Trump to make major announcement re shutdown

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

And all of 40% of Americans, who include people of all faiths, races, ethnicities and sexual persuasion, are all racists, as you said?

Please quote where I said exactly that

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

And he actually wants to prevent anyone from coming across the border, as you said?

Not anyone. Just anyone who is brown.

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Like I said... B.S. your just talking rhetoric. 

And why? Probably because someone on the other side did it first. At least admit that to yourself, if not all of us.

I admit nothing

[Imaginarynumber1]

This place has become such a cesspool the last couple years

[bee]

3 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

This place has become such a cesspool the last couple years

 

that's a compliment coming from you... 

 

[+DieChecker]

20 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Please quote where I said exactly that

Not anyone. Just anyone who is brown.

I admit nothing

Does this look familiar?

Quote

Becuase the premise is completely different. Trump wants to bar anyone coming from the south from entering the country. It has nothing to do with drugs or immigration. Just making sure he keeps his racist constituency. 

What can racist constituency mean but the 40% of people still favoring Trump in polls? Are they all racists or not? If not then who exactly are you saying are racists?

Do you serious think that if 5000 white Germans, or Norwegeans, (for example) were trying to illegally cross the border, Trump would have no issue with It? Or if it was Germans smuggling drugs, he'd be ok with it? Because that is what it sounds like you are suggesting.

Edited January 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Becuase the premise is completely different. Trump wants to bar anyone coming from the south from entering the country. It has nothing to do with drugs or immigration. Just making sure he keeps his racist constituency. 

Plus he's an unlikable douche, a criminal,  and a giant man baby

No he doesn't. He has already stated that he is happy with LEGAL migrants from the South. It's just ILLEGAL immigrants he wants to stop. This is NOT racism, and it is STUPID and MENDACIOUS to claim that it is !

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No he doesn't. He has already stated that he is happy with LEGAL migrants from the South. It's just ILLEGAL immigrants he wants to stop. This is NOT racism, and it is STUPID and MENDACIOUS to claim that it is !

Sure hes stated that.  He's also stated that he is the greatest president of all time. Point being the dude is full of crap.

You can choose to isolate the border issue and ignore everything the man has said and done to come up with the conclusion that racism isnt involved, but thats the absolute only way you can arrive at that conclusion.

Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more from places like Norway

Its wholly naive and simply put willfully ignorant to believe this administration cares about border security alone

Trump's attacks on the legal immigration system explained

Really all one needs to do is listen to Trump's bosses to find out where his "brain" actually is

Ann Coulter: We Need a 10-Year Immigration Ban

 

 

[RoofGardener]

41 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure hes stated that.  He's also stated that he is the greatest president of all time. Point being the dude is full of crap.

You can choose to isolate the border issue and ignore everything the man has said and done to come up with the conclusion that racism isnt involved, but thats the absolute only way you can arrive at that conclusion.

Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more from places like Norway

Its wholly naive and simply put willfully ignorant to believe this administration cares about border security alone

Trump's attacks on the legal immigration system explained

Really all one needs to do is listen to Trump's bosses to find out where his "brain" actually is

Ann Coulter: We Need a 10-Year Immigration Ban

 

 

I think you'll find that of all the presidents named "Donald", he is amongst the top for achievements ? 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

I think you'll find that of all the presidents named "Donald", he is amongst the top for achievements ? 

Quite true and in fairness he is the greatest US president to ever serve between 2017 and 2018

Edited January 23, 2019 by Farmer77

[RoofGardener]

46 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Quite true and in fairness he is the greatest US president to ever serve between 2017 and 2018

Well then, that's a "two-ser". 

 

[Michelle]

10 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

This place has become such a cesspool the last couple years

I'm sure you can find an echo chamber somewhere to suit your needs. 

[Tatetopa]

13 hours ago, Michelle said:

I agree Trump is an unlikable douche. It still doesn't explain why Democrats were for the wall until they were against it under Trump.

Only my opinion:  I think part of it is a power struggle between  Congress and the President over the significance of the wall. President Trump wants a big beautiful wall that someday the admiring citizenry will name in his honor.  He has even said that at rallys. He is looking for a monument, and  brilliant as I give him credit for at reading human nature has tied it to border security and cemented it in place with fear.  Congress says they are interested  in border security, but they won't deal if a government shutdown is treated like a hostage.  I don't imagine they are in favor of a Trump Monument either.   

Can border security really be decoupled from shutdowns and monuments?   I would hope so.  Then we would have to talk about the real cost too. Border security will cost a lot more than $5.7 billion. There might be $ 20-30 billion in construction of wall and checkpoints and a yearly maintenance cost covering  personnel  of $5 billion.  Everybody has to get honest or this problem will never be solved.

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, Setton said:

Not sure about over there but here it is the opposition's job to make the government justify its policies and win support (even if they privately agree). If democrats aren't supporting this policy, it could (should) be because they aren't convinced by the administrations arguments. 

It’s called the loyal opposition.  It’s designed not necessarily as a means to check power but a mechanism to encourage negotiation.  But that’s not what we have now.  There is no negotiation and definitely no check of power.  It is to completely disrupt the legitimate Constitutional power of this nation.  This is nothing less than treason.

 

Just about everyone (at one point or another) has expressed the need for a wall (of some form).  It’s not rocket science to understand the need for it.  It is in the best interests of our sovereignty.  How much of it was just lip service?  How much of it is political because some do not want Trump to have this ‘win’?  It’s actually a win for the entire nation to have the wall.  But that’s the gist of the opposition.  They really don’t want the wall because they want open borders.  But open borders cause great harm to a nation.  Instead of opposing the wall, the Progs need to negotiate its final form.  That is the purpose of the loyal opposition.  But from the actions of the Progs, it is obvious that they do not know how to compromise nor are they interested in doing so.

 

This is the problem with the loyal opposition (which is less loyal and more opposition), or in this case the Progs (and I include Rinos).  The Founding Fathers established a system in which the diversity of interests would check each other to put the needs of the nation before the needs of any one group.  However, the Progs still do not acknowledge Trump’s election as legitimate.  Socialism has been trying to usurp this concept to gain power.  I don’t know if the Founding Fathers had really considered such a vigorous and insidious hunger.  It is still going to be a test of the system to see if the Founding Fathers were right?  I trust their insight but one must wonder at what point does one consider the Progs forfeit?

[Setton]

25 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s called the loyal opposition.  It’s designed not necessarily as a means to check power but a mechanism to encourage negotiation.  But that’s not what we have now.  There is no negotiation and definitely no check of power.  It is to completely disrupt the legitimate Constitutional power of this nation.  This is nothing less than treason.

 

 

 

Just about everyone (at one point or another) has expressed the need for a wall (of some form).  It’s not rocket science to understand the need for it.  It is in the best interests of our sovereignty.  How much of it was just lip service?  How much of it is political because some do not want Trump to have this ‘win’?  It’s actually a win for the entire nation to have the wall.  But that’s the gist of the opposition.  They really don’t want the wall because they want open borders.  But open borders cause great harm to a nation.  Instead of opposing the wall, the Progs need to negotiate its final form.  That is the purpose of the loyal opposition.  But from the actions of the Progs, it is obvious that they do not know how to compromise nor are they interested in doing so.

 

 

 

This is the problem with the loyal opposition (which is less loyal and more opposition), or in this case the Progs (and I include Rinos).  The Founding Fathers established a system in which the diversity of interests would check each other to put the needs of the nation before the needs of any one group.  However, the Progs still do not acknowledge Trump’s election as legitimate.  Socialism has been trying to usurp this concept to gain power.  I don’t know if the Founding Fathers had really considered such a vigorous and insidious hunger.  It is still going to be a test of the system to see if the Founding Fathers were right?  I trust their insight but one must wonder at what point does one consider the Progs forfeit?

 

It really is impressive how you fill in both sides of an argument and still manage to make an incoherent mess of it. 

[F3SS]

18 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Iv remade it quite clear several times that I am not a Democrat. I am, however, a hypocrite, a liar, and all around terrible person. But at least I admit to it rather than hiding behind a political ideology

I get that it's your schtick these days to be an admitted ahole but that's not a redeeming quality. Yes yes, you don't care, asterisks, racists and exclamation points. 

[RavenHawk]

On 1/22/2019 at 7:20 PM, Tatetopa said:

Time is money as they say in business.  Reducing wait times and speeding deliveries by a day is a value to every business.  The added cost is not borne by the business alone, but by all of us. I am willing to pay to keep drugs and human traffickers out.

Current wait times for trade is really minor but let’s go with it for debate purposes.  The question will be how much will be saved by speeding up wait times?  How many more inspection stations will be needed?  Don’t get me wrong; I am all for reducing wait times to ensure a 100% check.  But two issues pop up, idle crews and with a porous border, drugs will just go elsewhere to get across the border.  You speed up traffic but you don’t stop the drugs or human trafficking.  One positive outcome of slow wait times is that smugglers act nervous.  Border agents have the experience to tell the difference between just someone nervous and agitated from those that are hiding something.

 

Then comes the great walk-back: cost of expanding checkpoints.    Yep that is the point: city blocks will have to be ripped up, billions of dollars will be spent.   

As long as you are aware that expanding checkpoints will probably be as expensive as building the wall, but the main cost will come in manning and maintenance (of both).  Progs should be offering Trump $12 billion to do both.  When talking about border security, squabbling over $12 billion would be petty.

 

If the wall gets built and a large part of the population thinks the problem is solved, then the checkpoints will not be expanded.

That’s how Progs compromise, open the government then we’ll talk about the wall later.  When later comes, there’ll be no discussion of a wall.  This is a well that Progs have gone to once too many times. 

 

If a large part of the population thinks that the problem would be solved by just building the wall, then the MSM has done their job.  But I think the majority of the Conservative population knows better.  A wall all by itself is ineffective, but with some of the comments I’ve seen here, it is clear many do not understand the dynamics and strategies of what a wall is.  But with a little education, they can understand.  But your argument can go the other way too.  Because people think that 80% of contraband comes through the checkpoints that if we crack down with a 100% check, how many will think that the problem will be solved?  Progs consider border security nothing more than Walmart greeters.

 

So the first place to build fences is around rail yards all the way along the tracks until a train gets to 25mph  and is too hard to jump on.

It would have to be walls, because fences can be cut with a (non-powered) hand tool.  Then you’ll also need to put walls around bends in the tracks as trains slow down to navigate those.  And that’s just rails.  Going back to Santa Teresa, there is also an airport next to the UP railyard.  Then we haven’t talked about the roads.  We’d have to wall up all the rest stops, gas stations and the like.  Where does the wall effort end?

 

Just dismissing costs like that is not what businesses do.  Most large corporations have a loss prevention department to reduce theft and damage.

Actually it is.  They accept losses that are out of their control.  That doesn’t mean that they don’t try to be pro active and seek alternatives that mitigate those losses.  But every business has a threshold of loss that they can tolerate.  It varies from company to company.  Also, that doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t try to do something about it.  Closing down the entire border (not just a part of it) will do it.

 

I don't see this bringing sanity or unity.

Trump is the President.  Anytime the President is successful at improving the lives of Americans is always a positive, and keeping a promise. It gives people a good feeling about their future.  They know he is fighting for them.

 

 Every defense in history also makes use of natural barriers.   

I would say most do and how many times have I stated that?

 

You don't build a wall across mountain tops and then build forts at the passes. 

Actually you can and do.  The Great Wall of China comes to mind.

 

You control the passes first then build the additional barriers you need. 

There is quite a bit of difference between a pass and a checkpoint.  Passes are important to control but there have been many places where the geography was considered impossible to invade through.  Germany invaded France twice (in two separate wars) through the Argonne-Muse.  We don’t need a wall the entire length of the border.  We should use terrain as much as possible, but we can never fall into a false sense of security thinking that nothing will happen over difficult terrain.  These areas need to be manned regularly as any other part of the border is.  When I was in the Marine Corps, we would train with the Border Patrol in California.  We would take the Border Patrol into areas that they didn’t think any human could go and we would find evidence of recent human activity.  We were half rabbit and half mountain goat.

[Tatetopa]

29 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

We don’t need a wall the entire length of the border.  We should use terrain as much as possible, but we can never fall into a false sense of security thinking that nothing will happen over difficult terrain.  T

I sure agree with that.  The rest, I still do not have faith enough to see.

Build your wall, man it patrol it, put drones on it and expensive camera equipment.  You stop lettuce pickers, meat cutters, yard men and Walmart janitors, and 20% of the drugs and human trafficking.   Your hero doesn't have much of an interest in details.  He is going to say  "promise kept" and move on to another summit with little rocket man, and many will follow.

Meanwhile, 80% of the drugs, contraband and human trafficking still comes through check points.

Meanwhile, he has bottle necked legal immigration and at the same time promised farmers that he would make it easier to get those agricultural workers.   All those amnesty applicants would probably be happy doing some nice safe agricultural work while their appeal is on progress.  And we would know where they were.  Where are these workers going to apply and be legal?  They need to come through check points and apply and be vetted  by immigration officers and the immigration courts.

Ann Coulter wants to put a 10 year freeze on immigration.  Does the president give into that?  Does he stiff the farmers to make Ann happy?  I guess we will see. 

41 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Then we haven’t talked about the roads.  We’d have to wall up all the rest stops, gas stations and the like.  Where does the wall effort end?

Sort of an exaggeration there.  A rail yard is a  border crossing.  It is a magnet for people that want to catch a train instead of taking their chances walking across the desert.  As such, it is an efficient place to patrol.  A team could probably  apprehend a lot more illegal crossers there than patrolling 25 miles of desert.   An airport does have security.  You don't really stow away on airplanes and can't buy a ticket without ID.

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

Having initially said the speech should be "on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location", he conceded overnight that he could not deliver on his pledge.

He acknowledged Ms Pelosi's refusal to allow Congress to host the State of the Union address until the shutdown - now in its 34th day - had been resolved.

"This is her prerogative," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46983349

[RavenHawk]

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I sure agree with that.  The rest, I still do not have faith enough to see.

It’s all a packaged deal.  The Great Wall of China took several hundred years to build.  It shouldn’t take that long to build initial structures and at the same time, once initially built we shouldn’t consider it completed.

 

Build your wall, man it patrol it,

It’s not my wall but the nation’s.

 

put drones on it and expensive camera equipment. 

You really don’t want anything too expensive.  If there is one thing about the Border Patrol, they are very hard on their equipment.  My wife told me of this one incident where agents were in a suburban with a retractable camera.  The agents forgot to retract the camera when they engaged in a chase.  Needless to say, that camera had seen better days.  The whole assembly looked like a flaccid phallic.

 

You stop lettuce pickers, meat cutters, yard men and Walmart janitors, and 20% of the drugs and human trafficking.   

They are all criminals.  You illegally cross the border, you commit a crime.  And in order to stay here, you usually need to commit other crimes like fraud and theft.  After committing the first crime, the ones that follow become easier.

 

Your hero

Sounds like you’re disappointed that he is so successful and working for this nation makes the nation successful.

 

doesn't have much of an interest in details.  He is going to say  "promise kept" and move on to another summit with little rocket man, and many will follow.

That’s just leadership style.  That’s why you have subordinates to carry out the details.  Trump’s job is to get results.  If you’re a subordinate that does not produce results, then you’re fired, and he’ll get someone that will produce.  That’s his job.  But I wouldn’t say he has no interests in the details.  And when the wall gets built, he has every right to tout "promise kept".  A President will have many irons in the fire.  Trump is no different.  When the time is appropriate, he will move on to having a summit with Kim Jong Un.  And when done for the moment with that, he’ll move on to the next thing and then the next, etc.  eventually, it will come back to the wall.  There are many aspects to draining the swamp.  One needs patience.

 

Meanwhile, 80% of the drugs, contraband and human trafficking still comes through check points.

But now, with the wall built and properly manned, you can now clamp down on the checkpoints and that contraband has no other place to go.  The border is now secure.

 

Meanwhile, he has bottle necked legal immigration and at the same time promised farmers that he would make it easier to get those agricultural workers.   All those amnesty applicants would probably be happy doing some nice safe agricultural work while their appeal is on progress.  And we would know where they were.  Where are these workers going to apply and be legal?  They need to come through check points and apply and be vetted  by immigration officers and the immigration courts.

That’s the result of illegals.  Illegals effect legal immigration.  It takes time to sort it out.  You have to target those that hire illegals.  This is the reason for quotas.  Any given nation can only absorb so many immigrants at any one time and that limit is not a great number.  We ok about 1 million immigrants into this nation every year.  There are anywhere from 20 to 50 million illegals here.  That is at most 15% of the population.  Nations are toppled by less.  We have millions of Americans out of work.  Ag jobs would be a good way for them to get back into the workforce.  Mark Levin had made a report that showed that those so-called jobs that Americans won’t do are still performed by majority Americans.  Another option, which I’ve suggested before is to bring back an updated version of the Peace Corps where high school grads offer a 2 year service to the nation in any number of roles.  That’s about 3 million a year.  That would cover any need for labor.  This gets the grad into the workforce and provide the grad with a wide range of experiences, training, and study.

 

Ann Coulter wants to put a 10 year freeze on immigration.  Does the president give into that?  Does he stiff the farmers to make Ann happy?  I guess we will see. 

Coulter is just reflecting what many want.  10-year freeze is a reasonable request.  Again, this is the consequences of an open border.  He wouldn’t be stiffing farmers.  Those that refuse to close the border are stiffing them.

 

Sort of an exaggeration there. 

A bit but to make a point. 

 

A rail yard is a  border crossing.  It is a magnet for people that want to catch a train instead of taking their chances walking across the desert. 

A railyard is just a railyard.  You cross the border looking for transportation.  A railyard is one possibility.  You may have already arranged for someone to pick you up in a car.

 

As such, it is an efficient place to patrol.  A team could probably  apprehend a lot more illegal crossers there than patrolling 25 miles of desert.   

But there are 100s of possible places to find a ride even more attractive than a railyard.  Or if a railyard is your only choice, you can wait for the commotion of someone else getting caught then in the confusion, you slip by.

 

An airport does have security.  You don't really stow away on airplanes and can't buy a ticket without ID.

You don’t have to stowaway if the pilot is on a cartel’s payroll and is part of an underground railroad and flies you to a safer location.

[Tatetopa]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You don’t have to stowaway if the pilot is on a cartel’s payroll and is part of an underground railroad and flies you to a safer location.

Well a wall won't stop this either will it?  I guess you can always find a way for someone to sneak by a check point.  Why would not the same logic apply to a wall?  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Well a wall won't stop this either will it?  I guess you can always find a way for someone to sneak by a check point.  Why would not the same logic apply to a wall?  

This is why I don't understand the democrats fighting this wall issue tooth and nail.  

Throw Trump a bone, for gawd's sake. It won't matter, the flow of democrats from south of the border will still get in.

[+DieChecker]

On 1/24/2019 at 12:58 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46983349

So.... Trump being reasonable and the most powerful Democrat in office is not..... 

Democrats need to look at Pelosi and then a mirror and determine if she is what they WANT to look like.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Well a wall won't stop this either will it?  I guess you can always find a way for someone to sneak by a check point.  Why would not the same logic apply to a wall?  

A wall is a static defense. It just by being there funnels people to the active defenses.

It matters a great deal, because it allows for more chances to detect and more chances to sort who comes in.

Just the fences they put up in California decades ago changed the dynamics of immigration from 80% coming undocumented across the desert, to 80% now coming, and staying illegally, after being documented. That is real improvement.

[ExpandMyMind]

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So.... Trump being reasonable and the most powerful Democrat in office is not..... 

Democrats need to look at Pelosi and then a mirror and determine if she is what they WANT to look like.

Nope. More like Trump has been told that he cannot appear before Congress without an invitation and as a result he had been forced to back down.

Pelosi's never been more popular in the past 10 years. Standing up to a bully seems to have a positive effect on public opinion.

Trump is preparing to declare a national emergency now. Such a pressing emergency that he didn't bother to declare one for a full two years. Such an emergency that when his government controlled both the House and Senate and he could have had the funding, he didn't even seem to care about his border wall.

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Trump is preparing to declare a national emergency now. Such a pressing emergency that he didn't bother to declare one for a full two years. Such an emergency that when his government controlled both the House and Senate and he could have had the funding, he didn't even seem to care about his border wall.

Off course its an emergency, his attempt to blame the Dems are not holding water and his popularity is falling. Be Fair EMM

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

.......

Trump is preparing to declare a national emergency now. Such a pressing emergency that he didn't bother to declare one for a full two years. Such an emergency that when his government controlled both the House and Senate and he could have had the funding, he didn't even seem to care about his border wall.

The Republicans didn't control the Senate. They lacked the 60 votes required to pass the funding bill for the wall.