Tom Steyer, probably. Hedgefund billionaire and big impeachment lobbyist. Trump’s moronic ‘and Mexico will pay for it! 100%!’ should be his ‘Read my lips – no new taxes!’ moment.
Yea, this guy…
Yeah, we could use more of those. But Dems are too polite to do it or whatever.
Maybe more like, the dems in charge are busy with more important shit? It’s not a bad idea. It’s just not at the top of the list.
It’s not a matter of politeness. If “Mexico is going to pay for it” is effective now, it will be even more effective in 2020. And if you don’t buy an ad now, you can buy an extra ad in 2020.
In case you need images of “the wall” that already exists sometime…
This one is great, too.
I mean, we all know the wall is a supremely dumb idea, but that interactive Washington Post flyby shows its dumbness on a geographic scale.
-Tom
WaPo editorial board done lost its fool mind
The WaPo wrote “make a deal”, not “take what Trump offered”. Big difference, and I suspect Pelosi and Schumer agree with the final paragaphs:
Washington is a company town, and the WaPo is a company town paper. Naturally government workers want their paychecks back, but Schumer, for once, has the right of it: “It was the President who singled-handedly took away DACA and TPS protections in the first place – offering some protections back in exchange for the wall is not a compromise but more hostage taking.”
Fuck him. Fuck WaPo. Open the government, then negotiate.
Why so dogmatic? If Pelosi and Schumer can make a deal that involves $5 billion for the wall, a pathway to citizenship, and ending the shutdown, then they should take it because it’s a win. Pathway to citizenship > DACA.
Democrats are currently in a position of strength. If they insist on a clean bill and get it, they lose that position. It’s quite likely that there wouldn’t be any immigration reform at all. That would be a wasted opportunity.
It’s not dogma. Rescinding DACA then shutting down the government to get wall money is not a good-faith negotiating tactic. You don’t give permanent wall money in exchange for a couple of years of forbearance on DACA, which Republicans will wriggle out of first chance they get.
Anyway, there’s no way they’re putting the “path to citizenship” on the table…Ann Coulter and Rush will never allow it. They’ve been quite clear about that.
Amnesty is still not an option, administration officials said. “There is no amnesty in this proposal. There is no pathway to citizenship in this proposal,” Pence told reporters. The terms of the plan, he said, were what the president wanted.
I’d be okay with a counter-offer that provides a pathway to citizenship, but only if it is via legislation. You cannot trust Trump to keep any promise with regard to executive action, so legislation is the only way to be sure of getting your end of the deal. $5B for an eventual wall with a pathway to citizenship and improved clarity on amnesty requests? Doesn’t seem nuts, but I’m no Nancy Pelosi, so maybe I’m wrong.
Right now, Democrats want a pathway to citizenship. Not DACA, they’ve made it clear that DACA is not enough. It is a band-aid. They want a pathway to citizenship, enshrined in legislation.
But there is some room for negotiation. Maybe only some people have a pathway to citizenship, or maybe only for a limited time. And there are some Republican Senators who publicly support a pathway to citizenship in some form, including Graham (who co-sponsored the DREAM act).
Democrats have something that Trump wants, which is funding for the wall. Again, the terms are negotiable.
And Democrats have something McConnell wants, which is an end to the shutdown (without humiliating Trump). That’s right, ending the shutdown helps McConnell, because he knows it’s hurting his party more than it hurts Democrats. Which is why the Senate recently voted for a clean bill, before Trump got involved. Which is also why Pelosi and Schumer went full Inception and planted the idea of a shutdown into Trump’s tiny addled brain.
Once the shutdown ends, giving McConnell what he wants, there is no more opportunity for immigration reform. There won’t be a separate wall-for-reform deal because McConnell, like most Republican legislators, doesn’t actually want a wall. This should be pretty obvious, because if they wanted it then they would have gotten it last year via reconciliation.
As for Ann Coulter and Rush, well, they aren’t part of negotiations and don’t get to vote. And anyway, they are purists, so like any purist they are going to complain no matter what the outcome is. They are literally paid to complain.
Whereas McConnell and Pelosi are pragmatists. So now the question is: can McConnell and Pelosi convince Trump that he will never get his wall unless he agrees to support a pathway to citizenship?
What MikeOberly says. This proposal wasn’t meant seriously. It was sent out to die: middle of the afternoon on a Saturday during a long weekend with a winter storm in the forecast. For once in the Trump administration, they clearly didn’t want a bunch of media attention.
Yesterday the Supreme Court passed on hearing a DACA case, almost surely ensuring the program stays in place for now. An offer of a temporary extension of DACA is thus just offering the Dems something they already have. So there is no earthly reason for the Dems to negotiate with this as the bait.
Why even bother? Trump and co. figured the offer was free - make a meaningless offer when the public isn’t paying attention to the details, then later on loudly complain that the GOP was willing to deal but the Dems refused to come the table. Trump can brag about how he was the one who held out his hand to justify his next hissy fit.
Of course, this ignores the fact that many of Trump followers faithfully follow the news but are too stupid to understand it; they don’t get that it’s a meaningless gesture. Meaning they’re outraged111 that dear leader tried to negotiate to let the alien hordes into the country. See Ann Coulter.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Shutting down the government to negotiate policy isn’t politics, it’s insanity. Any negotiation just rewards that behavior and trump will do it again in March with the debt ceiling.
👍👍👍45
So you’re saying that even if the Democrats could easily make a deal that substantially advanced the progressive agenda while ending the shutdown, they shouldn’t do so out of principle. Which is pretty much the litmus test of pragmatism vs dogmatism.
The only behavior rewarded by successful negotiation is that you can get something you really want, provided you agree to give someone else something they really want. If Trump does that, it’s worth rewarding.
Well, it’s possible that if Democrats refuse to negotiate now, then Trump will pause for introspection, learn an important lesson, admit the folly of the wall, and not stir things up in March.
But it’s also possible that if Trump doesn’t get his wall now, then he will be even more likely to stir things up in March. Because in March he will still really want his wall. And like they say, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. At that point, it might be more difficult for Democrats to come out ahead.
There’s perhaps another reasons for Democrats to start being a little more forward in negotiations, as this drags on. As suggested in another thread, Dems need to start moving forward on the investigative processes related to Trump and Russia and Cohen, etc. And the optics of doing so while the government remains shut down are not good.