Negotiators reach deal ‘in principle’ to avert shutdown

[hanger4]

*Congressional negotiators announced an "agreement in principle" Monday night on a broad spending bill they hope will satisfy President Donald Trump's demands for additional border barriers and avert another government shutdown at the end of this week.The compromise represents a remarkable turnaround for negotiators tasked with staving off another shutdown, just hours after lawmakers on both sides said the talks were on the brink of falling apart.Story Continued Below"We reached an agreement in principle between us on all the homeland security and the other six bills," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a lead Republican negotiator. “The White House has been consulted all along,” Shelby added, noting that he’s been given “latitude” to negotiate on behalf of the administration.The tentative deal includes $1.375 billion for physical barriers — a type of fencing that resembles the “steel slats” that Trump has specifically called for, according to a congressional aide briefed on the talks. It includes a total of 55 miles, which is just 9 miles shy of Trump’s last budget request.* .................. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/shutdown-congress-border-security-1163824 ................... Will the lefts base be satisfied ??

[countryboy]

*Congressional negotiators announced an "agreement in principle" Monday night on a broad spending bill they hope will satisfy President Donald Trump's demands for additional border barriers and avert another government shutdown at the end of this week.The compromise represents a remarkable turnaround for negotiators tasked with staving off another shutdown, just hours after lawmakers on both sides said the talks were on the brink of falling apart.Story Continued Below"We reached an agreement in principle between us on all the homeland security and the other six bills," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a lead Republican negotiator. “The White House has been consulted all along,” Shelby added, noting that he’s been given “latitude” to negotiate on behalf of the administration.The tentative deal includes $1.375 billion for physical barriers — a type of fencing that resembles the “steel slats” that Trump has specifically called for, according to a congressional aide briefed on the talks. It includes a total of 55 miles, which is just 9 miles shy of Trump’s last budget request.* .................. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/shutdown-congress-border-security-1163824 ................... Will the lefts base be satisfied ??
1.375 billion? Shut it down.

[ripmeister]

The big question here if this goes thru is will Trump accept it. As the article says these negotiations were done in consultation with the WH so one would assume the terms are acceptable. The possible problem though is POTUS has been known to change his mind at the last minute and torpedo an apparent deal.

[alexa]

So the great deal maker shut down the government and got less than he was offered before the shutdown.

Brilliant.

[MisterVeritis]

The Democrat party is unwilling to protect our borders.

The so-called deal sucks.

[ripmeister]

The Democrat party is unwilling to protect our borders.

The so-called deal sucks.

1) Simply untrue.

2) I'm sure it does for some.

[MisterVeritis]

1) Simply untrue.

2) I'm sure it does for some.
It is true. We both know it. The deal is good for illegal aliens. It is bad for Amercans.

[ripmeister]

It is true. We both know it. The deal is good for illegal aliens. It is bad for Amercans.

I assume you have an example of someone who advocates for no, zero protection of our borders.

[MisterVeritis]

I assume you have an example of someone who advocates for no, zero protection of our borders.
Nothing I say would change your mind. If the Democrats were for border security we would have it.

[ripmeister]

Nothing I say would change your mind. If the Democrats were for border security we would have it.

Actually, as I recall there was a fairly decent agreement put forth last year that POTUS rejected after Coulter etc. called him out. That aside, based on what you are saying why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control? To use your words if the Republicans were for border security we would have had it within the past 2 years of their total control, yet nothing was done. Hmmmmm! Curious.

[hanger4]

Actually, as I recall there was a fairly decent agreement put forth last year that POTUS rejected after Coulter etc. called him out. That aside, based on what you are saying why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control? To use your words if the Republicans were for border security we would have had it within the past 2 years of their total control, yet nothing was done. Hmmmmm! Curious.*why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control?* ................ When did the R's have "total control" ??

[Tahuyaman]

I assume you have an example of someone who advocates for no, zero protection of our borders.
Here’s an Op-Ed from one of your friends in the liberal media telling us how open borders will solve all our domestic problems.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/862185002

[Tahuyaman]

Trump should just ask for the same amount of barrier which was authorized by the previous two administrations.

[ripmeister]

*why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control?* ................ When did the R's have "total control" ??
2016 thru 2018. Do you need to be reminded that they had the WH and both houses of Congress?

[ripmeister]

Here’s an Op-Ed from one of your friends in the liberal media telling us how open borders will solve all our domestic problems.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/862185002

Who is Jeffrey Miron? I was referring to pols. I should have been more clear.

[Tahuyaman]

Who is Jeffrey Miron? I was referring to pols. I should have been more clear.
Democratic Party pols say that they oppose open borders, but they oppose all proposals to secure the border. Their ideas won't secure anything.


They are trying to deceive people. It's works with people like you.

[ripmeister]

Democratic Party pols say that they oppose open borders, but they oppose all proposals to secure the border. Their ideas won't secure anything.


They are trying to deceive people. It's works with people like you.
As I recall there have been past proposals to address border security that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis so to say that they oppose all proposals in simply untrue. Obama certainly added to the border security effort. Trump was simply being stubborn because he wasn't going to get his 5 billion dollar big beautiful wall based on his manufactured chicken little crisis. That's where the deception has been.

[Tahuyaman]

The Democrats will not support anything which provides physical border security. They only support token measures which won't secure anything. Their homes are secured much more effectively.

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, as I recall there was a fairly decent agreement put forth last year that POTUS rejected after Coulter etc. called him out. That aside, based on what you are saying why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control? To use your words if the Republicans were for border security we would have had it within the past 2 years of their total control, yet nothing was done. Hmmmmm! Curious.
Your arguments are false, of course.

Ann and Rush get credit for Trump's not signing the bill. That is happy talk. I should get the credit.

The first year, during the most active phase of the coup attempt everyone thwarted (or tried to) Trump. Paul Rino was worthless. The Turtle has always been worthless. We gutted the worst Obama regime regulatory excesses in the first year. We also got a substantial tax rate benefit. Had it not been for that son of a bitch, the happily dead John McCain (is his funeral over yet) we could have ended ObamaCare.

So it is not as if the Republicans did nothing in the first two years. None of that has to do with the evil Democrats who prefer illegal aliens to American citizens, who support murdering children, and whose party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, dogs and water hoses, and racism.

[suds00]

we already have border security

[ripmeister]

Your arguments are false, of course.

Ann and Rush get credit for Trump's not signing the bill. That is happy talk. I should get the credit.

The first year, during the most active phase of the coup attempt everyone thwarted (or tried to) Trump. Paul Rino was worthless. The Turtle has always been worthless. We gutted the worst Obama regime regulatory excesses in the first year. We also got a substantial tax rate benefit. Had it not been for that son of a $#@!, the happily dead John McCain (is his funeral over yet) we could have ended ObamaCare.

So it is not as if the Republicans did nothing in the first two years. None of that has to do with the evil Democrats who prefer illegal aliens to American citizens, who support murdering children, and whose party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, dogs and water hoses, and racism.

Who said anything about them doing nothing. I was referring specifically to the border issue where they did...………..nothing. Apparently it wasn't a priority.

[MisterVeritis]

we already have border security
You err. If we had border security we would not have between 20 and 30 million illegal aliens living amongst us.

[Peter1469]

we already have border security

Not enough.

[MisterVeritis]

Who said anything about them doing nothing. I was referring specifically to the border issue where they did...………..nothing. Apparently it wasn't a priority.
Your argument is irrelevant. Many things were done. Border security should be a bipartisan issue. And it would be except for the Democrat party policy of pushing aside the white, middle class and replacing us with third worlders.

[ripmeister]

Your argument is irrelevant. many things were done. Border security should be a bipartisan issue. And it would be except for the Democrat party policy of pushing aside the white, middle class and replacing us with third worlders.
You say its irrelevant yet you can't deny it. I'd say its relevant. It has been partisan. There have been deals. Trumps intransigence is the problem.

[MisterVeritis]

You say its irrelevant yet you can't deny it. I'd say its relevant. It has been partisan. There have been deals. Trumps intransigence is the problem.
Okay. If the Democrats wanted secure borders our borders would be secure. The Democrat party leaders are preventing secure borders. You are free to believe any excuse you choose to make up. Today, this minute, the Democrats are standing in the way.

We know why. With just a few more years of massive illegal immigration, they will never again lose a national election.

[Tahuyaman]

we already have border security


Only in some places.


Our southern border is not anywhere close to being considered secure. More than 1,000 miles is completely open and unsecured. Right now people are coming through many of those areas of the border with no control measures in place.

[donttread]

You say its irrelevant yet you can't deny it. I'd say its relevant. It has been partisan. There have been deals. Trumps intransigence is the problem.

Illegal workers drive labor cost down and welfare roles up. Giving each major party a plus with the campaign coffers and the other with voters

[hanger4]

2016 thru 2018. Do you need to be reminded that they had the WH and both houses of Congress?No, I don't need to be reminded, but you need to be reminded that it takes 60 votes for cloture, the R's didn't have that

[Captdon]

I assume you have an example of someone who advocates for no, zero protection of our borders.

No one has accused them of zero protection. But they end up with the same result under their ideas. It would be like giving a soldier some equipment but no helmet or ammo.

Every Democrat wants open borders. They want to limit the number of illegal who can be detained. That's a clarion call for less security and protection.

It's like telling the local cops they can only arrest three people at a time.

[Captdon]

Actually, as I recall there was a fairly decent agreement put forth last year that POTUS rejected after Coulter etc. called him out. That aside, based on what you are saying why then did the R's not create border security during the time that they had complete control? To use your words if the Republicans were for border security we would have had it within the past 2 years of their total control, yet nothing was done. Hmmmmm! Curious.

You should know the Republicans never had the 60 votes to force a vote on anything.

Hmm, odd that everyone knows that and you don't.

[Tahuyaman]

The only reason Republicans need 60 votes is because they don't have the balls to do what Democrats do when they are in the majority.

[ripmeister]

You should know the Republicans never had the 60 votes to force a vote on anything.

Hmm, odd that everyone knows that and you don't.

Really? Was that the case for the tax legislation?

[MisterVeritis]

Really? Was that the case for the tax legislation?
No. Do you remember why?

[Tahuyaman]

Really? Was that the case for the tax legislation?
Democrats concerned with reelection support cuts in tax rates.

[Captdon]

The only reason Republicans need 60 votes is because they don't have the balls to do what Democrats do when they are in the majority.

What would that be? The "nuclear option?" That was a one-time thing that Democrats have regretted ever since. It has nothing to do with ball. It was stupid.

[Captdon]

Really? Was that the case for the tax legislation?

The House attached a Special Rule that prevented a filibuster. It can only be done on budget bills. You can google this stuff. You can also pay attention to the news.

[Captdon]

Democrats concerned with reelection support cuts in tax rates.

No Democrat voted for the tax cuts.

[Tahuyaman]

The Republicans have no balls. Only a hack would deny this.

[Captdon]

The Republicans have no balls. Only a hack would deny this.

Only a hack would make stuff up, hack.

[Tahuyaman]

There are hacks who pledge their allegiance to either major political party. It's easier than thinking through things.

The way to identify these hacks is to tell the truth about any aspect of a major political party then watch how they respond.