President Trump, Mr President, Senate discussed on Red Eye Radio

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

To listen, Alexa, open Red Eye Radio. And he is Eric Harley and I'm Gary McNamara. Eight six six ninety redeye just to clarify something. I just maybe some people didn't hear the entire segment and just heard the last portion of it. We understand that the Democrats alone don't have the house and the Senate, the Democrats alone and the shutdown. We understand that fully. Yeah. The point we made we made clearly apparently we didn't. So we'll say it again point make clearly as the Democrats in the house are going to since they run the house as of tomorrow or as what? Yes tomorrow. And they will introduce bills piecemeal to start funding. Portions of the government we gave an example fund the military pay the military that'll be separate continuing resolution. They send that to the Republican Senate and dare them not to pass exactly that which is how we feel right? And then that will go straight to the president as a separate continuing resolution not containing wall money and dare the president to do that. And then across the board as it continues. That will be their plan to keep peace mailing parts of the budget till eventually you just get to a very very small portion. And they'll say go ahead. Mr President, you know, continue with it. We've got basically everything funded through September except a little portion here Poelman security that we could care less about homeland security and border construct a border enforcement to begin with. We're for open borders. Why would we care? Yeah. Now what how successful at it. We don't know. We just told you. That's what we believe the strategy will be right. And it's it again. It's the the point of the conversation is what what were they asking for? What were the Democrats asking for? Nothing. They're not demanding anything. Right. There wasn't a negotiating point. They there there wasn't there wasn't if you give us this. We'll give you that right now. And they in turn it into that. And I don't think so but in this budget battle writer was right? You know, nine months ago, but there there isn't now that's the whole point. And it may turn into that. But the question is then politically. What works for them as a party? So if they only have the house. What do they have to concede to? An order to get something back that would be less, politically damaging or guests. A greater political advantage than it would be of a of a political damaging point other words if they got Dacca right now. Would that be a win? Even if they gave up two point five billion for the wall. One win over the other and be a clear advantage and for them to the point that they would concede something like that. I don't think so I don't think they're thinking in terms of that right now because I really don't think they really care about the dreamers. I think they understand that the president's really not actively enforcing the whole Dacca dreamer thing, and he's probably not strong on it. So they know on that they don't really have to move. So what else would it be? Well, you're not going to go for a comprehensive immigration reform package. It's not going to happen. Now, you make that happen in a bigger year when they're trying to get the Senate and the White House. So that becomes because if they were to give all that up. Let's say by the time, we come by this whole thing to January thirty first and all of a sudden it's done and everybody agreed or at least got a good portion of what they wanted. What would the Democrats have on the president? Well, how much of that would be damaging to them? Let's say they got, you know, again, two point five billion or five billion for the wall or any anything in that area. We're not even talking about twenty five billion. Well, as you know, we and we had said this way before the the the whole negotiations that the the problem is here is that you know, you you look at what the Democrats have used. They haven't used the fact of sanctuary cities and open borders to their advantage. They've simply use the wall. It has been a wall versus no wall discussion. Right. When we believe even if they will give money for border security and homeland we believe in that. And and it's hard to argue with us for sanctuary cities. If you say once you've crossed the border, you're here. No matter what we're not going to cooperate with federal government. Your for open borders to me that you're not right. You can't you can't you can't sit there and say you're for border security, yet if anybody gets over they can stay even if they're criminal. They can stay and we won't cooperate with with the thirties right now in order to get that you may you may agree to border security, but the whole thing is you know, they can get across. And the fact is you don't want affect a border security because you believe in sanctuary cities argue that point Republicans and the president, which of course, they do not argue it in the way that we argue it, which is should all the time. It should be twenty four seven. And as we said earlier, it shouldn't just be on Twitter. The president should have I believe every single day that he that he wasn't on a plane going to see the troops that he should held a press conference every single day on it. Uh-huh. And he should have held a press conferences and had the border patrol with him about you know, what what sections needed to be short up that you give a lie. Do you teach Americans about the border? But it should've just happened over this fake. This is something that should have happened all along you need to communicate outside of Twitter. And it needs to be a consistent message over and over and over again. And it's it's something that the selling point has to be very strong and clear, and I don't I don't know of any items other than taxes that are so simple to comprehend. Here's one of the problems. And we said, you know, the president have a consistent message. But he hasn't even on border security with the Democrats. How can you say now how can he come out and strongly say they're for open borders, the not for border security where they've got him on tape just two weeks ago stating oh well for border security. Yes. Mr president. We all are don't say that. Well, don't give them the out don't ever give them. And what the whole idea is to corner them and force them to say that there for open borders because I would've sat in that. Setting Nancy, you're from in fact, you represent part of a sanctuary state. How is that not open border policy? It is which is why they didn't want to talk about it in front of cameras because they also know that the the American people don't agree with them. By and large the majority of American people disagree with open borders, but they don't. And that's why that night and some people got upset at us. So be it. But that's why we were furious at the president when he gave Nancy and Chuck the out. Oh, we're all for border security. No, not stop it. Well, and don't give them the out and you're not gonna win. You're not gonna get anything. If you don't get this. Because forget about losing nobody even cares about the the the Democrats were were their position. Or what the debate is in the media. It's now it's now at the door of your base. He corrected a misstep in December. You've got to go further, and you've got to show that you're gonna fight for the border wall. This is the one thing they got taxes done. They've got they've got two seated on the bench. You're going to have to. Without delay. And without hesitation. You're going to have to fight this war. And whether you get it, even or not. Isn't going to be the point. It's going to be whether or not your base believes you're fighting for it. Let us go to Warren in Scottsdale. Arizona. Warren, welcome you're on Red Eye Radio. Welcome to the show. Hi, hi. How you doing the reason I called you actually took the words out of my mouth. I actually was gonna talk about the border patrol what they should do says President Trump's supposed to be meeting with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi. He should have the top five to ten leadership people at the border patrol in uniform on camera with them. So that every time Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer decided to say why it's not needed the border patrol. I think knows a little bit better able to contradict him in front of millions of people on camera. That's number one. And the second thing I was calling about was your issue with the investigation. Jeff Sessions picked this Huber guy that you said not doing anything, and the fact is Huber is a democrat. And I'm still trying to figure out for the life of me went sessions would pick a democrat to go investigate this about the whole thing with uranium one and the same people. That were involved in your rain wondering if pe- people that are involved in this whole Trump Russia investigation, it's Coney Rosenstein, molar and Weisman they were all involved in uranium one. So all just not the big smokescreen to block them for being found out. And there that's why they have people like Blumenthal. Every time something comes up. He starts trying to say that Donald Trump is trying to deflect away from the Muller best Gatien. But those are the remember that whatever it was Trump who renominated Huber he was he offered his resignation and Trump renominated him. So you know, you you look there's there's a lot of things that Trump is in control of and things that he has has done that people get get upset about. But look he he has information right now that can start this whole ball rolling. He has the class of the declassified information that he has not released. Has claimed the American public might not be able to handle it which was bogus to begin with. We disagreed with him when he said that, but he would use it if they came after him, which we thought was completely and totally inappropriate release it. So the American people know what happened? And if it gets the ball rolling to go further it gets the ball rolling to go further. Well, because if he's saying he'll use it to defend himself. Then clearly he knows it won't hurt him. You're not gonna use it to defend yourself. It's if it's going to be damaging. So if you're saying that is the case then that tells us there's nothing damaging to you release it now. Don't wait and don't wait for Muller to have the side show. And and and the main spotlight by issuing some kind of bogus report that points in a certain direction and creates doubt and cloud over your head forever. But never actually does anything because that's what actually a lot of people on the left or expecting to happen. And politically that can be just as damaging because the liberal media is going to carry the water for the Muller investigative team. Eight six six ninety redeye. We'll be.

Coming up next