Spatial Ed

The Wall

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dog said:

No one in Washington is serious about the deficit.

When people like you demonstrate daily you don't give a fuck about it, why should they be serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Which, were I to Dog the topic, means you agree that fiscal conservatives never existed?

Well I don't know that they never existed but certainly an endangered species particularly in Washington. Last sighting I recall was Clinton/Kasich back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Can we get real here. We have caravans of thousands of central Americans advancing on the southern border. 60,000 illegal crossing apprehensions in a single month. Families crossing in the dangerous El Paso sector up 20 times year over year. All are undeterred by our current border security measures.

The president is requesting a paltry $5B which is more than he will settle for and less than is needed. The reason Democrats won't support the $5B is because they are only pretending to be for border security, they see votes crossing the border. The "walls are immoral" or that they don't work arguments are transparently bullshit. That and they want to stick it to Trump.

It's all about the accumulation of power and revenge.

Republicans wouldn’t pay for it, why should Dems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dog said:

I support spending what is needed to secure the border, I am ambivalent about how it is accomplished. You can argue about degrees of secure all you want but the current  humanitarian crisis in Tijuana demonstrates conclusively that current measures are inadequate.  

It’s in tijuana. Are you going to build the wall south of Tijuana now?

get your story straight.

and Trumps got $2T in new debt since he started, during a major economic growth period. Hangovers gonna hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well I don't know that they never existed but certainly an endangered species particularly in Washington. Last sighting I recall was Clinton/Kasich back in the day.

When people start talking about the need to spend a paltry $5 billion on a wall that won't really work... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Republicans wouldn’t pay for it, why should Dems?

Mexico wouldn't pay for it, why should we?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Republicans wouldn’t pay for it, why should Dems?

So they don't appear to be as hopeless as Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

It’s in tijuana. Are you going to build the wall south of Tijuana now?

get your story straight.

and Trumps got $2T in new debt since he started, during a major economic growth period. Hangovers gonna hurt.

and barely spent the $ for  boarder protection from last year.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 6:08 PM, SailBlueH2O said:

Dawall.jpg

Trump may or may not get The Wall but the Chinese got The Dark Side of the Moon first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

When people start talking about the need to spend a paltry $5 billion on a wall that won't really work... 

What do you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

So they don't appear to be as hopeless as Republicans.

They aren’t quaking in their boots like you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

What do you suggest?

Considering our border is secure, a bit of incremental improvement as approved by last years senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Considering our border is secure, a bit of incremental improvement as approved by last years senate.

Manifestly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Considering our border is secure, a bit of incremental improvement as approved by last years senate.

Take the jobs available sign down and you will not need a wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mickey Rat said:

Take the jobs available sign down and you will not need a wall. 

that would be e verify.....  it should be mandatory in all 50 states...not just 20 or so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well I don't know that they never existed but certainly an endangered species particularly in Washington. Last sighting I recall was Clinton/Kasich back in the day.

Ignoring the Paygo implementation and working the discussion away from it. That’s some good bullshitting. Another treat for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

No one in Washington is serious about the deficit.

So, opposition to spending for the sake of spending is to be derided when done by Democrats.

If the parties were reversed, you'd be giving credit to the GOP for holding the Dems in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the R's don't get, is that opposing the border wall is not equal to "completely open borders'

Actually, they do get it, but in their typical dishonest fashion, they invent fallacies to rile up the base and make the opposition look bad.   

Fact is, most D's are in favor of border security, and would fund personnel, equipment, training and things that might actually work, instead of an ineffective wall that nobody wants (and will balloon in cost). 

Interesting interview with the mayor of Laredo Texas, where he said the same:  ($200 Billion worth of foreign trade happens there)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/682157001/we-dont-need-a-physical-wall-loredo-mayor-pete-saenz-says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

that would be e verify.....  it should be mandatory in all 50 states...not just 20 or so

Exactly. Add criminal charges to any employer found to be hiring illegal immigrates, and your "border" problem disappears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

What the R's don't get, is that opposing the border wall is not equal to "completely open borders'

Actually, they do get it, but in their typical dishonest fashion, they invent fallacies to rile up the base and make the opposition look bad.   

Fact is, most D's are in favor of border security, and would fund personnel, equipment, training and things that might actually work, instead of an ineffective wall that nobody wants (and will balloon in cost). 

Interesting interview with the mayor of Laredo Texas, where he said the same:  ($200 Billion worth of foreign trade happens there)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/682157001/we-dont-need-a-physical-wall-loredo-mayor-pete-saenz-says

How does the concept of sanctuary cities fit within the narrative that you're proffering?   BTW - Happy fuckin' New Year... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Manifestly not.

Still waiting on the data showing that we need a wall. So far, you’ve got. Nothing but bluster. And people stuck in Tijuana proves the border is secure already. Or they’d be in Houston, SF, Boise....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Take the jobs available sign down and you will not need a wall. 

Yep. Why won’t we do that. Oh, yeah, the Chamber says No!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How does the concept of sanctuary cities fit within the narrative that you're proffering?   BTW - Happy fuckin' New Year... 

What do Sanc Cities have to do with the border?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

What do Sanc Cities have to do with the border?

It seems to me that supporting the concept of sanctuary cities is in opposition to supporting strong border security.  "yeah - don't let 'em in, but, once they do sneak in, we have to protect them from overzealous, immoral immigration enforcement".   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How does the concept of sanctuary cities fit within the narrative that you're proffering? "

Let's apply some pragmatism.

A city has a population that, with the exception of immigration status, is a generally law abiding labor pool that contributes to the local economy. The Federal government appropriates limited resources to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. For the city to enforce these laws incurs costs of enforcement, judicial time, disruption of local business, activating local political movements and sowing distrust in local law enforcement thus making their job harder.  With so many of the enforcement costs, both economic and non-economic, exported to the cities, where's the incentive to cooperate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It seems to me that supporting the concept of sanctuary cities is in opposition to supporting strong border security.  "yeah - don't let 'em in, but, once they do sneak in, we have to protect them from overzealous, immoral immigration enforcement".   

 

Not at all. The whole idea is to develop trust in local communities for local law enforcement. Deporting someone who points the finger at a rapist, a gang banger, an extortion ring would be shitty policing if you care about fighting crime.

yeah, it’s a trade off. One that’s worth it IMHO. And, eventually the problem goes away as the border crossing have dropped to net zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Not at all. The whole idea is to develop trust in local communities for local law enforcement. Deporting someone who points the finger at a rapist, a gang banger, an extortion ring would be shitty policing if you care about fighting crime.

yeah, it’s a trade off. One that’s worth it IMHO. And, eventually the problem goes away as the border crossing have dropped to net zero.

I understand and agree with that intent. The larger point that's conveniently excluded from this conversation is that if they weren't here illegally in the first place?  That wouldn't be an issue.   

IMHO - all this focus on band-aid BS is exacerbating the problem, when we need to quit yelling about things that really don't matter and fix the root problem.   There are valid, pragmatic reasons that nations have borders, and control immigration.  As much as it might make some people feel good, we simply can't support everyone who wants to come here.  Our immigration policies should be planned to consider the constraints of our social services, employment requirements,  medical, etc - instead of the issue being decided by the emotional fringes.   We aren't going to get to that point in the discussion if we continue to let the fringes drive the conversation - as the fringes aren't interested in a workable fix, they want to push their approach as the only viable option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand and agree with that intent. The larger point that's conveniently excluded from this conversation is that if they weren't here illegally in the first place?  That wouldn't be an issue.   

IMHO - all this focus on band-aid BS is exacerbating the problem, when we need to quit yelling about things that really don't matter and fix the root problem.   There are valid, pragmatic reasons that nations have borders, and control immigration.  As much as it might make some people feel good, we simply can't support everyone who wants to come here.  Our immigration policies should be planned to consider the constraints of our social services, employment requirements,  medical, etc - instead of the issue being decided by the emotional fringes.   We aren't going to get to that point in the discussion if we continue to let the fringes drive the conversation - as the fringes aren't interested in a workable fix, they want to push their approach as the only viable option. 

Why do you think Dems want everyone to come in?

I agree with you 100% on the need to immigration control. But our undocumented-immigrant problem is from people that came in the 90's and up to the mid-2000s over the southern border, but today is due to people coming on planes and overstaying visas.

 

Why fight the last war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How does the concept of sanctuary cities fit within the narrative that you're proffering?   BTW - Happy fuckin' New Year... 

I think that "sanctuary cities" is another manufactured crisis by the R's to get the base fired up.  

Ok, back at you: Do you really think a physical wall is the solution?  And do you really think $5B is enough? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen estimates of between $20B and $100B

Then maintain it.

you'd think if we wanted to stop illegals crossing the southern border, we could do with modern tech at 1/100th the cost, and be just as effective.  Without damaging the environment, taking land from landowners, and building an ugly as shit, ineffective monument to stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Why do you think Dems want everyone to come in?

I agree with you 100% on the need to immigration control. But our undocumented-immigrant problem is from people that came in the 90's and up to the mid-2000s over the southern border, but today is due to people coming on planes and overstaying visas.

 

Why fight the last war?

On a practical level, I really don't. But - that's the logical reaction to the D focus on not deporting those who are here illegally, making it easier for those that want to to come in, etc.   Why?  I think it's political expediency - they want to be seen as "the caring compassionate" party, so that they can paint the opposition as hateful heartless bastards, and the Rs want to paint the Ds as "open border proponents" - and both focus more on painting the opposition in a bad way than either does in enacting any meaningful change.   

Our border issue isn't the people who are trying to come here to better themselves, IMHO, it's those who are oppressing/trafficking those people, the drug-industry violence - if we fixed our work-visas, and let people come/go freely, made them subject to and enforced the same requirements ( ID, driver's licensing, insurance ( health, auto, liability), industry regulations ( construction licenses, building permits, etc) - the former would cease to be an issue.  I'm actually with Tom on this - I think that non-citizen residents ought to be afforded every right, and abide by every regulation, that our citizens do, except participating in elections, either as voters or advocates. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I've seen estimates of between $20B and $100B

Then maintain it.

you'd think if we wanted to stop illegals crossing the southern border, we could do with modern tech at 1/100th the cost, and be just as effective.  Without damaging the environment, taking land from landowners, and building an ugly as shit, ineffective monument to stupidity.

Trump just wants a monument to himself that can be seen from space. Unfortunately, 65% of Americans don't want to waste the money on a huge vanity project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I've seen estimates of between $20B and $100B

Then maintain it.

you'd think if we wanted to stop illegals crossing the southern border, we could do with modern tech at 1/100th the cost, and be just as effective.  Without damaging the environment, taking land from landowners, and building an ugly as shit, ineffective monument to stupidity.

We can, and we should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

On a practical level, I really don't. But - that's the logical reaction to the D focus on not deporting those who are here illegally, making it easier for those that want to to come in, etc.   Why?  I think it's political expediency - they want to be seen as "the caring compassionate" party, so that they can paint the opposition as hateful heartless bastards, and the Rs want to paint the Ds as "open border proponents" - and both focus more on painting the opposition in a bad way than either does in enacting any meaningful change.   

Our border issue isn't the people who are trying to come here to better themselves, IMHO, it's those who are oppressing/trafficking those people, the drug-industry violence - if we fixed our work-visas, and let people come/go freely, made them subject to and enforced the same requirements ( ID, driver's licensing, insurance ( health, auto, liability), industry regulations ( construction licenses, building permits, etc) - the former would cease to be an issue.  I'm actually with Tom on this - I think that non-citizen residents ought to be afforded every right, and abide by every regulation, that our citizens do, except participating in elections, either as voters or advocates. 

2

Changing the discussion? How the hell would we deport 10 million people?  A wall btw won't do diddly for the folks already here, except lock them in. Do you hate the economy and SS recipients?  Cause you'd crash both if you deported 3m+ workers.

And why would you want local gov't to take on a Federal role? I thought you guys were all about Stites Rites?

So you want to build a wall to stop drugs? Why not just legalize them, tax them, and address the problem on the demand side? I know this is a personal issue for you, but would a wall help?  Seems like addicts get easily get drugs in prison, and I don't think we can turn Fortress America into a prison. Even if we did, it still wouldn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We can, and we should. 

This one is a couple of fences with a road between them and senors where needed to alert guards.  Seems to work.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-02-at-4.40.37-PM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Changing the discussion? How the hell would we deport 10 million people?  A wall btw won't do diddly for the folks already here, except lock them in. Do you hate the economy and SS recipients?  Cause you'd crash both if you deported 3m+ workers.

And why would you want local gov't to take on a Federal role? I thought you guys were all about Stites Rites?

So you want to build a wall to stop drugs? Why not just legalize them, tax them, and address the problem on the demand side? I know this is a personal issue for you, but would a wall help?  Seems like addicts get easily get drugs in prison, and I don't think we can turn Fortress America into a prison. Even if we did, it still wouldn't work.

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or I poorly articulated my intent.  re-read, and let me know which you think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We can, and we should. 

Yea, no ambiguity there.  Are you saying we should build a wall or we should instead use technology at lower cost? 

It's moot, because Trump has made the physical wall his 'hill to die on'.  It's a wall or nothing.  Anything else would be losing, and what would Ann Coulter say? 

I do believe the D congress would pass a bill to spend $5B on agents, technology and other effective measures... maybe full implementation of e-verify and actual punishment of those who hire illegals (like Donny himself... Ha!). 

Which is why I believe the fight over the wall is nothing but an ego trip for cheeto benito. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kirwan said:

Yea, no ambiguity there.  Are you saying we should build a wall or we should instead use technology at lower cost? 

It's moot, because Trump has made the physical wall his 'hill to die on'.  It's a wall or nothing.  Anything else would be losing, and what would Ann Coulter say? 

I do believe the D congress would pass a bill to spend $5B on agents, technology and other effective measures... maybe full implementation of e-verify and actual punishment of those who hire illegals (like Donny himself... Ha!). 

Which is why I believe the fight over the wall is nothing but an ego trip for cheeto benito. 

 

RIF Kirwan - you can figure it out.   I honestly DON'T think that Trump has made "the physical wall his hill to die on" - I don't think he cares one way or another as long as he can say that he won.   He's already said as much - and we agree that the whole fight is about him stroking his ego.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Our border issue isn't the people who are trying to come here to better themselves, IMHO, it's those who are oppressing/trafficking those people, the drug-industry violence - if we fixed our work-visas, and let people come/go freely, made them subject to and enforced the same requirements ( ID, driver's licensing, insurance ( health, auto, liability), industry regulations ( construction licenses, building permits, etc) - the former would cease to be an issue.  I'm actually with Tom on this - I think that non-citizen residents ought to be afforded every right, and abide by every regulation, that our citizens do, except participating in elections, either as voters or advocates. "

Sounding more and more liberal.

Ok, so looking at the numbers; would you support an expanded Customs and Immigration dept. to identify, clear and issue documents to undocumented persons that have been here at least 5 years without offense (other than documentation issues) or are 5 or under? Dedicating the funds to ensure timely processing AND enforcement on businesses to hire workers with proper documents? Where would we get the greatest effeciencies; 5-20billion for a wall or the same funds to processing the people? Coming in without documents is preferable for these people because of the enhanced chances of getting work, even without papers, and the long processing time. Dedicating the funding to reduce the processing time to 2 weeks would be a huge blow to the current system.  And just because they apply doesn't mean they're approved but they would know in a reasonable amount of time AND the benefits of coming in undocumented would be reduced by the decreased demand for undocumented workers. Then law enforcement could do what it's best at; finding criminals only now with the help of the communities the criminals operate in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or I poorly articulated my intent.  re-read, and let me know which you think it is. 

You switched from border security is not important to democrats

to why don't Dems care about people already here

to it's not really about immigration, it's about drugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Maybe if we could figure out what problem is trying to be solved, we could come to agreement on a solution.

Is it the bad hygiene in the stadium in Tijuana? (Dog's problem)

What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"Our border issue isn't the people who are trying to come here to better themselves, IMHO, it's those who are oppressing/trafficking those people, the drug-industry violence - if we fixed our work-visas, and let people come/go freely, made them subject to and enforced the same requirements ( ID, driver's licensing, insurance ( health, auto, liability), industry regulations ( construction licenses, building permits, etc) - the former would cease to be an issue.  I'm actually with Tom on this - I think that non-citizen residents ought to be afforded every right, and abide by every regulation, that our citizens do, except participating in elections, either as voters or advocates. "

Sounding more and more liberal.

Ok, so looking at the numbers; would you support an expanded Customs and Immigration dept. to identify, clear and issue documents to undocumented persons that have been here at least 5 years without offense (other than documentation issues) or are 5 or under? Dedicating the funds to ensure timely processing AND enforcement on businesses to hire workers with proper documents? Where would we get the greatest effeciencies; 5-20billion for a wall or the same funds to processing the people? Coming in without documents is preferable for these people because of the enhanced chances of getting work, even without papers, and the long processing time. Dedicating the funding to reduce the processing time to 2 weeks would be a huge blow to the current system.  And just because they apply doesn't mean they're approved but they would know in a reasonable amount of time AND the benefits of coming in undocumented would be reduced by the decreased demand for undocumented workers. Then law enforcement could do what it's best at; finding criminals only now with the help of the communities the criminals operate in.

A little cart before the horse - we need to establish a better immigration process before we start thinking about throwing resources at "processing" people, and no, I wouldn't support more agents to do that kind of canvassing, I'd rather invest in an IT system that allowed people to self register, did NACs along the lines of the existing NCIC checks for handgun purchases.  The bugaboo in this is in the identification documentation, in which case I think that some combo of biometrics/DNA would be helpful.   I don't think that we should establish an arbitrary "processing time" until the changes have been implemented, but, to alleviate that issue,  we simply stop deporting anyone who self-reports, who doesn't have a criminal past, until they're work-permit application has been adjudicated.  One thing that absolutely MUST be done is to not permit those who, of their own volition, entered the country illegally to be able to shortcut the citizenship process.   

Come here, work legally, with the full rights/responsibilities of everyone else, in accordance with documented employment requirements (yeah, quotas, we simply can't create jobs for everyone who wants to come here - there have to be limits based upon realistic employment/residential capacity projections) - but no shortcut to citizenship.    In conjunction with this, I think it would be reasonable for those individuals who DON'T satisfy our entrance criteria to be aggressively pursued and deported.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You switched from border security is not important to democrats

to why don't Dems care about people already here

to it's not really about immigration, it's about drugs

Sorry - I did't intend it as a "switch" - I was answering your question w/r/t "do I think Dems want open borders" - and trying to provide some background context for my opinion.   I don't think that most do - though some have said the opposite.  I do believe that the Ds are happy to accept that perception, and to push the perception that the Rs opposition to unenforced immigration is racist and hateful, and that the inverse is true as well, and that the focus on pushing those opposing perceptions is political expedience to the detriment of fixing our immigration policy, which in addition to making it less cumbersome to apply, also needs to include a rational quota on the #s of immigrants we accept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

RIF Kirwan - you can figure it out.   I honestly DON'T think that Trump has made "the physical wall his hill to die on" - I don't think he cares one way or another as long as he can say that he won.   He's already said as much - and we agree that the whole fight is about him stroking his ego.  

You aren't worth trying to figure out.  

Answer the fucking question:  Do you think that a physical wall is the answer?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/04/mike_pence_no_deal_without_a_wall.html

"PENCE: I think the president’s made it very clear -- no wall, no deal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're saying similar things differently. HOW they're processed is a detail if we can agree that they SHOULD be processed. It is probable, I think, that greater resources are going to have to be dedicated to the system. Time limits are a detail as well, but I think we could agree on "timely".

"individuals who DON'T satisfy our entrance criteria to be aggressively pursued and deported. " Agreed, with a timely, efficient application process there would be no need for the undocumented, particularly if they couldn't get a job without the documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kirwan said:

You aren't worth trying to figure out.  

Answer the fucking question:  Do you think that a physical wall is the answer?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/04/mike_pence_no_deal_without_a_wall.html

"PENCE: I think the president’s made it very clear -- no wall, no deal."

"Trying to figure out"?   You don't want to know what I think, you want to project your unfounded prejudices.   Go read what I wrote in response to Flash's post on the topic.   

I know you won't - so here's a lollipop for ya ya whiny cunt - "No, I don't think that a continuous physical barrier is the appropriate approach to improving border security. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry - I did't intend it as a "switch" - I was answering your question w/r/t "do I think Dems want open borders" - and trying to provide some background context for my opinion.   I don't think that most do - though some have said the opposite.  I do believe that the Ds are happy to accept that perception, and to push the perception that the Rs opposition to unenforced immigration is racist and hateful, and that the inverse is true as well, and that the focus on pushing those opposing perceptions is political expedience to the detriment of fixing our immigration policy, which in addition to making it less cumbersome to apply, also needs to include a rational quota on the #s of immigrants we accept. 

rather than getting into the soft stuff of impressions, 

lets talk about the wall, shall we?

Should Pelosi compromise so that Trump has his Great Wall?

What should she get in return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

You aren't worth trying to figure out.  

Answer the fucking question:  Do you think that a physical wall is the answer?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/04/mike_pence_no_deal_without_a_wall.html

"PENCE: I think the president’s made it very clear -- no wall, no deal."

Sounds like a good point to start with in negotiations.  Pelosi has already moved from nothing to $1.00 for the border so she seems to be losing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

rather than getting into the soft stuff of impressions, 

lets talk about the wall, shall we?

Should Pelosi compromise so that Trump has his Great Wall?

What should she get in return?

yes - I think that she ought to compromise, and in so doing add constraints to shape what "the wall" actually becomes in implementation.  Unless she's hard over that any kind of wall is "immoral", in which case she oughta stick to her guns, and then take whatever lumps/credit that comes from maintaining her principles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

yes - I think that she ought to compromise, and in so doing add constraints to shape what "the wall" actually becomes in implementation.  Unless she's hard over that any kind of wall is "immoral", in which case she oughta stick to her guns, and then take whatever lumps/credit that comes from maintaining her principles.  

Let's just be clear about one thing.  The "wall" is a fucking boondoggle and complete waste of taxpayer money.  

Her position is not that it's "immoral" except as a waste of money.  She has made several reasonable proposals.  It's in the Senate and Orange-U-Tan's hands.  Let them stew over it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the House really pass the same bill that the Senate passed a couple of weeks ago?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No compromise. Yep, that will work, gut the military for a useless wall.

Trump considering declaring national emergency in an effort to secure wall funding: Sources

President Donald Trump is seriously considering potential options to circumvent Congress, including declaring a national emergency, to reprogram funds from the Department of Defense and elsewhere to help pay for parts of his desired border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing discussions. 

Sources tell ABC News the discussions are still on the "working level" adding that there's a range of legal mechanisms that are being considered before such a decision is announced. 

The discussions have intensified as the president is now 14 days into a partial government shutdown, facing newly empowered House Democrats who are refusing to budge issue of wall funding. "We are not doing a wall," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday, calling the proposed structure an "immorality." 

The administration is holding meetings Friday, through the weekend and into next week, to continue discussions on next steps, according to officials. 

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-declaring-national-emergency-secure-wall-funding-sources/story?id=60164759 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

yes - I think that she ought to compromise, and in so doing add constraints to shape what "the wall" actually becomes in implementation.  Unless she's hard over that any kind of wall is "immoral", in which case she oughta stick to her guns, and then take whatever lumps/credit that comes from maintaining her principles.  

She already offered an increase of $1.6b in tech and manpower for increase border security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Did the House really pass the same bill that the Senate passed a couple of weeks ago?  

Yes, with $1.6b in inverses for border security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Yes, with $1.6b in inverses for border security

That's fine with me.  Border security is one thing.  Sections of wall where they are needed is one thing.  5 billion for a wall that won't do anything is nothing but a participation trophy for a moron.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's fine with me.  Border security is one thing.  Sections of wall where they are needed is one thing.  5 billion for a wall that won't do anything is nothing but a participation trophy for a moron.  

Well said, but the Moran’s did vote for a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump threatens shutdown of ‘months or even years’ over border wall, says he could declare naitonal emergency to get it built

Quote

 

President Trump on Friday threatened to use emergency powers to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a move that would defy a Congress that — amid Democratic opposition — has thus far refused to allocate any new money for a border wall.

Asked Friday if he would declare a national emergency to get the wall built, Trump responded: “We can do it. I haven’t done it. I may do it. I may do it.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-urges-gop-lawmakers-to-stand-with-trump-in-shutdown-fight/2019/01/04/99519d06-103f-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be4e29a4f8de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably wouldn't write that coup off just yet .............:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Well said, but the Moran’s did vote for a wall.

Paid for by Mexico. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"Trying to figure out"?   You don't want to know what I think, you want to project your unfounded prejudices.   Go read what I wrote in response to Flash's post on the topic.   

I know you won't - so here's a lollipop for ya ya whiny cunt - "No, I don't think that a continuous physical barrier is the appropriate approach to improving border security. 

 

You clearly feel your eloquence reflects your brilliance.  I will spend the afternoon studying your posts, reading all your links and attempting to understand your minutia. 

Or not.  Douchebag.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile:

"President Donald Trump said Friday he would keep the government shut down for a year or longer if needed to get his way on border security and said he has considered declaring a national emergency to try to secure funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Acting-Like-an-Emperor Coalition is going to be all over the state of emergency stuff. 

Wait. Never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did post in another thread the other day that Trump would go full retard.  just sayin.... (not there yet but the days not over)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

""Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he's acting on his own. But that is just not how our democracy works," Boehner says in the brief video.The president has said before that 'he's not king' and he's 'not an emperor,' but he sure is acting like one," he continues. "And he's doing it a time when the American people want nothing more than for us to work together.""

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boehner-obama-is-acting-like-a-king/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how many TSA workers are gonna quit if they don;t get paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dacapo said:

how many TSA workers are gonna quit if they don;t get paid?

First on CNN: Hundreds of TSA screeners, working without pay, calling out sick at major airports

Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown, have called out from work this week from at least four major airports, according to two senior agency officials and three TSA employee union officials. 

The mass call outs could inevitably mean air travel is less secure, especially as the shutdown enters its second week with no clear end to the political stalemate in sight. 

"This will definitely affect the flying public who we (are) sworn to protect," Hydrick Thomas, president of the national TSA employee union, told CNN. 

At New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, as many as 170 TSA employees have called out each day this week, Thomas tells CNN. Officers from a morning shift were required to work extra hours to cover the gaps.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/shutdown-tsa-screening/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

Can we get real here. We have caravans of thousands of central Americans advancing on the southern border. 60,000 illegal crossing apprehensions in a single month. Families crossing in the dangerous El Paso sector up 20 times year over year. All are undeterred by our current border security measures.

The president is requesting a paltry $5B which is more than he will settle for and less than is needed. The reason Democrats won't support the $5B is because they are only pretending to be for border security, they see votes crossing the border. The "walls are immoral" or that they don't work arguments are transparently bullshit. That and they want to stick it to Trump.

It's all about the accumulation of power and revenge.

Border crossing have been dropping for years. It’s a manufactured crisis.

As I like to say

FAKENEWS!!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of pressure, the IRS said they won't be sending out refunds until they are back in full operation.

Hangon to your MAGA hats, they're gonna be flying when the MAGAts don't get their EIC.

 

IRS won't issue refunds during shutdown

If the shutdown continues into the tax filing season, the IRS could recall additional staff, according to a union official. The agency still won't issue refunds, however. That is considered less-than-essential (or "non-excepted," in IRS jargon) activity, according to the agency's shutdown plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Speaking of pressure, the IRS said they won't be sending out refunds until they are back in full operation.

Hangon to your MAGA hats, they're gonna be flying when the MAGAts don't get their EIC.

 

IRS won't issue refunds during shutdown

If the shutdown continues into the tax filing season, the IRS could recall additional staff, according to a union official. The agency still won't issue refunds, however. That is considered less-than-essential (or "non-excepted," in IRS jargon) activity, according to the agency's shutdown plan

The state of emergency could be used to confiscate all returns to defray the cost of the wall. Mexico’s apppropriations process seems to be a bit of a sticky wicket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

So they don't appear to be as hopeless as Republicans.

The Republicans looked hopeless refusing to waste that money because it was a Republican promise to build the wall. The Democrats said a wall isn't necessary and so would look hopeless approving one. 

I pity you. You want to defend them so much and they give you such little usable material for the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"Trying to figure out"?   You don't want to know what I think, you want to project your unfounded prejudices.   Go read what I wrote in response to Flash's post on the topic.   

 I know you won't - so here's a lollipop for ya ya whiny cunt - "No, I don't think that a continuous physical barrier is the appropriate approach to improving border security. 

To be frank here, Chesapeake, your post was unclear and you were waffling without coming to the point. Getting all pissy because someone asks you to be clear is the kind of thing we expect from Dog when he's cornered... so seeing you do it makes you look like you're trying to get out of stating your opinion too.

Also, if you honestly think that Trump hasn't chosen the wall to be his little hill to die on, you're not paying attention. He's stating it outright. He's threatening to keep the government in shut-down AND declare a national emergency unless he gets the wall. His VP is stating outright that there is no deal that doesn't include the wall.

You are, once again, hoping that Trump doesn't mean what he says, will grow into a better person, and will change his goal to one more reasonable than the one he's holding the government to ransom to attain. He's proven, time and again, to lack the depth for such games. He is what he presents himself to be. Nothing more. Stop projecting an imagined "better Trump" onto his actions and look at what he does. Whether he's intended it or not, he's painted himself into a corner where the only way he can "win" is by getting a wall. Like it or not, Trump is planting his ego flag on that hill. He's not climbing down until he gets what he wants or is forced down by something he cannot control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

The Republicans looked hopeless refusing to waste that money because it was a Republican promise to build the wall. The Democrats said a wall isn't necessary and so would look hopeless approving one. 

I pity you. You want to defend them so much and they give you such little usable material for the task.

You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor 

Indeed, and as neither of us are making the decision, we're equally irrelevant on this one and so our opinions can be weighted equally in the discussion. Proving, once again, you didn't get the point and lack the balls needed to understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Border crossing have been dropping for years. It’s a manufactured crisis.

As I like to say

FAKENEWS!!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday cited a large spike in border crossing numbers in March -- 200% over last year, including an 800% increase in unaccompanied children".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-budget-hearing/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a border wall is imoral shouldn't we be demolishing the wall we have?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

If a border wall is imoral shouldn't we be demolishing the wall we have?

I'm pretty sure nothing in this world is imoral!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday cited a large spike in border crossing numbers in March -- 200% over last year, including an 800% increase in unaccompanied children".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-budget-hearing/index.html

 
Quote

 

Nielsen seemed to acknowledge that the numbers in March were still below some years toward the end of the Obama administration, saying they were too high regardless.
"Whether these numbers are at times lower or higher than in years past, it makes little difference," Nielsen said. "They are unacceptable and must be addressed."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday cited a large spike in border crossing numbers in March -- 200% over last year, including an 800% increase in unaccompanied children".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-budget-hearing/index.html

She’s part of the group that claims were stopping middleeast terrorists at the border. That crazy ass bitch makes things up as she speaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday cited a large spike in border crossing numbers in March -- 200% over last year, including an 800% increase in unaccompanied children".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-budget-hearing/index.html

They were stopped. Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Why do you think Dems want everyone to come in?

I agree with you 100% on the need to immigration control. But our undocumented-immigrant problem is from people that came in the 90's and up to the mid-2000s over the southern border, but today is due to people coming on planes and overstaying visas.

 

Why fight the last war?

It’s hard to know that one- a while back, I posted a bunch of articles advocating open borders, mostly penned by Righties, and......... crickets.  And for what it’s worth, I read somewhere that 100’s of millions, world wide, are undocumented....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

They were stopped. Duh.

Yes those were the ones that were stopped...Duh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

If a border wall is imoral shouldn't we be demolishing the wall we have?

What self-respecting cocksucker can't spell immoral?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:

What self-respecting cocksucker can't spell immoral?

So I missed an m...What self-respecting cocksucker would give a shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're admitting that you suck dick?

But your self esteem is good with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

So you're admitting that you suck dick?

But your self esteem is good with it.

Put me back on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Put me back on ignore.

Why would he do that. The only clueless shitposter that provides what you do is Happy Jack... and, having outed himself, he is overdue for a meltdown and new identity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I've had the Mutt on ignore for a long time.

His dribbling still seeps through sometimes - people quoting him and that strange glitch that drops the ignore function if you and he post at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites