Trump tweeted he will "Address the Nation on the Humanitarian and National Security crisis on our Southern Border" on Tuesday night. It will be his first Oval Office address as president.


I can't wait :cheers:

If he would just stick to facts and common sense, he'd win the debate. This is not a debate that a fair minded, articulate person can lose.

1,000 - 3,000 people a day cross the border illegally. These people are uninvited and un-vetted, it's in our interests to reduce this number any way we reasonably can. A wall will not ever reduce that number to zero, but it will reduce the number, anybody who says otherwise is mistaken or a liar.

64% of illegals receive some kind of welfare; there's a huge economic benefit to preventing them from coming here

the small percentage of illegals who will continue to commit certain crimes here are, for some Godforsaken reason, protected from deportation by sanctuary cities and states, meaning illegals who intend to commit crime will seek out these places, meaning citizens who live there are more at risk. If you don't believe that, he can show the gravestone of the CA cop, a legal immigrant, murdered by an illegal with two DUI convictions, who local cops were prohibited of notifying ICE about, because of sanctuary laws. That's the downside of sanctuary laws, we need to see that before we decide that sanctuary policy is good.

Choosing not to crack down on illegals is a slap in the face to people all over the world who are waiting in miserable places to come here legally.

Not that long ago, many of the most vocal opponents to Trump's wall, voted for a bill that included funding for a wall. So it would seem that their current opposition isn't principled, but rather political.

We all close our doors at night, in the hopes of keeping people out who we don't want in. Prisons have walls as part of their security. Barriers work. They aren't perfect, they won't guarantee that we'll all live forever. But they work.

Finally, he should commit on national television, that he is willing to give the democrats what they want on DACA, if they fund his wall. That he'll promise to sign such a compromise, and all they need to do, is agree to something they previously agreed to. That's putting your adversaries in a no-win situation.

That's how he'd win this. Chances are, what he'll actually do, is something very different, and a lot uglier.

Hopefully Trump will explain what his plan is.
List the problems he believes exist with the southern border, immigration, refugees or other and quantify them with numbers drawn from multiple sources.
Show the causes of the problems and identify the root cause(s).
Explain his proposed multifaceted solution and why he thinks it will solve the problems.
But I doubt it.

Well, now that Pete has drawn up his list of demands I am sure the Donald will be sure to comply.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well just claiming we need a (insert descriptive phrase of the moment) wall hasn't worked so far.
Last February, the Senate voted on four immigration packages, including one that reflected Trump’s wish list, complete with $25 billion for his wall.

Guess which one got the fewest votes, with numerous Republicans voting against it?

After the GOP has taken the country hostage they now air a list of demands on national TV :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a feeling once he goes over the data on drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang activity and how dangerous it is for refugees to attempt border crossings in desolate and dangerous areas and with a wall most of the refugees would go through proper channels that could provide medical and other assistance to enter legally. At the end of his speech I have a sneaky feeling that he will end it with

"And because of these immediate threats and inability to act through congress in a timely manner, I am declaring a National Emergency to build the wall."

I have a feeling once he goes over the data on drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang activity and how dangerous it is for refugees to attempt border crossings in desolate and dangerous areas and with a wall most of the refugees would go through proper channels that could provide medical and other assistance to enter legally.
They’ve been trying to socialize data for weeks and getting hammered for it because they’re blatantly lying about the risks.

Declaring a national emergency when there is no crisis (other than the humanitarian one Trump has largely created) is pretty abhorrent when you think about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is the president giving this address now? Immigration was Trump’s signature issue during the campaign, so why did he not try to make this case in his first year or two as president?
This address seems to be a tell that Republicans are getting squeamish about the political consequences of the current impasse.
If Trump is really prepared to announce an emergency order to build the wall, I assume he will sign bills to reopen the government. If the White House has any hope of selling the border situation as a true crisis requiring an immediate emergency response, it’s hard to argue that it’s a true emergency but also not serious enough to need a federal government (including the Department of Homeland Security!) that’s operating at full strength.
What he hasn’t done, other than insist on the wall as a deterrent, is sell Americans on a plan to address the root causes or even identified them, behind why many migrants undertake a dangerous and uncertain journey in the first place.

I have a feeling once he goes over the data on drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang activity and how dangerous it is for refugees to attempt border crossings in desolate and dangerous areas and with a wall most of the refugees would go through proper channels that could provide medical and other assistance to enter legally. At the end of his speech I have a sneaky feeling that he will end it with

"And because of these immediate threats and inability to act through congress in a timely manner, I am declaring a National Emergency to build the wall."

I think you are spot on.

Wouldn’t one think that our crumbling infrastructure is more important to fund than an archaic wall??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are spot on.

Wouldn’t one think that our crumbling infrastructure is more important to fund than an archaic wall??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When has Congress effectively done anything about either? And why couldn't they do both?

Probably because like most issues, they can be used to beat up on the other side.

I think you are spot on.

Wouldn’t one think that our crumbling infrastructure is more important to fund than an archaic wall??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would fall under "Promises Made, Promises Forgotten"
His neo-liberal approach of getting private funding to it never flew.
and it never caught on as a rally chant, no rhyme to it, "Infrastructure" will never be as good as "build a wall" or "lock them up", just too many syllables.

When has Congress effectively done anything about either? And why couldn't they do both?

Probably because like most issues, they can be used to beat up on the other side.

Thanks Obama

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwig3u_Pz97fAhXFMd8KHZ7hBhEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2 Farchive%2F2015%2F12%2Fa-major-infrastructure-bill-clears-congress%2F418827%2F&psig=AOvVaw3gbknFYY1f0zP6GQy75sDj&ust=1547051914722608
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When has Congress effectively done anything about either? And why couldn't they do both?

Probably because like most issues, they can be used to beat up on the other side.

Because that would mean tax increases, lean government and maybe those elected politicians might have to give up all the pay raises, pensions and great health insurance. Gee I don’t know, maybe all those immigrants looking for a better life might love a job rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, but I guess they would have to give up the murders, gang meetings, rapes and illegal activities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because that would mean tax increases, lean government and maybe those elected politicians might have to give up all the pay raises, pensions and great health insurance. Gee I don’t know, maybe all those immigrants looking for a better life might love a job rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, but I guess they would have to give up the murders, gang meetings, rapes and illegal activities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Don’t you love the catch 22 argument about illegals? They are too lazy to work and will be a drain on our welfare system and yet magically they are going to steal our jobs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks Obama

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwig3u_Pz97fAhXFMd8KHZ7hBhEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2 Farchive%2F2015%2F12%2Fa-major-infrastructure-bill-clears-congress%2F418827%2F&psig=AOvVaw3gbknFYY1f0zP6GQy75sDj&ust=1547051914722608
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Obama fixed it. $305 billion. Of course, $5 billion for a wall cannot also be done. So it has been fixed. Why cannot the wall be paid for since infrastructure is fixed. So what happened to the fix? How come we have to keep fixing it? Trump has proposed more money than Obama to fix what Obama already fixed. Why has this been a problem for years before Obama and still is? Hundreds of billions and we still need to fix it. Does the money really go into fixing it. Obama's $787 billion stimulus money, much of which was supposed to be spent on infrastructure, didn't stimulate and didn't meaningfully get spent on infrastructure. So he later had to propose more hundreds of billions on infrastructure, but the infrastructure still hasn't been fixed and we must spend hundreds of billions more. Will that finally, if the money is actually spent on infrastructure, fix it? And is it possible, between all of those hundreds of billions going into trillions, as well as the constant billions of pork spent on things we don't even know about, is it possible that $5 billion can be scrounged up for the wall?

I guess it's too much money and we just can't afford it.

Here's the last speech a President gave on the immigration issue, tonight we'll see what the new approach is.


My fellow Americans, tonight, I’d like to talk with you about immigration.

For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It’s kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities – people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.

But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.

Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.

It’s been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven’t done much about it.

When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it’s been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.

Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn’t perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.

Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me – that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.

Tonight, I am announcing those actions.

First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.

Second, I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.

Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.

I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is, millions of immigrants – in every state, of every race and nationality – will still live here illegally. And let’s be honest – tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t being straight with you. It’s also not who we are as Americans. After all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time. They work hard, often in tough, low-paying jobs. They support their families. They worship at our churches. Many of their kids are American-born or spent most of their lives here, and their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours.

As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it: “They are a part of American life.”

Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

That’s what this deal is. Now let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today – millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.

That’s the real amnesty – leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century. And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary. Meanwhile, don’t let a disagreement over a single issue be a dealbreaker on every issue. That’s not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldn’t shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. Americans are tired of gridlock. What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose – a higher purpose.

Most Americans support the types of reforms I’ve talked about tonight. But I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home. Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we don’t like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship. I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they’ve gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that’s not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. And I believe it’s important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other’s character.

Because for all the back-and-forth of Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger. It’s about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations.

Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?

Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?

Are we a nation that educates the world’s best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America?

That’s what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.

I know the politics of this issue are tough. But let me tell you why I have come to feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids. I’ve seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn’t have the right papers. I’ve seen the courage of students who, except for the circumstances of their birth, are as American as Malia or Sasha; students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in a country they love. These people – our neighbors, our classmates, our friends – they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work, and study, and serve in our military, and above all, contribute to America’s success.

Tomorrow, I’ll travel to Las Vegas and meet with some of these students, including a young woman named Astrid Silva. Astrid was brought to America when she was four years old. Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn’t speak any English. She caught up to the other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS, and became a good student. Her father worked in landscaping. Her mother cleaned other people’s homes. They wouldn’t let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school for fear the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant – so she applied behind their back and got in. Still, she mostly lived in the shadows – until her grandmother, who visited every year from Mexico, passed away, and she couldn’t travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported. It was around that time she decided to begin advocating for herself and others like her, and today, Astrid Silva is a college student working on her third degree.

Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid – or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.

My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.

That’s the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. That’s the tradition we must uphold. That’s the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless this country we love

The National Emergency does not have to concern illegals at all. The amount of drugs that crosses our borders illegally and the number of deaths it causes, is more than enough for him to declare it an emergency.

The National Emergency does not have to concern illegals at all. The amount of drugs that crosses our borders illegally and the number of deaths it causes, is more than enough for him to declare it an emergency.

That's the big propaganda message, when in fact most drugs are coming in through ports of entry, not in backpacks by illegals crossing our southern border. I have no doubt that is the big message coming tonight, that somehow if we build a wall our drug problem is somehow dramatically less, what a crock. His understanding of the drug problem is as sharp as his knowledge of history.

Because that would mean tax increases, lean government and maybe those elected politicians might have to give up all the pay raises, pensions and great health insurance. Gee I don’t know, maybe all those immigrants looking for a better life might love a job rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, but I guess they would have to give up the murders, gang meetings, rapes and illegal activities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well if those "immigrants" come here legally, and if we processed all those from other places, not just those from south of the border, more speedily rather than making them wait several years, or never, to immigrate here, we could rationally solve any supposed need for qualified workers.

What sounds to me like an empty phrase which has supposedly been passed a few times before but has never materialized into an actually functioning policy, we keep hearing about "comprehensive immigration reform." We must somehow scrap the past immigration policy of accepting immigrants on a need basis, and orderly entering them at ports of entry, with proper health screening and vetting, and in numbers that can easily be assimilated. And we must, for some reason (political?) create some vague "comprehensive" system that depends on technological devices but not actually use physical barriers that help to physically force or steer entry to legal ports of entry.

What is there so special about those millions south of the border that they require some new "comprehensive reform" to be given entry to the country and a special "path to citizenship"? How is it that they are privileged above the qualified emigres from the rest of the world who are just as deserving and usually more qualified and a better fit than random droves of multi-thousand member caravans or than coyote herded and paid for illegals?

It does not seem rational to me that we just let in millions without vetting from one area who come in uninvited and illegal crossings, many of whom will not work to rebuild infrastructure or in other way, but who will suck more from the economy that contribute to it.

That's the big propaganda message, when in fact most drugs are coming in through ports of entry, not in backpacks by illegals crossing our southern border. I have no doubt that is the big message coming tonight, that somehow if we build a wall our drug problem is somehow dramatically less, what a crock. His understanding of the drug problem is as sharp as his knowledge of history.

Well, I have completed 3 (6 month) counter narcotics deployments along both sides of South America and there is an enormous amount of cocaine that crosses our southern border. We can pursue and hopefully intercept the drug boats, before they reach Mexican national waters, where we are called off to "allow" Mexico's navy to apprehend them. We could see the boat reach Mexico's shore, while the Mexican navy ship watches them and then about an hour or so later, the navy ship actually dispatches their small boat to "arrest" the smugglers, who are long gone before they reach them.

In one deployment we captured over 12.5 tons of cocaine in a single bust on a "fishing vessel". During the typical 6 month tour a US navy ship (with a small Coast Guard Detachment onboard) will bring in anywhere from 400 to 800 bales of paste cocaine (20 kilo bales). We are able intercept less than 1/5th of the drug boats coming up the coast, and it all goes right to Mexico and crosses our southern border. The amount of drugs that cross that border is staggering.

But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.

Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules.

When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders.

First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.

And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded.

....pass a criminal background check,

If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.



you should forward these pearls of wisdom over to the Sanctuary cities, this sounds like pretty sound advice.

you should forward these pearls of wisdom over to the Sanctuary cities, this sounds like pretty sound advice.

Spoken by Obama in 2014
We will see how Trump’s compares
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spoken by Obama in 2014
We will see how Trump’s compares
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I doubt he will be so eloquent.

and I got that part about BO

So Obama said:
"But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.

Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules.

When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders.

First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.

And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded.

....pass a criminal background check,

If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

Trump seems to have the same view as Obama, except that he wants to make it more difficult for millions to do what Obama claims is the wrong way--the wrong way being entering illegally whether your a criminal or just good folks looking for a better life. And Obama's less restrictive method actually makes it easier for millions, most of who are just those looking for a better life, to do what is wrong. Thus making it more difficult, and infinitely more tedious, to prevent or redress the improper entries.

Well, I have completed 3 (6 month) counter narcotics deployments along both sides of South America and there is an enormous amount of cocaine that crosses our southern border. We can pursue and hopefully intercept the drug boats, before they reach Mexican national waters, where we are called off to "allow" Mexico's navy to apprehend them. We could see the boat reach Mexico's shore, while the Mexican navy ship watches them and then about an hour or so later, the navy ship actually dispatches their small boat to "arrest" the smugglers, who are long gone before they reach them.

In one deployment we captured over 12.5 tons of cocaine in a single bust on a "fishing vessel". During the typical 6 month tour a US navy ship (with a small Coast Guard Detachment onboard) will bring in anywhere from 400 to 800 bales of paste cocaine (20 kilo bales). We are able intercept less than 1/5th of the drug boats coming up the coast, and it all goes right to Mexico and crosses our southern border. The amount of drugs that cross that border is staggering.
That doesn't invalidate his point though, that smuggling drugs across unsecured areas of the Mexican border isn't the primary entry point. A wall isn't going to do much to prevent drug deaths in the US.

That doesn't invalidate his point though, that smuggling drugs across unsecured areas of the Mexican border isn't the primary entry point. A wall isn't going to do much to prevent drug deaths in the US.

If Cool Beans actually is officially involved in counter narcotics and he says " We are able intercept less than 1/5th of the drug boats coming up the coast, and it all goes right to Mexico and crosses our southern border. The amount of drugs that cross that border is staggering" I think there is more credibility to his assertion than yours.

And how do you get from drugs crossing unsecured areas of the border not being the primary entry point to assuming that not much drugs cross those unsecured points? If there are mega tons of drugs entering the US from south of the border, why does that fact that not all come at a supposed "primary" entry point mean that a great deal do not come across at non-primary points?

If Cool Beans actually is officially involved in counter narcotics and he says " We are able intercept less than 1/5th of the drug boats coming up the coast, and it all goes right to Mexico and crosses our southern border. The amount of drugs that cross that border is staggering" I think there is more credibility to his assertion than yours.

And how do you get from drugs crossing unsecured areas of the border not being the primary entry point to assuming that not much drugs cross those unsecured points? If there are mega tons of drugs entering the US from south of the border, why does that fact that not all come at a supposed "primary" entry point mean that a great deal do not come across at non-primary points?

Perhaps because the DEA has said so
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/will-trumps-wall-stop-drug-smuggling/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps because the DEA has said so
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/will-trumps-wall-stop-drug-smuggling/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"beginning with the simple fact that much of the drug trade comes through legal ports of entry." doesn't mean that much doesn't. The Fact Check (has it looked into other viewpoints or just those that minimize drug entry across non official border entry points?) article is loaded with undefinitive assertions qualified by words such as "unlikely, much, cannot predict, we believe, mostly or most, common way, skeptical . . ."

"beginning with the simple fact that much of the drug trade comes through legal ports of entry." doesn't mean that much doesn't. The Fact Check (has it looked into other viewpoints or just those that minimize drug entry across non official border entry points?) article is loaded with undefinitive assertions qualified by words such as "unlikely, much, cannot predict, we believe, mostly or most, common way, skeptical . . ."

National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, October 2015: Mexican TCOs transport the bulk of their drugs over the Southwest Border through ports of entry (POEs) using passenger vehicles or tractor trailers.

National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, October 2015: Mexican TCOs transport the bulk of their drugs over the Southwest Border through ports of entry (POEs) using passenger vehicles or tractor trailers.
So what you're saying is that the drug threat isn't real, the terror threat isn't real, the crime threat isn't real, undocumented workers don't take American's jobs and pay more in taxes than they consume.

But...

We have a crisis and need a wall.

Seems Trumps base has lost its sense of scope and time ..

It appears if Trump gets his 5 billion will it be crisis over just like with the deadly caravan invasion.. After he sent Troops before the midterms it went away and the went home a month or 2 later???

Will the wall be built in days weeks years or decades ? So until it’s complete what then how do we handle this national emergency ....

It’s just another Trump lie and only his base is oblivious. unable to see it for what it is ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am amazed at how some of you guys can see and yet not believe anything.... Some days I think there is no hope for our great country. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a HUGE problem with our unsecured borders and you think that it's all perfectly fine....

I don't understand how you can honestly think this way....

They are idiots with heads in sand,real snowflakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Drinking that High Octane Kool-aid

I am amazed at how some of you guys can see and yet not believe anything.... Some days I think there is no hope for our great country. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a HUGE problem with our unsecured borders and you think that it's all perfectly fine....
There's the rub, nobody thinks we shouldn't pay attention to security at our borders. The evidence characterizes the problem much differently than the justification being used to push a half baked politically motivated solution.

There's the rub, nobody thinks we shouldn't pay attention to security at our borders. The evidence characterizes the problem much differently than the justification being used to push a half baked politically motivated solution.

There has been no fully baked solution. A wall is part of the bake. The problem is being characterized by politicians on both sides. The push for "comprehensive reform" in the past was usually a ruse to put it off until other conditions were met first, such as passing continuing resolution or some such thing. The "reform" never actually followed. There is no fully baked reform plan being offered, and if we put it off till after we pass a continuing resolution, the plan will remain unbaked. That is the model, the evidence, of how it has been done to this point--your notion of how the evidence characterizes the problem notwithstanding. It depends on whose evidence.

I am amazed at how some of you guys can see and yet not believe anything.... Some days I think there is no hope for our great country. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a HUGE problem with our unsecured borders and you think that it's all perfectly fine....

I don't understand how you can honestly think this way....

I feel the same way, every day this clown is at the helm, I fear the ship will run aground for sure. The evidence actually shows the problem is half of what it was a decade ago and if the damn wall was so important, why hasn’t the millions already appropriated been spent building something?

You claim we see but don’t believe, let me use that same logic in retort. I am convinced his base listen to the lies and BS but don’t hear. This was and continues to be about Trump making sure he makes good on his campaign promise; although clearly that can’t ever happen since Mexico isn’t paying for it.

Nobody on either side is fighting against good border security and the need to be constantly changing strategies as things change. To hold the government hostage and put government workers livelihoods at risk over political BS is just wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There has been no fully baked solution. A wall is part of the bake. The problem is being characterized by politicians on both sides. The push for "comprehensive reform" in the past was usually a ruse to put it off until other conditions were met first, such as passing continuing resolution or some such thing. The "reform" never actually followed. There is no fully baked reform plan being offered, and if we put it off till after we pass a continuing resolution, the plan will remain unbaked. That is the model, the evidence, of how it has been done to this point--your notion of how the evidence characterizes the problem notwithstanding. It depends on whose evidence.
Comprehensive plans are out there, the problem largely has been politicians that can't come to terms with the fact that undocumented immigrants are an important part of the American system.

Nobody on either side is fighting against good border security and the need to be constantly changing strategies as things change. To hold the government hostage and put government workers livelihoods at risk over political BS is just wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Speaking of political bs....how about one side actually endorsing the idea and then “changing strategies” because the the president changed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comprehensive plans are out there, the problem largely has been politicians that can't come to terms with the fact that undocumented immigrants are an important part of the American system.

Your laying another slick nothing egg. A variety of tactical lying.

Speaking of political bs....how about one side actually endorsing the idea and then “changing strategies” because the the president changed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the previous Congress did just that, but then couldn't accomplish anything with a new administration.
But now it's the Democrats fault

Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn’t perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.

Comprehensive plans are out there, the problem largely has been demagogue politicians like Pelosi and Schumer that can't come to terms with the fact that Americans want our country secure and for a path for legal immigration to work better in our system so they rile up their base claiming they beat their adversary as if it is some kind of contest battle but the people see thru them unless they drink the koolaid.

fixed it for you

I think the previous Congress did just that, but then couldn't accomplish anything with a new administration.
But now it's the Democrats fault

Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn’t perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.

Did it include funding the wall? If that was done, I suspect your bill would pass. And, I know, you don't believe the wall is necessary and would do little in stopping illegal immigration. But the other side believes it would make security overall better. Isn't that what compromise is, giving the other side something it wants if it doesn't essentially harm the goal?

Here's a look back at how Trump has explained why the U.S. needs a "big, beautiful wall":
AKA slick nothing egg speeches laid by Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur and associates

June 2015

Trump wasted no time pitching his wall, weaving it into his presidential run announcement at Trump Tower in New York.

During the speech, he set up the wall promise by taking a hard-line stance against Latino immigrants, labeling migrants coming from Mexico as “people that have lots of problems,” adding that they’re bringing “drugs” and “crimes,” and going so far as to call them “rapists.” He later added that they’re also coming from “South and Latin America” and “probably from the Middle East.”

“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,” he said. Because of that, he promised voters that he will “build a great wall” and “will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

Mexico later denounced Trump’s claim and multiple reports have been published that show undocumented immigrants, in addition to legal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

September 2016

In a major immigration speech prior to the general election, Trump lamented that the U.S. doesn't know the scope of the illegal immigration problem and laid out a series of threats that he claimed immigrants posed.

Trump accused Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton of promising "uncontrolled, low-skilled immigration that continues to reduce jobs and wages for American workers, and especially for African-American and Hispanic workers within our country."

"Most incredibly, because to me this is unbelievable, we have no idea who these people are, where they come from," Trump said at the time. "I always say Trojan Horse. Watch what's going to happen, folks. It's not going to be pretty."

To combat that, Trump said the U.S. should build a wall.

"We will build a great wall along the southern border, and Mexico will pay for the wall," he said. "They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it. And they're great people and great leaders but they're going to pay for the wall. On Day One, we will begin working on intangible, physical, tall, power, beautiful southern border wall."


January 2017


During his first address to a joint session in Congress, the president said a wall is the answer to the “pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security.” He claimed that a wall would “restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.”

“It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime,” he said.

April 2018

Trump's justification for his wall demands took on a new dimension when a migrant caravan, which consisted mostly of Central Americans, started making its way to the southern border. Trump denounced the roughly 1,000-person caravan, and said it was another reason why the United States needed a border wall.

Trump also called on Mexico to stop the migrants, and threatened to make the enforcement a condition of the new NAFTA deal that the U.S., Canada and Mexico were negotiating at the time.

The full caravan, which happens annually, did not make it to the border and instead stopped in Mexico.

October-December 2018

Prior to the midterm elections, Trump began denouncing another caravan of thousands of migrants, mostly from Honduras, as a deadly threat, and repeatedly pointed to the caravan as further proof of the need for a wall.

In a dramatic move, Trump also deployed troops to the southern border to stop the caravan, and threatened to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border.

But soon after the midterms, Trump dramatically scaled back his talk of the caravan and did not follow through on his threats to take more drastic actions.



January 4

In one of his most recent cases for the wall, Trump claimed that his predecessors expressed to him that they wished they had built a wall.

"This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me," Trump told reporters last Friday. "And they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it."

However, all four living presidents have denounced Trump’s plan.

Former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have released statements saying they have not discussed the border wall with the president. Barack Obama’s spokesman declined to comment, but the former president has pushed back against Trump’s pledge to build a wall in the past.

January 4-8

White House officials have falsely claimed that Customs and Border Patrol agents caught thousands of known or suspected terrorists at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday and throughout the weekend said that CBP had caught 4,000 known or suspected terrorists "that came across our southern border." Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday morning also repeated that claim during an interview with "Good Morning America."


However, NBC News reported that only six non-U.S. persons that officials encountered at the southern border were on the Terrorist Screening Database from Oct. 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Thirty-five American citizens or lawful permanent residents that CBP came across at the U.S.-Mexico border were also on the database.

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway on Monday walked back the false claim, saying it was an “unfortunate misstatement.”

After the statistic was debunked, some administration officials began using a broader statistic to point to a threat along the southern border.

More than 3,000 “special interest aliens” were encountered at the southern border in 2018. However, the definition is vague and only includes that the person has traveled to or come from 35 countries labeled "special interest" following the 9/11 attacks because of historic ties to terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a series of tweets, however, noted that being on that list does not mean they are a threat to national security.

fixed it for you

Support for President Trump’s border wall hit a record high in a new Quinnipiac University poll Tuesday, but a majority of Americans still oppose the project, saying it’s a waste that isn’t needed to improve border security.

The poll found 43 percent do support the wall, but 54 percent oppose it and say it won’t help secure the southern boundary.

But CBS News polling from mid-November found that a majority -- 59 percent of Americans -- oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a partisan issue, though. A large majority of Republicans support the wall -- 79 percent. A majority of independents -- 66 percent -- oppose the wall, and 84 percent of Democrats are also against it.

Yep it's all about national security

Your laying another slick nothing egg. A variety of tactical lying.
Root cause analysis.

Here's a look back at how Trump has explained why the U.S. needs a "big, beautiful wall":
AKA slick nothing egg speeches laid by Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur and associates

June 2015

Trump wasted no time pitching his wall, weaving it into his presidential run announcement at Trump Tower in New York.

During the speech, he set up the wall promise by taking a hard-line stance against Latino immigrants, labeling migrants coming from Mexico as “people that have lots of problems,” adding that they’re bringing “drugs” and “crimes,” and going so far as to call them “rapists.” He later added that they’re also coming from “South and Latin America” and “probably from the Middle East.”

“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,” he said. Because of that, he promised voters that he will “build a great wall” and “will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

Mexico later denounced Trump’s claim and multiple reports have been published that show undocumented immigrants, in addition to legal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

September 2016

In a major immigration speech prior to the general election, Trump lamented that the U.S. doesn't know the scope of the illegal immigration problem and laid out a series of threats that he claimed immigrants posed.

Trump accused Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton of promising "uncontrolled, low-skilled immigration that continues to reduce jobs and wages for American workers, and especially for African-American and Hispanic workers within our country."

"Most incredibly, because to me this is unbelievable, we have no idea who these people are, where they come from," Trump said at the time. "I always say Trojan Horse. Watch what's going to happen, folks. It's not going to be pretty."

To combat that, Trump said the U.S. should build a wall.

"We will build a great wall along the southern border, and Mexico will pay for the wall," he said. "They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it. And they're great people and great leaders but they're going to pay for the wall. On Day One, we will begin working on intangible, physical, tall, power, beautiful southern border wall."


January 2017


During his first address to a joint session in Congress, the president said a wall is the answer to the “pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security.” He claimed that a wall would “restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.”

“It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime,” he said.

April 2018

Trump's justification for his wall demands took on a new dimension when a migrant caravan, which consisted mostly of Central Americans, started making its way to the southern border. Trump denounced the roughly 1,000-person caravan, and said it was another reason why the United States needed a border wall.

Trump also called on Mexico to stop the migrants, and threatened to make the enforcement a condition of the new NAFTA deal that the U.S., Canada and Mexico were negotiating at the time.

The full caravan, which happens annually, did not make it to the border and instead stopped in Mexico.

October-December 2018

Prior to the midterm elections, Trump began denouncing another caravan of thousands of migrants, mostly from Honduras, as a deadly threat, and repeatedly pointed to the caravan as further proof of the need for a wall.

In a dramatic move, Trump also deployed troops to the southern border to stop the caravan, and threatened to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border.

But soon after the midterms, Trump dramatically scaled back his talk of the caravan and did not follow through on his threats to take more drastic actions.



January 4

In one of his most recent cases for the wall, Trump claimed that his predecessors expressed to him that they wished they had built a wall.

"This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me," Trump told reporters last Friday. "And they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it."

However, all four living presidents have denounced Trump’s plan.

Former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have released statements saying they have not discussed the border wall with the president. Barack Obama’s spokesman declined to comment, but the former president has pushed back against Trump’s pledge to build a wall in the past.

January 4-8

White House officials have falsely claimed that Customs and Border Patrol agents caught thousands of known or suspected terrorists at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday and throughout the weekend said that CBP had caught 4,000 known or suspected terrorists "that came across our southern border." Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday morning also repeated that claim during an interview with "Good Morning America."


However, NBC News reported that only six non-U.S. persons that officials encountered at the southern border were on the Terrorist Screening Database from Oct. 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Thirty-five American citizens or lawful permanent residents that CBP came across at the U.S.-Mexico border were also on the database.

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway on Monday walked back the false claim, saying it was an “unfortunate misstatement.”

After the statistic was debunked, some administration officials began using a broader statistic to point to a threat along the southern border.

More than 3,000 “special interest aliens” were encountered at the southern border in 2018. However, the definition is vague and only includes that the person has traveled to or come from 35 countries labeled "special interest" following the 9/11 attacks because of historic ties to terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a series of tweets, however, noted that being on that list does not mean they are a threat to national security.

Old news.

Root cause analysis.

Shmugagee.

I am amazed at how some of you guys can see and yet not believe anything.... Some days I think there is no hope for our great country. The evidence is overwhelming that there is a HUGE problem with our unsecured borders and you think that it's all perfectly fine....

I don't understand how you can honestly think this way....


And there were WMDS in Iraq ..... please what is there to see ? WHAT is being hidden from the nation and by whom? What evidence ?

Trumps administration constantly lies then when confronted with actual facts changes course

Sanders on Friday told “Fox & Friends” that “nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists” had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico last year. She cited the statistic again two days later on “Fox News Sunday,”

Kellyanne Conway On Sarah Sanders’ False Border Claim: ‘Everyone Makes Mistakes’


Yea OK same mistake 2 days later.

there is no hope for our country when many who voted for Donald Trump After 2 YEARS think he is the best POTUS in their life times and is good for America

Support for President Trump’s border wall hit a record high in a new Quinnipiac University poll Tuesday, but a majority of Americans still oppose the project, saying it’s a waste that isn’t needed to improve border security.

The poll found 43 percent do support the wall, but 54 percent oppose it and say it won’t help secure the southern boundary.

But CBS News polling from mid-November found that a majority -- 59 percent of Americans -- oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a partisan issue, though. A large majority of Republicans support the wall -- 79 percent. A majority of independents -- 66 percent -- oppose the wall, and 84 percent of Democrats are also against it.

Yep it's all about national security

Yup. It is. I took a poll among my friends. 100% for the wall.

Yup. It is. I took a poll among my friends. 100% for the wall.

Does that consist of, me, myself and I?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence
Root cause analysis.Shmugagee.
I think you’ve put him over the edge of his flat earth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does that consist of, me, myself and I?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slanting again?

Slanting again?

Just wondering, seemed like a rapid retort
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are spot on.

Wouldn’t one think that our crumbling infrastructure is more important to fund than an archaic wall??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

infastructure is trillions. How many times did you complain from 2009-2016, that infastructure was ignored? Just curious. Or did it only start concerning you in 2017...

Comprehensive plans are out there, the problem largely has been politicians that can't come to terms with the fact that undocumented immigrants are an important part of the American system.

No, they're not. There isn't the same demand for unskilled labor that there was a generation ago.

Just wondering, seemed like a rapid retort
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, everyone I know that I've discussed this with, including my black Democrat friends, are in favor of the wall.

Actually, everyone I know that I've discussed this with, including my black Democrat friends, are in favor of the wall.
I think most people are in favor of border security, just not a big tall beautiful etc etc wall from sea to shining sea.
If the Generalissimo was a skilled politician and negotiater rather than a reality tv star he would probably be able to obtain what is needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think most people are in favor of border security, just not a big tall beautiful etc etc wall from sea to shining sea.
If the Generalissimo was a skilled politician and negotiater rather than a reality tv star he would probably be able to obtain what is needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he would be more popular if he would handle what his opponents or the Press say about him more like Reagan did. But that won't happen. And it would only be the backing of public popularity that would persuade his opponents to compromise. He doesn't seem to lack negotiating skills outside of dealing with Democrats. This is a critical time in determining the direction the country will take, especially for the Progressive agenda. And Trump, being an outsider to the normal politicking that has been so favorable to that agenda over the last several decades, makes him a threat that needs to be squelched. So, without a large public support that can scare the Dems into compromising, they won't. And the Progressive minded Republicans may not ultimately back him.

Does that Oval Office ten minute attempt to excite fear surprise anyone, it’s another rally based on fear and it’s the same old BS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does that Oval Office ten minute attempt to excite fear surprise anyone, it’s another rally based on fear and it’s the same old BS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were his facts wrong? Did he say 90% of the heroin in the US comes through that border?

I think he would be more popular if he would handle what his opponents or the Press say about him more like Reagan did. But that won't happen. And it would only be the backing of public popularity that would persuade his opponents to compromise. He doesn't seem to lack negotiating skills outside of dealing with Democrats. This is a critical time in determining the direction the country will take, especially for the Progressive agenda. And Trump, being an outsider to the normal politicking that has been so favorable to that agenda over the last several decades, makes him a threat that needs to be squelched. So, without a large public support that can scare the Dems into compromising, they won't. And the Progressive minded Republicans may not ultimately back him.

I think you’re close but I think the old school republicans don’t like him seizing control of the Republican Party and are looking to their vision of the future.
Trump is not growing the party, he is reducing it. People who identify as leaning republican are put off by his failure to be or inability to appear to be a truthful leader. Put that in just for you.
These guys are shrewd longtime politicians with long term goals and they will not be Nixoned again.
Either he pulls this off and skates thru the investigation issues or they turn and he’s gone.
If he’s gone I am not sure that Pence will be allowed to pardon him. They want to win the next election or at the very least be in a positive position, not viewed as enabling.
There’s a reason McConnell has been invisible and Graham has been helping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you’re close but I think the old school republicans don’t like him seizing control of the Republican Party and are looking to their vision of the future.
Trump is not growing the party, he is reducing it. People who identify as leaning republican are put off by his failure to be or inability to appear to be a truthful leader. Put that in just for you.
These guys are shrewd longtime politicians with long term goals and they will not be Nixoned again.
Either he pulls this off and skates thru the investigation issues or they turn and he’s gone.
If he’s gone I am not sure that Pence will be allowed to pardon him. They want to win the next election or at the very least be in a positive position, not viewed as enabling.
There’s a reason McConnell has been invisible and Graham has been helping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no ability to predict with any degree of confidence what the future will be. What you say is plausible, but it is the very kind of political party machination that drove voters away from Trump's Republican opponents in the primaries and into choosing him.

A lot of folks were plain sick and tired of politics as usual and with politicians speaking the same old smooth but phony rhetoric. Trump was the bull in the china shop that smashed the typical stock of imitation figurines. He was an actual "agent of change." And if voters see that the old school Republicans you refer to are acting like typical power mongers who are trying to destroy him in order to seize back power, they may very well give Trump the nod again.

Regardless of the outcome, what you describe is not, to me, savory, but reeks of lying and treachery. Of course, that is the nature of party politics.

Fear fear fear then a break to blame Democrats

( he left out the fact republicans held both houses for 2 years until january and then once democrats took over the House ?? this national emergency magically appeared !!! again funny how that works.

and even funner how his supporters here avoid that part of History like the plague

then fear fear fear god bless America ..

Sounds a lot like Trump is using locked out tactics

A lockout is generally to try to enforce terms upon a group of lawmakers during a dispute. lockout to convince the House to back down.

Someone needs to tell Trump not everyone has 3 months worth of income in the bank...

Trump Hurting Americans to save Americans

Were his facts wrong? Did he say 90% of the heroin in the US comes through that border?

Wrong or misleading, pretty much all of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were his facts wrong? Did he say 90% of the heroin in the US comes through that border?

Yes most comes from Mexico but not in backpacks across the border, but even facts disproving his allegation would not be believed by the base; don’t confuse me with facts our minds are made up mentality continues.

Want to stop heroin, it’s not by building a wall, it’s by reducing the demand. For every horrific crime he highlighted, we could find tens of thousands of equally disturbing crimes committed by white citizens. Trump run on fear and division, he governs by the same MO and last night was just same old same old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes most comes from Mexico but not in backpacks across the border, but even facts disproving his allegation would not be believed by the base; don’t confuse me with facts our minds are made up mentality continues.

Want to stop heroin, it’s not by building a wall, it’s by reducing the demand. For every horrific crime he highlighted, we could find tens of thousands of equally disturbing crimes committed by white citizens. Trump run on fear and division, he governs by the same MO and last night was just same old same old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


"citizens"...key word


I'm scared...are you scared??? :rotf3:...good grief...you crazy leftists keep talking yourselves into a tizzy....must be exhausting :hee:

The only thing I’m scared about is how this clown would actually handle a “real” national emergency, but I guess Fox and Friends will be there to direct him🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All the verbiage that came out in the lead up to Trumps speech was about terrorists, drugs, human trafficking, etc.
Then it becomes a humanitarian and security crisis, interesting that all of the sudden he needed a new spin.
Of course he couldn't do hard data because the numbers don't support his argument.

I knew this speech would bring out the flakes,keep it coming guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fear fear fear then a break to blame Democrats

( he left out the fact republicans held both houses for 2 years until january and then once democrats took over the House ?? this national emergency magically appeared !!! again funny how that works.

and even funner how his supporters here avoid that part of History like the plague

then fear fear fear god bless America ..

Sounds a lot like Trump is using locked out tactics

A lockout is generally to try to enforce terms upon a group of lawmakers during a dispute. lockout to convince the House to back down.

Someone needs to tell Trump not everyone has 3 months worth of income in the bank...

Trump Hurting Americans to save Americans

"he left out the fact republicans held both houses for 2 years until january and then once democrats took over the House ?? "

You are absolutely 100% correct. Trump campaigned on this issue, it wasa huge reason why he won the primary, and the GOP controlled congress for 2 years, and they did nothing. A lot of republican voters are ticked off. It won't make us vote for democrats, but we are mighty ticked off. You are absolutely 100% correct, it's sleazy for him to say that the dems are the only reason we don't have a wall. I don't know why they didn't do it when they could have.

"Fear fear fear"

A couple thousand murders? If his crime stats are accurate, don't places with high numbers of illegals, maybe have a legitimate concern? Just as it's wrong for Trump to refuse to accept some blame for not having the wall yet, it's equally wrong (in my opinion) for democrats and the media to say it's a manufactured crisis. The democrats passed some big bills in 2006 and 2013 to tackle immigration, so it seemed like they thought it was a crisis then.

Both sides are way more interested in using this issue as a club against their opponents, than they are in fixing it. This is a great example of why congress has a dismal approval rating, and they deserve it.

"Someone needs to tell Trump not everyone has 3 months worth of income in the bank... "

Did you say the same thing when Obama oversaw a shutdown? Be honest...

I knew this speech would bring out the flakes,keep it coming guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought he made some good points (IF his stats are accurate, and I don't know if they are, Spence says they were all wrong, but as expected, doesn't provide better sources with less scary stats).

But it was still too Trump-like in my opinion, too divisive. I think he could have improved his image by saying that he could have done this while the GOP controlled congress, but he blew it.

Both sides have been saying this is a crisis (despite the fact that today dems say it's not a crisis, that's not what they said not long ago), both sides campaign on this issue, and both sides have had control of the entire federal government for two years and did nothing.

Now, as you said, the pundits all came out to howl at the moon as soon as he was done. Their response, was as predictable, dishonest, and politically divisive as his speech.

I would genuinely like to know if his statistics were correct.

For every horrific crime he highlighted, we could find tens of thousands of equally disturbing crimes committed by white citizens.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BUT THE WHITE CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE.

God you are missing that point entirely. Obviously, more crime (in absolute numbers) is committed by citizens, because there are so many more citizens. But we know that Mexican gangs are using the open border to come in, and they are doing some horrific things. It's not worth trying to stop that?

And let me ask you this, as you're against the wall, but in favor of (I think) drones and cameras. If a camera spots a pack of MS13 members crossing the border 20 miles away from the nearest cops, how do you stop them from entering, exactly?

Cameras and drones might be great for spotting who is coming in, and counting them. How do things like cameras and drones stop these people from entering, if we're talking about 1,000 miles of border?

I knew this speech would bring out the flakes,keep it coming guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"he left out the fact republicans held both houses for 2 years until january and then once democrats took over the House ?? "

You are absolutely 100% correct. Trump campaigned on this issue, it wasa huge reason why he won the primary, and the GOP controlled congress for 2 years, and they did nothing. A lot of republican voters are ticked off. It won't make us vote for democrats, but we are mighty ticked off. You are absolutely 100% correct, it's sleazy for him to say that the dems are the only reason we don't have a wall. I don't know why they didn't do it when they could have.

"Fear fear fear"

A couple thousand murders? If his crime stats are accurate, don't places with high numbers of illegals, maybe have a legitimate concern? Just as it's wrong for Trump to refuse to accept some blame for not having the wall yet, it's equally wrong (in my opinion) for democrats and the media to say it's a manufactured crisis. The democrats passed some big bills in 2006 and 2013 to tackle immigration, so it seemed like they thought it was a crisis then.

Both sides are way more interested in using this issue as a club against their opponents, than they are in fixing it. This is a great example of why congress has a dismal approval rating, and they deserve it.

"Someone needs to tell Trump not everyone has 3 months worth of income in the bank... "

Did you say the same thing when Obama oversaw a shutdown? Be honest...

I thought he made some good points (IF his stats are accurate, and I don't know if they are, Spence says they were all wrong, but as expected, doesn't provide better sources with less scary stats).

But it was still too Trump-like in my opinion, too divisive. I think he could have improved his image by saying that he could have done this while the GOP controlled congress, but he blew it.

Both sides have been saying this is a crisis (despite the fact that today dems say it's not a crisis, that's not what they said not long ago), both sides campaign on this issue, and both sides have had control of the entire federal government for two years and did nothing.

Now, as you said, the pundits all came out to howl at the moon as soon as he was done. Their response, was as predictable, dishonest, and politically divisive as his speech.

I would genuinely like to know if his statistics were correct.

BUT THE WHITE CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE.

God you are missing that point entirely. Obviously, more crime (in absolute numbers) is committed by citizens, because there are so many more citizens. But we know that Mexican gangs are using the open border to come in, and they are doing some horrific things. It's not worth trying to stop that?

And let me ask you this, as you're against the wall, but in favor of (I think) drones and cameras. If a camera spots a pack of MS13 members crossing the border 20 miles away from the nearest cops, how do you stop them from entering, exactly?

Cameras and drones might be great for spotting who is coming in, and counting them. How do things like cameras and drones stop these people from entering, if we're talking about 1,000 miles of border?
You're correct, total meltdown in progress

"he left out the fact republicans held both houses for 2 years until january and then once democrats took over the House ?? "

You are absolutely 100% correct. Trump campaigned on this issue, it wasa huge reason why he won the primary, and the GOP controlled congress for 2 years, and they did nothing. A lot of republican voters are ticked off. It won't make us vote for democrats, but we are mighty ticked off. You are absolutely 100% correct, it's sleazy for him to say that the dems are the only reason we don't have a wall. I don't know why they didn't do it when they could have.

"Fear fear fear"

A couple thousand murders? If his crime stats are accurate, don't places with high numbers of illegals, maybe have a legitimate concern? Just as it's wrong for Trump to refuse to accept some blame for not having the wall yet, it's equally wrong (in my opinion) for democrats and the media to say it's a manufactured crisis. The democrats passed some big bills in 2006 and 2013 to tackle immigration, so it seemed like they thought it was a crisis then.

Both sides are way more interested in using this issue as a club against their opponents, than they are in fixing it. This is a great example of why congress has a dismal approval rating, and they deserve it.

"Someone needs to tell Trump not everyone has 3 months worth of income in the bank... "

Did you say the same thing when Obama oversaw a shutdown? Be honest...
Please this shut down is not remotely the same as Obama’s shut down but once agin you show your skills off suggesting they are the same

Yes dems passed bills so have reps on the issue but Trump keeps moving the goalposts on his own team

Are Trump or his supporters familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf? Because it’s playing out now in the White House l
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please this shut down is not remotely the same as Obama’s shut down but once agin you show your skills off suggesting they are the same

Yes dems passed bills so have reps on the issue but Trump keeps moving the goalposts on his own team

Are Trump or his supporters familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf? Because it’s playing out now in the White House l
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"this shut down is not remotely the same as Obama’s shut down "

Stop moving the goalposts. I was responding to your post, where you implied that shutdowns are wrong because of their impact on federal workers. That's what you said, and that's what I was responding to.

From the perspective of workers who didn't get paid, what was the difference between the two shutdowns?

"you show your skills off suggesting they are the same"

Never implied they were the same. But didn't both result in workers not getting paid? What's on display here, is your inability to admit your side plays these games too, and that it's equally wrong regardless of who does it. Nope. Political gamesmanship is only bothersome to you, when the GOP does it. I was pretty critical of the GOP in my response to you. When I mentioned Obama's shutdown, you can't bring yourself to say that also hurt federal workers, all you can do is say "it wasn't the same as this". OK, I tried engaging you like an adult, and it was a waste.

"Are Trump or his supporters familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf? Because it’s playing out now in the White House "

Tell that to the widow and 5 month-old left behind by Officer Singh.

Did that cop get murdered by an illegal who had two DUIs here? yes or no? Did the GOP fabricate it, or did it happen? I fit happened, how many Americans like that cop are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of liberalism, before you can admit that there's a problem?

Boy who cried wolf. Unfreakinbelievable.

You're a sheep. You cannot think critically, you can regurgitate what you hear on MSNBC, that's all. GOP is b-a-a-a-a-d.


.

You're correct, total meltdown in progress

Pete,you look in the mirror and see Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're correct, total meltdown in progress

It's a "meltdown", if I ask if his statistics are correct, and if I ask how cameras stop illegal migrants?

Wonder what Devin Nunes comments are on this shutdown, his comments on the one in 2013 seem like they still fit with one small change from Ted Cruz to Trump


"We're this far, so you have to let it play out," he says. "I mean, we've already shut the government down ... and now you have to, I think, keep up with this Donald Trump lemming strategy. It's got to move forward."

But Nunes isn't convinced there really is a strategy.

"Now, we're letting these guys — this lemming crew — play out their hand," he says. "Now, they're kind of playing with no cards in their hand. But they don't know that yet."

I wouldn't worry about it...they're going to impeach the "motherf*&%er" any day now :rotf2:

From the perspective of workers who didn't get paid, what was the difference between the two shutdowns?

"you show your skills off suggesting they are the same"

Never implied they were the same. But didn't both result in workers not getting paid?
.

Just as an FYI, Fed Gov employees haven't missed a paycheck yet. This Friday will be the first one they miss.

and historically, even those who didn't work during the shutdowns in the past, have gotten retroactive pay covering the days they didn't work. So techniclly, they got paid.

Just as an FYI, Fed Gov employees haven't missed a paycheck yet. This Friday will be the first one they miss.

and historically, even those who didn't work during the shutdowns in the past, have gotten retroactive pay covering the days they didn't work. So techniclly, they got paid vacation.

fixed it :uhuh:

Please this shut down is not remotely the same as Obama’s shut down but once agin you show your skills off suggesting they are the same

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Obama's was worse as it affected every Department. This one doesn't affect a lot of the DoD as they are already funded through 2019

fixed it :uhuh:

Not going to argue that.

but you'll be happy to know, I did not :hee:

Actually, Obama's was worse as it affected every Department. This one doesn't affect a lot of the DoD as they are already funded through 2019

I would like to see WDMSO's response to this, I really would.

I can't imagine that furloughed workers will not get back pay. But it can create a hardship, especially at Christmastime, if they racked up credit card debt that they now have to pay interest on. And many of them live paycheck to paycheck (I do), what if their mortgage is due Friday?

The solution is so friggin simple. Dems give Trump 5B for his wall, the GOP agrees to give the Dems what they want on DACA, leading to legal residence but not citizenship. Everybody gets something they like, everybody has to deal with something they don't like.

The solution is so friggin simple. Dems give Trump 5B for his wall, the GOP agrees to give the Dems what they want on DACA, leading to legal residence but not citizenship. Everybody gets something they like, everybody has to deal with something they don't like.
Schumer already floated this and Trump rejected it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't imagine that furloughed workers will not get back pay. But it can create a hardship, especially at Christmastime, if they racked up credit card debt that they now have to pay interest on. And many of them live paycheck to paycheck (I do), what if their mortgage is due Friday?


I hear ya, I'm not saying it's not going to create hardship, just putting it out there that as of today, pay hasn't been affected. It will, come Friday and it will suck for a lot of people.

I agree that they need to stop playing stupid friggin games and having hissy fits, and do their #^&#^&#^&#^&ing job and fix it.

Obviously both sides are looking for a win.

So which side will take the high road and cave on the issue?

Schumer already floated this and Trump rejected it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says who? Mike Pence was on TV this weekend, and he said DACA was on the table as a deal for the wall. I saw Pence say it. Lindsay Graham is also saying it.

Obviously both sides are looking for a win.

So which side will take the high road and cave on the issue?

It will be fascinating to see the answer to that. Both sides would look very weak by caving completely.

Actually, Obama's was worse as it affected every Department. This one doesn't affect a lot of the DoD as they are already funded through 2019
Bigger in scope but 2013 was a result primarily of Republican efforts to defund existing law, not create new spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says who? Mike Pence was on TV this weekend, and he said DACA was on the table as a deal for the wall. I saw Pence say it. Lindsay Graham is also saying it.
Says the news peoples.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says the news peoples.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actual NEWS people? or biased news people who tend to make things up?

Bigger in scope but 2013 was a result primarily of Republican efforts to defund existing law, not create new spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso said the shutdown was bad because it effected workers. from that perspective, obama’s shutdown was at least as bad for those impacted.

andnthe new spending the gop seeks, is something the dems agreed to not long ago.

This is politics at its worst, both sides in Congress at their political worst, all exacerbated by the Trump factor. And regular people get hurt.

we all need to rethink the kind of people we want in DC. we need more regular people ( who actually work, build things, help people, and solve problems), folks who want to go, serve a term, and get the hell out of there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously both sides are looking for a win.

So which side will take the high road and cave on the issue?
I think we’ll know more after Trump meets with Senate Republicans today. They’re starting to defect and I don’t see how McConnell can continue to block the vote if there’s a veto proof majority. I’d think that would be a great eff you after Trump burned him last month.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bigger in scope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it, as that's all the people affected by a shutdown really need to know.

Actual NEWS people? or biased news people who tend to make things up?
I try to avoid the fake stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are somewheres around 4 Million people that are government contract workers that are out of work and they will not be getting paid.
The true number is hard to ascertain.

There are somewheres around 4 Million people that are government contract workers that are out of work and they will not be getting paid.
The true number is hard to ascertain.

They are eligible for Unemployment though, which is something. Unfortunately, that's the chance you take as a contractor.

A lot of people take this route because contractors make more than the fed employees. If you have a spouse that can carry the health insurance, you can make some big money contracting. And a lot of contracting companies even offer benefits so that doesn't even have to be a concern.

Shutdowns are not new w/ Trump, there have been 22 of them since the 70's. Pretty much there is a threat of one every year at budget time.

not saying it doesn't suck, but it's pretty much life as a Gov Contractor.

"this shut down is not remotely the same as Obama’s shut down "

Stop moving the goalposts. I was responding to your post, where you implied that shutdowns are wrong because of their impact on federal workers. That's what you said, and that's what I was responding to.

From the perspective of workers who didn't get paid, what was the difference between the two shutdowns?

"you show your skills off suggesting they are the same"

Never implied they were the same. But didn't both result in workers not getting paid? What's on display here, is your inability to admit your side plays these games too, and that it's equally wrong regardless of who does it. Nope. Political gamesmanship is only bothersome to you, when the GOP does it. I was pretty critical of the GOP in my response to you. When I mentioned Obama's shutdown, you can't bring yourself to say that also hurt federal workers, all you can do is say "it wasn't the same as this". OK, I tried engaging you like an adult, and it was a waste.

"Are Trump or his supporters familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf? Because it’s playing out now in the White House "

Tell that to the widow and 5 month-old left behind by Officer Singh.

Did that cop get murdered by an illegal who had two DUIs here? yes or no? Did the GOP fabricate it, or did it happen? I fit happened, how many Americans like that cop are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of liberalism, before you can admit that there's a problem?

Boy who cried wolf. Unfreakinbelievable.

You're a sheep. You cannot think critically, you can regurgitate what you hear on MSNBC, that's all. GOP is b-a-a-a-a-d.


.

And what would you say to his wife if he was killed by a Us citizen? Would it garner less attention or be less tragic .. nothing is more than pathetic than using people’s deaths to forward a political agenda . No matter the party

Can you name the 3 officers who have been killed in the line of duty in 2019. Of course you can’t .. doubt if you even knew it there were 3 .. why because they weren’t caused by an illegal there’s no value in that for Trump

Trump has been crying since the day he announced his bid for president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what would you say to his wife if he was killed by a Us citizen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the same thing you'd say to the wife if he was killed by some on guy the street thanks to a liberal judge who released him when he should not have been on the street...

nothing is more than pathetic than using people’s deaths to forward a political agenda . No matter the party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like, parading a Gold Star Dad up on stage.

They are eligible for Unemployment though, which is something. Unfortunately, that's the chance you take as a contractor.

A lot of people take this route because contractors make more than the fed employees. If you have a spouse that can carry the health insurance, you can make some big money contracting. And a lot of contracting companies even offer benefits so that doesn't even have to be a concern.

Shutdowns are not new w/ Trump, there have been 22 of them since the 70's. Pretty much there is a threat of one every year at budget time.

not saying it doesn't suck, but it's pretty much life as a Gov Contractor.


The issue with the shutdown is the reason why we have the shut down

We all have seen them . It’s the why is the issue

We’re in a crisis so bad I needed to speak from the Oval Office .... but also need to keep some of people involved on the front lines in the fight , not working , not paid Because it’s a national emergency ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like, parading a Gold Star Dad up on stage.

to attack a political foe

You mean like, parading a Gold Star Dad up on stage.

Wow another attempt to compare what’s said by 3 rd 4 th parties

And said by a parent or wife who were defending there sons sacrifice after Trumps attacking American Muslims have terrorist sympathies

Yep there the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the same thing you'd say to the wife if he was killed by some on guy the street thanks to a liberal judge who released him when he should not have been on the street...

Don’t go out in a thunderstorm. We don’t need you blaming the weather man . If you get struck by lightning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what would you say to his wife if he was killed by a Us citizen? Would it garner less attention or be less tragic .. nothing is more than pathetic than using people’s deaths to forward a political agenda . No matter the party

Can you name the 3 officers who have been killed in the line of duty in 2019. Of course you can’t .. doubt if you even knew it there were 3 .. why because they weren’t caused by an illegal there’s no value in that for Trump

Trump has been crying since the day he announced his bid for president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t know what i’d say. he wasn’t killed by a us citizen. i can make a very strong case that he was killed
by open borders and sanctuary policies.

wdmso, if none of the people
hurt by illegals were actually hurt by illegals, i’d probably feel differently. and if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his azz hopping around. it’s a stupid, utterly meaningless, hypothetical.

we are a large and free nation, which means there are bad apples out there. there’s not a lot we can do to remove them. we can do something, about whether or not we choose to incentivize bad leople
from mexico to come here, and whether or not we choose to shield
them from deportation.

i don’t agree with you on the wall obviously. but the liberal position on the wall, isnt nearly as absurd as the liberal position on sanctuary cities and states.

anyway, back to your other post, if you could tell
me why a federal worker fuoughed bynthe trump shutdown is hurt worse than a federal worker hurt by the obama
shut down, i’d appreciate it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like, parading a Gold Star Dad up on stage.

BAM.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like, parading a Gold Star Dad up on stage.
Khan was publicly criticizing Trump well before he spoke at the convention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BAM.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
More like tink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Khan was publicly criticizing Trump well before he spoke at the convention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the dems used his sons death at the convention for political capital. same
as the gop is doing with the CA officer.

you can’t even admit those are both situations where a party used a tragedy to advance their ideology? you’re going to tell
us that’s what the gop did, but not the democrats?

you’re useless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump assumed office almost 2 years ago.
The Wall was his signature campaign issue.
The Republicans controlled Congress and the Administration.
For 2 years this was not an Emergency and nothing was sent to the President for a signature, though there were negotiations and meetings.
Mid term elections and the House was lost.
In the last week of the 115th Congress it became an emergency and made the shutdown of the government necessary and justifiable in Trump's opinion.
Sound a little odd or is this just the methodology of a great negotiator?

the dems used his sons death at the convention for political capital. same
as the gop is doing with the CA officer.

you can’t even admit those are both situations where a party used a tragedy to advance their ideology? you’re going to tell
us that’s what the gop did, but not the democrats?

you’re useless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Huge difference, Khan spoke out on his own volition.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huge difference, Khan spoke out on his own volition.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so how do you know, that the CA officers family doesn’t support using their
loss to
advance this agenda? your
argument only holds water
if they don’t want to be used this way, as
Khan did.

here are some
victims
families who
are advocating for trumps agenda.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/families-of-americans-killed-by-illegal-immigrants-take-odds-with-schumer-and-pelosis-words-that-trump-is-manufacturing-a-crisis-to-get-border-wall


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t know what i’d say. he wasn’t killed by a us citizen. i can make a very strong case that he was killed
by open borders and sanctuary policies.

isnt nearly as absurd as the liberal position on sanctuary cities and states.

What absurd for not enforcing federal laws when the feds don’t repay the costs to cities and states for those action.. it’s not as if illegals are not arrested because they are illegal that’s a gop bedtime story they tell their base

anyway, back to your other post, if you could tell
me why a federal worker fuoughed bynthe trump shutdown is hurt worse than a federal worker hurt by the obama
shut down, i’d appreciate it.

we have had shutdowns as I said it’s the BS reason for the shut down

People have always collateral damage during shut downs
Unless I’ve missed something this is the 1st time they’ve been hostages... Trump didn’t even mention them in his 8 mins

Now we hurt Some Americans to help some Americans don’t get it

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope this answers some questions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so how do you know, that the CA officers family doesn’t support using their
loss to
advance this agenda? your
argument only holds water
if they don’t want to be used this way, as
Khan did.

here are some
victims
families who
are advocating for trumps agenda.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/families-of-americans-killed-by-illegal-immigrants-take-odds-with-schumer-and-pelosis-words-that-trump-is-manufacturing-a-crisis-to-get-border-wall


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


If she does then that’s her choice as with all the other families and it should be disclosed... if not... it’s misleading . And being used to advance a political agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless I’ve missed something this is the 1st time they’ve been hostages...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They have been for every shutdown, the whole reason they happen is because two sides can't come to an agreement.

2013 was over the raising of the Debt Ceiling and the defunding of Obamacare.

Trump didn’t get his wall so he walked out of the meeting and Pence and McCarthy continued to spout to party line, that ther is a crisis at the southern border. It is all about the fing wall and it looks like a staring conntest to see who blinks first. All political BS by both sides, it’s really embarrassing that these are the people we elected govern. All spin by both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump assumed office almost 2 years ago.
The Wall was his signature campaign issue.
The Republicans controlled Congress and the Administration.
For 2 years this was not an Emergency and nothing was sent to the President for a signature, though there were negotiations and meetings.
Mid term elections and the House was lost.
In the last week of the 115th Congress it became an emergency and made the shutdown of the government necessary and justifiable in Trump's opinion.
Sound a little odd or is this just the methodology of a great negotiator?


Trump supports dont like that timeline they act as if it never happened

it's easier to say it's the democrats fault or its about the mexican invasion

They will never admit they elected an ass hat

All political BS by both sides, it’s really embarrassing that these are the people we elected govern. All spin by both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now this we can agree on

Trump supports dont like that timeline they act as if it never happened

it's easier to say it's the democrats fault or its about the mexican invasion

They will never admit they elected an ass hat

what’s the longest you can go without lying? i said here on this thread he deserves criticism for not doing this two years ago, and most of us admit he’s a jerk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump didn’t get his wall so he walked out of the meeting and Pence and McCarthy continued to spout to party line, that ther is a crisis at the southern border. It is all about the fing wall and it looks like a staring conntest to see who blinks first. All political BS by both sides, it’s really embarrassing that these are the people we elected govern. All spin by both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pelosi and Schumer got better ratings for their appearance last night than Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur the First even with his rack of medals at his side.
That's what he's really mad about, he won't blink even if China takes back Taiwan.

what’s the longest you can go without lying? i said here on this thread he deserves criticism for not doing this two years ago, and most of us admit he’s a jerk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim I am not taking about you . Directly .... my comment applys or it does not ... I wish Trumps lies upset you as much as my lie ?.. They will never admit they elected an ass hat (aka True believers )

Manafort, Trump campaign, Trump tower meeting and Russia will I think make the wall old news and just political BS. Can you sing it New York New York, if mueller doesn’t get him, well........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huge difference, Khan spoke out on his own volition.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How different is it? Sing's family is now, of their own volition, publicly saying they are adamantly opposed to sanctuary policies.

Jim I am not taking about you . Directly .... my comment applys or it does not ... I wish Trumps lies upset you as much as my lie ?.. They will never admit they elected an ass hat (aka True believers )

What or who is this true believer Wayne? Do you have a profile of whom you would describe as such? The reason I ask is because I voted for him,support him for the most part,and think he has moved the country forward. I also think he can be an ass hat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What or who is this true believer Wayne? Do you have a profile of whom you would describe as such? The reason I ask is because I voted for him,support him for the most part,and think he has moved the country forward. I also think he can be an ass hat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Based on the suggestions moved the country forward (in what manner ). and he can be an ass hat is afar cry being an ass hat.. I would put you in the true believer box

People shouldn't be upset when it's suggested they are True believer ... it's kinda of like calling some who claims to be a moderate or an independent a liberal or moonbat or republicans a RINO because they don't tow the party line

It happens here every all the time

It's just getting harder and harder to for the True believer's and republican on the Hill and in this forum to argue away Trumps daily tweets foot stomping and lies and disfunction and mix messages coming out of the Whitehouse from syria to afgainstain to the EU and China...

How different is it? Sing's family is now, of their own volition, publicly saying they are adamantly opposed to sanctuary policies.

Link please

And it still does not support your original argument if fhe did and him speaking at the DNC convention

Since this seems to be so confusing, A quick civics lesson:

Just before the government shutdown began, the Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (a Republican) overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill that would have kept the government open.

The then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (a Republican) refused to allow the House to even vote on that bill knowing it would likely pass with a veto-proof majority.

For those who might not know, if a president vetoes a bill, if two-thirds of both the House and the Senate vote against that president’s veto, they can override it, thus enacting that bill.

That’s called “checks and balances,” a key component our Founding Fathers put into our Constitution.

Fast forward a few weeks to when Democrats took power in the House of Representatives. They passed essentially the same exact veto-proof bill the Senate had overwhelmingly approved just a couple of weeks earlier that would reopen the government.

Only now, the same Sen. McConnell who let the passage of that bill before, won’t allow the Senate to vote on it — because he knows it would pass, thus forcing Trump to veto it, which would embarrass the party and expose their incompetence.

Keep in mind, this all centers around a lie Trump repeatedly told during his campaign (and even now) that Mexico was going to pay for his stupid wall, a wall he now wants the American taxpayer to fund.

Republicans controlled all of Congress and the White House for the past two years. If funding this wall was such a major issue, they would have done it — they didn’t. Repeatedly, his own party refused to pass spending bills that gave Trump money for that pointless wall.

This isn’t about border security, no matter how many time Trump tells that lie. This is about his ego and his pathetic attempt to distract people from the constantly-growing list of scandals, legal troubles, and embarrassing administration departures he’s been dealing with over the last several weeks.

If our government was functioning how our Founding Fathers meant for it to, our government would have never shut down.

First it was a Republican, Paul Ryan, refusing to let the House vote on the bill the Senate passed. Now it’s hypocritical Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Republican, doing the same thing with the recently-passed House bill.

Two frauds who refused to allow a bill to be voted on to keep the government open/reopen it, not because they opposed it, but because they were afraid it would pass and embarrass their party’s “president.”

This is not how democracy works. This is not how our government is supposed to work.

Donald Trump and the GOP are the only ones to blame for this political stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Based on the suggestions moved the country forward (in what manner ). and he can be an ass hat is afar cry being an ass hat.. I would put you in the true believer box

People shouldn't be upset when it's suggested they are True believer ... it's kinda of like calling some who claims to be a moderate or an independent a liberal or moonbat or republicans a RINO because they don't tow the party line

It happens here every all the time

It's just getting harder and harder to for the True believer's and republican on the Hill and in this forum to argue away Trumps daily tweets foot stomping and lies and disfunction and mix messages coming out of the Whitehouse from syria to afgainstain to the EU and China...

The only person hinged on his tweets on a daily basis is you Wayne. Go back and check...truth will set you free. You won’t admit it because you sling more poop than Don.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only person hinged on his tweets on a daily basis is you Wayne. Go back and check...truth will set you free. You won’t admit it because you sling more poop than Don.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spoken like a true devotee. There’s nothing to see in the Trump train wreck administration .. move along

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device