General politics

[LaBombo]

 

Here’s the thing about impeachment: if Trump is removed you get Pence. Is that to be considered an improvement?

They both need to be voted out. Make America America again.

 

You might be setting your sights a little too low. Much of the 'anyone but Biden' wing of the party is already sold on the idea of impeaching Pence too, because he was mean to Mayor Pete or something, I guess.

 

In the words of the loquacious Maxine Waters, “You knock one down, and we’ll be ready for Pence. We’ll get him, too,"

 

To me it seems that Mrs. Waters differs from other Democrat leaders not so much in her favoring a one-party solution to legislative gridlock, but rather just in her willingness to express it. We'll probably hear more about this if the 'Impeach Anyway' movement gathers more steam.

[ewen21]

 

Words matter, and there is a difference between asylum seeker, refuge, and illegal/undocumented immigrant.
 

You say you have watched videos and have done reading on the topic and then you say this.  Honestly, dude, I don't know how many more times I need to re-explain reality to you.  

 

Literally thousands of asylum seekers have crossed the border undocumented/illegally daily for the last six months . I supplied you with the numbers and anything else to show that is in fact the reality.  It is almost as though you believe if they come here seeking asylum it completely erases the fact that they were detained because they came illegally.

 

You can obscure reality all you want, but doesn't alter the state of facts and evidence (of which I have provided copious amounts on this topic).  And as I said earlier, there are a number of folks here who insisted this "problem" was a product of the president's fertile imagination--all the way up until a few weeks ago.  That is either being delusion, uninformed or a combination of both at this point

[Craig Arko]

Yo ho, yo ho,

A space pirate”s life for me...

 

[LaBombo]

 

Yo ho, yo ho,
A space pirate”s life for me...

3EE54B14-2EAF-44E1-815E-D9F2627CB451.png

 

"May Space Pirates devour your liver..."

[Badsmerf]

You say you have watched videos and have done reading on the topic and then you say this. Honestly, dude, I don't know how many more times I need to re-explain reality to you.

 

Literally thousands of asylum seekers have crossed the border undocumented/illegally daily for the last six months . I supplied you with the numbers and anything else to show that is in fact the reality. It is almost as though you believe if they come here seeking asylum it completely erases the fact that they were detained because they came illegally.

 

You can obscure reality all you want, but doesn't alter the state of facts and evidence (of which I have provided copious amounts on this topic). And as I said earlier, there are a number of folks here who insisted this "problem" was a product of the president's fertile imagination--all the way up until a few weeks ago. That is either being delusion, uninformed or a combination of both at this point

And I offered a handful of strategies to immediately help the situation. Including sending a ton of people back that don't have legitimate asylum claims. Thing is, I'm not going to say these people have legitimate claims from Iowa. Yes, there are a lot of people costing us a ton of money. The migration is still the symptom, one which we party created and continue to ignore.

[PseudoSABR]

 

There's some sense to the rest of what you said, but the battle over "crisis" or "not crisis" is not only over, it never existed. At least according to the revisionist Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:

 

From her own website:  Well, let me just say this.  We have never not said that there was a crisis.  There is a humanitarian crisis at the border.

 

Of course she makes it clear in the rest of her statement that like everything else wrong with the country, it's all Republicans' fault, and she's adamant about the real crisis being the level of accommodation our nation affords foreign citizens, rather than our nation being unable (or in the case of many Democrats, unwilling) to determine who should and should not enter our country.

 

But however much or little it matters, the official Democrat word for the border is now 'crisis', and apparently was the whole time they were arguing that it was not.

I'm pretty sure Pelosi and Trump are referring to different crises: a humanitarian one (the American response to asylum seekers) and an immigration one (the influx of people seeking illegal entry). Pelosi is trying to use the term against Trump not in concert with him.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You might be setting your sights a little too low. Much of the 'anyone but Biden' wing of the party is already sold on the idea of impeaching Pence too, because he was mean to Mayor Pete or something, I guess.

 

In the words of the loquacious Maxine Waters, “You knock one down, and we’ll be ready for Pence. We’ll get him, too,"

 

To me it seems that Mrs. Waters differs from other Democrat leaders not so much in her favoring a one-party solution to legislative gridlock, but rather just in her willingness to express it. We'll probably hear more about this if the 'Impeach Anyway' movement gathers more steam.

This the first I've heard of anyone 'credibly' discussing impeaching Pence, and I put that in scare quotes because Maxine Waters is a blowhard.  

[ewen21]

The migration is still the symptom, one which we party created and continue to ignore.

 

Can you break this down once more?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Anyway, the point is democrats have zero incentive to wade into the immigration mine field. Republicans have 2/3 of the government... Had the whole thing for 2y and didn't put any policy out.... and there is reason for that. It isn't productive or good strategy to pass bad legislation... like tax breaks for the rich. Republicans were under enormous pressure on that one, and it helped the Trump family.... but they paid for it in 2018, and it still polls poorly.

 

Exactly.  The Republicans went to taxes when they had full control because they could get consensus.  On issues like immigration and health care they didn't even have consensus in their own party, so they pushed them down the line.  Now they dredge them back up for political posturing, not because they have anything remotely resembling legislation that could pass, but because they want to weaponize it.

 

The best thing the Democrats can do is let them try to stump on those issues, stay out of it, and let the Republicans embarrass themselves.  There is nothing to be gained by negotiating with a party that isn't being serious.

[LaBombo]

 

This the first I've heard of anyone 'credibly' discussing impeaching Pence, and I put that in scare quotes because Maxine Waters is a blowhard.  

 

WAPO alone accounted for two "Impeach Pence!" editorials in the same week earlier this year, and prog mega-PAC MoveOn has been shaking the money tree for months with dual impeachment cheerleading.

 

If you're not there yet I applaud the restraint, but the simple fact is that a whole bunch of Dems have been hoping for not just the impeachment of Trump, but the complete reversal of the 2016 presidential election.

 

While understandable, that desire is impractical, whether it be in the form of double dip impeachment or the other idea, leaked to me personally by an anonymous DNC source: Using a Bezos-funded time machine, Hillary would be sent back to 2016 in order to wipe out the Electoral College and prevent a Trumpinator presidency before it takes place.

 

Tie breaker in favor of dual impeachment was reportedly the need for candidate Clinton to travel through time sans clothing.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you're not there yet I applaud the restraint, but the simple fact is that a whole bunch of Dems have been hoping not just the impeachment of Trump, but the complete reversal of the 2016 presidential election.

 

They're also probably writing articles saying you are "sad, cynical, and fearful" as we speak if you aren't on board.  

 

What makes Pelosi smart right now is precisely that she is not giving way to "blowhards" but keeping real political power in sight.  Impeachment is worse than pointless, it's self-inflicted political damage at a time the Republicans are trying to hand you campaign ammo every day.  And that ammo can be used to wipe them, and many of their slimey brethren straight out of office all in one swoop.

 

That's the pony to bet on.

[LaBombo]

 

I'm pretty sure Pelosi and Trump are referring to different crises: a humanitarian one (the American response to asylum seekers) and an immigration one (the influx of people seeking illegal entry). Pelosi is trying to use the term against Trump not in concert with him.

 

Agreed, and I included Pelosi's "humanitarian" modification to the word specifically to avoid taking her comment out of that context.

 

The semantic game of badminton over the use of the word "crisis" to describe the border/immigration situation should be a sideshow or a non-story, but because both sides have stuck with mostly playing to their bases it's lingered on as a substitute for policy discussion alongside the equally tedious 'build/don't build' pie fight over the wall.

[TheLeviathan]

Here's another winning move by the Democrats.  More of this.  And put this out there for voters to see and talk about it in a way that gets them behind you.

[PseudoSABR]

 

WAPO alone accounted for two "Impeach Pence!" editorials in the same week earlier this year, and prog mega-PAC MoveOn has been shaking the money tree for months with dual impeachment cheerleading.

 

If you're not there yet I applaud the restraint, but the simple fact is that a whole bunch of Dems have been hoping for not just the impeachment of Trump, but the complete reversal of the 2016 presidential election.

 

While understandable, that desire is impractical, whether it be in the form of double dip impeachment or the other idea, leaked to me personally by an anonymous DNC source: Using a Bezos-funded time machine, Hillary would be sent back to 2016 in order to wipe out the Electoral College and prevent a Trumpinator presidency before it takes place.

 

Tie breaker in favor of dual impeachment was reportedly the need for candidate Clinton to travel through time sans clothing.

My not seeing Pence impeach being proffered as a mainstream idea is of course anecdotal, but I do follow a bunch of lefty journalist on twitter and just haven't seen it.  I end up not reading the WaPo all that much as I use my free reads early and often, so I missed those that you mention.  So I don't really think this idea has much traction, and of course it's bat**** crazy, is a strike against it being taken seriously.

 

The only basis I can think of would be him knowing about Flynn's dirt prior to taking office, which is pretty thin gruel.  Worse impeachment of both Trump and Pence would be pretty self-serving for Pelosi, which even an unsophisticated public could sniff out.

 

I'm in favor of impeachment only because we shouldn't set a precedence that unlawful behavior (esp. obstruction of justice) is okay if there's some risk of political fallout against the impeaching party.  I honestly don't think impeachment would move the needle either way much, as the public is already bored of the Mueller report.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

My not seeing Pence impeach being proffered as a mainstream idea is of course anecdotal, but I do follow a bunch of lefty journalist on twitter and just haven't seen it. I end up not reading the WaPo all that much as I use my free reads early and often, so I missed those that you mention. So I don't really think this idea has much traction, and of course it's bat**** crazy, is a strike against it being taken seriously.

 

The only basis I can think of would be him knowing about Flynn's dirt prior to taking office, which is pretty thin gruel. Worse impeachment of both Trump and Pence would be pretty self-serving for Pelosi, which even an unsophisticated public could sniff out.

 

I'm in favor of impeachment only because we shouldn't set a precedence that unlawful behavior (esp. obstruction of justice) is okay if there's some risk of political fallout against the impeaching party. I honestly don't think impeachment would move the needle either way much, as the public is already bored of the Mueller report.

I’m sorta coming around (but still lukewarm) on impeachment. I mean, so many Dems voted and campaigned — and will campaign, depending on the eventual nominee— on Trump being the gravest threat to Democracy in our lifetimes. And according to the two different sets of rules the two parties play by, it seems a little “off” (for lack of a better word) that Dems would win the house in 2018 and then respond to calls for impeachment with shoulder shrug emoticon guy.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I’m sorta coming around (but still lukewarm) on impeachment. I mean, so many Dems voted and campaigned — and will campaign, depending on the eventual nominee— on Trump being the gravest threat to Democracy in our lifetimes. And according to the two different sets of rules the two parties play by, it seems a little “off” (for lack of a better word) that Dems would win the house in 2018 and then respond to calls for impeachment with shoulder shrug emoticon guy.

Right.  It's seems totally inconsistent to argue that Trump is a grave threat and then to not impeach because of political expediency.  It's the kind of calculated cynicism that makes the Democrats seem awfully elite and I think pushes people away from the party.  And it's just not leadership. 

 

I guess this would be my response to Brock's earlier question about the political viability of impeachment. It will look like leadership, show consistency, and avoid decision-making based on political outcome rather than what's right for the country.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Right.  It's seems totally inconsistent to argue that Trump is a grave threat and then to not impeach because of political expediency.  It's the kind of calculated cynicism that makes the Democrats seem awfully elite and I think pushes people away from the party.  And it's just not leadership. 

 

I guess this would be my response to Brock's earlier question about the political viability of impeachment. It will look like leadership, show consistency, and avoid decision-making based on political outcome rather than what's right for the country.

Well said.

[ewen21]

 

Exactly.  The Republicans went to taxes when they had full control because they could get consensus.  On issues like immigration and health care they didn't even have consensus in their own party, so they pushed them down the line.  Now they dredge them back up for political posturing, not because they have anything remotely resembling legislation that could pass, but because they want to weaponize it.

 

The best thing the Democrats can do is let them try to stump on those issues, stay out of it, and let the Republicans embarrass themselves.  There is nothing to be gained by negotiating with a party that isn't being serious.

You just (quite unwittingly) illustrated why the democrat party is in trouble.  They are doing EXACTLY what you prescribe and it couldn't be more counterproductive to them.  Your process is governed by partisanship.  The only reasoning behind your suggested approach is...."the republicans behaved the same way so the democrats ought to take the same approach"

Seriously?  I thought you were Mr. Centrist?  Doesn't read that way here.

 

Whether or not the Graham bill or the Trump immigration policy is "posturing" (in your mind) or not makes no difference.  They are attempts to address an issue that has to be solved now.  That is all anyone ought to care about--not how one side can outdo the other.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You just (quite unwittingly) illustrated why the democrat party is in trouble.  They are doing EXACTLY what you prescribe and it couldn't be more counterproductive to them.  Your process is governed by partisanship.  The only reasoning behind your suggested approach is...."the republicans behaved the same way so the democrats ought to take the same approach"

Seriously?  I thought you were Mr. Centrist?  Doesn't read that way here.

 

Whether or not the Graham bill or the Trump immigration policy is "posturing" (in your mind) or not makes no difference.  They are attempts to address an issue that has to be solved now.  That is all anyone ought to care about--not how one side can outdo the other.

 

Posturing is exactly the opposite of an attempt to address an issue.  It's an attempt to LOOK like you're solving an issue and hope people buy it.  You're buying it.  Be smarter than that.  It's empty air.  Fluff.  Snake-oil. Call it what you want, posturing is meant for nothing more than appearances, not results.

 

I am not a "centrist" - I'm an independent.  I like good ideas, with good plans, and a balance of progressive and conservative thinking.  (Sometimes much more of one than the other depending on the issue, but I think all issues are best resolved with a little bit of both)  So, yeah, I want more bipartisan solutions.

 

Here's the problem - this group of shysters that call themselves Republicans - have zero interest in that.  It's foolish to expect the Democrats to negotiate with people completely not serious about solutions.  The only way we get government moving again is to start voting out some of these obstacles.  Then I'll hold their feet to the fire to negotiate.

[ewen21]

I don't believe that Lindsey Graham or even Trump are doing this for "effect"

 

I believe that both actually want this issue resolved and if it comes from a "selfish place" I really don't care.  If Amy Klobuchar or some other democratic candidate (or some other congressperson) presented something better you don't think that would be beneficial to them AND the democratic party as a whole?  Time to stop the BS on this one issue and get to work

 

I don't disagree with a lot of the stuff you post about partisan BS, but you've expressed the democrats stick with sabotaging any kind of solution (no matter how imperfect) that might ameliorate the situation at the border.  That is terminal dumbness if the democrats are going to block anything that would improve the situation.  I have not seen all the particulars of the Graham bill, but I like the fact that his bill puts and end to fly by night asylum clams at the border.  Make them at the US embassy or with US consulates in their home country before they press us with caravans of people rushing the gate.

 

We can go on and on about the humanitarian angle, but the first responsibility of the legislative branch is to serve US first.  Solve this FIRST and move forward with whatever "humanitarian aid" we can provide for these countries.  What's happening right now is just straight up unacceptable and it needs to be fixed.  All I hear from democrats is crickets--other than "we are partly responsible for the conditions these people face in their home countries".

 

If you want to say that then fine.....

Please articulate with how this is with actual numbers and ferret out a plan how we can help.  Speaking in general terms actually doesn't say "jack" if you can't bullet point a plan of action.  This is where democrats are sorely lacking.  They talk a mean game, but can't actually formulate a plan of action.

[ewen21]

 

 It's foolish to expect the Democrats to negotiate with people completely not serious about solutions.  

 

Suspend all generalization about politics for just one moment and answer this for me....

 

Do you honestly think Trump and Graham are not serious about a solution to the immigration problem?  

 

A simple YES or NO would suffice

[Squirrel]

Suspend all generalization about politics for just one moment and answer this for me....

 

Do you honestly think Trump and Graham are not serious about a solution to the immigration problem?  

 

A simple YES or NO would suffice

No

[TheLeviathan]

 

Suspend all generalization about politics for just one moment and answer this for me....

 

Do you honestly think Trump and Graham are not serious about a solution to the immigration problem?  

 

A simple YES or NO would suffice

 

The phrasing of that question needs some work.  

 

Yes.  I do not think they are seriously after solutions.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't disagree with a lot of the stuff you post about partisan BS, but you've expressed the democrats stick with sabotaging any kind of solution (no matter how imperfect) that might ameliorate the situation at the border.  

 

They have offered several non-wall solutions that align with Border Patrol requests.  Some are working on asylum changes.  

 

They are not sabotaging it.  It is already sabotaged by the posturing/demands of Republicans.  There is zero upside to their involvement.  Zero.

[Badsmerf]

While I'm not a Democrat, I'll still answer the question you posed about how we created this mess. We are almost single handedly responsible for the drug syndicates that exist in these countries. Without our demand for drugs, they wouldn't exist. The problem here lies more with addiction, but there the criminals have money, power, and no respect for law and order. We (Reagan administration) also exacerbated the problem by funneling guns and money to the region.

 

Their problems go beyond this for sure.... which I why I say we're partly responsible for the mess.

[ewen21]

 

Yes.  I do not think they are seriously after solutions.

If it wasn't to find a solution, Lindsey Graham wrote an immigration bill for what reason exactly?

 

Please tell me.  Feel free to explain beyond just a couple of sentences

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

If it wasn't to find a solution, Lindsey Graham wrote an immigration bill for what reason exactly?

 

Please tell me.  Feel free to explain beyond just a couple of sentences

 

Posturing.  

[ewen21]

 

They have offered several non-wall solutions that align with Border Patrol requests.  Some are working on asylum changes.  

 

They are not sabotaging it.  It is already sabotaged by the posturing/demands of Republicans.  There is zero upside to their involvement.  Zero.

Chirping about it and actually writing legislation are two different things.

 

And to say there is "zero upside to their involvement" is utterly insane.  Push the chains forward and bring something to the freakin table.  There should be a pile of bills introduced within the next month form both sides.  To prescribe a do nothing policy belies anything you said about partisanship.  Practice what you preach, brother.

[ewen21]

 

No

 

Carole, just a month ago you wouldn't even acknowledge this was an issue.

 

Where do you stand now?

[ewen21]

 

Posturing.  

 

What is "posturing" according to Leviathan?