Althouse: "Remember, Trump's broader stated goal is 'merit-based' immigration. His new 'DACA deal' is just that."

January 27, 2018

"Remember, Trump's broader stated goal is 'merit-based' immigration. His new 'DACA deal' is just that."

"He brings the illegals out of the shadows by registering them. They screw up once, they're gone. He just added a 'merit-based' filter to illegal immigration. Smart."

Tweets Bill Mitchell, quoted in American Thinker (via Instapundit).

331 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 331 of 331

Inga...Allie Oop said...: “None of us forced you to act as you do. It has always been your choice.”

No one forced you insult others at 1:09 PM, now did they? Don’t fucking hand it out if you can’t take it. Put on your big boy pants, you little whiner.; 1/27/18, 6:29 PM
Drago said...: ARM: "Unlike you I have a life, you pathetic loser."

I dont want ti hear from you again until you get that sailboat, sail it to Bimini and have come down to crew.

You scurvy scalawag!; 1/27/18, 6:29 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "No one forced you insult others at 1:09 PM, now did they?"

Lol

Goodness knows the left iscapoalled at insults!; 1/27/18, 6:30 PM
Original Mike said...: ”No, more like determined.”

Determined to do what? This is the crux of the issue; what is your goal vis-a-vis immigration?; 1/27/18, 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I wasn't even addressing any of you in that response to Drago. You could have let it go and just let me have my opinions, but you schmucks had to engage....and lose.

ARM, you called the results modest when the report talked about it "extending one of the best stretches of growth during the current eight-and-a-half-year-old upturn."

That in no way is 'modest'. You deliberately changed the tenor of the report to make some political point the facts don't support. And you continue to misrepresent your action because you know you are a dishonest little weasel uninterested in real honest discussion because , IMO, you can't keep up.; 1/27/18, 6:35 PM
Drago said...: OM: "This is the crux of the issue; what is your goal vis-a-vis immigration?"

The jig is up on that. The dems sole purpose is nothing less than to swamp the US with low education third worlders who will be happy to vote in socialism and a permanent democrat majority.

This has already been admitted by dem strategists.

This effort by Ingas pals IS the dems long term electoral strategy.

Period.; 1/27/18, 6:36 PM
Chuck said...: Blogger Drago said...
...
...
That's so strange because for the last several weeks all the dem talking heads on TV (whom Chuck adores presumably) have been crowing that our performance to date is all due to obama.

How perfectly typical. Drago doesn’t ask what anybody’s position is, or where their loyalties lie; Drago “presumes.”

Do me a favor, you jagoff; don’t presume. Don’t write about me. Don’t mention me. For the good of this blog; stop it with placing a dozen or so posts on each comments page, all fantasizing about what it is that I really think deep down (but which only you can figure out and expose.)

Stop writing about me all the time.; 1/27/18, 6:37 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Drago said...
I dont want ti hear from you again until you get that sailboat, sail it to Bimini

For the record, Bimini is only about 50 miles off the Florida coast. Even in my modest little boat I have travelled much further than this. But, I need to get a bigger boat and go further, before I die. You are correct in principle.; 1/27/18, 6:39 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Determined to do what?”

Determined for Democrats to win elections and fix everything Trump messed up. Let Trump be Trump. Let Trump do what he’s going to do while he can still do it. Whatever he does will only make Democrats more determined to win. There is no bipartisanship groups in large enough numbers to pass laws at this point. There is no point to going through the motions now.; 1/27/18, 6:40 PM
Original Mike said...: ”Determined for Democrats to win elections and fix everything Trump messed up.”

That’s not a “goal”. What goal(s) do you have for immigration policy?; 1/27/18, 6:42 PM
Drago said...: Tough tiddly-winks Chuckie.

You and your dem allies have it coming.

You were the guy rumor mongering about a 10 year old. You were the one happy about a 15 year old getting doxxed for daring to post a video poking fun at your beloved CNN. You are the one who is completely operationally aligned with the dems.

Well.; 1/27/18, 6:43 PM
Drago said...: ARM: "But, I need to get a bigger boat and go further, before I die."

We all do amigo. We all do.; 1/27/18, 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...: OM No trick questions; 1/27/18, 6:45 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Do me a favor, you jagoff; don’t presume. Don’t write about me. Don’t mention me. For the good of this blog; stop it with placing a dozen or so posts on each comments page, all fantasizing about what it is that I really think deep down (but which only you can figure out and expose.)

Stop writing about me all the time. “

Drago is the Paparazzi of the Althouse blog, he jumps on his scooter and chases down the opposition to “report” on everyone, translating their comments into Dragonian.; 1/27/18, 6:46 PM
Drago said...: LLR Chuck: "Drago doesn’t ask what anybody’s position is, or where their loyalties lie; Drago “presumes.”

I already know what your position will be by early oerusal of the lefty sites.

And I care not a whit what you claim your loyalties to be.

I merely observe what is and proceed thusly.; 1/27/18, 6:47 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “That’s not a “goal”. What goal(s) do you have for immigration policy?”

For DACA recipients to finally have permanent protection from deporatation and a pathway to citizenship. It won’t happen with Trump as President or a majority Republican Congress.; 1/27/18, 6:49 PM
pacwest said...: "Determined to do what? This is the crux of the issue; what is your goal vis-a-vis immigration?"

That is a reasonable question Inga. ?; 1/27/18, 6:49 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Now Livermoron wants to argue that I am morally obligated to quote some nitwit's BS spin. Is this what you do? Simply read the news and regurgitate the spin? It would explain a lot.

I quoted the facts that Trump has boasted about improving. I am of the opinion that the president has a relatively limited impact on the economy except in times of economic crises, such as the aftermath of the financial crisis. So, I think Trump's claims that he is having a significant effect are all just marketing. Nonetheless, I will blame him if the economy tanks. Intellectual integrity only gets you so far in this world.; 1/27/18, 6:50 PM
buwaya said...: This is the way out to hostility - to discuss genuinely, the pros and cons of policy, with due attention to rebuttals and a detailed, logical answer to them.
To avoid "gotchas" and purely rhetorical assertions.
To stress discipline and substance in commentary.

On immigration for instance, propose a concrete policy, detailed, with a discussion of, in the scrupulous Feynmanesque manner, potential defects of your own ideas.; 1/27/18, 6:50 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Drago is the Paparazzi of the Althouse blog,..."

Hmmm. To whom, precisely do I "report".

Naturally, as always, Inga is projecting for if there is another iron clad fact about leftist control of societies in addition to abuse of psychiatry for political purposes, it is the intentional cultivation of a society where everyone spues and reports on everyone else.

Yoy know, for the good of the Party.

I recommend highly the movie "The Lives Of Others" about the East German typical lefry peoples oaradise.; 1/27/18, 6:52 PM
Original Mike said...: ”OM No trick questions”

My first thoughts on Trump’s proposal was he was offering too much too soon. But I’m coming around to the view that it will expose the base motives of the left on this issue.; 1/27/18, 6:53 PM
Drago said...: ARM: "Simply read the news and regurgitate the spin?"

You have to admit, that is clearly a step up from the usual Inga cut and paste wuth no understanding nor even the caoacity for spin.; 1/27/18, 6:54 PM
Original Mike said...: ”For DACA recipients to finally have permanent protection from deporatation and a pathway to citizenship. It won’t happen with Trump as President or a majority Republican Congress.”

You won’t even talk to the other side, yet you tar them as extremists.; 1/27/18, 6:54 PM
pacwest said...: "For DACA recipients to finally have permanent protection from deporatation and a pathway to citizenship."

That's it? All the variables in the immigration discussion and that's all you want? Then "Amnesty Don" is your best hope. I was hoping for a more nuanced answer.; 1/27/18, 6:56 PM
Drago said...: ”For DACA recipients to finally have permanent protection from deporatation and a pathway to citizenship. It won’t happen with Trump as President or a majority Republican Congress.”

Hmmmm, it sure didnt happen when obama and the dems had complete control of the govt including a Senate filibuster proof majority.

Now why do you think that was?.....

LOL; 1/27/18, 6:57 PM
buwaya said...: I do not agree that governments have limited impact on the economy. Modern governments intervene grossly in the workings of the economy, such that a very great deal of economic activity is a reaction to government policy. I can cite examples ad infinitum.

Consider the effect of post-war US tarriff policy on any number of US industries, that existed previously due to tarriff protection. I collect cameras, many of them American. That was an industry (cameras, and both consumer and industrial optics generally) that flourished under tarriffs, and the new foreign competition exterminated it over two decades. The city of Rochester NY was once a "Silicon Valley" sort of place, with dozens of innovative startups.; 1/27/18, 6:57 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Hmmm. To whom, precisely do I "report".”

You report to the readers here in the comments threads. Everything the opposition comments on you immediately translate it and restate it, into something you think we said, or wished we said, lol. It’s uncanny how quickly you do it too, I have to give credit where credit’s due.; 1/27/18, 6:57 PM
Gahrie said...: OK..let's say we give the Dreamers amnesty and a path to citizenship.

What happens in the future to children brought here, or who come here on their own, illegally?; 1/27/18, 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: ARM has no idea who wrote that government report. I didn't see any opinions in there...just facts.
If you want to make a case that it is modest, then do so. Don't try to shift context to one of your own synthesis.
That you have no clue as to how biased and dishonest you are does not surprise me. I suspect that you truly do know and just don't care.
That I find disturbing.; 1/27/18, 6:59 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “That's it? All the variables in the immigration discussion and that's all you want? Then "Amnesty Don" is your best hope. I was hoping for a more nuanced answer.”

No that’s not all, but that’s all I’m thinking may have a chance. For how many years now has immigration been fought over and for how many years has there been failures to pass any meaningful reform?; 1/27/18, 7:01 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "You report to the readers here in the comments threads."

LOL

Well, then I have to lodge a formal complaint: I have yet to receive a Performance Evaluation and potential raise.

Further, I demand a hearing by an executive officer at The Home Office.

Honestly, what kind of s***hole fly-by-night operation are you running here Meade?; 1/27/18, 7:01 PM
Gahrie said...: Do me a favor, you jagoff; don’t presume. Don’t write about Trump. Don’t mention Trump. For the good of this blog; stop it with placing a dozen or so posts on each comments page, all fantasizing about how evil Trump is (but which only you can figure out and expose.)

Stop writing about Trump all the time.; 1/27/18, 7:02 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "For how many years now has immigration been fought over and for how many years has there been failures to pass any meaningful reform?"

The dems had filibuster proof majorities and the Presidency...and passed nothing.

Why?; 1/27/18, 7:02 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: buwaya said...
Consider the effect of post-war US tarriff policy on any number of US industries, that existed previously due to tarriff protection. I collect cameras, many of them American. That was an industry (cameras, and both consumer and industrial optics generally) that flourished under tarriffs, and the new foreign competition exterminated it over two decades. The city of Rochester NY was once a "Silicon Valley" sort of place, with dozens of innovative startups.

This is a funny choice of an example. Kodak's problems have nothing to do with government or even other camera manufacturers and everything to do the rise of digital photography. The only old dinosaurs who survived that sea change were the lens makers, who are doing very nicely thank you.; 1/27/18, 7:03 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Well, then I have to lodge a formal complaint: I have yet to receive a Performance Evaluation and potential raise.”

I thought you did it for fun. Are you saying you’re employed by someone, hmmm? LOL.; 1/27/18, 7:04 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "It’s uncanny how quickly you do it too, I have to give credit where credit’s due."

And I am usually working in client dekiverables and perusing the news while doing it.

Not bad for a thousand year old fellow.

By the way, that William of Orange still owes me a tuppence.

I hope he doesnt Welsh in it.....

....see what I did there? Funny AND historical.

LLR Chuck wont get it though.; 1/27/18, 7:06 PM
buwaya said...: And do with the critical economic effect of trade/tarriff policy, we must pass to taxation. The % of GDP occupied by government spending, and besides that the unseen taxation of government regulation and mandates (for instance the requirement for employers to provide medical insurance), changes costs and distorts decision making. Increasing or decreasing cost of employment for instance.

Consider labor laws. Making it difficult to lay off workers makes it risky to hire them. This explains a lot about why official employment in France and Spain and Italy is so low, and also why so many there work off the books. And why few young people are (formally) employed, why it is difficult to "leave the nest", and indirectly why families form late and consequently the birthrate is suppressed.

Government policy matters.; 1/27/18, 7:07 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "I thought you did it for fun. Are you saying you’re employed by someone,.."

Hmmm, no. YOU were saying that.

Logic.

Give it a whirl when you get a chance.; 1/27/18, 7:08 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “The dems had filibuster proof majorities and the Presidency...and passed nothing.

Why?”
—————————————-
“The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation….to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote….that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.”; 1/27/18, 7:09 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...

His offers aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. He’s untrustworthy and won’t follow through when his base starts hitting him hard for going back on his campaign promises. Breitbart is already calling him “Amnesty Don”. Democrats should not make deals with him.

Does anyone here think Inga understands just how ridiculous this is? Pure insanity.

It is obvious that Democrats don't want a deal. Filibuster proof majority in 2009 and they didn't do it then. Unexpectedly.

This is just as transparent as the #ShumerShutdown. I hope democrats roll this into the elections. It will be fun watching them all get indicted in September/October while screaming IMMIGRANTS FIRST!.

Manchin is one of Trump's most ardent supporter right now on immigration. Let that one sink in a bit.; 1/27/18, 7:10 PM
buwaya said...: ARM,

I include here outfits like Wollensak, Elgeet, Bausch&Lomb, Ansco, Ilex, Century, Argus (once the worlds largest camera manufacturer), Graflex, and dozens more. You may not have heard of them.

It was not Kodak, Kodak was the last remnant of all of them. Kodak died of big-company sclerosis, the same as Xerox.; 1/27/18, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga failed to count Senator Spectre who caucaused with the Dems in 2009.; 1/27/18, 7:17 PM
buwaya said...: That optical industry was just one example (albeit one I know very well) of the effect of tarriffs.

These things have knock-on effects in related technologies.

For instance, industrial inspection machines, a postwar tech, are actually spin-offs of optical industries, the worlds best once being Leitz (guess who that is) and Zeiss, later thenselves suffering from outfits like Mitutoyo. The US could easily have had major players here such as Starrett or perhaps Bausch&Lomb.

This stuff is complex, but knowing the business means knowing what drives it, and its clear that if you deep dive into this you will find the hand of government, or governments, everywhere.; 1/27/18, 7:20 PM
Drago said...: Livermoron: "Inga failed to count Senator Spectre who caucaused with the Dems in 2009."

It's worse than that.

The dems had 60 votes in the Senate for at least 4 months...and the dems had about 9 months to prepare for that.

They knew they would have the 60.

And they could have done anything they wanted.

But they didn't. So, naturally, its the republicans fault!; 1/27/18, 7:22 PM
Drago said...: So, just as in the early days of obama, and now, the dems don't want a solution to the problem. They want the issue.

Given how the dems are going to have to argue the extra money in peoples wallets and pocketbooks is "fake" and "not real" and "crumbs" while simultaneously yelling "and you can thank obama for it!!", there is nothing left but impeachment and White Supremacy.

That is literally all they have.

Again.; 1/27/18, 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: comments are disappearing; 1/27/18, 7:26 PM
Achilles said...: OpenID Livermoron said...
Inga failed to count Senator Spectre who caucaused with the Dems in 2009.

History starts anew each morning on the left.

And it is always changing with current events.; 1/27/18, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: So, will Inga return and admit her error?

The world is watching; 1/27/18, 7:28 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Filibuster proof majority in 2009 and they didn't do it then.”

Nope. Not filibuster proof.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation….to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote….that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.”; 1/27/18, 7:32 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate…..and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside….it was during this time that Obama’s “stimulus” was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate…..and because Democrats didn’t have “total control” of that chamber…..three Republicans…..Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it’s passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009….Democratic votes 58.”; 1/27/18, 7:34 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21…..Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.”; 1/27/18, 7:37 PM
Drago said...: "Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat."

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

Once again, the dems knew well ahead of time what this configuration would be and had months to plan whatever they wanted.

They chose not to.

Inga is desperately trying to come up with something to explain away the democrats utter failure to even attempt something.

The dems could always have counted on Snowe/Spectre/Collins for a vote or 2 for something like the Dreamers.

The dems chose not to do anything.

So, naturally, its the fault of the republicans.; 1/27/18, 7:37 PM
pacwest said...: "No, that’s not all, but that’s all I’m thinking may have a chance."

I'm thinking there zero chance of that as a 'clean bill'. Any thing in there you wold be willing to accept?

"For how many years now has immigration been fought over and for how many years has there been failures to pass any meaningful reform?"

And yet Trump has put 'meaningful reform' on the table and has stated his willingness to take the heat from his own party. Why is that objectionable?; 1/27/18, 7:38 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Link to excerpts.; 1/27/18, 7:39 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: AReasonableMan said...
Livermoron said...
You are as I have described you

You are a sad loser unable to deal with reality and now an exposed liar.
1/27/18, 2:42 PM

I wouldn't know about him, but it's true that you are horrid trash of the sort that one hesitates to scrape off his shoe for fear of dirtying the sidewalk. The worst poster on the blog (though you have rivals).

Everyone here knows this. I wonder who here would raise their hands to say otherwise. Even your ideological gutter-mates will feel unclean defending you. The shade of Aristotle is probably at 200,000 RPM by now, listening to you bloviate under his aegis.

If those words were too hard for you: you're a no-good no-good. You are no good. There is no good in you.

"Nonetheless, I will blame him if the economy tanks. Intellectual integrity only gets you so far in this world."

I do however thank you for admitting that you are a whore. The first step to solving the problem is admitting that you have a problem. Keep this up, say a determined attempt at suicide, and I may have to admit that you are (hopefully, were) human after all.

Not yet, though.; 1/27/18, 7:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago/Achilles
The most delicious thing about the filibuster-proof majority is that the dems did not encourage Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy to step down so that they could appoint someone in his place while he was undergoing treatment. So, he missed something like 270 out of 290 votes IIRC.

Who was the idiot leading the democrats that year?
Oh yeah, I remember.; 1/27/18, 7:42 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I'm thinking there zero chance of that as a 'clean bill'. Any thing in there you wold be willing to accept?”

A cheap “wall”. Otherwise known as border security.; 1/27/18, 7:42 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “So, will Inga return and admit her error?

The world is watching.”

Made an ass of yourself again, huh?; 1/27/18, 7:44 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “And yet Trump has put 'meaningful reform' on the table and has stated his willingness to take the heat from his own party. Why is that objectionable?”

Schumer offered him $20 Billion for the Wall, did he not? He thought he had a deal. Why did Trump renege?; 1/27/18, 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Er, what are you mumbling? Are you denying that the dems ever had a filibuster proof majority?
Have you disputed Dragos timeline?
You saaay you don't drink....; 1/27/18, 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's some help in case your doble-vision has set in and you missed it earlier from Mr. Drago:

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010

are you denying that as factual or not?; 1/27/18, 7:53 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Have you disputed Dragos timeline?”

4 months long. Can you not read, or is it comprehension issues?; 1/27/18, 7:54 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/27/18, 7:56 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Here's some help in case your doble-vision has set in and you missed it earlier from Mr. Drago:”

That was not from Drago, that was from MY LINK. You’re batting 0, lol.

“The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010; 1/27/18, 7:57 PM
pacwest said...: "A cheap “wall”. Otherwise known as border security."

If that's the best you can do then zero percent chance.

"Schumer offered him $20 Billion for the Wall, did he not? He thought he had a deal. Why did Trump renege?"

Renege? That is what you saw happen? At no time do I remember Trump agreeing to that tradeoff, so it would be hard for him to "renege" on something he didn't agree to. If you are going to try to say he agreed to sign anything on the Tues meeting you are arguing in bad faith. It was clear to Durbin what he needed minimum in any bill he was going to sign.

How do feel about chain migration? Any limitations?; 1/27/18, 8:03 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "That was not from Drago, that was from MY LINK. You’re batting 0, lol."

Actually, we both posted that link at about the same time. I appreciate you posting the same info I did which disproves your point.

In the future your time would be better spent continuing to team up with LLR Chuck to advance the lefty cause.; 1/27/18, 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Uh, how many months do you need to pass legislation when your opponent can't stop you and you've had 9 months to plan for it. Your excuse is that the dems are incompetent. OK, I agree.
What are you trying to prove?

I took the quote from Drago, you cunt.; 1/27/18, 8:07 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Renege? That is what you saw happen? At no time do I remember Trump agreeing to that tradeoff, so it would be hard for him to "renege" on something he didn't agree to. If you are going to try to say he agreed to sign anything on the Tues meeting you are arguing in bad faith. It was clear to Durbin what he needed minimum in any bill he was going to sign.”

“Senate Minority Chuck Schumer said Friday that he offered to include funding for President Donald Trump's wall along the Mexican border as part of a deal to avoid a government shutdown.

During a speech on the Senate floor after the government officially hit a funding lapse, Schumer told members that a deal he offered to Trump would have given the president some funding for the long-promised wall in exchange for codification of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program.

The president rejected the offer, according to Schumer.

"In exchange for strong DACA protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion," Schumer said. "Even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal."

Schumer said the meeting with Trump concluded with a rough outline of a deal on immigration, healthcare, and government funding. Multiple reports also indicated that Schumer offered not just wall funding, but the full amount of funding requested by the White House for defense spending.

That was not enough, Schumer said. Later in the day, he said, Trump and Republicans reneged on the deal. Schumer blamed Trump for "backing down" on the immigration agreement.“

http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-schumer-wall-funding-for-daca-trump-deal-2018-1; 1/27/18, 8:07 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I took the quote from Drago, you cunt.”

Drago took the quote from MY SOURCE, you moron.; 1/27/18, 8:09 PM
pacwest said...: Yes, we already knew what Schumer said. So, again, how can you renege on a deal you didn't agree to?; 1/27/18, 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Your source? Your source? This passes for intelligence where you come from?

Your source? The one that proves our point that the dems had a filibuster-proof majority? The one you said never existed?

Drago, how DARE you use her source to prove her wrong.
The temerity of the man.

How many times must I tell you, leave the dumb cunt's sources alone!

Sorry Inga, he won't do that again, WILL YOU, Drago?; 1/27/18, 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Boy, the children really came out to play on this one. Slow Saturday afternoon.; 1/27/18, 8:17 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Drago took the quote from MY SOURCE, you moron."

LOL

In all honesty I just googled it on my own and it popped up. I did not copy it from your post.

Besides, its funny Inga would say "MY SOURCE". I mean, what is that? We both pulled a blurb from a COMMON SOURCE which belongs to neither of us.

Hilarious.; 1/27/18, 8:22 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Your source? The one that proves our point that the dems had a filibuster-proof majority? The one you said never existed?”

Jesus. But you really are that dumb. I posted excerpts from that link FIRST. I posted the same excerpt that Drago did at the same exact time. He got to my source because he found it from my excerpts, it’s not hard to do. You simply post a few words from the excerpt and like magic google finds the source! Lord you are as unintelligent as I suspected you to be despite your braggadocio about your intelligence. What a flappin’ moron you are,lol.; 1/27/18, 8:23 PM
Drago said...: Livermoron: "Sorry Inga, he won't do that again, WILL YOU, Drago"

I must say I am a bit taken aback that Inga would claim possession of an online source, and one that proves my point.

Will wonders never cease?; 1/27/18, 8:23 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Besides, its funny Inga would say "MY SOURCE". I mean, what is that? We both pulled a blurb from a COMMON SOURCE which belongs to neither of us.”

And you didn’t recognize the excerpts that I had already posted from that source?? Surrre you got to it on your own. You could at least try to be honest here Drago, too much to ask?; 1/27/18, 8:25 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I must say I am a bit taken aback that Inga would claim possession of an online source, and one that proves my point.”

LOL! It proved MY point. Good spinning there buddy.; 1/27/18, 8:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Consider yourself reprimanded, Drago. There will be an entry on your permanent file. One more such incident and you can kiss that promotion goodbye.
I mean it this time.

It was her source, dammit. HER SOURCE!

Sorry, I get so emotional at such injustices.; 1/27/18, 8:26 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "LOL! It proved MY point. Good spinning there buddy."

So the point I made about the dems having 60 votes for at least 4 months was disproven by your link which showed the dems had 60 votes for 4 months?

Hmmmmm.

Again, when I asserted the dems had 60 votes for at least 4 months, you think you disproved that by posting a link which clearly states the dems had 60 votes for 4 months?; 1/27/18, 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Say these words out loud Inga> Sometimes it helps delusionals to hear something being said before the can grasp it.
Give it a shot.
You go, girl.; 1/27/18, 8:29 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.”

1/27/18, 7:37 PM"

You did understand the very thing YOU posted, didn't you?; 1/27/18, 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: these words taken from YOUR SOURCE:
“Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010; 1/27/18, 8:31 PM
Drago said...: Perhaps the dems didn't have "total control" "total control".

You know, like sometimes it's not rape rape.; 1/27/18, 8:32 PM
Drago said...: It sure is a shame the dems didn't have total control for 4 months with months to prepare for that super-majority.

It sure is a darn shame.

But perhaps I'm wrong about that.

If only there were a link which would identify whether or not the dems had total control and for how long.

Alas, one supposes it is never to be.; 1/27/18, 8:33 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “So the point I made about the dems having 60 votes for at least 4 months was disproven by your link which showed the dems had 60 votes for 4 months?”

I’ve said at least three times now that the Democrats only had the majority for 4 months. Good luck getting a huge bill like Immigration Reform done in four months. I am not disproving that they didn’t have the majority for ONLY 4 months. I disproved that they had a “filibuster proof majority” for two years as you all were originally saying. Why are you such a dishonest commenter Drago? You do a disservice to yourself.; 1/27/18, 8:35 PM
Anonymous said...: My God, I figured it out! This is big. We are through the looking glass.

Dumb
Unable to understand own links
Really dumb
Posts stuff the poster doesn't understand
Tragically dumb
From Wisconsin

It all adds up. Inga is garage mahal after he finally transitioned.
Welcome back, garage! Do you prefer zhe or zim?; 1/27/18, 8:35 PM
Anonymous said...: And to clear, I want say that I agree completely with inga/garage: The democrats are incompetent.

I think we can build a bridge on that foundation, don't you gar...er inga.; 1/27/18, 8:40 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: LMoron,

I understand that you are having trouble understanding he argument and the points being made here. I’m sorry I can’t speak down to you so you can grasp it. Your ignorance and arrogance to make your ignorance even worse is not my problem. Why don’t you go to some blog in which you can keep up with the arguments being presented?; 1/27/18, 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, 4 months is not very long...but they sure tried like hell didn't they. And under such brilliant leadership! Man, they came so close. Just one more day!
Arrggh!

Hey Drago, don't be looking at her source! Get back to work. That porn isn't going to watch itself.; 1/27/18, 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't understand the arguments and you don't understand what you post.
OK.

Your source! Your source!Your source! Your source!

What a waste of oxygen you are; 1/27/18, 8:48 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/27/18, 8:52 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “I don't understand the arguments and you don't understand what you post.
OK.”

NOT OK. You are stupid and you still do not understand that I was saying all along that they ONLY HAD THE MAJORITY for 4 MONTHS. Not two years. I understood exactly what I was reading and posting and it PROVED my point.

ARM is right, you are the dumbest commenter here and your hubris and arrogance make it even worse; 1/27/18, 8:54 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: And I notice Drago slithered away....lol.; 1/27/18, 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga,m you lying cunt, this is what you posted:

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.”

Your whole cut n paste was to refute that there was ever a filibuster proof majority

Who claimed 2 years? Did Drago or I? The first I see Drago mention any time frame he says it is 4 months, as do I. I'll gladly retract if proven wrong.

So there you go gar...inga.
Face the truth. You suck.; 1/27/18, 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: What Peggy Noonan said about being condescended to by our inferiors....

ay yi yi; 1/27/18, 9:14 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: "It all adds up. Inga is garage mahal after he finally transitioned"

Hmmm, interesting theory. The weight is definitely about the same, as is the level of retardation. I think you may be on to something.; 1/27/18, 9:21 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Livermoron, you idiot, I posted the entire article in segments. Or did your bleary alcoholic eyes miss them?; 1/27/18, 9:23 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "And I notice Drago slithered away....lol"

Hey, those garden snails aren't going to train themselves!

Just because it's winter they think they deserve time off.

Not. On. My. Watch.

Gee Inga, the kids were back and it was time for quick baths and reading. But then again, I don't expect you to think too much of that. "Real American" parents usually just put their kids unaccompanied on trains in central america and have them transported across a couple countries and being raped and abused to get to America.

Those are the parents we need to respect. The rest of us are just deplorables who need to be replaced by "better" people from 3rd world nations.; 1/27/18, 9:28 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Your whole cut n paste was to refute that there was ever a filibuster proof majority”

Wrong, dummy. If you would’ve read the excerpts as I posted them in totality you would’ve understood the argument I was making, but in your haste to prove what an ass you are, you disregarded the entire article except for the last excerpt which I posted FIRST, which proved my point. There was not a filibuster proof Senate for two years and I PROVED IT. Man I really didn’t understandable first that you really are a dim bulb, with all your braggadocio about your intelligence, how hilarious!; 1/27/18, 9:29 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "There was not a filibuster proof Senate for two years..."

It's a good thing my argument was that there was filibuster proof majority for at least 4 months and that the dems had time to plan for it.

And that's exactly what there was.

Exactly.

But maybe I can still be wrong, like how the economy has been destroyed by Trump, but its going so well obama deserves credit, even though Trump also hasn't done anything because he's so stupid, but then again what Trump has already done has ruined the country, but obama deserves credit for the good economy......ad infinitum....

It's always fun encountering a leftist because until they open their mouth you are never sure what their opening argument against Trump is going to be. It's even more fun watching them flex to contradictory arguments, sometimes in the very same sentence.

They ought to make a game show out of it, sort of like the old Drew Carey hosted "Whose Line Is It Anyway", where you can see exactly how many contradictory lines of attack a lefty can launch against Trump in a limited amount of time!; 1/27/18, 9:34 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “It's a good thing my argument was that there was filibuster proof majority for at least 4 months and that the dems had time to plan for it.”

It was MY argument that there was a filibuster proof majority for ONLY 4 months and not the Republicans (if they had the majority) or the Democrats could’ve gotten a huge piece of legislation like Immigration Reform through in 4 months.; 1/27/18, 9:37 PM
Jeff said...: But what a bizarre issue to stake your political success on, knowing how unpopular illegal immigration is with the electorate.

Not bizarre at all. California used to vote Republican in Presidential elections and sometimes in gubanatoriol and Senate races as well. Until Prop 182 convinced all kinds of immigrants and their descendants that they weren't welcome in the GOP. Repeating this on the national stage is political malpractice.; 1/27/18, 9:39 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "It was MY argument that there was a filibuster proof majority for ONLY 4 months..."

LOL

The filibuster proof period of time began in Sep of 09 and the dems had months to prepare for that possibility.

They could easily have prepared something to sail thru at that time.

They didn't. Because they didn't care enough. Because they want the issue.

And so they do....or so they think.

Alas, the best laid plans....; 1/27/18, 9:43 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “They could easily have prepared something to sail thru at that time.”

Oh please. How much legislation has sailed through the Republican held Congress this past year? LOL.; 1/27/18, 9:45 PM
Drago said...: Apparently, Inga has developed some new "rape rape"-like Rule where a filibuster proof majority somehow doesn't count if it doesn't meet some other bizarre criteria.

Why doesn't a 4 month filibuster proof majority where the majority has months of time ahead of that period to plan...count?

Maybe that was a heavy global warming period and the dems were so hot and bothered they floated away in a river of sweat.

Totally not their fault.

Oh, and the dog ate their Immigration homework too.; 1/27/18, 9:46 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Oh please. How much legislation has sailed through the Republican held Congress this past year? LOL."

Uh, did you really ask that?

Okay, here goes: the party with only 52/51 seats was unable to sail legislation thru because of the 60 vote rule.

The party that had 60 votes for 4 months did not sail legislation thru because.........uh.....hmmmmm .......uh..... er.......??; 1/27/18, 9:47 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: LOL, at least you’re funny Drago. Your friend is neither funny nor intelligent. My dog’s name is Auggie, BTW.; 1/27/18, 9:48 PM
Drago said...: The democrats had complete control of all Senate committees where markups occur with a supermajority in those committees as well.

The dems could have had a couple bills all primed and ready to go to the floor when the expected 60 seat majority appeared.

After all, the dems are "can handle things. They're smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb. They're smart and they want respect!"; 1/27/18, 9:50 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "LOL, at least you’re funny Drago."

(In a most regal English accent) "One does what one can."; 1/27/18, 9:52 PM
Gahrie said...: wow..this thread was destroyed.; 1/27/18, 10:02 PM
Seeing Red said...: I’ve said at least three times now that the Democrats only had the majority for 4 months. Good luck getting a huge bill like Immigration Reform done in four months.

Seriously Inga.

They’ve been arguing and running on this and probably had a template from the 1986 reform to use and they couldn’t get anything together?

Why not?

30 years Inga.

Do you know why it was so easy to pass security legislation after 9/11?

Because most of it was off the shelf from Janet Reno.

It’s like Obamacare. Nixon offered Teddy national health care (c 1970) and Teddy turned it down because he needed an issue to beat the republicans over the head with. Then there was HillaryCare in the 90s.

I’ve said it before and will say it again. At your age you shouldn’t be this naive.

Someone somewhere has this shit written down.

It’s not about DACA.

It’s about chain migration.; 1/27/18, 10:24 PM
Seeing Red said...: And if they didn’t have a template that needed tweaking they’re as stupid as the republicans were on repealing Obamacare.

More stupid because they had

30!!!!!

Years.; 1/27/18, 10:28 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
“Filibuster proof majority in 2009 and they didn't do it then.”

Nope. Not filibuster proof.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation….to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote….that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.”

Inga said...
“So the point I made about the dems having 60 votes for at least 4 months was disproven by your link which showed the dems had 60 votes for 4 months?”

I’ve said at least three times now that the Democrats only had the majority for 4 months. Good luck getting a huge bill like Immigration Reform done in four months. I am not disproving that they didn’t have the majority for ONLY 4 months. I disproved that they had a “filibuster proof majority” for two years as you all were originally saying. Why are you such a dishonest commenter Drago? You do a disservice to yourself.

Embarrassing.; 1/27/18, 10:40 PM
Achilles said...: Gahrie said...
wow..this thread was destroyed.

The smartest democrats in the country can't even make a reasonable case why we should have open borders.

We have Inga and ARM.; 1/27/18, 10:43 PM
Achilles said...: Senate judiciary committee letter to Donna Brazile.

A short list of people and corporate officers facing indictment in paragraph 12:

"12. For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all
communications to, from, copying, or relating to: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn
Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David
Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro;
Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business
Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited.; Walsingham Training
Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows;
Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser;4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney
Blumenthal; Jon Winer;5 Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones;6 Bruce
Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker;7 Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John
Brennan. "

Safe to say those corporations were the one redacted out of the FISA request papers released by the DOJ who were illegally given access to TS surveillance materials.

James Baker. Yum.

Choo Chooo Bitches.; 1/27/18, 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Achilles: Thanks for poining out hoe gar...inga keeps piling lie upon lie...and hasn't the wit or grace to admit defeat. That, which you posted is what started the discussion on the filibuster-proof majority. As anyone can plainly see, Ingarage has changed zer story all along...first no majority, the, when exposed as false by her very own source (Drago, I'm looking at you!) and shown that her statement "nope, not filibuster proof" was inaccurate she starts changing her story. You can read it all in Achilles quote.

Ingarage is a drecksau.; 1/27/18, 11:02 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Nice “try” Moron. The issue is that YOU could not grasp the argument, similar to you not grasping ARM ‘s argument.ARM is correct in his assessment, that you are simply stupid. You have been humiliated in your defeat, I’m sorry it must be hurtful to you. Try to control your hubris and arrogance, that’s a step forward. You’ll get over it if you try.; 1/27/18, 11:14 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: And Moron, your notion that I’m Garage Mahal makes you sound demented.; 1/27/18, 11:18 PM
pacwest said...: Late in the eve. I'll defend Inga's position in part. It would have been hard to pass the immigration bill they seem to be espousing presently. The ACA was taking a lot of political capitol. They only had 60 votes for a short time, and they had to buy some of those.; 1/27/18, 11:25 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: And you ignorant slut Moron, I posted the excerpt you refer to FIRST. What a dope, LOL!; 1/27/18, 11:27 PM
Anonymous said...: God bless your little heart, Ingarage.

You still don't understand. It has been laid out in black and white with your own quotes as evidence. Yet you deny.

You accuse, but offer no proof.

Where's your evidence of my not understanding the argument? Show it to me. Show me the path. Lay out the quotes. Prove it.

YOUR SOURCE!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!; 1/27/18, 11:49 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: My source PROVED what I set out to prove. You can repeat your nonsense until the cows come home, lol. What has been laid out in black and white is that youdidnt understand the argument and now are scrambling like a squashed crab 🦀. Nighty night! It’s been so nice humiliating you! Let’s do it again tomorrow!; 1/27/18, 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Show me it laid out in black and white. I keep asking. Where is it?; 1/28/18, 12:11 AM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Read the thread, look at the time stamps, what is wrong with you? Why should I do your work for you? I’m going to bed, I wasted enough time on you.; 1/28/18, 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...: You claim but can't prove. Not on lick of proof to show me where I went wrong. because you can't.

"Nope. Not filibuster proof." That's your claim. No "except for 4 months" (as you would later claim you made). "Nope. Not filibuster proof."

Drago and I both point out that they absolutely had that for 4 months. We both went to the same website that you visited. We saw exactly where you cut and pasted from. We also saw that you failed to add that to your little c&P game.

So we hoisted you on your own website-based petard. And laughed at you about it. You got mad and chastised me for using YOUR SOURCE! against you. A source that you only partially and dishonestly quoted...or just failed to comprehend. Probably both.
Your source...as if others have no right to cite it. How strange you are.

And now you claim in your delusions that what I have and others have laid out using your own words proving you wrong out points to me being stupid, wrong and utterly defeated... and not one bit of evidence provided by you.

Come on. It isn't that hard. It's all in this thread. Ive' asked 4 times for proof and you can't show me.
You perfectly represent the hallucinatory thinking that Scott Adams describes.; 1/28/18, 1:12 AM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
Read the thread, look at the time stamps, what is wrong with you? Why should I do your work for you? I’m going to bed, I wasted enough time on you.

The democrats clearly had a chance to pass immigration reform without a single Republican vote.

Just like they passed Obamacare.

They did not do it.

You are being purely disingenuous trying to claim otherwise.; 1/28/18, 2:21 AM
Achilles said...: OpenID Livermoron said...
Show me it laid out in black and white. I keep asking. Where is it?

My post.

1/27/18, 10:40 PM Delete

All of the posts are on the same page.

You are just a troll at this point. But that is par for the course for democrats. Nothing you do is in good faith. Awful people.; 1/28/18, 2:26 AM
Bilwick said...: Coming up with the term "Dreamers" in this context has to be the current high-water mark of "liberal" BS. And since pretty much all "liberalism" is BBS, that's quite an achievement.; 1/28/18, 8:52 AM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Livermoron,

You don’t get to tell me what my point was. I stated my point and unless one is as stupid and arrogant as you are, one wouldn’t even bother trying to convince others and themselves and even try to convince the OP what their own point was. You are probably a psychopath, as I jokingly said upthread. No one else would’ve gone to such lengths. What a weirdo.; 1/28/18, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Achilles, your post indeed lays it out and proves she's wrong. It's been pointed out to her a few times. She just sticks her fingers in her ears while calling people names.

She's a real no-class act.; 1/28/18, 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: We've showed you your point. We've quoted you your point:"Nope. No filibuster proof majority."

That was your statement. That was your point. You have not claimed any other point other than completely contradicting yourself, when, proven wrong you tried to pretend that your point was that it was only for four months..the very point Drago and I brought up in response to your duplicitous comment.

You know you are wrong. You refuse to show us the proof where you are right. In fact, you avoid doing that. Why? Is it impossible for you to learn?

Well, I did go through all the time-stamps, reconstructed it and it all adds up to you being a dishonest, lying hack.; 1/28/18, 9:41 AM