|
mcmagic posted:Republicans in 2009-10 didn't really choose their battles. They fought every battle they had access too on every axis. Why haven't dems learned this lesson a decade later? budgets got passed 2009-2010, and even republicans didn't take this "just shut down government permanently until they let you just write the whole budget from scratch" one weird trick idea seriously. cat tax: 
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:budgets got passed 2009-2010, and even republicans didn't take this "just shut down government permanently until they let you just write the whole budget from scratch" one weird trick idea seriously. That isn't what anyone here is calling for Dems to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is a really loving lovely thing to do, I just want to say for the record. except he straightup said we should shut down the government rather than vote for additional 'border security'? Lightning Knight posted:If that deal funds more “border security” then they should [shut down the government], absolutely. Lightning Knight posted:Like my position is that no Democrats should voting for “border security,” for any reason, period. if you're going to do a callout try to make sure the person you're defending didn't literally say the thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I can't say that I really care about this, insofar as I don't care what Republicans think whatsoever. It's not about what Republicans think, it's about what most people think, because most people do recognize that you need some sort of border security. Border security does not have to be about terrorizing innocent refugees. For one we're talking about a 2000 someodd mile border going through some of the least hospitable land on this continent. People die of exposure regularly and better surveillance with say more drones makes it more likely that we can find those people and save them before they die from dehydration, heat exhaustion and exposure. There is also the question of human trafficking and smuggling contraband, now we can debate the relative virtues of controlling the flow of various commodities into the country but there is a public interest in knowing who and what are entering and exiting the country. Finally there is a legitimate national security concern. The last thing we want to deal with is some terrorist group (or conservative false flag pretending to be a foreign terrorist group) smuggling in some weapon of mass terror in across the border. Because Americans react very stupidly and violently to attacks that can be attributed to foreigners, see Afghanistan and Iraq, and the absolute worst thing that could happen in the current political environment would be a terrorist attack that used vulnerabilities in the security of our southern border. Finally we need to be able to control our own crazies, such as being able to monitor the activities of the "minute men" and other right-wing vigilantly wannabes. The problem that we are dealing with now isn't that we have a security apparatus, it's who currently has control over it. So the solution isn't to remove the security but to remove the idiots currently in control of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
eke out posted:except he straightup said we should shut down the government rather than vote for additional 'border security'? That still doesn't say what GreyjoyBastard said LK said. Christ, gently caress all of you centrist fucktards, more concerned about being technically correct than having any morality or empathy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is a really loving lovely thing to do, I just want to say for the record. I mean truth be told this is effectively what I was arguing. I will admit to having been misled by the reporter tweet and also being really angry about what I understood the reporter to mean. I stand by the idea that Democrats voting for border security at this point is anathema to what we should stand for, and if the Republicans wanted more border security to keep the government open, they control both chambers and the presidency until next year, gently caress 'em. Why do they need Democratic votes to keep the government open?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067531696143241217
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
$0 for border security is the morally correct position
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean truth be told this is effectively what I was arguing. I will admit to having been misled by the reporter tweet and also being really angry about what I understood the reporter to mean. I stand by the idea that Democrats voting for border security at this point is anathema to what we should stand for, and if the Republicans wanted more border security to keep the government open, they control both chambers and the presidency until next year, gently caress 'em. Why do they need Democratic votes to keep the government open? Fair enough, I apologize for mistaking the conversation luxury handset posted:lol Go gently caress yourself, boner confessor. You loving sold out and you know it, so you act lovely towards leftists who still believe what you used to believe because they make you realize you're a sellout. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That still doesn't say what GreyjoyBastard said LK said. lol getting furious at my own bad posting to own the libs WampaLord posted:Go gently caress yourself, boner confessor. You loving sold out and you know it, so you act lovely towards leftists who still believe what you used to believe because they make you realize you're a sellout. 
Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Skex posted:The problem that we are dealing with now isn't that we have a security apparatus, it's who currently has control over it. So the solution isn't to remove the security but to remove the idiots currently in control of it. I am willing to commit to being on record as in favor of open borders, free movement of people, and against the existence of the security apparatus as it currently exists and in any form that will lead to it being a tool of white supremacy and capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
lol even given how friendly UK libel law is, this is an absolute joke. SLAPP poo poo like this doesn't work nearly as well on respected, well-funded media outlets. but they may just be eager for donations from gullible fans at this point
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
they'll probably win, the guardian has already edited the story once. their story and the nbc hit piece reek of desperation, hoping it's coming from horowitz testifying tomorrow. normally he has some good stuff to roll out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:President Big Brain President Donny Goodbrains thinks that the entire country thinks of those poor kids as nothing but filthy vermin. Yet more projection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:President Big Brain well he is dead eyed sociopath so there is no surprises there. this won't end well for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
when i said putting up a fight matters i was speaking of the judges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't what anyone here is calling for Dems to do. What ARE you calling dems to do? They have meaningful power to block a 5 billion dollar increase and strong arm republicans to vote on the amount they already voted on with zero additional funding. They have no power to get trump to hand them a pen and let them write their own budget that he will then pass for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Apparently Trump went on an unhinged interview with the Post. Hrm, maybe he should try some of that "extreme vetting" on the people he appoints to important positions instead of random brown people who want to enter the country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1067444387616104448 Keep telling yourself that boy-o
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
lol this is loving pathetic https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1067561309317812224?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Keep telling yourself that boy-o I mean if you understand that Paul Ryan only cares about Paul Ryan's ability to get a sick nasty consulting gig at some Fortune 500 after he retires then he's entirely correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:How loving bad at negotiating is Schumer that he's losing in a deal with Trump, the world record holder in bad deal-making? The thing is that Schumer and many of the other old-timer Dems don't actually oppose the "strict immigration enforcement" rhetoric or any of the racist and ineffectual policies that come with it (such as border walls). They're full of general talk about moral immigration policies and such, but their general preference for "tough on crime" rhetoric leaves them with a lean toward being hard on illegal immigration. Why did they come out so strongly against The Wall, then? Well, it was never about the wall itself - Schumer and many others voted for a similar border wall effort in the 00s, after all - but rather about the role it played in Trump's campaign messaging. Basically, since "build the wall" was such a prominent part of Trump's campaign platform, they figured that the wall was important to him and a major priority of his administration, and therefore he'd be willing to make some big concessions and sacrifice some of his smaller priorities in order to get it. So they decided to make a big show of being against the wall, and then quietly signal that they'd be happy to give him wall funding as long as they get something in return. Of course, anyone who had paid any attention at all could have told them that they had majorly misread Trump and that he doesn't care at all whether the wall actually passes or not. But no one ever accused Schumer of being a good politician. And no, "it's actually for the existing border wall rather than Trump's new border wall" isn't a defense either, because there's no moral distinction between the wall Schumer voted to build in 2006 and the wall Trump wants to build in 2018. The fact that it's funding for an existing border wall rather than a new one is just a reminder of how Schumer is actually perfectly fine with border walls, and is only pretending to oppose this one as a negotiating tactic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1067444387616104448 Paul Ryan’s legacy: - Giving trillions of dollars in handouts to the ultra-wealthy -
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Skex posted:It's not about what Republicans think, it's about what most people think, because most people do recognize that you need some sort of border security. no, its better not to build it at all because eventually it will fall into the hands of the wrong people, whether its through political appointments or mission creep look at the GWOT and the AUMF. dems didn't shut the whole thing down because a) they support forever war wholeheartedly and b) they couldn't imagine a future where they wouldn't be in control of it except now "the wrong people" are in control again so it would have been better to just get rid of the drat thing in the first place sure, "the slippery slope" argument is a slippery slope, but when it comes to things like "the defense industry" we know how those things turn out. saying "just put good people in charge" is naive and foolish. you should know better
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And no, "it's actually for the existing border wall rather than Trump's new border wall" isn't a defense either, because there's no moral distinction between the wall Schumer voted to build in 2006 and the wall Trump wants to build in 2018. Excuse me sir but I think you'll find that what was voted on in 2006 was a fence not a wall
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:dems didn't shut the whole thing down I can't read this and not think of Todd Akin lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I can't read this and not think of Todd Akin lmao. well i suppose the idea of "dems will shut bad things down" is an equally stupid idea as the one he was pitching, so that makes sense (i know you're talking about the phrase)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Skex posted:It's not about what Republicans think, it's about what most people think, because most people do recognize that you need some sort of border security. People aren’t dying en masse trying to make the passage for no reason, nor is human trafficking some inevitable force of nature. These things are happening because of the policies you are advocating for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:lol even given how friendly UK libel law is, this is an absolute joke. the point isn't SLAPP, its because the guardian will have to prove the truth of their claims in court assange's handlers will get to use legal discovery to figure out who gets the polonium cocktail
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
I mean, we're getting into an argument over a funding for 65 miles of existing fence. Like that 65 miles is explicit in the bill That pretty loving different from 1000 mile way I personally think that any dollar spent on a fence or border security should be matched with a an extra dollar to fund more social workers and case workers to help asylum applications. We shouldn't have a problem with illegal immigration if we actually had a sane immigration system that let people in and made it easy for people to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
strategic assassination against public participation
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I am willing to commit to being on record as in favor of open borders, free movement of people, and against the existence of the security apparatus as it currently exists and in any form that will lead to it being a tool of white supremacy and capitalism. Under a different administrative that tool can be used to save people. I totally agree that we need humane policies regarding people moving into and out of the country, but even if we went with a fully open border, in fact especially were we to do that, the ability to monitor crossings in order to ensure that we don't have people dying in the middle of the desert because they couldn't reach a water source. Also let's be perfectly clear, even if the United States were to become the woke tolerant egalitarian society that we want it to be, there are others who would want to destroy it. Who would happily undermine us if for no other reason than so they could point at us and tell their people "see that's what those crazy socialist policies lead to". I understand and agree with your motive, but you are thinking that this is a lot more simplistic issue than it is. The reason that Republicans are pushing this "open borders" narrative is that they know that it isn't going to play well, because it is a stupid idea. If for no other reason than people aren't the only things that can be across the border. A completely unsecured border means that products that don't meet our safety standards can be brought in as well and that could lead to serious harm. That's just the kinds of consequences that I can think of off the top of my head, there are probably any number of worse things that I'm not even considering. But the most important thing is that it is a bad political move to declare unqualified support for open borders. It is a losing issue I'd be surprised if the total public support for open borders would break single digits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:they'll probably win, the guardian has already edited the story once. their story and the nbc hit piece reek of desperation, hoping it's coming from horowitz testifying tomorrow. normally he has some good stuff to roll out. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
How did the Guardian gently caress up as badly as it looks like? Did they do any vetting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:How did the Guardian gently caress up as badly as it looks like? Did they do any vetting? From the edits I saw, it doesn't look that egregious, but I might have missed some of the changes
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Skex posted:The reason that Republicans are pushing this "open borders" narrative is that they know that it isn't going to play well, because it is a stupid idea. If for no other reason than people aren't the only things that can be across the border. When people on the left say "open borders", what they mean is that human beings should be able to move where they want. It has nothing to do with the movement of capital or goods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1067444387616104448 Dude got dunked on by Papa Roach of all people after that fake "Crying and Listening to 'Last Resort'" story came out. And the leader of his favorite band banned him for life from all of their shows. Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I mean, we're getting into an argument over a funding for 65 miles of existing fence. Like that 65 miles is explicit in the bill ok, but you're not arguing for matched spending, or anything aside from continuing the status quo, when the status quo is lobbing tear gas at immigrants why is the notion that the status quo isn't enough and chuck schumer should be trying to do better than starting at the status quo in negotiations such a hard concept for people in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:How did the Guardian gently caress up as badly as it looks like? Did they do any vetting? can you explain how they hosed up so badly because the hottest take even Greenwald has been able to muster is 'they did not share the sources they say they have' and 'how come no one else that would've been surveilling the embassy has said this before?'
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:55
|
|