The Thread For Greg's Stashes

[B-Man]

LAME-DUCK GOPERS LIMP HOME, LAME-DUCK DEMS KNEECAP GOPERS:

 

Required reading at The Last Refuge comparing the out-going GOP House majority in 2018 with the out-going Democrat majority in 2010:

 

“While 63 Democrat seats were lost in the November 2010 election (and six Democrat Senate seats), those exiting Marxists, despite just having suffered the worst defeat in almost 100 years, audaciously –and unapologetically– voted in the December 2010 lame-duck session, to fully fund President Obama’s next two years in office.

 

“This was done by Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically to block the incoming GOP wave from upending the priorities of the Obama administration in 2011.  That was called the ‘Porkulous’ spending bill; and the Democrat-Marxists didn’t give a snit about how it looked.

 

“Now, did Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Leader Mitch McConnell do anything as bold to fund and secure the budgetary priorities of President Donald Trump in this lame-duck?”

 

?

 

 

Lesson (Just one among many): A One-and-a-Half Party system isn’t a Two-Party system. Go here for the rest.

 

 

.

 

 

[ALF]

Budget Control Act of 2011

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub.L. 112–25, S. 365, 125 Stat. 240, enacted August 2, 2011) is a federal statute enacted by the 112th United States Congress and signed into law by US President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011. The Act brought conclusion to the 2011 US debt-ceiling crisis.

 

The law involves the introduction of several complex mechanisms, such as creation of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (sometimes called the "super committee"),[1] options for a balanced budget amendment, and automatic budget sequestration.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

 

Budget sequestration

 

Budget sequestration is a procedure in United States law that limits the size of the federal budget. Sequestration involves setting a hard cap on the amount of government spending within broadly defined categories; if Congress enacts annual appropriations legislation that exceeds these caps, an across-the-board spending cut is automatically imposed on these categories, affecting all departments and programs by an equal percentage. The amount exceeding the budget limit is held back by the Treasury and not transferred to the agencies specified in the appropriation  bills

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_sequestration

[3rdnlng]

This is the situation:

 

A bill acceptable to Trump has passed the House. That vote is good until 1-3-19.

 

Schumer will not allow the 9 or 10 Democrat votes for it to reach 60 to get past the filibuster. (This is why you morons who keep saying the R's have control of all branches have your heads up your collective asses---the R's don't have 60 votes to control the Senate).

 

Schumer is protecting Pelosi until after the Speaker vote. If she allows a compromise that funds 2 feet of wall the far left will not give her any votes.

 

After 1-3-19 it will be difficult if not impossible to get a bill acceptable to Trump through the House.

 

Trump needs to use the bully pulpit and take his case to the people. That's the only way to get the dems to agree to something that they would have agreed to a year ago.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

Like I said long ago a small fraction of the tax cut could have paid the entire cost of a wall , full camera coverage , with copters to respond to any breach. 

 

It wouldn't have mattered because the dems still would block it. That's the point. It's purely political for the dem leadership. The wall was a campaign promise and they don't want to give it to Trump because it will make him tougher to beat in 2020. That's all this is. Any dispassionate analysis of this "negotiation" makes that clear. 

 

He offered them DACA and amnesty months back in exchange for the wall - and they still wouldn't take it. 

 

Schumer doesn't care about what's right or wrong here, neither does Pelosi. They care about politics. Full stop. 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It wouldn't have mattered because the dems still would block it. That's the point. It's purely political for the dem leadership. The wall was a campaign promise and they don't want to give it to Trump because it will make him tougher to beat in 2020. That's all this is. Any dispassionate analysis of this "negotiation" makes that clear. 

 

He offered them DACA and amnesty months back in exchange for the wall - and they still wouldn't take it. 

 

Schumer doesn't care about what's right or wrong here, neither does Pelosi. They care about politics. Full stop. 

What these knuckleheads here fail to grasp is that there is nothing to do with immigration issues that will entice the dems to help fund the wall. The dems don't giveashit about DACA other than the issue it gives them. It has to be NOT solved to keep it an issue. In the past Trump called their bluff by proposing nearly a 300% increase in DACA fixes for his wall and they panicked and blew up any potential deal.

[ALF]

5 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

What these knuckleheads here fail to grasp is that there is nothing to do with immigration issues that will entice the dems to help fund the wall. The dems don't giveashit about DACA other than the issue it gives them. It has to be NOT solved to keep it an issue. In the past Trump called their bluff by proposing nearly a 300% increase in DACA fixes for his wall and they panicked and blew up any potential deal.

 

 Common Sense Caucus, a large bipartisan group led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), released its own outline. The plan had gained the endorsement of Democratic leadership and is technically being sponsored by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The “Common Sense” plan would:

 

Provide a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
Offer $25 billion for border security

Prevent DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status

It failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.

 

What it means: The “Common Sense” plan seemed like it had the best chance of winning 60 votes, but the White House threatened to veto it, and Republicans who had previously been more moderate on immigration refused to support it.

 

This is the most damning vote on Thursday: No other bill seemed viable, and yet even this plan, after the White House’s intervention and amid intransigence from conservatives, could not win the necessary support.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/12/17003552/senate-immigration-bill-floor-debate

[The_Dude]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/29/health/third-gender-law-germany-grm-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2

 

BREAKING: Krauts Formally Recognize Freaks & Crazies Playing Makebelieve

8 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

What these knuckleheads here fail to grasp is that there is nothing to do with immigration issues that will entice the dems to help fund the wall. The dems don't giveashit about DACA other than the issue it gives them. It has to be NOT solved to keep it an issue. In the past Trump called their bluff by proposing nearly a 300% increase in DACA fixes for his wall and they panicked and blew up any potential deal.

 

Thats because borders are racist. 

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

 

 Common Sense Caucus, a large bipartisan group led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), released its own outline. The plan had gained the endorsement of Democratic leadership and is technically being sponsored by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The “Common Sense” plan would:

 

Provide a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
Offer $25 billion for border security

Prevent DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status

It failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.

 

What it means: The “Common Sense” plan seemed like it had the best chance of winning 60 votes, but the White House threatened to veto it, and Republicans who had previously been more moderate on immigration refused to support it.

 

This is the most damning vote on Thursday: No other bill seemed viable, and yet even this plan, after the White House’s intervention and amid intransigence from conservatives, could not win the necessary support.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/12/17003552/senate-immigration-bill-floor-debate

So, 5 billion for a wall is morally wrong but 25 billion is OK? Have you listened to Schumer lately? How about Pelosi?

Edited December 29, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[3rdnlng]

Furthermore, those proposals were only being put forth because the dems feared that Trump's DACA EO removing Obama's DACA EO would happen. Once a federal judge stepped in they changed course.

[The_Dude]

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, 5 billion for a wall is morally wrong but 25 billion is OK? Have you listened to Schumer lately? How about Pelosi?

 

For ones mental health it’s best to listen to neither. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Read the whole thread... OMG and ? (His wife is a saint)
 

 

[3rdnlng]

11 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It wouldn't have mattered because the dems still would block it. That's the point. It's purely political for the dem leadership. The wall was a campaign promise and they don't want to give it to Trump because it will make him tougher to beat in 2020. That's all this is. Any dispassionate analysis of this "negotiation" makes that clear. 

 

He offered them DACA and amnesty months back in exchange for the wall - and they still wouldn't take it. 

 

Schumer doesn't care about what's right or wrong here, neither does Pelosi. They care about politics. Full stop. 

The following link, although slanted to the left in its sentiment, lays out a pretty good timeline regarding immigration, DREAM ACT and DACA. It starts in the sixties and goes up to 2018. As per my recollection DACA was declared kaput in September of 2017 by our DOJ because it was believed to be unconstitutional. Trump wanted an immigration fix and gave Congress until March of 2018 to fix it. It appeared as if a deal would be made until a federal judge ruled against the DOJ order. That ruling took away any leverage Trump had and the dems completely changed their tune. After that a "bipartisan" group met with Trump and he charged them to come up with a bill meeting his criteria. They came up with a plan with a lot of fanfare that flat out sucked and did not come close to meeting Trump's requirements. Since then the dems have become intractable. That is how we got to the state we're in and any other recollections trying to put this on Trump are just fluffed up misrepresentations and lies.

 

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/timeline-daca

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Read the whole thread... OMG and ? (His wife is a saint)
 

 

Now that's funny!

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the fire was caused by toxic masculinity. [/Critical Electrical Theory]

[/dev/null]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And the fire was caused by toxic masculinity. [/Critical Electrical Theory]

 

And why are the black wires forced to do all the work while the privileged white remain neutral?

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

And why are the black wires forced to do all the work while the privileged white remain neutral?

 

Because some wires need to stay grounded.

[/dev/null]

51 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Because some wires need to stay grounded.

 

[B-Man]

[The_Dude]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/organizers-cancel-womens-march-in-northern-california-because-its-too-white

 

Liberals HATE white people. All this nonsense does is create racial/political centripetal force. 

 

Damn you John Wilkes Booth!

 

Further, Islam must be destroyed.