2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Back to the OP. If Schumer thinks withdrawing funding for the wall is somehow going to get Trump to legalise the Dreamers, he's a dreamer. Trump knows he needs the wall to placate his base that were upset Obamacare wasn't cancelled, and if he doesn't get it he is in trouble with his base. He also knows that this is probably his only chance to get the money ( the wall was already approved, but not funded ) to build it.

Choice between illegal immigrants vs the wall. Which will Trump stick with? 

In the end, it will depend on how much the Dems want to legalise the Dreamers. Trump doesn't have to do anything to have DACA expire, the Dems have to do something to keep it.

Without Schumer’s statement Dems would have little leverage in the upcoming weeks...

7 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Yes of course it's all Trump's fault! If only he had.... I'm sorry, what is it Trump did that makes this his fault?

What the heck does Trump have to do with 70 yrs of US foreign policy?

18 minutes ago, wavemanwww said:

Only have two things to say to China?

1. Use any excuse to justify your invasion of an area in the sea that rightly does not belong to you and
2. Go screw yourself and may you implode.

Cognitive dissonance much?

 How is China any different than the USA? They used any excuse to justify their invasion of Iraq, an area in the Middle East which does not rightly (in any way shape or form) belong to them.

Another poster who must be so annoyed that China has learned from the USA how to behave on the world stage. You guys are keeping me entertained today!!

57 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

You miss the point. He needs the Dem whingers votes and the four were irrelevant and wanted tougher measures.  Dems are blackmailing and although a Bernie supporter myself, and loathe Reps, the Dems are simply wrong on this.  The Bill and 'illegals' are not related issues.

If you are a Bernie fan you may (or may not...) like his take on the government shutdown:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-puts-the-blame-for-the-shutdown-on-mitch-mcconnell/article/2646607

http://apr.org/post/bernie-sanders-government-shutdown#stream/0

On 1/20/2018 at 3:29 PM, riclag said:

I prefer no collection /spying but, I'll take this for the meantime. 

 

"As it was, the bill that passed House and Senate does require, for the first time according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), that the government obtain a warrant to access data on U.S. persons in criminal investigations and will prevent the FBI from using information collected incidentally from such communications in criminal investigations. Goodlatte said the bill does have meaningful reforms, and he would have preferred more, but that the option was not between a perfect bill and letting the FISA section sunset".

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fisa-reauthorization-passes-senate/171213

The gov't has always had to acquire a warrant on US persons in criminal investigations. In FISA investigations of foreign nationals some, dubious, US citizens have gotten caught up in the spying on foreign "terrorists". Preventing the FBI from using the questionably acquired intel in criminal investigations seems curiously beneficial to those under investigation by Mr. Mueller and meaningless to 99.9% of the US population.

Also in the article you quoted the Democrat interviewed has a totally different opinion on the amendments to the legislation:

“We need to strike a balance between liberty and security and not give the government unchecked surveillance power," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce Committe and a fan of the stronger protections for communications that did not make it onto the bill. "That’s why I opposed today’s surveillance legislation because it will allow the government to spy on American citizens.  We can and should provide for intelligence gathering against terrorism while still protecting Americans’ privacy.”

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

China has a habit of ignoring international conventions, procedures and processes when they don't provide the answer it seeks.

Well color me surprised. China took notes on how the USA acts internationally and it ticks the good old USA off. Hahahaha I'm holding my sides.

50 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And how exactly would they give the Kurds "whatever they need to survive'? Via gift orders from Amazon?

You think the most overfunded military in the world cannot work out the logistics of dropping arms and/or cash anywhere?

4 hours ago, buick said:

 

here is the most applicable section (i did not 'bold' the text, that came from the article):

 

In the House, Republicans can pass legislation with only their own members because of the size of their majority — and they did so Thursday night to advance a spending measure to keep the government open.

However, a short-term spending bill fell short in the Senate, where Republicans have a narrow 51-49 majority so passing most legislation requires bipartisan support. Even if the whole party sticks together, they need at least nine Democrats to get on board.

“If ordinary rules prevailed, the majority rules in the Senate, the government would be open as of today," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said, when asked on CNN Sunday about Trump's call to change the rules. "It also responds to this constant criticism we hear – ‘Oh, you Republicans control the White House and the House and the Senate, why can’t you just fund the government?' "

 

you'll see the word 'control' in the last sentence.  and this republican is saying they don't control the senate as they need democratic votes to pass this.  i'm neither a republican or a democrat.  i didn't vote for trump.  i like some of the ideas from the republican side and some from the democratic side. 

 

You conveniently left out the part of when a 60 vote majority is required. It is when the majority (those in "control") of the house decide they want to quell debate. Any bill can pass with a simple majority IF the party in "control" is willing to listen to the other side and come to a bipartisan conclusion.

From quora.com:

In both houses of Congress, you still need a majority (50%+1) to pass a bill.  In the House of Representatives, that's the only consideration.

In the Senate, the rules are a bit more complex.  If the bill makes it to a vote, it needs only 51 votes.  But you need to debate before it gets to a vote.  The Senate fancies itself the "world's greatest deliberative body", and they'll deliberate as long as somebody wants to.  You can force them to stop deliberating by a cloture vote, and that takes 60 votes.  

14 hours ago, Presto said:

You're free to believe what that guy Hoekstra has said, you could also do a bit of work and try to find out if its true or not. When you look at the videos of his interviews with Dutch journalists (one when still in the USA, the other one when he had arrived in NL) you can see he's too chicken to even respond to a straight question about his past remarks, and defend them. With a bit of evidence f.i. What a disgrace this guy is from the supposedly great country USA, to send as ambassador to NL. Where the press at least don't take bs for an answer.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/11/netherlands-holland-peter-hoekstra-ambassador

I thought my post was dripping with satire... apparently some of you took me seriously...

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The obvious thing to do then is for the Dems to support a bill that gives him the wall in exchange for DACA, and see what happens. Win win. Either they get DACA and he gets the wall, or he will rightly be tarred as a liar by everyone.

No, the obvious thing to do would be to remove the greasy politicking and pass a clean DACA bill then a clean immigration bill.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, so not a real army then.

I have nothing against peacekeepers, but I think calling them soldiers is erroneous.

The soldiers I knew only used bullets, not talk, but that was a very long time ago.

Peacekeepers are trained soldiers first. Then they get additional training. What are you on about? Or are you dissing them because their country was smart enough to avoid unnecessary conflict in the last 60-ish years?

4 minutes ago, jvs said:

He did day that,but what he said was untrue.There are no 'No go' zones in the Netherlands where cars and politicians are being burned.At least not yet.

Now you got my original point.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump obviously will give in on DACA if the Dems give him the wall. He said so already. It's in the Dem's court now.

Not all that "obvious" considering 45's history of reneging on contracts and contradictory statements on the subject.

1 minute ago, jvs said:

Fake news,he already has apologized for that statement.

Which part is "fake"? The fact that he said it certainly isn't. The fact that he was forced to apologize by a tenaciously dogged media after lying and saying he never said it? Nope that's true too. Or does the "fake" part in your post apply to the dog-whistling of no-go zones in Sweden?

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am at a loss how the army can solve this, unless he envisages a permanent Northern Ireland troubles presence in every city troubled by gang violence, and do they even have the resources to do so? That would take a lot of soldiers to do.

If he's talking about a "lightning strike" operation, using the military, is he prepared for a lot of ''collateral damage"?

By definition soldiers are trained to kill people, not police actions.

 

Seems to me like a politician speaking about things he thinks will sound good in the media, but are in reality a nonsense, like Blair sending a tank to Heathrow when there was a terrorist attack there.

Since the Swedish army has really only been involved in Peace-keeping efforts in living memory I doubt they are trained the way you envision. Policing and interaction skills would necessarily be part of their arsenal.

19 minutes ago, DLang said:

Perhaps they could also send in the army to the 60+ No Go Zones that immigrants have created, where police and locals are not allowed to go into without being assaulted or worse. 

Are these "no-go" zones anything like the ones in the Netherlands? I have heard from Ambassador Pete Hoekstra that there are cars being burnt, there are politicians that are being burnt… there are no-go zones in the Netherlands. Do you know if the Swedish "no-go" zones are the same as the ones Ambassador Hoekstra described in Netherlands?

17 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

They were originally brought to the U.S. as illegals. Either the laws are enforced or they are not.  These two men say the law is the law. 

Usually the law requires "intent". Do you believe that these children had an intent to become illegal? Or are we reduced to punishing the offspring for the crimes of the parents?

2 hours ago, UnkleMoooose said:

So the liberal media (including the left biased Gallup)... People must learn to separate their emotions from the facts.

Yes. Facts. Like Gallup's "bias".

Gallup (from MB/FC)

LEAST BIASED

This source has minimal bias and uses very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources.

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Gallup, Inc. is an American research-based, global performance-management consulting company. Founded by George Gallup in 1935, the company became known for its public opinion polls conducted worldwide. It provides research and strategic consulting to large organizations in many countries, focusing on “analytics and advice to help leaders and organizations solve their most pressing problems.” Gallup provides low biased statistical information. (1/21/2017)

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Also to the point, why do women in sport wear sexually charged clothing? You all know what I mean, very short skirts in tennis, short shorts and tight tops in athletics, etc etc etc.

I don't see men wearing cod pieces.

Danm you are so right! I used to think it was due to a bombardment of male-driven advertising/culture portraying an untenable female ideal.

You obviously do not hang with gay men much because outlandish, revealing male clothing is commonplace in that community.

Anyway - at least we agree that women should dress to quell all male urges. Burkas for all!!

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sigh. The reasons women hold fewer managerial positions is because they "take time out to breed", while men turn up every day to do the job. If women really want to rise to higher levels stop having children and do the job 100%, and not as an aside to being a "mother".

The idea that any person can take years out of a career to become an unpaid baby sitter and still be an influential manager is, IMO, barking.

Career women in Singapore stopped having children, to the extent that the government is concerned about it. 

Frankly, and IMO, if women want to be taken seriously, stop wittering on about "having it all", stop indulging in such stupidities as those fashion statements like huge shoulder pads, stop using sex to get ahead and start being serious about the job.

Yes bro!! And serious men should continue to give jobs to their drinking/sports/frat/business buddies 'cause we all know its not what ya know its who ya know in being serious about your vocation.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There will be a backlash. I cannot wait for that. 

Every time I go outside, I hope to encounter some man hating western woman rabbiting on about it, so I can debate her about it. Up till now I have found them to be completely absent in LOS. So far, it appears to be a uniquely American , IMO hysteria.

Probably because the cultural narrative regarding the male - female relationship in the US is rooted in the historical, puritan, christian belief that women are chattel. Eastern culture seems to have a better overall and historical grasp of the dynamic between men and women. 

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Or was trying to buy it for the purposes of smuggling it back to Canada.

Yeah, next he may try bringing ice to the Norwegians... makes the same amount of sense.

16 minutes ago, car720 said:

Look to Australia for an example.  All the hardened criminals that did time for smoking a little pot will now be told that Australia is gearing up to become the biggest exporter of pot.

Australia - the world's biggest pot exporter? Doubt it very much. Won't be Canada either although they have a huge head start over Australia by helping supply the gigantic market in California for decades already. Nope. It will be the USA, starting with California, which, if it was a country would have the world's 6 or 7th largest economy dwarfing both Canada and Australia.

4 hours ago, jackh said:

I most certainly do. They are criminals according to the Federal Immigration codes in place for 30 years. No exceptions! A crime is a crime!

Take care. Rutgers University and others have calculated that AT LEAST 70% of US citizens have committed an imprisonable offense.

Also, you are aware that federal law and prosecutors treat juveniles more compassionately than adults, right?

12 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

And the Trump lynch mob should take into account that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Are you referring to the FBI investigation or the media or the public?

Mueller has dogmatically followed the rule of law. The others aren't in court and can say and/or do whatever the heck they want. Are you having visions of mobs in hoods with torches surrounding the Whitehouse? I would suggest a mental health evaluation!! LOL!!