I agree if and when a wall is ever built it would temporarily reduce crossings, but at what cost to build and what about maintaining it? There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders, without putting that bill on our children and future generations. It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it, but it’s what the base wants and that is why he is holding the government and it’s emploees hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"would temporarily reduce crossings,"

How would a wall, ever be at a point, where it didn't prevent even a single person from crossing? Not everyone who wants to cross is Macgyver.

"at what cost to build"

5 billion, a pittance.

"and what about maintaining it?"

A great question, one that needs to be answered. But remember the wall generates some savings, because 64% of the people who cross, are on welfare.


"There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders"

I keep hearing that. Can you elaborate on what would work better than a wall? Everyone says this, no one offers specifics. You can't have a cop every 100 yards for thousands of miles.

"putting that bill on our children"

It's not even a rounding error compared to what we're saddling our kids with.
"
"It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it"

There is sound thought behind it. It will keep some people out, you said that yourself. I haven't seen a border patrol agent say it wouldn't help.

Do you shut your door at night, or do you rely on better technology, like drones and motion detectors?

The way out for the democrats, is to offer to fund the wall but demand that he give them what they want on DACA. Trump would have to agree to that, because it's the best deal he's likely to get. If he turned that down, he'd look like an idiot. That's the way out for the democrats.

And again, many of the democrats were in favor of the wall, until the day of Trumps inauguration. That's not principled. It's political.

Party line I get it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are reasonable arguments with various documentation and statistics which are opposite to the ones you present or support or believe. I know you don't like my links, but just saying stuff, like your doing here . . . and I don't mean to disparage what you are saying . . . assumes that everyone will accept your word as golden. But there are, simply, lots of opinions and arguments that dispute what you say here. I could provide other links pertaining to the effectiveness and economic value of a border wall, how well fences and walls are working to stop the flow in Eastern Europe which was a main point of entry for illegals and asylum seekers, and elsewhere, but I'm sure even the short one that I am posting here is probably too much for your taste. You may well not even read it and probably think it is a lie if you do. But here is one teeny argument for a wall. among scads more that you can find if you choose too. It isn't the best presentation, but it is short:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/586853001/

SAN ANTONIO, Texas – The congressman who represents more of the U.S.-Mexico border than anyone else says it is fallacy to think a border wall equates to border security.

U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican from San Antonio, spent a decade as an undercover officer for the CIA chasing, in his words, bad guys. In an interview with presenter Ali Velshi on MSNBC, Hurd made clear where he stands on President Trump’s efforts to secure $5.7 billion for a border wall.

“This fallacy that a wall equals border security. I have more border than any other member of Congress, 820 miles of the border. I spent a decade as an undercover officer in the CIA chasing bad guys,” Hurd said.

“We are monitoring or keeping track of the wrong metric. It is not how many miles of wall that is going to keep us safe. Are we keeping bad guys and are we keeping drugs out of our country? The best way to do that is with technology and manpower. Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to keep the border secure.”

Hurd’s interview with Velshi came before the House of Representatives passed legislation that included $5 billion for a border wall and before Friday’s government shutdown.

Hurd said he backed a a short-term continuing resolution passed by the U.S. Senate that did not include the $5 billion. “The American people sent us to Washington to get things done, not burn the place down. We should be able to fund the government now,” Hurd said.

Hurd tried to introduce the Smart Wall Act that was stymied by the Republican leadership of Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy. Hurd said of the legislation:

“It is uses technology and manpower, addresses root causes. What are the root causes of illegal immigration? Violence and lack of economic opportunities in places like the Northern Triangle – El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. We should be talking about plussing up the State Department’s budget, USAID’s budget.

“We should be working with Mexico on this issue. The Mexican president, Lopez Obrador just announced $30 billion in economic development for Central America. We should be partnering with them on that to address those root-driving that is causing illegal immigration to come to our country.


“But, we are not using the latest and greatest technology along the border. A Smart Wall using technology, we can deploy that for under a billion dollars all through the entire border, and do that within a year. That is how we secure our border. That is how we have operational control of the border and making sure that we are protecting the American people.”

Hurd also pointed out that he had introduced a bill with U.S. Rep. Pete Aguilar, a Democrat from California, that addressed border security and provided a permanent legislative fix for DREAMers.

“It addressed some of the root causes in Central America. We have whipped that bill. It has more than 218 votes. We were just unable to get it to the floor because leadership would not bring it up. There are real solutions to this problem. Why this leadership team does not want to bring these to the floor, why we do not want to see a vote, I do not know the answer. But I say, everybody has an idea, let’s bring it to the floor. Whoever gets 218 votes, that goes onto the president’s desk.”

Hurd added that he visited Central America a few months back and saw U.S. officials teaching locals about community policing. “This works,” he said.

Meanwhile, Congressman Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, has explained why he voted against President Trump and the House Republican leadership’s $5.7 billion for border wall. The provision was included in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) fiscal year 2019 Appropriations bill.

“I voted against this bill because I cannot support a wall that is nothing more than a 14th Century solution to a 21st Century challenge,” Cuellar said. “President Trump and Republicans were offered options to keep the government open, which they chose to ignore over an ineffective and expensive border wall. They turned their backs on border personnel, veterans, educators, and federal workers across the country who depend on steady paychecks.”

Cuellar pointed out that if a continuing resolution includes $5.7 billion of border wall funding, the first 55 miles of wall are set to be constructed in Webb County, which he represents.

“This massively expensive barrier will have devastating effects on private property rights, the economy, and the environment in the areas I represent,” Cuellar said.

“We can secure our border in a sensible, cost-effective manner, that does not include an antiquated border wall. I will continue to fight against the wall and work in Congress to properly allocate funding towards border security infrastructure, technology, equipment, border security personnel, as well as economic development in Central America and Southern Mexico.”

Cuellar also issued a Border Barrier Fact Sheet which provides a comprehensive overview of current border barriers. Click here to view the fact sheet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

YOU said that a wall would keep illegals out.

Paul I can post as many links as you want to see, of border patrol agents saying a wall will help. WHat does that prove?

Well he is a congressman on the front lines and as a republican he does not agree with the concept of just putting a big beautiful concrete wall along the border where there currently is no wall. He said the idea of a concrete wall is antiquated and we are better off spending the money on technology and more personnel. And that is the argument most people who are against the wall are making. Invest in things that make sense instead of a wall.
But Trump does not want that he wants just a concrete wall. And let's not forget the fact that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. What is really shocking to me is Trump said he was such a good negotiator and in fact he is horrendous and I have no doubt you or I can negotiate better that what he has done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, you just can't believe that he actually wants a wall. He's a liar. He doesn't even know if the wall which he actually doesn't want, if he were honest, should be concrete or metal. No point in remembering that Mexico was going to pay for it. Why remember a lie. And, of course, Paul and Jim can negotiate better than Trump. How could a liar be able to negotiate. All the so called stories about him negotiating stuff in the past are lies. He's such a fabulous liar that he claims that he's President. They say if you tell a big enough lie, people will believe you.

The only thing we have to remember is that Trump is a liar.

Gald to see you still dont think he's a liar ... or that it matters :faga:

Said IF it was built, never said I agree it’s THE solution, I see it as a big waste of money to fulfill a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"never said I agree it’s THE solution"

Is anyone saying that? anyone at all?

It's one component of an overall border security plan, which will obviously help.

"I see it as a big waste of money to fulfill a campaign promise."

If you want to say that while it will keep some people out, it's still a waste, that's a totally fair opinion. I happen to disagree. Reasonable people can disagree on these things.

Funny how the democrats voted to spend 13B on a wall not long ago, before Trump was POTUS. Must be a coincidence that they all changed their minds on the day of his inauguration.

Just leave that part out Jim because the Democrats have inexplicably changed their minds. I remember the outrage from GotStripers when this was supported by the Dems,don’t you? It was all they talked about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my yes, everyone was telling Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders what loathsome racists they are.

Just like the outrage that occurred when immigrant children were separated from their parents by the Obama administration. They all compared Obama to Hitler, as I recall.

You must have me confused with someone else, I’ve not been a part of this board that long, the BS I saw starting during the 2016 campaign prompted me to join in the debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Join date...Oct.2000
Wrong guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This falls in the category of keep repeating lies long enough and people will believe them.
Obama and Bush did not have a separation policy. The Trump administration didn’t, explicitly, either, but that was the effect of zero tolerance, which meant that anyone caught crossing the border illegally was to be criminally prosecuted, even if they had few or no previous offenses.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated. In most cases, if the charge took longer than 72 hours to process, which is the longest time that children can be held by Customs and Border Protection, children were sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. Zero tolerance remains in effect, but Trump signed an executive order June 20 that stopped separations.

Joined yes, but I've have almost zero participation on this political board until Trump ran in 2016.

The widely circulated photo of kids in cages, which was used as a weapon to attack Trump, was proven to have been taken during Obama's presidency.

Trump expanded on what Obama did. Obama separated kids from parents, that's not refutable.

Yes that picture was taken prior to the Trump Administration, what made you bring that up?

I did not refute that some children were separated during prior administrations.

The difference is quite simple.

The separation of migrant children from adults is in fact due to the fact that Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to prosecute first-offenses as felonies and not misdemeanors - as the Obama and Bush administrations had.

You literally just proved his point, didn’t bother you before.......but Trump


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's called retirement, previously I had zero time to participate on this board, I was to busy working my butt off to hopefully get to a point I could retire. You proved nothing, other than now I have time to join in the debate, although I swear at times, it resembles nothing more than mud slinging by both sides and endless personal attacks.

Actually I have seen very few politicians who don't lie. I think it is so prevalent and obvious that we just accept it as a tactic. We accept the lies, big or little or not even quite so, by those who's policy we support because we want the policy to succeed. We understand that politicians use the "lie" tactic in order to get their stuff accepted and passed through Congress, or, just as importantly, to oppose and stop someone else's policy from being successful. If you don't admit that there are lies and fake news used to attack Trump, I applaud your effort to accept all tactics that will defeat someone you believe will harm the country. As Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception."

Your the good soldier.

*You’re
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You to. But I'm not the one who's complaining about the "archaic" tactic of political lying. I think the selective complaining is another deceptive tactic.

Political "lying" as you call it, prior to this administration was typically based on a range of possible outcomes based on a range of available data, not blatant lies based on alternative facts as the current administration does.
Disagreeing with the alternative facts presented does not make the person or organization fake, because if you present an argument with some basis you can back it up with facts, just insisting loudly that you are correct and calling the other party names, does not make you right.

Perhaps it is the constant lying from Trump which never occurred before. Or the constant chaos in the Oval office with members of his own team saying derogatory things about Trump. Or the hypocrisy of the right which would have been screaming holy hell at some of the things that are being done if prior administrations had done them (declare a national emergency to build the wall - imagine if Obama said we have a national health emergency re ACA).

But Got Stripers can certainly respond for himself.

Don't you start

That may be your esoteric definition of political lying. Which, ironically, seems to claim that before Trump politicians didn't really lie. They just miscalculated. Or disagreed with "alternative facts." Of course, Trump cannot create alternative facts based on what he perceives as available data. But that's neither here nor there.

I mean by lies, actual lies. And politicians, as ever, know when they intentionally twist truth, or omit facts, as they always do if it is necessary to promote their agenda, and as media types do to promote theirs. "Blatant" lies, twisted or omitted facts, are all lies. And they have been the tactic of politicians, and media, and the vast majority of human beings for that matter, to convince others as to their (phony) veracity.

Your slick, sick, twisted definition of political lying is an excellent demonstration of con artistry.

Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone.
Far too many of his claims have no factual basis.
Anyone else would be embarrassed to be caught, and not just double down on the BS.

The downfall of General Donnie Bonespurs long con is coming.
I figure he’s going to show up on TV sooner or later in a uniform with epaulets so I’ve given him a new nickname and don’t worry:

The Meme is Coming



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device