Trump to make major announcement re shutdown

[skliss]

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It's Poker. I believe that the dems are using the fact that Trump is being held responsible for the shutdown as a bargaining chip, so they will drive a hard bargain.

We'll see. Trump still has that "Trump" card,  the declaration of  a "national state of emergency".

I don't know, my Dem relatives are wondering why their side isn't either taking the deal or trying to work something out. The fact that Trump took the first step made an impression on them. The longer they look to be playing politics instead of working for the people will take a toll. 

[RavenHawk]

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

His last offer to the Dems was to ignore it for 3 years. That's Trump speak for "I can't win, so I'll pretend it's a concession."

No, that is not Trump speak for “I can’t win”.  He is the President, he will win.  It is just a matter of getting all the right pieces lined up.  Obama crammed Obamacare down our throats to impose Socialism.  Trump is exercising his Constitutional powers to defend this country.  You need to stop listening to the MSM, who don’t like, let alone understand him.

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, skliss said:

I don't know, my Dem relatives are wondering why their side isn't either taking the deal or trying to work something out. The fact that Trump took the first step made an impression on them. The longer they look to be playing politics instead of working for the people will take a toll. 

The deal that he will kick the DACA and TPS down the road for three years in exchange for a wall?  How is that even a deal?

He can't offer more because the Republicans will start abandoning him:https://www.vox.com/2019/1/20/18190721/immigration-hardliners-outraged-trump-shutdown-deal

And what he has isn't enough to sway the Dems.

 

[skliss]

Just now, Gromdor said:

The deal that he will kick the DACA and TPS down the road for three years in exchange for a wall?  How is that even a deal?

He can't offer more because the Republicans will start abandoning him:https://www.vox.com/2019/1/20/18190721/immigration-hardliners-outraged-trump-shutdown-deal

And what he has isn't enough to sway the Dems.

 

I'm just telling you their thoughts. They are increasingly annoyed by the whole thing. Of course many of them remember when Congress used to make deals and compromise. I have to think some of the more moderate Dems like them....who don't haveTDS.... must be contacting their reps because I've seen a few congress people today talking about the fact that they could vote for something with a wall in it. I just listen, but it seems to me the Dems in my family are aware "the wall" actually means a limited barrier with tech backup, etc. No one seems opposed to that thus wondering why the lack of dialogue going on.

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, skliss said:

I'm just telling you their thoughts. They are increasingly annoyed by the whole thing. Of course many of them remember when Congress used to make deals and compromise. I have to think some of the more moderate Dems like them....who don't haveTDS.... must be contacting their reps because I've seen a few congress people today talking about the fact that they could vote for something with a wall in it. I just listen, but it seems to me the Dems in my family are aware "the wall" actually means a limited barrier with tech backup, etc. No one seems opposed to that thus wondering why the lack of dialogue going on.

Hmm.  That's the opposite of around here.  The Republicans here don't want Trump to give anything for DACA or TPS and will vote against it if he gives the Dems anything.  Of course my Congressman is Steve King and he has been on the news a lot lately for his, err...  racially tolerant views.

[RavenHawk]

On 1/19/2019 at 3:02 PM, Tatetopa said:

Ok, good enough analogy.  If the end of the hose is wide open, even if there are small holes  in the hose, most of the water will flow out the end.  That is what many of the border security experts are saying.  Most of the traffic comes through by rail, truck, boat, and private vehicles at check points.  Border patrol thinks they inspect about 8% of vehicles.  Coast Guard interdicts 20% of drugs they get tips on because they don't have equipment or manpower.  So, put a nozzle on the end of the hose first and then look for the smaller leaks.  Build and enforce your border where people are getting across, steadily improve surveillance.   Walls, fences, barriers, what ever you call them are effective in critical areas.  

So does it not make sense to plug the big leak first then go after the smaller ones?  Tell you what, while the checkpoints at the end of the hose are open, that is where the drugs will flow.  You won't find much crossing the border in hiker's backpacks as long as Walter White can drive the family station wagon through a checkpoint with 500 pounds of drugs hidden in the kids luggage. 

 

We don’t need to go looking for the leaks along the border.  There’s one every 10 feet.  Shutting down the checkpoints, you don’t end up reducing the amount of traffic, it just finds another place to cross and you still end up needing a wall.  Building the wall will put added pressure on the cartels to push more through the checkpoints and that will cause them to make mistakes.  We need to also beef up checkpoints.  We need to do both.  This is not an either or situation.  Surveillance alone is useless.  All that does is to allow you to see the scores of people crossing the border.  It doesn’t do anything to slow them down or apprehend them.  A wall slows them down; allows time for patrols to respond.  Sure, a 31’ ladder may defeat a 30’ wall but it takes time to cart drugs or humans finding it difficult to move.  Individuals are exposed.  Not too many people will be caring a 31’ ladder with them anyway.  Surveillance will beef up a wall so you can see those carrying 31’ ladders as they get close to the border.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

30 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

We need to also beef up checkpoints.  We need to do both. 

Absolutely.  Both or it doesn't work. They'll just go for the weakest link

[skliss]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Hmm.  That's the opposite of around here.  The Republicans here don't want Trump to give anything for DACA or TPS and will vote against it if he gives the Dems anything.  Of course my Congressman is Steve King and he has been on the news a lot lately for his, err...  racially tolerant views.

Yeah, he seems like a real treat...lol I don't know what the Republican representatives around here think at the moment. The ones in my family had no problem with a deal for DACA that wasn't straight amnesty across the board. There had to be some vetting, requirements and getting rid of chain migration. Plus of course more border security via barriers, technology and more agents.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

We don’t need to go looking for the leaks along the border.  There’s one every 10 feet.  Shutting down the checkpoints, you don’t end up reducing the amount of traffic, it just finds another place to cross and you still end up needing a wall.  Building the wall will put added pressure on the cartels to push more through the checkpoints and that will cause them to make mistakes.

Roughly 75,000 trucks and 100 freight trains cross the US Mexico border daily.  We do a lot of trade in both directions across the border.  This is where most of the drugs come north and guns go south along with a smattering of other contraband in both directions.   To keep from stifling legal trade and hurting our own economy, legal traffic needs to flow.  And yet it seems 80% of the drugs coming in do so through checkpoints.  The other 20% may be those young Mexican boys with cantelope-sized calf muscles carrying it across the desert in backpacks, or it may be by airplanes or vehicles.

Resources and time are always limited.  It makes good use of both to the best advantage. If stopping drugs is what you care about then  stop the 80% first, then spend  more time and money going after the next 20% .  Checkpoints first, then extended barriers.   If the cartels are already putting 80% through checkpoints,  a wall will not increase pressure much or cause them to make mistakes.  Being able to inspect more highway and rail traffic will add pressure.   Risk of detection at checkpoints has to be higher before it is more effective to go cross country and hope not to be apprehended. 

Checkpoints first. 

There is a second commercial argument for better checkpoints: faster, smoother product delivery.  A truck full of produce on its way to a grocery warehouse or even a truck full of auto parts destined for an assembly plant incurs extra cost when it sits in a day long line at a crossing.  Moving trains are harder to jump on. Trains parked in a rail yard waiting for crossing are targets.  Foot traffic sneaks on board looking for a hiding place.  The odd boxcar gets broken into and a truck load of auto paint disappears into the sunset.   Since this is a capitalist nation and business benefits from faster crossing, maybe businesses would be willing to share some of the expense of improved checkpoints.  

 

[RavenHawk]

On 1/19/2019 at 12:39 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

So basically for him to become full blown dictator to get his own way is what you want.

 

Allowing the President to exercise his Constitutional powers to defend this nation is not becoming a dictator.  Has Trump curtailed freedom of speech or restricted the right to carry arms?  Progs want to curtail speech, at least anything that doesn’t fall in line with their way of thinking.  Obama had signed multiple EOs restricting guns.  Progs are for open borders which act to destroy the nation.  That is counter to the President’s duties.  So who’s the dictator?  The Progs are doing everything they can to usurp the powers of the President.

 

People are failing to realise that Dems control the House and they have a duty to their constituents,

They actually have a duty to the nation first and they are failing both.  That is what people are failing to realize.

 

the majority of US citizens (not to mention plenty of Republicans who don't care about the tiny bit of wall that this funding will produce), to not build the pointless wall.

The majority want border defense.  You can’t have a border defense without a wall being part of the equation.  The majority want illegals to get out of the country.  Because of the misinformation campaign by the MSM, it’s hard to know what people really want, because they don’t understand what all is needed and the MSM will keep it that way.  Do people really understand that surveillance (technology) alone does nothing to keep unwanted populations out?  That confusion is the secret of the Progs power.  Divide and conquer.

 

There are three branches of government for a reason.

Absolutely!  They are there to check power but also to work together to provide a functional government to defend this nation.

 

You can't just declare a state of emergency because you're not getting your own way with one of them. That's outright madness.

It is his prerogative.  When one branch is endangering the safety of the nation, it is the President’s duty to act to get it back on track.  A balance of power only works when all three work together.  The one is acting like a spoiled brat because it wants open borders and to Hell with the lives of American citizens.  That is madness.

 

People also don't seem to realise that Trump only spent half of the 1.7b he previously received for the wall on the actual wall. Why would his government be trusted with another 5b dollars?

And what happened to the rest?  You’re only now concerned with trust after 8 years under Obama?  That is rich.

[Hankenhunter]

5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The deal that he will kick the DACA and TPS down the road for three years in exchange for a wall?  How is that even a deal?

He can't offer more because the Republicans will start abandoning him:https://www.vox.com/2019/1/20/18190721/immigration-hardliners-outraged-trump-shutdown-deal

And what he has isn't enough to sway the Dems.

 

I've been bouncing around checking the polls today and Trump has suffered his biggest loss of voters this month due to the shut down. It seems some of his base and independents were listening when Trump said he'd own the shutdown. The last of the food stamp cash was spent today, so that should speed up the exodus a bit more. There's also a lot more interviews with Trump voters expressing buyer's remorse. It's slowly slipping away from him and his buddy Rudy seems to be doing his best to speed it up. 

[aztek]

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@aztek   What's WRONG is, liberal thinking. It's upside down and backwards.

[RavenHawk]

22 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Roughly 75,000 trucks and 100 freight trains cross the US Mexico border daily.  We do a lot of trade in both directions across the border.  This is where most of the drugs come north and guns go south along with a smattering of other contraband in both directions.   To keep from stifling legal trade and hurting our own economy, legal traffic needs to flow.  And yet it seems 80% of the drugs coming in do so through checkpoints.

 

The drugs that do come through checkpoints are in cars too and between cars and trucks is a tiny fraction of the total.  Yes, we need 100% accountability at checkpoints, but we still need to inspect incoming traffic anyway.  There are limited resources.  You need many more inspection stations and crews to man each station.  How many will that be to achieve 100%?  What do you do in non-peak times with all those idle crews?  That is a waste of time and manpower.  Unfortunately, there will be long lines no matter how much you adjust.  And again, if we are able to stop this 80% at the checkpoints, it will simply go where the 20% has been going and we will still need a wall.

 

The other 20% may be those young Mexican boys with cantelope-sized calf muscles carrying it across the desert in backpacks, or it may be by airplanes or vehicles.

You think that only young Mexican boys with cantaloupe-sized calves are moving drugs?  I suppose you haven’t seen the surveillance videos of mules moving drugs across the border.  Most are young and there are some females but they are hardly athletic.

 

Resources and time are always limited.  It makes good use of both to the best advantage.

Absolutely!  A wall reduces the problem significantly.  Makes for more efficient use of manpower.  Where it might have taken a dozen agents to cover 20 miles of border.  1 agent can cover a 20-mile wall segment with cameras and sensors.  Mind you, that doesn’t replace regular patrols, but even that job becomes easier with a wall.

 

If stopping drugs is what you care about then  stop the 80% first, then spend  more time and money going after the next 20% . 

But you don’t stop the 80% if you have a porous border.  If I care about stopping drugs and human trafficking, I want a permanent solution and that can only be done initially by a wall.

 

Checkpoints first, then extended barriers.   

Again, doing checkpoints first is just going to create the largest whack-a-mole effect ever.  That will court disappointment and disaster.  Building the wall first gives a much better ROI and energize moral of the border agents.

 

If the cartels are already putting 80% through checkpoints,  a wall will not increase pressure much or cause them to make mistakes. 

Absolutely it will.  Knowing the cartels will soon be shutout, they’re going to try to push more through checkpoints.  They’ll have all of this product and no place to go with it.  In a way, they have shareholders too.

 

Being able to inspect more highway and rail traffic will add pressure.   

It will be the final nail in the coffin after the wall is up.  But again, when other avenues become more lucrative, that’s where the drugs will go.  If you close a door or window, they still have an immense border to choose from.

 

Risk of detection at checkpoints has to be higher before it is more effective to go cross country and hope not to be apprehended. 

And if you don’t have a wall, risk of detection across the entire border will be pretty much nil.  When the checkpoints become secure, what are you going to do then?  That 80% added to the 20% of the drugs will be smuggled over the entire border now.  You just made the problem worse.  The cartels will have to spend a bit more but that’s what they will do to get their product across.  This is big business.  On the frontier border, the cartels will be armed and agents will be outnumbered.  Then after a time, when security at the checkpoints lapse, drugs will start coming back over through the checkpoints.  That certainly seems to be what the Progs want.

 

Checkpoints first. 

One usually builds the barn (wall) first before erecting the doors (checkpoint).  If you are so concerned about the checkpoints, then let’s get the wall up asap.  Checkpoints will be so much more efficient with a wall in place.

 

There is a second commercial argument for better checkpoints: faster, smoother product delivery. 

That’s still part of your original argument (“stifling legal trade and hurting our own economy”).  It’s no more than what people are now use to.

 

A truck full of produce on its way to a grocery warehouse

I would think that they already accommodate perishables.

 

or even a truck full of auto parts destined for an assembly plant incurs extra cost when it sits in a day long line at a crossing.  

That’s a cost already factored in.

 

Moving trains are harder to jump on. Trains parked in a rail yard waiting for crossing are targets.  Foot traffic sneaks on board looking for a hiding place.  The odd boxcar gets broken into and a truck load of auto paint disappears into the sunset.   

This occurs all across the country anyway.

 

Since this is a capitalist nation and business benefits from faster crossing, maybe businesses would be willing to share some of the expense of improved checkpoints.  

Insurance covers theft.  Break-ins will occur after crossing at switchyards (before arriving to the final destination).

[Tatetopa]

34 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s a cost already factored in.

That cost is factored into the prices we pay for goods.   We are paying that price. There isn't a successful business that wouldn't jump at a chance to reduce their costs.

 

35 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

This occurs all across the country anyway.

When a train stops in Kansas city, there is no opportunity for people to jump on and ride it across the border.  When a train stops in Nogales and sits for a day,  there is a chance for that to happen.

 

39 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Insurance covers theft.  Break-ins will occur after crossing at switchyards (before arriving to the final destination).

Insurance covers theft, insurance rates go up.  Who pays that?  If you file a claim and get reimbursed for your product a month later, and don't have the product when you need it, it is not as good as than eliminating the theft.

 

45 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The drugs that do come through checkpoints are in cars too and between cars and trucks is a tiny fraction of the total.  Yes, we need 100% accountability at checkpoints, but we still need to inspect incoming traffic anyway.  There are limited resources.  You need many more inspection stations and crews to man each station.  How many will that be to achieve 100%?  What do you do in non-peak times with all those idle crews?  That is a waste of time and manpower.  Unfortunately, there will be long lines no matter how much you adjust.  And again, if we are able to stop this 80% at the checkpoints, it will simply go where the 20% has been going and we will still need a wall.

Those are issues that need to be solved whether we have a wall or not. Here is my big issue with building a wall first.  The wall gets built, people get to pump their fists, pound their chests, say promise kept, and walk away.  We turn our backs on an ongoing problem and nothing else happens.  When the cost of improving the checkpoints turns out to be another $5 billion, Congress and the President lose interest. You get a wall and a promise and too little change.

You think a wall is the primary instrument of border security and checkpoints are second.  I reverse that order.  I know you will have to build more barriers when the border crossings are tightened up, but until they are, checkpoints are the way most of the drugs come. in. 

[RavenHawk]

13 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

That cost is factored into the prices we pay for goods.   We are paying that price. There isn't a successful business that wouldn't jump at a chance to reduce their costs.

Correct but that price would go up with more infrastructure.  We would be increasing the work, not reducing it.  There is also the issue with space.  Very few border crossings can be expanded easily.  There’s that cost.  For example, the Paso Del Norte (El Paso) crossing would require ripping up city blocks to rebuild.  You could move it to Santa Teresa just to the west where there is nothing but desert, then you can expand the facility.

 

When a train stops in Kansas city, there is no opportunity for people to jump on and ride it across the border.  When a train stops in Nogales and sits for a day,  there is a chance for that to happen.

One would cross the border other than at a checkpoint and then hop a train from a nearby railyard and then you’d have access anywhere in the nation.  Using Santa Teresa again, there is a Union Pacific yard right there.

 

Insurance covers theft, insurance rates go up.  Who pays that?  If you file a claim and get reimbursed for your product a month later, and don't have the product when you need it, it is not as good as than eliminating the theft.

That’s just the insurance game.

 

Those are issues that need to be solved whether we have a wall or not.

agreed.

 

Here is my big issue with building a wall first.  The wall gets built, people get to pump their fists, pound their chests, say promise kept, and walk away.  We turn our backs on an ongoing problem and nothing else happens.  When the cost of improving the checkpoints turns out to be another $5 billion, Congress and the President lose interest. You get a wall and a promise and too little change.

The nation needs that ‘promise kept’ just for sanity and unity, but I don’t see this as a walk-away proposition.  I’ve always warned against it.  My concern was never the building of the wall but what we do with it after.  The wall is the first step to building up a border system.  After the wall is build, we add sensors, cameras, turrets and towers, relay stations and OPs, add drone technology.  Schedule regular and irregular patrols (foot, mounted (horse & vehicle), air (fixed-wing & rotary-wing), and drone).  Provide for maintenance and upgrade.  It becomes something that is alive and never sleeps.    It’s on duty 24x7.  It becomes a blue-collar wall.

 

If the concern is that we build it and walk away, which I don’t think Trump supporters would go for, then why don’t the Progs step up to the plate and see to it that it is funded?  That would be a win-win for everyone.  It would be a symbol of American unity.

 

You think a wall is the primary instrument of border security and checkpoints are second. 

As with any defensive structure in history, the wall is of most import.  After the wall, then it is the gate that is the weakest point.  But who builds a gate before the wall?

 

I reverse that order.  I know you will have to build more barriers when the border crossings are tightened up, but until they are, checkpoints are the way most of the drugs come. in. 

At what point do you decide when the border crossings are tightened up enough?  Long before that happens, drugs will be crossing the border elsewhere.  You’re not stopping anything.  The number of Points of Entry are very few in number compared to the entire length of the border.  If the PoE become problematic to the cartels, they have pretty much infinity to push contraband across.  The cartels would be able to overwhelm border patrol on a wall-less border.

[Hankenhunter]

Could it be over? 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426469-senate-to-vote-on-dueling-government-funding-bills?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Not likely.

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Correct but that price would go up with more infrastructure.  We would be increasing the work, not reducing it.  There is also the issue with space.  Very few border crossings can be expanded easily.  There’s that cost.  For example, the Paso Del Norte (El Paso) crossing would require ripping up city blocks to rebuild.  You could move it to Santa Teresa just to the west where there is nothing but desert, then you can expand the facility.

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.

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

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

One would cross the border other than at a checkpoint and then hop a train from a nearby railyard and then you’d have access anywhere in the nation.  Using Santa Teresa again, there is a Union Pacific yard right there.

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.

 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s just the insurance game.

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

 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The nation needs that ‘promise kept’ just for sanity and unity,

I don't see this bringing sanity or unity.

 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

As with any defensive structure in history, the wall is of most import.  After the wall, then it is the gate that is the weakest point.  But who builds a gate before the wall?

 Every defense in history also makes use of natural barriers.   You don't build a wall across mountain tops and then build forts at the passes.  You control the passes first then build the additional barriers you need. 

[Imaginarynumber1]

On 1/21/2019 at 2:40 PM, Tatetopa said:

Roughly 75,000 trucks and 100 freight trains cross the US Mexico border daily.  We do a lot of trade in both directions across the border.  This is where most of the drugs come north and guns go south along with a smattering of other contraband in both directions.   To keep from stifling legal trade and hurting our own economy, legal traffic needs to flow.  And yet it seems 80% of the drugs coming in do so through checkpoints.  The other 20% may be those young Mexican boys with cantelope-sized calf muscles carrying it across the desert in backpacks, or it may be by airplanes or vehicles.

 

This is the part that always confounds me. Do people really think that thousands of pounds of weed/coke/heroin/etc are being covertly smuggled through the desert and through tunnels under the border rather than right through the gates? BP searches what, 8% of the vehicles that cross daily? 

 

[Imaginarynumber1]

4 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Could it be over? 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426469-senate-to-vote-on-dueling-government-funding-bills?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Not likely.

 

 

[Michelle]

The tip of the iceberg. The reports go back for years...

US and Mexican authorities have discovered an incomplete cross-border drug smuggling tunnel complete with a rail track and a solar-powered lighting and ventilation system.

The US border patrol said on Tuesday that the clandestine passage measured 627 feet (191 meters), including 336ft inside US territory, in California. The tunnel builders had started working on an exit shaft north of the border, but had not broken the surface before it was discovered.

US agents find major Mexico drug tunnel covered by bin in California

 

 

 

Mexican police discovered the tunnel on 19 September while searching a home 221ft south of the border, in the town of Jacume, in Baja California state.

The border patrol said that a solar panel system had been set up to power lighting and ventilation systems inside the tunnel, which was also equipped with a rail system along its entire length, and two pumps to drain water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/solar-powered-drug-tunnel-discovered-on-mexican-border-with-california

Don't think they are stupid.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

36 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

This is the part that always confounds me. Do people really think that thousands of pounds of weed/coke/heroin/etc are being covertly smuggled through the desert and through tunnels under the border rather than right through the gates? BP searches what, 8% of the vehicles that cross daily? 

 

That has to be addressed, too

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That has to be addressed, too

It won't be. Like Tatetopa said, if they wall gets built, that'll be it. Your lot will claim victory and will soon forget all about any further concerns down the line. 

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

It won't be. Like Tatetopa said, if they wall gets built, that'll be it. Your lot will claim victory and will soon forget all about any further concerns down the line. 

Eight per cent seems like quite a lot,  One of the Customs' major goals is to facilitate trade.  You have to get smarter in selecting which target to impede.  That might mean setting up compliance programs with exporters (if that's not a thing already).  But, that means cooperating with Mexico and Canada.

[Michelle]

19 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

It won't be. Like Tatetopa said, if they wall gets built, that'll be it. Your lot will claim victory and will soon forget all about any further concerns down the line. 

I'm not sure who "your lot" is, but I've been on board ever since Democrats were all for it.

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Michelle