How about this for a trade off...
45 seems to be into making deals. Let's trade funding for the wall for the Supreme Court pick. We can even go with Garland. If 45 nominates Garland, Dems will pass wall funding.
I know it's not ideal but if we can win in 2020, we can then stop the wall. If we can't win in 2020, Ginsberg's seat will likely come open during the term, at some point, so we'll be toast either way.
As unappealing as it is, I think it is worth doing.
His word is meaningless.
He is a pathological liar.
We shouldn't be giving him the time of day. A wall? He promised Mexico would pay for it. That is the only deal he should have.
And we know what Mexico said.
So to me the wall is just a symbol--albeit a crappy one. A supreme court justice has the ability to impact millions. I would take the trade off if I could get it.
is a an R in the senate flipping. With McCain out (McCain flipped on the ACA repeal vote, you know) it's 50-49 split.
One R flips, it's 50-49 for the D's, and we start over again. This could get us to November and beyond.
He wants to steal the wall-building money.
The United States doesnt negotiate with terrorists.
while we open Yellowstone to any illegal immigrant lions who want to come over.
He can't be negotiated with. We should keep giving the appearance of negotiating but our positions should always be something he would never go for and include nothing he wants.
I would take this legislation any day of the week.
Full amnesty for full funding of the border wall. There would be zero benchmarks in place. IOW, amnesty does not happen gradually as the wall is built or in total after a certain percentage.
The wall is bullshit and we haven't seem to have grasped how solid of a negotiating tool it is. Then again, that might be because elected Republicans don't really want it.