The border wall...
- Thread starter lady_lover
- Start date
I am coming around to the idea hey might declare a national emergency after all. Think about it.
1) it's a lie.
2) he won't have to *do* anything. It will be challenged in court, so he can say he did it but never show results
3) it's destructive for the country and for his party (the Dems have a few things they would use this power for).
I can see him doing it, actually.
1) it's a lie.
2) he won't have to *do* anything. It will be challenged in court, so he can say he did it but never show results
3) it's destructive for the country and for his party (the Dems have a few things they would use this power for).
I can see him doing it, actually.
What's scary is that Valcazar is a better debater than the truly crazy TDS victims who can't make a cogent point about U.S. policy. Trump can certainly qualify as an asshole, but sometimes I think he's being torched simply because he's not doing WOWD (What Obama Would Do). There needs to be hell to pay for anyone who would dare reverse the policies of the Great One. The TDS mob and the liberal media are ensuring no Republican politician ever dares cross a liberal icon ever again.
Many keep gloating that Pelosi won the shutdown. Did anyone really win? Did Americans who want immigration reform win? Did young DACA applicants win? Is fighting to a standstill (and gridlock) really a victory for Democrats?
At some point there will be likely need to be a grand compromise and that means both sides accept things that are unpalatable to both their bases.
At some point there will be likely need to be a grand compromise and that means both sides accept things that are unpalatable to both their bases.
There are walls on the border and much of it was built under Clinton. I believe some under Obama. Perhaps the secure fence. Those walls will likely exist long after Trump. Is the idea of finishing the wall (or some kind of barrier) racist and immoral, but a partial wall is copacetic?
I'm sorry Doc, but this is why it bothers me when people think the news media is informing them. No, it's trying to manipulate and divide us. Many moderate Democrats are backing away from the immorality rhetoric. If you ask me that's just Mama Pelosi feeding red meat to her newly-elected leftist cubs.
Considering the relative positions, yes fighting to a standstill was a win. And you are right, there will need to be compromise, something the Dems have repeatedly offered. I know you like to pretend the whole "we exchange the wall for DACA protection" didn't happen but it did.
There are two problems right now. 1) The GOP needs to offer things the Dems want if there is going to be a compromise. They have been very reluctant to do that on immigration. 2) Even if an agreement is reached, Trump is an unreliable negotiator. He has repeatedly failed to stick to his deals (not just talking president, this is his MO going back decades) and he lies constantly. It isn't rational to make deals with someone like that unless you have enforcement methods that keep him from reneging.
"the wall is immoral/racist" depends entirely on what you mean when you say "wall". For instance, the 700 miles of existing wall being rebuilt/reinforced isn't something Dems are objecting to. They have repeatedly offered it.
Yes, Trump has been an unreliable negotiator, but he also has to deal with the extreme Freedom Caucus just like Nancy has to deal with the new Young Socialists. If you're talking about the Dem offers last year, my take was that it was kind of this drip, drip, drip of funding. I'm not sure it was here is the whole enchilada to pay for the wall. It seemed to be a rhetorical device to say hey we offered Trump money for the wall and he won't take it. You have to realize those of us old enough to remember have been hearing about securing the border and tightening illegal immigration since the 1980s. So people are jaded on both sides depending on their views on the matter of illegal immigration.
I personally believe the current partial border barriers just moves the illegal crossings somewhere else on the border.
Liberal media is clever not to discuss "The Wall" with Border patrolmen or their Union Reps. Hell, Obama's own Border head supports building a wall. It would seem many liberals would dismiss Fox News for interviewing these people as if they were just any ol' opinion, but it is very relevant point of view that often gets conveniently ignored.
PS- If the Supreme Court is forced to resolve it (as opposed to Congress and the President), I don't think the Court is going to uphold Obama's executive amnesty for DACA applicants.
I personally believe the current partial border barriers just moves the illegal crossings somewhere else on the border.
Liberal media is clever not to discuss "The Wall" with Border patrolmen or their Union Reps. Hell, Obama's own Border head supports building a wall. It would seem many liberals would dismiss Fox News for interviewing these people as if they were just any ol' opinion, but it is very relevant point of view that often gets conveniently ignored.
PS- If the Supreme Court is forced to resolve it (as opposed to Congress and the President), I don't think the Court is going to uphold Obama's executive amnesty for DACA applicants.
Those are separate. My first point about the GOP not willing to offer anything was about the Freedom Caucus. Trump's pattern of going back on deals is on top of that. As I mentioned, that history goes back to his days as a real estate guy in NYC, it isn't a consequence of the political structure.
You're confusing two offers. There was one for first year paid, the rest negotiated. There was a later one for budget laid out over 10 years, which is pretty standard. In both cases, they involved giving DACA protections and paths to citizenship, and Trump moved against them in the end.
And interpreted in that light, you can say Trump was right to reject the offer, if he thought the Dems were asking for too much. But that is how negotiating works, you make compromises. So far, Trump has not wanted the Wall enough to give up anything else for it. One conclusion is he doesn't really want the wall, he just wants the talking point.
You must be very upset that Trump keeps saying he doesn't mean a wall over the whole border then.
You mean like when the washingtonpost and newsweek and the nytimes reported on Morgan's remarks? Damn liberal media.
I agree. I am honestly surprised at the rulings that already happened (except the one that said it should stay until the lawsuit was settled). But I really can't see any strong legal argument against Trump being allowed to simply let it expire or otherwise shut it down.
The gentlemen doth parses too much, methinks.
As I have said before, when you parse and challenge every sentence we kind of lose the big picture of which is merely differences in opinion. If the effect you are looking for is to grind and wear on someone's perspective, I congratulate you. I began to think about your thoughts, but then I threw up my hands and said where do I even begin.
As I have said before, when you parse and challenge every sentence we kind of lose the big picture of which is merely differences in opinion. If the effect you are looking for is to grind and wear on someone's perspective, I congratulate you. I began to think about your thoughts, but then I threw up my hands and said where do I even begin.
In my opinion, the entire political discussion over The Wall has been a intense amount of parsing. I've never seen such a simple idea or issue so chopped into petty little arguments. It's immoral. It's racist. It's not effective. It's too expensive ..........and on and on.
You are either for building more walls or you're not. A wall can't possibly hurt in preventing illegal narcotics, illegal immigration and sex trafficking. The Border Patrol agents say it would help them do your job. People aren't stupid Valcazar. The Democratic politicians fighting the hardest against the building of the wall are also the most embracing of illegal aliens here in this country. That's a political reality. Most Wall supporters know that the wall is somewhat permanent and not subject to the whims of the Executive branch on border enforcement. I'm afraid liberal opponents know the same thing.
You are either for building more walls or you're not. A wall can't possibly hurt in preventing illegal narcotics, illegal immigration and sex trafficking. The Border Patrol agents say it would help them do your job. People aren't stupid Valcazar. The Democratic politicians fighting the hardest against the building of the wall are also the most embracing of illegal aliens here in this country. That's a political reality. Most Wall supporters know that the wall is somewhat permanent and not subject to the whims of the Executive branch on border enforcement. I'm afraid liberal opponents know the same thing.
I know it upsets you when you get quoted, but the quotes are for people who want to follow the conversation and what is being said.
I mean, you just said that debating if the wall was too expensive or effective isn't appropriate. I mean, is this your criteria for every government program? You don't care about cost or effectiveness? (I presume you are also in favor of the F-35?)
Yes, of course people know the wall is a somewhat permanent (or at least long-term) thing. Wasting money on a permanent boondoggle is something I would like my government not to do.
I mean, you just said that debating if the wall was too expensive or effective isn't appropriate. I mean, is this your criteria for every government program? You don't care about cost or effectiveness? (I presume you are also in favor of the F-35?)
Citation needed. (It's ok, I know you are just going to say that the fact they are fighting the wall is the proof.)
Yes, of course people know the wall is a somewhat permanent (or at least long-term) thing. Wasting money on a permanent boondoggle is something I would like my government not to do.
^^^^^ Last paragraph. That is what most governments do, spend on things that are not needed. Calgary and Edmonton have spent millions on the most ugly art available, not quite a $6 billion wall but enough for a lot of people to say stop it. Majority of governments overspend on useless shit, perks for themselves, make the employment rate go up hire thousands of public servants. Billions of tax dollars are wasted daily.
Of course, one questions effectiveness. I just don't want to hear a laundry list of weak objections on why Democrats oppose extending the wall. More objections doesn't necessarily make a better, more clear argument. Think of it this way, if you're saying more wall isn't necessarily effective than raising more objections isn't necessarily effective. However, that's politics......a lot of whining, crying and theater.
There have been barriers on our Southern border for several years. I just don't see how extending the barriers where geography allows doesn't improve our control of the border.
To paraphrase a Democratic talking point, the wall is a 14th century solution to a 14th century problem.
Valcazar, your discussion or debating style is to break down statements line item by item. That works fine if you want to pull out one statement to challenge or two statements. If you take a long post, cut it up and challenge many small pieces, not only do you lose the conversational flow, but as I've said many times you lose context. Some discussions should be left to bigger ideas and opinions. That's how you would converse with and challenge someone in the same room. Just because forums allow us to chop and dice, we can grind the discussion into you said this and back and forth.
In the above post, I conceded Trump was an unreliable negotiator. That pretty much encapsulates my overall opinion. We also know the Freedom Caucus is trying to limit his abilities to extend or make DACA law. Nancy Pelosi has to be influenced by the new Democratic Socialists. No money for the wall is a different position from last year. The anti-ICE rhetoric is kind of a more vocal thing from the Left.
I'm not a big fan of taking second hand accounts of political negotiations and analyzing them. The participants, their acolytes and their sympathizing media outlets do an awfully lot of spinning to try to influence the American public. As I've said, you either support extending the border barriers or you don't. Ain't that complicated really.
Some here might hate Trump and that clouds their judgment. Perhaps they were fine with more barriers five years ago and they will be again in the future. If they are Americans, I kind of feel sorry for them that their political views are based on emotional responses.
I think many Democrats in California, New York and some other very liberal states are embracing illegal aliens. Gavin Newsom, Bill de Blasio and others are upping the ante and advocating free healthcare for illegal aliens. States and municipalities impeding the deportation of felons here illegally and not cooperating with ICE is a hotly-argued issue. Then there is always Nancy Pelosi "they're not illegal aliens they're undocumented immigrants". Whatever that means.
Can't we borrow Nancy Pelosi's statement on Obamacare and apply it to "the wall"?
We have to build the wall to to see how it works. :lol:
Here in Canada we are not to call them illegals either, irregular is the politically correct term now. It is supposed to make them feel better when they get free stuff from us.
Similar threads
