US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[Ralyks]

This is probably the best net outcome.

Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare

I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.

Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.

Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.

It was probably his best option, aside from relying on the Dems to crumble, which I'm personally shocked they didn't.

Now he can say he tried, except those stupid courts, and he did still get over a billion of our dollars.

 

[Drew]

I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.

Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.

TBH, that's not a bad outcome for Trump.

This gets hung up in the courts and even if the Supreme Court takes this up on an expedited basis it's unlikely to get settled before 2020, the whole while Trump gets to claim to his supporters that he did everything he could to get it built, but "Democrats, RINOs, and liberal activist judges" are blocking him at every step, and that's why he's the only one who can solve our problems, etc etc etc.

Honestly, it's probably the best for all parties involved in the GOP if this DOES get overturned by the courts, because that stops a useless boondoggle costing tens of billions of dollars, preserves cheap below-minimum-wage seasonal labor for agriculture and services, and robs Democrats of the precedent to immediately declare a national emergency the next time there's a school shooting. Or, rather, robs them of the precedent to do it the next time there's a Democrat in the White House, I think thanks to Trump that precedent is absolutely in play immediately after something like another Vegas Harvest Festival or Pulse shooting, since he's definitely moved the goalposts on what constitutes an "emergency" vs "not letting a good crisis go to waste," and if I were a betting man this will get overturned on the grounds that nothing fundamental changed between his taking office in 2016, having Republican majorities for two years, losing that majority, and weathering a protracted government shutdown because the Democrats wouldn't approve border wall funding in a spending goal, so the nature of this "emergency" is entirely political and based on Trump's inability to otherwise deliver on a core campaign promise, and not some new and grave threat suddenly facing the nation. I'd expect a limited turnover, not placing much restriction on executive power, but pointing to the clear evidence that this is politically driven.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

It's just a continuation of the old "bootstraps" drum they've been beating for decades.

"Anyone not as successful as me is obviously doing something wrong."

Similar to the old "When I use the system, it's being cunning, when you use the system, it's thievery."

The overarching message is the same: "fuck you, I got mine".

lol, most of these people are more successful than I am. Try again.

 

[vilk]

What?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

lol, most of these people are more successful than I am. Try again.

I never said anything about you, just commenting on the overall mantra of the Republican party and base over the last three decades.

Also, at the $30/hr you said you make you are above the national average of just over $23/hr as well as above the median of ~$28/hr.

Relating specifically to federal employees you make more than about 70% of federal government employees. The mode of federal employees (29%) make just above $24/hr.

 

[Drew]

It was probably his best option, aside from relying on the Dems to crumble, which I'm personally shocked they didn't.

I think Trump fully expected them to. And I think anyone who was paying attention knew this was going to be a mistake - the Dems grew a backbone in a BIG way after 2016. There wasn't much they could execute on while a minority, but from the very start it was pretty notable that they almost successfully blocked a number of cabinet nominees (including DeVos, who was confirmed with Pence as the tiebreaking vote, which is a first), and during the ACA debate they managed to maintain party unity, which while McCain, Murkowski, and Collins were critical in voting it down, none of that would have mattered had the usual couple Dems broke ranks. And then a lot of the Washington community was shocked when the Dems DID shut down the government over DACA, which is a level of extremism that's generally been the domain of the anti-government GOP, even if it was a pretty short one.

So, when the government shut down right before the new Congress came in, and right after Trump said he'd be "proud" to own the shut down... And with Pelosi confirmed over some internal contention and needing to prove she was a leader in tune with where the party is today... And with Trump's well known history in the private sector of using bully tactics to negotiate, and with the Dems NEEDING to set the precedent that they couldn't be counted on to roll over or break ranks whenever Trump picked a fight...

...I mean, if you look at it, it's pretty clear that the shutdown was a make-or-break moment for the Democratic Party, and that if Pelosi couldn't make the Dems a legitimate resistance party capable of standing up to Trump, she was toast. Even before we start factoring in some of Trump's self-inflicted injuries, the Dems were in a position where they weren't likely to make many major concessions without getting some major concessions in return.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

I never said anything about you, just commenting on the overall mantra of the Republican party and base over the last three decades.

Also, at the $30/hr you said you make you are above the national average of just over $23/hr as well as above the median of ~$28/hr.

Relating specifically to federal employees you make more than about 70% of federal government employees. The mode of federal employees (29%) make just above $24/hr.

Never said I make $30/hr.
My monthly salary is less than the rough numbers Drew provided for his early mortgage figures.

I had assumed you were including me in your response because you were replying to Explorer who referenced me specifically, in a comment that was also off base. I primarily work with blue collar workers who are overwhelmingly great people. Ironically, the most irritating people I deal with are other office workers.

And yes, on average, they make more than I do. I do their payroll. I know. They deserve it too because they're doing backbreaking work that's going to be an absolute bitch by the time they're pushing their 50s if my Dad's complaints are anything to go off of

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Never said I make $30/hr.
My monthly salary is less than the rough numbers Drew provided for his early mortgage figures.

I had assumed you were including me in your response because you were replying to Explorer who referenced me specifically, in a comment that was also off base. I primarily work with blue collar workers who are overwhelmingly great people. Ironically, the most irritating people I deal with are other office workers.

And yes, on average, they make more than I do. I do their payroll. I know. They deserve it too because they're doing backbreaking work that's going to be an absolute bitch by the time they're pushing their 50s if my Dad's complaints are anything to go off of

My mistake. Looking back it was Drew who said it when quoting you. I apologize.

I still don't understand why federal workers draw so much derision from some who lean politically right, but I suppose I never will. While some might make a bit more than those doing similar jobs in the private sector, it's not like they're rolling in the dough, at least those who aren't in degree heavy STEM fields, which tend to match closer to the private sector compensation wise anyway.

I remember working shit jobs, breaking my back for terrible money, and being in constant fear of getting underwater with bills. I don't wish that on anyone, for any reason, especially something as silly as political grandstanding.

I'm heavily involved in the labor movement, so a lot of this kind of hits home.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

My mistake. Looking back it was Drew who said it when quoting you. I apologize.

I still don't understand why federal workers draw so much derision from some who lean politically right, but I suppose I never will. While some might make a bit more than those doing similar jobs in the private sector, it's not like they're rolling in the dough, at least those who aren't in degree heavy STEM fields, which tend to match closer to the private sector compensation wise anyway.

I remember working shit jobs, breaking my back for terrible money, and being in constant fear of getting underwater with bills. I don't wish that on anyone, for any reason, especially something as silly as political grandstanding.

I'm heavily involved in the labor movement, so a lot of this kind of hits home.

I think it's probably mostly people that tend to make less, since it seems that the floor for government work is noticeably higher than the floor in private sector work.
I don't want to say envy, but it's definitely easy to look at those entry level positions that pay more than you're used to making for similar work, that include benefits that you've never seen, etc. and feel like it must all be easy street. I know I was definitely in that headspace when I was on the job hunt and all of the government positions that I was qualified for paid literally double than equivalent private sector jobs, with all the extra fun stuff as well.

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly here since it's an absolutely crazy week here at work (which is where I do all my shitposting from and I probably shouldn't be posting at all right now) and my mind is in a dozen places right now, but I'll try and make a follow up post later if this doesn't make sense.

There's definitely an argument for "maybe the private sector just sucks right now," and that's one I'd probably at least mostly agree with

 

[Ralyks]

"Included in that will be $2.5 billion that Mr. Trump will divert from the Department of Defense’s counterdrug efforts.."

So he's taking money from the department that is suppose to counteract drugs coming in, to build a wall he claims will keep drugs from coming in.

Everybody got that?

 

[Jason B]

I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?

 

[jaxadam]

I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?

All of the above

 

[narad]

I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?

Disapproving of someone's personal values and policy decisions is a mental disorder now?

 

[GatherTheArsenal]

I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.

Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.

Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?

I don't think I can remember when government funding decisions were based on "research and objective reasoning".

He was given $1.37B so we wouldn't have another $6B+ shutdown and make the GOP look even worse.

Remember, these are the same folks who think that the War on Drugs and Trickle Down Economics are good ideas and Single Payer Healthcare and Gun Control are bad ideas despite nearly every piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

 

[pwsusi]

I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.

Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?

The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer.

In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.

So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer.

In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.

So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.

I think this is a good primer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/100941330

To sum it up, the areas that would nominally benefit from a physical barrier have already been blocked off with said barrier.

Additionally in the two plus decades since fencing was erected the complexity of border crossings and available technology to intercept those crossings has changed considerably.

I don't think "because other presidents got some walls decades ago" is a great argument, and I also don't think anyone is naive enough to think this whole thing is apolitical. Obviously it's in the Dem's best interest to block a very unpopular thing like the wall, regardless of it's utility. Is anyone denying that?

The burden is on the POTUS and his administration to sell the wall to us and congress. I don't believe he's done either, or even attempted to so far.

 

[Ralyks]

It's just more that a giant slab of concrete is antiquated, whereas personnel and technology where we already have borders built is much more practical and cost effective, to put it in short.

I remember recently there was a large drug bust at the border, and Kellyanne Conway said something to the effect of "we were able to do this with the great technology and personnel we have at the borders". Ok, if we were able to stop a large drug shipment from crossing the border with what we have, then why have the wall? Conway basically debunked the need for a wall inadvertently and basically proved all we need to do is invest in personnel and technology.

 

[GatherTheArsenal]

I don't think I can remember when government funding decisions were based on "research and objective reasoning".

He was given $1.37B so we wouldn't have another $6B+ shutdown and make the GOP look even worse.

Remember, these are the same folks who think that the War on Drugs and Trickle Down Economics are good ideas and Single Payer Healthcare and Gun Control are bad ideas despite nearly every piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

Yeah the gun control thing is getting old... I mean schools, movie theatres, concerts in vegas, night clubs, etc. So many lives gone year after year in a variety of public places (take your pick) that it does kind give me pause to consider whether a hard line approach like Autralia's is the way to go. Even in Canada our gun violence in Ontario has been spiking over the last 2 years, it sucks.

I'm not wishing death on anyone, but I think if some of these anti-gun control voters had their families shot up like so many already have, then they may start taking a different stance on things.

The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer.

In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.

So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.

Thx first off for answering me in a legible way rather than calling anyone who questions Trump a libtard. Not saying that about you, but I've been seeing too much of that thrown around.

You raise a good point and that's exactly what I was talking about, I had a feeling im missing some info here from across the aisle.

If history has shown that there is a demand for this then great, but 1993 and 2006 is decades ago and I'm curious if illegal immigration hasn't since:

a) shrunk to a point where the cost-benefit balance is skewed too far to make it worth the taxpayer investment in 2019.

b) become more sophisticated that a wall (and the billions of dollars required for it) is going to cut it. I've routinely come across claims mentioning stats that suggest illegal drugs majorly come across crossings not over or under barriers, or that illegal immigrants enter the U.S. through legal borders rather than jumping a fence.

I think that's what anti-wall voters maybe would appreciate if Trump tried to tackle objectively. His approach has been anything but.

I mean in the same speech in the rose garden where he declared a national emergency, when asked for stats (proof) Trump rather than tackling that question said, and I quote "i use many stats, let me tell you, you have stats that are far worse than the ones that I use, I use many stats." Ok, where are they? He answers a question without really answering it sufficiently.

His approach to these issues is just obtuse, he comes across as clueless to how the average person expects someone to work with people. That kind of methodology time after time throws many (including me) off of the guy whenever he opens his mouth. So to answer all the "why" questions you asked, I think Trump put himself in this situation where he gets a lot of pushback because he routinely opts for friction and opposition rather than winning people over with sound arguments. People want those in power to talk with them not at them, Trump doesn't see that.

Not to mention the shutdown came across like cats paws on a piano, billionaire president shuts down government removing money out of the pockets of thousands of Americand without a clear exit strategy. It's becoming clearer with time that he doesn't care about the common man, so why should the common man give him the time of day?

And while the issue of the border wall may come across bipartisan today more than ever, that's not always the case with where the opposition to Trump comes from. The combined efforts of the U.S. intelligence community (dems and reps) didn't find the wall to be a pressing issue to national security as much the president, and Trump still shat on it. He continues to make these choices, nobody does it for him so of course in time he's going to be digging his own grave choosing friction as the number 1 route to take.

So it just doesn't suprise me that he finds himself constantly doubted and mocked. How about trying it the other way for a change, less boasting more substance.

I think this is a good primer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/100941330

To sum it up, the areas that would nominally benefit from a physical barrier have already been blocked off with said barrier.

Additionally in the two plus decades since fencing was erected the complexity of border crossings and available technology to intercept those crossings has changed considerably.

I don't think "because other presidents got some walls decades ago" is a great argument, and I also don't think anyone is naive enough to think this whole thing is apolitical. Obviously it's in the Dem's best interest to block a very unpopular thing like the wall, regardless of it's utility. Is anyone denying that?

The burden is on the POTUS and his administration to sell the wall to us and congress. I don't believe he's done either, or even attempted to so far.

No I don't anyone's denying that, and Congressional and Senate Dems (including those hoping to run in 2020) may just in fact be loving all of this chaos coming from the Republican aisle. Pelosi and Schumer may as well be keeping a diary of all the illogical decisions Trump is taking on the behalf of the GOP.

If anything it makes the dems communication strategy in 2020 just that much clearer. "We are not Trump."