Yup, more of a bug on the press secretary bot, than anything about Trump.
which I assume is the translation of this
Ah got it, thanks! Didn’t realize the President was tweeting out in Farsi now, assuming that’s what it is.
It was his most sensible tweet yet!
One can only hope they had someone professionally translate it to farsi, rather than just run it through google translate.
So, we’re going to war with Iran? Is that it?
Yes, but Mexico will pay for it.
Can somebody walk me through this newest wall compromise? I haven’t read up on it yet, so a thumbnail would be nice. To me a partial wall compromise sounds like being “kind of pregnant” so I’m not sure I’m getting it.
To me it’s either all or nothing. I think the wall is a dumb idea designed to cater to his idiot followers. And that it has nothing to do with security, in reality. And agreeing to a partial wall seems to bolster that take. But I may be wrong.
-xtien
There’s basically no money for a wall in this deal. Same budget as last year.
And some Democrats are furious.
I honestly don’t understand what those Democrats want as an outcome.
Like, literally, what is the outcome that they imagine the Democrats in Congress should be enacting? Can anyone explain this?
There’s $1.3 billion for 55 miles of new border walls. That’s not the same as “basically no money.” It’s a minor concession though. In exchange, there’s additional money for humanitarian relief - that amount is not known yet, it sounds like it might be around $500 million. Authorizing money for humanitarian relief is necessary but I have doubts Homeland will actually spend it. Democrats also initially wanted to restrict the number of beds available to ICE but backed off that demand.
I can’t find any quotes or news stories about furious Democrats, unless that’s referring to some posters here?
At any rate, assuming that’s the case they wanted a clean CR, the one agreed to while Republicans still had a majority in the House. It contained money only for maintenance (at least, that’s my understanding.) They didn’t want to spend any money on any new fencing because it’s a waste of money, it’s stupid and it concedes ground to hate and xenophobia. (Edit: Just to be clear before I get a Timex lecture, I’m just explaining what I think they wanted. Emotionally I might agree but I also understand there’s not much choice here. They don’t have the votes for what they want and this is the best that can be hoped for.)
But then Ann Coulter decided to play shadow president and the gov’t shutdown for nearly two months. When we have a stupid President with a stupid party sometimes there’s not much choice but to mitigate the stupid as much as possible and this is the outcome.
Moar edits: Two opinion pieces, closest thing I could find criticizing Democrats for the deal, i.e. “some Democrats are furious.” (That’s not snark, I’m genuinely interested.)
(the CNN article has weirdly gigantic pictures.)
And what’s actually in the agreement:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/429717-whats-in-the-tentative-deal-to-avert-shutdown
Aside from the border security stuff, looks like the Senate actually did pass meaningful bi-partisan legislation. Everyone got something they wanted (pretty much.) It passed 92-8. Shout out to Mitt Romney here too.
Mike Lee (R-Utah) emerged as the legislation’s most vocal opponent, decrying the restrictions that accompany any new wilderness and the possibility that the bill will make it easier for the federal government to acquire private land.
Lee outlined his opposition in the Deseret News a day after junior Sen. Mitt Romney (R) of Utah defended the package in the same paper. “We can conserve wildlife, protect historic sites, maintain access and preserve Utah’s public lands in a way that reflects the priorities of rural Utahns,” Romney wrote. “This is the future our public lands need and deserve.”
In an interview, Heinrich noted that Republican and Democratic supporters of the bill stuck together to defeat hostile amendments such as Lee’s, which could have unraveled the deal.
Edit: The eight Republican Senators who voted against:
- Cruz (R-TX)
- Inhofe (R-OK)
- Johnson (R-WI)
- Lankford (R-OK)
- Lee (R-UT)
- Paul (R-KY)
- Sasse (R-NE)
- Toomey (R-PA)
Of course.
Naturally.
It’s good to see lawmakers cooperating for a change, even if it’s on a relatively “safe” issue politically. Thanks for sharing that.
That’s the same as last year’s budget, right? And no part of any wall got built last year.
It’s a little less actually but the difference is (as I understand, I could be wrong) previously the money was earmarked for repairs only, whereas now it authorizes 55 (or 65, I’ve heard both) miles of new fencing. (Of course, they’ve not spent the money already allocated so who know if anything will actually get done.) To be sure it’s not much and it’s the best we can hope for, but at the same time it’s not nothing either. (Just to be clear I’m not opposed to the agreement.)
Get fucked Ron.
Mostly here, but the general gist is even though Trump got very little, pretty much nothing that he asked for, the Democrats were somehow supposed to get an exciting line item. I don’t think that’s reasonable. If he got his 5 billion, then sure, but he didn’t get that.
master of empathy
