Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

DHS Funding... problem. Follow

#1 Mar 02 2015 at 11:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Been reading a lot of scattered stories regarding more child-like partisan ball-holding in Congress and how it will effect the Department of Homeland Security in the near future.

Here's one

Basically my TL;DR discernment from all of this is:

Republicans are mad because we didn't deport all those terrorist children from Mexico that one time, so they won't allow any sort of funding bill to keep DHS going until we can be sure it won't happen again.

Not sure how to feel about this. Wasn't DHS their baby back during all the terror hysteria?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#2 Mar 03 2015 at 5:07 AM Rating: Good
Actually, Pubbies think Obama's executive action in regards to immigration is **** & are trying to tie DHS funding to "repealing" that. Obama called their bluff though. Much like the last shut down, he'll gladly allow the Pubbies to take the blame for the DHS shutting down & veto any attempt to undue his executive action.

Wanna fund the4 DHS? Pass a clean bill doing so.

Want to undue his executive action? Elect a Republican in 2ish years.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#3 Mar 03 2015 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's politics. Many of the new class of Republicans were elected on the promise to "Stop Obama" and don't see a way of going back home and saying "Well, I sorta tried..." What's worse was that the GOP leadership promised their rank-and-file this fight last fall when they passed short term funding bills. They wanted to clear the slate for the new Congress, expecting to have a stronger hand. Now it's that time and they don't have a good plan for getting something past the various factions of the House, the (comparatively) more moderate Senate and a threat of Democratic filibuster.

They also expected to peel off Democratic votes but that hasn't happened and even the more moderate Democrats have held tight for a clean bill.

The issue is a loser for the GOP for two reasons. For one, the Democrats have kept a unified voice whereas the various GOP factions are undercutting one another. When you have one group saying that they must shut down the DHS rather than let these immigration actions stand and then you have other groups in the same party saying "No, really, here's a six month clean bill" then no one has much credibility. The second reason is because whoever is holding up funding to force legislative changes is going to be held accountable for the department not being funded. If you're refusing to cut a check without concessions then you can't blame the other guy who's saying "Let's just cut the check". A third reason, I know I said two but this is sort of a side reason, is because the GOP said that this sort of showdown wasn't going to happen any longer and we were done "governing by crisis" with these 11th hour deals and short term patchwork solutions. You can see how well that's going.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 03 2015 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
There is nothing the GOP won't throw under the bus to stop Our Lord and Savior Emperor Obama, including themselves.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 Mar 03 2015 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Boehner gives in, blames GOP Senate

Roll Call wrote:
Speaker John A. Boehner told his restive flock Tuesday he would allow a vote on a clean Homeland Security spending bill later in the day, citing concerns about terrorism and pinning blame on the Senate for failing to pass limits on President Barack Obama’s immigration actions.

In a humbling moment for the Ohio Republican, he told his members the Senate’s DHS bill would be brought up for a roll call vote after it arrives in the House later Tuesday, according to a source in the room. That effectively leaves it up to the courts to rein in Obama — or not.
[...]
“Unfortunately, the fight was never won in the other chamber. Democrats stayed united and blocked our bill, and our Republican colleagues in the Senate never found a way to win this fight,” Boehner said. “The three-week CR we offered would have kept this fight going and allowed us to continue to put pressure on Senate Democrats to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that plan was rejected.”
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 03 2015 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
So Boehner went soft, eh.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Mar 03 2015 at 1:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
And the critics laughed when we said the republican house was good for HRC or any other Dem looking to run for president. It's still early, but the Republicans are hurting their innate advantage for 2016.
#8 Mar 03 2015 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clean DHS funding passes through the House, carried by Democratic votes (only 75 Republicans voted for it)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 03 2015 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I like how it's a fight against Democrats and not anything to do with the country.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Mar 03 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like how it's a fight against Democrats and not anything to do with the country.


/shrug

It was always about raising the issue of Obama's executive actions to the public, not about actual DHS funding. As Joph pointed out, actually defunding DHS would only hurt the GOP. That was never going to happen under any scenario. And of course, absent the will to do that, the Dems had the power to stand firm and force the GOP to pass a clean bill. No one ever expected anything else (or should not have, and anyone claiming otherwise were either foolish or playing along). The whole point was to remind people of the danger of a Democrat in the oval office with regard to the immigration issue. That was it. And on that note, they succeeded.


Um... Which is one more way that the GOP can undermine a HRC bid (or whomever the Dems put forth). Having enough control to put these issues front and center works for them, even absent the votes to make them law. It's about reminding the voters which positions which party holds on various issues. And this was entirely about reminding voters that the Dems are for ignoring immigration law. So much so that they'll block funding for DHS in order to protect their position of not enforcing immigration law. It's about winning public support, not about changing the law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Mar 03 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No one ever expected anything else (or should not have, and anyone claiming otherwise were either foolish or playing along). The whole point was to remind people of the danger of a Democrat in the oval office with regard to the immigration issue. That was it. And on that note, they succeeded.

Hahahaha... wow.

Yeah, total success from the GOP on this one. I hope you guys keep succeeding in just the same fashion Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Mar 03 2015 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
So much success... soon they may succeed in putting the first woman in the Oval Office.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#13 Mar 03 2015 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
The public mostly supports Obama's executive action, but the GOP frontrunners need to oppose it until they go to the middle after the primaries or they have little chance of winning the GOP primaries.

This "fight" may help the GOP in their primaries, but it hurts them in general elections. They may need Latino votes to win a general election & won't get them by opposing immigration reform.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#14 Mar 04 2015 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... Which is one more way that the GOP can undermine a HRC bid
After your analysis of the Romney bid, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on what the GOP can do to undermine anything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Mar 04 2015 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The public mostly supports Obama's executive action...


You sure about that? While the idea that there should be a way for illegal immigrants to find work legally in the US is popular, Obama's executive action is not.

Quote:
This "fight" may help the GOP in their primaries, but it hurts them in general elections. They may need Latino votes to win a general election & won't get them by opposing immigration reform.


Only if the Left can successfully paint GOP opposition to Obama's approach to immigration as anti-immigrant rather than opposition to the method itself. To be fair, they've had some success in conflating these, but I think it's kinda offensive to assume that Latinos can't figure out the difference. The GOP has on several occasions attempted actual immigration reform that would normalize and legalize these workers, only to have the Dems stonewall it in favor of retaining the status quo illegal status of those seeking work in the US, coupled with executive actions to make exceptions when it suites them politically.

Rule by executive exception is not rule at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Mar 04 2015 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
You sure about that? While the idea that there should be a way for illegal immigrants to find work legally in the US is popular, Obama's executive action is not.


Obama's been pretty successful as painting his executive actions as a response to Congress's inability to do much of anything. Republicans are mostly opposed to passing anything Obama supports, even if they say they aren't.


Quote:
Only if the Left can successfully paint GOP opposition to Obama's approach to immigration as anti-immigrant rather than opposition to the method itself. To be fair, they've had some success in conflating these, but I think it's kinda offensive to assume that Latinos can't figure out the difference. The GOP has on several occasions attempted actual immigration reform that would normalize and legalize these workers, only to have the Dems stonewall it in favor of retaining the status quo illegal status of those seeking work in the US, coupled with executive actions to make exceptions when it suites them politically.


They certainly aren't trying to pass any other immigration legislation other than undoing Obama's executive action. They could if they wanted to & Obama would certainly sign it, but they'd rather pick an executive action fight. When **** gets real like DHS shutdowns, some of them revolt & the others that realize how the world really works capitulate. This has happened repeatedly & every time the Republicans eat crow, but the stubborn ones that held up the legislation can go back to their constituents & say "I tried to stop that Devil Obama & the mexicans, but the DHS really needs to be funded".

The Government, of which all of Congress is apart, is supposed to pass legislation. It can't pass the even most elementary legislation without fighting about other stuff while trying to pass basic. Now, I get that when it's a fancy new bill, but the BASIC stuff like DHS funding should pass easily, appointments shouldn't be held up on principle, & idiots shouldn't bring a snowball to the Senate floor during the winter in order to attempt & disprove climate change.

It's frustrating, but after I laughed my *** of about this response by Sen. Whitehouse to Sen. Inhofe's snowball I couldn't help but think that there's a great many people that believe him.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#17 Mar 05 2015 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reaction to the executive orders has been mixed, some polls showing majority support, some opposition and neither with huge margins. His orders regarding children have been quite popular, his later order more mixed but still in the 50/50 range. Still, for every poll showing opposition, I can find two or three showing majority support.

That said, "the Left" doesn't need to paint the GOP as anti-immigrant though, the GOP does that for itself. No one listens to all the "close the border, these illegal aliens are criminals, those kids probably have Ebola and are trained terrorists" rhetoric and thinks "Gee, this must just be about a disagreement in how policy should be enacted and the reach of regulatory powers".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 05 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Only if the Left can successfully paint GOP opposition to Obama's approach to immigration as anti-immigrant rather than opposition to the method itself.
"Get any single member of the GOP to open their mouths" doesn't sound like much of a challenge.

Edited, Mar 5th 2015 9:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Mar 05 2015 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
You sure about that? While the idea that there should be a way for illegal immigrants to find work legally in the US is popular, Obama's executive action is not.


Obama's been pretty successful as painting his executive actions as a response to Congress's inability to do much of anything.


Yes. But it's largely been his own party making it so congress doesn't do much about immigration. When the Dems had a huge majority in both houses *and* the White House, they did nothing on immigration. When the GOP gained a majority in the house, they tried to pass immigration reform (which was initially bipartisan until Obama stepped in). The Dems blocked it.

When your own party blocks actual immigration reform and then you "respond" to that with an executive action, it's clear that you really want executive actions, not reform. And that's a problem for a lot of different groups of people.

Quote:
Republicans are mostly opposed to passing anything Obama supports, even if they say they aren't.


Um... Because most of the stuff Obama supports is either stupid or damaging to the country, or both. You haven't noticed that Republicans actually run (and win) on their opposition of Obama's agenda. That should speak volumes right there at how unpopular Obama's actions are outside of the liberal echo chamber.


Quote:
They certainly aren't trying to pass any other immigration legislation other than undoing Obama's executive action.


They did try. They failed. Then Obama decided to use executive actions to "fix" the problem his own party created (arguably that he created since Dems were on board with the original immigration proposals until Obama started meeting with them and seemingly told them to block it instead).

Quote:
They could if they wanted to & Obama would certainly sign it...


You are incredibly naive if you think this. Obama would not sign any immigration reform that had the vaguest appearance of having come from the GOP, or even with the cooperation and support of the GOP. The value in being able to paint Republicans as anti-immigrant is too great to lose it by actually doing something good.

What I find ironic is that you have no problem accepting the idea that Republicans oppose anything and everything Obama does just for political reasons, but have a blind spot to seeing the exact same thing being done by Obama and the Democrats right now in front of you. The Democrats have no interest in actually legalizing these workers. The value to keeping them illegal and under constant threat and fear of deportation is just too great politically to give up. And they will block any attempt to fix the problem, doubly so if proposed by the GOP. Just look at the Dems actions in this area over the last 6 years.

You seriously don't see a pattern here? When they had the power to fix any of a number of issues to their own specification, they chose not to. Gay Marriage? Immigration Reform? Gun Control? They don't want to actually reform/fix these things. They want to fight over them. It should be abundantly obvious to even a casual political observer that this is true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Mar 05 2015 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You sure about that?

I don't really care about this issue, but that was a really useful cite of a non biased research group by you.

Slowclap!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Mar 05 2015 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They did try. They failed. Then Obama decided to use executive actions to "fix" the problem his own party created (arguably that he created since Dems were on board with the original immigration proposals until Obama started meeting with them and seemingly told them to block it instead).

That's an interesting revisionist take on it. The senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013 by a measure of 68-32 and supported by the likes of Rubio, McCain, Hatch and Corker and which was immediately blocked by the GOP House who said that they wouldn't touch it much less let it come up for a vote (which is almost certainly would have won with near unanimous Democratic support and enough Republican votes to push it over).

But, sure, sounds as though it's all Obama's fault.

Edited, Mar 5th 2015 4:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Mar 06 2015 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It should be abundantly obvious to even a casual political observer that this is true.
You being the poster child of casual political observer, of course.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Mar 06 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You sure about that?

I don't really care about this issue, but that was a really useful cite of a non biased research group by you.

Slowclap!


Pew? And USA today? Is this another case where I have to explain to you the difference between the site hosting the article about something, and the data being cited by the article? I linked to this article because it contained links to several sources of polling data on the subject at hand. You're free to dismiss the bias of those writing the article itself, but they didn't generate the polling data.

Edited, Mar 6th 2015 4:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Mar 06 2015 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They did try. They failed. Then Obama decided to use executive actions to "fix" the problem his own party created (arguably that he created since Dems were on board with the original immigration proposals until Obama started meeting with them and seemingly told them to block it instead).

That's an interesting revisionist take on it. The senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013 by a measure of 68-32 and supported by the likes of Rubio, McCain, Hatch and Corker and which was immediately blocked by the GOP House who said that they wouldn't touch it much less let it come up for a vote (which is almost certainly would have won with near unanimous Democratic support and enough Republican votes to push it over).


Fourteen Republicans does not make it bi-partisan. It just means that fourteen GOP Senators got stuck committing to something and didn't want to end up in a "voted for it before I voted against it" situation. And you're conveniently ignoring that this was the Dem controlled Senate version hastily pushed through in response to GOP immigration proposals in a blatant attempt to hijack the issue and turn it into a non-starter.

Quote:
But, sure, sounds as though it's all Obama's fault.


Yes, it was. There was actual consensus among both parties in both houses on a "low hanging fruit" approach to immigration reform (basically doing the things that could be done and agreed on). Right until Obama started calling the Dem leadership to the White House for meetings on immigration. Then, suddenly, as if by magic, unreasonable proposals appeared in the Senate, coupled with demands for inclusions in the bill that the Dems knew the GOP would never agree to. In other words, they intentionally sabotaged the process, apparently purely so they could claim (as you are doing now) that the GOP is "opposed to immigration reform".


And of course, the left controlled media joined in labeling it exactly that way (as the "unbiased" article you linked to illustrates). As planned all along. The losers? Those immigrants that your side claims to care so much about. Stuck in a legal limbo, once again, because the political value of maintaining the fight is just too important for the Left.

Edited, Mar 6th 2015 4:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Mar 06 2015 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Pew? And USA today? Is this another case where I have to explain to you the difference between the site hosting the article about something, and the data being cited by the article? I linked to this article because it contained links to several sources of polling data on the subject at hand. You're free to dismiss the bias of those writing the article itself, but they didn't generate the polling data.

Lighten up, Francis. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Edited, Mar 6th 2015 7:35pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Mar 06 2015 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Fourteen Republicans does not make it bi-partisan. It just means that fourteen GOP Senators got stuck committing to something and didn't want to end up in a "voted for it before I voted against it" situation.

Hahaha... sure. Yeah, Rubio was really forced into it when he went all out advocating for it and running radio ads promoting it.

Look, whatever you need to tell yourself, man. You obviously have no clue what's actually going on in the world. Darn those Democrats for blocking immigration reform!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 275 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (275)