After trumps recent calls for bi-partisanship.... i started thinking about THE WALL... which is apparently the most important emergency facing our country. In theory, the wall us necessary to address border security. If this was an emergency, it seems like it could have been brought up before 2 years into trumps term. And, if bi-partisanship was a good way of achieving results, it seems like that strategy could have been deployed before now? As i considered this, it occurred to me that it actually seems important to trump NOT to negotiate on this issue. It was important not only to get the wall... but supremely important on how the wall was gotten. It was important that wall be achieved as a 100% partisan victory that was shoved down the throats of democrats I think it us now clear that, when evaluated in terms if improving border security, trumps strategy has been an abysmal failure. The only redeeming aspect if this strategy has been that it allows trumo to blame democrats. ... which apparently is much more important to truml than actually working together to improve border security. The fact is that trump is simply not interested in ANY sort of improved border security that does not come over democratic objections, trump is not interested in any border security initiative which is explicitly labeled as a wall (even if it happens to be a fence). Because, we all know that if trump was actually willing to work with democrats on a “border security” bill which had no reference to a wall... such a bill could quickly be passed and signed. And such a bill would in no way prevent abt further trumpian efforts to fund the wall. So, in the end, how much of an emergency are we dealing with? It is apparently not enough of an emergency to provoke trump to do what actually could easily be done to improve border security
Not really. NeverTrumpers of the republican party have been an obstacle to the wall and border security primarily favoring low wages for companies. Wages have stagnated for decades with 27 MILLION legal and illegal immigrants in our workforce according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's 17 percent of the ENTIRE WORKFORCE. And dem politicians putting Pelosi back into the speaker position after losing the House in 2010 clearly shows that dems are not interested in negotiating anything. Dems march in lock-step together on important issues. Steve
I'm gathering that U're bemoaning the fact that there's no bipartisanship in addressing border security vis a vis 'da wall'. It's sadly quite simple: - As per Pelosi's orders (backed by Schumer's Sen. support) regarding any wall budgeting or inspiration, 'there is no there there'. Well, technically the Dems have offered exactly $1.00 budgeting for the fiscal year on any thing resembling a wall. Makes one realize the congressional dysfunction (a reflection of us the constituency).
my point was that trump actually opposes bipartisanship Fact is that dens have offered billions for border security. Just not for the wall. Trumps position is wall or nothing...including border security
- Yes, "Border Funding" is a nice euphemism for the Dems, lol. U're sort of right at the same time as being wrong re. bipartisanship (I'll get to that point later). - Question though, why do U think the gov. has been open for the past x2 wks & will likely be shut down again, next wk. this time? It's the last ditch effort by trump to find a congressional solution to wall funding (not the same as the euphemism of 'border sec. funding'). - Crikey, the MSM have even been reporting & printing on how this hold out by Pelosi & her 'house' is causing Trump to stay in the WH for the longest stretch of time away from his golf courses... Open your eyes & try not just seeing through the partisan lens. - Ok so the part where you're right & wrong at the same time... What do U call it when x 2 parties claim to want to 'work' in same fashion (bipartisanly) but are unwilling to budge from the mandates of their demands? (dems no more than $1 for a wall) (Trump $5.7 billion for da wall) - Here is why I believe U are mostly wrong in your 'bipartisanship' assertion. Trump has been the only one to push a significant pile of chips into the ante (DACA citizenship) & made the concession of opening the gov. for 3 wk. The Dem's have demonstrated verbally & through their actions that they want no part in negotiating an agreement if > $1.00 goes toward da wall. So it's a loose loose scenario w/ Trump getting an A for effort, Dems an F for effort - but it's a wash cus there is no linear movement in the process.
Trump asked for funding multiple parts in border security along with the wall. What are you talking about?
Dems have offered billions including for barriers but not walls. That is not obstructionism. The obstruction is that Trump insists on "a wall." Hint: no wall.
