Everyone Against Building The Wall- Part 2

[*bfine32*]

I have just witnessed on of the most childish acts by 3 "adults" I've ever seen in my life.

I listened to Trump and was saddened by how he made it a partisan issue and then Nancy and Chuck come in a kick it up a notch.

[GMDino]

Quote:FACT CHECK: Trump's Oval Office Pitch For A Border Wall

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wall?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190108

[hollodero]

(01-08-2019, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have just witnessed on of the most childish acts by 3 "adults" I've ever seen in my life.

I listened to Trump and was saddened by how he made it a partisan issue and then Nancy and Chuck come in a kick it up a notch.

What should Chuck and Nancy have said instead?
That they give in?

[Dill]

(01-08-2019, 11:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have just witnessed on of the most childish acts by 3 "adults" I've ever seen in my life.

I listened to Trump and was saddened by how he made it a partisan issue and then Nancy and Chuck come in a kick it up a notch.

Does "partisanship" worry you more than disinformation?

Sounds  like the only non-partisan option to Trump's shutdown would be to cave.

[Belsnickel]

I wish the Democrats would have just put one person up there to give the rebuttal. They also should have chosen one of the newer Representatives. It would have been a better move.

[Dill]

(01-08-2019, 10:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: SHS got fact checked on the 4,000 terrorist number by Chris Wallace on Fox News on Sunday.

Mike Pence referenced the numbers today when defending the need for the border wall to John Karl on ABC. Karl corrected him on the fact that the number is referencing those caught elsewhere, not the border.

You have your facts. Trump et al. offer alternative facts.

Now voters have a choice as to which facts they like best.

[Au165]

Interesting that Fox News' Sheppard Smith went after Trump fact checking all of his claims from the speech. This on the heels of Sanders getting run over for using fake statistics the other day and I now have a glimmer of hope that maybe even partisan media can agree that flat out lies aren't a good way to go about politics.

[Dill]

(01-09-2019, 10:31 AM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting that Fox News' Sheppard Smith went after Trump fact checking all of his claims from the speech. This on the heels of Sanders getting run over for using fake statistics the other day and I now have a glimmer of hope that maybe even partisan media can agree that flat out lies aren't a good way to go about politics.

Wonder if ratings and sales affect news organizations' willingness to challenge disinformation.

How will the Fox audience respond?  Will some applaud the upholding of standards while others perceive Smith/Wallace as part of the deep state, attacking Trump?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-09-2019, 10:36 AM)Dill Wrote: Wonder if ratings and sales affect news organizations' willingness to challenge disinformation.

How will the Fox audience respond?  Will some applaud the upholding of standards while others perceive Smith/Wallace as part of the deep state, attacking Trump?

Q's are self described 'cord cutters'.  In reality, their cable got turned off.

  

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 05:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: What should Chuck and Nancy have said instead?
That they give in?

You mean Gomez and Morticia? OK, I kid. Perhaps focused on a solution instead of a scapegoat; just as Trump should have done. We're all to blame instead of they are to blame would be refreshing once every blue moon.

I thought the funniest thing was when they said approve the budget and we'll talk security. Wasn't there a recent call for approve the budget and we'll talk DACA?

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 09:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Does "partisanship" worry you more than disinformation?

Sounds  like the only non-partisan option to Trump's shutdown would be to cave.

With side are you referring to caving? Wasn't the original price tag of the wall around $25 Billion? 

Looking at Dino's fact checking. No rebuttal stated Trump was lying on any of his facts; just that they can be "viewed" in a different lens. 

For instance: No crisis because more crossed in these years. How does that not make it a crisis? Could it possibly been a crisis back then that was ignored? 

[*bfine32*]

(01-08-2019, 10:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: SHS got fact checked on the 4,000 terrorist number by Chris Wallace on Fox News on Sunday.

Mike Pence referenced the numbers today when defending the need for the border wall to John Karl on ABC. Karl corrected him on the fact that the number is referencing those caught elsewhere, not the border.

How were they able to get elsewhere? By illegally crossing the border perhaps?

"We got a problem with drugs in Miami" 

"No we don't because these drugs from Miami were found in Kansas. Fact checked bytch!!"

[GMDino]

(01-09-2019, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean Gomez and Morticia? OK, I kid. Perhaps focused on a solution instead of a scapegoat; just as Trump should have done. We're all to blame instead of they are to blame would be refreshing once every blue moon.

I thought the funniest thing was when they said approve the budget and we'll talk security. Wasn't there a recent call for approve the budget and we'll talk DACA?

Commenting on their looks?  Shame.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 11:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: Commenting on their looks?  Shame.  

That's why I put "I kid'. Because a simple mind is the easiest to read.

Did you ask Matt why he wanted someone younger to provide the reply?

[GMDino]

(01-09-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's why I put "I kid'. Because a simple mind is the easiest to read.

Oh...it was okay to "kid" about it....now.

(01-09-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you ask Matt why he wanted someone younger to provide the reply?

No, because he wasn't talking about their looks or but rather who he would rather have speak based on ideas and preconceived notions about the other too.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you ask Matt why he wanted someone younger to provide the reply?

Why would he when I didn't say younger?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-09-2019, 11:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How were they able to get elsewhere? By illegally crossing the border perhaps?

"We got a problem with drugs in Miami" 

"No we don't because these drugs from Miami were found in Kansas. Fact checked bytch!!"

[GMDino]

Serious question:

We have some form of wall/fence/divider over a portion of our southern border.

Doesn't it make sense that we have entry points (like we already do) to funnel those seeking legal asylum so we can focus our manpower there rather than trying to patrol the entire border where people "could" be trying to enter?  If there is no entry we don't know where most of them are coming in.  

I'm sure some still try the other places.

Just wondering.

[hollodero]

(01-09-2019, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean Gomez and Morticia? OK, I kid. Perhaps focused on a solution instead of a scapegoat; just as Trump should have done. We're all to blame instead of they are to blame would be refreshing once every blue moon.

I thought the funniest thing was when they said approve the budget and we'll talk security. Wasn't there a recent call for approve the budget and we'll talk DACA?

And didn't that happen? They opened the government and then talked DACA (I might be wrong, but that's what I remember). Or McConnell promised to let that happen (or something like that) and then nothing came out of it. One way or another, id did get approved.
There would be a law for Trump to sign. At some point, it's getting tough to shoulder some blame just to not look too partisan.

They have a solution. Approve the existing bill, open the government and don't tie that to wall funding. That's it. That's the solution.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I wonder how legal it would be for Trump to declare an entry fee of "$10 per non-USC and legal immigrant" that enters the US by any means.

We have over 1 million entering per year, so that's $1B per year in additional income. Seems that could go along ways to setting up a better system for monitoring entrance/exit in US so we can really determine where the issue really exists (overstays vs border crossers), and improve the Employment verification systems. Also, impose heavy fines/bans on VISA over stayers. Easiest way get the message across. Risking 10yr+ ban if caught overstaying.

I would stick to getting the $5B and use it to build more secure fencing, would still prefer a wall, but at least if we have secure fencing we can figure out how effective it is.

Still need to do much much more, like the changing of Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis.

Allow Illegals that are a productive and have clean criminal records an opportunity to get a 4 year green card (renewable every 4 years pending back ground checks) so they can work legally in the US under their own names, currently using other people's SSN is hurting those people from getting benefits (for retirement disability IRS credit etc), I would not allow Illegals full amnesty, that's my compromise.

H1B's, would be very limited and hard to get. Sorry, but we have more than enough qualified people in the US for 99% of the jobs where they are used, especially so now if Illegals can work legally.

Anyways, my issue is don't just stay focused on the Wall, attack illegal immigration from as many angles as possible.