Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be all in for spending $5.7 billion on building a wall in the US...   between church and state.    That would do a helluva lot more to keep us safe than the Trump Maginot L

It's troubling that you support Milo being able to go where ever he wants but don't want hard working immigrants looking for a better life into our country. If these folks were trying to get into

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, DonaldJTrump said:

No lies, Mexico will pay for the wall.  Believe me.

Frankly, I am surprised President Trump hasn't yet claimed Mexico has paid for the wall.  In full.

You know damned well Happylarkey would crow about it and Dog would demand proof it never happened.

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

Frankly, I am surprised President Trump hasn't yet claimed Mexico has paid for the wall.  In full.

You know damned well Happylarkey would crow about it and Dog would demand proof it never happened.

Mexico did pay for the wall.  We took it out of Corona Beer sales.  Bilgy.

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

Neither of your articles impeach the evidence you're wrong. Firstly, the Yahoo article doesn't say anything but a total for "undocument immigrants stopped at the border" which includes asylum seekers without documents. So don't know why you even tried that one outside the off-chance you were hoping we wouldn't read the article and know you're full of shit.

The Fox News one talks about Trump's plan to keep asylum seekers in Mexico, but my article demonstrates clearly did not occur for all asylum seekers (having been detained after the November last year). And just to nail it home another article states how this is only happening for some asylum seekers - not all.

Simply put, until the program is at ALL ports of entry and it is used for ALL asylum seekers - you cannot be using the numbers the way you want them to. You are just wrong, Dog. Man up, take the facts on board, and move on. You can't win on this one because the facts debunking your nonsense are so easy to find.

 

76,000 were aprehended having illegally crossed the southern border. In addition an unknown but likley similar number got through without being aprehended. The numbers of aprehended who applied for asylum and the numbers who legally presented themselves at points of entry and applied for asylum are irrelevant. We have a problem with illegals crossing the southern border.

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

76,000 were aprehended having illegally crossed the southern border. In addition an unknown but likley similar number got through without being aprehended. The numbers of aprehended who applied for asylum and the numbers who legally presented themselves at points of entry and applied for asylum are irrelevant. We have a problem with illegals crossing the southern border.

If you think the number of asylum seekers detained when legally presenting themselves at ports of entry happens to be irrelevant, you shouldn't bring up a number including them. The number you keep quoting includes those asylum seekers. The Director of Homeland security has said so.

Now, you have a choice - you can admit to facts you were either unaware of (or simply thought we were) or you can continue to double down on that number and prove you're a dishonest asshat. I have my suspicions as to which way you'll go, but you might dig deep, find some integrity you never knew you had, and surprise us all.

 

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

If you think the number of asylum seekers detained when legally presenting themselves at ports of entry happens to be irrelevant, you shouldn't bring up a number including them. The number you keep quoting includes those asylum seekers. The Director of Homeland security has said so.

Now, you have a choice - you can admit to facts you were either unaware of (or simply thought we were) or you can continue to double down on that number and prove you're a dishonest asshat. I have my suspicions as to which way you'll go, but you might dig deep, find some integrity you never knew you had, and surprise us all.

 

No, it does not. The number I keep bringing up are people who entered the country illegally.

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

But it is a crisis. A huge crisis. And it is all in the name of suppressing the underclass. People who do not think there is a problem are promoting enslaving the underclass.

We need to fix that. Poverty, people living at, near or below the poverty level are in crisis. Flooding that pool with illegal immigration is magnifying that crisis exponentially.

How is it fair to our own less fortunate that we rob them of services and opportunities by allowing illegal immigration unchecked?

And again, forget the politics. It is beneath you sir to frame this issue so.

When AT&T laid fiber optic in my front yard, their subcontractor had people there who wouldn't respond in English.  When I walk by construction cites across midtown Atlanta, there are numerous Hispanic workers.  The agricultural communities including dairy are dependent on workers who may not be registered.  Indeed, we know little don has hired illegals.  Let us make them legal.  They are the life blood of our country.  They are more important than a bunch of old guys sitting on their butts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

When AT&T laid fiber optic in my front yard, their subcontractor had people there who wouldn't respond in English.  When I walk by construction cites across midtown Atlanta, there are numerous Hispanic workers.  The agricultural communities including dairy are dependent on workers who may not be registered.  Indeed, we know little don has hired illegals.  Let us make them legal.  They are the life blood of our country.  They are more important than a bunch of old guys sitting on their butts. 

First step in making them legal is preventing them from entering the country illegally. The second step is a working guest worker program.

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

1. Not really. Not in an appreciable amount, black market transactions are not part of GDP calculus so technically they do not "add" to the GDP.... and, if I might point out, there is a reason there are Western Union storefronts in predominantly migrant neighborhoods…. and it isn't because their families are sending them money so they can live in the US. 

They are poor and our social services. healthcare and education systems. Of course when working off the books they are not actually paying for these services. And it is not a small amount.

As for 'we have a lack of workers', to put it in your parlance "YOU LIE". We have a glut of low end workers, which is why their wages are so low. Flooding that pool of workers with low end workers, who are willing to work off the books, be paid under the table compounds the problem multi-fold.

Remind me again why it is you think;

1. illegal immigrants are mostly law abiding?

2. are paying "my" social security?

3. aren't stealing resources we have allocated to helping our least fortunate, thus hurting American citizens?

What I really find funny is when you and your 'elk' say we need to reinforce W-9/I-9 and penalize companies that employ illegals because 'they are the problem'.

You are the king of the clown car sir.

No demand, no supply.

You can apply that to the drug trade, or illegal immigration. 

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

But it is a crisis. A huge crisis. And it is all in the name of suppressing the underclass. People who do not think there is a problem are promoting enslaving the underclass.

We need to fix that. Poverty, people living at, near or below the poverty level are in crisis. Flooding that pool with illegal immigration is magnifying that crisis exponentially.

How is it fair to our own less fortunate that we rob them of services and opportunities by allowing illegal immigration unchecked?

And again, forget the politics. It is beneath you sir to frame this issue so.

It's absolutely politics, or you would have cared last year.

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

"Trump's border emergency becomes more real by the day as migrants stack up along the Rio Grande"

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2019/03/07/trumps-border-emergency-becomes-real-day-migrants-stack-along-rio-grande

Say what you will, the man can manufacturer a crisis.

Job creations down to 20k

why? no workers.

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

"Trump's border emergency becomes more real by the day as migrants stack up along the Rio Grande"

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2019/03/07/trumps-border-emergency-becomes-real-day-migrants-stack-along-rio-grande

Say what you will, the man can manufacturer a crisis.

Only I can create a great border emergency.  Nobody creates emergencies better than me.  Nobody.  Believe me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonaldJTrump said:

Only I can create a great border emergency.  Nobody creates emergencies better than me.  Nobody.  Believe me.

little don, I don't have papers but I work cheap, please, please me.

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

No, it does not. The number I keep bringing up are people who entered the country illegally.

No, that number is of the undocument migrants detained. Read your sources. The Director of Homeland Security states theyinclude the asylum seekers that presented themselves at ports of entry in that figure. They are the ones that provide the numbers. You are wrong.

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

No, that number is of the undocument migrants detained. Read your sources. The Director of Homeland Security states theyinclude the asylum seekers that presented themselves at ports of entry in that figure. They are the ones that provide the numbers. You are wrong.

Any brown person who is not a true American who seeks asylum is a criminal.  What part of that don't you get?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

ummm,news flash, I have cared longer than most and long before last year. But troll away fool.

Bbbbbbbbbbullllsssshhhhiiiittttr

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

Hey stupid, do you even bother to read your own links?

Here's the headline from the last one:

Border agents arrested 66,000 border crossers in February

So it looks like that number you're swearing by was pulled out of somebody's ass, as well as including people who were legally seeking asylum and subsequently detained.

10,000 is a big number.

-DSK

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

The number of undocumented immigrants stopped at the US border with Mexico soared to more than 76,000 in February, the highest monthly level in years, US Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday.

Asylum seekers without documents (i.e.the majority of those from South America are "undocumented migrants". You are wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

The number of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border last month was the highest total for February in 12 years, according to statistics released by Customs and Border Protection on Tuesday.

Asylum seekers without documents (i.e.the majority of those from South America are "undocumented migrants". You are wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

Combining the number of migrants arrested crossing the border illegally and those arriving at ports of entry without authorization (i.e asylum seekers), last month’s total of 76,103 represents a 31% increase over January.

By now it's just obvious you aren't even bothering to read your links, just hoping that we don't either. This one explicitly points out your number includes asylum seekers legally presenting themselves at ports of entry. You are wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

The latest numbers stung an administration that has over the past two years introduced a rash of aggressive policies intended to deter migrants from journeying to the United States, including separating families, limiting entries at official ports and requiring some (not all) asylum seekers to wait in Mexico through the duration of their immigration cases.

Yet another showing you are wrong. You need to read your sources Dog. Frankly I'm tired of showing you up as a dishonest twat. Please, if only to shake things up, see if you can write something honest for me tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

1 hour ago, Dog said:

 

 

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

The number of undocumented immigrants stopped at the US border with Mexico soared to more than 76,000 in February, the highest monthly level in years, US Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday.

Asylum seekers without documents (i.e.the majority of those from South America are "undocumented migrants". You are wrong.

 

The number of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border last month was the highest total for February in 12 years, according to statistics released by Customs and Border Protection on Tuesday.

Asylum seekers without documents (i.e.the majority of those from South America are "undocumented migrants". You are wrong.

 

Combining the number of migrants arrested crossing the border illegally and those arriving at ports of entry without authorization (i.e asylum seekers), last month’s total of 76,103 represents a 31% increase over January.

By now it's just obvious you aren't even bothering to read your links, just hoping that we don't either. This one explicitly points out your number includes asylum seekers legally presenting themselves at ports of entry. You are wrong.

 

While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

The latest numbers stung an administration that has over the past two years introduced a rash of aggressive policies intended to deter migrants from journeying to the United States, including separating families, limiting entries at official ports and requiring some (not all) asylum seekers to wait in Mexico through the duration of their immigration cases.

Yet another showing you are wrong. You need to read your sources Dog. Frankly I'm tired of showing you up as a dishonest twat. Please, if only to shake things up, see if you can write something honest for me tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

 

Duh!....But before the surrendered themselves they broke in. As I have been saying all along and you somehow fail to comprehend the 76,000 represents the number apprehended or surrendered who broke into the country. The actual number who broke in higher  because some percentage were not apprehended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog - you seem to have missed this tidbit in Bent's post -

President Trump has used the escalating numbers to justify his plan to build an expanded wall along the 1,900-mile border with Mexico. But a wall would do little to slow migration, most immigration analysts say. While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

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

Dog - you seem to have missed this tidbit in Bent's post -

President Trump has used the escalating numbers to justify his plan to build an expanded wall along the 1,900-mile border with Mexico. But a wall would do little to slow migration, most immigration analysts say. While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

We know that....from the same NYT story  "More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February". 

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

First step in making them legal is preventing them from entering the country illegally. The second step is a working guest worker program.

A wall will take years to build.

Immigration reform would require time for negotiations and then a signature.

Making the process understandable and beneficial to Americans and our neighbors would advantage everyone, especially if legal entry or was a requirement for the documentation process to start.

And amnesty is inevitably part of this process. Expulsion is inhumane and prohibitively expensive.

Coupled with enforcement of employer rules with teeth, the administration would be taking steps that need to be taken with or without the wall.

Problem is, Trump himself employs illegal aliens and so has a personal conflict with steps that would start to resolve the actual sources of this problem, at least on the demand side.

 

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

A wall will take years to build.

Immigration reform would require time for negotiations and then a signature.

Making the process understandable and beneficial to Americans and our neighbors would advantage everyone, especially if legal entry or was a requirement for the documentation process to start.

And amnesty is inevitably part of this process. Expulsion is inhumane and prohibitively expensive.

Coupled with enforcement of employer rules with teeth, the administration would be taking steps that need to be taken with or without the wall.

Problem is, Trump himself employs illegal aliens and so has a personal conflict with steps that would start to resolve the actual sources of this problem, at least on the demand side.

 

That's ridiculous.

1 - Yes, a wall will take years to build.  So do retirement savings and if you don't start you never finish. 

2 - when it's individuals showing up (in groups or not) who do you negotiate with? 

If you want to do that solely within the US, how about stating in some detail what you expect of each immigrant since they enter as individuals.  Would a criminal background and health check be enough?  A sponsor guaranteeing their support?  Limited term for residency?

 

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

That's ridiculous.

1 - Yes, a wall will take years to build.  So do retirement savings and if you don't start you never finish. 

2 - when it's individuals showing up (in groups or not) who do you negotiate with? 

If you want to do that solely within the US, how about stating in some detail what you expect of each immigrant since they enter as individuals.  Would a criminal background and health check be enough?  A sponsor guaranteeing their support?  Limited term for residency?

Your last paragraph sounds like a good start of negotiations. I’m not as interested at this stage in details as I am in that process.

Yes, the wall would take years & years. And as soon as finished would quickly need repairs, and headlines would show tunnels and ladders. 

The problem is borders are porous.

If serious about border security, then efforts to fix supply & demand for immigrants  is the important work. All wall and no talk indicates a lack of sincerity to accomplish real change.  Making drugs illegal and throwing users  in jail has sucked as a solution, and has resulted in a militarized police presence and well armed drug traffickers. 

Thats the same thinking that just puts up a wall. It’s a waste of money and ultimately inneffective. It will have unforeseen consequences.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Why do you hate the lower tier Americans so? Why would you promote polices that seem them trapped, cut their social services, erode their wages?

Illegal immigration is the new slavery. Flood the lower end of the job market so you can pay them beggars pay. Keep them in their place and get cheap labor to mow your lawns, wash dishes in that nice restaurant you like so much, clean your hotel rooms. You are abusing these people with such policy.

Good job.

Imagine if I was for illegal immigration. Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Your last paragraph sounds like a good start of negotiations. I’m not as interested at this stage in details as I am in that process.

Yes, the wall would take years & years. And as soon as finished would quickly need repairs, and headlines would show tunnels and ladders. 

The problem is borders are porous.

If serious about border security, then efforts to fix supply & demand for immigrants  is the important work. All wall and no talk indicates a lack of sincerity to accomplish real change.  Making drugs illegal and throwing users  in jail has sucked as a solution, and has resulted in a militarized police presence and well armed drug traffickers. 

Thats the same thinking that just puts up a wall. It’s a waste of money and ultimately inneffective. It will have unforeseen consequences.

The focus on the wall is a political ploy on both sides.  Democrats actually funded them until they decided it would be useful to attack Trump.

Someone put up a picture of a lake proudly proclaiming you can't build a wall here.  No shit.  When I pointed out that that would be a good location for surveillance and interception they seem to lose interest because they didn't want to discuss border security, just TRUMP'S WALL.  Not very progressive.

Nobody is actually interested in just putting up a wall.  I and others are interested in stopping illegal immigration and immigration fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The focus on the wall is a political ploy on both sides.  Democrats actually funded them until they decided it would be useful to attack Trump.

Someone put up a picture of a lake proudly proclaiming you can't build a wall here.  No shit.  When I pointed out that that would be a good location for surveillance and interception they seem to lose interest because they didn't want to discuss border security, just TRUMP'S WALL.  Not very progressive.

Nobody is actually interested in just putting up a wall.  I and others are interested in stopping illegal immigration and immigration fraud.

Democrats are STILL funding border security at record levels. Trump just keeps pulling your string.

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

If ever there were truth in beating your head against a wall this is it. Not gonna happen. Resistance is futile. Trump is Toast. Latitudes for Platitudes.

Trump is not toast. The Dems seem intent on getting him re-elected.

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

Trump is not toast. The Dems seem intent on getting him re-elected.

Living the dream there aren't ya?  I have been saying since his inauguration that it's not going to end well. I still stand by that.  We are all the worse off for it. BTW, I think he has now passed 9k false or misleading statements. #Winningbigly

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

Living the dream there aren't ya?  I have been saying since his inauguration that it's not going to end well. I still stand by that.  We are all the worse off for it. BTW, I think he has now passed 9k false or misleading statements. #Winningbigly

He's going to hang this "manufactured crisis" bullshit around your neck.  Dems will again be the  open borders, abolish ICE party. You guys are playing right into his hand.

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

He's going to hang this "manufactured crisis" bullshit around your neck.  Dems will again be the  open borders, abolish ICE party. You guys are playing right into his hand.

riiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt.  Just like all the money and work that was completed when the Kenyan was POTUS?  What you can't see is that Trump never expected to win, was not prepared to win and less prepared to govern and has been winging it since he took office.  Bullshit can't carry him forever. 

I get why people voted for Trump. I don't get why they refuse to wake up and smell the coffee which reeks of Trump.  Wonder why John Kelly's advice to his successor was "Run Away"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, d'ranger said:
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

He's going to hang this "manufactured crisis" bullshit around your neck.  Dems will again be the  open borders, abolish ICE party. You guys are playing right into his hand.

riiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt.  Just like all the money and work that was completed when the Kenyan was POTUS?  What you can't see is that Trump never expected to win, was not prepared to win and less prepared to govern and has been winging it since he took office.  Bullshit can't carry him forever. 

I get why people voted for Trump. I don't get why they refuse to wake up and smell the coffee which reeks of Trump.  Wonder why John Kelly's advice to his successor was "Run Away"?

Just like he is going to hang the "shutdown" around the necks of Dems, because they wouldn't give him what he wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

riiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt.  Just like all the money and work that was completed when the Kenyan was POTUS?  What you can't see is that Trump never expected to win, was not prepared to win and less prepared to govern and has been winging it since he took office.  Bullshit can't carry him forever. 

I get why people voted for Trump. I don't get why they refuse to wake up and smell the coffee which reeks of Trump.  Wonder why John Kelly's advice to his successor was "Run Away"?

Ok....We'll see. But for "the wall" issue he would never have been elected.  Now the line will be that the Dems stopped the wall and every illegal border crossing will be their fault....On a silver platter.

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

Ok....We'll see. But for "the wall" issue he would never have been elected.  Now the line will be that the Dems stopped the wall and every illegal border crossing will be their fault....On a silver platter.

What got him elected? I think the Lock her Up chant was as powerful as Build the Wall - and don't forget that Mexico was going to pay for it https://psmag.com/news/the-majority-of-americans-oppose-a-border-wall

A 40% support won't go very far in an election. I will point out again that 40% of Americans believe in psychics.  A majority of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.... I could go on but for those not living in the GOP bubble the circumstances of the 2016 election have changed. I should point out that the economy is not performing as promised and even if Mueller winds up with nothing (not likely as shit keeps bubbling up daily) that alone will end the Reign of Trump.

It's not easy being a Republican these days and refusing to accept reality isn't making it any easier.  You have my sympathies.

 

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

What got him elected? I think the Lock her Up chant was as powerful as Build the Wall - and don't forget that Mexico was going to pay for it https://psmag.com/news/the-majority-of-americans-oppose-a-border-wall

A 40% support won't go very far in an election. I will point out again that 40% of Americans believe in psychics.  A majority of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.... I could go on but for those not living in the GOP bubble the circumstances of the 2016 election have changed. I should point out that the economy is not performing as promised and even if Mueller winds up with nothing (not likely as shit keeps bubbling up daily) that alone will end the Reign of Trump.

It's not easy being a Republican these days and refusing to accept reality isn't making it any easier.  You have my sympathies.

 

Thanks but I'm not a Republican.

I think you're wrong, I think it's the Democrats who are in trouble. Trump is going to paint them as open borders, anti ICE, you better hope the migrants stop coming because now they're all on you. He's going to paint you as socialists who want to take away everything from hamburgers to airplanes and pointing to his bigotry will not impress when done by a party that can't even reprimand its own bigots.

It's not JFK's Democratic party any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

What is entertaining is that you guys actually believe Trump will win again.  When reality sinks in it ain't going to be pretty.

You all think there will be an election.  I've thwarted the constitution before and I'll do it again.  There will not be another election.  Believe me.

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

I'm only interested in the entertainment value of the coming election. As my candidate will never win, I have nothing to lose.

Now that is a truly and epic myopic view of our country.  Thanks for nothing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

Duh!....But before the surrendered themselves they broke in. As I have been saying all along and you somehow fail to comprehend the 76,000 represents the number apprehended or surrendered who broke into the country. The actual number who broke in higher  because some percentage were not apprehended.

Read your sources again, Dog. The number includes those that "presented themselves at ports of entry". That is not "breaking in". That is the perfectly legal means of seeking asylum. You're wrong. You just don't have the balls to man up and admit it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

It is the reality of a two party system for half the country +/- and 100% for those who disagree with the two parties offered.

So really all the "thanks" is laid at the feet (or feat, as the case may be) of you partisan stalwarts.

I vote for the best candidates which includes Republicans (although for years that is at the local/county level).  Libertarian? Green?  Nothing on the local level and unacceptable on the national one.

But carry on with your pity party about not getting what you want - some of us keep trying to improve things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Like most everything else with Donnie Dumbfuck he doesn't have a good endgame because he has tactics not strategy. 

Whilst Jiblet might be a little zealous in his outrage in general - this line is worth noting because it describes one of the biggest problems the Trump administration has. They cannot build a strategy because Trump won't stick to one, even if he were capable of coming up with one himself. The Wall is not something he really wants - it's a short term sales pitch; which was why he was OK with the money he got, until he wasn't, then was, then wasn't again. He doesn't care about the wall as a goal, he hasn't got a strategy to get him the wall, what he has is the wall as a tactic to keep support amongst those that blame Mexicans for their problems. As a tactic for that, it works, as a strategy to best deal with immigration (legal and illegal) through the southern border - it's an expensive failure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

New strategy - Let's Not Build It and Just Say We Did

Quote

The Wall is being built and is well under construction. Big impact will be made. Many additional contracts are close to being signed. Far ahead of schedule despite all of the Democrat Obstruction and Fake News!

YCMTSU

edit: the above is incorrect - please see the link for proof that it is possible to make this shit up daily.  Over 9,000 lies or misleading statements since taking office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border, Major sections of Wall are being built…and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly, Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built. #MAGA

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 10:54 AM, Raz'r said:

No demand, no supply.

You can apply that to the drug trade, or illegal immigration. 

I guess you can, but please don't!

Last time Nancy did, we got that idiotic "Just Say No" campaign and the stupid drug war spread massively to try to punish anyone who created demand. Many of them are still in prison. Undoing that idiocy turns out to be complicated.

Let's not repeat it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump will request and additional $8.6 billion for additional sections of wall in his budget proposal. This issue isn't going away, Trump clearly sees it as in his interest to keep it alive for 2020.

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

President Trump will request and additional $8.6 billion for additional sections of wall in his budget proposal. This issue isn't going away, Trump clearly sees it as in his interest to keep it alive for 2020.

Well, what do you know, you managed to say something factual, not about Hillary/Obama, and on topic. I'm now looking for the other three horseman and the sound of trumpets from the sky, as this is surely a sign of the end times.

You're right that Trump is going to keep the issue alive and that it's in his best interests to do so. However, I don't think it has anything at all to do with 2020. Trump doesn't like getting told "No". He couldn't get what he wanted from the national emergency, so he's going to demand he gets what he was denied and his people are already hinting at yet another temper tantrum government shut down if he doesn't get what he wants;

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

Well, what do you know, you managed to say something factual, not about Hillary/Obama, and on topic. I'm now looking for the other three horseman and the sound of trumpets from the sky, as this is surely a sign of the end times.

You're right that Trump is going to keep the issue alive and that it's in his best interests to do so. However, I don't think it has anything at all to do with 2020. Trump doesn't like getting told "No". He couldn't get what he wanted from the national emergency, so he's going to demand he gets what he was denied and his people are already hinting at yet another temper tantrum government shut down if he doesn't get what he wants;

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 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 

Where in your pyramid graphic would a response like this be found?

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

Where in your pyramid graphic would a response like this be found?

I would rate it "Ad Hominem" but maybe Bent could provide a more definitive rating since it's his work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Where in your pyramid graphic would a response like this be found?

I would rate it "Ad Hominem" but maybe Bent could provide a more definitive rating since it's his work.

So, you are okay with using "Ad Hominem" attacks.  Oh, because he did it first.

Gotcha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 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 

Once again proving you missed the point of the original comment. When I made it, it was a response to a question asked, not an attack.

No decision making process here, Dog. So this isn't an answer or even relevant to the discussion. It is, as you admit, an ad hominem attack because you don't want to deal with the content of the post made. Now, do you have anything to say on topic, or just gutless dodges?

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

The Atlantic is not that deep and the sky is not that high.  Get er done.

Shit.  We'd better get to work.  The numbers I found are - 

US/Canada border - 4,197 miles

US/Mexico Border - 1,933 miles

Coastline (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) - 5,089 miles

Total length of wall needed - 11,279 miles

Cost of border wall per mile (courtesy of the CATO Institute) - likely $36.6 million.

Rough cost estimate - $412,811,400,000.00

Damn, we are going to need a bigger budget.

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

bigger budget

I got this, just a few more Trump deficit dollars and we'll all be well.  Please, don't spend them on people who live here.  Bombs.  I say bombs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, our government is conducting surveillance operations on reporters and interfering with their ability to cover stories which cast the administration in a bad light. 

The San Diego NBC story exposed how the CPB was keeping tabs on US reporters, and how they subjected them to “secondary screening” over unfavorable coverage. And, further, put “holds” on these reporters passports causing them to be detained and then expelled/denied entry to Mexico.

Not only does this put a chill on their reporting, but other reporters are fearful of similar treatment, since many are now freelance and so don’t have the resources of a news network behind them with a legal team to fight for their rights.

We are seeing yet another example of an erosion of first amendment rights sponsored by this administration, and, by extension, the GOP. 

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

And now, our government is conducting surveillance operations on reporters and interfering with their ability to cover stories which cast the administration in a bad light. 

The San Diego NBC story exposed how the CPB was keeping tabs on US reporters, and how they subjected them to “secondary screening” over unfavorable coverage. And, further, put “holds” on these reporters passports causing them to be detained and then expelled/denied entry to Mexico.

Not only does this put a chill on their reporting, but other reporters are fearful of similar treatment, since many are now freelance and so don’t have the resources of a news network behind them with a legal team to fight for their rights.

We are seeing yet another example of an erosion of first amendment rights sponsored by this administration, and, by extension, the GOP. 

Apparently President/Dictator-Wanna-Be Trump has found his personal stormtroopers.

I hope the fascist fucks get deported, themselves

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, phillysailor said:

And now, our government is conducting surveillance operations on reporters and interfering with their ability to cover stories which cast the administration in a bad light. 

The San Diego NBC story exposed how the CPB was keeping tabs on US reporters, and how they subjected them to “secondary screening” over unfavorable coverage. And, further, put “holds” on these reporters passports causing them to be detained and then expelled/denied entry to Mexico.

Not only does this put a chill on their reporting, but other reporters are fearful of similar treatment, since many are now freelance and so don’t have the resources of a news network behind them with a legal team to fight for their rights.

We are seeing yet another example of an erosion of first amendment rights sponsored by this administration, and, by extension, the GOP. 

I'm not sure those with a legal team from a network are any better off. Look what happened to that poor Acosta fellow. Clearly incompetent representation.

On 11/17/2018 at 5:28 AM, Importunate Tom said:

CNN's Lawsuit
 

Quote

 

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303,  
and
ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA
820 1st Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Plaintiffs
,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,


Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials.  Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content-and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

 

Hmmm...

The placement of the apostrophe indicates a plural possessive, as if both Plaintiffs have first amendment rights.

I thought CNN had some hotshot lawyer on this?

They don't know that corporations aren't people and therefore can't have first amendment rights?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the rest of the So-called “Conservatives” here have given up advocating for Constitutionally protected rights.

Somehow I’m not surprised. 

When you’ve decided facts don’t matter, and your president can lie at will, then freedom of the press is meaningless or even upsetting since they challenge their House of Cards.

Just wondering what the spin from the political SCOTUS will be. Perhaps Clarence Thomas will opine that press freedoms really aren’t that basic.

 

Oh, wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I guess the rest of the So-called “Conservatives” here have given up advocating for Constitutionally protected rights.

Somehow I’m not surprised. 

When you’ve decided facts don’t matter, and your president can lie at will, then freedom of the press is meaningless or even upsetting since they challenge their House of Cards.

Just wondering what the spin from the political SCOTUS will be. Perhaps Clarence Thomas will opine that press freedoms really aren’t that basic.

 

Oh, wait.

That's not what he said, nor is it really related to the stupid wall.

The relevant precedent, Times (um, Inc ;)) vs Sullivan, is more about suing the pre$$ than the wall.

So, in a thread about suing the Washington Po$t, I said:

On 2/21/2019 at 4:16 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 2/20/2019 at 4:49 PM, Zonker said:

No, the kid wasn't a public figure at the time of the article.

Justice Thomas (joined by no one) had some interesting thoughts on whether that should matter in the Bill Cosby case.

(Page 45 of that PDF is where it starts)

From the article you posted:

 

Quote

 

L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., who was not mentioned in the ad, sued for libel. He won $500,000, which was at the time an enormous sum. It was one of many suits filed by Southern politicians eager to starve the civil rights movement of the oxygen of national attention. They used libel suits as a way to discourage coverage of the movement by national news organizations.

Against this background, and animated by an urge to protect the American public’s ability to assess the situation in the South for itself, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for The Times and revolutionized American libel law.

...

To prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

Justice Thomas questioned those standards.

“There appears to be little historical evidence suggesting that the New York Times actual-malice rule flows from the original understanding of the First or Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.


 

The fact that the case "revolutionized American libel law" is pretty positive proof of Thomas' observation.

Quote

 

...

But Mr. Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — have expressed support for broad libel protections in their opinions as appeals court judges.

At his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in March 2017, Justice Gorsuch was asked about the Sullivan decision by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. She wanted to know whether “the First Amendment would permit public officials to sue the media under any standard less demanding than actual malice.”

Judge Gorsuch, reticent when asked about other precedents, seemed comfortable with preserving that one.

“New York Times v. Sullivan was, as you say, a landmark decision and it changed pretty dramatically the law of defamation and libel in this country,” he said. “Rather than the common law of defamation and libel, applicable normally for a long time, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment has special meaning and protection when we’re talking about the media, the press in covering public officials, public actions and indicated that a higher standard of proof was required in any defamation or libel claim. Proof of actual malice is required to state a claim.”

“That’s been the law of the land for, gosh, 50, 60 years,” he said.

 

No one seems to have objected much to the most outrageously outrageous outrage of NY Times Inc v Sullivan: the stupid courts treated Times INC as if it were a person with first amendment rights.

Aside from that obvious flaw, what do you think about Thomas' observation vs Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's adherence to precedent?

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

That's not what he said, nor is it really related to the stupid wall.

The relevant precedent, Times (um, Inc ;)) vs Sullivan, is more about suing the pre$$ than the wall.

So, in a thread about suing the Washington Po$t, I said:

From the article you posted:

 

The fact that the case "revolutionized American libel law" is pretty positive proof of Thomas' observation.

No one seems to have objected much to the most outrageously outrageous outrage of NY Times Inc v Sullivan: the stupid courts treated Times INC as if it were a person with first amendment rights.

Aside from that obvious flaw, what do you think about Thomas' observation vs Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's adherence to precedent?

Double score if you can quote yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Term Limits! said:

Double score if you can quote yourself.

That's why I tend to scroll by his posts.  Often, they are either self-congratulatory, or they try to drag the conversation in another direction.

Thread topics wander.  He likes to lead them to his pet topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

That's not what he said, nor is it really related to the stupid wall.

The relevant precedent, Times (um, Inc ;)) vs Sullivan, is more about suing the pre$$ than the wall.

So, in a thread about suing the Washington Po$t, I said:

From the article you posted:

 

The fact that the case "revolutionized American libel law" is pretty positive proof of Thomas' observation.

No one seems to have objected much to the most outrageously outrageous outrage of NY Times Inc v Sullivan: the stupid courts treated Times INC as if it were a person with first amendment rights.

Aside from that obvious flaw, what do you think about Thomas' observation vs Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's adherence to precedent?

The reduction of press freedoms as applied to reporting about the caravans and threatening the livelihoods of journalists dependent upon travel is very much wall relevant.

I like how you worked the CU case into this, but as I was speaking about press freedoms I feel that those freedoms could have been retained without treating the NYT as a person. 

Your quote is certainly more accurate than my flippant reference, but unlike you I do not find recent court appointees to be honest & trustworthy. Although they may say words like “gosh, that’s been the law of the land for 50or 60 years,” but they seem relatively willing to take the stance that the original frames of the Constitution thought the opposite, so we have to reverse.

Judicial activism by “Conservatives” just comes with different trappings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/14/senate-national-emergency-declaration-vote-trump

Snip/

Trump threatens veto after senate rejects national emergency in sharp rebuke

Twelve Republicans joined every Senate Democrat in rare move to block president’s effort to divert funds for US-Mexico border wall

Lauren Gambino in Washington

Thu 14 Mar 2019 20.03 GMTFirst published on Thu 14 Mar 2019 19.07 GMT

  •  
  •  
  •  
Shares
1,699
 
 

Donald Trump speaks during a briefing on drug trafficking at the southern border at the White House on 13 March.  Donald Trump speaks during a briefing on drug trafficking at the southern border at the White House on 13 March. Photograph: UPI/Barcroft Images

Donald Trump has threatened to use his presidential veto after the US Senate delivered a sharp rebuke to the president on Thursday, voting to overturn his declaration last month of a national emergency in order to divert taxpayer funds to the US-Mexico border.

In a 59-41 vote, 12 Republicans joined every Senate Democrat in a rare moveto block the president’s effort to divert billions in funding to build his long-promised border wall without congressional approval.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the measure last month, and its approval in the Senate will probably force Trump to use the first veto of his presidency. The defections on Thursday fell far short of the 67 votes needed to override the veto, however.

Moments after the vote, Trump tweeted simply: “VETO!” He later addedpraise for “all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!”

Earlier on Thursday, Trump had attempted to constrain the defections by warning Republicans that a “vote for today’s resolution by Republican Senators is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, Crime, and the Open Border Democrats!”

But Trump ultimately failed to allay the concerns within his party that the action violated the constitution’s separation of powers, which confers the power of the purse to Congress.

“I believe the use of emergency powers in this circumstance violates the constitution,” said the Kansas senator Jerry Moran, a Republican. “This continues our country down the path of all-powerful executive – something those who wrote the constitution were fearful of.”

Congressman Joaquín Castro, a Texas Democrat who authored the resolution and watched the vote from the Senate floor, called the bipartisan tally a “strong condemnation” of the president’s emergency declaration that may help bolster legal challenges to the order.

The Republican senators who stood by Trump insisted that there was an immigration crisis at the southern border and that the order was well within the jurisdiction of the National Emergencies Act, which gives presidents wide-ranging latitude to declare a national emergency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The reduction of press freedoms as applied to reporting about the caravans and threatening the livelihoods of journalists dependent upon travel is very much wall relevant.

From the San Diego article you posted:

 

Quote

 

Staff attorney Esha Bhandari with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, called the government's targeting of journalists and migrants "outrageous."

“This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment. The government cannot use the pretext of the border to target activists critical of its policies, lawyers providing legal representation, or journalists simply doing their jobs. We are exploring all options in response,” Bhandari said.

 

They're targeting immigration activists and attorneys, not just reporters. That's more about the right to travel than about freedom of expression.

 

14 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I like how you worked the CU case into this, but as I was speaking about press freedoms I feel that those freedoms could have been retained without treating the NYT as a person. 

An interesting feeling, I suppose, but they didn't. And why would/should they? Instead they engaged in a tradition that continued in Citizens United: citing NAACP vs Button.

Do you think the first amendment should apply to NY Times Inc? How about NAACP Inc? Why or why not?

15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Your quote is certainly more accurate than my flippant reference

I didn't quote anything, just gave a source to an opinion I had read.

15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

unlike you I do not find recent court appointees to be honest & trustworthy. Although they may say words like “gosh, that’s been the law of the land for 50or 60 years,” but they seem relatively willing to take the stance that the original frames of the Constitution thought the opposite, so we have to reverse.

So you don't like it when Thomas says something and don't like it when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh say the opposite. And you somehow know what I think of them. Fascinating. FYI, you're wrong about what I think of them.

I don't, however, see any need to make an inaccurate, flippant reference to something a Justice never said.

Justice Thomas is right (and the article you posted agrees) that Times v Sullivan reshaped the legal landscape. The unanimous SCOTUS was right in Times v Sullivan in finding that the ability to use the law to bankrupt opposition is indistinguishable in the end from simply censoring opposition. Can't have a pre$$ if no one dares to publi$h.

Attacking the money is a common path to attacking a disfavored right. "We're not restricting abortion rights, we just won't allow a clinic." Or, "we're not restricting gun rights, we just won't allow gun stores and ranges."

Or, "we're not attacking freedom of the press, just $pending on publi$hing."

Uh huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

From the San Diego article you posted:

 

They're targeting immigration activists and attorneys, not just reporters. That's more about the right to travel than about freedom of expression.

 

An interesting feeling, I suppose, but they didn't. And why would/should they? Instead they engaged in a tradition that continued in Citizens United: citing NAACP vs Button.

Do you think the first amendment should apply to NY Times Inc? How about NAACP Inc? Why or why not?

I didn't quote anything, just gave a source to an opinion I had read.

So you don't like it when Thomas says something and don't like it when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh say the opposite. And you somehow know what I think of them. Fascinating. FYI, you're wrong about what I think of them.

I don't, however, see any need to make an inaccurate, flippant reference to something a Justice never said.

Justice Thomas is right (and the article you posted agrees) that Times v Sullivan reshaped the legal landscape. The unanimous SCOTUS was right in Times v Sullivan in finding that the ability to use the law to bankrupt opposition is indistinguishable in the end from simply censoring opposition. Can't have a pre$$ if no one dares to publi$h.

Attacking the money is a common path to attacking a disfavored right. "We're not restricting abortion rights, we just won't allow a clinic." Or, "we're not restricting gun rights, we just won't allow gun stores and ranges."

Or, "we're not attacking freedom of the press, just $pending on publi$hing."

Uh huh.

Good points, but did ya need to needle me on “quote” vs “reference” when I was complimenting you? Sheesh. 

As to the CU case, I have to think a bit, cause you are making sense.

Glad to hear I was wrong about what you think of these judges... I’m getting worried about my country and probably a bit remiss in accurately assessing your opinions on these guys.

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

Good points, but did ya need to needle me on “quote” vs “reference” when I was complimenting you? Sheesh. 

If you want me to behave in an agreeable way, try one of the other forums. I come here to be contumacious and importunate. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Do you think the first amendment should apply to NY Times Inc? How about NAACP Inc? Why or why not?

 

22 hours ago, phillysailor said:

As to the CU case, I have to think a bit, cause you are making sense.

Those where intended to be rhetorical questions, not real thinkers.

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

Those where intended to be rhetorical questions, not real thinkers.

Not really. I am of the opinion that applying personhood status to corporations doesn't seem to be the only way to protect the free speech rights and rights of the press, it may just be the most efficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Not really. I am of the opinion that applying personhood status to corporations doesn't seem to be the only way to protect the free speech rights and rights of the press, it may just be the most efficient.

Is there some inefficient way that the first amendment could apply to them?

And why would it be better?

Link to post
Share on other sites