Social Mulvaney: Dems supported border security until Trump took office, Pelosi holding up deal

[VivaRevolution]

Thinking illegal immigration is a serious problem does not mean those people support the construction of a border wall as a viable solution to it. Some do, but one position does not require the other. A large amount of people think HC is a serious problem, do you think all of them support the same solutions? You're using terrible logic here.

As evidenced by the same agency reporting that in September (1 month after the survey you posted) that only 43% of likely voters support the building of a US funded border wall. That being up from July's numbers of 37%. So you have 25-28% gap between people that consider illegal immigration a serious problem, yet don't support a border wall.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/publi...all_on_the_rise_again_but_not_at_govt_expense

And even a cursory glance over polls show support for a border wall among Democrats to be very low.

So if you're done deflecting or engaging in retarded logic; I'll say again

You state that Trump could not compromise on DACA for wall funding because his supporters would kill him over it. Yet you expect Democrats to hand over wall funding with no real consideration exchanged, despite the fact that their voters are against funding a wall. You expect Democrats to capitulate on the subject despite their voters yet Trump is permitted to not even compromise because of his. That's some double standard you've got there.

Right, but I love the HC example, because it makes my point completely.

Republicans are absolute garbage for not offering a competing solution to Obamacare, or UHC.

Democrats are likewise complete garbage for not offering a competing solution to the wall.

See if they offered a competing solution, then their would be a deal to be made, as they both agree their is a problem. The give and take of negotiation would be over whose solution is used more.

On both HC and Immigration, we have 1 party that lives in propaganda land, and an alternate reality.

Contrary to popular partisan belief, it isn't the same party that is the problem on every issue.

 

[ScottE]

Right, but I love the HC example, because it makes my point completely.

Republicans are absolute garbage for not offering a competing solution to Obamacare, or UHC.

Democrats are likewise complete garbage for not offering a competing solution to the wall.

See if they offered a competing solution, then their would be a deal to be made, as they both agree their is a problem. The give and take of negotiation would be over whose solution is used more.

On both HC and Immigration, we have 1 party that lives in propaganda land, and an alternate reality.

Contrary to popular partisan belief, it isn't the same party that is the problem on every issue.

I didn't make a single reference to either parties positions on HC in that post as we aren't talking about that. Only the fact that though many VOTERS cite it as an important issue that does not entail they support the same solution to the issue. That's the type of bad logic you've tried to apply to the survey you posted.

You're again deflecting because you've dug yourself a further hole by posting that survey under the mistaken idea that a voter that says illegal immigration is a serious problem = a voter that wants a wall.

DACA for wall funding wasn't a viable deal for Trump. Yet wall funding for nothing is suppose to be a viable deal for Democrats? That's nonsense.

The wall was a campaign slogan not a viable plan, still isn't one. There's zero reason for Democrats to give Trump any funding for it because it's just a money pit that won't fix the issue. He could have had $25b for it, but decided against it. Now he has nothing for it and a shutdown government that is going to be laid at his feet, because he said it was his doing. Oh and DACA had its protections extended anyway.

If Trump didn't accept the DACA deal because it didn't have support, why is the WH now lying about the timeline associated with that deal? Why are they representing that the Democrats stalled it waiting for court action, when he already denied the deal months before the courts ruled on the issue?

 

[Grenz]

Mulvaney: Dems supported border security until Trump took office, Pelosi holding up deal

Mick Mulvaney, who is set to take over as President Trump's acting chief of staff, said Friday on "Fox & Friends" that Nancy Pelosi is to blame for the government shutdown continuing into a second week.


He blasted Democrats, including Senate leader Chuck Schumer, for supporting border security measures - including a wall - in 2006 and 2011 before abandoning the position when President Trump took office.


"This is a crazy discussion to be having. It seems like Democrats really like border security when there’s a Democrat in office, and don’t like it when Donald Trump is in office," he said.


Mulvaney, who serves as White House budget director, said he believes Schumer is willing to come to an agreement on border security funds, but Pelosi is holding up a deal.

He said Pelosi will soon face a vote on becoming House Speaker and she does not want to be seen as caving to Trump's demands.


"Nancy Pelosi cannot be seen by her party as being weak on negotiating with Donald Trump. So we fully expect that until she’s elected Speaker and has locked that vote up, we don’t expect to hear from the Democrats again. They told us last night that they were not countering our last offer," he explained.



>>> What a shit-show this has turned out to be, thanks to the Democraps.





Meanwhile :

Nancy Pelosi is vacationing at Hawaii resort amid government shutdown


Our Tax dollars hard at work, everyone!

Give yourselves a round of applause and pats on the back.

Imagine how much of a drone you’d have to be to believe this shit. The guy specifically told you on national TV that HE will shut down the government, and HE will own the shutdown, literally two weeks later it goes down exactly as foretold with the only adjustment that it’s totally the Dems fault. And you swallow this shit hook, line and sinker

 

[HereticBD]

But what is the Dems solution to border security?

I believe they're taking a rather unorthodox approach to the situation. That being, if there is no border, there are no border problems.

 

[Seano]

LOL, that doesn't look shooped in the least.

Pretty sure she really has big jugs.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I didn't make a single reference to either parties positions on HC in that post as we aren't talking about that. Only the fact that though many VOTERS cite it as an important issue that does not entail they support the same solution to the issue. That's the type of bad logic you've tried to apply to the survey you posted.

You're again deflecting because you've dug yourself a further hole by posting that survey under the mistaken idea that a voter that says illegal immigration is a serious problem = a voter that wants a wall.

DACA for wall funding wasn't a viable deal for Trump. Yet wall funding for nothing is suppose to be a viable deal for Democrats? That's nonsense.

The wall was a campaign slogan not a viable plan, still isn't one. There's zero reason for Democrats to give Trump any funding for it because it's just a money pit that won't fix the issue. He could have had $25b for it, but decided against it. Now he has nothing for it and a shutdown government that is going to be laid at his feet, because he said it was his doing. Oh and DACA had its protections extended anyway.

If Trump didn't accept the DACA deal because it didn't have support, why is the WH now lying about the timeline associated with that deal? Why are they representing that the Democrats stalled it waiting for court action, when he already denied the deal months before the courts ruled on the issue?

Dumb.

If you believe we have a problem. And one party is offering a flawed solution, and the other is offering no solution, which one is better?

 

[Seano]

Are those Trump facts?
Pew Research has it at just over 10 million, a steady decline since 2007. Also, there are close to 700,000 illegals from Europe, and not fucking peep comes out about them. Immigration does need reform, but Trump's "invasion" is a bunch of bullshit that he uses to stoke his base. Im not even sure why its an issue, Trump told everyone for 2 years the wall will be built and Mexico was paying for it. The majority of Americans do not want the wall, the smarter money is spent on other cures.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/


You are 100x more likely to die from a gunshot in Texas than you are to be hurt by an illegal immigrant. You are 50x more likely to die from an opioid overdose in Texas than you are to be hurt by an illegal immigrant.

Other things to think about regarding the wall.

Organized, flag waving caravans are invasions.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I believe they're taking a rather unorthodox approach to the situation. That being, if there is no border, there are no border problems.

That's funny, it is.

However trying to paint the Dems as open border supporters is very wrong headed.

You should look for a way to mock open border people that doesn't legitimize them as anything more then they are, a very small group of people.

 

[HereticBD]

That's funny, it is.

However trying to paint the Dems as open border supporters is very wrong headed.

You should look for a way to mock open border people that doesn't legitimize them as anything more then they are, a very small group of people.

While the Dems aren't for open borders per se, the rabid hardcore leftist base they continue to pander to, is. They're working themselves into a corner here.

 

[VivaRevolution]

While the Dems aren't for open borders per se, the rabid hardcore leftist base they continue to pander to, is. They're working themselves into a corner here.

Sure, I just don't think we should elevate then at all.

I spend half my time in immigration threads trying to explain to leftists how unpopular illlegal immigration is.

 

[Rematch]

Sure, I just don't think we should elevate then at all.

I spend half my time in immigration threads trying to explain to leftists how unpopular illlegal immigration is.

Have they accused you of being a bigot yet? That seems to be their rationale for people opposed to illegal immigration.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Have they accused you of being a bigot yet?

Funny enough, I rarely get that.

Anti-semite for Israel criticism is pretty regular, of course I am a bit more passionate about that, and tend to use inflamatory rhetoric more on that issue, so perhaps that is somewhat of my own making.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Have they accused you of being a bigot yet? That seems to be their rationale for people opposed to illegal immigration.

Of course the media doesn't talk to me directly, if we count talking heads in a box, I get called a bigot all the time.

 

[ScottE]

Dumb.

If you believe we have a problem. And one party is offering a flawed solution, and the other is offering no solution, which one is better?

If the flawed solution is just a way to waste money with limited impact, then the flawed solution is worse then no solution. The War on Drugs for example. Didn't solve the problem, actually made it worse, and wasted a ton of money. The wall is just a way to waste money that ignores it's ability to be circumvented, that most illegal immigrants don't cross the border on foot, and doesn't address the underlying reasons for illegal immigration. It's a poorly thought out plan that made a catchy slogan.

Then again you're misrepresenting that Democrats have offered no solutions of their own on the subject.

You can keep pretending that just as you'll keep pretending that citing illegal as a major concern is the same as declaring support for a border wall.

I'll ask again.

If Trump denied the DACA deal on the basis of it not having support then why is he currently misrepresenting the way that situation played out by trying to put the breakdown of that deal on the Democrats deciding to wait out the courts rather then his own denial of the deal which occured months before the courts weighed in? If it was a bad deal why not own his refusal of it?

 

[VivaRevolution]

If the flawed solution is just a way to waste money with limited impact, then the flawed solution is worse then no solution. The War on Drugs for example. Didn't solve the problem, actually made it worse, and wasted a ton of money. The wall is just a way to waste money that ignores it's ability to be circumvented, that most illegal immigrants don't cross the border on foot, and doesn't address the underlying reasons for illegal immigration. It's a poorly thought out plan that made a catchy slogan.

Then again you're misrepresenting that Democrats have offered no solutions of their own on the subject.

You can keep pretending that just as you'll keep pretending that citing illegal as a major concern is the same as declaring support for a border wall.

I'll ask again.

If Trump denied the DACA deal on the basis of it not having support then why is he currently misrepresenting the way that situation played out by trying to put the breakdown of that deal on the Democrats deciding to wait out the courts rather then his own denial of the deal which occured months before the courts weighed in? If it was a bad deal why not own his refusal of it?

Ridiculous.

The wall is not a solution to Illegal immigration. It is a deterrent.

As I have argued many times, if you want to fix Illegal immigration it is done through e-verify.

Trade the wall for e-verify, and you take this issue from Republicans forever.

 

[ScottE]

Ridiculous.

The wall is not a solution to Illegal immigration. It is a deterrent.

As I have argued many times, if you want to fix Illegal immigration it is done through e-verify.

Trade the wall for e-verify, and you take this issue from Republicans forever.

You're not making a very strong case for funding a wall there. Which is exactly my point. It's just a wasteful campaign slogan.

Are you not going to bother to answer why Trump isn't owning his denial of the DACA deal any longer? If it was a bad deal why is the WH now arguing it was the Democrats that sank it.

I more then willing to answer questions you're posting but you seem to be completely unwilling to do the same.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're not making a very strong case for funding a wall there. Which is exactly my point. It's just a wasteful campaign slogan.

Are you not going to bother to answer why Trump isn't owning his denial of the DACA deal any longer? If it was a bad deal why is the WH now arguing it was the Democrats that sank it.

I more then willing to answer questions you're posting but you seem to be completely unwilling to do the same.

That's because I don't support Trump, or a wall.

I support Trump, and the wall, juxtaposed to the Democrat's nothing, on this issue.

If the Dems start demanding e-verify, and Trump won't include that with his wall, then it becomes obvious he has no interest in actually solving this issue.

Right now it seems to me that Trump is trying to solve this problem, and dems have given up governing.

 

[ocfightfan]

Illegals can't vote, no matter what the idiots tell the idiots.

Legally they can't. But what they can do is come here in mass and reproduce like rabbits while on American soil. Who do you think their birth-right citizen children are more likely to vote for?

 

[ScottE]

That's because I don't support Trump, or a wall.

I support Trump, and the wall, juxtaposed to the Democrat's nothing, on this issue.

If the Dems start demanding e-verify, and Trump won't include that with his wall, then it becomes obvious he has no interest in actually solving this issue.

Right now it seems to me that Trump is trying to solve this problem, and dems have given up governing.

He isn't trying to solve anything with a money pit of a solution that you describe as best case scenario a deterrent. It's just grandstanding. Very fucking expensive grandstanding.

 

[ScottE]

Legally they can't. But what they can do is come here in mass and reproduce like rabbits while on American soil. Who do you think their birth-right citizen children are more likely to vote for?

The party that doesn't erroneously cast them a racist, thieves, or freeloaders. That doesn't try to circumvent their citizenship as granted by the constitution. The one that doesn't to often play nice with far right white supremacist groups.

I mean who'd have thunk right?