DACA Deal Likely Dead

noise said:
when did Obama invite any negotiations?
The bases did the ACA and tax reform- but these are not just base issues..
Click to expand...

Obama invites Republicans to summit on health care
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703003.html

Obama Reaches Out to Republicans on Health Care, but Bipartisan Bill Looking Unlikely
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-health-care-bipartisan-looking-unlikely.html

Republicans had no interest in anything bi-partisan as demonstrated by their stated goal to ensure that Obama was a one-term president .. and they failed at that as well.

Do you care about anything but the midterms? ( no)
Click to expand...

Answer .. HELL NO. Why you think I would is a mystery.

What isn't a mystery is why you don't.
 
noise said:
Why is it necessary to not deal?
Have you no understanding that DC operates on deals?

Both sides have common interests on doing immigration reform- they have diverging interests
but the way to satisfy both sides interests is by doing deals..it's how DC has always operated
Click to expand...

You mean like the bi-partisanship demonstrated by the republican tax bill?
 
blackascoal said:
Obama invites Republicans to summit on health care
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703003.html

Obama Reaches Out to Republicans on Health Care, but Bipartisan Bill Looking Unlikely
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-health-care-bipartisan-looking-unlikely.html

Republicans had no interest in anything bi-partisan as demonstrated by their stated goal to ensure that Obama was a one-term president .. and they failed at that as well.



Answer .. HELL NO. Why you think I would is a mystery.

What isn't a mystery is why you don't.
Click to expand...
yes. as mentioned healthcare..and as mentioned tax reform.
Both BASE ISSUES..These are NOT just BASE ISSUES -both sides have something to gain.

But again,I realize you don't give a shit about good government, just base politics..my question to you was hypothetical and you did not disapoint
 
noise said:
you are comparing a violent felony to a civil action. You are intransigent and as much to blame as Feinstein and company's "my way or the highway"
Click to expand...

I'm comparing an illegal act to an illegal act. My explanation should have been clear.

You're the one expecting others to agree with you Diane. I don't care if you agree with me or not. You can support rewarding illegals and it's irrelevant whether the issue is civil or criminal. It's still rewarding someone for having done something illegal.
 
CFM said:
I'm comparing an illegal act to an illegal act. My explanation should have been clear.

You're the one expecting others to agree with you Diane. I don't care if you agree with me or not. You can support rewarding illegals and it's irrelevant whether the issue is civil or criminal. It's still rewarding someone for having done something illegal.
Click to expand...
one of the reasons I ignore you is your insulting racist hate mongering. But now I'm gonna add in extra stupidity
for conflating a BANK ROBBERY with a civil violation..*bye*
 
noise said:
who's whining about filibusters?
I mentioned these are bi-partisan issues that require 60 votes..is that "whining?" maybe to a base partisan such as your self.

I am whining/decrying the inability of the parties to come to any areas of agreement where they BOTH want things done, but that's hardly restricted to a filibuster when they can't even agree on the basics of a bill,and are not interested in problem solving
Click to expand...

You don’t need 60 votes to pass a bill. A simple majority works. You need 60 to end a filibuster. The Republicans gave up their whining rights on that under Obama.
 
noise said:
one of the reasons I ignore you is your insulting racist hate mongering. But now I'm gonna add in extra stupidity
for conflating a BANK ROBBERY with a civil violation..*bye*
Click to expand...

The reason you're a traitor is you try to justify how an ILLEGAL act isn't as bad because it's civil in order to protect people that should no longer be in this country.

If you can't understand that illegal means illegals, you're the idiot.

Again, I hope the next time one of those illegals you love so much commits a crime, not a civil wrong, it affects you, better yet, the person you love the most. You, or should I say him/her, will deserve it. We'll see how much you justify their staying after that.
 
noise said:
Why is it necessary to not deal?
Have you no understanding that DC operates on deals?

Both sides have common interests on doing immigration reform- they have diverging interests
but the way to satisfy both sides interests is by doing deals..it's how DC has always operated
Click to expand...

It looks like the Dems are OK with a clean DACA bill. Why not the Republicans? Dems made an offer on what they refer to as chain, but that wasn’t enough for Rs. OK, live with it.
 
domer76 said:
It looks like the Dems are OK with a clean DACA bill. Why not the Republicans? Dems made an offer on what they refer to as chain, but that wasn’t enough for Rs. OK, live with it.
Click to expand...

When any bill rewards illegals, it's dirty from the start.
 
domer76 said:
You don’t need 60 votes to pass a bill. A simple majority works. You need 60 to end a filibuster. The Republicans gave up their whining rights on that under Obama.
Click to expand...
simplistic base political answer..
which side wants DACA? ( not really my concern, except that it's Congress's to solve or not)
Which side wants the wall and curtailing chain immigration?

since when is dealing = "whining"

as to infrastructure -we haven't seen any outlines but both sides want that.
do you think there is a deal to be had there? * ask the 8 ball "signs point to no" *
 
domer76 said:
It looks like the Dems are OK with a clean DACA bill. Why not the Republicans? Dems made an offer on what they refer to as chain, but that wasn’t enough for Rs. OK, live with it.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually see the Gang of 6 deal -did you? ( assuming that is what you are talking about)
reports are it did not curtail chain immigration and $1.6b for the wall is laughable/

You can't put an offer out there that is patently unacceptable and then say you made a good faith proposal.
we ain't stupid
 
noise said:
yes. as mentioned healthcare..and as mentioned tax reform.
Both BASE ISSUES..These are NOT just BASE ISSUES -both sides have something to gain.

But again,I realize you don't give a shit about good government, just base politics..my question to you was hypothetical and you did not disapoint
Click to expand...

Both demonstrations of mindless partisanship on your part.

You asked when Obama ever invited republicans into negotiations .. I demonstrated that, and you act as if healthcare wasn't an issue where BOTH SIDES had something to gain .. AS demonstrated by republican failure to repeal it.

Absolutely mindless.

THEN you have the audacity to talk some stupid shit about 'good government' while you continue to support the most inept and chaotic government in modern times.

Absolutely mindless.
 
blackascoal said:
Both demonstrations of mindless partisanship on your part.

You asked when Obama ever invited republicans into negotiations .. I demonstrated that, and you act as if healthcare wasn't an issue where BOTH SIDES had something to gain .. AS demonstrated by republican failure to repeal it.

Absolutely mindless.

THEN you have the audacity to talk some stupid shit about 'good government' while you continue to support the most inept and chaotic government in modern times.

Absolutely mindless.
Click to expand...

did I not exclude HC and tax reform? the topics are DACA and Infrastructure
noise said:
when did Obama invite any negotiations?
The bases did the ACA and tax reform- but these are not just base issues..

Do you care about anything but the midterms? ( no)
Click to expand...

Talking about other issues/Trump administration is fine ( running a good foreign policy unlike Obama and Bush),
but not on topic
 
noise said:
simplistic base political answer..
which side wants DACA? ( not really my concern, except that it's Congress's to solve or not)
Which side wants the wall and curtailing chain immigration?

since when is dealing = "whining"

as to infrastructure -we haven't seen any outlines but both sides want that.
do you think there is a deal to be had there? * ask the 8 ball "signs point to no" *
Click to expand...

Dealing isn’t whining. A Republican mentioning 60 votes is. From your article:

“bipartisan group of senators later submitted a plan to the White House , but the $1.6 billion for the wall and other factors like chain immigration were not agreeable .

The White House by Thursday essentially rejected the deal, arguing it didn’t go far enough to curtail so-called “chain migration,” which allows green card holders and U.S. citizens to petition to bring family members into the United States.”

Looks like your boy couldn’t deal.
 
domer76 said:
Dealing isn’t whining. A Republican mentioning 60 votes is. From your article:

“bipartisan group of senators later submitted a plan to the White House , but the $1.6 billion for the wall and other factors like chain immigration were not agreeable .

The White House by Thursday essentially rejected the deal, arguing it didn’t go far enough to curtail so-called “chain migration,” which allows green card holders and U.S. citizens to petition to bring family members into the United States.”

Looks like your boy couldn’t deal.
Click to expand...
Jeff Flake and the Gang of 6 bring back a pre-cooked "deal" for $1.6b for the wall?
Do you want that made out of paper or cardboard?

Apparently you don't understand that chain migration has got to go - it's a 1965 relic based on families when we had plenty of unskilled jobs unlike now where merit based is needed..

But do tell us about 'deals" :palm:
 
domer76 said:
Dealing isn’t whining. A Republican mentioning 60 votes is. From your article:

“bipartisan group of senators later submitted a plan to the White House , but the $1.6 billion for the wall and other factors like chain immigration were not agreeable .

The White House by Thursday essentially rejected the deal, arguing it didn’t go far enough to curtail so-called “chain migration,” which allows green card holders and U.S. citizens to petition to bring family members into the United States.”

Looks like your boy couldn’t deal.
Click to expand...

sometimes the best deal is no deal :)

The DACA "deal" offered was terrible. Pathway to citizenship for a paltry sum for a wall. AND they could sponsor thier parents lol.

Well since there is no deal time to let DACA end :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top