>

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Trump Sets Up Pelosi and Schumer at the White House: 'An Extraordinary Argument' Ensued

President Trump set up House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) at a  White House meeting today.

The meeting was scheduled to be closed to the press but the White House unexpectedly opened it to reporters just as Pelosi and Schumer were arriving, reports The Hill.

What resulted was what The Hill described as "an extraordinary argument." It was all over Trump's demand for billions of dollars in border-wall funding and the threatening a government shutdown if he does not get the money.

"I will be the one to shut it down," Trump told Pelosi  and  Schumer as the cameras rolled.

During the meeting in the Oval Office, Pelosi repeatedly asked Trump not to discuss the funding request in front of the news media.

"You will not win," Pelosi told Trump.

This is, of course, Trump playing to his anti-private property, immigrant-hating base.

Trump may not read a lot but he knows how to get the juices of the masses flowing in a fashion outlined in Chapter 10 of F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

It is difficult to put Pelosi and Schumer on the side of a smaller government position but Trump managed to do it.

Democrats are offering $1.3 billion for border fencing and barriers, short of Trump's $5 billion request. Of course, there should be no wall.

Here's the video:

   

UPDATE

Here's more from the circus:
-RW 

31 comments:

  1. "Immigrant-hating base"

    Thanks for the MSM Mocking-Bird Talking points.

    We do not hate immigrants. We hate people who do not respect boundaries.

    Got that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Veritas2017

      ── We do not hate immigrants. We hate people who do not respect boundaries.──

      No, "you" hate immigrants. Those "boundaries" are imaginary lines on a map placed there by conquerors.

      Delete
    2. So you believe Mexico should have no borders either?

      Delete
    3. Re: Chubba dog,

      --- So you believe Mexico should have no borders either? ---

      Not even Aruba should have political borders. Those 'borders' are imaginary lines placed there by conquerors, not by people. It's funny while at the same time pathetic that you would think I can be fazed by a Trumpista asking me what 'Mexico' (a construct) would do.

      Delete
    4. Veritas its too high a concept for most liberals to understand ... this talk of boundaries!

      Delete
    5. Veritas2017: "We hate people who do not respect boundaries."

      I hope that you would include armed government workers in that group.

      Delete
    6. "Conquerors"

      Yes conquerors - is that your term for those coming into the US unchecked? Taking back what's "theirs"? And who or what determines that?

      Anyone can claim space - what do you build on it? What do you create in terms of culture? And does that deserve to stand and be protected - or ransacked by whoever can? What about the basic human right of self-defense - is that only for one side of the equation? Are laws just another boundary you don't like?

      Or for that matter what of the Muslim "conquerors" coming in unchecked into Europe and not integrating? Some are not trying to integrate - they are trying to decapitate. Just like ancient times. Ever go to a walled city in Europe? They had to build them because of Muslims coming from across the Med.

      Your racist terminology calling those who don't agree with you "White Supremacists" is noted. Funny how you say we're just all individuals - except for us evil White people with our houses, walls, borders, and advanced living standards which apparently are suppressing you.

      Boundaries matter - both personally and culturally. Marxists and collectivists hate boundaries - they want free reign to control all.

      So will all locks and walls be illegal in your utopia? Where does that end Francisco?

      Delete
    7. Re: Veritas2017,

      --- Yes conquerors - is that your term for those coming into the US unchecked? ---

      No, it's my term for actual *conquerors*, notwithstanding your paranoid fantasies about scores of brown-skinned people pouring over the 'border' just to mow your lawn znd build your house. The border around Alsalce-Lorraine wasn't placed in the map by Rosita Gonzalez or these Muslim people you seem affraid of.

      --- So will all locks and walls be illegal in your utopia? ---

      No, just those that xenophobic collectivists presume they can put around my property and the property of others to preclude me, and others, from engaging foreigners in peaceful trade, what they call a "Boundary".

      Delete
    8. ---"We do not hate immigrants. We hate people who do not respect boundaries."---

      I give it 5 years before Statist, Anti-Freedom-of-Movement fanatics are passing laws that criminalize the burning, desecrating or disrespecting of maps. Certainly such anti-patriotic acts such as stomping on a globe, will be heavily stigmatized and ostracized by all good patriots.

      Delete
    9. Re: Veritas2017,

      ── Your racist terminology calling those who don't agree with you "White Supremacists" is noted. ──

      Right. As the following says:

      ── Funny how you say we're just all individuals - except for us evil White people with our houses, walls, borders, and advanced living standards which apparently are suppressing you. ──

      It's funny how you dare call me a racist (which I take as you attempt at projecting yourself) while making the presumptuous assertion that Whites enjoy an advanced living standard, compared to... what? Non-whites?

      And I do call everyone individuals because each is the owner of him or herself, flaws and all. You just want to raise your status by attaching yourself to the achievements of others based on a shared trait - your skin color. I find that pathetic. By the way, I'm white with green eyes, and NO, I am not ipso facto a "self-hater", so don't even start.

      ── Boundaries matter - both personally and culturally. ──

      It only matters to those who, again, find comfort in the thought that the SINGLE trait they share with great men and women ─skin color─ makes them great also. It is pathetic.

      Delete
    10. Just to let you know, Francisco, the only actual conquerors in the Americas were in Mexico. Actual conquerors, Conquistadors, went there for the sole purpose of conquering the people and gaining their gold and wealth.

      By the way, nobody stole lands from the Mexicans who are the heirs to the Spanish conquest. Geronimo hated Mexicans because they tried to exterminate the Native Americans in Arizona and other bordering states. Geronimo had his wife and children murdered by them. They called for a meeting of Geronimo and his cohorts, and when they were there, they murdered his wife and all his children. He spent the rest of his life fighting the Mexicans who were trying to conquer what is now the southwest US.

      Also, the Hopi were attacked by the Spanish (Mexicans) too. They live in the longest continually-inhabited city in North America on some mesas. The actual conquistadors went and attacked them up in Northern Arizona, but the Hopi beat them by throwing rocks down the mesas at them and shooting arrows and anything else they could think of.

      The Americans have done some brutal crap to the native Americans but it is nothing compared to the Mexicans. There is a reason there are no reservations in Mexico, the natives in Mexico were raped and murdered and their culture destroyed on purpose.

      The conquerors were in Mexico. They were so proud of it, they actually called themselves "the conquerors" or "Conquistadors". Get over it Francisco. Social justice warriors are all ignorant and uninformed.

      Delete
    11. Francisco Torres....Talk about PROJECTION!

      YOU are the only one who brought RACE into the equation! I was talking about CULTURE - AMERICAN CULTURE...which you apparently have NO respect or appreciation of...

      You are the racist, not I. But you will hide behind your pathetic SJW/Marxist ideology and call others racists/xenophobes for opposing your schemes.

      Delete
  2. Please explain to all of us just how importing more destitute needy people translates to less government and less entitlement-programs.

    More people with health conditions to be serviced on the backs of the taxpayers by the monopoly medical/insurance system that's fleecing the nation and violating all anti-trust laws.

    Please do elaborate Robert...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Veritas2017,

      ── Please explain to all of us just how importing more destitute needy people translates to less government and less entitlement-programs. ──

      It doesn't translate to that and your question is a red herring. It's like asking how having more children translates to less government or how having more pets translates to less welfare programs. One thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

      Delete
  3. The reason they don't want the wall is not because they want smaller government. On the contrary, they want government to increase and know that they will get more voters with massive unrestricted immigration which puts the immigrants' families on the public dole and dependent on the Democrats' hand outs. There is no good side to this argument, either you have a wall, or you get to pay the inevitable higher taxes and medical costs to support the illegal immigrants' and their families. This isn't about big vs small government, but which type of big government you want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: David T,
      ── The reason they don't want the wall is not because they want smaller government. ──

      Perhaps but that doesn't mean the existence of the wall is validated by their hypocrisy.

      ── There is no good side to this argument, either you have a wall, or you get to pay the inevitable higher taxes and medical costs to support the illegal immigrants' and their families. ──

      That's a very clumsy false dilemma. It's not supported by the facts, not least of which that most "illegulz who takum er jebz!" are people who overstay their visas. The wall will only serve as a monument to Trumpista and White Supremacist folly while the welfare state remains safe.

      One thing that xenophobes and nativists easily dismiss or conveniently forget is that welfarism is nothing but a political tool, independent of population size and makeup.

      Delete
    2. Recently from the Washington Examiner: "A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation."

      63% by the way, according to the Census Bureau. We know it's really much much higher.

      The Democrats Cloward-Piven strategy is now really coming to fruition. It won't be much longer now until everything implodes. They have many useful idiots and phony "libertarians" helping them along the way.

      Delete
    3. Re: Chibba dog,

      You should investigate the sources you cite before embarrassing yourself. That supposed 'Census bureau' finding includes school lunches as welfare benefits, which means the humbers are SKEWED. Also, the statistic is again presented in terms of "households" which nisrepresent the true number of immigrants who supposedly receive these "benefits".

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

      The census doesn't confirm anything. The data was chewed and spat out by (surprise!) the virulently anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, whose methodology has been called out by statisticians in the CATO Institute for purposefully overstating the number of immigrants who presumably use welfare programs by adding them togefher with American citizens under that statistical fiction called "household". These false statistics are not even cited any more by anyone except frank anti-immigrant groups.

      Delete
    4. You can see here how the virulently anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies dishonestly overstates the consumption of 'government programs' by using a methodology that is flawed. Their numbers are much higher than even the estimates presented by the DHS, such is the level of dishonest statistical sleigh-of-hand practiced by that group.

      https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-overstates-immigrant-non-citizen-native-welfare-use

      Delete
    5. Wrong. The figures are far too low. It's probably really around 85-90%.

      Tell me something, Torres, why are the people in Tijuana referring to the migrants as "dirty ungrateful invaders"? Why do they desperately want them to leave so badly? Weren't they driven there by "the market". Shouldn't Mexico welcome them with open arms as they would be such a boon to the economy there?
      If they are fleeing violence and government oppression, as so many of them claim, then why do they march hundreds of miles carrying flags from their native countries?

      Don't bother replying, these are rhetorical questions.

      Delete
    6. Re: Chubba dog,

      --- Wrong. The figures are far too low. It's probably really around 85-90%. ---


      At least you make no pretense to defend the numbers you initially quoted and simply posit thst you are even better at msking stuff up.

      --- why are the people in Tijuana referring to the migrants as "dirty ungrateful invaders"? ---

      Because there's always going to be people like that.

      You don't seem to understand that rhetorical questions don't start with the request "Tell me something,..."

      Delete
    7. Tell me something else, Torres, why do you continue to split hairs over nothing?

      You're getting sloppy and flustered - you're making a lot more spelling and grammatical errors than usual.

      Delete
    8. @Chubba

      Torres (and most others on this site) would flip his stance on immigration in a second if all of a sudden the Boers from South Africa were coming to the US and requesting asylum. He's antiwhite. In his mind illegal immigration means a transfer of resources from white people to his people, and is therefore good.

      Delete
  4. ── This is, of course, Trump playing to his anti-private property, immigrant-hating base. ──

    Anti-private property because of their penchant of calling everything "our" and all people "we" as if everything is shared, despite the fact that neither is true. It's not "our" land and there's no "we". Only individual humans of will step on this good Earth, not collectives.

    Plus they hate immigrants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's pretty prejudiced and ignorant to say that anyone who disagrees with you "hates immigrants". Someone could just as easily make the claim that you have your stance because you hate Americans and have a racist partiality to immigrants who share your ethnicity.

      Delete
    2. It's part of his whole leftist blame game. Just scream racism and call everyone a liar.

      Unfortunately, Kate Steinle is unavailable for comment.

      Delete
    3. Re: David T,

      --- That's pretty prejudiced and ignorant to say that anyone who disagrees with you "hates immigrants". ---

      Don't pretend that what we have is a mere 'disagreement'. There's pure hatred coming from the mouths of anti-immigrant zealots. There are downright lies used to describe immigrants --evidence of such is, for instance, the fraudulent statistics presented by the Center for Immigration Studies which pretend to show that immigrants, somehow, consume government benefits up to three times more than the native-born. Or how people refer to immigrants as "invaders".


      And I don't hate Americans. Just Trumpistas, that's all.

      Delete
  5. Immigration is just Global Warming for republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When Mike Pence goes home at night, does he think to himself "I added value today"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Geez Robert, I wonder whether you've ever been to a 3rd world country. They're 3rd world for a reason, the people who inhabit them. If they were capable of creating successful cultures, they'd have done so a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's a geography thing. Pelosi, Schumer and Trump have such superior minds, along with, in the past, Stalin, Mussolini and Lenin.

      Delete