Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI agree with Lockhart on CNN
Give the traitor in chief some money for his fucking wall as long as it includes protection for Mueller and make that orange asswipe sign it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 974 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I agree with Lockhart on CNN (Original Post)
boston bean
Dec 2018
OP
mobeau69
(11,144 posts)1. Only reasonable solution put forth so far.
Pachamama
(16,887 posts)2. Never negotiate with Terrorists....
manor321
(3,344 posts)3. No. That's ridiculous. Bad policy plus encouraging a hostage taker!
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)4. Horrible idea with no long term guarantee.
Sounds like an argument for the wall. If we are going to give up the wall how about we attach something for the oppressed to it. Something like fast track amnesty for all those undocumented. Better yet, how about we just fight against it and hold our ground. We no its a horrific idea with horrific consequences but we will give it up for one investigation. Horrible argument to make and it would make me rail against the party.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)5. I disagree with Lockhart.
Lock him up. No wall, no negotiating, no appeasement. Nothing but removal at a minimum.
BumRushDaShow
(129,018 posts)6. Almost a year ago, this was offered -
Schumer offered Trump something Democrats hate for something Republicans broadly like
By Philip Bump
January 20
When the New York Times first reported it, it seemed unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered President Trump funding for his wall in exchange for protecting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children? The most powerful Democrat in the Senate was willing to support one of his partys most-hated proposals, just like that? The Times wrote simply that Schumer discussed the possibility of fully funding the presidents wall on the southern border with Mexico which leaves some wiggle room. On the floor of the Senate on Saturday, though, Schumer explained that it was almost exactly that: A deal on those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that would also potentially fund the wall.
On the thorniest issue, of immigration, Schumer said, the president said many times he would take a deal that had included DACA in exchange for the wall. I put that deal on the table in the Oval Office in a sincere effort at compromise. I put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections. It was a generous offer. That it was. Schumer offered to give Trump something that Schumers own base would hate; in return, Republicans would agree to something that their base is fine with.
<...>
Whats more, what Schumer offered was apparently not the full cost of covering the entire border along the wall. In a news conference on Saturday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney disparaged Schumer for claiming to have agreed to funding the wall he actually agreed to only the $1.6 billion the administration asked for in 2017.
Schumers not necessarily in the clear politically. In the abstract, Democrats may agree with trading the wall for DACA (or trading $1.6 billion in wall funding), but he might need to sell his party on that being an unavoidable choice (which it doesnt seem that it was). Agreeing to the wall in any way will likely be seen by many on the left as not only a victory for the president they despise but an insult to Hispanics living in the United States. Democratic leadership agreeing to it relatively easily probably wouldnt go over that well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/20/schumer-offered-trump-something-democrats-hate-to-get-something-republicans-broadly-like/?utm_term=.daf71cc00b68
By Philip Bump
January 20
When the New York Times first reported it, it seemed unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered President Trump funding for his wall in exchange for protecting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children? The most powerful Democrat in the Senate was willing to support one of his partys most-hated proposals, just like that? The Times wrote simply that Schumer discussed the possibility of fully funding the presidents wall on the southern border with Mexico which leaves some wiggle room. On the floor of the Senate on Saturday, though, Schumer explained that it was almost exactly that: A deal on those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that would also potentially fund the wall.
On the thorniest issue, of immigration, Schumer said, the president said many times he would take a deal that had included DACA in exchange for the wall. I put that deal on the table in the Oval Office in a sincere effort at compromise. I put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections. It was a generous offer. That it was. Schumer offered to give Trump something that Schumers own base would hate; in return, Republicans would agree to something that their base is fine with.
<...>
Whats more, what Schumer offered was apparently not the full cost of covering the entire border along the wall. In a news conference on Saturday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney disparaged Schumer for claiming to have agreed to funding the wall he actually agreed to only the $1.6 billion the administration asked for in 2017.
Schumers not necessarily in the clear politically. In the abstract, Democrats may agree with trading the wall for DACA (or trading $1.6 billion in wall funding), but he might need to sell his party on that being an unavoidable choice (which it doesnt seem that it was). Agreeing to the wall in any way will likely be seen by many on the left as not only a victory for the president they despise but an insult to Hispanics living in the United States. Democratic leadership agreeing to it relatively easily probably wouldnt go over that well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/20/schumer-offered-trump-something-democrats-hate-to-get-something-republicans-broadly-like/?utm_term=.daf71cc00b68
This was soundly rejected AND this had been done before the midterms when the M$M spent the rest of the year up to and just beyond election day trolling the notion that Democrats might not be able to take back the House.
Fast forward to today - Democrats will resoundingly take control of the power of the purse come January 3rd so the dynamics have shifted.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)7. You don't bargain with a terrorist.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)8. No, I disagree. Also, at this point, I don't think he wants a wall. He wants an issue to run on.