Everyone Against Building The Wall- Part 2

[BmorePat87]

(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!!"

No, the 4000 number is people caught worldwide trying to enter the US that were suspected terrorists. 

The number of those who were caught at the Southern border was 6...

Hopefully now you understand why it's a silly number to try to suggest is representative of a terrorist threat along the border and not just some gotcha semantics argument.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 12:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why would he when I didn't say younger?

Oh, newer. Why one of the newer?

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 02:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

I'll help you with self-awareness: What's our solution for DACA?

Of course another solution is to give POTUS the funds that he's requesting and reopen the government. It's not like these folks have never voted for a southern barrier before. It's just they're not going to do it this time because 2020. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh...it was okay to "kid" about it....now.  


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.

Of course it's Ok to kid, but it's better to know what someone is going to reply before they do so.

I'll take your assessment of Matt's comments at face value. If you don't think he was talking about the visual impact then we'll just disagree. Who knows maybe he'll tell us why he said it; he's usually pretty forthright. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 04:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, the 4000 number is people caught worldwide trying to enter the US that were suspected terrorists. 

The number of those who were caught at the Southern border was 6...

Hopefully now you understand why it's a silly number to try to suggest is representative of a terrorist threat along the border and not just some gotcha semantics argument.

Ah, gotcha. From your post I assumed elsewhere meant elsewhere in the US. 

[Dill]

(01-09-2019, 04:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, the 4000 number is people caught worldwide trying to enter the US that were suspected terrorists. 

The number of those who were caught at the Southern border was 6...

Hopefully now you understand why it's a silly number to try to suggest is representative of a terrorist threat along the border and not just some gotcha semantics argument.

According to the link below, 3,775 is the actual number, and it refers to people detained because their names match those on a watchlist. That means many are released once they realize the match is also mistaken identity.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/fact-check-did-u-s-catch-4-000-terrorists-southern-n954796

Good that you mention worldwide.  E.g., if you are flying from Abu Dhabi to the US, you actually go through US customs there and not in the U.S.  And that is where the watchlist comes into play.  Once you get to the US you can just grab your bag and walk out of the airport.

[hollodero]

(01-09-2019, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll help you with self-awareness: What's our solution for DACA?

Of course another solution is to give POTUS the funds that he's requesting and reopen the government. It's not like these folks have never voted for a southern barrier before. It's just they're not going to do it this time because 2020. 

Sure, one could always just give into any demand. This time 5 billion for a wall that isn't planned, there's no concept, it's a concrete wall one time, some kind of huge spears the other time, maybe a solar wall, maybe a see-through wall so people don't get slayed by drugs thrown over. Ah, Trump will know what's best of all these suggestions of his. Next time, who knows, maybe Trump wants funding for a huge Trump waterpark or whatever. One could always blame democrats for not caving. 

But then again, you had an election and 60% voted democrat, which was a "mandate" to not build a wall. And you have bills with bipartisan support that would pass both houses.

As for DACA, I don't really know, I always thought in the end the McConnell "promise" didn't do much. But I wouldn't know who to blame. I know the government opened again and that it could open now if Trump only signed a bill that has border security in it, but no funding for a wall a majority does not want.

[GMDino]

(01-09-2019, 09:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

(01-09-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

(01-09-2019, 12:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why would he when I didn't say younger?

(01-09-2019, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, newer. Why one of the newer?

(01-09-2019, 07:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it's Ok to kid, but it's better to know what someone is going to reply before they do so.

I'll take your assessment of Matt's comments at face value. If you don't think he was talking about the visual impact then we'll just disagree. Who knows maybe he'll tell us why he said it; he's usually pretty forthright. 

[Bengalzona]

It's amazing how these things crop up. I mean, apparently there has been no crisis on the border for the past two years when there was a Republican majority in the House. And then, Whammo!!!

Weird, isn't it?

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2019, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, newer. Why one of the newer?

Pelosi and Schumer have the taint on them that comes with years in Congress, which is also terrible approval ratings. Pick one of the freshman class to plead the case. There was a ton of excitement surrounding the candidates in 2018, take advantage of that.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 08:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, one could always just give into any demand. This time 5 billion for a wall that isn't planned, there's no concept, it's a concrete wall one time, some kind of huge spears the other time, maybe a solar wall, maybe a see-through wall so people don't get slayed by drugs thrown over. Ah, Trump will know what's best of all these suggestions of his. Next time, who knows, maybe Trump wants funding for a huge Trump waterpark or whatever. One could always blame democrats for not caving. 

But then again, you had an election and 60% voted democrat, which was a "mandate" to not build a wall. And you have bills with bipartisan support that would pass both houses.

As for DACA, I don't really know, I always thought in the end the McConnell "promise" didn't do much. But I wouldn't know who to blame. I know the government opened again and that it could open now if Trump only signed a bill that has border security in it, but no funding for a wall a majority does not want.

It's funny how we'll twist things to support our stances. Trump won the election, one of his promises was to build a wall, and even though the price has dropped from $25 Billion to $5 Billion the house still says no and some how that's a compromise. But the fact that Trump won't sign a bill that includes funding for the wall, he's not compromising. Hell you even poke fun of the fact that he's willing to compromise on the materials to reduce cost. 

Your support for majority rule is admirable. Do you think that stance could ever change depending on what the majority wants.

You don't know about DACA because folks stopped talking about it.

The facts are simple and folks can squeal all they want: The Dems will not give $5 Bill for a barrier along the southern border solely because of whose asking for it. I could give 2 damns if they construct a border, but let's not try to play like the Dems are doing the "right" thing here. They give less than a damn about the government worker that's going to miss a pay check in 2 days; as do the GOP; simply because it's a partical shutdown.

But it won't be long until folks stop receiving SNAP and other entitlements. At that point the Dems will have to relent as you will be affecting their base. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 09:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It's amazing how these things crop up. I mean, apparently there has been no crisis on the border for the past two years when there was a Republican majority in the House. And then, Whammo!!!

Weird, isn't it?

Seems I remember candidate Trump talking about a similar situation. Went down there to visit in a red hat. Maybe we're just remembering things differently. 

[GMDino]

DJT had two years with a GOP majority to fulfill his "campaign promise" to build a wall.

Instead he focused on undoing regulations, trying to repeal the ACA and a massive tax cut that has driven up the deficit.

But NOW he can blame someone else for something that he really never intended to do anyway but got him a lot of applause from those folks in the red hats (they bought from him).

He's a conman...and some are still rushing out to buy what he is selling.

Doesn't matter what it is...they need some because he told them they did.

Its sad...and it's funny.

Oh, and here are the rest of his "campaign promises".

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

Like religion I'm sure his supporters (and those who feel they have to defend him) will pick and choose which ones the Democrats should give into just because he promised it...even if he did nothing to work towards getting it done.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 09:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pelosi and Schumer have the taint on them that comes with years in Congress, which is also terrible approval ratings. Pick one of the freshman class to plead the case. There was a ton of excitement surrounding the candidates in 2018, take advantage of that.

As i said you're usually forthright. 

[hollodero]

(12-26-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's funny how we'll twist things to support our stances. Trump won the election, one of his promises was to build a wall, and even though the price has dropped from $25 Billion to $5 Billion the house still says no and some how that's a compromise. But the fact that Trump won't sign a bill that includes funding for the wall, he's not compromising. Hell you even poke fun of the fact that he's willing to compromise on the materials to reduce cost. 

First things first. Yes he won the election against Hillary, and right, no one could really complain about him wanting to build the wall like he said (who pays for it is something else). He didn't do so in two years, he didn't even come up with a sustainable plan in that time, the plan just changed every now and then. A solar wall. A see-through wall. A higher wall because some Mexican ex-president talks bad. While major aspects, say expropriations, were never even addressed. That is not convincing and no private investor would fund such a concept-less expense. That's what I make fun of.

Now democrats always were against a wall. This was painted as being for "open borders", as being MS-13 lovers, as attempt to broaden the democratic voter base, as all kinds of neferious things. Well - this was all up for election in your midterms, and republicans took a nosedive there. That this isn't the time to build a wall seems just logical.

Also, and I'm aware you said multiple times that this is not an issue and can be spun, Trump vowed that Mexico would pay for that thing. It was always stupid, for sure, but that's what a majority of his supporters believed. He will convince or extort Mexico somehow, it will be at their expense. If he made clear that the taxpayer has to give billions for it, things would have probably turned out quite differently. Yeah he can spin it, but folks don't voted for a spin, but for a wall paid by Mexico. One has every right to hold him to that word or else claim that burdening the taxpayer never was part of Trump's promise.

(12-26-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your support for majority rule is admirable. Do you think that stance could ever change depending on what the majority wants.

Nah, has nothing to do with my stance. I always thought a wall was stupid and that would not change if 9 of 10 people wanted it. But if Republicans had won the midterms, I would see a majority wanting that damn thing and I would understand that. But right now, Trump is in the trenches for something a majority does not want, as indicated by every poll and by the midterm results. It doesn't make me a hypocrite to say so.
You, however, seem to point at majorities when it's about Trump's plans and how he has a mandate for them, but ignore majorities if they run contrary to said mandates. I'd say the people have spoken and they do not want a majority in the houses for Trump to implement his promised wall and whatnot.

[Bengalzona]

(01-09-2019, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems I remember candidate Trump talking about a similar situation. Went down there to visit in a red hat. Maybe we're just remembering things differently. 

Hmm... I wonder why it hasn't been this big of an issue over the past two years? I mean, it looks like it wasn't a big priority. Wouldn't the Republican majorities support the wall?

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 10:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: First things first. Yes he won the election against Hillary, and right, no one could really complain about him wanting to build the wall like he said (who pays for it is something else). He didn't do so in two years, he didn't even come up with a sustainable plan in that time, the plan just changed every now and then. A solar wall. A see-through wall. A higher wall because some Mexican ex-president talks bad. While major aspects, say expropriations, were never even addressed. That is not convincing and no private investor would fund such a concept-less expense. That's what I make fun of.

Now democrats always were against a wall. This was painted as being for "open borders", as being MS-13 lovers, as attempt to broaden the democratic voter base, as all kinds of neferious things. Well - this was all up for election in your midterms, and republicans took a nosedive there. That this isn't the time to build a wall seems just logical.

Also, and I'm aware you said multiple times that this is not an issue and can be spun, Trump vowed that Mexico would pay for that thing. It was always stupid, for sure, but that's what a majority of his supporters believed. He will convince or extort Mexico somehow, it will be at their expense. If he made clear that the taxpayer has to give billions for it, things would have probably turned out quite differently. Yeah he can spin it, but folks don't voted for a spin, but for a wall paid by Mexico. One has every right to hold him to that word or else claim that burdening the taxpayer never was part of Trump's promise.



Nah, has nothing to do with my stance. I always thought a wall was stupid and that would not change if 9 of 10 people wanted it. But if Republicans had won the midterms, I would see a majority wanting that damn thing and I would understand that. But right now, Trump is in the trenches for something a majority does not want, as indicated by every poll and by the midterm results. It doesn't make me a hypocrite to say so.
You, however, seem to point at majorities when it's about Trump's plans and how he has a mandate for them, but ignore majorities if they run contrary to said mandates. I'd say the people have spoken and they do not want a majority in the houses for Trump to implement his promised wall and whatnot.

Your assertion of a Blue Wave may be over stated. However, it doesn't change the facts of who is POTUS. Not everyone gets to be POTUS. 

FWIW, I'm sure it will come down to what I said a few months back. This barrier will be built by the Corp of Engineers and Trump will milk that all the way to 2020.

"Dems didn't care about border security, so I mandated that the good fighting men and women of our Armed Forces not only work to secure the border, but to build a necessary barrier."

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2019, 10:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Hmm... I wonder why it hasn't been this big of an issue over the past two years?

Seems it has. He's asked Congress to employ the nuclear option to pass a wall funding bill, but they refused. Now he no longer has that bullet in the gun, so he has to load another one.

Let's no pretend Trump just started focusing on the border and the wall. 

[GMDino]

The other beautiful thing is watching the conservatives...so small government, so anti-deficit, so "Obama is a dictator abusing his powers"...now suddenly all for DJT doing absolutely anything to not appear as giant liar and failed negotiator.

[Bengalzona]

(01-09-2019, 10:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems it has. He's asked Congress to employ the nuclear option to pass a wall funding bill, but they refused. Now he no longer has that gun in the bullet, so he has to load another one.

Let's no pretend Trump just started focusing on the border and the wall. 

Oh, there's no pretending. Up until a week ago, he never threatened to declare this a national security issue and subvert military funding to build it. So, yeah, I think there is reason to say this has been upgraded in priority.

But why wouldn't his GOP buddies do this thing for him during the past 2 years? Don't they like him?