50%) for the time that the "illegal" had lived in the United States of America towards the residence requirement for a citizenship application.

If he really wanted to "solve the problem" then he should extend eligibility for the program right up to __[fill in the blank]__ BUT combine that with a "no appeal under any conditions" deportation clause for ANYONE remaining in the United States of America after that date.

The Democrats would have a hard time taking any position that they want MORE "illegals" and would have a hard time opposing rock-solid, iron-clad, statutory guarantees that the "unfortunates" already in the US would be protected from the negative consequences of their parents' actions.

Heck, if Mr. Trump were to propose that "The Wall" be funded (initially) by a 5% of GROSS income tax on anyone making more than $1,000,000 (as an individual) or on any family with a GROSS income of more than $1,500,000 - with the tax to be removed immediately upon it having collected enough money to pay for the actual construction of "The Wall", the Democrats would be incredibly hooped if they were to oppose "taxing the rich".

"No appeal under any conditions" is unconstitutional. Can you explain why you want such a thing passed?
 
Why doesn't Mr. Trump simply call the Democrat's bluff and offer 100% of what they are asking for in return for 100% of what he wants BOTH in the same piece of legislation?

Heck, he could go even further and grant "credit" (not necessarily at 100% but at at least 50%) for the time that the "illegal" had lived in the United States of America towards the residence requirement for a citizenship application.

If he really wanted to "solve the problem" then he should extend eligibility for the program right up to __[fill in the blank]__ BUT combine that with a "no appeal under any conditions" deportation clause for ANYONE remaining in the United States of America after that date.

The Democrats would have a hard time taking any position that they want MORE "illegals" and would have a hard time opposing rock-solid, iron-clad, statutory guarantees that the "unfortunates" already in the US would be protected from the negative consequences of their parents' actions.

Heck, if Mr. Trump were to propose that "The Wall" be funded (initially) by a 5% of GROSS income tax on anyone making more than $1,000,000 (as an individual) or on any family with a GROSS income of more than $1,500,000 - with the tax to be removed immediately upon it having collected enough money to pay for the actual construction of "The Wall", the Democrats would be incredibly hooped if they were to oppose "taxing the rich".

I honestly don’t know. Two possible reasons are:

1. He first wants to see if he can get 100% of what he wants without giving the Dems 100% of what they want. If he could pull that off then he could claim to be the “winner” in the deal.
2. Maybe the Senate Republicans wouldn’t be willing to go along with that deal.

I’m just speculating, though.
 
"No appeal under any conditions" is unconstitutional.

Actually it isn't. What the constitution guarantees is "due process" and the meaning of "due process" is whatever the process set out in the legislation provides for. Did you know that an American citizen can be banned for life from entering the United States of America without any opportunity of consulting a lawyer and without any appeal process?

Did you know that the decision making process which could result in that happening is SPECIFICALLY exempted from all appeal processes?

Please take a look at the laws and regulations governing the issuing of "banning orders" by CBP personnel.

Can you explain why you want such a thing passed?

Did I say that I wanted such a thing passed? I did not, I merely indicated that, should Mr. Trump chose such a course of action then the Democrats would have a great deal of difficulty in opposing it. (Of course, if Mr. Trump DID propose such a course of action then he would stand next to zero chance of getting re-elected so, if you want to imply deviousness, then maybe I would want such a thing passed in order to ensure that Mr. Trump would NOT get re-elected.)
 
I did watch the news pelosi isn't doing her job. she passed a bill she knew would not make it through the senate or get approved by the president. yes dem's are the party of no. since they are the ones that started this whole thing to begin with. you should watch the news more often and i mean real news not the leftist crap that gets posted on this board.

How many times did the Republican'ts 'do their job' with meaningless votes on the ACA???? :roll:

Fact is Pelosi is doing her job, Turdle Mitch refuses to do his job. The way it works is both Houses produce a bill that goes to a joint committee to see if a compromise can be worked out. Mitch refuses to do even that. (suddenly the job of the Senate is to rubber stamp House bills- no input???)

No one can say what tRump will or won't accept because he has been as steady as a drunken sailor on his first night ashore... :peace
 
Ann Coulter is ranting about how there's no point in building a wall if you grant amnesty. Donny's gonna stop talking about this pretty quick.

Who knew that a Republican president would come in and let Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter be the president by proxy. Bush knew not to do that.
 
Back
Top Bottom