US shutdown: Trump angered by Democrat rejection of 'compromise'

[Póg mo 1,749]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Definitely egos. We know Trump is Trump. He may have surprised people at first, but he is actually fairly predictable. He will focus on the wall until he get's something done. The Democrats would get a better deal by negotiating something in return for the wall rather than getting nothing if executive power is used. If it was me I would give up something to get some of the things I want rather than knowing that I will end up nothing. If I look bad by doing that, I still have to do the best I can do even if it's a bad situation. 

 

  I don't think politicians really think that way nowadays. They are content to win a battle even if it means losing the war.  

No, not at all. Executive power does not give Trump unlimited power. He would first have to prove there is a real national emergency, and secondly, using eminent domain may end up being stuck in the courts for years, and Trump will likely be long gone before the first post, can be placed for the fence. Giving in to Trump would be political suicide for the Democratic party, and they know it. People are fed up with the Dems signaling left, but turning right. The days of the Dems being the side that compromises, while the Republicans refusing to budge an inch are over. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

32 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

No, not at all. Executive power does not give Trump unlimited power. He would first have to prove there is a real national emergency, and secondly, using eminent domain may end up being stuck in the courts for years, and Trump will likely be long gone before the first post, can be placed for the fence. Giving in to Trump would be political suicide for the Democratic party, and they know it. People are fed up with the Dems signaling left, but turning right. The days of the Dems being the side that compromises, while the Republicans refusing to budge an inch are over. 

 

   The Dems don't have to turn right. While I wouldn't go as far as saying the ball is in their court, I would say they have more leverage right now than they have had in a while.  If the government shut's down again in 3 weeks they lose a lot of that. So if they want to use that leverage to get something they need in return for part of the wall, now is the time. 

 

   The other thing to remember is 5 billion is not going to build the wall. It's going to build a small part of it. IIRC, 3/4 of the border is on federal land, so the issue of eminent domain is not necessarily one that will come up this time around. It will at some point though. As far as how the SC would see the issue of an emergency, I'm not sure I'd bet on the Dems winning that one right now either. 

[TBoneTX 46,445]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

stuck in the courts for years

The Democrats have surely anticipated the potential use of emergency powers and have already lined up one or more Federal judges who will rule that the President has no right to exercise those powers.  This would delay action for months or longer until the Supreme Court could get around to it.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

37 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

The Democrats have surely anticipated the potential use of emergency powers and have already lined up one or more Federal judges who will rule that the President has no right to exercise those powers.  This would delay action for months or longer until the Supreme Court could get around to it.

 

   I've read several opinion pieces that surmise they want this to still be around to be an election issue in 2020. I guess maybe the plan is to drag it out until then. Crazy, but we're only a year out from all the BS again. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,394]

Wonder why dems support illegal immigration and opposed voter id.

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-says-it-has-discovered-95000-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

25 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Wonder why dems support illegal immigration and opposed voter id.

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-says-it-has-discovered-95000-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

 

Shame on you, this is NOT POSSIBLE!  Teddy would have your behind...

[TBoneTX 46,445]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted

Saw this; the counties will try to gain confirmation from the suspects before anything is done to them.  There's a seemingly fair process.

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

I've read several opinion pieces that surmise they want this to still be around to be an election issue in 2020. I guess maybe the plan is to drag it out until then.

Who's the "they"?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

Who's the "they"?

 

  Pelosi and Schumer.

[Dashinka 24,999]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:59 PM, Póg mo said:

No, not at all. Executive power does not give Trump unlimited power. He would first have to prove there is a real national emergency, and secondly, using eminent domain may end up being stuck in the courts for years, and Trump will likely be long gone before the first post, can be placed for the fence. Giving in to Trump would be political suicide for the Democratic party, and they know it. People are fed up with the Dems signaling left, but turning right. The days of the Dems being the side that compromises, while the Republicans refusing to budge an inch are over. 

The Dems compromise?

[Dashinka 24,999]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:47 PM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Wonder why dems support illegal immigration and opposed voter id.

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-says-it-has-discovered-95000-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

 

Must be fake news since we have been told this never happens.

 

So 58,000 USC Texans had their voting franchise potentially nullified by folks voting illegally?

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 2:32 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  Pelosi and Schumer.

And the mainstream media.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The Dems compromise?

You caught that too, eh?

[yuna628 9,758]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:47 PM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Wonder why dems support illegal immigration and opposed voter id.

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-says-it-has-discovered-95000-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

 

Okay. I hate to do this, but once again I need to clarify something on this subject.

I'll try and put it in points for easier cellphone reading.

• The Texas Tribune has tried quite hard to clarify a story that Fox news and others ran away with. https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/25/texas-flags-tens-thousands-voters-citizenship-check/ I would strongly suggest reading this article carefully.
• Texas flagged some databases and matched some names with individuals who MIGHT (might does not give you a yes or no or anything definitive) be non-citizens WITH some very important and very much overlooked facts.
• The state, in their own memo on the subject, describes these matches as WEAK. And by law they must err on the side of caution and treat each case as WEAK. A thorough investigative method must be utilized before determining anything at all about a person.
• Registered voters may not actually be the same non-citizen persons that they have flagged using DMV records.
• Reasons for this? DMV and DHS records are not updated using real time database methods and are out of date. This means if your wife obtained a driver's license back in 2010, and the state wrongly registered her to vote then (I'll get to that in a second) or her name somehow shows up, doesn't mean that she didn't naturalize back in 2014 and is a citizen NOW with full eligibility to vote or has voted when she was eligible. These type of cases, of which there is typically numerous in amount, often contributes to these numbers.
• For instance Florida once claimed a vast number of some 100-200k people were found in the same sort of manner. Guess what? That number eventually was shortened to about 2000 or so persons. Far smaller after proper audit, and even then that number may have been smaller past that. Eventually the state investigated further and that number went to 200. Even then, if a person showed up on a roll that did not mean that person voted. Once the state finished, not even the 200 persons was correct. In the end, 85 persons were removed from rolls, with no proof that they had willingly signed up or had even voted at all.
• In some of these 2000 or so persons that Florida had flagged originally before investigating, some of them turned out to be natural born citizens who were furious that they were being accused of wrongdoing or mistaken in this way. Immigrants too were furious that the DMV employees had mistakenly signed them up. Eventually though that got sorted out like I said.
• The state of Pennsylvania once claimed to find about 8000 persons. But once again, such a number ended up being bogus. Why? The DMV claimed it was a glitch in their automated systems, that forcibly registered ANY immigrant even if there was proof the immigrant said NO. None of these immigrants were aware of it, and none voted either. The number became about a handful eventually.
• Additional people that may be targeted in Texas? Those elderly persons who were born at home, non-citizens that did become citizens, and pure DMV error.
• If anything this is further emphasis that we should have a modern and robust system of checks and balances, and a DMV system that properly works. Personally I never liked the idea that a DMV could potentially register anyone to vote, citizen or non against their will. There is too much risk.

[NikLR 13,232]

I have no idea how the USA doesn't require a voter registration (showing citizenship), and then federally accepted ID (aka REAL ID or passport) to actually vote.  

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

10 minutes ago, NikLR said:

I have no idea how the USA doesn't require a voter registration (showing citizenship), and then federally accepted ID (aka REAL ID or passport) to actually vote.  

from what I have been led to believe it disenfranchises minority and legal immigrant voters, YMMV

[yuna628 9,758]

19 minutes ago, NikLR said:

I have no idea how the USA doesn't require a voter registration (showing citizenship), and then federally accepted ID (aka REAL ID or passport) to actually vote.  

Well, REAL ID was strangely rejected by those who often argue the loudest about illegal voting etc on the subject back in the day.... something about a national ID would enable the government to know everyone mark of the beast style and round everyone up into FEMA death camps. Others said it would be problematic in giving the federal branch too much power over the states... so...

 

Me, I say it's an entirely messy system we have currently and leads to a lot of nonsense accusations against persons that are typically discovered to do nothing wrong. The DMV is a MESS. A voter should not be disenfranchised, and IMO, having to deal with the idiocy at the DMV too many times to count with state agencies that do not share info or communicate with each other, and increasingly complex laws and hoops to jump through can potentially create scenarios where citizens are disenfranchised - yes the poor, but most typically it's the elderly. In other cases it can be those young ex-evangelicals who were raised 'off-the-grid' style or even middle aged to older housewives. In this way, it was a struggle to get my mom and sister a state ID. If for some reason my Dad ever had to start from scratch, I don't think there's any way with the laws currently I could get him an ID or even a passport at this point.

Edited January 28, 2019 by yuna628