Moreover I love this idea that the wall was "what was voted for". Except we had an election 2 months ago that explcitly voted against EXACTLY that. But we all know Democratic votes don't count.
When Obama was in office, even though he lost badly in the midterms, he got his campaign promises. He passed Obamacare.
And you think the idea of a Republican president also getting his signature campaign promise means democrat voters don't count?
Moreover I love this idea that the wall was "what was voted for". Except we had an election 2 months ago that explcitly voted against EXACTLY that. But we all know Democratic votes don't count.
When Obama was in office, even after losing badly in the midterms, he got his campaign promises. He passed Obamacare.
And you think the idea of a Republican president also getting his signature campaign promise means democrat voters don't count?
Ok.
His campaign promise was a wall paid for by the Mexican government. He had TWO YEARS of complete control of Federal government to pass it. Two. Years. He was offered 5x as much money for it last year and torpedoed the deal at the last minute. Obamacare was passed before the 2010 mid-terms, obviously. It's why they lost them in the first place.
I completely agree that he should have done this long ago. It should have been day one, really. That a bill got passed that specifically denied wall funding under a majority Republican government still annoys the hell out of me, but a large section of Republicans are Anti Trump, especially then, so i'm not the least bit surprised.
I also don't think it's particularly outrageous that Democrats don't want it, nor do I think Republicans would act better if in the same situation.
But such obstructionism is still unhealthy for the republic, in my opinion.
Just as it was when Republicans stalled a SC seat.
I think the partisan angle definitely sped up the judgment process and got people saying "wow these people are awful" before they had time to really delve into the situation. But I wouldn't call it reckless or a rush to judgment per se. Not all of the video evidence was even public when this story first broke--when the story first broke, the available evidence looked nothing but bad for the kids. Then, when more evidence came out, the narratives in the media started shifting accordingly.
Nobody holds a drum that close to a person's face unless they were attempting to antagonise them. So why did it look bad for the kid? You think if that were my son I'd let somebody behave like that towards them?
Maybe the US is different, personal space and aggressive behavior is not a thing there? He's hitting a drum with a stick literally inches away from his face.
Also I would like to point out that on YT, the real narrative was found pretty quickly, by the end of the day the full length video was available and commentators were posting videos containing it.
Shout out to "Tim Pool" should anybody want to get really good coverage of breaking news and he takes fact checking seriously.
Also I would like to point out that on YT, the real narrative was found pretty quickly, by the end of the day the full length video was available and commentators were posting videos containing it.
Within hours of the story getting out the original video was circulating. How on earth do a handful of internet commenters have several times the investigative ability of all the nations largest media conglomerates? Why are all their mistakes in line with their own political biases?
I love how Trump said Mexico would now pay for the wall "Indirectly". How? He says the great deal he made, which hasn't even been passed by the government yet. There's no extra tarriffs in this new "deal", so how is it supposed to pay for the wall? Trump can't answer that.
Also, his wall keeps changing. How he says it will be steel slats because of the Democrats (who never asked for Steel Slats because they don't want a wall in the first place). Steel slats can still be sawed through with a metal saw. And where I come from Steel slats are a fence, not a wall. And we already have a fence on the border.
All the walls constructed for Trump to look at, are all built on flat and level ground. The border is almost never flat and level and all of those walls could not be constructed on the side of a mountain, where some of the border runs.
I think it's more or less inarguable that Trump voters voted for it, it was without a doubt his most signature campaign promise and the Republican primaries were filled with more politically experienced, more moderate on immigration Republicans.
Obviously there were other major reasons too, his lack of war lust and his opposition to anti worker trade policies were big.
And really, we expect candidates to fulfill their campaign promises. There is really nothing more reasonable in all the world than doing exactly what you said you were going to do upon getting in to office.
To just say no, you can't do what you said you were gonna do, because we don't like you, is unhealthy for the future of the republic but frankly it is perfectly within the spirit of the times.
Great. Less people voted for trump than Clinton. So America didn’t vote for the wall they voted against it: twice as Trump’s policies were a main focus when the GOP got slaughtered in the mid terms.
You can't just complain about how you really won when you didn't until the end of time. Eventually you have to accept that civics is a thing that exists and admit you lost the election. California isn't the dictatorship of America.
And part of that means accepting that other people besides you have representation.
And according to polls, most Americans don't support the wall.
It's worth emphasizing that Congress already had a budget proposal that didn't include wall funding, and the Republican-controlled Senate supported that budget 100-0, until the exact moment Trump said no. That was the vote. That was the compromise between Republicans and Democrats. It was already settled, it was already fixed, and the government was already funded. Everything was on track for the government to function normally.
Then Trump threw out a new demand at the last minute strictly because Ann Coulter shamed him into doing it, where previously he was perfectly willing to let the issue sit on the shelf for 2 years. Trump explicitly said he would gladly take the blame for a shutdown, that he would own it. According to Trump himself, Trump is responsible for the shutdown.
I don't think the Democrats should waste $5 billion in taxpayer money because Trump shut down the government. When somebody refuses a compromise and then issues new demands unilaterally, surrendering to those demands is known as appeasement, and it only encourages people to be more belligerent.
And according to polls, most Americans don't support the wall.
According to polls up until about 5-7 years after Obamacare existed, most people didn't support it. By higher margins than people don't support the Wall now.
According to polls up until about 5-7 years after Obamacare existed, most people didn't support it. By higher margins than people don't support the Wall now.
Right - but he only got it because he controlled enough of congress to pass legislation on the ACA. If the GOP had more senators at that time, then either the ACA would have been scrapped, or a compromise would be needed.
Obamacare passed because Dems had a solid majority in Senate and House at the time, not because the Republicans felt that Obama deserved to deliver on his campaign promises.
As for "make a deal", there is zero indication that Trump has offered a reasonable deal, that he can be trusted on. A year ago he had his chance to get the wall in exchange for Dreamer protection and he walked away from that. There is no reason to belive that he has offered anything worthwhile.
And if we take day-to-day public opinion as the chief factor as opposed to election results, then no, Obamacare shouldn't have passed. As it happens, most Americans now support it.
I don't know how much day-to-day polls should influence policymaking, and how much policy should be based simply on election results. That's a philosophical issue I've had trouble answering in the past. Once elected, should a politician implement their personal policies, or just follow public opinion? The latter sounds more democratic, but we are a republic rather than a pure democracy, and we elect representatives specifically because legislation by popular opinion is inefficient and inconsistent. So I don't know which factor is more important.
But for what it's worth, both of those factors are currently against the wall. More people voted for Clinton, more people voted for Democrats in 2018, and more people oppose the wall than support it.
According to polls up until about 5-7 years after Obamacare existed, most people didn't support it. By higher margins than people don't support the Wall now.
Right - but he only got it because he controlled enough of congress to pass legislation on the ACA. If the GOP had more senators at that time, then either the ACA would have been scrapped, or a compromise would be needed.
This is exactly where we are now.
Oh for sure. This is all about power and not principle, on both sides. If they can block it, they will. And it's probably not a good thing in the end.
Just trying to dress it up in "representing the majority" is complete nonsense. The largest majority at the time by even the left wing polls were the strongly opposed category.
You also have to remember that Obamacare was a compromise that Republicans watered down drastically. It wasn't what Obama campaigned for.
There are also no details regarding the Wall and how much it will actually cost to build and maintain as well as environmental risks such as flooding that large man made structures like the wall would actually cause.
There is no detail in what the 5.6 billion is for except for "a wall." Sorry if politicians don't throw money towards the most corrupt politician in recent memory and say "here you go, no questions asked, enjoy!"
I don't know how much day-to-day polls should influence policymaking, and how much policy should be based simply on election results. That's a philosophical issue I've had trouble answering in the past. Once elected, should a politician implement their personal policies, or just follow public opinion? The latter sounds more democratic, but we are a republic rather than a pure democracy, and we elect representatives specifically because legislation by popular opinion is inefficient and inconsistent. So I don't know which factor is more important.
I think leaders should be responsive to, but not beholden to, public opinion. Leaders are elected by a base with certain values and have to fulfill the promises they made to those people, but at the same time, they represent the country as a whole and have to respond when the public is largely angry or otherwise upset about something. Public opinion changes like the wind, however, and responding to every small shift over time would lead to inconsistency and chaos with nobody being satisfied, in my opinion.
More people voted in the 2018 Midterms than ever before in a midterm election, and they were voting against Trump and his policies. The Republicans got whomped in the house. And lots of politicans don't get what they campaigned on. or do what they campaigned on. Remember when the Republicans vowed to make Obama a 1 term president?
To quote the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want.
Yeah, that's basically the logical grounds for supporting a republic rather than a democracy. The Founding Fathers were pretty clear on that. Public opinion is important, but it does shift really quickly, and charismatic demagogues (one of the Founding Fathers' bigger fears) can shift it even faster. It may sound paternalistic, but we vote for representatives on the assumption that they're smarter and more informed than the average voter and will implement smarter policies most of the time. It's only when public opinion is strongly and consistently for or against something that it should override a policymaker's typical judgment.
And the largest problem is that Trump is not following the wishes of the people of the country. He's catering only to his base. He's never represented the country, he just caters to the tiny fraction that is his base. That'w hy his approval rating is so very low and has never gone over 50%.
And the largest problem is that Trump is not following the wishes of the people of the country. He's catering only to his base. He's never represented the country, he just caters to the tiny fraction that is his base. That'w hy his approval rating is so very low and has never gone over 50%.
It's never gone over 45%. Certainly not in the aggregate. No one is saying we should govern based on polling. It is a way to gauge the mood of the public. What other possible way is there to do so??
Moreover, the election didn't just happen a couple months ago. Trump's closing argument in the mid-terms was "the caravan is coming to invade" for nearly a month straight. He explicitly made this argument and lost the House. Now, with no changing dynamics, he has doubled down on the same tactic. It didn't work then, it isn't working now.
I just saw Christine Todd Whitman saying why Trump shoud step down for the good of the country. The problem for Republicans are Trump's base are the ones who vote in primary elections. So if Republicans stand strong against Trump, they'll lose their job in the next election, being primaried out.
And some more news. The Mounties are having troubles... For @deltago
$220M and counting: The cost of the RCMP’s ‘culture of dysfunction’
Assuming the polls are entirely in line with public opinion and not slanted one way or the other, 45% is still a significant portion of the country. And if we assume the same Trump supporters in 2016 are still Trump supporters, which is a safe assumption given his poll numbers haven't really moved much one way or the other, they represent a majority in 32 out of 50 states. The difference in the amount of people who voted for Clinton over Trump in California alone is greater than the difference in the popular vote between the two. This is why I say California isn't the dictatorship of America.
I know i've quoted the Federalist papers before, but the Founders wanted the President to be decided by the majority, in the majority of states, rather than the plain majority. The reasons for this are many, the primary one being that different states have different interests, and one American subculture or state shouldn't profit at the expense of another one, and that a consensus among many different groups of people is better than one half of the country dominating the other.
Agree or disagree, this is the philosophy the country was based on, and in my opinion it is a sound one that takes many different elements of a very complex question into account.
one American subculture or state shouldn't profit at the expense of another one, and that a consensus among many different groups of people is better than one half of the country dominating the other.
I agree, which is why the wall shouldn't be built. It's wanted by a small minority. Not most of the country.
Trump offered temporary protection for DACA kids for three years. No pathway to citizenship and they're only facing deportation at all because Trump changed the rules so it's his fault - he broke it.
Dems should offer to let him have the wall for three years then it has to come down in exchange for citizenship for DACA kids, Bart Kavanaugh thrown off the Supreme Court, and protection for the Mueller investigation into Trump's crimes.
Assuming the polls are entirely in line with public opinion and not slanted one way or the other, 45% is still a significant portion of the country. And if we assume the same Trump supporters in 2016 are still Trump supporters, which is a safe assumption given his poll numbers haven't really moved much one way or the other, they represent a majority in 32 out of 50 states. The difference in the amount of people who voted for Clinton over Trump in California alone is greater than the difference in the popular vote between the two. This is why I say California isn't the dictatorship of America.
I know i've quoted the Federalist papers before, but the Founders wanted the President to be decided by the majority, in the majority of states, rather than the plain majority. The reasons for this are many, the primary one being that different states have different interests, and one American subculture or state shouldn't profit at the expense of another one, and that a consensus among many different groups of people is better than one half of the country dominating the other.
Agree or disagree, this is the philosophy the country was based on, and in my opinion it is a sound one that takes many different elements of a very complex question into account.
No, Wyoming and the Dakotas (both of them, because we have two) are just filled with super-citizens who have votes that are DOZENS of times more powerful than people in New York or California. How many times do we have to go over this?? The Senate favors the small states, the electoral college ALSO favors the small states, and the House, which is SUPPOSED to ostensibly favor larger ones is STILL not proportionally represented based on the smallest State's number of Representatives (which would be the only possible way it could counterbalance against the other two). And the Supreme Court is decided entirely by the other two. So we have a system of government in which NO branch favors the larger population centers. None of them. Not even the one that is supposed to. A dictatorship by California?? Laughable. If anything, it's California being dictated to by Idaho and Montana, NOT the other way around. Nevermind that the ENTIRE population of Washington DC is disenfranchised.
You also have to remember that Obamacare was a compromise that Republicans watered down drastically. It wasn't what Obama campaigned for.
This. The ACA passed because Obama made the compromises necessary to get it passed. Why doesn't "the great negotiator" understand how to do that?
Because Republicans are sane. Democrats for the past two and a half years have been struck with a fever dream that we have a Russian agent closet fascist overt nazi as a President.
I can't imagine myself negotiating with people who barely recognize your humanity, let alone the humanity of your supporters, and who are willing to slander children, no matter how good I was either.
You also have to remember that Obamacare was a compromise that Republicans watered down drastically. It wasn't what Obama campaigned for.
This. The ACA passed because Obama made the compromises necessary to get it passed. Why doesn't "the great negotiator" understand how to do that?
Because Republicans are sane. Democrats for the past two and a half years have been struck with a fever dream that we have a Russian agent closet fascist overt nazi as a President.
I can't imagine myself negotiating with people who barely recognize your humanity, let alone the humanity of your supporters, and who are willing to slander children, no matter how good I was either.
I can't imagine negotiating with someone who agrees to a deal and then changes his mind 5 minutes later. But that's what Trump did. How can they trust someone like that? They get a deal, and he reneges.
Edited to add:
How about people who claim an entire group of people are "rapists"? How about someone who makes fun of disabled people?
Because Republicans are sane. Democrats for the past two and a half years have been struck with a fever dream that we have a Russian agent closet fascist overt nazi as a President.
I can't imagine myself negotiating with people who barely recognize your humanity, let alone the humanity of your supporters, and who are willing to slander children, no matter how good I was either.
Oh. Right. We should call Mueller off because Trump said so.
“I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident,” - Nixon
Republicans made the same argument to discredit the Watergate investigations.
The rest is hyperbole and isnt constructive (It also just so happens to apply to the GOP as well).
Comments
When Obama was in office, even though he lost badly in the midterms, he got his campaign promises. He passed Obamacare.
And you think the idea of a Republican president also getting his signature campaign promise means democrat voters don't count?
Ok.
I also don't think it's particularly outrageous that Democrats don't want it, nor do I think Republicans would act better if in the same situation.
But such obstructionism is still unhealthy for the republic, in my opinion.
Just as it was when Republicans stalled a SC seat.
So why did it look bad for the kid?
You think if that were my son I'd let somebody behave like that towards them?
Maybe the US is different, personal space and aggressive behavior is not a thing there?
He's hitting a drum with a stick literally inches away from his face.
Also I would like to point out that on YT, the real narrative was found pretty quickly, by the end of the day the full length video was available and commentators were posting videos containing it.
Shout out to "Tim Pool" should anybody want to get really good coverage of breaking news and he takes fact checking seriously.
These are activists. Journalism is dead.
Also, his wall keeps changing. How he says it will be steel slats because of the Democrats (who never asked for Steel Slats because they don't want a wall in the first place). Steel slats can still be sawed through with a metal saw. And where I come from Steel slats are a fence, not a wall. And we already have a fence on the border.
All the walls constructed for Trump to look at, are all built on flat and level ground. The border is almost never flat and level and all of those walls could not be constructed on the side of a mountain, where some of the border runs.
Engineers (not the construction agencies who want the money to build the wall) say the wall is a joke.
So no. It wasn’t voted for.
And part of that means accepting that other people besides you have representation.
It's worth emphasizing that Congress already had a budget proposal that didn't include wall funding, and the Republican-controlled Senate supported that budget 100-0, until the exact moment Trump said no. That was the vote. That was the compromise between Republicans and Democrats. It was already settled, it was already fixed, and the government was already funded. Everything was on track for the government to function normally.
Then Trump threw out a new demand at the last minute strictly because Ann Coulter shamed him into doing it, where previously he was perfectly willing to let the issue sit on the shelf for 2 years. Trump explicitly said he would gladly take the blame for a shutdown, that he would own it. According to Trump himself, Trump is responsible for the shutdown.
I don't think the Democrats should waste $5 billion in taxpayer money because Trump shut down the government. When somebody refuses a compromise and then issues new demands unilaterally, surrendering to those demands is known as appeasement, and it only encourages people to be more belligerent.
He got what he campaigned on.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_031012.html?noredirect=on
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSNYTPoll_health_care_032612.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
This is exactly where we are now.
As for "make a deal", there is zero indication that Trump has offered a reasonable deal, that he can be trusted on. A year ago he had his chance to get the wall in exchange for Dreamer protection and he walked away from that. There is no reason to belive that he has offered anything worthwhile.
I don't know how much day-to-day polls should influence policymaking, and how much policy should be based simply on election results. That's a philosophical issue I've had trouble answering in the past. Once elected, should a politician implement their personal policies, or just follow public opinion? The latter sounds more democratic, but we are a republic rather than a pure democracy, and we elect representatives specifically because legislation by popular opinion is inefficient and inconsistent. So I don't know which factor is more important.
But for what it's worth, both of those factors are currently against the wall. More people voted for Clinton, more people voted for Democrats in 2018, and more people oppose the wall than support it.
There are also no details regarding the Wall and how much it will actually cost to build and maintain as well as environmental risks such as flooding that large man made structures like the wall would actually cause.
There is no detail in what the 5.6 billion is for except for "a wall." Sorry if politicians don't throw money towards the most corrupt politician in recent memory and say "here you go, no questions asked, enjoy!"
To quote the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want.
Moreover, the election didn't just happen a couple months ago. Trump's closing argument in the mid-terms was "the caravan is coming to invade" for nearly a month straight. He explicitly made this argument and lost the House. Now, with no changing dynamics, he has doubled down on the same tactic. It didn't work then, it isn't working now.
And some more news.
The Mounties are having troubles... For @deltago
$220M and counting: The cost of the RCMP’s ‘culture of dysfunction’
https://globalnews.ca/news/4864037/rcmp-culture-of-dysfunction/?utm_source=notification/Trump’s proposal to reopen government seems certain to stall
https://www.washingtonpost.com/Also n that page, Trump says he directed Sarah Sanders ‘not to bother’ with White House press briefings
Rachel Maddow Reveals Donald Trump’s ‘Genius Move’ To Put FBI Out Of Business
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-donald-trump-genius-move-investigations_us_5c46c2c0e4b0a8dbe1746585?fbclid=IwAR2d4F_XuygOb7tx14J6fV15vVHFO89LkKVlpdjIDLHIoxv_pepuXjWUyNEAustin couple beaten unconscious for sexual orientation
http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/austin-couple-beaten-unconscious-for-sexual-orientation?fbclid=IwAR11PE8qXPiX84f-sLlXUmB7unAB8gqYh8bfKcgyw55iBhU4Zrpwq0InLzgI know i've quoted the Federalist papers before, but the Founders wanted the President to be decided by the majority, in the majority of states, rather than the plain majority. The reasons for this are many, the primary one being that different states have different interests, and one American subculture or state shouldn't profit at the expense of another one, and that a consensus among many different groups of people is better than one half of the country dominating the other.
Agree or disagree, this is the philosophy the country was based on, and in my opinion it is a sound one that takes many different elements of a very complex question into account.
Dems should offer to let him have the wall for three years then it has to come down in exchange for citizenship for DACA kids, Bart Kavanaugh thrown off the Supreme Court, and protection for the Mueller investigation into Trump's crimes.
I can't imagine myself negotiating with people who barely recognize your humanity, let alone the humanity of your supporters, and who are willing to slander children, no matter how good I was either.
Edited to add:
How about people who claim an entire group of people are "rapists"? How about someone who makes fun of disabled people?
“I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident,” - Nixon
Republicans made the same argument to discredit the Watergate investigations.
The rest is hyperbole and isnt constructive (It also just so happens to apply to the GOP as well).