Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump blamed for gov shutdown

334 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
5 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

But he is aspiring to be the President, and this shows just how out of his league he really is.

So I was thinking about it and if you wanted to decay and destroy a nation from within what better way to do it than driving its best civil servants out?  Its not like the administration has even tried to appear sympathetic to their situations and now they freeze their pay. Perhaps it was his Russian BFF that changed his mind about the shutdown and not Laura and Rush after all?

Granted, thats worst case scenario......leaving the best case scenario being that Trump is freezing the pay of millions of middle class folks so he and his elite friends can have a massive tax cut.

'Pouring Salt Into the Wound' Amid Shutdown, Trump Signs Executive Order Freezing Pay of Nearly 2 Million Federal Workers

 

Quote

As justification for the widely denounced move, Trump cited the need to "put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course."

The president's sudden concern for the budget deficit came just months after he signed into law $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, which have disproportionately flowed to wealthy Americans and large corporations.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
4 hours ago, bee said:

 

this is quite amusing....

 

Very revealing how hypocritical the left is. They are willing to build a wall to provide for their own security, and yet deny the same to their fellow countrymen.

Obama and the Clintons are perhaps the worst offenders in this regard. Though the late Teddy Kennedy with his concealed carry permit and armed bodyguards was another prime example given his staunch anti-gun rhetoric.

Edited by Lord Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry

Why does a home owner build a wall around his house? For the purpose of preventing unauthorized entry by non residents. Sounds a lot like a country on a smaller scale to me.

Let me present some of the more left leaning posters here with two hypothetical scenarios. And I want you to tell me which of these two scenarios was the appropriate way a neighbor should act.

Scenario A: It's morning, and my neighbor Doug wants to have a cup of coffee. But he is a bit short on cash and can't afford to pay at the coffee house. He also knows that his neighbor Harry has plenty of coffee in his house. He steps outside and notices Harry's car is not in the driveway, for he has gone to work. So Doug walks up to the front door, picks the lock, enters the house without permission  and helps himself to a cup of coffee.

Scenario B: Same situation, only neighbor Doug waits until Harry is home, rings the door bell and politely asks for a cup of coffee. Harry being a generous man allows Doug entry and provides him with a cup of coffee. After a brief conversation Doug goes his own way back to his house, feeling refreshed.

Answer me this question those of you who are on the left. Which of the two above scenarios was the proper way Doug should act towards his neighbor?

Edited by Lord Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Lord Harry   Simple!  The coffee should be purloined in the name of the people!!  That rich bastid had a whole bag of it!! :D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
36 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Why does a home owner build a wall around his house? For the purpose of preventing unauthorized entry by non residents. Sounds a lot like a country on a smaller scale to me.

Let me present some of the more left leaning posters here with two hypothetical scenarios. And I want you to tell me which of these two scenarios was the appropriate way a neighbor should act.

Scenario A: It's morning, and my neighbor Doug wants to have a cup of coffee. But he is a bit short on cash and can't afford to pay at the coffee house. He also knows that his neighbor Harry has plenty of coffee in his house. He steps outside and notices Harry's car is not in the driveway, for he has gone to work. So Doug walks up to the front door, picks the lock, enters the house without permission  and helps himself to a cup of coffee.

Scenario B: Same situation, only neighbor Doug waits until Harry is home, rings the door bell and politely asks for a cup of coffee. Harry being a generous man allows Doug entry and provides him with a cup of coffee. After a brief conversation Doug goes his own way back to his house, feeling refreshed.

Answer me this question those of you who are on the left. Which of the two above scenarios was the proper way Doug should act towards his neighbor?

Obviously in this analogy, Scenario B. However that's a poor analogy to the immigration debate. Analogies can sometimes be good in order to get a better picture of the situation, but they can sometimes be over simplifications of a complex issue, an issue that can best be discussed by putting analogies aside.

No one on the left is arguing in favor of illegal immigration. What we are arguing is that illegal immigrants are for the most part hard working dreamers who came here with their families for a better life, and already contribute massively to the US economy in many ways; therefore it is in the best interest to not only ourselves, but to these families to allow them a certain degree of leniency by letting them live here temporarily while they're forced to go through the legal process or else face deportation.

Essentially, we both agree that illegal immigration is a crime that needs to be dealt with, we simply disagree as to the severity of the crime as well as the appropriate punishment. 

I'll admit, your hardline immigration stance has a certain degree of harsh simplistic practicality to it. Enter Illegally = Exit Immediately. It would make perfect sense if people were no more than cargo. Yet that 'practicality' completely ignores the morality of the situation. These are human beings, families, not things that you can so easily separate from one another just cause one member of the family lacks the proper paperwork. Nor does it make sense to deport someone and/or their entire family who works hard and contributes to the US economy, who came here seeking a better life. Essentially, once you see how these mass deportations affect these people, you quickly realize how the punishment simply doesn't fit the crime.

 

NOTE: I'm not expecting you in any way to care deportation affects these people, nor should you expect me to respond to some petty retort of yours. I only answered you just now because you asked for a left-winger's genuine take on the situation, and now you have it. As I've said before, I have no interest in debates. They solve nothing.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

And yet, we are ASSURED by the "Left" that walls don't work ? 

Umm.... except when Obama is building it ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

Very revealing how hypocritical the left is. They are willing to build a wall to provide for their own security, and yet deny the same to their fellow countrymen.

Obama and the Clintons are perhaps the worst offenders in this regard. Though the late Teddy Kennedy with his concealed carry permit and armed bodyguards was another prime example given his staunch anti-gun rhetoric.

Have you seen that wall?  It's not really designed to keep people out.  Even has a nice ledge halfway to stand on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Have you seen that wall?  It's not really designed to keep people out.  Even has a nice ledge halfway to stand on.

Truly ? Do you have any links for that ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Gromdor

The decorative metal cross bars on the fencing portion makes for easy climbing too.  It's almost like it isn't for keeping people who want to try and climb it out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Just now, RoofGardener said:

And yet, we are ASSURED by the "Left" that walls don't work ? 

Umm.... except when Obama is building it ? 

We're assured by basic facts. The majority of illegal immigrants come here legally (many of which by plane) and simply overstay their visas.

That doesn't count the number of mountains you'd have to cut through to build a wall, the amount a town's and villages the border runs through, hell, it even runs through people's houses. 

There are those who'll tunnel under it, those who'll find places to climb over it (which they can and will no matter how high it is), or even those who'll swim around it on the edges.

And that doesn't count the countless other illegal immigrants who don't even come from the southern border.

(I'd also mention how statistically speaking, immigration is at a net zero right now since there are more people leaving the US than entering, but that'd most likely just be ignored...)

I mean honestly people, 'building a wall' is such a childishly simple solution that it shouldn't even take any research to puncture the idea full of holes. I could do that off the top of my head since day one of hearing the dumb ass idea...:rolleyes:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The decorative metal cross bars on the fencing portion makes for easy climbing too.  It's almost like it isn't for keeping people who want to try and climb it out.

Yeah... it looks more decorative than anything. 

Still, the two machine gun towers help :D 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

We're assured by basic facts. The majority of illegal immigrants come here legally (many of which by plane) and simply overstay their visas.

That doesn't count the number of mountains you'd have to cut through to build a wall, the amount a town's and villages the border runs through, hell, it even runs through people's houses. 

There are those who'll tunnel under it, those who'll find places to climb over it (which they can and will no matter how high it is), or even those who'll swim around it on the edges.

And that doesn't count the countless other illegal immigrants who don't even come from the southern border.

(I'd also mention how statistically speaking, immigration is at a net zero right now since there are more people leaving the US than entering, but that'd most likely just be ignored...)

I mean honestly people, 'building a wall' is such a childishly simple solution that it shouldn't even take any research to puncture the idea full of holes. I could do that off the top of my head since day one of hearing the dumb ass idea...:rolleyes:

But nevertheless, it will significantly reduce the amount of illegals that make it through... by at least two orders of magnitude, and possibly more. 

It works for the Israeli's, why not for Americans ? :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Yeah... it looks more decorative than anything. 

Still, the two machine gun towers help :D 

And that building in the picture is for Secret Service. 

His house is what, maybe 100' long?  So two machine gun towers and a guard house manned by multiple secret service personnel ($100k salary each) probably is a better deterrent than that wall.  Wouldn't you agree?   A bit too pricey to apply to the southern border though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

But nevertheless, it will significantly reduce the amount of illegals that make it through... by at least two orders of magnitude, and possibly more. 

It works for the Israeli's, why not for Americans ? :)

Israeli is a bit of an apartheid state with multiple armed checkpoints even inside the country.  It also has a law that docks the pay of migrants.  It just isn't a good place for anyone non-jewish to migrate to.  

It's what I have been saying is the problem with the US.  Illegal immigrants in the US have a lower unemployment rate than Americans.  Companies love them, house them, and even give them fake identities- as shown by the latest Trump scandal: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-collects-fake-green-cards-allegedly-supplied-by-trump-club-managers-say-reports_us_5c283ceae4b0407e908346c3

As long as we keep sugar lying around, we will have ants.  We need to remove the sugar and penalize those that encourage and exploit illegal immigrant labor.  Because let's face it, they are a renewable resource. Deporting one just makes room for another.  We need to start punishing those that lure them here.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
44 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Israeli is a bit of an apartheid state with multiple armed checkpoints even inside the country.  It also has a law that docks the pay of migrants.  It just isn't a good place for anyone non-jewish to migrate to.  

It's what I have been saying is the problem with the US.  Illegal immigrants in the US have a lower unemployment rate than Americans.  Companies love them, house them, and even give them fake identities- as shown by the latest Trump scandal: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-collects-fake-green-cards-allegedly-supplied-by-trump-club-managers-say-reports_us_5c283ceae4b0407e908346c3

As long as we keep sugar lying around, we will have ants.  We need to remove the sugar and penalize those that encourage and exploit illegal immigrant labor.  Because let's face it, they are a renewable resource. Deporting one just makes room for another.  We need to start punishing those that lure them here.

I'd have to agree Gromdor. However, that is not to say that the wall wouldn't play a part in the overall immigration strategy. 

It seems an obvious move, to me. 

Share this post


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

I'd have to agree Gromdor. However, that is not to say that the wall wouldn't play a part in the overall immigration strategy. 

It seems an obvious move, to me. 

If I had an ant infestation in my house, I would spend money to clean up the sugar and trash in it first and foremost.  I would not pay a contractor to run around plugging up ant sized holes.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

If I had an ant infestation in my house, I would spend money to clean up the sugar and trash in it first and foremost.  I would not pay a contractor to run around plugging up ant sized holes.

The metaphor is flawed and does not work, Gromdor :) 

Notwithstanding; I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't tighten up its internal controls (assuming that the 'sanctuary cities' even permit such activities). However, the wall would constitute a very useful - and very economical - element of immigration control. 

Share this post


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

The metaphor is flawed and does not work, Gromdor :) 

Notwithstanding; I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't tighten up its internal controls (assuming that the 'sanctuary cities' even permit such activities). However, the wall would constitute a very useful - and very economical - element of immigration control. 

We've had a wall for decades.  The data would indicate that it isn't worth it's cost compared to alternative methods.  $5 billion in extra border guards for example. At $50,000 a year it would buy us 10,000 more for 10 years.  Could station five every mile along the border.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We've had a wall for decades.  The data would indicate that it isn't worth it's cost compared to alternative methods.  $5 billion in extra border guards for example. At $50,000 a year it would buy us 10,000 more for 10 years.  Could station five every mile along the border.

Perhaps. But five guards every mile wouldn't be as effective as a suitable wall :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
34 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Perhaps. But five guards every mile wouldn't be as effective as a suitable wall :) 

You have data on that?  As a teen I've climbed walls and fences to go where I wasn't supposed to, but I don't recall ever trying to sneak past a security guard.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
16 hours ago, and then said:

It will become too obvious how little we miss the gobment  ;  

Well I would miss my postman. I don't want my friendly down the street neighbor the ICE officer to lose his house.  I like the Forest Service, air traffic controllers and meat inspectors.  The weather service is nice to have. We may be pulling all of the troops back, but I think we will need to keep a modern effective armed forces.Somebody has to collect all of those tariffs.  I would miss a good portion of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
13 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well I would miss my postman. I don't want my friendly down the street neighbor the ICE officer to lose his house.  I like the Forest Service, air traffic controllers and meat inspectors.  The weather service is nice to have. We may be pulling all of the troops back, but I think we will need to keep a modern effective armed forces.Somebody has to collect all of those tariffs.  I would miss a good portion of them.

The Secret Service and Homeland Security are also missing pay checks/funding.  If security is such a huge issue, wouldn't doing things that cause them to have weaknesses and lapses be counter productive?  It's like saying,  "Crime is running rampant- lets not pay police officers until the public approves a tax to pay them more."

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry

Deleted. 

Edited by Lord Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Part of the reason crime is running rampant is because liberals no longer allow the punishment to fit the crime.  Death sentences should be carried out swiftly with a maximum of one appeal. 

If prisons were run like they were in the old days, think the film Shawshank Redemption, violent crime would be far lower. Not to mention illegal aliens commit an inordinate amount of violent crime. As does another segment  which makes up 13% of the population. 

Open mention of which will likely result in my suspension so I will refrain.  So I will limit myself to mentioning that this unnamed population group commits well over 50% of the nation's violent crime in spite of making up only 13% of the population.

It's the Constitution again that is thwarting you not the Democrats.  I honestly think you would have been much happier if you were born in North Korea or China.  They seem to adhere to the ideals you value.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.