Anonymous wrote:Did AOC give up her salary like she tweeted she would back in Dec? I still haven’t heard if she is giving up her salary. She’s such a hypocrite.

nah

If she did, you know she'd be tweeting the f%CK out of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

*sigh*

I’m going to let you think about that math a little longer.

That's TRUMP's proposal

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/19/us/politics/19reuters-usa-shutdown-trump-offer-factbox.html

Burn. And don't forget the $805 million for drug sniffing dogs.

I don’t understand why Dems wouldn’t even look at Trump’s offered deal. I’m sure there are Dems who would vote for that.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I should have said $7.5 M when rounding.

That’s not the issue.

Do you really think they’re budgeting $7.5 million solely for a judge?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

*sigh*

I’m going to let you think about that math a little longer.

That's TRUMP's proposal

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/19/us/politics/19reuters-usa-shutdown-trump-offer-factbox.html

Burn. And don't forget the $805 million for drug sniffing dogs.

Anonymous wrote:So which great statesman/stateswoman is going to broker this deal? Certainly not Nancy.

Also so disappointed in our local reps and senators. They could care less about the impacted workers.

i am a furloughed fed and I called them to say don't give in or he'll just do this again on something else. I'd rather get this resolved now that spend two years worrying he'll shutdown the government everytime Pelosi sends him to his room.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

*sigh*

I’m going to let you think about that math a little longer.

That's TRUMP's proposal

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/19/us/politics/19reuters-usa-shutdown-trump-offer-factbox.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

*sigh*

I’m going to let you think about that math a little longer.

What??? Are these numbers correct? Why would Dems allocate $7,500,000 per judge?

Yes, I should have said $7.5 M when rounding.

Anonymous wrote:"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

*sigh*

I’m going to let you think about that math a little longer.

Did AOC give up her salary like she tweeted she would back in Dec? I still haven’t heard if she is giving up her salary. She’s such a hypocrite.

"Democrats were proposing $563 million to hire 75 more immigration judges, who currently face large backlogs processing"

That's $7,500,000 for each judge.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/19/us/politics/ap-us-government-shutdown.html

Why broker a deal. After a while, it shakes out which are obsolete and they trickle off. Smaller government thru attrition!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so strange this issue is framed as a stand off between two sides who need to compromise when only one of those sides is actually demanding anything and the other has already voted to reopen the government with no strings attached.

Because the Dems won’t bring up debate on border wall unless forced to. Dems never compromise.

BS. They compromise all the time. So do Republicans. It's gotten harder for both sides, but it does happen from time to time. It happened last month until Trump blew it up.

Gridlock in Washington is what Trump was elected to fix. All he's done is make it worse.

Compromise in big stuff? I only see Republicans caving.

Like what? They got tax cuts and judges. That's all they ever wanted anyway. And they got it without compromising an inch.

Obamacare. Iran deal under Obama. Judges don’t count— why would they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, Speaker Pelosi’s only agenda is to thwart and embarrass the President. She does not care one iota about furloughed federal workers. She is a disgrace!

Please explain to us how the President shows he cares about furloughed federal workers. Pelosi and the House have passed several funding bills. Why won't Trump sign them?

Just yesterday, he offered to provide added certainty to desperate Dreamers (who could lose their protections any day when the Supreme Court rules on their very precarious situation), along with holders of TPS, while at the same time securing our border and allowing furloughed federal workers to return to work. Yet Speaker Pelosi rejected that offer even before it was made. So she has let down the Dreamers, the holders of TPS, federal workers, and Americans in general, and for what? Just to stick it to the President. How petty!

The Supreme Court passed on DACA. Precariousness is better than deportation in 3 years.

Trump either knew this when he offered or didn't. Do you think Pelosi doesn't?

If Dems are so confident they can defeat the President in 2020, then why wouldn’t they jump at the three years? And the Supreme Court will rule on DACA long before then, and it won’t be pretty.

The Supreme Court just passed on ruling on DACA. The dreamers are safe for now. Dems would be stupid to take what Trump is offering b

Wrong! The Supremes merely declined to take up the issue by this summer. They will get to it in the Fall, and the Dreamers will be vulnerable again come next year. And by that time the President very likely will have nominated RBG’s successor. So I’m sure the Dreamers are not at all happy with Nancy’s decision to reject three more years of protection. And again, this just goes to show that Democratic Leadership is not at all confident it can defeat the President, either through the Special Counsel investigation or in the next election!

The possibility that SCOTUS will take up DACA is the fall is why he’s trying to do a deal on it now. If he and Congress can come to an agreement to keep DACA in place for three more years, the lawsuit becomes moot and SCOTUS will decline to review it, giving Trump another bite at the apple down the road if the Court composition changes further. He’s not confident he’ll win with this Court, so if the Dems has taken the bait here, it would have let him save face rather than getting smacked down by SCOTUS and having the issue decided for good against him.

The Dems are absolutely right not to fall for it.

So which great statesman/stateswoman is going to broker this deal? Certainly not Nancy.

Also so disappointed in our local reps and senators. They could care less about the impacted workers.