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

35 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

WallO.jpg

Yep..... and a Republican Congress (both houses) had a President willing to work with them to solve the problem, from 2011 to 2016, and then even more so from 2016 and 2017....... and they did, what, exactly?

Problem..... you're all mad about "the problem" but you expect the people who are profiting from it to fix it.

The people who are all pissed off about gay marriage are in the same boat.

It would be only a slight exaggeration of the same tactic for the Republican Party to outlaw gun ownership in the US, so they can blame Democrats and get all the gun nutz to come roaring to the polls.

-DSK

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

No worries.  Pretty soon, it'll be 12,000,000,000.

Is there a point at which a barrier would no longer be a racist and immoral monument to white supremacy and simply become a border control device?

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

Is there a point at which a barrier would no longer be a racist and immoral monument to white supremacy and simply become a border control device?

When people stop posting bullshit like this? Not holding my breath.

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

Is there a point at which a barrier would no longer be a racist and immoral monument to white supremacy and simply become a border control device?

If I ever said a wall is "racist" or an "immoral monument to white supremacy", I may have an answer.

As I have never said either, I will suggest you ask people who have actually said such things.

Now, I can offer that the reasons for the wall are bullshit.  Time and time again, it is shown that undocumented folks in the US are by far due to Visa overstays, mostly from Canada, and drugs are coming though entry points.  The wall will do fuckall to address those concerns.

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

When people stop posting bullshit like this? Not holding my breath.

D, you never answered my earlier question about your position on barriers. Is it that you think barriers are never effective, or is it just that the proposed new sections of barrier will for some reason not be effective?

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

If I ever said a wall is "racist" or an "immoral monument to white supremacy", I may have an answer.

As I have never said either, I will suggest you ask people who have actually said such things.

Now, I can offer that the reasons for the wall are bullshit.  Time and time again, it is shown that undocumented folks in the US are by far due to Visa overstays, mostly from Canada, and drugs are coming though entry points.  The wall will do fuckall to address those concerns.

You do not think a walls are immoral, racist or monuments to white supremacy, duly noted.

Also I will grant you that a wall will do nothing to mitigate visa overstays (I don't think it has been argued that it would). That doesn't mean barriers are not a deterrent to illegal entry, of course they are.

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

D, you never answered my earlier question about your position on barriers. Is it that you think barriers are never effective, or is it just that the proposed new sections of barrier will for some reason not be effective?

Stop creating strawman issues. I have made it clear that Trump's ever changing effort to "win" at a campaign promise is bullshit.  Barriers can be good - the keep the monkeys in and the assholes out at the zoo for instance. For crowd control, again yep. I haven't opposed the current barriers that are built and would support additional when they are shown to be needed. Trump has done none of that, just keeps creating false emergencies and stoking unwarranted fear is something I will never support.

Ever been to the Texas border? I think not. Want to see a fence wall barrier going through the Big Bend state and national parks?  It is ludicrous to support the ever changing goal posts of Trump's delusions to keep his base fed.

 

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

Stop creating strawman issues. I have made it clear that Trump's ever changing effort to "win" at a campaign promise is bullshit.  Barriers can be good - the keep the monkeys in and the assholes out at the zoo for instance. For crowd control, again yep. I haven't opposed the current barriers that are built and would support additional when they are shown to be needed. Trump has done none of that, just keeps creating false emergencies and stoking unwarranted fear is something I will never support.

Ever been to the Texas border? I think not. Want to see a fence wall barrier going through the Big Bend state and national parks?  It is ludicrous to support the ever changing goal posts of Trump's delusions to keep his base fed.

 

Well, we agree. There are locations where a barrier makes sense and areas where they are not needed. I would defer to border patrol professionals familiar with the problem on any new sections of barrier proposed and hope that they would be involved in the planning.

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

Well, we agree. There are locations where a barrier makes sense and areas where they are not needed. I would defer to border patrol professionals familiar with the problem on any new sections of barrier proposed and hope that they would be involved in the planning.

Then stop supporting Trump's idiotic Quixote Quest.  The previous border work has been done by actual planning. I remind you that not a single congressman whose district is on the southern border supports Trump on this and that includes a Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted elsewhere, but probably belongs here.  When you politicize a problem best left to professionals, you get this:

So, two years after signing an executive order directing the hiring of thousands of additional border patrol agents, the CBP is actually losing agents, can't find many new agents, doesn't have a plan to use the proposed huge group of new agents who are supposed to be hired, and has an average hiring time of 400 days per hire.  Maybe, just maybe, there aren't that many people who want to put toddlers in cages.

CBP also signed a $270,000,000 contract with Accenture to hire find, vet and hire new agents , under which they have added a grand total of 33 new agents.  With a minimum finder's fee of $40,000 per head (for a $52,000/year job).  Accenture's contract has been slashed for poor performance to a mere $80,000,000.  So good on CBP for that at least.

All the while net immigration has fallen to a decade low (1/4 of what it was under Bush Jr./early Obama) and the system - designed to handle lots of fence jumping male agricultural workers - has no plan, facility or ability to respond to the current flow of families with children applying for legal asylum.  

But we shouldn't let a good campaign applause line be lost to the inconvenient truth of reality, or of professionals doing their job, with or without pay.

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

Is there a point at which a barrier would no longer be a racist and immoral monument to white supremacy and simply become a border control device?

When people stop posting bullshit like this? Not holding my breath.

Question retracted - answered in a following post. 

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

I would defer to border patrol professionals familiar with the problem on any new sections of barrier proposed and hope that they would be involved in the planning.

I would also defer to Border Patrol professionals.  The only problem is they are now for a wall, having been quite clearly against the wall.

To which position should we defer?

A Flip-flop used to be a bad thing.

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

Then stop supporting Trump's idiotic Quixote Quest.  The previous border work has been done by actual planning. I remind you that not a single congressman whose district is on the southern border supports Trump on this and that includes a Republican.

And if thoes congressional districts were the only ones effected by illegal immigration that might persuade me.

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

Posted elsewhere, but probably belongs here.  When you politicize a problem best left to professionals, you get this:

So, two years after signing an executive order directing the hiring of thousands of additional border patrol agents, the CBP is actually losing agents, can't find many new agents, doesn't have a plan to use the proposed huge group of new agents who are supposed to be hired, and has an average hiring time of 400 days per hire.  Maybe, just maybe, there aren't that many people who want to put toddlers in cages.

CBP also signed a $270,000,000 contract with Accenture to hire find, vet and hire new agents , under which they have added a grand total of 33 new agents.  With a minimum finder's fee of $40,000 per head (for a $52,000/year job).  Accenture's contract has been slashed for poor performance to a mere $80,000,000.  So good on CBP for that at least.

 

1

Probably one of the few signs that America isn't completely fucked. They ran an order for 15,000 brownshirts, and had few takers.

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

No it would not. Nothing would.

I doubt there's anything that could convince me that walls don't work, they do. But that line of argument has been mostly abandoned anyway.

The argument that there is no border security problem hence no need is belied by the over 50,000 apprehensions in November alone and the caravans passing through Mexico.

Is there a more effective way to secure the border with new technology than with a wall, that's a possibility.

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

I doubt there's anything that could convince me that walls don't work, they do. But that line of argument has been mostly abandoned anyway.

The argument that there is no border security problem hence no need is belied by the over 50,000 apprehensions in November alone and the caravans passing through Mexico.

Is there a more effective way to secure the border with new technology than with a wall, that's a possibility.

Walls and fences work great for animals that don't dig or jump really high.  So there is that.  Your 2nd sentence re 50,000 apprehensions contradicts your desire for increased security.  If the borders are unsecured how were they apprehended?  Of course if you listen to Trump for every apprehension they are hordes coming over with drugs and women with duct taped mouths.  Of course if you listen to Trump you should know that he is averaging 10 lies or half truths a day.

edit: This has become the proverbial brick wall so soldier on without me. Thanks.

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

Walls and fences work great for animals that don't dig or jump really high.  So there is that.  Your 2nd sentence re 50,000 apprehensions contradicts your desire for increased security.  If the borders are unsecured how were they apprehended?  Of course if you listen to Trump for every apprehension they are hordes coming over with drugs and women with duct taped mouths.  Of course if you listen to Trump you should know that he is averaging 10 lies or half truths a day.

 edit: This has become the proverbial brick wall so soldier on without me. Thanks.

In all sincerity - apprehensions are indicative of an instance in which the perimeter barriers weren't successful in their purpose, resulting in the need for an additional intervention after they were breached. Ya don't have to bail a boat that's not leaking, right?  

"The Wall" as Trump defined it isn't a panacea, but, CBP has indeed planned for several place where improved physical barriers would be an effective force multiplier.   

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

In all sincerity - apprehensions are indicative of an instance in which the perimeter barriers weren't successful in their purpose, resulting in the need for an additional intervention after they were breached. Ya don't have to bail a boat that's not leaking, right?  

"The Wall" as Trump defined it isn't a panacea, but, CBP has indeed planned for several place where improved physical barriers would be an effective force multiplier.   

Had an interesting conversations with some guys after the race on Saturday. One is an attorney with a lot of experience in this area - according to him the major cartels now have directional drilling equipment.

Both parties have presented increasing border security so that is not the issue - the ONLY issue here is stopping Trump from "winning" something with no more planning than waving his mushroom around.

I really need to close this as I have work that I don't want to do so Squirrel!!! and here I am again.  enjoy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Walls and fences work great for animals that don't dig or jump really high.  So there is that.  Your 2nd sentence re 50,000 apprehensions contradicts your desire for increased security.  If the borders are unsecured how were they apprehended?  Of course if you listen to Trump for every apprehension they are hordes coming over with drugs and women with duct taped mouths.  Of course if you listen to Trump you should know that he is averaging 10 lies or half truths a day.

edit: This has become the proverbial brick wall so soldier on without me. Thanks.

They were apprehended because they believed they might be among the 50% border patrol believes they fail to apprehend.

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

In all sincerity - apprehensions are indicative of an instance in which the perimeter barriers weren't successful in their purpose, resulting in the need for an additional intervention after they were breached. Ya don't have to bail a boat that's not leaking, right?  

"The Wall" as Trump defined it isn't a panacea, but, CBP has indeed planned for several place where improved physical barriers would be an effective force multiplier.   

How about "improved security infrastructure" and include airports.

It's getting close to 20 fucking years since Americans started lining up and taking their fucking shoes off to get on an airplane...... something I would never have believed Americans would ever do....... and all the airports I've been to have the same improvised bullshit requiring cattle-pen conditions for incoming passengers..... whcih BTW are ripe terrorist targets themselves, WTF.

This latest donkey derby was all about Trump trying to bully the new Dem-controlled House. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to spend some money on it....... I'd like to see such spending tied to working out a real immigration policy, but what are the odds.

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Had an interesting conversations with some guys after the race on Saturday. One is an attorney with a lot of experience in this area - according to him the major cartels now have directional drilling equipment.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qxax5/mexican-cartels-are-using-firetruck-sized-drillers-to-make-drug-pipelines

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

Probably one of the few signs that America isn't completely fucked. They ran an order for 15,000 brownshirts, and had few takers.

Lots of orders for red hats though.

Same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any of you righties explain why with two years in charge of White House, Senate and Congress, the GOP did not use its reconciliation bills to get a border wall but instead used them on a tax bill and an attempt at ACA repeal?

Do you feel things have changed in two years to justify Trump's current actions regarding a border wall when he didn't see fit or feel any urgency to expend a reconciliation bill or any political capital on it before he lost the House?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Can any of you righties explain why with two years in charge of White House, Senate and Congress, the GOP did not use its reconciliation bills to get a border wall but instead used them on a tax bill and an attempt at ACA repeal?

I can't. 

Do you feel things have changed in two years to justify Trump's current actions regarding a border wall when he didn't see fit or feel any urgency to expend a reconciliation bill or any political capital on it before he lost the House?   

Nope. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham now wants to tie wall funding to the credit of the USA. Fucking brilliant -

http://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/lindsey-graham-debt-ceiling-border-deal-talks/index.html

Graham urges Trump to tie debt limit to border security funding

Excerpt -

Washington (CNN) — An influential Republican senator is urging President Donald Trump to up the ante in talks over his border wall: To push for an increase in the national debt limit as part of a legislative package to avert another government shutdown in mid-February.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the President, told CNN that he spoke with Trump at dinner Monday night about "what would a good deal look like" as lawmakers attempt to negotiate an agreement to stave off another government shutdown -- and floated the possibility that raising the debt limit could be part of the negotiation. 
Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina, said he is "hopeful we can solve more than one problem" and added "I think the President understands we need to raise the debt ceiling. It comes due in March, so why not just expedite things."
Taking such a step would amount to a dramatic move by the President: He could dare Democrats to block funding for the border wall and risk sending the country into default in the process. Graham said agreeing to one big package could clear the decks of the thorny issues facing Congress in the weeks ahead.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You literally couldn't make this shit up:

 

(Eric) Trump told the news outlet that the company used E-Verify at some, but not all, of its properties. He argued that the system is not required by law in most states, and that it is not foolproof. 

The remaining properties that do not use E-Verify have been delayed in their enrollment because of a partial government shutdown, Trump told The Post.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/business/427586-trumps-company-to-expand-checks-on-employees-legal-status

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

"Unable to nudge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., any closer to approving funding for a border wall, President Trump can move on his own without declaring a national emergency, according to a nonpartisan congressional report".

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-trump-can-build-wall-without-declaring-emergency

Congressional officials have also looked into the alternative provisions and believe spending caps would kick in at about $1 billion, not the $5.7 billion he is seeking.

Both Banzhaf and CRS said that Trump would likely face legal challenges if he tapped the provisions.

CRS explained in its Jan. 10 report: “The president may cite these authorities either individually or in combination with [military construction under the National Emergencies Act] to support such construction. However, many of these authorities standing alone come with significant limitations concerning the types of authorized construction and the funds available for such construction.

Going down that path might help build some of the wall... but it would not give Trump the "win" he is seeking. As such, he won't take those options. He could have tapped those options beforehand too, but he wanted to be seen "winning" and showing Coulter he was a big strong man again. Getting less than a billion by tip-toeing around Congress is too easily characterised as "cowardly". As such, he won't do it. 

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

Dog's just shitposting with a bullshit, unfactchecked rightwing source, because it tells him what he wants to hear.  Then Dog plays the smug bitch decrying fake news, because Dog sucks.

Jiblet's just shitposting bullshit,  deeming the Congressional Research Service a rightwing source and rejecting as unfactchecked their report because it tells him what he doesn't want to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So trump is getting embarrassed by Pelosi who’s completely neutered him. This morning she reiterated “no money for Trumps wall”.  The miserable SOB needs a distraction.  What to do?

MORE TROOPS TO THE BORDER!!

INVASION!

SQUAUAAK!

https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-announces-new-troops-being-sent-to-border-to-stop-attempted-invasion-of-illegals/

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

Demwall.jpg

I'm sure a lot of people think this is funny, but like most things right-winger like, it's very far from the truth.

From CBS news (motto: "all the news that's not fake") https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-democrats-reveal-details-for-opening-offer-in-border-negotiations/

No wall funding in House Democrats' opening offer in border negotiations

By Rebecca Kaplan, Grace Segers

Updated on: January 31, 2019 / 2:39 PM / CBS News

House Democrats provided a detailed offer Thursday -- with dollar figures -- of their opening offer in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding negotiations. The plan does not include funding for a border wall sought by President Trump. In her weekly news conference Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed the ongoing negotiations over border security, making it clear that she still opposes a wall. 

"There is not going to be any wall money in the legislation," Pelosi stated.  Later she commented on the already-present Normandy fencing at the southern border, which is low and intended to prevent cars from crossing.

"If the president wants to call that a wall -- he can call that a wall." The speaker referenced several technological developments that could be added to southern border security which were not available when the current fences were erected years ago.

A bipartisan committee of Senate and House negotiators began talks Wednesday on a DHS spending bill aimed at reaching an agreement on border security funding before it lapses on Feb. 15. The negotiators have added pressure due to a 35-day shutdown over the $5.7 billion for the wall requested by Mr. Trump, who has indicated that he is willing to allow another shutdown or call for a national emergency if no wall funding is proposed.

"The stiations will be in good faith and every proposal raised by conferees will be thoughtfully considered," said House Appropriations Committee comummary provides an outline of House Democrats' position entering conference negotiations. As Chairwoman Lowey said yesterday, conference negomunications director Evan Hollander about the offer provided on Thursday.

The summary includes over $55 billion total in discretionary appropriations, which is over a billion above the budget request, and half a billion above the funding for the previous fiscal year. It also includes $6.6 billion for major disaster recovery activities, $165 million for the Overseas Contingency Operations of the Coast Guard, and over $14 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Democrats propose increasing CBP funding for recruitment, requesting for 1,000 additional customs officers, as well as more money for opioid detection and infrastructure improvements at ports of entry. There is no additional funding for more Border Patrol agents, but they give funding for Border Patrol relocation and retention programs and an additional $502 million to address humanitarian concerns at the border. Mr. Trump has framed the situation at the border as a "humanitarian crisis."

The offer would provide $400 million for border security technology procurement and deployment, but it specifically prohibits use of funds to construct physical barriers at the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, La Lomita Historical Park, National Butterfly Center, and Vista del Mar Ranch tract. One of the concerns about building a wall is that it would impinge upon national parks and private property on the border.

Democrats are also proposing $7.4 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with $7 million above the administration request for detention facility inspections, so they increase from one every one-to-three years to twice a year. It funds an average daily population in detention beds of 35,520 for the rest of the fiscal year and phases out family detention by the end of the fiscal year.

Family detention has been one of Democrats' signature reasons for opposing Mr. Trump's illegal immigration policies. Their plan also includes more money for alternatives to detention case management personnel and family case management and prohibits Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from placing sponsors of unaccompanied children intro removal proceedings -- except those convicted of serious crimes, or with serious pending criminal charges, or who may pose a danger to children.

Summary- Increased funding for border security .... roughly 14 billion... to include infrastructure improvements, specifically forbidding putting "Tha Wall" across several national parks, increased funding for personnel, increased funding for developing and deploying technology, increased funding for detention so that we don't have to put kids in cages, increased funding for citizenship and legal immigration, and $500 million thrown in for good measure to address humanitarian concerns.

Sounds like a lot of our money being thrown at the problem, to me. But it's already soaking up a lot of money and we might as well get something good. Improving/expanding legal immigration is probably not what the MAGAettes want but it's part of the solution IMHO

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize the "walls" work....that is not even arguable ....and that the Dems solution is mostly more guards/enforcement (code more future DNC voters)....there would be no need for a wall if our borders were respected and the Dems did not provide sanctuary cities and social services to those  making it across the border...if the drug cartels bribe politicians in every country on the way up...what makes you think they are not bribing our politicians 

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

You do realize the "walls" work....that is not even arguable ....and that the Dems solution is mostly more guards/enforcement (code more future DNC voters)....there would be no need for a wall if our borders were respected and the Dems did not provide sanctuary cities and social services to those  making it across the border...if the drug cartels bribe politicians in every country on the way up...what makes you think they are not bribing our politicians 

Enough fentanyl to kill 57M Americans was interdicted at a port of entry today. Walls won’t do shit to

stop that.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Disaster averted. The Trump Wall is being built!

"Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee are wasting their time. Democrats, despite all of the evidence, proof and Caravans coming, are not going to give money to build the DESPERATELY needed WALL. I’ve got you covered. Wall is already being built, I don’t expect much help!" - Trump

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You do realize the "walls" work....that is not even arguable ....and that the Dems solution is mostly more guards/enforcement (code more future DNC voters)....there would be no need for a wall if our borders were respected and the Dems did not provide sanctuary cities and social services to those  making it across the border...if the drug cartels bribe politicians in every country on the way up...what makes you think they are not bribing our politicians 

Actually Nancy seems to be demanding more technology.  That should help a few of her billionaire constituents.

 

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

It's not easy defending Trump but I have to admire the efforts some of you guys put into this. Epic, truly epic

 

The guys in Delta house were way smarter.

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

Hard to believe that woman was once good looking.

Is that what decades of supporting Republican policies does to one?

You'd look pretty bad too if you were 230 years old.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to guess what Trump knows about building the wall?  Answer: zip. He has never built 1 thing. He bullshits his way into getting others to do it.  Ironically his supporters who believe the government is the problem happily chant along ignoring this. If Trump's wall was funded today it would be years before a single mile was built. The areas have no infrastructure - i.e. roads, housing for workers etc. No environmental studies have been done, no engineering studies have been done - go ahead and plop 50 billion and you will see one of the all time boondoggles in US history.

Meanwhile, try and ignore Mueller.

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

Anyone care to guess what Trump knows about building the wall?  Answer: zip. He has never built 1 thing. He bullshits his way into getting others to do it.  Ironically his supporters who believe the government is the problem happily chant along ignoring this. If Trump's wall was funded today it would be years before a single mile was built. The areas have no infrastructure - i.e. roads, housing for workers etc. No environmental studies have been done, no engineering studies have been done - go ahead and plop 50 billion and you will see one of the all time boondoggles in US history.

Meanwhile, try and ignore Mueller.

Couldn't agree more.  Hand Trump a hammer and a nail and he will look as confused as a dog put in front of a computer.  The walls are closing in and he knows it and is getting even crazier.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Couldn't agree more.  Hand Trump a hammer and a nail and he will look as confused as a dog put in front of a computer.  The walls are closing in and he knows it and is getting even crazier.  

I strenuously disagree.  President Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals.  He knows more about intelligence than the IC.

President Trump, with his very good brain and all the best words, is capable of miraculous things.  Things never thought possible.

Like going bankrupt in the casino business.  Steve Wynn, he is not.

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

I strenuously disagree.  President Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals.  He knows more about intelligence than the IC.

President Trump, with his very good brain and all the best words, is capable of miraculous things.  Things never thought possible.

Like going bankrupt in the casino business.  Steve Wynn, he is not.

Purple font please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cal20sailor said:
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I strenuously disagree.  President Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals.  He knows more about intelligence than the IC.

President Trump, with his very good brain and all the best words, is capable of miraculous things.  Things never thought possible.

Like going bankrupt in the casino business.  Steve Wynn, he is not.

Purple font please.

Sorry.  I thought it was painfully obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

All too painful.  It was obvious, but sometimes others are not so.  Have a great day teacher.  

Thank you, sir.  Early dismissal due to a dusting of snow.  Fire in the fireplace, mug of hot cocoa, wife will be home in about an hour.

Life is good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Couldn't agree more.  Hand Trump a hammer and a nail and he will look as confused as a dog put in front of a computer.  The walls are closing in and he knows it and is getting even crazier.  

Well, we know what a Dog in front of a computer sounds like. Painful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Well, we know what a Dog in front of a computer sounds like. Painful.

Thank you for getting it.  I was going to say monkey but I'm pretty sure we have sailed against each other and is part of a great group.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 9:40 AM, bhyde said:

Republican Border Security

t-caroline-taylor-mar-a-lago-donald-trum

the tart in pink sure looks like she'd rather be some place else ........................

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mid said:
On 1/31/2019 at 3:40 PM, bhyde said:

t-caroline-taylor-mar-a-lago-donald-trum

the tart in pink sure looks like she'd rather be some place else ........................

Barron's head has been photoshopped in, I'm surprised they didn't have a staff of Pences.

Link to post
Share on other sites