US Government shutdown begins

[RAyMO]

31 minutes ago, and then said:

They did?  They did what?  There was no Bill.  They did not agree to pass anything out of the Senate.  There was nothing for him to reject.  

I am sure you know what happened as well as I do - afterall it caused uproar across the world.

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I am sure you know what happened as well as I do - afterall it caused uproar across the world.

What was the BILL number designation that he refused to sign?  Trump did not refuse to sign any Bill.  Get your facts straight.  The Senate refused to pass ANY Bill and THAT is what led to the shutdown.  

[RAyMO]

you know what happened the whole world knows what happened

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

you know what happened the whole world knows what happened

So you aren't willing to admit that you misstated the facts?  That's not a very tenable position, long-term.

[Wickian]

Just now, RAyMO said:

you know what happened the whole world knows what happened

Considering the hourly "Trump is Hitler 2.0 and he's also fat" news we're exposed to non-stop, you really do need to be less vague.  I'm going to guess Trump acknowledging he's not going to renew the DACA when it expires is what you're talking about after reading through this thread.  I support him in regards to that decision and I would hardly say it caused an uproar around the world.

[RAyMO]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

So you aren't willing to admit that you misstated the facts? 

Okay substitute the word 'deal' for bill. But by scuppering the bipartisan deal he effectively scuppered the potential bill.

Edited January 21, 2018 by RAyMO

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, RAyMO said:

Okay substitute the word 'deal' for bill. But by scuppering the bipartisan deal he effectively scuppered the potential bill.

Fair enough, but the reason he refused the "deal" is that Schumer wanted to give a tiny amount (1.8 Billion) in a one-time payment, for a permanent concession on DACA AND chain migration.  As has been stated before, he would be committing political suicide with his base for a tiny fraction of what the wall would cost.  It was a non-starter offer and Schumer knew it.  I believe that Schumer and his party know that this whole Mueller investigation is about to be blown out of the water by the Memo that is circulating in the House.  This shutdown is just a management tool for the media to attempt to cover the outrage that is about to begin.  If the reports about this memo are accurate, it sounds like media noise isn't going to be enough to save some of the FBI/DOJ folks that were involved.

[Sakari]

11 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Honestly even though the media will claim its the end of the world, government shut down isn't really a shut down. Around 90% of the government will still function just fine. People will still get their SS checks, the military will still be funded. This is a show to see which side can scare their base more while blaming the other side. I say, shut it down. Good.

Yes it is.

On the last one, we were 5 days away from closing on our house after a 2000 mile stressful move. USDA loan. Government shutdown, 4 months later we were able to close. You would not have wanted to live how we did those 4 months. It effects people, and worse than it did us.

[RAyMO]

1 minute ago, and then said:

media noise isn't going to be enough to save some of the FBI/DOJ folks that were involved.

If the FBI/DOJ have made a horlics of things they don't deserve to saved - time will tell.

[Uncle Sam]

What this tells us about modern democrats?

Quote

Democrats, it seems, may precipitate a government shutdown this week. They’re able to do this because, despite their own best efforts, in the United States, the minority party has a genuine ability to participate in governing the nation. It’s one of our system’s authentic strengths.

Then again, this episode — and many others over the past nine years — reveal something else about the modern Democratic Party: Minority or majority, it doesn’t really matter to them. Process and norms? Largely irrelevant. Not only do they believe it’s undemocratic for elected Republicans to vote against a Democrat president’s agenda when in the minority they believe it’s undemocratic for Republicans to vote for a tax bill even after winning both houses of Congress and the presidency.

For more, click here...

Here is a honest questions from me....

• When did Democrats started to represent "illegal immigrants" over actual citizens of our nation?
• Why does it feel like legal/native born citizens (Republicans) vs. Illegal immigrants (Democrats) now when it comes to new laws being passed in congress?
• Why is the topic of protecting our borders and enforcing our immigration laws so taboo now?
• Why is it so important for Democrats to filibuster the spending bill over a law that isn't even on the table yet?
• When did it become okay for Democrats or Republicans to hold our nation hostage over any topic?
• Why are we letting non-citizens have so much sway and power in our nation's future?
• Why are we allowing large urban centers to label about 75% of the country and control the very fate of our nation?
• Why are we, the actual citizens of United States, allowing this to happen?
• Also why are we putting illegal immigration above and beyond legal immigrants who actually follow the laws?

Please answer these question for me and justify the destruction of the natural born citizens power to control the very fate of our nation. I really like to know the reason behind this...

Edited January 21, 2018 by Uncle Sam

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I've been here a few years, I've lost my temper a few times and had to apologise but the one thing I've not seen tolerated by the Mods, consistently, is sniping at other's spelling or grammar.  This statement was RUDE.

You're right.  It was rude, and I apologize to Preacherman.  I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I sometimes let it get the best of me.

[SHaYap]

Time for a little Dylan tune ... cover by Immaterial ...

~

 

[00.04:39]

~

[acidhead]

35 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You're right.  It was rude, and I apologize to Preacherman.  I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I sometimes let it get the best of me.

Same here... just depends usually on how many beers I've consumed in the evening or if the coffee is a bit strong in the morning... Lol

[Agent0range]

6 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Same here... just depends usually on how many beers I've consumed in the evening or if the coffee is a bit strong in the morning... Lol

LOL, Oh boy.  I don't drink on weekdays, but I will post some stuff on weekends that makes me facepalm myself!

[acidhead]

2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

LOL, Oh boy.  I don't drink on weekdays, but I will post some stuff on weekends that makes me facepalm myself!

Ha.. we've all been there!

[.ZZ.]

10 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Same here... just depends usually on how many beers I've consumed in the evening or if the coffee is a bit strong in the morning... Lol

The regrettable posts that I have made can be traced to not being fully awake in the morning. I return later to read those and realize how "charming" I have been.

[Gromdor]

Flake, McCain, McConnell, Graham, Lee, and Paul all voted no or just skipped it.  Angus King (Independent) also voted no.  There is seven votes right there that aren't Democrats.

What was it that everyone voted "No" to anyways?  Was it just a few week kick the can bandaid?  I would have voted "No" to that as well. 

[Hankenhunter]

14 hours ago, Wickian said:

The media will still say it's his fault anyway.

 

Unless there's some history between the two of you, all he did was tell the facts.  60 votes are needed to pass the funding bill, the R's only have 51 votes and ~90% of the D's voted no in a political statement to support illegal immigration.  What needs to happen is for new laws to be made exclusive in such a way that non-relevant items cannot be tacked on to them.

We have no history. If he had replied without the insult at the end I would have engaged him. I have no time or inclination to converse with people who feel the need to punctuate their remarks with belittling. 

Hank

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Really?  According to old Mitch, no one knew what he wanted.  They knew what he said.  People can sit here and cry about DACA all they want, but one thing he did say he wanted, was a deal on DACA.  A Republican House, Senate, and Presidency, and it's the democrats fault.  The silver lining is, the only people that believe that BS is his uneducated base.

They knew what he wanted.  I knew.  Most people here know.  I’m sure that if you try really really hard, even you know.  But they showed how much they disrespected the man.  That tells Trump how he's going to approach this.  I think what everybody understands (and that goes for Trump’s base) that there will have to be some kind of amnesty.  Not blanket.  It’s going to have to be on a case by case basis.  Some will stay but many will go.  Give them a year to register and anyone caught after that is deported. 

Those that are in the service or a first responder gets a pass to the head of the line (one time exemption)  Those in college or are in business and have kept a clean record, go to the end of the line but they get a renewed green card to stay.  Those that are not productive or commit crime get deported.  Pretty much common sense.  Plus, we have two sticking points.  Progressives want cheap votes and Republicans want cheap labor.  A deal is going to have to consider both of these.  For instance, all immigrants can’t vote for 5 years.  Those receiving amnesty can’t vote for 20 years.  Plus, amnesty recipients can’t be exploited as cheap labor.  Before all of this, the wall must be built.  I think Trump will modify his demand on a wall along the full length of the border as long as a means of closing it is accomplished via high and low tech means.  They will need to close the anchor baby loophole in the 14^th Amendment and end chain migration.  Of course, allow the immigrant to bring in their spouse and children.  And they can’t sponsor anyone until after 5 years after becoming a citizen and then only one.  Immigration reform will tackle these issues. 

All of this must happen but it has nothing to do with funding operation of the government.  The more time the Progs waste keeping the government closed, the less time they have to save DACA.  Note, DACA doesn’t include all Dreamers.  And the people are smart enough to realize what the Progressives are doing.  Schumer is looking like the fool he is. The Republicans may control government but many are Establishment.  That means that the Progressives aren’t the minority people think.  People see this as a fifth column and Trump is dealing with it.

[Tatetopa]

Well look, this is supposed to be a government of compromise and consensus.  You may not get everything you want because just about half the country wants something else.  That's where compromise comes in on both sides and both sides seem to have forgotten how to do that.  Plenty of blame to go around. Yes for the president too.  He is supposed to be the great deal maker.  One reason we elected him.  He is supposed to be a savy businessman.

Funny thing, I am for secure borders, every country should have them.  But a wall is pointless.  Genghis Khan proved that about 800 years ago.  Wanna stop drugs, stop drugs.  Wanna stop laborers, stop laborers.  A wall doesn't do either.  Wanna follow Preaches plan for dreamers do that.   Do something Mr. great deal maker.

[+DieChecker]

So what are the odds of each DACA protected person being picked up and deported anyway? 

If I am reading this right, then roughly 225,000 people were deported last year, so to deport those 800,000 DACA Dreamers would roughly take 4 years. If ONLY the Dreamers were targeted and not even their families.

Basically the threat of these people being deported is close to zero. Then they stay here long enough and get a green card and then possibly citizenship... Just like everyone else that comes here.

Shutting down the government (Even if it is only the Non-essential) to protect people that DON'T NEED PROTECTION is ridiculous.

Is this not TRUE?

[+DieChecker]

17 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well look, this is supposed to be a government of compromise and consensus.  You may not get everything you want because just about half the country wants something else.  That's where compromise comes in on both sides and both sides seem to have forgotten how to do that.  Plenty of blame to go around. Yes for the president too.  He is supposed to be the great deal maker.  One reason we elected him.  He is supposed to be a savy businessman.

Funny thing, I am for secure borders, every country should have them.  But a wall is pointless.  Genghis Khan proved that about 800 years ago.  Wanna stop drugs, stop drugs.  Wanna stop laborers, stop laborers.  A wall doesn't do either.  Wanna follow Preaches plan for dreamers do that.   Do something Mr. great deal maker.

The wall is not pointless, but it would not be terribly effective. It might stop handfuls of people (usually the REALLY BAD ones) from coming across easily, but already like 90% of those who are in the US illegally simply got a Visa and then didn't go home. They came over in a car on the highway... legally, not through the desert on foot.

The wall would be more of a symbol then an actual defense. 

[DarkHunter]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Funny thing, I am for secure borders, every country should have them.  But a wall is pointless.  Genghis Khan proved that about 800 years ago.  Wanna stop drugs, stop drugs.  Wanna stop laborers, stop laborers.  A wall doesn't do either.  Wanna follow Preaches plan for dreamers do that.   Do something Mr. great deal maker.

Only problem with that is that the Mongols started the conquest of China in the early 1200 and finished the conquest of China in 1279.  While the great wall of China had been started in 221 BC and went through multiple stages of being rebuilt, expanded, rerouted, and at times largely ignored and unkempt it wasn't built as it is currently known till the Ming dynasty in 1369 to keep the Mongols out after being pushed out of China and it worked.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

The wall is not pointless, but it would not be terribly effective. It might stop handfuls of people (usually the REALLY BAD ones) from coming across easily, but already like 90% of those who are in the US illegally simply got a Visa and then didn't go home. They came over in a car on the highway... legally, not through the desert on foot.

The wall would be more of a symbol then an actual defense. 

That's interesting. 90% you say ? Hmm.... any sources on that figure ? 

[+DieChecker]

37 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

That's interesting. 90% you say ? Hmm.... any sources on that figure ? 

Ok. 90% is an exaggeration. But the trend is there.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216

Quote

According to the report, in 2014, 42 percent of all undocumented persons in the U.S. were “overstays.”

Of those who arrived or joined the undocumented population in 2014, 66 percent were overstays.

This trend is expected to continue.

Not as many are coming through the desert as used to.

Partly that is due to creating "Walls" reaching out to screen urban/suburban areas such as San Diego. Making it harder mean fewer people coming across.

Remove that "90%" from my post and it is correct still.