Ten oz

You are entitled to your own charactizations and opinions. However you won't be voting in the Democratic Primary (or general election) so it would be best for Harris not to pay your view any attention. All the Democratic Candidates will face various ridicule from outside (non-Democratic) entities but at the end of the day to win the nomination they will need to appeal those who might actually consider voting for them. I have already seen a few news articles questioning how Harris's time as Prosecutor might hurt her in the era of Black Lives Matters (BLM). Such questions are false narratives in my opinion which play on the notion that BLM is anti law enforcement. People who would consider her time as a Prosecutor to be at odds with BLM aren't people who are likely to vote Democrat and certainly don't understand BLM or the Democratic position regarding criminal justice reform. As such Harris would be smart to not waste too much time addressing those misplaced concerns. Ignoring media spin designed to put people at odds for ratings will be a challenge everyone vying for the Democratic nomination will face.

Republican's are anti abortion, anti planned parenthood, and etc. Republicans literally make campaign promises to nominate Judges for their pro life views. Here is video of Trump at one of the debates in 2016 stating he will put pro life judges on the bench and that provided he can get enough of them on the bench Rove vs Wade will be overturned, Link. Trump has been trying to roll back the ACA mandates related to Birth Control. Just this past Friday a Federal court step in to block his most recent effort, Link. So this is a real issue that is in federal court. I think it goes without saying Kavanaugh 100% will side with Trump on this if it makes it across his desk. What Harris was saying about Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to Birth Control is a legitimate concern. The Pinocchios were for omitted a couple words from his statement Kavanaugh which may have provided different context. Considering it is true that Kavanaigh will rule against birth control I hardly see why different context for his statement matters. In official opinions written as a Judge Kavanaugh has already stated support for Hobby Lobby, Link. It is public record. I think giving Harris a Pinocchio on this is semantics. By design Dog Whistles can always be denied. They are identified subjectively. A nod, an extra pause, well timed smirk, emphasis on a key, or etc can all change the meaning of a statement. The overall implication was accurate regardless of whether or not one thinks she misused Kavanaugh's statement. Despite the sour feeling some have about the way Kavanaugh was treated I think it was a great moment for Democrats. It led directly into winning the popular vote in the mid term by over 9 million votes and we now have a record number of women serving in Congress. 60% of women voted Democrat in the mid term and House Democrats did 7 points better among White women than they did in 2016. I think Kavanaugh's ugly behavior during his hearing was a real shot of adrenaline for voters. Kavanaigh came across to me as privileged, self centered, stupid, and inept. Kamala Harris calling Kavanaugh out on his B.S. was a good thing in my opinion. Print and Cable media is fighting to stay alive. More people are cutting the cord and using social media to get their news. In their attempt to stay relevant a lot of Print and Cable news has become very superficial. In 2020 candidates will need to avoid the trap of getting caught up in their narratives by focusing on speaking directly to their audience. It is something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezis (AOC) is leading the way on. I do not agree with all of AOC's politics but I admire the way she ignores cable news cycle and speaks to people directly. That seems to be the right direction to move in my opinion. Arguing semantics with a round table of pundits isn't worthwhile. I think Kamala Harris understands that. She is to the point about her views and accepts some people won't like her for it.

I did say in my that the degree to which Russia impacted the election can be debated. The fact that the vote went the way Russia had hope and against U.K. Allies should give everyone in the U.K. serious pause in my opinion. You may doubt Russia played much of a role but how are you quantifying that? That question is to challenge that I think you are wrong. It is just to ask how you know that you are right. I don't think, for sure, you can. The situation is unprecedented. A second vote would be prudent in my opinion. This is a big deal. Playing it safe just makes sense to me.

I am not sure what you mean. I think you are asking why I feel it shows respect for the initial vote to hold another? My answer to that question, assuming that's the question, is Russia intelligence did work to influence the Brexit vote. That is a fact. We can debate to what degree it played a role but it is a fact they did play a role. So the result of the vote is tainted and there are arguments which can be made it was illegitimate outright. Holding a second vote avoids tossing the first one aside automatically on principle. It give people a chance to say that they still feel the same way 2yrs on or they feel differently 2yrs on. Those who want Brexit can still get it if support for it is still in place. Compare it, as the thread's title does, to the U.S.. Many call Trump illegitimate and want him impeached. There is a contingent of people who aren't interested in another election. They want Trump gone and all his cronies thrown in prison.

In a Democracy I don't see how holding vote ever fails to honor the process. In lieu of what's been learned I feel holding another shows quite a lot of respect for the initial vote.

Putin certainly thinks the will of UK voters is being disrespected. In my opinion if there is even a small chance that the Brexit vote succeeded due to Russia Cyber Attacks against U.K.'s democracy officials have an obligation to stop moving forward, improve their election process to include how media disseminates information, and hold another vote. If not the U.K. is potentially allowing itself to be played by an adversarial nation.

Castro has already announced he is running and Castro is popular in Texas. Castro also has experience as a Cabinet member. A Harris/Castro ticket would be excellent in my opinion. Both are pragmatic politician that know how to speak accurately to issue without ideological rhetoric.

Boom goes the dynamite!! Harris is an excellent candidate. Harris is direct and grounded. As the nominee or VP I fully anticipate she will be on the ticket in 2020.

I agree. That is where Republican Senators providing cover comes in. They (Republican Senators) can go to Trump on their knees asking for a DACA deal and Trump can say NO WAY and then agree to a stopgap that gets the govt open while demand Republican Senators take DACA off the table. Then Hannity, Coulter, and the rest can congratulate Trump for not bending to the Rino's call for amnesty. Like you said though we'll see. Tuesday (tomorrow) will be interesting. We should see what type of mechanism is used to structure the debate in the Senate.

The U.S. and the U.K. basically have the same problem. We are both allow Russia propaganda to influence our political systems. The Parliament has release reports outlining the problem. Sadly in the U.K. as in the U.S. many people simply do not believe the influence have had enough of an impact to effect anything. I think it is a complex psychologically problem. Once a person develops an opinion and has committed emotional energy to that opinion it is extremely difficult to let it go. So despite knowing Russia propaganda played a role in Brexit many basically don't care and just want to power through this and get it done. It is unfortunate. One won't fix what one doesn't release is broken.

Mitch McConnell has said he will open debate on Tuesday (Link) in attempt to turn Trump's recent DACA proposal into a compromise that would pass. Republican Senator Lankford (Link) said in an interview yesterday that Trump's proposal is just a straw man not meant to become law but that the Senate had request Trump put something out there so they could at least get debate going. Lankford supports opening the govt and then continuing the debate the wall. So at this point Republican Senators Lankford, Collins, Gardner, Murkoskwi, and Portman have all already openly supported opening the govt and continuing debate for Trump wall which is the Democratic proposal. Yesterday Mitt Romney called for a 3 week stop gap measure which would open the govt while Trump and Pelosi continue to debate Trump's wall (Link). So the Democratic position of debating the wall with an open govt already has the needed support to pass. A two-thirds vote in the Senate overrides a Presidential veto. Having a majority Republican controlled Senate force a vote and override the Presidential veto would be a humiliating defeat for Trump personally and would fracture the parties base. Neither Trump or McConnell want that to happen. Mitch McConnell can only continue to hold up a Senate vote long as he can keep Republican Senators in line. So the answer to your question is for pressure to be put on individual Republican Senators. For example Florida has a large number of DHS employees who are currently not being paid. Florida has about 30 ports of entry where Custom Border Protection and TSA agent are going unpaid. Florida also has about 40 Coast Guard Units where members are also going unpaid. Yet Senators Scott and Rubio have been able to remain fairly quite. When local Veteran's groups, Service Unions, Religious Organizations, and other local advocacy groups which are critical to on the ground voter turnout efforts start pressuring Republican Senators this will be over. I think we are heading into the end game. Now that Trump finally put something out Republicans plan to open debate in the Senate. At the same time some Republicans have already publicly come out advocating for some form of a stopgap measure to allow debate with an open govt. So I think debate will begin on Tuesday and at the end of the week Senate Republicans will request Trump agree to a stopgap to continue debate. Of course debating with an open govt has been the Democratic position all along. Republicans will take credit for the idea and claim it from themselves. Graham, Romney, and others will come forward and make statements about allowing workers to get paid while Pelosi fights Trump to please her leftist base and blah, blah,blah. It will give Trump the cover he needs to open the govt without looking like he has lost anything. Then Trump will have however long the stopgap measure last to create a new distraction (North Korea, Iran, or Syria seem likely) so we all forget about The Wall til he decides to bring up again this summer when 2020's budget is being negotiated.

There are many more than just the 2 examples. I only quoted those two for the sake of brevity. Also the characterization you are complaining about is "seem hung up". It is a statement of opinion and not one of fact. I also never called it unacceptable. It is your prerogative to feel Democrats deserve some of the blame. Where we are running into problems is your denial that you have been suggesting partial blame lays with Democrats. You have. I brought it back up because Raider accused me of lying which you seconded calling calling it "intentionally misleading". Considering you concede "minor examples" do in fact exist there is justification for my statement which means it is neither a lie or "intentionally misleading". If you feel Democrats are not being compromising enough on Border Security lets discuss that. What does DHS need to better security the border that Democrats are refusing to let them have?

MigL is clearly stating that Democrats aren't compromising enough. Say he'd expect better does imply a level of blame for the current situation. J.C. is clearly implying that both parties (Democrats and Republicans) are behaving at opposing extremes. J.C. is clearly complaining that Democrats are not doing their part. A level of blame for the current situation is implied. MigL is asking what I read as rhetorical questions here to imply that federal workers are being "extorted by D Trump AND those opposed to him". Those opposed are obviously Democrats and MigL even bothered to emphasize the point by capitalizing "AND". Above are just a couple posts a piece. There are many more but I see no point in wasting even more space. Especially when there is a very high probability you both will deny the nature of your statements anyway. You both keep inserting digs at Democrats which imply they are also at blame for the current state of affairs and the shutdown. So when I posted ""You both seem hung up on ensuring blame for the currently situation be evenly spread" it accurately described what I am perceiving in your posts. You two do "seem hung up". Can we get back on topic now?

Nothing in your last several posts addresses this topics thread. You are not providing any view point as it relates to border security. The one comment you made a few pages back was that Democrats should just give Trump what he wants so the govt can re-open. No additional details on that from you. You just feel that since Trump is irresponsible Democrats have a responsibility to resolve this by yeilding to his demands. I suppose that viewpoint address the shutdown at some shallow level but not border security or the wall. If Democrats fold and give Trump what he wants why would Trump do this again 8 months from now in September?

Because Trump hasn't released a plan for what he'd do with the money my concern is that the 5.7 billion would be misused. Sometimes Trump says a fence is the same thing as a wall. Other times Trump says new technology like drones is the same as a wall. I would hate for 5.7 billion for Trump's wall to morph into a 5.7 billion dollar purchase from military contractors for armed drones. Trump kicked off his campaign in 2015 and has received more media attention (cable news, blogs, social media) than any politician in history. After 4yrs years of this sh!t I do not believe for one second anyone is on the fence regarding how they feel about Trump. Moreover Trump flips the news cycle constantly. The 2020 election is still a hundred Trump scandals away. This shutdown will be old news by this summer never mind 2020.

Trump's exact statement was “No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3-year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else,” on Twitter. So the door was left open. Considering Trump has repeated referenced drugs as part of the "crisis" at the boarder there might be a play where money can be given to combat the opioid crisis. That could be sold as as part of a bigger deal and is someone all sides want. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It is just an Ad Hominem approach. Rather than address the thread's topic head on MigL is challenging individual posters over off topic issues of style and language. If you had singled MigL out specifically, which you did not, it wouldn't make any difference towards the threads topic. Question for you. Trump is denying that he is willing to consider full amnesty for those under DACA protection. Of course a Trump denial means nothing. If Trump would give full amnesty do you think Democrats should cut the deal? I think it might be worth doing. Trump has no plan for the wall anyway. Even if Congress appropriates 5.7 billion for wall spending the details will still need to be hashed out over the next couples years anyway. Are you denying posting arguments that both sides share some blame for the shutdown? Can we get back on topic. You mentioned that you'd search to see if you could find details for Trump's plan. Did you and if so what did you find?

How about you address some of the specifics in this thread for a change of pace. The topic here is about a Border Wall or Fence and thus far you don't seem willing (or perhaps able) to discuss the actual policies and proposals in place. You have access to DHS's budget. So you can review what our border agencies are currently spending money on and looking to develop moving forward. How about we all stay on topic here and discuss that? What's is the alternative? Please, let's actual discuss the logistics here. What is Trump's plan and how can Democrats work to resolve this situation?

I have provided real numbers. I've linked DHS budget from DHS's official website as signed by Trump's cabinet member Kristjen Nielsen. It is detailed and I recommend you consider reviewing it. Neither you or J.C. seem will to delve into the real numbers. You both seem hung up on ensuring blame for the currently situation be evenly spread. Yet any solution will require real money, real allocations of resources, real personnel, and etc. There is no middle ground between a real plan and no plan.

Trump is the one asking for the 5.7 billion dollars. Please explain to me why the onus is not squarely on his shoulders to provide the answer? I have told you I am not aware of one. I could be wrong. I would actually like to read Trump's plan if one actually exists and were released. Wouldn't you? What are your assumptions possibly based on? You have no idea what Trump's 5.7 billion dollars would be spent on or when. You have not read an official plan. Democrats have support a real plan we can all read where the money and associated agency over sight is clearly define. Trump has provided nothing. Please explain to me (as specifically as you are able) how bothsides can meet in the middle between a real plan and no plan at all?

I have already linked (few separate times) the DHS 2019 budget. It outlines what its programs are and how much money they need to accomplish their mission as directed by the President. DHS is ran by Trump appointees. Their budget details how many new agents they plan to hire, plans for fence repairs, new technology, and etc, etc, etc. Everything in it has been approved by Congress. DHS will receive 5.1 billion dollars over last years budget. So far under Trump DHS has received 9.1 billion in budget increases. There is no plan in DHS's budget for a 5.7 billion wall. Or in DOD's budget for that matter (Trump claims to have a military option). Can you provide us with the specifics for the 5.7 billion? Maybe I missed the White House press release where they detailed the 5.7 billion wall plan. If you can't produce it I would argue that you are in fact being naive. Trump is demanding money for something there are no plans in place for. The govt doesn't even own the required land. Imminent Domain will need to be argued in court (a length process) between Trump's administration and numerous land owners. There is precedence for this type of behavior from Trump. He demanded Congress repeal and Replace the ACA but never provided Congress a plan. Trump signed an executive order for a travel banned which couldn't be implemented and was quickly tossed out in court. Paul Ryan and fellow Republicans wrote Trump's tax plan on the fly while voting was taking place. Trump's admin never bother to formal write one.

This is one thing I must admit Trump is really good at. Trump does so much posturing and creates so many distractions that it is very difficult to maintain a rational conversation. Everyone gets so caught lost arguing over the morality of the wall, the logistics of a wall, the lies said about immigration data, the insults spat at politicians, and etc that many basic facts get lost in the shuffle. Basic facts like Trump doesn't currently have an plan for a wall. Just as Trump never had, still doesn't have, a plan to replace the ACA. Your analogy is correct. Trump is using 2019's budget to take hostages. There are numerous ways one can attempt to sleep with someones wife. Taking coworkers hostage is just one of a million different ways. It doesn't have to be hostages. Likewise there is nothing about Trump's request for 5.7 billion which requires the govt be shutdown. Trump can ask for the money at any time. Congress can appropriate money at any time during any month. This fight doesn't need to be attached to the 2019 budget. Also the annual federal budget runs October through September. We are 4 months into 2019's fiscal year. Congress kicked the can back in Sept to extend debate which is why we are arguing the budget now in January. I think that is confusing some people. January is the beginning of the year so I think some people think this is when the budget cycle begins, it isn't. The Federal budget is passed in September. Congress spends the summer writing the budget. We are already 4 months into 2019's budget. However this shutdown ends Congress and the White House will begin negotiations for 2020's budget within the next few months because it is due in by September of this year. So even if one mistakenly thinks the 5.7 billion must be attached to an annual federal budget why not negotiate this summer and get in in 2020 budget? It is the difference of a few months and not another full year to next January.

J.C. is operating on the well worn platitude that the only truly fair and moderate position in politics in to blame both sides. He is refuting the idea that Trump is or could be anymore to blame than anyone else. In my opinion it is a fairly immature perspective which rather stubbornly fails to consider the actual facts. On the surface blaming both side seems fair but in practice accomplishes nothing. Real choices do have to get made at some point. If you scream 1 step forward and I scream 1 step backward and we amicably agree to split the difference and meet in the middle no steps will get made. To move in either direction one of us will simply have to get what we want.

Since Trump is the one asking for 5.7 billion isn't the onus on him to put it in concrete terms? You don't think is it strange that the whole govt is shutdown over a funding request that no one can quantify. I provided you what DHS's plans are. DHS is ran by a Trump appointee and not by Democrats. Their 2019 budget lays out ,in concrete terms, what they feel they need to get the job done. Democrats have already agreed to give DHS 100% of what they have outlined they needed to include money for them to develop a department within DHS to analyse how to best build a wall and what the estimated costs would be. Trump has failed to release any specifics for his wall. There is no plans in place for what would happen if Congress gave Trump 5.7 billion dollars. It is inaccurate to say "may the best rhetoric win". The 1.6 billion Democrats have offered is specifically earmarked to pay for the thing DHS requested in there budget. It is not rhetoric. It is actionable. That money is in addition to the 3.5 billion budget increase for the 2019 year. Between the 3.5 billion and the 1.6 billion DHS will be receiving 5.1 billion dollars this year over what it received in 2018. A total increase of nearly 12% over last year. Oh, by the way DHS got a 4 billion dollar increase in 2018. So in 2yrs DHS is looking at 9.1 billion increases. That is a 22.5% increase over 2016 (Obama's last DHS budget). Those are the concrete terms. Under Trump DHS has already asked for and receive massive increases to hire hire more agents, judges, lawyers, repair existing fencing, build new fencing, and develop new department specifically to plan a wall. We can clearly see where that money Democrats are offering would go. We can't do the same for Trump's 5.7 billion. It is just a number he keeps repeating but is not attached to any specific plan. So the only empty "rhetoric" here is Trump's 5.7 billion. Democrats are offering money for real policies that DHS has real plans for. Can you? The issue isn't that I can't. The issue is that no one can. Why don't you help all us out and link Trump's associated proposal for what specifically that 5.7 billion would pay for.

DHS Budget this year is 47.5 billion dollars. They received 3.5 billion dollar increase over last years budget. In addition to the 3.5 billion dollar increase Democrats have already offered an additional 1.6 billion dollars. Here is 2019 budget as sign by Kistjen Nielsen the Sec. of DHS. Link . Below are investments DHS sought and received. It already includes the stuff Trump discussed today. Can you provided me with a formal proposal for what Trump would do with the 5.7 billion? Far as I can tell it is just a number he made up. No plan currently exists. As a matter of fact in DHS's 2019 budget they are allocating resources to "Developed the Agency Reform Plan, Comprehensive Border Security Study, and the Border Wall System Cost Estimate". DHS doesn't even know how much the wall will cost. They still need to research it. So DHS is already getting everything they asked. So that portions of Trump's compromise is no sticking pointing. Then there is the DACA issue and as previously stated it gives Democrats nothing. Trump can't act on DACA. It is a 3yrs extension but Trump can't do anything for a year anyway. So at best it is a 2yr extension and that would be assuming SCOTUS takes it up next year and sides with Trump. Something they could've have already done if they were inclined to do so. The DACA offer is a joke. It makes more sense for the House to draw up comprehensive immigration reform and cut a DACA deal as part of that. Democrats can bring a House vote up regarding DACA anytime they are ready now that they control the House.