• 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!

Why didn't Trump....

AlphaOmega said:
how many votes does a funding bill require?
Click to expand...

218 in the House, 51 in the Senate. The CONs should have passed a budget... no sweat.
 
Perotista said:
Trump didn't push it, but he asked for it. I think in was in September when Trump signed the CR keeping the government funded through December that he wouldn't sign another without funds for his wall. Republicans up for reelection in November just wanted a deal with the democrats to fund the government until then. The Democrats wouldn't agree to the wall. It took 60 senate votes for cloture. A number the GOP didn't have. You could say Trump caved to the GOP congress critters up for reelection who didn't want a shutdown a month out prior to the midterms. The GOP congress critters caved to the Democratic congress critters so a shutdown wouldn't occur. That is if my memory serves me right. But you're right, Trump didn't push or make it a deal stopper.

Waiting until the democrats took control of the House seems pretty darn stupid to me for Trump to stand his ground.

Now the question of why Trump didn't push this his first two years when the GOP controlled both chambers of congress is the same question the Republicans continued to ask of Obama for DACA, immigration reform and other things after the GOP took control of the House in 2010. The GOP said apparently DACA, immigration reform and the like must not have been important at all for Obama and the Democrats. Same is being said today about Trump and his wall.

Infrastructure, our aging infrastructure has been talked about ever since Bill Clinton if not before. No president has ever made it a priority. I suppose it was something nice to talk about during the campaign, but that is about as far as it ever got.
Click to expand...
Props for a thoughtful set of remarks that align with factual and contextual reality and that, in terms of their rationale and comportment with reality, don't beg one to "believe in the Easter Bunny," if you know what I mean. It's not hard to present remarks of that nature, but they are so infrequent on here that I feel obliged to acknowledge your having shared such comments.

Red:
...And were his wall and Mexico paying for it not his signature rallying cry, one's stating he but asked for it rather than "pushing it" would be a legitimate retort. Trump's "build the wall; Mexico's going to pay" anthem and the emotion it engendered was, arguably, essential to his winning not only the GOP nomination, but also the election.

Trump could simply have pushed Senators and Representatives to include his wall funding in the TCJA bill and he wouldn't have needed 60 votes. Yet he didn't do that.

Blue and "60 votes" red:
For something that is as pivotal to his ascendancy as was his wall promise, stuffing the wall funding in a reconciliation-abetted bill should have been a no-brainer....provided actually building it, as opposed to using it primarily to obtain political leverage, be his true use for the wall rhetoric. Given Trump's woeful lack of follow-through on his promises to coal miners, it's hard to credibly support a claim that he gave a damn about the people who are perceived (albeit inaccurately) to most adversely affected by the lack of a wall, and for that matter, the laborers who, numerically, stand to most gain from the actual construction of the wall.


Pink:
As a practical matter, yes. If the wall is but a "culture war" political lever, no.
 
marke said:
Reagan floated the excellent idea of eliminating the Department of Education. If we got rid of that non-essential boondoggle government monstrosity we could pay 800,000 other workers for a year or more with no problem just on the savings. Maybe Trump could look into that option while he is waiting on democrats to do their job.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to share that actually pertains to the thread topic? If not, or except for when you do, would you please be decent enough to refrain from sharing in this thread whatever the "F" nonsense that crosses your mind?

I truly don't know whether you are deliberately attempting to drive the discussion off topic or whether you truly don't realize your remarks overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the thread topic and, worse, even less with verisimility.
 
AlphaOmega said:
how many votes does a funding bill require?
Click to expand...

That depends on what rules each chamber has in effect at the time. Who controls what rules are in effect for any given measure? The majority leader/speaker and his/her party.

Currently:
-- House, simple majority
-- Senate, 60 votes

If the majority leader invokes reconciliation or some other rule variation, a simple majority is all that's needed.
 
Xelor said:
Why didn't Trump pursue his wall initiative when the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress?

The GOP held both chambers for two years, yet Trump didn't use his "bully pulpit" to press them to pass his wall funding during that time. The wall and getting Mexico to pay for it was the foremost thing for which candidate Trump was known; it was his premier talking point. Despite that, he put off bringing it to fruition until now; moreover, he's not even attempting to get Mexico to pay for it.


Why hasn't Trump pursued his infrastructure initiative?

It's the one thing about which he stands a fair shot of obtaining Democrats' approbation. Yet rather than collaboratively pursing ends that both he and Dems want, he's being contentious and continuing to press "wedge" policies rather than win-win ones.
Click to expand...

He has:

Overall, Congress has so far approved $1.7bn in funding for 124 miles of new and replacement barrier since Mr Trump entered the White House.
Just over 40 miles of replacement barriers have been built or begun. Construction is expected to start on 61 more miles of replacement barrier in 2019. This equates to new sections of about 15% of existing structures.
The first construction on any extension to the existing structures - what could be termed new barrier - will start in February in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649
 
holbritter said:
He has:

Overall, Congress has so far approved $1.7bn in funding for 124 miles of new and replacement barrier since Mr Trump entered the White House.
Just over 40 miles of replacement barriers have been built or begun. Construction is expected to start on 61 more miles of replacement barrier in 2019. This equates to new sections of about 15% of existing structures.

The first construction on any extension to the existing structures - what could be termed new barrier - will start in February in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649
Click to expand...



Red:
You just keep thinking that repairing and replacing existing sections of the border barriers "equates" to new sections....

Replace/repair appliances in or components of your house, parts in your car, and the like, and then try convincing people that your house or car is new. I assure you that only you will think so.

What makes folks express the procrustean formulations such as your "red" ones above? I don't know, but I know there's a lot of money to be had by the person who develops a pill for it.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:


Red:
You just keep thinking that repairing and replacing existing sections of the border barriers "equates" to new sections....

Replace/repair appliances in or components of your house, parts in your car, and the like, and then try convincing people that your house or car is new. I assure you that only you will think so.

What makes folks express the procrustean formulations such as your "red" ones above? I don't know, but I know there's a lot of money to be had by the person who develops a pill for it.
Click to expand...

While you make a valid point that repairing something does not make it new you ignore that replacing something is often viewed differently. For example, "I got a new car" does not necessarily mean that I now have one more car - it typically means that I still have one car but have replaced my previous car with a new (or simply a different used) car.
 
Xelor said:
Props for a thoughtful set of remarks that align with factual and contextual reality and that, in terms of their rationale and comportment with reality, don't beg one to "believe in the Easter Bunny," if you know what I mean. It's not hard to present remarks of that nature, but they are so infrequent on here that I feel obliged to acknowledge your having shared such comments.

Red:
...And were his wall and Mexico paying for it not his signature rallying cry, one's stating he but asked for it rather than "pushing it" would be a legitimate retort. Trump's "build the wall; Mexico's going to pay" anthem and the emotion it engendered was, arguably, essential to his winning not only the GOP nomination, but also the election.

Trump could simply have pushed Senators and Representatives to include his wall funding in the TCJA bill and he wouldn't have needed 60 votes. Yet he didn't do that.

Blue and "60 votes" red:
For something that is as pivotal to his ascendancy as was his wall promise, stuffing the wall funding in a reconciliation-abetted bill should have been a no-brainer....provided actually building it, as opposed to using it primarily to obtain political leverage, be his true use for the wall rhetoric. Given Trump's woeful lack of follow-through on his promises to coal miners, it's hard to credibly support a claim that he gave a damn about the people who are perceived (albeit inaccurately) to most adversely affected by the lack of a wall, and for that matter, the laborers who, numerically, stand to most gain from the actual construction of the wall.


Pink:
As a practical matter, yes. If the wall is but a "culture war" political lever, no.
Click to expand...

I agree that the wall was essential in Trump winning the GOP primaries. I don't think it played that much in the general. That is difficult to prove one way or the other. The most important issues on election day was 1. the Economy 20%, 2. Social Security 14%, 3. Healthcare 11% 4. terrorism 10%. Immigration was in fifth place at 8%. But immigration covered lots more than the wall, to include both support and opposition to it. Question 51.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Personally, I think the dislike of the candidates played a much more important role in determining their vote. Especially among independents which Trump won and propelled him to the white house. You had an amazing 54% of independents disliking both candidates, but Trump won that group 47-30 over Hillary with 23% out of that group voting third party. I don't think independents paid much attention to the wall or who was going to pay for it. My opinion anyway.

I agree on reconciliation bill. I hadn't thought of that. I really think shutting down the government over 5 billion dollars out of 4 trillion to be spent this year is asinine. But then again, I don't give an owls hoot about the wall one way or the other. I can't attach a political importance to it. Not the way Trump supporters or the anti-Trumpers can and do. If it were me, I'd split the difference in a compromise, 2.5 billion, each side giving up half.

But it isn't the money to those folks fighting over. I suppose it falls under principle. Failure to deliver would be another failed campaign promise for Trump. He failed on repeal of Obamacare too. Although he did get his tax cut. Against the wishes of most Americans I might add. Come to think about it, Trump and his Republican congress over his first two years really didn't try to legislate anything. That is outside of the repeal of Obamacare and his tax cuts. This is inline with what Obama did his first two years with his Democrat congress. Outside of the ACA, he didn't either. Both the tax cuts and the ACA were unpopular at the time of their passage, both lost the house in their first midterm. Perhaps both should have listened to America as a whole instead of just their base?
 
Xelor said:
That depends on what rules each chamber has in effect at the time. Who controls what rules are in effect for any given measure? The majority leader/speaker and his/her party.

Currently:
-- House, simple majority
-- Senate, 60 votes

If the majority leader invokes reconciliation or some other rule variation, a simple majority is all that's needed.
Click to expand...

hmmm seems the left here has different answers to the same question.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Wouldn't being free and working still be better than being incarcerated or deported?
Click to expand...
  • Incarceration --> Yes. Nothing, other than prison management firms' bottom line, is abetted by incarcerating anyone who otherwise received income and spent that income with suppliers of "whatever." That's so for low income folks who receive federal subsidies. It turns out to be so because income earners' consumption (and savings, for that matter) filters cash through the economy and ultimately lands money in bank accounts wherein the monetary money multiplier effect kicks in, making capital available for investing by firms, who, in turn, hire people, who spend money that again eventually gets deposited in banks, and so on and so on.

  • Deported --> Yes, or maybe/no.
    • Yes --> On the whole, with regard to the whole population of deported/deportable people, yes, it's better because in quantities that large, people behave in accordance with the models and assumptions economists (an other social scientists) use to describe behavior.

      Because in aggregate people behave "normally," or as economists say, "rationally," one can apply the basic "back of the envelope" approach to determining the immigrants' contributions using the "back of the envelope" approach. Intuitively as well as existentially, people who've been removed from an economy must necessarily be not contributing to it.
    • Maybe/no --> Either of these answers can only be answered with regard to specific individuals or quantities thereof. To do so is again rather straightforward, consisting of nothing more than soundly appling the relevant "non-back-of-the-envelope" model approach to the respective subset of the immigrant population as a whole. "Run the numbers," add the values from each model and, voila, one has the answer.

The above describes how to obtain the answer; however, you and I don't actually need to execute the calculations because that's already been done. One'll notice that the "heavy lifting" was done in 2001; however, thinking about the matter with regard to the two dimensions about which you asked, one sees that the only thing that's changed is the quantity of immigrant laborers present in the US and thus contributing to the economy. Accordingly, one can "eyeball" the 2001 results and adjust the impact downward by accounting for the minor drop in the overall size of the immigrant population. That too has been done, which is how Borjas arrived at the ~$400B+ net contribution/impact figure in 2013. From there, one can again simply do the "delta math" to get to a current figure, bearing in mind that the change in the nature and extent of the immigrant population residing in the US isn't materially different now from what it was in 2013.

One last thing to look for when you review this or that organization's analysis of the impact immigrants (legal or illegal) have on the US economy is whether the analysis includes the impact of immigrants themselves earning and spending income. Most, FAIR's and CATO's come to mind, don't. That they don't makes their estimations materially incomplete because those wages and their being spent boosts GDP just as everyone else's do. The only way they wouldn't is if the immigrant population spends the overwhelming majority of its earnings outside the US.[SUP]1[/SUP]

Note:
  1. TBH, I don't recall (and I'm not looking) whether the models account for remittances; however, given that the remittances account for about 15% of immigrant incomes or $69B in the US, one can, for quick and dirty postulating, and realizing that doing so injects about a few billion's worth of error, simply reduce the net contribution by 15%. It's important to note too that exporting more than a third of the wages is not a plausible with regard to anyone other than specific individuals because the immigrants must yet sustain themselves in the US since they're in the US.
 
CaughtInThe said:
i think it's easier to do the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh thing. just wait for democrats to get some power then cry like babies.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they will do. It's always easier (and more profitable) to criticize the opposition than to play defense. It has to be incredibly exhausting to play defense for Donald, who smears himself in his own poo on a near daily basis with his asinine tweets and comments.

I can't imagine Hannity in particular has been enjoying the last two years being Donald's propaganda monkey.
 
Lycanthrope said:
That's exactly what they will do. It's always easier (and more profitable) to criticize the opposition than to play defense. It has to be incredibly exhausting to play defense for Donald, who smears himself in his own poo on a near daily basis with his asinine tweets and comments.

I can't imagine Hannity in particular has been enjoying the last two years being Donald's propaganda monkey.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah he has.....hes basically a Presidential adviser without having to give up his better paying gig. Plus, when the **** goes south, he has the added defense of not ACTUALLY being part of this dumpster fire.
 
marke said:
Reagan floated the excellent idea of eliminating the Department of Education. If we got rid of that non-essential boondoggle government monstrosity we could pay 800,000 other workers for a year or more with no problem just on the savings. Maybe Trump could look into that option while he is waiting on democrats to do their job.
Click to expand...

What happens to engineering when the answer to all questions for some is "god did it"?

When 2+2=Jesus?

The reason for the department of education was to provide the same education across the board.

Not a different reality based on how religious your state is. And what religion, for that matter.

Will buddhist states be attacked by Christian ones? Will a degree from a Christian state have any value in an atheist one? Or vice versa?

This is some grade A stupid.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Interesting, when this is supposedly the most dire problem the country faces.

Apparently cutting taxes for those that don't need the cuts and getting a drunken fratboy on the Supreme Court were more important.

Hell, whatever happened to multitasking, since they DID have total control and all.....too much to ask?
Click to expand...
Get back to me when you want to be serious. PS: Small majorities in both houses don't comprise "total control" unlike the numbers your darling Obama had.
 
Xelor said:
Why didn't Trump pursue his wall initiative when the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress?

The GOP held both chambers for two years, yet Trump didn't use his "bully pulpit" to press them to pass his wall funding during that time. The wall and getting Mexico to pay for it was the foremost thing for which candidate Trump was known; it was his premier talking point. Despite that, he put off bringing it to fruition until now; moreover, he's not even attempting to get Mexico to pay for it.


Why hasn't Trump pursued his infrastructure initiative?

It's the one thing about which he stands a fair shot of obtaining Democrats' approbation. Yet rather than collaboratively pursing ends that both he and Dems want, he's being contentious and continuing to press "wedge" policies rather than win-win ones.
Click to expand...

He did.
 
Bullseye said:
Get back to me when you want to be serious. PS: Small majorities in both houses don't comprise "total control" unlike the numbers your darling Obama had.
Click to expand...

They had enough control to pass any legislation they wanted to. You get back to me when you want to stop dodging facts.
 
Lycanthrope said:
That's exactly what they will do. It's always easier (and more profitable) to criticize the opposition than to play defense. It has to be incredibly exhausting to play defense for Donald, who smears himself in his own poo on a near daily basis with his asinine tweets and comments.

I can't imagine Hannity in particular has been enjoying the last two years being Donald's propaganda monkey.
Click to expand...

yeah, Hannity is one of the Republican Media's mouthpieces that have us in this mess. he can't actually be a politician so he cries from the sidelines.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
While you make a valid point that repairing something does not make it new you ignore that replacing something is often viewed differently. For example, "I got a new car" does not necessarily mean that I now have one more car - it typically means that I still have one car but have replaced my previous car with a new (or simply a different used) car.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif


​

Seriously? What on Earth moved you to present an equivalence between an individually procured/procurable consumable mobile piece of personal property and a communally procured piece of real property, a structure? And, no, I don't want an answer to that question (1) because it's rhetorical and (2) it's rhetorical because there is no answer that matches the contexts of the two purchase situations and property types.

With regard to the spans of border where the wall was "replaced," is there now a barrier where, prior to the replacement none existed?


  • Yes --> There is new barrier/wall to the extent the answer is "yes."
  • No --> There is no new barrier/wall to the extent the answer is "no."


Red:
I don't care how, with regard to anything, including US border structures, fools construe the word "replace." I don't because, other than holders of high public office whom I need to pay attention to because of their office, once I realize I'm interacting with someone who'd seriously make an inapt distinction of the sort you've noted, I'm going to stop interacting with them, for there surely are brighter folks -- pretty much anyone of average intellect or who bothers to think about what they're about to say before they say it -- with whom to converse.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
They had enough control to pass any legislation they wanted to. You get back to me when you want to stop dodging facts.
Click to expand...
We still have Obamacare, right? GOP wanted to repeal and replace, Yet it's still there.


The had 51 Senators, ever hear of cloture? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
bullseyelqcs said:
Got some proof of that?
Click to expand...

Yes. You'll find it all in the congressional record. The 2017 budget was already set when Trump came into office. He fought for the border wall in the 2018 budget, his first budget, and it was passed by the House, but the Democrats in the Senate threatened to filibuster and shut down the government that year and the Republicans were pretty feckless and many unwilling to fight hard or take the heat for a government shutdown. So the President compromised on an increased defense budget and $1 billion for the wall.

This year he is not willing to compromise on the wall funding. He has given the Democrats everything they asked for in the budget but wants .01% of the total budget, just a mere $5.1 billion, to improve and add to the fencing on the border. And they refuse to allow him that tiny TINY amount compared to all the rest lest he be perceived to have any kind of success on anything.

Since they approved much more than that under the Bush43 and Obama administrations, they are hypocrites to the core to now say a border fence is immoral and/or won't work. And they try to make it look like that is ALL President Trump wants in the way of border security which is another lie they are pushing. What they are doing is wrong. It is evil. And it illustrates that they don't give a damn about migrants, legal or illegal, don't give a damn about Americans, and they don't care who gets hurt so long as they get their way and President Trump is not allowed any progress on anything they have the power to stop.
 
Xelor said:
Do you have anything to share that actually pertains to the thread topic? If not, or except for when you do, would you please be decent enough to refrain from sharing in this thread whatever the "F" nonsense that crosses your mind?

I truly don't know whether you are deliberately attempting to drive the discussion off topic or whether you truly don't realize your remarks overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the thread topic and, worse, even less with verisimility.
Click to expand...

The Buzzfeed guys get really mad when they cannot control the narrative.
 
Xelor said:
Why didn't Trump pursue his wall initiative when the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress?

The GOP held both chambers for two years, yet Trump didn't use his "bully pulpit" to press them to pass his wall funding during that time. The wall and getting Mexico to pay for it was the foremost thing for which candidate Trump was known; it was his premier talking point. Despite that, he put off bringing it to fruition until now; moreover, he's not even attempting to get Mexico to pay for it.


Why hasn't Trump pursued his infrastructure initiative?

It's the one thing about which he stands a fair shot of obtaining Democrats' approbation. Yet rather than collaboratively pursing ends that both he and Dems want, he's being contentious and continuing to press "wedge" policies rather than win-win ones.
Click to expand...

He didnt need a distraction from Muellers investigation as much then as he does now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom