Author Topic: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years  (Read 4214 times)

FatKidsDad and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2019, 04:29:17 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19145
  • Tommy Points: 2145
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Also does anyone know what the deal is with fixating on whether it's concrete or not? It's a weird theme I keep seeing popping up, like Trump's recent obsession with "steel slats". The easiest answer seems like "industry lobbyists" but I feel like there's gotta be more to it.


Re-upping this here in case anyone has an answer. What is the deal with whether it's concrete or not mattering in any way other than basic engineering & logistics which should be just about moot in a national political debate?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-steel-slat-border-wall-prototype-saw.html

Ah so it really is just a cost thing? That's such an odd angle because people's feelings on a wall are so polarized and calcified that cost is almost irrelevant politically. Especially before the fact when the estimates will definitely be too low. Maybe it's just a reaction to the big twist reveal of who is very much not paying for the wall and who very much is, combined with the old real estate pitching instincts.

Along the same lines apparently today he's decided to start touting steel walls with concrete INSIDE them, y'see. Best of both worlds.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2019, 06:27:58 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13840
  • Tommy Points: 1535
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2019, 08:05:56 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34866
  • Tommy Points: 5808
#1 There is zero chance that a 2000 mile wall made of steel, concrete or steel infused concrete is going to cost just $5.6 billion. Given the terraine, my guess is $5.6 billion won't even cover the labor cost. I would expect the wall to cost more in the $60-90 billion range.

#2 Beside the cost to build the wall,  will be the need to make the wall technically up to date with some areas needing to be electrolized, most of the wall needing to have video surveillance, other areas of the wall needing drone surveillance or thermal imaging, and a host of other things including more people on the wall manning it. Could that be another $10-20 billion in one time  costs plus a bunch of costs to maintain the border yearly?

#3 Yearly maintenance and training now need to be added to the cost and will be needed imperpetuity.

That's a lot of money for a wall that won't put a huge dent in illegal immigration into the country since the large majority of illegal immigrants come into the country legally but become illegal by letting their visas expire. It also isn't going to slow down illegal arms and drugs into the country since most of those come in through legal ports of entry hidden in trucks.

I say pour that money into better border patrol at the ports of entry and spend a ton of money going after companies that employee illegal immigrants. I think that's the best way to spend that money. Stop American companies providing employment for illegal immigrants and make getting into the country much harder at ports of entry.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2019, 08:40:17 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 58
Quote
I'm not talking about the discussion with his supporters (although that can be extremely difficult)

I find the opposite to be true, and that talking to people who don't like Pres. Trump, are just as irrational due to their hate as his followers.

Quote
Last I heard, without a wall, the US was able to hold back the thousands upon thousands of despicable criminals and terrorist that were posing as horribly suffering people in caravans that we're coming to America in October and November and threatened the American border. How did that happen without a wall?

Numbers have dropped to 370k, which is still a boat load of people.   I think Pres. Trump, pulled up the welcome mat and it is how it has happened.  Because where I live I saw a immediate reduction of Illegals in Ohio once he went into his office.  Also, keep in mind that some states like California, probably make no arrests in this regard and the numbers are probably much higher.   We did not have sanctuary cities back in the 80-90s though the reporters do not mention this in their articles.    But you have a huge state with a big latino population that is not cooperating.  But reporters omit this because it does not fit their narrative.

Right now 14 million of California's population is Latino. In 1990 the population were  7.5 Million Latino.   

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/res/pdf/multireports/DemoTrendsFinal.pdf
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/pubs/latino1/ldbintro.html

So, this also could explain some of the drop.  Here is a great read on it:

Quote
Indeed, the number of individuals apprehended annually by Border Patrol officers has declined substantially from peaks in the 1980s and 1990s, a drop in line with heightened enforcement efforts beginning under President Bill Clinton. At the same time, USBP employs almost five times as many agents today as it did 25 years ago, meaning that each USBP agent is responsible for fewer apprehensions.

But this absolute view does not tell the whole story. While the total number of apprehensions has dropped, the composition of the group of people apprehended has shifted dramatically. Specifically, the number of people coming as families ("family units" in CBP jargon), and unaccompanied children ("UACs") has spiked, accounting for a majority of apprehensions in recent months.

At the same time, destabilization and violence in the "northern triangle"—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—have driven families and children to make the long, often dangerous trek north to attempt to illegally enter the United States. Whether such migrants qualify as humanitarian refugees or economic migrants is a matter of debate, with the line between those categories often blurry.

The boom in unaccompanied minors and family units is further exacerbated by laws which provide preferential treatment to UACs from the northern triangle and children with or without their guardians. Under the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, DHS is obliged to release unaccompanied minors from "non-contiguous" countries (i.e. not Mexico) into the interior. And under current interpretation of the 1997 Flores settlement agreement, DHS can only detain any child—accompanied or not—for 20 days before releasing him into the interior.

The consequence of these rules is that minors, especially from non-contiguous countries, can expect to be released into the interior upon apprehension. Under previous policy, adults traveling with children expected not to be separated, and therefore also to be released. The Trump administration has attempted to address the Flores loophole first through its controversial family separation policy and then, subsequently, by instituting a rule meant to overturn Flores—said rule is likely to face legal challenges.
"Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl," Trump said Tuesday.

The president is right about that. Most of the methamphetamine in the United States—which killed almost 11,000 people in 2017—is produced in cartel-run Mexican super-labs over the border. Most heroin is also Mexican, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Most cocaine is produced in Colombia, but almost 40 percent is smuggled through Mexico. And most fentanyl is produced in China, but Mexican drug traffickers play a role in the trade.

In other words, the southern border faces not only surging family and child immigration, but also an overwhelming drug problem—a dangerous combination.

From:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-numbers-behind-a-border-crisis/

Walls work and this should not even be a talking point.   We have walls around prisons because they work.   Are they 100% effective, no, nothing is but they work and have worked for centuries.  People still escape prison but you can believe that a lot less people do because of the walls.  Are you for removing the walls?

Fiscally, is the real question, would the wall save us money or be a waste.   Is the cut down on drugs, worth it?

1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls to simply drive over them. People find a way. When East Germany erected its wall, it created a military zone, staffed by booted, machine-gun carrying guards ready to shoot to kill. Yet thousands managed to make it to West Germany anyway. More to the point, do we really want to model ourselves after communist East Germany?
2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.” They come to the US legally — for vacations, business, to study, etc. — and then STAY past their visas. By 2012, overstayers accounted for 58% (THE MAJORITY!) of all unauthorized immigrants. A wall is meaningless here!
3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the US. According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in secret containers and/or among legit goods in tractor-trailers. A wall will have little to no impact on the influx of drugs into our country.
4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of STEEL fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage. Also, conservative sources generally do not address the environmental harm that walls create, but there is plenty of documentation available that show its potential for irreparable damage to both plant and animal life.
5. A wall would forces the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles. Private citizens own much of the land slated for the wall. The costs of the government snatching private land — and the legal battles that would ensue — are incalculable.
6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.
7. Border patrol agents say, “Walls are meaningless without agents and technology to back them up.” Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually — after the wall is built — to create a nearly 2,000 mile, militarized 24-hour surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. Again, are we really, going to use East Germany, a brutal communist state, as our model here?
8. Where walls have been built, there was “no discernable impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens.” In other words, they came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions precluded a wall.
9. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would ACTUALLY be needed. For example, according to the Cato Institute: An estimate for a border wall area that only covered 700 miles was originally 1.2 billion. How much did it REALLY cost? SEVEN BILLION. And that’s only for 700 miles. Whatever we think it’s going to cost, experience shows us we have to multiply it by more than 500%.
10. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion. Homeland Security estimates it at $22 billion. Given the pattern of spending mentioned in number 10 (plus Murphy’s Law), that means we’re really talking about pouring endless billions into something that doesn’t even work. And, of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill, not Mexico. Given all the drawbacks, is that REALLY the best use of our taxes?

Conservative Sources Outlining the Uselessness of Trump’s Wall:

The Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money

Chicago Tribune (conservative paper): https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html

The National Review (conservative magazine): https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/

Nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) think tank: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

Can't we just get 4 of 5 choppers with guns to patrol the Mexico border at different shifts?

Would that cost as much as 5 billion dollars?

(The guns don't have to be lethal or even fired to kill. Warning shots are some what effective I would think)

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #94 on: January 11, 2019, 08:42:47 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19145
  • Tommy Points: 2145
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
#1 There is zero chance that a 2000 mile wall made of steel, concrete or steel infused concrete is going to cost just $5.6 billion. Given the terraine, my guess is $5.6 billion won't even cover the labor cost. I would expect the wall to cost more in the $60-90 billion range.

#2 Beside the cost to build the wall,  will be the need to make the wall technically up to date with some areas needing to be electrolized, most of the wall needing to have video surveillance, other areas of the wall needing drone surveillance or thermal imaging, and a host of other things including more people on the wall manning it. Could that be another $10-20 billion in one time  costs plus a bunch of costs to maintain the border yearly?

#3 Yearly maintenance and training now need to be added to the cost and will be needed imperpetuity.

That's a lot of money for a wall that won't put a huge dent in illegal immigration into the country since the large majority of illegal immigrants come into the country legally but become illegal by letting their visas expire. It also isn't going to slow down illegal arms and drugs into the country since most of those come in through legal ports of entry hidden in trucks.

This entire thing is just the Bear Patrol from the Simpsons, just dumber, less flexible and more racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkV_ztynYDM

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #95 on: January 11, 2019, 08:47:59 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 58
Quote
1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls to simply drive over them. People find a way. When East Germany erected its wall, it created a military zone, staffed by booted, machine-gun carrying guards ready to shoot to kill. Yet thousands managed to make it to West Germany anyway. More to the point, do we really want to model ourselves after communist East Germany?

I disagree but I have something called facts to back me up.  Here are some facts on the german Wall, yes, thousands escaped but not through the wall.   I was stationed in Germany and was over there when it went down.   I even have a piece of it on my mantle.

Quote
Attempts to flee across the border were carefully studied and recorded by the East German authorities to identify possible weak points. These would be addressed by strengthening the fortifications in vulnerable areas. The East German Army (NPA) and the Ministry for State Security (Stasi) carried out statistical surveys to identify trends. In one example, a study was carried out by the NPA at the end of the 1970s to review attempted "border breaches" (Grenzdurchbrüche). It found that 4,956 people had attempted to escape across the border between 1 January 1974 and 30 November 1979. Of those, 3,984 people (80.4%) were arrested by the People's Police in the Sperrzone, the outer restricted zone. 205 people (4.1%) were caught at the signal fence. Within the inner security zone, the Schutzstreifen, a further 743 people (15%) were arrested by the border guards. 48 people (1%) were stopped – i.e. killed or injured – by landmines and 43 people (0.9%) by SM-70 directional mines on the border fence. A further 67 people (1.35%) were intercepted at the border fence (shot and/or arrested). The study highlighted the effectiveness of the SM-70 as a means of stopping people getting across the fence. A total of 229 people – just 4.6% of attempted escapees, representing less than one in twenty – made it across the border fence. Of these, the largest number (129, or 55% of successful escapees) succeeded in making it across the fence in unmined sectors. 89 people (39% of escapees) managed to cross both the minefields and the border fence, but just 12 people (6% of the total) succeeded in getting past the SM-70s.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_attempts_and_victims_of_the_inner_German_border

A lot of the escapes which were 40k were at others places than the wall.  Here is some data on the Israeli Wall.

Quote
Suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of the barrier.[7][48] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been less able to conduct attacks in Israel, which have decreased in areas where the barrier has been completed.[49][50]

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency report that in 2002, there were 452 fatalities from terrorist attacks. Before the completion of the first continuous segment (July 2003) from the beginning of the Second Intifada, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. After the completion of the first continuous segment through the end of 2006, there were only 12 attacks based in the West Bank, killing 64 people and wounding 445.[6] Terrorist attacks declined in 2007[6] and 2008[51] to 9 in 2010.[52]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs predicts that completion of the barrier will continue to prevent terrorist attacks[53] since "[a]n absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed."[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Now I do not think people are the Mexican Border are terrorists.   But it is clear walls work,   Castles, the great wall of China worked, and fortications used walls and barriers for this very reason.  For thousand of years they have worked so cut out the intellectual dishonesty about walls not working.   As for the tunneling, it is usually the cartels that tunnel and we catch them all the time and blow them up.  Yes, people can have ladders and nothing is 100% but iit is harder to climb a ladder than walk across empty space now isn't it? 

Did all you all know that Pres. Obama Border Security Chief for 6 months that Pres. Trump fired wants the wall. 

https://www.newsweek.com/obama-border-patrol-chief-begs-trump-stay-course-border-wall-1285825

Ok the Great Wall of China was put into place to stop invasions.

Mexico is not invading.

We put up this "Wall" and the DoD is going to want to start putting military related programs in. You're going to have every inch of this wall manned by soldiers and snipers and whatever.

This Wall will cost trillions of unnecessary tax payer dollars and will NOT be effective in the real problem.

The real problem is American companies allow illegals to stay because they want the cheap labor.

Ask Trump. He himself has hired a lot of illegals to work for his past businesses.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2019, 08:11:50 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16806
  • Tommy Points: 1108
It is both sides fault and anyone who thinks otherwise is not informed.

1)  Obstructionism is a strategy used by both parties and sadly been used a lot in the last few administration.
2)  Dems reversed their positions they used to hold because it is Pres, Trump and they are trying to score political points.
3)  Pres. Trump wanted the shutdown and caused it but the Dems are still sharing  fault in some ways because they won't make a deal,
4)  Extremes of both parties are holding those inclined to make a deal hostage with their ideological demands.
5)  Both parties the same old leaders that have failed to govern the last 14-20 years and created this circus.
6)  Loyalty to party outweighs loyalty to country on both sides of the aisles and has for a very long time.

I think in summary, Pres. Trump brought it on, and caused it but both sides are at fault.

Quote
This Wall will cost trillions of unnecessary tax payer dollars and will NOT be effective in the real problem.

It will cost a lot but walls work, and I post some stats and did post earlier in the thread about their effectiveness.   They keep us safe from prisoners and have been used for thousands of years and are still used because they do work.   Country Clubs used them to keep out riff raff and non members.  Armed bases have them around the bases even today.   But to say walls do not work is simply not true.   They are not 100% proof but nothing really is and they would help.  The question is more about practicality and cost, will it save us money is something that needs to be looked into....
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 08:25:49 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2019, 08:50:25 AM »

Offline adam8

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 53
It is both sides fault and anyone who thinks otherwise is not informed.

1)  Obstructionism is a strategy used by both parties and sadly been used a lot in the last few administration.
2)  Dems reversed their positions they used to hold because it is Pres, Trump and they are trying to score political points.
3)  Pres. Trump wanted the shutdown and caused it but the Dems are still sharing  fault in some ways because they won't make a deal,
4)  Extremes of both parties are holding those inclined to make a deal hostage with their ideological demands.
5)  Both parties the same old leaders that have failed to govern the last 14-20 years and created this circus.
6)  Loyalty to party outweighs loyalty to country on both sides of the aisles and has for a very long time.

I think in summary, Pres. Trump brought it on, and caused it but both sides are at fault.

Quote
This Wall will cost trillions of unnecessary tax payer dollars and will NOT be effective in the real problem.

It will cost a lot but walls work, and I post some stats and did post earlier in the thread about their effectiveness.   They keep us safe from prisoners and have been used for thousands of years and are still used because they do work.   Country Clubs used them to keep out riff raff and non members.  Armed bases have them around the bases even today.   But to say walls do not work is simply not true.   They are not 100% proof but nothing really is and they would help.  The question is more about practicality and cost, will it save us money is something that needs to be looked into....
Do you realize the difference between a prison and a country, the difference between the Country Club and a country?
Prison walls work sure but they also have armed guards on every corner and armed guards watching from within to make sure no one escapes, with no one watching the prisons would be empty pretty quickly.

I also work for nice country clubs I am a golf professional, we had a nice walled in parking lot for our members to park their Mercedes and BMWs in and guess what someone scaled the fence in the back corner broke into three different people cars and stole money, a laptop etc.

The Wall is a minor deterrent, much smaller than a lot of the natural physical barriers that already exist, as Trump said in 2006 at a commencement speech (paraphrased) if their is a Wall in front of you you go around it, over it, or under it he knows walls aren't effective.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #98 on: January 12, 2019, 08:54:37 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20510
  • Tommy Points: 977
I still remember when Trump was criticizing Obama for the shutdown saying a shutdown stops at the top and it makes a president weak.  Ah.  Trump and his hypocrisy.  Never ceases to amaze.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #99 on: January 12, 2019, 08:57:06 AM »

Offline adam8

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 410
  • Tommy Points: 53
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.
The democrats believe that border security is important and that fencing in strategic places is a good way to do border security, a few as have been pointed out voted for strategic fencing n 2006. Strategic fencing and an entire border Wall are so different they really shouldn't be compared. They are in no way shape or form going to agree to build a wall in non strategic areas it makes no sense and about 60% of the population is against it.

I would have answered how pelvis answered his question as well because he was asking basically if I open the government now will you give me funding no of course not, now maybe if you open government and then propose a DACA for a little bit of Wall then there is a discussion.

In this country we don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason because it reinforces the behavior same thing here. If Democrats agree to give the Republicans a Wall in exchange for opening the government then republicans will never compromise on anything ever again it will be well either have it my way or we will shut down the government until you decide to do it our way.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2019, 10:03:25 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16806
  • Tommy Points: 1108
Quote
Do you realize the difference between a prison and a country, the difference between the Country Club and a country?
Prison walls work sure but they also have armed guards on every corner and armed guards watching from within to make sure no one escapes, with no one watching the prisons would be empty pretty quickly.

Yes, I do but that does not change the fact, that walls make it much more difficult and for you to pretend they don't is dishonest.  Walking across and open field is much more easier than a wall.

A wall with vibration sensors where Border Control could quickly apprehend and respond would work.   I am a veteran and I know some things about security.

Quote
I also work for nice country clubs I am a golf professional, we had a nice walled in parking lot for our members to park their Mercedes and BMWs in and guess what someone scaled the fence in the back corner broke into three different people cars and stole money, a laptop etc.

Not fullproof, as I said but it would help.   I lived in El Paso and was stationed in Fort Bliss.   What is completely silly is folks like you acting like walls do not work at all.   Virtually all civilizations since 8000 BC used walls for defense and to protect we still use them today.

Quote
The Wall is a minor deterrent, much smaller than a lot of the natural physical barriers that already exist, as Trump said in 2006 at a commencement speech (paraphrased) if their is a Wall in front of you you go around it, over it, or under it he knows walls aren't effective.

And yet areas with the walls on our present border

Quote
In 2006, President George W. Bush passed the Secure Fence Act which had a tremendous impact in Yuma County. In 2015, Fox News reported a 96 percent reduction in apprehensions due to a 20-foot tall steel fence and manpower being tripled. Wilmot was a deputy during that time but saw the impact firsthand.

“It was a 91 percent drop,” Wilmot said. “It obviously helped us curb some of the criminal activity that we unfortunately had to deal with.”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/walls-work-says-arizona-sheriff-who-claims-crime-dropped-by-91-percent-thanks-to-border-fence

Now, I am not implying that every illegal migrant/immigrant is a criminal.  But walls help

Quote
n fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data I reviewed. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.

They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows.

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics. The turnaround even caught the attention of former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other Obama administration officials, who touted it as one of the nation’s safest cities while citing the beefed-up border security there.

Federal data illustrates just how  just how remarkable the turnaround in crime has been since the fence was built. According to FBI tables, property crimes in El Paso have plunged more than 37 percent to 12,357 from their pre-fence peak of 19,702 a year, while violent crimes have dropped more than 6 percent to 2,682 from a peak of 2,861 a year.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-already-have-a-border-wall-and-it-works/


So as one can see walls work, the thing is does it merit the cost imposed.   It has become fashionable to repeat talking points we hear on TV or in social media without disregard for the facts.  In fact, people like you and your ilk have made me more conservative in the last few years, I don't like either party.   My wife also feels this way and I have to wonder if others do as well.   I think the left is having their Tea Party movement and lurched towards extremism and it will come back to haunt them once their common enemy Pres. Trump leaves as they will destroy each other just like the Tea Party did to the GOP.  Enjoy the ride.

Quote
I  still remember when Trump was criticizing Obama for the shutdown saying a shutdown stops at the top and it makes a president weak.  Ah.  Trump and his hypocrisy.  Never ceases to amaze.

You should know better by now, Moranis.   Pres. Trump is a boorish egotist and self promoting most of the time.   He is also saying that he never said that Mexico will pay for the wall.  I knew what Pres. Trump was before he got elected but I think he gets treated differently by the media than past presidents.   Some of this is self inflicted.   But honesty was never a strong point for him and never will be... 

But he is right about walls working, but the cost my outweigh the results, though the CBO has stated that each illegal costs us 74K or thereabouts.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 10:11:16 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2019, 10:20:16 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13840
  • Tommy Points: 1535
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.
The democrats believe that border security is important and that fencing in strategic places is a good way to do border security, a few as have been pointed out voted for strategic fencing n 2006. Strategic fencing and an entire border Wall are so different they really shouldn't be compared. They are in no way shape or form going to agree to build a wall in non strategic areas it makes no sense and about 60% of the population is against it.

I would have answered how pelvis answered his question as well because he was asking basically if I open the government now will you give me funding no of course not, now maybe if you open government and then propose a DACA for a little bit of Wall then there is a discussion.

In this country we don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason because it reinforces the behavior same thing here. If Democrats agree to give the Republicans a Wall in exchange for opening the government then republicans will never compromise on anything ever again it will be well either have it my way or we will shut down the government until you decide to do it our way.

I understand what you are saying, and if I accept your fundamental premises, I am with you.  But the premise i’ve contended all along has been the view that what Trump calls “wall” and what Pelosi calls “fence” are both “border barrier” — not the same, but not wholly different as you claim.  I get the volume difference and the political difference. What I can’t get past is grown-ups unable to just speak plainly about what each side is asking for. I concede that Trump is invested in calling something/anything a “wall”.  Pelosi and Schumer, in my opinion, could  describe in plain language the type and volume of border barrier they would accept  — rather than saying “no”.

 You may be glad that I am not negotiating on your side - I’ll concede that high level negotiating isn’t my calling — but when our government is shut-down doesn’t someone, at some point, have to honestly lay their cards on the table?  The child-President won’t so someone needs to.  Frankly, I’m not the only one saying this.  There is a growing group of centrists in Congress on this issue who are sounding pretty sensible.  See Brian Fitzpatrick as an example.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #102 on: January 12, 2019, 11:12:55 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3675
  • Tommy Points: 615
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.
The democrats believe that border security is important and that fencing in strategic places is a good way to do border security, a few as have been pointed out voted for strategic fencing n 2006. Strategic fencing and an entire border Wall are so different they really shouldn't be compared. They are in no way shape or form going to agree to build a wall in non strategic areas it makes no sense and about 60% of the population is against it.

I would have answered how pelvis answered his question as well because he was asking basically if I open the government now will you give me funding no of course not, now maybe if you open government and then propose a DACA for a little bit of Wall then there is a discussion.

In this country we don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason because it reinforces the behavior same thing here. If Democrats agree to give the Republicans a Wall in exchange for opening the government then republicans will never compromise on anything ever again it will be well either have it my way or we will shut down the government until you decide to do it our way.

I understand what you are saying, and if I accept your fundamental premises, I am with you.  But the premise i’ve contended all along has been the view that what Trump calls “wall” and what Pelosi calls “fence” are both “border barrier” — not the same, but not wholly different as you claim.  I get the volume difference and the political difference. What I can’t get past is grown-ups unable to just speak plainly about what each side is asking for. I concede that Trump is invested in calling something/anything a “wall”.  Pelosi and Schumer, in my opinion, could  describe in plain language the type and volume of border barrier they would accept  — rather than saying “no”.

 You may be glad that I am not negotiating on your side - I’ll concede that high level negotiating isn’t my calling — but when our government is shut-down doesn’t someone, at some point, have to honestly lay their cards on the table?  The child-President won’t so someone needs to.  Frankly, I’m not the only one saying this.  There is a growing group of centrists in Congress on this issue who are sounding pretty sensible.  See Brian Fitzpatrick as an example.

What is dishonest about what the Democrats have laid on the table?  They have laid a bill on the table which, among other things, provides funding for border security in the manner that they -- and all of the Senate, prior to Trump's flip-flop -- see as appropriate.   Their is nothing dishonest at all there.  Because it is in writing and voted on.

Making the dishonest child happy by accomodating his lies is not being honest and is not being in good faith with their responsibilities to their electorate.

5.7 Billion dollars may seem small compared to the larger budget, but make no mistake.  That is a ton of money.  And it would be far, far better spent on other things.  For one thing, you could spend a small portion of it on better administrative and logistical services towards actually properly and humanely handling the processing of asylum seekers -- yes, including vetting and investigations to properly validate asylum claims.  That is the proper way to handle the "crisis" at the border.  Not sabre-rattling from the top of a medieval castle wall.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #103 on: January 12, 2019, 11:53:53 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13840
  • Tommy Points: 1535
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.
The democrats believe that border security is important and that fencing in strategic places is a good way to do border security, a few as have been pointed out voted for strategic fencing n 2006. Strategic fencing and an entire border Wall are so different they really shouldn't be compared. They are in no way shape or form going to agree to build a wall in non strategic areas it makes no sense and about 60% of the population is against it.

I would have answered how pelvis answered his question as well because he was asking basically if I open the government now will you give me funding no of course not, now maybe if you open government and then propose a DACA for a little bit of Wall then there is a discussion.

In this country we don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason because it reinforces the behavior same thing here. If Democrats agree to give the Republicans a Wall in exchange for opening the government then republicans will never compromise on anything ever again it will be well either have it my way or we will shut down the government until you decide to do it our way.

I understand what you are saying, and if I accept your fundamental premises, I am with you.  But the premise i’ve contended all along has been the view that what Trump calls “wall” and what Pelosi calls “fence” are both “border barrier” — not the same, but not wholly different as you claim.  I get the volume difference and the political difference. What I can’t get past is grown-ups unable to just speak plainly about what each side is asking for. I concede that Trump is invested in calling something/anything a “wall”.  Pelosi and Schumer, in my opinion, could  describe in plain language the type and volume of border barrier they would accept  — rather than saying “no”.

 You may be glad that I am not negotiating on your side - I’ll concede that high level negotiating isn’t my calling — but when our government is shut-down doesn’t someone, at some point, have to honestly lay their cards on the table?  The child-President won’t so someone needs to.  Frankly, I’m not the only one saying this.  There is a growing group of centrists in Congress on this issue who are sounding pretty sensible.  See Brian Fitzpatrick as an example.

What is dishonest about what the Democrats have laid on the table?  They have laid a bill on the table which, among other things, provides funding for border security in the manner that they -- and all of the Senate, prior to Trump's flip-flop -- see as appropriate.   Their is nothing dishonest at all there.  Because it is in writing and voted on.

Making the dishonest child happy by accomodating his lies is not being honest and is not being in good faith with their responsibilities to their electorate.

5.7 Billion dollars may seem small compared to the larger budget, but make no mistake.  That is a ton of money.  And it would be far, far better spent on other things.  For one thing, you could spend a small portion of it on better administrative and logistical services towards actually properly and humanely handling the processing of asylum seekers -- yes, including vetting and investigations to properly validate asylum claims.  That is the proper way to handle the "crisis" at the border.  Not sabre-rattling from the top of a medieval castle wall.

My point is simple. If you say “no” but “no” isn’t the truth, then you aren’t being honest. Trump and McConnell are mostly to blame for all of this, there is no question about that in my mind. . Pelosi and Schumer have some part in this if they are saying “no” when “no” is not their actual position. You all can school me on negotiating — I am not speaking from a knowledge base when it comes to winning national debates and making deals at that level. You may be correct about the importance of Dems holding the line. But I notice disingenuous behavior on both sides and I have pointed it out.

Re: Trump On His Shutdown: (It Could Last) Months Of Even Years
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2019, 12:22:32 PM »

Offline td450

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 791
  • Tommy Points: 85
This is 100% the fault of Trump and McConnell. The Dems are literally trying to pass the measure that passed the Senate 100-0 a month ago, but McConnell won’t let a vote occur because it will make Trump look bad.

This isn’t a two sides issue.

It won’t matter in a month anyway when the Mueller report breaks and we all see just how craven every Republican (both in government and private citizens) has been in permitting this traitorous circus to go on in the name of some tax breaks and a wall that will be a symbol at best.

I don’t agree that it’s 100% one side and I think it’s going to keep this shutdown going if we don’t see both sides relent to some extent. It takes 2 sides and I think Nancy is being disingenuous when she says “absolutely no” to border barrier. I don’t think she is telling the truth.

I hope you are correct about the Mueller investigation.  I think Trump is a corrupt man and an awful leader for this country. I just hope Mueller can effectively display irrefutable evidence.

"2 sides" voted for this funding bill just a few short weeks ago when the GOP-controlled Senate passed it overwhelmingly.   Now the Dam-controlled House has passed the exact same thing.

It is being blocked by exactly two men:  Trump and McConnell, either one of whom could move it forward.

This is not a "2 sides" issue.
Agreed, but I do have concerns about Pelosi's approach.  It's pointless to say "no wall" when 600 miles of it are already built and most of that is probably in accessible areas where construction is possible.  She should point out that deep ravines of the Rio Grande don't need a wall, the ravine is already much better than a wall.

Let me amend my 2-sides responsible statement.   If, in fact, Pelosi and Schumer believe that there should be zero funding for a border barrier (which, as has been pointed out, they've supported in the past), then I will agree -- 100% on Trump.   But, as I've tried to state before, if Pelosi/Schumer actually believe that it is in USAs best interest that border barrier be included -- then saying "no Wall/ No way" is disingenuous.  I am absolutely willing to accept that there should be no border barrier funding IF credible folks think that is not a necessary piece of the puzzle.  But the vast majority of voices I've heard (both sides) acknowledge some measure of border barrier.   Do I think the "blame" is 50-50 -- No -- never said that, but I don't think it's 100% on Trump if the Dems are privately (and in past votes) acknowledging that barrier is needed, but refuse to admit this now.
The democrats believe that border security is important and that fencing in strategic places is a good way to do border security, a few as have been pointed out voted for strategic fencing n 2006. Strategic fencing and an entire border Wall are so different they really shouldn't be compared. They are in no way shape or form going to agree to build a wall in non strategic areas it makes no sense and about 60% of the population is against it.

I would have answered how pelvis answered his question as well because he was asking basically if I open the government now will you give me funding no of course not, now maybe if you open government and then propose a DACA for a little bit of Wall then there is a discussion.

In this country we don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason because it reinforces the behavior same thing here. If Democrats agree to give the Republicans a Wall in exchange for opening the government then republicans will never compromise on anything ever again it will be well either have it my way or we will shut down the government until you decide to do it our way.

I understand what you are saying, and if I accept your fundamental premises, I am with you.  But the premise i’ve contended all along has been the view that what Trump calls “wall” and what Pelosi calls “fence” are both “border barrier” — not the same, but not wholly different as you claim.  I get the volume difference and the political difference. What I can’t get past is grown-ups unable to just speak plainly about what each side is asking for. I concede that Trump is invested in calling something/anything a “wall”.  Pelosi and Schumer, in my opinion, could  describe in plain language the type and volume of border barrier they would accept  — rather than saying “no”.

 You may be glad that I am not negotiating on your side - I’ll concede that high level negotiating isn’t my calling — but when our government is shut-down doesn’t someone, at some point, have to honestly lay their cards on the table?  The child-President won’t so someone needs to.  Frankly, I’m not the only one saying this.  There is a growing group of centrists in Congress on this issue who are sounding pretty sensible.  See Brian Fitzpatrick as an example.

What is dishonest about what the Democrats have laid on the table?  They have laid a bill on the table which, among other things, provides funding for border security in the manner that they -- and all of the Senate, prior to Trump's flip-flop -- see as appropriate.   Their is nothing dishonest at all there.  Because it is in writing and voted on.

Making the dishonest child happy by accomodating his lies is not being honest and is not being in good faith with their responsibilities to their electorate.

5.7 Billion dollars may seem small compared to the larger budget, but make no mistake.  That is a ton of money.  And it would be far, far better spent on other things.  For one thing, you could spend a small portion of it on better administrative and logistical services towards actually properly and humanely handling the processing of asylum seekers -- yes, including vetting and investigations to properly validate asylum claims.  That is the proper way to handle the "crisis" at the border.  Not sabre-rattling from the top of a medieval castle wall.


The problem is that there is a policy discussion and a rather dangerous political manipulation  happening at the same time. Trump is demanding to be taken seriously on the policy side while simultaneously pushing a political narrative that Democrats cannot concede.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required