Current Events > Trump threatens to veto omnibus spending bill over DACA and the border wall

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/trump-threatens-to-veto-omnibus-spending-bill-over-daca-and-the-border-wall.html
---

I thought the wall was metaphorical.
---

Sephiroth approves the veto but disagrees with the reasons why.
---

for fucks sake
---

Why would he need funding for the wall? Wasn't Mexico going to pay for it?
---

Hornezz posted...

Why would he need funding for the wall? Wasn't Mexico going to pay for it?

---

iPhone_7 posted...

I thought the wall was metaphorical.

Every one except trump says that. He insists the Wall is real and won't budge.
---

of course he does
---

it'd be very amusing if that happened because they don't have a 2/3 majority in the senate to pass it

could force the GOP to cave much more to dems to override him
---

creativerealms posted...

iPhone_7 posted...

I thought the wall was metaphorical.

Every one except trump says that. He insists the Wall is real and won't budge.

Except when he does.
---

i hope he does veto the bill. the blame would fall on him and possibly the republican's.
baby trump has to throw the biggest ****ing fit in his life.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Hornezz posted...

Why would he need funding for the wall? Wasn't Mexico going to pay for it?

---

Its disgusting seeing these Senators pretend to care about the DACA kids
---

I can't believe Trump is taking a harder line on DACA than the Democrats.
---

Antifar posted...

I can't believe Trump is taking a harder line on DACA than the Democrats.

Democrats have moved on to guns now. Dreamers are yesterday's talking-point

cheers to Trump for rejecting his party and supporting DACA. fuck the wall though. but hey, politics is about compromise.
---

It should be vetoed. This is a hot mess of a bill.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

cheers to Trump for rejecting his party and supporting DACA. fuck the wall though. but hey, politics is about compromise.

It's good to finally see you joining the side of Trump. It's the right thing to do.
---

Why not both, at once?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/daca-population-numbers/

A $10000 fee/fine for a dreamer to get permanent residency would create upwards of thirty billion dollars for the wall.

creativerealms posted...

iPhone_7 posted...

I thought the wall was metaphorical.

Every one except trump says that. He insists the Wall is real and won't budge.

But do his supporters know what his position is?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Antifar posted...

I can't believe Trump is taking a harder line on DACA than the Democrats.

Democrats have moved on to guns now. Dreamers are yesterday's talking-point

negative, qmark.

courts already handed dems the win on the subject. trump's ending of the program was ruled unconstitutional, and it's forcibly being extended against his will.

trump's comments on it are mockery of the democrats not codifying it into law, not some new-found support for helping them out. it's his idea of effective partisan propaganda.

in effect, the bill lets dems win without trump getting anything what he wanted (the wall) hence the veto threat.
---

Darkman124 posted...

trump's comments on it are mockery of the democrats not codifying it into law, not some new-found support for helping them out. it's his idea of effective partisan propaganda.

I dunno. Trump is one of the biggest Poe's Lawyers out there.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

trump's comments on it are mockery of the democrats not codifying it into law, not some new-found support for helping them out. it's his idea of effective partisan propaganda.

I dunno. Trump is one of the biggest Poe's Lawyers out there.

neg. he's been commenting the same for weeks. "why, oh why have the democrats not taken action to resolve the crisis I created? think of the poor people I will be victimizing!"
---

Darkman124 posted...

neg. he's been commenting the same for weeks. "why, oh why have the democrats not taken action to resolve the crisis I created? think of the poor people I will be victimizing!"

It's a crisis Obama created by ignoring the constitution, and Trump exacerbated by ignoring that ignoring.
...or something.

How it's somehow unconstitutional to vacate an unconstitutional XO is a great mystery.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a crisis Obama created by ignoring the constitution, and Trump exacerbated by ignoring that ignoring.

you can't blame obama for creating the crisis. DACA was popular among the right and left when Obama issued the act, whether constitutional or not. Nobody wants to deport those people.

Trump took office, broke it, then said "you can only fix what I broke if I get what I want." He manufactured the crisis to attempt to demand the American people pay for his wall, full stop.

Court ruling was a surprise to many, myself included, but they're the ones empowered to make that call, not you or I.

The point is clear: he views them as negotiating chips. Anytime he comments about how dems should be helping them, what he's really saying is "Dems should give me what I want!"

Don't confuse that with him suddenly caring about the people he deliberately endangered to get the wall.
---

Darkman124 posted...

you can't blame obama for creating the crisis. DACA was popular among the right and left when Obama issued the act, whether constitutional or not. Nobody wants to deport those people.

Think about that, for just a little bit longer.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Think about that, for just a little bit longer.

Sure, I'll rephrase it: nobody except white supremacists wants to deport those people.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

neg. he's been commenting the same for weeks. "why, oh why have the democrats not taken action to resolve the crisis I created? think of the poor people I will be victimizing!"

It's a crisis Obama created by ignoring the constitution, and Trump exacerbated by ignoring that ignoring.
...or something.

How it's somehow unconstitutional to vacate an unconstitutional XO is a great mystery.

It's never been ruled unconstitutional.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Think about that, for just a little bit longer.

Sure, I'll rephrase it: nobody except white supremacists wants to deport those people.

Popularity is no excuse to ignore the constitution, at least until it's 38 states popular.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-snuck-new-russia-sanctions-into-spending-bill


---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Think about that, for just a little bit longer.

Sure, I'll rephrase it: nobody except white supremacists wants to deport those people.

Popularity is no excuse to ignore the constitution, at least until it's 38 states popular.

The legality of DACA has never actually been pressed
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a crisis Obama created by ignoring the constitution

There's nothing unconstitution about the DACA.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Popularity is no excuse to ignore the constitution, at least until it's 38 states popular.

Whether the constitution was ignored is up to the courts. Courts have not ruled it unconstitutional. If GOP wanted to challenge it on a constitutional basis, they would have. No one did.

Popularity is an excuse to take an action. Saying "that's unconstitutional!" does not make it so.

And anyway, the reason Trump killed it had nothing to do with the constitution. It had everything to do with using people as bargaining chips, which is why anytime he "laments" democrats' decision to rely on the courts stopping him from killing it, we all should understand what he's really saying is "Give me what I want!"

It's always been about the wall.
---

qquit bringing up facts markie mark's precious worldview doesn't take scrutiny well
---

lol
---

Darkman124 posted...

If GOP wanted to challenge it on a constitutional basis, they would have. No one did.

Because, the whole thing was politically expedient all around:

Democrats got something they wanted.
Republicans got to blame Obama.
Nobody actually had to take much of any stand on it, apart from platitudes.

Both parties are going to spend like idiots until the currency is destroyed.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Both parties are going to spend like idiots until the currency is destroyed.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

If GOP wanted to challenge it on a constitutional basis, they would have. No one did.

Because, the whole thing was politically expedient all around:

Democrats got something they wanted.
Republicans got to blame Obama.
Nobody actually had to take much of any stand on it, apart from platitudes.

Then recognize that the GOP doesn't care about constitutionality of it, either. And neither does Trump, except that constitutionality is in his way of using it as a negotiating chip to get the wall (for reasons unclear to me, but clear to the court).

As such, recognize that Trump's comments about it cannot possibly be in good faith. Heck, if we're looking at this logically, why would we ever assume Trump's speaking in good faith? He's much more dishonest than he is stupid.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Because, the whole thing was politically expedient all around:

Democrats got something they wanted.
Republicans got to blame Obama.
Nobody actually had to take much of any stand on it, apart from platitudes.

Because it wasn't unconstitutional, or rather, never ruled as such. You can't claim something is such just because "it feels like it is".
---

Darkman124 posted...

As such, recognize that Trump's comments about it cannot possibly be in good faith. Heck, if we're looking at this logically, why would we ever assume Trump's speaking in good faith? He's much more dishonest than he is stupid.

Where's that "it was all in jest" meme?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Oh, I'm pretty certain this is going to be "settled" one way or the other by perverting the commerce clause, just like damn-near everything else.

seems probable, but do keep in mind that what you call perverting, is publicly called 'the principal established legal precedent of the last few decades'
---

Good, they're shoving a lot of crap though that bill that has nothing to do with Government spending, mainly CLOUD.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Oh, I'm pretty certain this is going to be "settled" one way or the other by perverting the commerce clause, just like damn-near everything else.

seems probable, but do keep in mind that what you call perverting, is publicly called 'the principal established legal precedent of the last few decades'

Oh, fine.

Kavatar posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

neg. he's been commenting the same for weeks. "why, oh why have the democrats not taken action to resolve the crisis I created? think of the poor people I will be victimizing!"

It's a crisis Obama created by ignoring the constitution, and Trump exacerbated by ignoring that ignoring.
...or something.

How it's somehow unconstitutional to vacate an unconstitutional XO is a great mystery.

It's never been ruled unconstitutional.

It will be once it reaches the US supreme court which has a conservative majority. A similar "law" that made it there rendered a vote that was split along party lines. The Democrats can't take such a risk.

Ammonitida posted...

A similar "law" that made it there rendered a vote that was split along party lines.

Which one?

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Because, the whole thing was politically expedient all around:

Democrats got something they wanted.
Republicans got to blame Obama.
Nobody actually had to take much of any stand on it, apart from platitudes.

Because it wasn't unconstitutional, or rather, never ruled as such. You can't claim something is such just because "it feels like it is".

Claims of unconstitutionality are fair game. The fact that the Supreme Court is constantly making rulings on cases of constitutionality illustrates that the argument of constitutionality is alive and well.

While youre right that the Supreme Court hasnt made an official ruling on it doesnt mean that there isnt a constitutional violation.
---

a few of the things in the bill.

$1.6 billion for border fencing, but with the specification that it only apply to existing designs, meaning no wall.

The Fix NICS Act, which modestly improves the existing gun background-check system, plus a provision instructing the Centers for Disease Control that it is free to conduct research on gun violence. Such research was effectively stopped in 1996.

A slight increase to the IRS budget. While not nearly what the agency needs, especially given the challenge of implementing the new tax law, at least it doesnt continue the long-standing GOP effort to starve the IRS of funds and make enforcement a joke.

$380 million in assistance to states to improve the security of their election systems, and $300 million to the FBI to combat Russian hacking of those systems.

No repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which prevents churches from endorsing candidates and acting as political organizations. President Trump has advocated that the amendment be repealed

A bar on employers such as restaurants keeping any portion of workers tips. The Trump Labor Department had proposed allowing tip pooling, including letting the boss control and potentially take workers tips.

Increases for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Trump had proposed eliminating them entirely.

No cuts to the EPA (Trump had proposed cutting the agencys budget by a third) and an increase in funding for clean energy research through ARPA-E, which Trump had proposed eliminating entirely.

Increased funding for affordable housing.

Increased education funding, along with what nearly everyone is describing as a complete rejection of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss agenda.

Increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.

A doubling of child-care funding for low-income families.

No defunding of sanctuary cities or Planned Parenthood.

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

a few of the things in the bill.

$1.6 billion for border fencing, but with the specification that it only apply to existing designs, meaning no wall.

The Fix NICS Act, which modestly improves the existing gun background-check system, plus a provision instructing the Centers for Disease Control that it is free to conduct research on gun violence. Such research was effectively stopped in 1996.

A slight increase to the IRS budget. While not nearly what the agency needs, especially given the challenge of implementing the new tax law, at least it doesnt continue the long-standing GOP effort to starve the IRS of funds and make enforcement a joke.

$380 million in assistance to states to improve the security of their election systems, and $300 million to the FBI to combat Russian hacking of those systems.

No repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which prevents churches from endorsing candidates and acting as political organizations. President Trump has advocated that the amendment be repealed

A bar on employers such as restaurants keeping any portion of workers tips. The Trump Labor Department had proposed allowing tip pooling, including letting the boss control and potentially take workers tips.

Increases for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Trump had proposed eliminating them entirely.

No cuts to the EPA (Trump had proposed cutting the agencys budget by a third) and an increase in funding for clean energy research through ARPA-E, which Trump had proposed eliminating entirely.

Increased funding for affordable housing.

Increased education funding, along with what nearly everyone is describing as a complete rejection of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVoss agenda.

Increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.

A doubling of child-care funding for low-income families.

No defunding of sanctuary cities or Planned Parenthood.

the bolded things i can agree on.
---