Spatial Ed

The Wall

Recommended Posts

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-advisors-only-invented-border-wall-idea-make-sure-he-slammed-1280503

“‘Donald Trump’s campaign advisers only invented the border wall promise as a memory trick to remind a difficult candidate to slam immigrants in speeches, according to a report.

‘How do we get him to continue to talk about immigration?’ Sam Nunberg, one of Mr. Trump’s early political advisers, recalled telling Roger J. Stone Jr., another adviser. ‘We’re going to get him to talk about he’s going to build a wall,’” the Timeswrote.

The government is crippled by a fake crises because of a manufactured campaign pledge designed to compensate for candidate Trump’s ADD issues.  What happened to my country?

Sorry @Dog it was never about border security or Mexican foreign aid to compensate for our broken government.   If it was we’d have universal Everify, permanent greencards for victims of human trafficking in exchange for testimony resulting in a conviction, and would update the cameras, sensors and patrols put in place by Presidents Bush and Obama.  

Meanwhile we would copy Canada by recruiting the best, brightest and highest achievers.    Instead we tried to lock them out of their grad programs by stopping them at the airports and make it increasingly hard for them to remain after they graduate.   Even if a large company wants to hire them, they may be refused if a single mistake is found in the paperwork.   Small companies are pretty well squeezed out by the complexity.   It’s not about illegals or terrorists.    It’s about people that don’t look like Kansas being allowed to do research at Kansas State.   That is offensive to some in government.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/13/its-much-harder-now-for-foreign-grads-to-get-jobs-at-us-tech-companies/#5832655e7bae

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/24/650520165/high-skilled-immigrants-call-out-the-trump-administrations-hypocrisy

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the Trump  campaign  administration is once again removing any option but capitulation from either side:

"If he has to give up a concrete wall, replace it with a steel fence in order to do that so that Democrats can say, 'See? He's not building a wall anymore,' that should help us move in the right direction"

Instead of giving the Democrats room to compromise with Trump, he is politically painting any compromise as gamesmanship on their part. Which, of course, only escalates the pressure for them to not give an inch. "Double or nothing" is no way to lead a country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Once again, the Trump  campaign  administration is once again removing any option but capitulation from either side:

"If he has to give up a concrete wall, replace it with a steel fence in order to do that so that Democrats can say, 'See? He's not building a wall anymore,' that should help us move in the right direction"

Instead of giving the Democrats room to compromise with Trump, he is politically painting any compromise as gamesmanship on their part. Which, of course, only escalates the pressure for them to not give an inch. "Double or nothing" is no way to lead a country.

Art of the deal. This is someone who knows how to do dealsss. It is going to be a terrific deal just wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Art of the deal. This is someone who knows how to do dealsss. It is going to be a terrific deal just wait and see. 

given the existing collateral damage , even if it was it wouldn't be .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Once again, the Trump  campaign  administration is once again removing any option but capitulation from either side:

"If he has to give up a concrete wall, replace it with a steel fence in order to do that so that Democrats can say, 'See? He's not building a wall anymore,' that should help us move in the right direction"

Instead of giving the Democrats room to compromise with Trump, he is politically painting any compromise as gamesmanship on their part. Which, of course, only escalates the pressure for them to not give an inch. "Double or nothing" is no way to lead a country.

Not that your opinion is really relevant but how is offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removing any option for capitulation?

Share this post


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

Not that your opinion is really relavent but how is offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removing any option for capitulation?

If you don't think my opinion is relevant, it makes no sense you asking. Get back to me when you think it is relevant to the discussion and I'll give you an answer.

Share this post


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

If you don't think my opinion is relevant, it makes no sense you asking. Get back to me when you think it is relevant to the discussion and I'll give you an answer.

The correct answer is...it's not.

Share this post


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

The correct answer is...it's not.

Now if you imagine I said it was removing any option for capitulation, you'd actually have a point that's relevant to my post.

Share this post


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

Now if you imagine I said it was removing any option for capitulation, you'd actually have a point that's relevant to my post.

The correct answer remains of course...it's not

Offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall does not remove any option but capitulation. Does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Anybody linked to Trump in any way - working for him, with him, not voting for him, not liking him, not supporting him - has a credibility problem.

Bullshit

Share this post


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

The correct answer remains of course...it's not

Offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall does not remove any option but capitulation. Does it?

Do you think my opinion is relevant or not? Do make up your mind - you keep asking as if it is, but you seem afraid that admitting that will mean I'll slap you upside the head with some facts again.

Share this post


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

Do you think my opinion is relevant or not? Do make up your mind - you keep asking as if it is, but you seem afraid that admitting that will mean I'll slap you upside the head with some facts again.

When your opinion is that offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removes any option but capitulation I think your opinion is just stupid.

Share this post


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

When your opinion is that offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removes any option but capitulation I think your opinion is just stupid.

I didn't ask if you thought it was smart, because you have never been a good judge of intelligence. I asked whether you think it's relevant. You keep responding to my opinion as if it's relevant. You continue asking me questions as if you think it's relevant. However you seem a little head-shy at the idea of inviting another beating with the facts, so keep tap-dancing around actually admitting that.

You get back to me when you think my opinion is relevant and I'll happily show why your opinion about my view is as worthless as the rest of your drivel. 

Share this post


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

I didn't ask if you thought it was smart, because you have never been a good judge of intelligence. I asked whether you think it's relevant. You keep responding to my opinion as if it's relevant. You continue asking me questions as if you think it's relevant. However you seem a little head-shy at the idea of inviting another beating with the facts, so keep tap-dancing around actually admitting that.

You get back to me when you think my opinion is relevant and I'll happily show why your opinion about my view is as worthless as the rest of your drivel. 

Offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall does not remove any option but capitulation. it just does not.  Your opinion that it does is profoundly stupid, factually wrong and irrelevant.

Share this post


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

Offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall does not remove any option but capitulation. it just does not.  Your opinion that it does is profoundly stupid, factually wrong and irrelevant.

You are incorrect. If you'd like to know why, feel free to admit the relevance of my opinion. We both know you couldn't think your way out a wet paper bag, so the idea you could understand politics more complex than "Red Good, Blue Bad" and come to it yourself is laughable.

Share this post


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

You are incorrect. If you'd like to know why, feel free to admit the relevance of my opinion. We both know you couldn't think your way out a wet paper bag, so the idea you could understand politics more complex than "Red Good, Blue Bad" and come to it yourself is laughable.

No...I'm correct.

Share this post


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

No...I'm correct.

And in the same vein, with the same level of evidence - no, you're not.

Given the level of your reasoning so far, now is when you respond with a "Nuh uh, times infinity"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And in the same vein, with the same level of evidence - no, you're not.

Given the level of your reasoning so far, now is when you respond with a "Nuh uh, times infinity"

Just to be clear, holding that one's opinion is irrelevant if one is not instrumental to the decision making process is your standard. "You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor.  That you don't like your own standard applied to you is your problem.

Now explain to the class how Trump offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removes any option but capitulation.

Share this post


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

Just to be clear, holding that one's opinion is irrelevant if one is not instrumental to the decision making process is your standard. "You are not instrumental in, or really even relevant to, the decision making process. As such, your opinion isn't relevant"....Bent Sailor.  That you don't like your own standard applied to you is your problem.

When one's not instrumental in, or relevant to, the decision making process, one's opinion isn't relevant to it either. Most people over the age of eight get that. You are just  butt-hurt about that fact being pointed out to you. And, once again, your precious feelings being hurt back then don't make that comment relevant to this conversation. I am not speaking about the decision itself. I am speaking about the politics surrounding making the decision. 

I know, that's a little hard for you to grasp, so just ask your nurse to explain it to you when they give you today's meds.

 

Quote

Now explain to the class how Trump offering a steel fence instead of a concrete wall removes any option but capitulation.

When you feel my opinion is relevant, I'll happily slap you upside the head with the obvious reason. Until then, you'll have to suffer in the (admittedly black) depths of your ignorance.

Share this post


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

When one's not instrumental the decision making process, one's decision isn't relevant to it. Most people over the age of eight get that. You are still butt-hurt about that fact being pointed out to you. And, once again, your precious feelings being hurt back then don't make that comment relevant to this conversation. I am not speaking about the decision itself. I am speaking about the politics surrounding making the decision. 

I know, that's a little hard for you to grasp, so just ask your nurse to explain it to you when they give you today's meds.

 

When you feel my opinion is relevant, I'll happily slap you upside the head with the obvious reason. Until then, you'll have to suffer in the (admittedly black) depths of your ignorance.

Ha!

Share this post


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

Ha!

You forgot the "times infinity". Christ, if you're going to argue like a schoolyard brat, you can at least get the basics right. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


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

Bullshit

Now that is a topic you know a great deal about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.”

www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/border-patrol-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.amp.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome-letter.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks in the border areas agree with the need for border security, and more funds for it...but not for a wall. But from what I see, they are democRATS not Americans, so what do they know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a good time to mention it's plural - walls not wall. And they are closing in.  as Eva Dent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully 820 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile US-Mexico border -- 41% -- is represented by a Republican, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, who opposes a wall and was just reelected in a tough race in which he emphasized that position. (His democratic opponent also did not want wall). NONE of the border Texans want a wall.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/border-wall-meets-reality/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hasher said:

Fully 820 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile US-Mexico border -- 41% -- is represented by a Republican, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, who opposes a wall and was just reelected in a tough race in which he emphasized that position. (His democratic opponent also did not want wall). NONE of the border Texans want a wall.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/border-wall-meets-reality/

That’s gotta be Fake News!

Why, President Trump has told us he has overwhelming support for the wall. Among Border Patrol personnel, as well as just about every other group. 

He couldn’t be lying, could he?

Share this post


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

That’s gotta be Fake News!

Why, President Trump has told us he has overwhelming support for the wall. Among Border Patrol personnel, as well as just about every other group. 

He couldn’t be lying, could he?

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas)

Hurd, a House moderate who won reelection in November by less than 1 point, has pushed for a “smart border wall” that uses “cutting edge” technology to protect the border rather than a physical wall.

“The American people sent us up here to get things done, and the only way we can get things done is by working together,” he tweeted Thursday.

The American people sent us up here to get things done, and the only way we can get things done is by working together. pic.twitter.com/yVWhP5vVra

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/422424-the-8-republicans-who-voted-against-trumps-border-wall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course if he just takes his ball and goes home, we should all roll over, play dead.  If that doesn't work let's beg him to come back so we can play with his little ball.   Oops, I met wall.

Share this post


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

Hurd, a House moderate who won reelection in November by less than 1 point, has pushed for a “smart border wall” that uses “cutting edge” technology to protect the border rather than a physical wall.

Notice how they GOP are following Trump down the path of redefining words so they can claim a win no matter what?

wall: (noun) a continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides an area of land.

Trump wants to redefine it to include steel fences and now we have Hurd trying to spin any technology used to protect the border as being a "wall".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wall is Dead .

Long Live the Barrier .

 

Trump Offers a ‘Steel Barrier,’ but Democrats Are Unmoved

Quote

“I informed my folks to say that we’ll build a steel barrier,” Mr. Trump told reporters after returning to the White House from a senior staff meeting at Camp David. He added of the Democrats, “They don’t like concrete, so we’ll give them steel.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/us/politics/trump-shutdown.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats: A physical barrier is cost ineffective, draws funds away from things that could actually work, and we've already said we can allocate $1.3 billion towards it.

Trump: OK, if doesn't need to be a concrete wall, it can be a "see through wall" made of steel. And you have to give me the same $5 billion in funds I demanded. And if you say yes, it proves you were just hung up on the "wall" label.

 

Where is Chesapeake when you need to explain compromise to the right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tRump has no desire for a resolution , he is building up steam to declare the emergency .

the fool truly sees himself as the saviour of America .

this will be ugly .

Share this post


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

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas)

Hurd, a House moderate who won reelection in November by less than 1 point, has pushed for a “smart border wall” that uses “cutting edge” technology to protect the border rather than a physical wall.

“The American people sent us up here to get things done, and the only way we can get things done is by working together,” he tweeted Thursday.

The American people sent us up here to get things done, and the only way we can get things done is by working together. pic.twitter.com/yVWhP5vVra

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/422424-the-8-republicans-who-voted-against-trumps-border-wall

A virtual wall. firewall. pony wall, Shoji, who cares.   Rep Hurd is right, they are supposed to get job done.  Functional security systems as part of a comprehensive immigration package including DACA and intelligent immigration?    If he can propose something and sell his Fuhrer on a Bush / Obama style system of sensors and patrols, I’m good with calling it Donald’s Deer camera Demi wall.   

32 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Notice how they GOP are following Trump down the path of redefining words so they can claim a win no matter what?

wall: (noun) a continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides an area of land.

Trump wants to redefine it to include steel fences and now we have Hurd trying to spin any technology used to protect the border as being a "wall".

Better to allow them to save face then to force the Republicans to fight a lost battle until all is in ruins.   This battlefield is on our own soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lark - I honestly wish Hurd all the best on that front. His party has saddled themselves with an idiot that cannot take "No" for an answer and is willing to destroy anything and everything to get his way. Like Jeff, he doesn't care who is hurt burning the bitch down, so long as "they" don't get any benefit from it.

That said, I don't see it working. Someone has told Trump that he can get everything he wants if he can declare a national emergency. All he needs to to is stick to his demands and he'll be able to present the issue as a crisis only he can fix by overriding the will of Congress with his emergency powers. Remember when the right-wing nutters were telling everyone how Obama was going to manufacture a crisis to override the will of Congress? Yeah, those conspiracy theories went nowhere... and now the GOP president is outright stating that is his intention.

$5 billion isn't chump change. The Republicans were right not to give it to Donald. The Democrats are right not to do it either. The problem your country faces is how you deal with a President that manufactures a crisis that enables him to ignore the rest of his government. You don't fix a spoilt brat by giving them what they want cos they throw a tantrum. You give the brat a spanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

@Lark - I honestly wish Hurd all the best on that front. His party has saddled themselves with an idiot that cannot take "No" for an answer and is willing to destroy anything and everything to get his way. Like Jeff, he doesn't care who is hurt burning the bitch down, so long as "they" don't get any benefit from it.

That said, I don't see it working. Someone has told Trump that he can get everything he wants if he can declare a national emergency. All he needs to to is stick to his demands and he'll be able to present the issue as a crisis only he can fix by overriding the will of Congress with his emergency powers. Remember when the right-wing nutters were telling everyone how Obama was going to manufacture a crisis to override the will of Congress? Yeah, those conspiracy theories went nowhere... and now the GOP president is outright stating that is his intention.

$5 billion isn't chump change. The Republicans were right not to give it to Donald. The Democrats are right not to do it either. The problem your country faces is how you deal with a President that manufactures a crisis that enables him to ignore the rest of his government. You don't fix a spoilt brat by giving them what they want cos they throw a tantrum. You give the brat a spanking.

I agree in general.   It sucks when the right decision (telling a bully no when he tries to go back on his word) is more expensive then keeping government open.   I’ve had to make a similar stand, knowing it was more expensive in the short run but capitulation would likely cost more down the road.   It is hard to compromise with a man that can’t keep his word long enough to sign a debt agreement.    A face saving compromise seems to be the exception, no matter how idiotically Trump trapped himself.    Don’t give him a stupid wall, since it will inevitably need a lot more money next year to make it taller, deeper, or be torn down when it violates water drainage treaties with Mexico.    But let him call boarder security that we can all agree is necessary to some degree (unless you want 100% open boarders) a virtual wall if he wants.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes making the stand is the most important thing for the future.  Trump has proved to be a liar.  There are many other dishonors that will be his epitaph.  Life requires destroying evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Lark said:

A face saving compromise seems to be the exception, no matter how idiotically Trump trapped himself.    Don’t give him a stupid wall, since it will inevitably need a lot more money next year to make it taller, deeper, or be torn down when it violates water drainage treaties with Mexico.    But let him call boarder security that we can all agree is necessary to some degree (unless you want 100% open boarders) a virtual wall if he wants.   

The face saving option might have worked before someone got it into his head he can get exactly what he wants by declaring a national emergency. Don't know which idiot suggested it to him, but Trump hasn't stopped talking about it since. The Democrats aren't going to give Trump his $5billion wall - concrete, steel, see through, or made of pixie dust. It was both politically and financially correct for the Republicans to refuse him and the math (financially & politically) hasn't changed.

Trump doesn't know how to give in, even to save face, so he's going to keep escalating this until he gets what he wants or gets slapped down so hard he's unwilling to try again. Hurd is still operating under the mistaken impression Trump can act rationally having put his ego on the line. He's mistaken.

Share this post


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

The face saving option might have worked before someone got it into his head he can get exactly what he wants by declaring a national emergency. Don't know which idiot suggested it to him, but Trump hasn't stopped talking about it since. The Democrats aren't going to give Trump his $5billion wall - concrete, steel, see through, or made of pixie dust. It was both politically and financially correct for the Republicans to do so and the math (financially & politically) hasn't changed.

Trump doesn't know how to give in, even to save face, so he's going to keep escalating this until he gets what he wants or gets slapped down so hard he's unwilling to try again. Hurd is still operating under the mistaken impression Trump can act rationally having put his ego on the line. He's mistaken.

National Emergency  (President Truman’s great mistake, but this time the war emergency is wars Trump wants to run away from anyway) will test the party loyalty of Trump’s Supreme Court.   I wonder if he realizes he can’t fire them if they break the loyalty path.   Or will some obey party doctrine out of long conditioned habit?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lark said:

 National Emergency  (President Truman’s great mistake, but this time the war emergency is wars Trump wants to run away from anyway) will test the party loyalty of Trump’s Supreme Court.   I wonder if he realizes he can’t fire them if they break the loyalty path.   Or will some obey party doctrine out of long conditioned habit?   

Well, it would make for an interesting test to see how well they hold up under pressure to do the right thing. Better to find out now whether they'll put jurisprudence before country than when he's in front of them for trying to pardon himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 3:30 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I asked @Gouvernail already when he posted this same meme and he never bothered to answer so maybe you can help me out....  what "war" are they escaping??

Yeah.  The international treaty mentions wars. 

I remember an America that welcomed those who came here to try to create a better life. 

 

With respect to WWJD, which was the context of my comment, your question has no relevance. 

Share this post


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

Well, it would make for an interesting test to see how well they hold up under pressure to do the right thing. Better to find out now whether they'll put jurisprudence before country than when he's in front of them for trying to pardon himself. 

The SCOTUS is not going to let Trump declare a state of emergency over a funding bill.

That's just hysterical speculation.

Share this post


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

The SCOTUS is not going to let Trump declare a state of emergency over a funding bill.

I don't disagree. I reckon the bench will slap that down, using the precedent set by Truman, with little more than five minutes discussion in the backroom. The conservative/loyal Republicans might file another of their dissents,  safe in the knowledge that it's just a protest without power, but I'd be very shocked if it was a 5-4 decision.

 

6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

 That's just hysterical speculation.

Hysterical speculation backed by commentary from the POTUS. If it weren't for the fact that the President of the fucking United States was mouthing off about his ability to spit the dummy and use the consequences to override Congress, I'd chalk it up as just another random-level conspiracy theory and be done with it. Unfortunately, the president is involved and thinks he's onto a winner with this one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The SCOTUS is not going to let Trump declare a state of emergency over a funding bill.

my reading is they don't act until after the declaration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.1da13dc42137fd885e3a7014d6e4e113.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can;t help but think donny acts like dr. evil

no fricken cement wall, well then we'll have steel..  All I asked for is a cement wall...somebody throw me a bone

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/4/2019 at 9:20 PM, Bent Sailor said:

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.

Sorry Bent - gotta disagree.  Kirwan asked what I thought about the wall - and I pointed him to the post copied below, after which he called on me to "simply answer the fuckin' question".   How may ways does it need to be answered for someone to get it?  The other discussion w/Flash and J24 weren't really germane to Kirwan's attempt to box in a rightie. 

 

On 1/4/2019 at 2:01 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 1/4/2019 at 1:56 PM, 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
On 1/6/2019 at 2:24 AM, Bent Sailor said:

Once again, the Trump  campaign  administration is once again removing any option but capitulation from either side:

"If he has to give up a concrete wall, replace it with a steel fence in order to do that so that Democrats can say, 'See? He's not building a wall anymore,' that should help us move in the right direction"

Instead of giving the Democrats room to compromise with Trump, he is politically painting any compromise as gamesmanship on their part. Which, of course, only escalates the pressure for them to not give an inch. "Double or nothing" is no way to lead a country.

it is crazy on all parts.  A commentator on NPR this morning described the situation this way:  (parpaphrasing) "The fight over the wall has become a symbolic implementation of identity politics.  How do you compromise on symbolism? "  I think that Trump's insistence on a physical wall from pacific to the atlantic is dumb.  There are indeed places where new/better physical barriers make sense, and there are places where they would be a tragic & wasteful environmental impact.  I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea.  

What it points to is that people in power still care more about party rhetoric than in working for solutions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a certain amount of truth to the rhetoric comment but it's also about political power going forward.  Both sides are looking at '20 and support of their voters but, due to Trump's flip flopping and concrete (or steel) demands this has come down to a "who blinks" situation with Trump backed into a tighter corner than Congress. Real Clear is still showing Chuck and Nancy with lower unfavorables than Trump (although not favorables) so, particularly with the exit of Kelly to moderate his information flow, the damage is more likely to accumulate on R's who have a tougher Senate map in '20.

I think the disagreement is both electoral AND political; Dem's look at acquiescing to what they view as an irrational, ineffective measure as encouraging more irrational ineffective demands, impeding their agenda (which they view as benefiting the country).

Share this post


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

it is crazy on all parts.  A commentator on NPR this morning described the situation this way:  (parpaphrasing) "The fight over the wall has become a symbolic implementation of identity politics.  How do you compromise on symbolism? "  I think that Trump's insistence on a physical wall from pacific to the atlantic is dumb.  There are indeed places where new/better physical barriers make sense, and there are places where they would be a tragic & wasteful environmental impact.  I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea.  

What it points to is that people in power still care more about party rhetoric than in working for solutions.  

The old "there are bad people on both sides" argument.

Share this post


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

The old "there are bad people on both sides" argument.

Sure it's old - doesn't mean that it's not right.   Don't know why you lovely lefties have such a hard time admitting that your side too has partisan hacks who are more interested in party perpetuation than in responsible change.   

Share this post


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

it is crazy on all parts.  A commentator on NPR this morning described the situation this way:  (parpaphrasing) "The fight over the wall has become a symbolic implementation of identity politics.  How do you compromise on symbolism? "  I think that Trump's insistence on a physical wall from pacific to the atlantic is dumb.  There are indeed places where new/better physical barriers make sense, and there are places where they would be a tragic & wasteful environmental impact.  I think that the D intransigent opposition to anything that can be called a wall is slightly less helpful than the  sea-to-sea barrier idea.  

What it points to is that people in power still care more about party rhetoric than in working for solutions.  

Trump hasn't spent the billions he already got for the wall.

Trump had a deal for the wall lined up but refused to sign because his immigrant-torture loving advisor Stephen Miller said no.

Trump had a deal to sign this December but refused to sign because Limbaugh mocked his manhood.

This ones on Trump, NPRs overequivocating partisan bullshittery aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Sneak peek at Trump's final fitting before his State of the Union Address

 

Twall.jpg

That's what the USA has always needed. Don Cherry in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wall is Trump's big campaign promise which he has to hold to or lose his base support. Everything he says is a lie or an exaggeration. There is no invasion, there are no terrorists streaming across the border, there are already hundreds of miles of fencing/border walls and buttloads of money spent on enforcement.

Any compromise is giving into the blowhard conman bully.  The End.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure it's old - doesn't mean that it's not right.   Don't know why you lovely lefties have such a hard time admitting that your side too has partisan hacks who are more interested in party perpetuation than in responsible change.   

This is not one of those times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

The Wall is Trump's big campaign promise which he has to hold to or lose his base support. Everything he says is a lie or an exaggeration. There is no invasion, there are no terrorists streaming across the border, there are already hundreds of miles of fencing/border walls and buttloads of money spent on enforcement.

Any compromise is giving into the blowhard conman bully.  The End.

 

Share this post


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

We disagree - but, I'm interested in hearing why you think so. 

 

Trump wants the Dems to give him something Republicans wouldn't even give him.

How is that reasonable? Why would the Dems, who just "won" the house, roll over for something that their voters(and 60+% of Americans) don't want?  That being an increase in the physical border length?

Share this post


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

Trump wants the Dems to give him something Republicans wouldn't even give him.

How is that reasonable? Why would the Dems, who just "won" the house, roll over for something that their voters(and 60+% of Americans) don't want?  That being an increase in the physical border length?

Are you suggesting appeasement isn't a reasonable approach to negotiation with an unstable wannabe strongman?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Trump wants the Dems to give him something Republicans wouldn't even give him.

How is that reasonable? Why would the Dems, who just "won" the house, roll over for something that their voters(and 60+% of Americans) don't want?  That being an increase in the physical border length?

OK - I can appreciate that - and it's not where I thought you were coming from. 

We're in agreement - I think that they both ought to address border security, end the shutdown, get some progress on technical security measures, and a requirement to address the illegal immigrants currently resident (we've already discussed one approach that I think would be viable) , w/a focus on improving our immigration quota rationale, improving our identification/deportation of that portion of the illegal immigrant demographic that we all agree are undesirable, and let both sides call it whatever they want. 

The root problem is that our immigration system isn't working - it's not working from the perspective of realistic immigrant quotas, it's not working from the perspective of enforcing those quotas, it's not working in terms of everyone putting their heads in the sand w/r/t the pragmatic discussion of how we should handle the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here.  THAT is where we need to do the work, but, none of that can happen while the current fight over symbolism is the focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump to address nation later.  Speculation that he’ll declare national emergency and direct monies towards building the wall while saying he’ll sign bill to open the govt.  of course the SCOTUS will deny the move and trump will say look I did everything I could.  Congress will allocate $5B for non wall security. Base will be happy and reason prevails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's what the USA has always needed. Don Cherry in the White House.

What do you think they have?

Except Cherry dresses better.

Share this post


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

OK - I can appreciate that - and it's not where I thought you were coming from. 

We're in agreement - I think that they both ought to address border security, end the shutdown, get some progress on technical security measures, and a requirement to address the illegal immigrants currently resident (we've already discussed one approach that I think would be viable) , w/a focus on improving our immigration quota rationale, improving our identification/deportation of that portion of the illegal immigrant demographic that we all agree are undesirable, and let both sides call it whatever they want. 

The root problem is that our immigration system isn't working - it's not working from the perspective of realistic immigrant quotas, it's not working from the perspective of enforcing those quotas, it's not working in terms of everyone putting their heads in the sand w/r/t the pragmatic discussion of how we should handle the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here.  THAT is where we need to do the work, but, none of that can happen while the current fight over symbolism is the focus. 

In agreement except border security. What needs addressed? Since 2006 massive changes have been made and the stats show that.  There is no perfect solution as increased spending has a decreasing effectiveness in ROI.   Border security is just red meat for the base.  If you have some specifics please feel free to share, otherwise drop it.  Terrorists are not hiking in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

In agreement except border security. What needs addressed? Since 2006 massive changes have been made and the stats show that.  There is no perfect solution as increased spending has a decreasing effectiveness in ROI.   Border security is just red meat for the base.  If you have some specifics please feel free to share, otherwise drop it.  Terrorists are not hiking in.

There are vast swaths of the border where the only "security" is on occasional patrol - and yes, there ARE inappropriate incursions.  Terrorists?  Hard to tell until after-the-fact forensics.  Drug/Human traffickers?  They indeed are "just hiking in". 

There isn't any "one-sized-fits-all" solution - the border regions differ greatly in terrain and accessibility, and those differences in turn result in different incursion metrics.  I think that rather than spend the $$ on physical barriers, that improving our sensor grid and adequately staffing our ability to respond to incursions would provide better results at less cost with much less environmental impact.  

As I've said numerous times - the bigger work is fixing our immigration system, from quotas, entrance request processing, to enforcement and appropriate deportation.  Deciding upon a fair and equitable approach to dealing with the millions who are already illegally resident is the biggest part of that, and I think that if we did, it would eliminate the majority of the unfounded emotion on both sides of the discussion that serves only to cloud and divide.  

Share this post


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

There are vast swaths of the border where the only "security" is on occasional patrol - and yes, there ARE inappropriate incursions.  Terrorists?  Hard to tell until after-the-fact forensics.  Drug/Human traffickers?  They indeed are "just hiking in". 

There isn't any "one-sized-fits-all" solution - the border regions differ greatly in terrain and accessibility, and those differences in turn result in different incursion metrics.  I think that rather than spend the $$ on physical barriers, that improving our sensor grid and adequately staffing our ability to respond to incursions would provide better results at less cost with much less environmental impact.  

As I've said numerous times - the bigger work is fixing our immigration system, from quotas, entrance request processing, to enforcement and appropriate deportation.  Deciding upon a fair and equitable approach to dealing with the millions who are already illegally resident is the biggest part of that, and I think that if we did, it would eliminate the majority of the unfounded emotion on both sides of the discussion that serves only to cloud and divide.  

You must have some data that shows how many folks are coming through those remote areas.

whats the appropriate cost/interdiction. $5k? $500k? $5M?

Share this post


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

There are vast swaths of the border where the only "security" is on occasional patrol - and yes, there ARE inappropriate incursions.  Terrorists?  Hard to tell until after-the-fact forensics.  Drug/Human traffickers?  They indeed are "just hiking in". 

There isn't any "one-sized-fits-all" solution - the border regions differ greatly in terrain and accessibility, and those differences in turn result in different incursion metrics.  I think that rather than spend the $$ on physical barriers, that improving our sensor grid and adequately staffing our ability to respond to incursions would provide better results at less cost with much less environmental impact.  

As I've said numerous times - the bigger work is fixing our immigration system, from quotas, entrance request processing, to enforcement and appropriate deportation.  Deciding upon a fair and equitable approach to dealing with the millions who are already illegally resident is the biggest part of that, and I think that if we did, it would eliminate the majority of the unfounded emotion on both sides of the discussion that serves only to cloud and divide.  

Sigh....  this thread is about the wall.  There are vast swaths of the border where there is the occasional patrol - and nothing else. Ever been anywhere on the southern border?  No roads, no water, no nothing.  And further in all along the border on the roads there are checkpoints.

So - sticking to the wall, what do you propose? Something 100% effective? Cost estimate?  (note - there is no such thing as 100% effective).  There have been and are proposals for incremental increases in surveillance but not a physical wall which nobody except Trump and his lackeys are calling for.  Hows about we leave the other topics to appropriate threads and just stick to this one.  BTW, nobody in Texas wants a wall (well, except perhaps Ted ihavenospine Cruz). 

Share this post


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

You must have some data that shows how many folks are coming through those remote areas.

 whats the appropriate cost/interdiction. $5k? $500k? $5M?

How much does it cost the fire department to respond to a house fire?  Is there a threshold of house fires below which we shouldn't worry about deploying the Fire Department?

The appropriate answer, IMHO, is that the cost is what the cost is - and that trying to validate the cost in terms of "how much per incident" is a fool's errand, and I don't think that it supports your premise that because "there aren't that many incursions" that we should ignore border security. 

A couple DHS reports that I think are interesting: 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-cbp022-bss-september2018.pdf
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/07/25/written-testimony-cbp-house-homeland-security-subcommittee-border-and-maritime

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Sigh....  this thread is about the wall.  There are vast swaths of the border where there is the occasional patrol - and nothing else. Ever been anywhere on the southern border?  No roads, no water, no nothing.  And further in all along the border on the roads there are checkpoints.

So - sticking to the wall, what do you propose? Something 100% effective? Cost estimate?  (note - there is no such thing as 100% effective).  There have been and are proposals for incremental increases in surveillance but not a physical wall which nobody except Trump and his lackeys are calling for.  Hows about we leave the other topics to appropriate threads and just stick to this one.  BTW, nobody in Texas wants a wall (well, except perhaps Ted ihavenospine Cruz). 

D - I'm not interested in typing yet again what I think is appropriate - an ocean-ocean physical barrier is nonsensical, but that doesn't mean that there aren't needed improvements in our border security approach. 

Share this post


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

How much does it cost the fire department to respond to a house fire?  Is there a threshold of house fires below which we shouldn't worry about deploying the Fire Department?

Actually there are thresholds regarding house fires and your insurance takes that into account - how far from the station, closet hydrant (or lack thereof) etc.  It's basic risk management.

As to your last answer at least we can agree that Trump's wall is a big fail.  Now as to the needed improvements? Border security spending has increased dramatically the past decade. That is a topic for a different discussion.  Let's just rename this one Stop The Wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

LEGACY. That's all this is about.

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is viable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is workable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

There are fewer adults in the room all the time, and Donnie's picking people who agree with him to fill out his maladministration. It's going to be tough working around that particular rock in the river when it's surrounded by yes-boulders.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

D - I'm not interested in typing yet again what I think is appropriate - an ocean-ocean physical barrier is nonsensical, but that doesn't mean that there aren't needed improvements in our border security approach. 

then there must be a weakness you are addressing. And not looking at it from a cost/interdiction perspective means literally unlimited spending. Apply that same logic to stopping mass shooting at schools....

Share this post


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

then there must be a weakness you are addressing. And not looking at it from a cost/interdiction perspective means literally unlimited spending. Apply that same logic to stopping mass shooting at schools....

I have - and have suggested several times what I considered to be viable physical/process security measures that would greatly reduce the impacts of future school shootings, to include changes to our firearms laws.  Do you think that the actuarial risk of a kid being hurt in a school shooting should be factored in to any decision to adopt practices and procedures that would make all our kids safer?   

Do you think that the border security vulnerabilities don't represent enough of a concern to warrant attention? 

The weaknesses I'm describing are some areas in which the physical border is insufficient to serve as a deterrent to illegal incursion.  The fix isn't necessarily bigger/higher/deeper walls - and if you look at the DHS links I shared, you'll get a decent idea of the technical detection capabilities that are employed/desired.  We've got an immigration problem, and casting aspersions against those who recognize it, pretending that the illegal immigrant population doesn't have a negative impact, and on the other side of the discussion wrongly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is a security threat does nothing to contribute to a solution. 

Share this post


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

The push for "A Wall"?   Yeah - Trump is petulant, and the responsible adults in the room on both sides of the aisle ought to recognize that, work amongst themselves to figure out something that is viable and makes sense, and that let's the temper-tantrum throwing jackass claim that he got what he wanted, by telling him how what they propose does that.   I don't think that Trump is aware enough to understand the impacts of this tantrum, and that even though he has caused this, I don't think that he's capable of doing anything more than stomping his feet to fix it, and that it falls upon the shoulders of those who ARE responsible to come up with a way to put something in front of him that can get signed, restore government services, and then move around Trump just like water moves around a rock in the middle of the river.  

 

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

There are fewer adults in the room all the time, and Donnie's picking people who agree with him to fill out his maladministration. It's going to be tough working around that particular rock in the river when it's surrounded by yes-boulders.

I'm fairly certain his staff is telling him he's walking on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

Share this post


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

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

They can accomplish that without Trump. They still write the laws, don't they?

Share this post


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

I have - and have suggested several times what I considered to be viable physical/process security measures that would greatly reduce the impacts of future school shootings, to include changes to our firearms laws.  Do you think that the actuarial risk of a kid being hurt in a school shooting should be factored in to any decision to adopt practices and procedures that would make all our kids safer?   

Do you think that the border security vulnerabilities don't represent enough of a concern to warrant attention? 

The weaknesses I'm describing are some areas in which the physical border is insufficient to serve as a deterrent to illegal incursion.  The fix isn't necessarily bigger/higher/deeper walls - and if you look at the DHS links I shared, you'll get a decent idea of the technical detection capabilities that are employed/desired.  We've got an immigration problem, and casting aspersions against those who recognize it, pretending that the illegal immigrant population doesn't have a negative impact, and on the other side of the discussion wrongly suggesting that every illegal immigrant is a security threat does nothing to contribute to a solution. 

School security absolutely is already budgeted based on actuarial risk. Otherwise, the kids would have TSA at each building. They don't. Why? Cost/prevented shooting would be too high.

I can't believe you think that the border can be 100% secure. Remember, most of the new undocumented arrive by plane....  Does your wall extend vertically to about 38,000 feet?

 

Rather than a "why can't we all get along and just do something" 

how about a "I see a problem here, and here's an approach to fix it"

Share this post


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

Ummm.... to allay illegal immigration?

got some data that shows a wall is going to stop something, that you can't even find data for?

How about this:

Trump says "we've got new data, we're stopping all the bad guys! I win!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I can't imagine Democrats giving Trump a single thing in regards to the wall. Why would they? Any victory at all would be hauled out by Trump and used as campaign fodder in 2020. It is far better to work among professionals and get something done that can be bragged about later than give Trump anything to crow over later.

Reports are he’s flailing around looking for a way out without losing face.  This trip to the boarder and speech tomorrow is going to go over like a lead balloon.  He is failing billy and it’s only going to get worse.

Popcorn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They can accomplish that without Trump. They still write the laws, don't they?

What law do you think they could write... make illegal immigration illegal?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Reports are he’s flailing around looking for a way out without losing face.  This trip to the boarder and speech tomorrow is going to go over like a lead balloon.  He is failing billy and it’s only going to get worse.

Popcorn time.

Reports are he's going to address the nation.

Share this post


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

Reports are he's going to address the nation.

Yes I mentioned that a couple of hours ago and again in the post you quoted.  Keep up puppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites