Planet is dying because of climate change and those who are supposed to be leaders who have wisened with age are busy arguing over lines on a map.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Chuck Schumer: We'll put $1.6 billion toward border security
- Thread starter Deleted member 15440
- Start date
This thread is an embarrassment of hot takes and is blatantly misleading. You've been duped by a Breitbart-led initiative to suggest that Schumer is negotiating wall funding with Trump, which then dumbass idiots took the right wing bait on. This is the result of someone seeing a dumbass position posted on Twitter and instead of taking 30 seconds to look for more information, head to their nearest outrage portal, and parrot the dumbass position, and then 250 replies confirming the original dumbass position. Sure, I get that it's common, nobody wants to take 30 seconds to look up something for themselves to share an intelligent thought about it... They want to confirm that Chuck Schumer is an evil secret Republican, because that's what some dumbass on Twitter said yesterday and here's the latest evidence confirming it.
On the contrary, here are the facts:
Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill in June 2018, which allocated $1.6b towards border security, this is out of the ~$13b annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol. Donald Trump has recently expressed that he wants the Senate to provide $5b (over 2 years) of additional funding for Trump's proposed wall. Schumer is responding that, no, the Senate will not provide any more funding above what was agreed to.
Schumer is not recommending increasing the budget to build a wall, or giving Trump $1.6b more. He is reaffirming that the budget will be what the budget agreement was when the Homeland Security Appr. Bill was passed in June 2018. This is coming up now because congress has to approve a spending package to fund the government past December 7, and Trump is pushing senate Republicans to hold up the appropriating spending unless there is an additional $5b over the next two years specifically for "The Wall."
Now, fact portion is over, but to conjecture: You might be upset that Schumer is not saying "Well, actually, we're going to give you $0 of that $1.6b and move all of that money to forgiving student loan debt." That would be an interesting position, but it's not something that Schumer -- minority leader of a party that just lost seats in the senate three weeks ago has the power to do. Legislating and governing is different than posting hot takes on videogame forums. If you want a hot take politician, you've got one in President Trump. But some politicians, sadly, have to be adults.
Please let me know if I've mistated or misunderstood anything, as I'm prone to do, and I'll update my post... much like the OP should be updated.
Whenever you read something, you should be quick to Google it before your hot take. I know it's hard, but try it. Because then you might see that the top story on this which you're about to confirm, is written by Breitbart, an alt-right neonazi endorsing website, and "THe Daily Wire" which I can only assume is some right wing bull shit website.
Followed by less blatantly hateful, but still right-wing websites (Examiner is the Right wing alt to the Washington Post, National Review is not as objectively horrible as Brietbart but has been the mainstream conservative publication of the last 60 years, and... of course... there's breitbart again):
Check your sources folks.
On the contrary, here are the facts:
Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill in June 2018, which allocated $1.6b towards border security, this is out of the ~$13b annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol. Donald Trump has recently expressed that he wants the Senate to provide $5b (over 2 years) of additional funding for Trump's proposed wall. Schumer is responding that, no, the Senate will not provide any more funding above what was agreed to.
Schumer is not recommending increasing the budget to build a wall, or giving Trump $1.6b more. He is reaffirming that the budget will be what the budget agreement was when the Homeland Security Appr. Bill was passed in June 2018. This is coming up now because congress has to approve a spending package to fund the government past December 7, and Trump is pushing senate Republicans to hold up the appropriating spending unless there is an additional $5b over the next two years specifically for "The Wall."
Now, fact portion is over, but to conjecture: You might be upset that Schumer is not saying "Well, actually, we're going to give you $0 of that $1.6b and move all of that money to forgiving student loan debt." That would be an interesting position, but it's not something that Schumer -- minority leader of a party that just lost seats in the senate three weeks ago has the power to do. Legislating and governing is different than posting hot takes on videogame forums. If you want a hot take politician, you've got one in President Trump. But some politicians, sadly, have to be adults.
Please let me know if I've mistated or misunderstood anything, as I'm prone to do, and I'll update my post... much like the OP should be updated.
Whenever you read something, you should be quick to Google it before your hot take. I know it's hard, but try it. Because then you might see that the top story on this which you're about to confirm, is written by Breitbart, an alt-right neonazi endorsing website, and "THe Daily Wire" which I can only assume is some right wing bull shit website.
Followed by less blatantly hateful, but still right-wing websites (Examiner is the Right wing alt to the Washington Post, National Review is not as objectively horrible as Brietbart but has been the mainstream conservative publication of the last 60 years, and... of course... there's breitbart again):
Check your sources folks.
Last edited:
*Turns into a corn cob*This thread is an embarrassment of hot takes and is blatantly misleading. You've been duped by a Breitbart-led initiative to suggest that Schumer is negotiating wall funding with Trump, which then dumbass idiots took the right wing bait on. This is the result of someone seeing a dumbass position posted on Twitter and instead of taking 30 seconds to look for more information, head to their nearest outrage portal, and parrot the dumbass position, and then 250 replies confirming the original dumbass position. Sure, I get that it's common, nobody wants to take 30 seconds to look up something for themselves to share an intelligent thought about it... They want to confirm that Chuck Schumer is an evil secret Republican, because that's what some dumbass on Twitter said yesterday and here's the latest evidence confirming it.
On the contrary, here are the facts:
Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill in June 2018, which allocated $1.6b towards border security, this is out of the ~$13b annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol. Donald Trump has recently expressed that he wants the Senate to provide $5b (over 2 years) of additional funding for Trump's proposed wall. Schumer is responding that, no, the Senate will not provide any more funding above what was agreed to.
Schumer is not recommending increasing the budget to build a wall, or giving Trump $1.6b more. He is reaffirming that the budget will be what the budget agreement was when the Homeland Security Appr. Bill was passed in June 2018. This is coming up now because congress has to approve a spending package to fund the government past December 7, and Trump is pushing senate Republicans to hold up the appropriating spending unless there is an additional $5b over the next two years specifically for "The Wall."
Now, fact portion is over, but to conjecture: You might be upset that Schumer is not saying "Well, actually, we're going to give you $0 of that $1.6b and move all of that money to forgiving student loan debt." That would be an interesting position, but it's not something that Schumer -- minority leader of a party that just lost seats in the senate three weeks ago has the power to do. Legislating and governing is different than posting hot takes on videogame forums. If you want a hot take politician, you've got one in President Trump. But some politicians, sadly, have to be adults.
Please let me know if I've mistated or misunderstood anything, as I'm prone to do, and I'll update my post... much like the OP should be updated.
Whenever you read something, you should be quick to Google it before your hot take. I know it's hard, but try it. Because then you might see that the top story on this which you're about to confirm, is written by Breitbart, an alt-right neonazi endorsing website, and "THe Daily Wire" which I can only assume is some right wing bull shit website.
Check your sources folks.
I'm 39 years old. If y'all can't imagine living without a fascist organization formed 15 years ago, I don't know what to do.
I, for one, feel that it's important to iterate on & improve our governmental institutions rather than dismantle time-worn and battle-tested directives formed...
*checks date*
fifteen whole years ago.
I both sincerely appreciate the effort you have put into this post while simultaneously being aware that you are seemingly dismissing my desire to dismantle ICE and any wall-related efforts completely.
Nothing about your post changes my opinion, but I admit I know little about this Homeland Security Appropriations Bill of June 2018.
I have a question. What is the difference between the 1.6 billion dollars allocated to "border security" and the rest of the annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol?
Sometimes it feels like y'all are acting as if our neighbors aren't being tackled and kidnapped, incarcerated and then removed from their community and families. Human rights are non-negotiable. Any institution within the government or behavior by the government that doesn't de-facto respect that, is illegitimate.
It feels like you walked halfway into the thread and ignored everything in the OP
Thank you for this.This thread is an embarrassment of hot takes and is blatantly misleading. You've been duped by a Breitbart-led initiative to suggest that Schumer is negotiating wall funding with Trump, which then dumbass idiots took the right wing bait on. This is the result of someone seeing a dumbass position posted on Twitter and instead of taking 30 seconds to look for more information, head to their nearest outrage portal, and parrot the dumbass position, and then 250 replies confirming the original dumbass position. Sure, I get that it's common, nobody wants to take 30 seconds to look up something for themselves to share an intelligent thought about it... They want to confirm that Chuck Schumer is an evil secret Republican, because that's what some dumbass on Twitter said yesterday and here's the latest evidence confirming it.
On the contrary, here are the facts:
Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill in June 2018, which allocated $1.6b towards border security, this is out of the ~$13b annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol. Donald Trump has recently expressed that he wants the Senate to provide $5b (over 2 years) of additional funding for Trump's proposed wall. Schumer is responding that, no, the Senate will not provide any more funding above what was agreed to.
Schumer is not recommending increasing the budget to build a wall, or giving Trump $1.6b more. He is reaffirming that the budget will be what the budget agreement was when the Homeland Security Appr. Bill was passed in June 2018. This is coming up now because congress has to approve a spending package to fund the government past December 7, and Trump is pushing senate Republicans to hold up the appropriating spending unless there is an additional $5b over the next two years specifically for "The Wall."
Now, fact portion is over, but to conjecture: You might be upset that Schumer is not saying "Well, actually, we're going to give you $0 of that $1.6b and move all of that money to forgiving student loan debt." That would be an interesting position, but it's not something that Schumer -- minority leader of a party that just lost seats in the senate three weeks ago has the power to do. Legislating and governing is different than posting hot takes on videogame forums. If you want a hot take politician, you've got one in President Trump. But some politicians, sadly, have to be adults.
Please let me know if I've mistated or misunderstood anything, as I'm prone to do, and I'll update my post... much like the OP should be updated.
Whenever you read something, you should be quick to Google it before your hot take. I know it's hard, but try it. Because then you might see that the top story on this which you're about to confirm, is written by Breitbart, an alt-right neonazi endorsing website, and "THe Daily Wire" which I can only assume is some right wing bull shit website.
Followed by less blatantly hateful, but still right-wing websites (Examiner is the Right wing alt to the Washington Post, National Review is not as objectively horrible as Brietbart but has been the mainstream conservative publication of the last 60 years, and... of course... there's breitbart again):
Check your sources folks.
Democratic leadership in the Senate are the worst negotiators in history.
Always taking the fucking L.
Always taking the fucking L.
Well, you just took one posting this after Albatross's post.
My post is independently true of that post. What happened to DACA negotiations last time? It's amazing how Democrats are held hostage by Republicans when they're both the majority and the minority.
Nothing happened on DACA the past 2 years because Paul Ryan killed it in the house because he could. Reid was Majority Leader under Obama.
Schumer sucks. Be mad at him for the things he legitimately sucks at, not the ones you're attributing to him out of laziness or a complete lack of knowledge about a subject.
This thread is proof the left can be, if not is, equally as ill-informed politically as conservatives and so easily manipulated and influenced by confirmation bias from a fucking twitter post.
No. I hate on Schumer for things that are actually worth hating on. Not for him eating crackers.
He sucks because his politics are in part driven by his donors.
Individual wealthy donors. Financial services. Defense. Israel lobby.
He serves them
And saying that you wont increase border security funding and will leave it steady has nothing to do with that.
No directly, but I think it does affect most political stances, this one included.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Do you have any idea what that would do? Cmon son. Some of y'all are acting as stupid as the conservative nut jobs you hate.
You need that negotiating position to start with to get what you want in negotiations, especially when you have more leverage.
And you really think the dems should shit down the government until they get exactly what they want? And hurt millions of the people who voted for them in the process? What do you think a government shut down is, exactly? Because it feels like you don't know what happens when it shuts down.
I didn't want my post to come off as dismissing your valid appeal of dismantling ICE (although I do think the "abolish ICE" argument isn't broad enough in scope, but... that's probably more the fault that 'abolish ice' is slogan politics, not actual policy) and opposing any wall-related efforts completely, my post shouldn't change your opinion on those matters as they're valid opinions to hold, but I was battling against this Breitbart-led conspiracy theory that Chuck Schumer was/is secretly negotiating with the Trump Administration to appropriate extra funding for Trump's so-called wall, which was the false and misleading thesis of this thread. This thread was formed to promote an aspect of that conspiracy theory, and the knee jerk reactions of "Fuck Schumer" or what ever they are, are promulgating that conspiracy theory, so my post was an argument primarily against that. We can all want to fuck Schumer for our own reasons, but I'd assume in the context of this thread if someone wants to fuck Schumer, it's because they've taken the bait from Breitbart and the DailyMail or Washington Examiner.
I've posted before about the opposition to Schumer, and I think there is valid criticism of him, but the reason we don't have -- say -- an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ripe for senate leadership is due to two main things, the slow nature of the senate (6-year terms, 100 members, and state-wide elections; As opposed to the Houses 2 year terms, 435 members, and that all House races are local so you can get someone who represents a very progressive area, like say Jim McGovern from Massachusetts or Ocasio-Cortez from New York) and the habit of prominent Democratic leaders in the senate of running for president and passing on Democratic leadership opportunities. Tim Caine, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe BIden, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore ... Of every candidate for president or vice president in the last 24 years, with the exception of Bill Clinton (Governor of Arkansas), they've all emerged from the Senate. And if you look at the current list of 2020 hopefuls? Kristen GIllibrand, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren ... The top candidates are nearly all from the senate. Historically this has also been the case since World War II: Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, nearly all of the top progressive Democratic candidates of their time emerged from the Senate (Jimmy Carter is a lone exception, at the time considered a conservative Christian certainly not the progressive he is thought of today, was a governor, though few are hoping to ride Carter's presidential coattails...). The result of this is a vaccum of progressive Democratic leadership in the senate because so many rising Democratic stars move from the senate into races for the White House. There isn't a lot of progressive leadership today in the Senate. Dick Durbin is the #2, but you have to get deeper into senate Democratic caucus leadership ... Patty Murray, Patrick Leahy, Amy Klobochar, Tammy Baldin... before you start getting fresh voices, though most aren't outstanding progressives. If Liz Warren weren't staging for a 2020 presidential bid, she could easily be the next Senate Minority (or Majority) leader, but her aspirations for the White House are going to prevent that. Also, nobody who has an aspiring career for higher office wants to be a minority leader, it's a death sentence for a future political career for the exact reasons that many progressive Democrats despise Chuck Schumer more than they do Chuck Grassley: Being in a minority leadership position forces you to compromise on legislation that otherwise wouldn't if you were in a majority leadership position... It makes winning a presidential primary impossible. Has anybody (Aside from real history buffs) ever heard of William Knowland, Evertt Dirksen, Wendell Ford, or Hugh Scott? Yeah, exactly, they were senate minority leaders. Meanwhile, Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Bob Dole, Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey? Many of these are household names and would go onto have long political careers either in the senate, the white house, or at least, would lead their party ticket. They were senate majority leaders.
Re: appropriations bills, they're the result of two types of financing government programs: Mandatory and Discretionary spending. About half of the budget is Mandatory and half is Discretionary (really, it's 54% discretionary, 46% mandatory, with these figures shifting back and forth each year/congress to congress.. but in the end it usually averages to about 50/50 over time) Conservatives have turned "Discretionary Spending" into a dirty word over the last 25 yeas, but it's not, it just means a type of spending that is not required for the existence of that program. For instance, Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans assistance are types of mandatory spending, the existence of those services requires automatic spending. That's why when the government shuts down, social security checks are still mailed out, the spending is mandatory as long as the Social Security Act (or whatever law requires Social Security) exists as law. On the other hand, discretionary spending isn't mandatory and about 50% of the budget has to be appropriated to specific programs that have been passed through other laws. So, for instance, while the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is funded under mandatory spending (since FDR created the office as INS -- Immigration & Naturalization -- as part of his first 100 days and formalized under the New Deal), specific programs need within the department need to be appropriated -- like funding border security. The border security appropriations that was part of the June 2018 bill is fairly rudimentary, it's not much of an increase from the previous year, and certainly less of an increase from 2006 - 2012 where the budget for Border Security nearly doubled:
The reason spending at the border has increased so dramatically since the early 1990s is actually really complicated (it's a long, but interesting story, and there's a great podcast episode of Malcom Gladwell's Revisionist History that talks about it here) , and border police or "the Wall" (the antagonistic divisions of ICE that most people think of when they think of ICE) make up a factional portion of that spending... The majority is on personnel, like most government offices, and customs enforcement (aka, collecting taxes/fees on imports/exports). The $1.6b appropriations bill was money that was going to go to immigration & customs in some way, whether it would be $1.6b or $1.3b or $2b is part of a negotiation of passing other discretionary appropriations. First, immigration services has to get some spending, if you make it a skeleton crew (which many Republicans advocate, possibly even Trump) then that's going to worsen border activity, not make it better... And then you'd end up seeing someone like Trump send the National Guard to the border (which doesn't require an act of congress) instead of Border Patrol or the normal personnel. But second and more importantly part of the budget appropriation process is compromising on some things to get spending in other areas so that a budget can be passed. Schumer is a minority leader which means that he has to be in the position to compromise, instead of being in the position to demand compromise from Republicans. It's one of the adult things that congress has to do, something that President Trump doesn't understand... So when the Republican-led senate passes discretionary spending bills in June, and then Trump comes back in November and asks that an appropriations bill spend $2b more specifically to build a wall, it's not something that Schumer is going to go along with. Trump doesn't get this because obviously he has no idea how government works, and The Democratic-led House would never approve more discretionary spending specifically for "the wall." The existing spending that has been approved is not going to Trump's call for a "big and beautiful wall," any spending is going to existing structures that predate Trump... even as Trump tweeted photos of razor wire fencing, a lot that shit had been there since when Trump was begging to do commercials for McDonalds with Grimace. But Trump doesn't understand anything because he's a fucking idiot.
Last edited:
Wow, some folks really want open borders just to spite Trump? Does anyone ever read past headlines anymore?
Doesn't Manu Raju, the person who originally tweeted this, work for CNN?This thread is an embarrassment of hot takes and is blatantly misleading. You've been duped by a Breitbart-led initiative to suggest that Schumer is negotiating wall funding with Trump, which then dumbass idiots took the right wing bait on. This is the result of someone seeing a dumbass position posted on Twitter and instead of taking 30 seconds to look for more information, head to their nearest outrage portal, and parrot the dumbass position, and then 250 replies confirming the original dumbass position. Sure, I get that it's common, nobody wants to take 30 seconds to look up something for themselves to share an intelligent thought about it... They want to confirm that Chuck Schumer is an evil secret Republican, because that's what some dumbass on Twitter said yesterday and here's the latest evidence confirming it.
On the contrary, here are the facts:
Congress passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill in June 2018, which allocated $1.6b towards border security, this is out of the ~$13b annual budget of Immigration and Border Patrol. Donald Trump has recently expressed that he wants the Senate to provide $5b (over 2 years) of additional funding for Trump's proposed wall. Schumer is responding that, no, the Senate will not provide any more funding above what was agreed to.
Schumer is not recommending increasing the budget to build a wall, or giving Trump $1.6b more. He is reaffirming that the budget will be what the budget agreement was when the Homeland Security Appr. Bill was passed in June 2018. This is coming up now because congress has to approve a spending package to fund the government past December 7, and Trump is pushing senate Republicans to hold up the appropriating spending unless there is an additional $5b over the next two years specifically for "The Wall."
Now, fact portion is over, but to conjecture: You might be upset that Schumer is not saying "Well, actually, we're going to give you $0 of that $1.6b and move all of that money to forgiving student loan debt." That would be an interesting position, but it's not something that Schumer -- minority leader of a party that just lost seats in the senate three weeks ago has the power to do. Legislating and governing is different than posting hot takes on videogame forums. If you want a hot take politician, you've got one in President Trump. But some politicians, sadly, have to be adults.
Please let me know if I've mistated or misunderstood anything, as I'm prone to do, and I'll update my post... much like the OP should be updated.
Whenever you read something, you should be quick to Google it before your hot take. I know it's hard, but try it. Because then you might see that the top story on this which you're about to confirm, is written by Breitbart, an alt-right neonazi endorsing website, and "THe Daily Wire" which I can only assume is some right wing bull shit website.
Followed by less blatantly hateful, but still right-wing websites (Examiner is the Right wing alt to the Washington Post, National Review is not as objectively horrible as Brietbart but has been the mainstream conservative publication of the last 60 years, and... of course... there's breitbart again):
Check your sources folks.
Democrats in the senate don't have any negotiating position. The Republican senate majority expanded three weeks ago. The 2018 appropriations bill was a win for senate Democrats because there were so many strings attached to the border spending, and notably, it stipulated that there would be no spending on a "new beautiful wall" that Trump demanded.
From my understanding, It started Monday or Tuesday with a Breitbart placed story that Schumer abandoned the left to start appropriating spending on Trump's wall:
(this screenshot was from... Wednesdya morning, so '22 Hours ago' was Tuesday afternoonish), and then Schumer got asked that at his press conference and he said no, we're not allocating any more spending than we agreed to in June 2018... and Breitbart wrote this as "A Retreat" amid a "PRogressive Backlash!"
All of the likely suspects of right wing bull shit jumped on it, and progressive sources jumped on Schumer for compromising on the Wall, something he never did.
It's all bull shit. Trump is hurting Republicans by trying to compell them to force extra spending on the Wall, an unpopular idea that is not supported by Congress either in the House or Senate, and sources like Breitbart are trying to spin it that Schumer is open to negotiating, but then he's reticent to, so if the Gov't shuts down over this (Which it likely won't), they're trying to blame Schumer and the Democrats proactively. It also falls in line with the conservative playbook over the last 2 weeks that Democrats in the house and senate want new leadership (e.g., jumping on those 15 or so congressmen who opposed Pelosi as House Leader).
Though, if there's some story I missed from CNN let me know... but this has had the fingerprints of far right chicanery all over it.
Yeah, I saw your post. But the tweet in the OP is from a guy who works for CNN. As far as I know, no one here was using breitbart as a source. Manu Raju didn't either. He was apparently present at Schumer's presser.From my understanding, It started Monday or Tuesday with a Breitbart placed story that Schumer abandoned the left to start appropriating spending on Trump's wall:
(this screenshot was from... Wednesdya morning, so '22 Hours ago' was Tuesday afternoonish), and then Schumer got asked that at his press conference and he said no, we're not allocating any more spending than we agreed to in June 2018... and Breitbart wrote this as "A Retreat" amid a "PRogressive Backlash!"
All of the likely suspects of right wing bull shit jumped on it, and progressive sources jumped on Schumer for compromising on the Wall, something he never did.
It's all bull shit. Trump is hurting Republicans by trying to compell them to force extra spending on the Wall, an unpopular idea that is not supported by Congress either in the House or Senate, and sources like Breitbart are trying to spin it that Schumer is open to negotiating, but then he's reticent to, so if the Gov't shuts down over this (Which it likely won't), they're trying to blame Schumer and the Democrats proactively.
Though, if there's some story I missed from CNN let me know... but this has had the fingerprints of far right chicanery all over it.
For all the shit folks give the right, you get some of the most uninformed reactions as if it's a contest. If all you've got to post is "omg the dems are so dumb", then you may as well keep that bullshit to yourself. It's crazy how often I'll see a right-wing talking points adopted by folks here.
Thank you The Albatross
We need to take some notes from Republicans and support our party leaders regardless of their fuck ups. We elected them, now lets stand by them. All this infighting is something only democrats do. Schummer is not the best man, but hes a good politician. Politicians by design are supposed to be cunniving little shits who are willing to put their principles aside to cut deals. Schummer is our guy. If he is working with Trump on something, lets not assume he is doing it because hes a racist like the rest of them. his job is to cut deals and he will likely get something in return for this.
The hate on these boards for pragmatists like Hillary, pelosi and Schummer is beyond me. these are politicians. Look at straight arrows like Obama. They get nothing done. The country is divided 50-50. we dont have the votes in senate and we dont have the white house. we need to let some things slide in order to get other stuff done. After all the republicans did win it all in 2016. We lost. Schummer has like no power. We also cant have four years of NO progress. Let these senators make deals and do their job.
We need to take some notes from Republicans and support our party leaders regardless of their fuck ups. We elected them, now lets stand by them. All this infighting is something only democrats do. Schummer is not the best man, but hes a good politician. Politicians by design are supposed to be cunniving little shits who are willing to put their principles aside to cut deals. Schummer is our guy. If he is working with Trump on something, lets not assume he is doing it because hes a racist like the rest of them. his job is to cut deals and he will likely get something in return for this.
The hate on these boards for pragmatists like Hillary, pelosi and Schummer is beyond me. these are politicians. Look at straight arrows like Obama. They get nothing done. The country is divided 50-50. we dont have the votes in senate and we dont have the white house. we need to let some things slide in order to get other stuff done. After all the republicans did win it all in 2016. We lost. Schummer has like no power. We also cant have four years of NO progress. Let these senators make deals and do their job.
Obama was a pragmatist. He tried to reach across the aisle. He nominated a moderate to replace Scalia, he included republicans in the ACA. What the hell are you talking about?
We don't need to stand by Dems, they need to stand by us. This infighting is occurring because there are many factions under this big tent that have opposing ideals whereas the right generally have the same goals.
And Schumer worked with Facebook to screw us over. He told other democrats to not get too far into facebooks shit. Schumer is not a pragmatist.