The Art of No Deal

[DWill]

I granted your argument as true.

What about my question now... do any elected democrats have a position with any substance about border security, or is attacking your opponents position a declaration that border security is a non issue?

Are you restricting border security to The Wall? Clearly, even wall proponents think border security includes lots of technology. Democrats' favor using technology over building wall, because tech fixes promise to be more effective. So yes, Democrats have substantive positions on border security.

I think, by the way, that semantics may be playing a part in the arguments over barriers. Trump's promise to build a concrete wall from sea to shining sea rings in the ears of everyone who thought the idea was nonsense in the first place. When Democrats say "no wall" are they harking back to that pledge, while keeping some wiggle room on some other kind of barrier? Signs point to that being true.

In the previous spending package put together by the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democrats and Republicans had agreed on $1.6 billion in funding for pedestrian fencing, which is technically a physical barrier along the border. Trump, meanwhile, has asked for $5.7 billion for a wall in his most recent request.

“This is opening day,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Richard Shelby, of the meeting. Lawmakers and staffers from both sides will now begin to hash out differences in earnest, he added. “Thus far, all sides seem to agree that border security is important, but we cannot end there.”

Democrats are not ruling out a barrier — but they are putting the focus on tech and personnel.
While Democrats did not dismiss the possibility of including a physical barrier in a final deal, they repeatedly emphasized that they’d prefer a “smart” and “comprehensive” package that doled out more money for technology and personnel.

“Border security, however, is more than physical barriers,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA). “And Homeland Security is more than border security.”

Multiple Democrats emphasized that drones, sensors and other technology should play a central role in any border security investments. “We cannot focus on archaic solutions to address this very modern problem,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), who noted that equipment to scan vehicles at ports of entry would be key for tracking drug shipments.

Several lawmakers also warned that giving more money for any physical barriers would mean less money for other DHS resources provided by FEMA and the US Coast Guard. “Every dollar spent on ineffective proposals means one less dollar invested in measures that keep us safe,” Lowey said.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... urity-deal

[DWill]

Yes, everyone knows Mexico paying was bullshit.

Then we shouldn't have elected him--period. Intelligent nations don't elect people they KNOW are lying. And being a stupid nation is no excuse.

His unfitness was not really in question by a majority of voters

Because future presidents will threaten to shut down the govt anytime they want something that Congress is unwilling to give them. If it works for Trump then they won't hesitate to do it too

Did it work for Trump? He got very bad political mileage from his shutdown. Such a tactic could be seen as a poison pill in the future.

Trump promised--PROMISED--Mexico would pay for it. The promise being made must be kept. You're as bad as a Trump supporter when you say that it doesn't matter that he promised it. IT DOES MATTER!!!! Or why bother to listen to any candidate for president talk? Pick one by eenie-meenie-miney-mo because if we let them bullshit and elect them anyway and don't bother to penalize them for lying, they'll all do it and they'll keep doing it and we'll keep excusing it. That's a sick, sad nation that conducts itself in this way. Isn't that what all the Hillary-haters claimed they hated about her?? But it doesn't matter if Trump does it?? It DOES matter!! Mexico must pay. That was the deal and, by god, he's gonna stick to it!!!! IF the dems give one tiny fraction of an inch and fund one single steel slat, I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP BEFORE I VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!

Seems extreme to me. Politicians make promises both before they're elected and during office. GWH Bush--"Read my lips!"; Barack Obama--"You can keep your doctor." Sometimes the unkept promises mean defeat at next election, as was true for Bush, and I hope will be true for Trump--though he has a raft of disqualifiers instead of just one.

To give in on the wall after we made him back off on it TWICE would be the very worst sort of gutlessness and cowardice ever shown in American politics and that's really saying something. It would be making Ann Coulter the de facto president.]

Giving in sucks to a degree. But he'd be getting a tiny part of what he wanted. He's still losing in my book, so I'm not worried about it.

Recall also that less than a year ago, Democrats were willing to give Trump all the wall money he asked for--25 billion--in exchange for DACA protections and a path to citizenship. If they fund 5.5 billion now with most of it going for non-wall security, that seems a good deal to make. I hope they can reintroduce the DACA protections as well.

They did that ONLY because they knew he wouldn't take it. Trump doesn't want to build the wall. Why do you think he keeps wimping out?

I don't agree with you, DB, on the D's motives. I don't think they'd toy with deserving immigrants' hopes like that. Trump wants the wall, but he happens to be feckless as far as achieving his goals, and the deal offered did offer him uncertain political advantage since the victory on the wall would be canceled by the concession on immigration.

I mean for christ's sake, he had two years of a republican-controlled congress to build that wall and never asked for a penny. But NOW it matters? I would think even a politician as bad as Trump knows that you make demands on Congress when it is the same party as you. That's how Clinton balanced the budget. That's how Obama got the ACA. But Trump waits until one half of Congress is dominated by the party he KNOWS perfectly well won't give a wall and then he starts demanding Congress fund his wall? And you want to reward this stupidity with a compromise??

Would you say Trump is competent or incompetent in general? I go for the latter, so therefore these failures aren't that much of a puzzlement.

The public won't understand the Democrats' intransigence on zero wall funding.

Where are you getting this from??? The public DOESN'T want it!

If it comes to a shutdown happening because the Democrats refuse to see go up a meter of slats or pedestrian fencing or whatever, then yes, I don't think the public will understand why that is worth causing pain & suffering to so many govt. workers and others. What if there had been an in-air collision because of a lack of air-traffic controllers? There must be some compromise for the sake of the country. The point shouldn't be to exact every bit of political retribution the moment might allow.

I'm also somewhat concerned that the Democrats might want to push Trump to declare an emergency in order to get his money from the military. That would not be a successful move for Trump, thus damaging him more politically. But the country would also suffer from the needless disruption.

In case it's escaped your notice, we've been is a continual state of disruption for two years now. It's time for the big showdown. It's time to settle this once and for all. No folding. It's time to lock horns. The matador must slay the bull. ONLY then will the disruption cease.

Bending, not folding.

[Harry Marks]

I granted your argument as true.

What about my question now... do any elected democrats have a position with any substance about border security, or is attacking your opponents position a declaration that border security is a non issue?

Border security is a non-issue. We have a system, some people want to beef it up, so we know how to compromise, but the issue is Trumped up. The impetus behind it is "I don't recognize my country any more." In other words, "What are all these brown people doing on television and in the White House?" Ann Coulter wants you to believe Sharia Law in the U.S. is just around the corner. She is a pusher for the drug of White Anxiety.

Democrats have strongly signaled that they are willing to compromise on border security and immigration. The Freedom Caucus, not so much. The Democrats are willing to spend money on fencing, if that is what the other side wants, in exchange for some of their priorities. That is what we call "governing". But they are not willing to give Dear Leader his symbolism because he throws a temper tantrum. And I agree with that. That is also what we call "governing."

[Harry Marks]

IF the dems give one tiny fraction of an inch and fund one single steel slat, I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP BEFORE I VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!

That's crazy talk.

3) To give in on the wall after we made him back off on it TWICE would be the very worst sort of gutlessness and cowardice ever shown in American politics and that's really saying something. It would be making Ann Coulter the de facto president.

There's giving in and there's giving in. Containment is sufficient, and if that sometimes means you let the fascist tanks get away with stuff, it isn't all about gutlessness. But I do think priority 1 should be making it clear that the Ann Coulter clique is not getting their way by temper tantrum.

Trump doesn't want to build the wall. Why do you think he keeps wimping out? He used the wall as a wedge issue that he hoped would deliver huge success in the midterms. If he accepted the offer, lazy ass conservatives wouldn't shown up at the polls. They barely did as it was. They were trying to prove that Trump really doesn't want to build the wall. I mean for christ's sake, he had two years of a republican-controlled congress to build that wall and never asked for a penny. But NOW it matters?

You have put your finger on the nub of the issue. Actually, Dear Leader did ask for wall money from the Republicans, but he did not yell and scream and jump up and down and close the government. This is the way narcissists work - symbolic victory is everything. What good would a symbolic victory over Republican centrists be?

On the other hand, I don't think it's true that he doesn't want to build the wall. It's just worth a lot more to him if it comes as a victory than if it just gets built.

[LanDroid]

To her credit Coulter (not a Coulter reader) has withdrawn total support for Trump's pie-in-the-sky campaign promise about wall funding.

Sounds like we both avoid Coulter, but you're wrong about the wall funding. She still believes Mexico will pay for the wall, saying the US could extract funds from the money immigrants send back to Mexico, enough to pay for the whole thing in 10 years. And she still believes the wall is a top national priority. Although she has not wavered on that, even writing a book blessing Trump at the time of his inauguration, Coulter is flop-flipping away from him. She sees him now as an terribly weak negotiator who cannot get the wall built and paid for by Mexico. Based on that, Bill Maher asked her "So you see Trump as a lying con man. What was your first clue?" She began her reply with "I'm a stupid girl, OK?"

[Litwitlou]

To her credit Coulter (not a Coulter reader) has withdrawn total support for Trump's pie-in-the-sky campaign promise about wall funding.
Such quixotic campaign promises are pretty common for both sides of the political spectrum.

Lefties are less likely to withdraw support from their chosen spokespersons even in the face of utter stupidity. We are seeing that now with Ocasio-Cortez.
It's likely due to the fact that lefties are much more wrapped up in self righteousness and gross over-simplifications.

The epitome of oversimplification and self righteousness is Donnie and the Trumpettes' belief that a border wall will have a significant impact on illegal immigration and the drug trade.

Wait... Wait.. I might be wrong on this.

The epitome of over-simplification and self-righteousness is the religious right's belief that overturning Roe v. Wade will have a positive impact on the abortion issue.

No... No...

The epitome of over-simplification and self-righteousness is the belief that Trump's tax cuts were for the benefit of the middle-class.
I'm gonna go with that one.

[ant]

To her credit Coulter (not a Coulter reader) has withdrawn total support for Trump's pie-in-the-sky campaign promise about wall funding.

Sounds like we both avoid Coulter, but you're wrong about the wall funding. She still believes Mexico will pay for the wall, saying the US could extract funds from the money immigrants send back to Mexico, enough to pay for the whole thing in 10 years. And she still believes the wall is a top national priority. Although she has not wavered on that, even writing a book blessing Trump at the time of his inauguration, Coulter is flop-flipping away from him. She sees him now as an terribly weak negotiator who cannot get the wall built and paid for by Mexico. Based on that, Bill Maher asked her "So you see Trump as a lying con man. What was your first clue?" She began her reply with "I'm a stupid girl, OK?"

I think in sum you're right; anyone who believed Mexico would pay for the wall had to have been brain dead at the time.
I'm not certain if Coulter ever believed they would either. As a celebrity political pundit though, I'm fairly certain she went along with it eagerly to rally the base. It wouldn't be unheard of if she did. Stratagem - period.

Is she stupid? That depends on what your definition of what "stupid" is. She may not hold the same political views as you do, but that doesn't make her stupid.
She's a law school grad from Michigan, went to Cornell, graduating cum laude.

[DB Roy]

Sounds like we both avoid Coulter, but you're wrong about the wall funding. She still believes Mexico will pay for the wall, saying the US could extract funds from the money immigrants send back to Mexico, enough to pay for the whole thing in 10 years.

That's called remittances and it won't work. It was Trump's original plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall. When it was mentioned to Obama in an interview, he said, "Good luck with that." Shortly after the election, Trump never brought it up again.

[DB Roy]

Did it work for Trump? He got very bad political mileage from his shutdown. Such a tactic could be seen as a poison pill in the future.

Huh? Not if we give into him. If we let him build one inch of new fencing or wall, he won. He got what he wanted and by election time, the public will have forgotten all about it. He just looks like a tough negotiator who gets what he wants and that is exactly how we must not let him portray himself and we do that by not giving him a thing. Not a thing.

Seems extreme to me.

Giving into Trump is extreme. It would tell me that they have no ideas of their own in which case who needs them in power?

Politicians make promises both before they're elected and during office. GWH Bush--"Read my lips!"; Barack Obama--"You can keep your doctor." Sometimes the unkept promises mean defeat at next election, as was true for Bush, and I hope will be true for Trump--though he has a raft of disqualifiers instead of just one.

Trump lies so much that the public is immune to it. Things that would have tanked a previous presidency are forgotten three days later when some other outrageous thing happens. Remember all the hullabaloo over separating families at the border? Now we found the regime lied and have separated thousands more families than they publicly admitted to. Where's the hullabaloo now? Washed aside amidst new insanity of a new series of tweets. There has never been a president that has lied as much as Trump and suffered so little consequences for it. We just accept it now and that's a dangerous trend. That's one thing I'll give Coulter credit for, she's holding his feet to the fire about keeping his wall promise. We should be doing the same thing regarding his lies over the family separation issue but nobody cares anymore. That was last week's old news.

Giving in sucks to a degree. But he'd be getting a tiny part of what he wanted. He's still losing in my book, so I'm not worried about it.

But you should worry about because Donald Trump is untrustworthy. Master dealmaker? At one point, the dems gave him his $5.7 billion along with a deal for DACA. He said okay and then Stephen Miller started whining no DACA. Instead Trump saying, "Shut up, Stephen, I'll handle this" he GIVES IN to Miller and kills the deal he had just okayed. Then Mike Pence, negotiating FOR TRUMP, goes to Congress and says, "How about $2.7 billion instead?" And then Trump turns around and kills that too! Then, he tells Congress to give him certain things in the new budget bill--which had NOTHING about funding for his wall in it--and get it to his desk and he will sign it. Both dems and pubs were very happy to hear that so they put a bill together, send it to Trump's desk. Ann Coulter starts crying that there's no wall funding in it and Trump will be dragged through the mud if he signs it. Instead of saying, "Shut up, Ann, I'm the president not you" he GIVES IN to Coulter and kills the bill he had just asked for. He threw McConnell and Thune under the bus over the Syria thing in December. WHO CAN TRUST THIS GUY???? We have repeatedly given this turd what he's asked for and he has then turned it down each and every time. NO MORE!!! I say, the dems tell the pubs that they must appoint someone--McConnell apparently--to deal in Trump's stead, someone who will keep his word, someone who won't waffle as soon as an underling starts whining, and they'll deal with that person as long as he isn't taking orders from Trump.

I don't agree with you, DB, on the D's motives. I don't think they'd toy with deserving immigrants' hopes like that.

It's out of their hands. They TRIED to get DACA included in that deal and that's what killed it.

Trump wants the wall, but he happens to be feckless as far as achieving his goals, and the deal offered did offer him uncertain political advantage since the victory on the wall would be canceled by the concession on immigration.

Oh. So we'll just give him what he wants. NO!! He gets nothing.

Would you say Trump is competent or incompetent in general? I go for the latter, so therefore these failures aren't that much of a puzzlement.

Yeah and?

If it comes to a shutdown happening because the Democrats refuse to see go up a meter of slats or pedestrian fencing or whatever, then yes, I don't think the public will understand why that is worth causing pain & suffering to so many govt. workers and others. What if there had been an in-air collision because of a lack of air-traffic controllers? There must be some compromise for the sake of the country. The point shouldn't be to exact every bit of political retribution the moment might allow.

I've already explained this: you don't give a president everything he wants out of fear that he'll shut down the govt and you'll get blamed for it. That's cowardice! It's time for the dems to stand their ground. I'm not against them giving money for border security--although I think it's a total bullshit topic--but any money he receives cannot be used for a wall. And he gets no more than $1.5 billion. We already offered him his $5.7 billion and he pissed it away. You don't get that again. Take it when it's offered. THAT is dealmaking.

[DWill]

Remarks Nancy Pelosi has made lately make me think you might need to follow through on voting for Trump. I hope not and might be wrong, but in the manner of political wrangling and face-saving, it seems as though already Pelosi has blurred her line in the sand. For example, she said, ""But let's talk about where a serious structure might be necessary, where fencing will do, or mowing the grass so people can't be smuggled through the grass." She also voiced support of whatever agreement the bipartisan group of appropriators comes up with. She is certain that won't include any wall funding, but how can she be so sure? She might be slowly carving out a little room for a small concession on wall/barrier/fencing funding.

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” she said.

Pelosi, however, left a small door open to expanding the fencing that currently exists along portions of the southern border.

“There’s 600 miles of something — 300 miles of them are Normandy fences,” she said. “If the president wants to call that a wall, he can call it a wall.”

The conferees can discuss whether there are places where additional Normandy fencing or other enhanced fencing is needed, Pelosi said.

“It’s all about two things — cost-benefit analysis, what’s the best way and what do you get for your dollar to protect the border,” she said. “And it’s also about — and this will be coming up if [Trump] takes some extraordinary action — the opportunity cost of the money.”

“If the money can be used better for technology then let’s see what’s the best [solution],” Pelosi added. “And by the way, when some of these fences were built, the technology was not what it is today.”

She's definitely right on the last statement. But what if cost-benefit analysis showed that in a few cases new physical structures would be best? Pelosi hasn't been without her own mistakes in these negotiations. She should not have said the wall is immoral. The wall, and other walls around the world, aren't immoral. If the wall is immoral, she should be urging its removal, but clearly she's not.

I'm not in favor of the Dems giving Trump over 5 billion for new wall. That is too substantial an amount and it's likely to be a waste in general. With our budget deficits, growing under the supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans, we can't afford it. It is legitimate to hold Trump to his pledge to make Mexico pay for the wall. If he gets practically nothing compared to what he asked for, we will have held him to it.

But since Trump is now fully determined to be faithful to his base, he probably won't accept any small concessions offered by the Dems. He will declare an emergency and get nowhere with it. He'll be able to claim that he did all he could get his wall, as he prepares for his re-election.

Edit: In exchange for full DACA and TPS protections, with a path to citizenship, I would go along with giving Trump 5 billion to spend on his wall.