President Donald Trump

[B-Fly]

wasnt the deal about a year ago, worked out bipartisan, and then landed on trump desk who rejected it, the best solution? it was 25 billion for border security, including the wall, in exchange for DACA amnesty. Wouldnt both sides find that to be vastly better than what we are looking at now? And its not so much a both sides thing, as most americans want relief given to DACA, so it would be a allowing the will of the people deal.

Yes, it's exasperating how often we've seen "deals" announced and then walked back in a wave of mutual recriminations.

[Hornsby]

Our 2K troops were never going to make a difference in a war they had no authorization being a part of to begin with. I agree that Trump is not the man to be making these decisions but this is one of the few things he's done right IMO.

The reason that we stay in places like Syria is this: We can prevent wholesale slaughter of a group of people. Erdogan has pretty much publicly announced today that he intends to go after both ISIS and the Kurds who were our allies in that region. That makes a difference to thousands of people who've been pretty loyal to the US. It's going to be the same in Afghanistan for women...we pull out and it's literally back to the stone age for them.

[DMT]

The reason that we stay in places like Syria is this: We can prevent wholesale slaughter of a group of people. Erdogan has pretty much publicly announced today that he intends to go after both ISIS and the Kurds who were our allies in that region. That makes a difference to thousands of people who've been pretty loyal to the US. It's going to be the same in Afghanistan for women...we pull out and it's literally back to the stone age for them.

That argument justifies deploying troops to countless locations and remaining in the middle east forever. No thanks.

Also, it ignores the destabilizing effect our troop presence has in the region.

[Judge Jude]

Not a chance. Why would the Democrats cave on an issue that most Americans agree with them on now when Trump is in his weakest position? They're going to sit back and watch the petulant man-child further implode by forcing a shut-down when he doesn't get what he wants.

show your pride when telling a DACA family member how much you "feel their pain"

though, not as much as you feel the joy in sticking it to an unstable, unpopular President. it's all about priorities, you see, and sorry, DACAs, stay in the back of the line. we have a pig to poke......

[DMT]

show your pride when telling a DACA family member how much you "feel their pain"

though, not as much as you feel the joy in sticking it to an unstable, unpopular President. it's all about priorities, you see, and sorry, DACAs, stay in the back of the line. we have a pig to poke......

Spare me the moral relativism.

[baldgriff]

That argument justifies deploying troops to countless locations and remaining in the middle east forever. No thanks.

Also, it ignores the destabilizing effect our troop presence has in the region.

Here is one where DMT and I agree. Maybe not for the same exact reason, but in my mind if citizens in countries want their freedoms they are the ones that are going to have to fight for it and gain it. How many efforts to "spread freedom" have failed because the places we go proselytizing the good news of freedom and human rights either arent ready or honestly just dont have a culture that believes that freedom is necessarily a good thing.

[DMT]

Here is one where DMT and I agree. Maybe not for the same exact reason, but in my mind if citizens in countries want their freedoms they are the ones that are going to have to fight for it and gain it. How many efforts to "spread freedom" have failed because the places we go proselytizing the good news of freedom and human rights either arent ready or honestly just dont have a culture that believes that freedom is necessarily a good thing.

That sounds pretty close to my reasoning as well. "Humanitarian interventionism" is the liberal equivalent of neo-conservatism.

[nots]

Our 2K troops were never going to make a difference in a war they had no authorization being a part of to begin with. I agree that Trump is not the man to be making these decisions but this is one of the few things he's done right IMO.

I could not agree more.

[baldgriff]

That sounds pretty close to my reasoning as well. "Humanitarian interventionism" is the liberal equivalent of neo-conservatism.

[DMT]

Yes!!

[Moonlight J]

Tim Ryan is my spirit animal here

https://twitter.com/rob_bennett/status/1075976638142259200

[OaklandA's]

though, not as much as you feel the joy in sticking it to an unstable, unpopular President. it's all about priorities, you see, and sorry, DACAs, stay in the back of the line. we have a pig to poke......

I am afraid you haven't been following closely enough. The Democrats offered Trump $25B for Wall in exchange for a permanent DACA solution earlier this year, but Trump rejected it because he wanted to tack on additional restrictions on legal immigration (family reunification, diversity lottery, etc.). Since then, the courts have ruled that the President's cancellation of the DACA program was unlawful, so there is not as much urgency as there was a year ago.

[Judge Jude]

if the Democrats are making any effort to cut a new deal to solve DACA as part of this impasse, I'd be interested to read the link

[Hornsby]

That argument justifies deploying troops to countless locations and remaining in the middle east forever. No thanks.

Also, it ignores the destabilizing effect our troop presence has in the region.

No, but you do need to show that you have backbone to keep a commitment to an ally. The destabilizing action in each region is likely to come when we pull out. Thousands are likely to die, and despots and dictators will take it as a sign that they can do as they wish. Not to mention the next generation of terrorists is going to come from those regions.

Now, I'm not a big fan of getting into new arenas, but honor the commitments that you've made as a nation.

[OaklandA's]

if the Democrats are making any effort to cut a new deal to solve DACA as part of this impasse, I'd be interested to read the link

There's no reason to cut a deal, because the courts have ruled that Trump can't end DACA, and in January, there will be enough votes in both the Senate and the House to pass a clean DACA bill.