The replies to this AP tweet on the shutdown ending lol. https://twitter.com/AP/status/955620222299406337
Nice.
The replies to this AP tweet on the shutdown ending lol. https://twitter.com/AP/status/955620222299406337
Nice.
Man, reading the Citizens for Ethics Twitter feed is...oof.
The corruption we are just whistling past is breathtaking.
https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/955827857221193728
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Oh, I forgot to add you can have flake and collins. There's 4-5 dems that republicans have already proved from this shutdown that they can snipe if they careful enough. That red state dems caved from the get go is a big red flag to me.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
I also realize I'm almost entirely composed of cynicism in today's politics. No carbon, no phosphorous, no sulfur, just element Cy(nicism).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
The NYT and Washington Post are just all about making the narrative that Democrats failed, wow.
BG is one of the few places I've come upon that don't have the take away as "at best Dems got a draw but they probably lost a little with this move". The most generous I've heard is at vox where it's pretty much "we won't actually know for 3 weeks but it could go either way".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
CNN reports that Schumer took border wall funding off the table in negotiations today. It's a bold strategy, let's see if it works.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
I concur, but I'm told I should give the dems 3 weeks to see what they come up with. Not like I had another choice, just sayin~
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Going after the border wall is probably the strongest play they have at the moment.
How? Every bipartisan effort thus far had funding for it already. Unless they get even more strict on visas, what else can dems even offer?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Wasn't it included as "border funding" with graham-durbin (pretty sure I got the name right this time)? It wasn't explicitly "wall money", but the dept. could spend it however they wanted including for a wall. That's how I've read the reporting to date.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
The first I heard of it was when Schumer came out of his one-on-one meeting with Trump and said he specifically did something he knew Democrats wouldn't want him to and offered up funding for the wall as part of the deal, but still came up with nothing. Did Trump have anything to do with this deal being made or finalized beyond saying no to at least two proposed bi-partisan solutions?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-durbin-graham
It would slightly decrease the number of people coming into the US legally each year and give Trump the resources to start his “wall” in exchange for substantially increasing the number of current immigrants — both legal and unauthorized — eligible for permanent legal status.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...e-house-357359
White House is demanding 20 billion for la pared to get on board with any kind of Dreamer deal, claim the Graham-Durbin bill provided less than 10% of that (the bill providing 1.6 billion for physical barriers and 1.2 billion for other border security). Schumer was the first to offer them the kind of money they were looking for in that White House meeting.Their proposal, Gidley said, “woefully” underfunded the president’s long-sought wall along the southern U.S. border with Mexico and did little to address “chain migration,” an issue the Trump administration has made central to discussions with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“The Graham-Durbin proposal is not a proposal the president can sign,” Shah said.