(OT) Trump celebrates a deal

[Pelle Svanslös]

"Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns
lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN
for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154883345546928128

This "deal" gives Trump $2.5B. The deal Trump refused would have given
him $25B for the wall. Trump haggled himself a worse deal! That's art.

--
“I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can
become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of
Putin’s team to buy in on this”.
-- Felix Sater

[Geeam]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:35:44 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> This "deal" gives Trump $2.5B. The deal Trump refused would have given
> him $25B for the wall.

What would have been the deal? That Trump should kill himself on camera?

But enough of that nonsense, here's what actually happened:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/26/schumers_25_billion_offer_was_never_in_earnest_139287.html

The only hope that we'll never get too tired of winning, winning, winning...

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/07/2019 19.10, Geeam wrote:
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:35:44 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> This "deal" gives Trump $2.5B. The deal Trump refused would have given
>> him $25B for the wall.
>
> What would have been the deal? That Trump should kill himself on camera?
>
> But enough of that nonsense, here's what actually happened:
>
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/26/schumers_25_billion_offer_was_never_in_earnest_139287.html

No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
Republicans held both chambers.

[Geeam]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
> Republicans held both chambers.

That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers. How ignorant are you? Ryan offered Trump 25 billion, but he refused? When did that happen?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
>> Republicans held both chambers.
>
> That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.

Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.

All Trump had to do was say yes. If he didn't because of a few DACA
"kids", who's to blame? The DACA kids are still around and Trump's got
1/10th of what he could have had.

Duh!

[Geeam]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 7:49:32 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.
> All Trump had to do was say yes. If he didn't because of a few DACA
> "kids", who's to blame? The DACA kids are still around and Trump's got
> 1/10th of what he could have had.

Thanks for proving that you simply don't care about information that might contradict your prejudiced warped world view. If you had bothered to read it, you would have known that "a few DACA 'kids'" had absolutely nothing to do with it. BTW, it's also revealing that you put quotation marks around "kids", but not around "a few". LOL

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/07/2019 21.13, Geeam wrote:
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 7:49:32 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your
>> link. All Trump had to do was say yes. If he didn't because of a
>> few DACA "kids", who's to blame? The DACA kids are still around and
>> Trump's got 1/10th of what he could have had.
>
> Thanks for proving that you simply don't care about information that
> might contradict your prejudiced warped world view. If you had
> bothered to read it, you would have known that "a few DACA 'kids'"
> had absolutely nothing to do with it.

So what did? I got as far as the URL itself and it made Schumer the
major player in this. He's the minority leader, ffs.

> BTW, it's also revealing that
> you put quotation marks around "kids", but not around "a few". LOL

What sinister motives might you read into that? If you're interested why
the quotation marks are there, it's because most of the DACA "kids"
aren't kids anymore! Lol.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/07/2019 21.25, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 27/07/2019 21.13, Geeam wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 7:49:32 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös
>> wrote:
>>> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your
>>> link. All Trump had to do was say yes. If he didn't because of a
>>> few DACA "kids", who's to blame? The DACA kids are still around and
>>> Trump's got 1/10th of what he could have had.
>>
>> Thanks for proving that you simply don't care about information that
>> might contradict your prejudiced warped world view. If you had
>> bothered to read it, you would have known that "a few DACA 'kids'"
>> had absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> So what did? I got as far as the URL itself and it made Schumer the
> major player in this. He's the minority leader, ffs.

This is a point worth understanding. What Schumer got into the deal was
what Ryan/McConnell agreed to. Hope you got that. Trump threatened with
veto before the deal was even done.

Second, I read a bit, not much, into what your BS link said. I initially
made the right choice and regret second guessing it. I'll NEVER read any
of this crap again.

The article provides this scribbling

https://www.fairus.org/media/13631

as proof of

"the senator’s staff inserted a hand-written provision that would have
restricted immigration enforcement. This exclusively protected violent
criminals and terrorists while also – and this is an enormous “also” –
instituted an official enforcement holiday – amnesty – at the border and
in the interior of the nation for any and everyone who would arrive in
the U.S. in the following five months, through June 2018".

Fucking Almighty. These guys put links in the hopes nobody will follow
them. Doing this, I've missed 10min of the worst Swedish police series
there could be. Now I have to rewind.

Will I see apologies for wasting that 10min? Like hell.

[Geeam]

On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 8:25:32 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> So what did? I got as far as the URL itself and it made Schumer the
> major player in this. He's the minority leader, ffs.

Of course, Schumer was the major player. Do you think the deal would have been between Trump and Ryan? The proposals needed 60 votes to advance.

> What sinister motives might you read into that? If you're interested why
> the quotation marks are there, it's because most of the DACA "kids"
> aren't kids anymore! Lol.

Not sinister, just funny. I didn't think you would admit that the DACA kids aren't really kids, because according to CNN that's usually an evil conservative talking point. But if you're being surprisingly honest, you also should have admitted that 1.8 million "kids" is not exactly "a few" by any measure. That's why: LOL!

> Second, I read a bit, not much, into what your BS link said. I initially
> made the right choice and regret second guessing it. I'll NEVER read any
> of this crap again.

That's great, because maybe now you know exactly how I (we) feel after reading your deranged crap. Tit for tat!

> Fucking Almighty. These guys put links in the hopes nobody will follow
> them. Doing this, I've missed 10min of the worst Swedish police series
> there could be. Now I have to rewind.
> Will I see apologies for wasting that 10min? Like hell.

Spare me your ridiculously fake moral outrage, hypocrite! You're posting the most one-sided filthy leftist propaganda on a daily basis. You're RST's resident anti Trump conspiracy theorist. And as if you wanted to prove just that, you end every post with a mobster named Felix Sater who is clearly just bragging and trash talking NYC style. That's your crown witness? Seriously? So of all people, you have the chuzpe to ask for an apology? You're even more delusional than I would have thought possible. OMFG, and good night!

[The Iceberg]

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 18:49:32 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
> >> Republicans held both chambers.
> >
> > That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.
>
> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.
>
> All Trump had to do was say yes. If he didn't because of a few DACA
> "kids", who's to blame? The DACA kids are still around and Trump's got
> 1/10th of what he could have had.
>
> Duh!

LOL amazing what a fake news liar you are!!

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/07/2019 2.16, Geeam wrote:
> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 8:25:32 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös
> wrote:
>> So what did? I got as far as the URL itself and it made Schumer
>> the major player in this. He's the minority leader, ffs.
>
> Of course, Schumer was the major player. Do you think the deal would
> have been between Trump and Ryan? The proposals needed 60 votes to
> advance.

The Republicans were with the majority. McConnel > Schumer. Whatever
thumbprints Schumer got into the deal were agreed with McConnel/Ryan,
the bigger players.

>> What sinister motives might you read into that? If you're
>> interested why the quotation marks are there, it's because most of
>> the DACA "kids" aren't kids anymore! Lol.
>
> Not sinister, just funny. I didn't think you would admit that the
> DACA kids aren't really kids, because according to CNN that's usually
> an evil conservative talking point.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But if you're being surprisingly
> honest, you also should have admitted that 1.8 million "kids" is not
> exactly "a few" by any measure. That's why: LOL!

There are several estimates on that number. 700K, 800K, 1.3M. The head
Trumpski has even floated 3M. But he's an established liar.

What's your source for the 1.8M? RealClearPolitics?

>> Second, I read a bit, not much, into what your BS link said. I
>> initially made the right choice and regret second guessing it. I'll
>> NEVER read any of this crap again.
>
> That's great, because maybe now you know exactly how I (we) feel
> after reading your deranged crap. Tit for tat!
>
>> Fucking Almighty. These guys put links in the hopes nobody will
>> follow them. Doing this, I've missed 10min of the worst Swedish
>> police series there could be. Now I have to rewind. Will I see
>> apologies for wasting that 10min? Like hell.
>
> Spare me your ridiculously fake moral outrage, hypocrite! You're
> posting the most one-sided

My one-sidedness happens to hit the mark often. Like in this thread:
Trump haggled himself a shitty deal.

Compared to your one-sidedness, the outright lies of RealClearPolitics
which you're not even bothering to deny, I'm doing fine.

> filthy leftist propaganda on a daily
> basis.

Awww.

> You're RST's resident anti Trump conspiracy theorist. And as
> if you wanted to prove just that, you end every post with a mobster
> named Felix Sater who is clearly just bragging and trash talking NYC
> style.

Lol! What's your problem with that? The statement is real. It proves
there were at least two guys as close as you can get to Trump with the
intent of "engineering" stuff!

Nothing controversial in that.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I understand you have a hard time living with that, but it's true. Trump
had the votes, but declined the deal! He got greedy!

Trump is a stupid man.

[Geeam]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> What's your source for the 1.8M? RealClearPolitics?

RCP is certainly much less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. There are several estimates, but I think my source is one of the more realistic ones. Most estimates deliberately downplay the real effects.

> My one-sidedness happens to hit the mark often. Like in this thread:
> Trump haggled himself a shitty deal.

That's just wrong, liar, because what's the deal? This is NOT a deal. Trump just gets the money to build his wall. For nothing! No DACA kids, no dreamers, no amnesty. No NOTHING! It's a complete victory. And Trump's base knows that. And many independents will know that.

> Lol! What's your problem with that? The statement is real. It proves
> there were at least two guys as close as you can get to Trump with the
> intent of "engineering" stuff!

It doesn't prove anything except that you're a mentally deranged conspiracy theorist. And since yesterday I also know why. Because you don't read anything outside your bubble. It seemed like you had a nervous breakdown after clicking on my link.
As close as you can get? WTF? Trump barely knew Sater. Just because they have been photographed together, dumb people like you think they were best friends. Even as a real-estate mogul Trump literally met tens of thousands of people.

[Geeam]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Trump is a stupid man.

I don't think this is true, but at least that would be one thing you have in common.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/07/2019 14.16, Geeam wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 12:06:19 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> What's your source for the 1.8M? RealClearPolitics?
>
> RCP is certainly much less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc.

In this case it was caught with its pants down. You basically admitted
as much.

There
> are several estimates, but I think my source is one of the more
> realistic ones. Most estimates deliberately downplay the real
> effects.

But you haven't named your source. And how on earth do you know which
estimate is "realistic"?

Why am I even talking to you?

>> My one-sidedness happens to hit the mark often. Like in this
>> thread: Trump haggled himself a shitty deal.
>
> That's just wrong, liar, because what's the deal? This is NOT a deal.
> Trump just gets the money to build his wall. For nothing! No DACA
> kids, no dreamers, no amnesty. No NOTHING! It's a complete victory.
> And Trump's base knows that. And many independents will know that.

Lol.

Trump had $25B billion in the pocket, now has $2.5B. Everything else is
the same!

That's shitty dealmaking if you ask me.

>> Lol! What's your problem with that? The statement is real. It
>> proves there were at least two guys as close as you can get to
>> Trump with the intent of "engineering" stuff!
>
> It doesn't prove anything except that you're a mentally deranged
> conspiracy theorist.

The quote is a real quote.

> And since yesterday I also know why. Because you
> don't read anything outside your bubble.

You jump into conclusions. I prune out only the lies you guys peddle.
Reasonable people, I listen to. The Chumps, no.

> It seemed like you had a
> nervous breakdown after clicking on my link. As close as you can get?
> WTF? Trump barely knew Sater.

They were business associates. Trump distanced himself from Sater after
their real estate "developing" went bust but then re-hired him.

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 04:16:25 -0700, Geeam wrote:

> Trump just gets the money to build his wall.

2.5 billion? What's that, 100 feet? It actually doesn't seem like that
great of a deal in any case, the money is coming from military funding,
and based on a declaration of a national emergency... how stable in the
long run will it be pilfering money from the military for an ineffectual
wall using a perpetual declaration of emergency (which won't be solved by
2.5 billion)? Note that construction of the wall is not a "one-time
payment" either... it's a subscription program. 2.5 billion is a drop in
the bucket and this is about the most disappointing "win" Trump could
hope for.

[Geeam]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 1:37:06 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> In this case it was caught with its pants down. You basically admitted
> as much.

Now you start trolling. What did I admit? That everyone is biased? That's just common sense! You know common sense, that weird thing you're completely lacking!

> But you haven't named your source. And how on earth do you know which
> estimate is "realistic"?

That's a dumb useless question. It's my opinion based on my knowledge. How do you know what's realistic? I guess the difference is that I have my own opinion while you're just parroting talking points that other people have made.

> Why am I even talking to you?

I certainly wish you wouldn't. Maybe it's because I completely own you, but you're still unwilling to surrender?

> Trump had $25B billion in the pocket, now has $2.5B. Everything else is
> the same!
> That's shitty dealmaking if you ask me.

Nobody asks you, because you don't know anything. You compare two things that can't be compared: a flawed $25 billion deal vs. $2,5 billion of free money on the table. If that was the deal, I'd prefer the free money every time. Your only intention with this nonsense thread is to downplay Trump's victory, but you can't.

> The quote is a real quote.

How stupid are you? The quote is a real quote, but it doesn't prove anything except that you're a mentally deranged conspiracy theorist. Got it this time?

> You jump into conclusions. I prune out only the lies you guys peddle.
> Reasonable people, I listen to. The Chumps, no.

Your delusional narrow-minded definition of "reasonable people": That's your bubble!

> They were business associates. Trump distanced himself from Sater after
> their real estate "developing" went bust but then re-hired him.

And how many "business associates" did Trump have over his 50 year career? Tens of thousands! Exactly! LOL

[Geeam]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 1:56:51 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
> 2.5 billion? What's that, 100 feet? It actually doesn't seem like that
> great of a deal in any case, the money is coming from military funding,
> and based on a declaration of a national emergency... how stable in the
> long run will it be pilfering money from the military for an ineffectual
> wall using a perpetual declaration of emergency (which won't be solved by
> 2.5 billion)? Note that construction of the wall is not a "one-time
> payment" either... it's a subscription program. 2.5 billion is a drop in
> the bucket and this is about the most disappointing "win" Trump could
> hope for.

It's $2.5 billion free money without any consideration or quid pro quo. You can try to downplay that any way you want, but it simply doesn't matter what people like you think, because you would never vote for Trump anyway.

[The Iceberg]

Hey jd and Pelle, Hillary LOST, Trump WON!
Get over it!

[The Iceberg]

Hey jd, as an American can you genuinely tell what you think the likelyhood of the $25Billion deal that Pelle allegedly says was on offer to Trump? Would say about zero, but could you possibly confirm that?

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:36:23 -0700, Geeam wrote:

> It's $2.5 billion free money without any consideration or quid pro quo.
> You can try to downplay that any way you want, but it simply doesn't
> matter what people like you think, because you would never vote for
> Trump anyway.

You addressed none of my valid points, "Geeam"... Who are "people like
me"? But by all means, break out the champagne... this is about as
monumental as Donald Young or Tomic losing in the second round after
losing in the first 20 straight times.

[jdeluise]

A deal can't be had if the master of the deal walks away from it. Now he
gets a tenth of it, robbed from the military.

By the way, do you think continued tax cuts will help pay for a wall?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/07/2019 15.22, Geeam wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 1:37:06 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> In this case it was caught with its pants down. You basically
>> admitted as much.
>
> Now you start trolling. What did I admit?

I pointed out the lie in the article you posted. You never bothered with
any of that, no objections, no nothing. Instead you said it was "tit for
tat. Now you know how I feel". (Kinda pathetic, BTW)

I'll take that to mean you're willing to knowingly go to any lengths to
get your tits. Including outright lying.

> That everyone is biased?
> That's just common sense! You know common sense, that weird thing
> you're completely lacking!
>
>> But you haven't named your source. And how on earth do you know
>> which estimate is "realistic"?
>
> That's a dumb useless question.

How could I possibly assume you posses the keys to all knowledge. You've
so far proved to be a zero.

> It's my opinion based on my
> knowledge.

And I asked where that knowledge comes from.

> How do you know what's realistic?

I never said I do. You did.

> I guess the difference
> is that I have my own opinion while you're just parroting talking
> points that other people have made.

That's not the difference. The difference is that you say your sources
are more "realistic" than others. So far, I have committed to none. I
have only listed several other estimates.

Compared to those, your "knowledge" is a bit on the high side. Nor have
I ever heard of the 1.8M before. Which begs the question: "where is it
from?".

This is the difference. HTH.

So. How about spitting it out.

>> Why am I even talking to you?
>
> I certainly wish you wouldn't. Maybe it's because I completely own
> you, but you're still unwilling to surrender?
>
>> Trump had $25B billion in the pocket, now has $2.5B. Everything
>> else is the same! That's shitty dealmaking if you ask me.
>
> Nobody asks you, because you don't know anything. You compare two
> things that can't be compared: a flawed $25 billion deal vs. $2,5
> billion of free money on the table.

There was nothing flawed in the first deal. Except that Trump didn't
want to compromise on the DACA issue. Had he taken that deal, he would
have had a good chunk of a wall, would have been the hero of all
xenophobists around the world. Nobody would remember a DACA compromise.

One and 1/10th are of course very well comparable. The other is 10 times
bigger.

> If that was the deal, I'd prefer
> the free money every time. Your only intention with this nonsense
> thread is to downplay Trump's victory, but you can't.

Trump got a shitty deal, but declares it a victory. That's what Trump
does. And little Trumpskies swoon.

>> The quote is a real quote.
>
> How stupid are you? The quote is a real quote, but it doesn't prove
> anything except that you're a mentally deranged conspiracy theorist.
> Got it this time?

The Sater email proves what the intent of these guys were.

>> You jump into conclusions. I prune out only the lies you guys
>> peddle. Reasonable people, I listen to. The Chumps, no.
>
> Your delusional narrow-minded definition of "reasonable people":
> That's your bubble!

Like I said, I prune out the liars.

>> They were business associates. Trump distanced himself from Sater
>> after their real estate "developing" went bust but then re-hired
>> him.
>
> And how many "business associates" did Trump have over his 50 year
> career? Tens of thousands! Exactly! LOL

The tens of thousands didn't build Trump SoHo for example. Bayrock did.
Sater was a manager at Bayrock. And Trump worked with Bayrock on SoHo.

Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater had his office on "Trump floor" in
Trump Tower. Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater was a friend of Cohen.
Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater and Cohen were pushing Project
Moscow during Trump campaign, ...

[bob]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 20:49:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:

>On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
>>> Republicans held both chambers.
>>
>> That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.
>
>Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.

getting tired of losing, ey pelle?

bob

[The Iceberg]

On Sunday, 28 July 2019 16:25:08 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 06:56:14 -0700, The Iceberg wrote:
>
> > Hey jd, as an American can you genuinely tell what you think the
> > likelyhood of the $25Billion deal that Pelle allegedly says was on offer
> > to Trump? Would say about zero, but could you possibly confirm that?
>
> A deal can't be had if the master of the deal walks away from it. Now he
> gets a tenth of it, robbed from the military.

good so least you admit the $25Billion is nothing more than Pelle fake news.

> By the way, do you think continued tax cuts will help pay for a wall?

yes probably.

[The Iceberg]

it was flawed because it wasn't true, we all know that, even *YOU*. Let me spell it out *YOU* personally KNOW for a fact that the $25BILLION deal offered was fake and untrue and would NEVER have happened. The *ONLY* reason you're even mentioning it is cos you hate Trump, NOTHING ELSE.

> One and 1/10th are of course very well comparable. The other is 10 times
> bigger.

no, ZERO(cos the $25Billion was a fairy story) is not 10 times bigger than 2.5.

> > If that was the deal, I'd prefer
> > the free money every time. Your only intention with this nonsense
> > thread is to downplay Trump's victory, but you can't.
>
> Trump got a shitty deal, but declares it a victory. That's what Trump
> does. And little Trumpskies swoon.

it was a fake untrue deal so Trump has WON again.

[Pelle Svanslös]

You're hallucinating.

> we all know that, even *YOU*.
> Let me spell it out *YOU* personally KNOW for a fact that the
> $25BILLION deal offered was fake and untrue and would NEVER have
> happened.

It would have happened if Trump only had accepted it. Trump threatened
to veto the best deal he could have gotten if it ever came on his desk.

That's serious businessman negotiating for you:
- I don't want money.
- Ok.

>
>> One and 1/10th are of course very well comparable. The other is 10
>> times bigger.
>
> no, ZERO(cos the $25Billion was a fairy story) is not 10 times bigger
> than 2.5.

The $25B deal became a zero because Trump killed the bill. A couple of
Republicans regretted missing the opportunity. But not Trump, he
celebrates "victory".

Lol.

>>> If that was the deal, I'd prefer the free money every time. Your
>>> only intention with this nonsense thread is to downplay Trump's
>>> victory, but you can't.
>>
>> Trump got a shitty deal, but declares it a victory. That's what
>> Trump does. And little Trumpskies swoon.
>
> it was a fake untrue deal so Trump has WON again.

I love little Trumpskies.

[Pelle Svanslös]

If you butt in in a thread, you should read a couple of other posts as
well. I later debunked the lies in the article.

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:

There's no amnesty for daca. They all have to go back.

Amnesty happens just once. And amnesty for illegals already
happened it the 80s if I'm correct?

So, offering it again would be offering kinda perpetual amnesty,
meaning abolishing laws. Which is a Trojan horse, a bad deal.


Maybe if the border was 100% secured, and 10 years have passed and
not a single illegal has entered, maybe then it would make sense
to offer "final" amnesty.

So you see, until the entire wall is not funded, but built and
operational, only a bad deal maker would even think about daca.


Trump supporters want those types deported anyway so it's in their
(daca) interest that the wall is built, so then they can ask for
mercy ie amnesty.


It's all very simple when you realize there are two groups.

Globalists who pursue Kalergi plan and want to destroy ethnic
majorities in every, especially at this moment in western
nations, and patriots who oppose them.

Everything they do, is intended to reduce the numbers,
percentages, influence and freedoms of the natives, while
promoting aliens, their interest, increased importation, by all
means, illegal, legal, whatever, to achieve their takeover until
their final goal is achieved.

A multiracial, mixed, on average brown, societies, that are
virtually indistinguishable with people without any sense of
belonging.

Very bad.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[The Iceberg]

no it would NEVER have happened, you know, I know it. For once can't you drop your fake "all for the party" charade? you're not a politician, stop trying to be one.

> That's serious businessman negotiating for you:
> - I don't want money.
> - Ok.

yes, there wasn't ever any $25Billion deal, very good idea to ignore it.

> >> One and 1/10th are of course very well comparable. The other is 10
> >> times bigger.
> >
> > no, ZERO(cos the $25Billion was a fairy story) is not 10 times bigger
> > than 2.5.
>
> The $25B deal became a zero because Trump killed the bill. A couple of
> Republicans regretted missing the opportunity. But not Trump, he
> celebrates "victory".
>
> Lol.

yep Trump WON again!

> >>> If that was the deal, I'd prefer the free money every time. Your
> >>> only intention with this nonsense thread is to downplay Trump's
> >>> victory, but you can't.
> >>
> >> Trump got a shitty deal, but declares it a victory. That's what
> >> Trump does. And little Trumpskies swoon.
> >
> > it was a fake untrue deal so Trump has WON again.
>
> I love little Trumpskies.

hey at least you didn't cry this time!

[The Iceberg]

On Monday, 29 July 2019 11:22:23 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 1.07, bob wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 20:49:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >>>> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
> >>>> Republicans held both chambers.
> >>>
> >>> That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.
> >>
> >> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.
> >
> > getting tired of losing, ey pelle?
>
> If you butt in in a thread, you should read a couple of other posts as
> well. I later debunked the lies in the article.

Pelle, jd butted in and has now debunked this $25billion deal as fake news, cool eh!

[Pelle Svanslös]

Note that DACA in itself isn't about amnesty. But 83% of Americans do
support citizenship for the DACA kids.

https://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-poll-trump-wall-daca-deal-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

You, a Russkie, are telling those Americans what to do. Oppressing them.

> Maybe if the border was 100% secured, and 10 years have passed and
> not a single illegal has entered, maybe then it would make sense
> to offer "final" amnesty.
>
> So you see, until the entire wall is not funded, but built and
> operational, only a bad deal maker would even think about daca.

Tell that to Trump. He ripped up the deal that would have given him step
#1. He CHOSE DACA over the wall.

Now his efforts of ending DACA are in the courts with the rulings
against him so far.

A talented dealmaker and an experienced administrator should have seen
this possibility. And thought of which is more important, the wall or an
uncertain win over 800k "kids" which aren't undocumented but whose fate
is deferred only.

"Gosh. If I have the wall in the bag, I can still harass the 10M
remaining illegals and deal with those pesky DACA kids later". It's a
no-brainer, a win win.

But not for the talented Mr Trump. He wanted less.

>
> Trump supporters want those types deported anyway

Trump supporters aren't America. 83%.

> so it's in their
> (daca) interest that the wall is built, so then they can ask for
> mercy ie amnesty.

That's why Trump supporters should be miffed at Trump. They probably are
but don't have the balls to say so yet.

>
> Very bad.
>

Indeed. Another very bad post.

[The Iceberg]

not true, the $25Billion was pie in the sky fantasy, never genuinely offered or possible.

[*skriptis]

Why do you do spread fake news?


Businesinsider is not a trustworthy news outlet.

If you want us to take this alleged "poll" seriously, can you
present evidence that show that only citizens of the USA
participated in the poll?

Those who have a say, legally.
Can you?

Because we've seen what happens with the census. And that's a
serious matter.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Dumb post.

[bob]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:14:58 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:

trump simply has more compassion than obama did. trump supporters
understand that.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:22:22 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>

wrote:

>On 29/07/2019 1.07, bob wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 20:49:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>>>> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
>>>>> Republicans held both chambers.
>>>>
>>>> That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.
>>>
>>> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.
>>
>> getting tired of losing, ey pelle?
>
>If you butt in in a thread, you should read a couple of other posts as
>well. I later debunked the lies in the article.

i read the link, and you didn't. :-(

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

Ha ha ha ha ha.

How about those "squad" links you promised.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Whatever. I still debunked the lies.

[bob]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:59:40 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>

do you recall obama's nickname? do you recall in 2011-12 the latino
community threatening obama with taking their votes elsewhere? do you
know why obama did that? bush didn't.

go ahead pelle, i'll give you a chance to opine why obama was
"deporter in chief." but i'll warn you up front, as a swede and not
familiar with the workings of our country, i'm not confident you'll
understand.

bob

[The Iceberg]

On Monday, 29 July 2019 17:00:51 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 18.55, bob wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:22:22 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 29/07/2019 1.07, bob wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 20:49:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 27/07/2019 20.24, Geeam wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >>>>>> No need to read the article. The $25B deal came from Ryan. When
> >>>>>> Republicans held both chambers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's right. This was in February 2018 when Republicans held both chambers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then it's the same deal. Like I said, I didn't bother to read your link.
> >>>
> >>> getting tired of losing, ey pelle?
> >>
> >> If you butt in in a thread, you should read a couple of other posts as
> >> well. I later debunked the lies in the article.
> >
> > i read the link, and you didn't. :-(
>
> Whatever. I still debunked the lies.

LOL you should in 1984 as the fake news truth leader!

[*skriptis]

So you're can't guarantee only citizens participated in the poll,
but you want us to accept those results and act as if they mean
anything?

I'd say that's more than dumb, dishonest too.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Obama wasn't a choir boy. But saying Trump has more compassion than
Obama did is ridiculous. The DACA discussion is a good example.

"Among the rapists, gang members and drug traffickers, some might be
good people too".

[The Iceberg]

you love Obama and Hillary though don't you?

[bob]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:12:13 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>

those are words. i believe trump has more compassionate deeds than
obama.

but again, tell me why in your opinion obama was "deporter in chief."
(though media gave him a pass). it is very important to understanding
this country for you to understand obama's motives.

bob