Fox and Friends
 

When F&F is calling out the White House on blatant lies you know we have reached a new level. We all expect it from Trump and his mouthpiece Sara Chucklebee, but does it not both you folks defending this guy that the head of homeland security can stand there and lie to the world about numbers of potential terrorists come across the southern border?

So the same people responsible for protecting our borders and points of entry aren’t getting paid and yet the head of Homeland and our president continue to spout lies only to fulfill a memory aid developed during the campaign.

Does it not make you feel Trump thinks your stupid and will believe him, when he stands and tells the world drugs don’t come in thru our ports of entry.

I’d wager news outlets, even F&F’s are spending 1000% more time fact checking this White House than any other past or likely future.

One if by land two if by sea.

Or just lie if it’s 3 and say we need the wall because of terrorist are flooding in ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sonhave we decided that Fix is credible now? orninly when they agree with democrats?

any lying should be exposed by all the media, and the liars should have to explain themselves. chris wallace really took sanders our to the woodshed. all she had to do, is say that any border which 1,000 illegals cross a day, is vulnerable. you don’t have to be a terror expert to see there’s a vulnerability. isn’t it BETTER to build the wall before terrorists cross, rather than after?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you talking Mexican terrorists?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Next we will need a wall on the 4000 mile long northern border with Canada, not counting Alaska in that number.
A one way ticket from Mexico to Montreal is $300, way cheaper than a coyote.

First, my support of the wall has very little to do with terrorism. If there was no such thing as terrorism, I'd want the wall. Because I feel it will reduce (not eliminate by any means) the number of un-vetted people who come in, and that number should be as low as we can make it. You don't disagree with that premise, do you?

But I'm talking any terrorists, I guess. I keep hearing that between 1,000 and 3,000 people cross a day, successfully and illegally. If that's true, is it really that inconceivable to you, that a jihadist cell might cross there? If jihadists keep getting caught at our airports, why haven't they flown or boated to Mexico and walked across? Is there a reason why that's so unlikely to ever happen?

Pete, do you think it's a good idea to try and minimize the number of uninvited and un-vetted people who enter the US?

If so, other than the fact that you reflexively oppose everything that Trump says, do you have a solution? It's thousands and thousands of miles.

Obviously, there's a compelling, non-terror reason to prioritize the southern border. I don't know that huge numbers of people come across the northern border, and put a massive drain on our infrastructure and economy

Make the southern border impenetrable, then the migration path moves.
Perhaps if the "great negotiator" actually had a plan he could get something thru, he couldn't do it in 2 years when the Trumplicans held all the cards. But in order to negotiate you need to be willing to compromise and he can't conceive that not getting 100% can still be a win.
And then to really cure the problem he tweets, does he really think that these countries can tell their citizens they can't leave? Does Trump think he or his government can tell you that you can't leave here?
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries - taking advantage of U.S. for years! [Twitter for iPhone]

pete, ifnthe southern border was impenetrable, some people will find another way. not all of them. so it will reduce, not eliminate, illegals.

your side endlessly points out that the wall won’t reduce illegal crossings to zero. so what? no public policy works
perfectly. the question isn’t is it perfect, the question is, will
it help? the answer to that, is obviously yes. some people, not all, will be deterred by a wall. you can’t make that wrong. pointing out that some people
will find a way, isntva valud rebuttal. no one is saying that a wall will put an end to illegal immigration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete is assuming Soros will fund the plane ticket to Montreal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

Here’s some good reading for you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Coyotes cost way more than $300 and they get paid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother posting sound research, Trump and his base absolutely do not care, this is all about fulfilling a campaign promise; although to do that Mexico needs to pony up the money. Reason falls on deaf ears and even if Trump had access to the reasearch against it, he doesn’t read; cuts into his TV and Twitter time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sara Suckalebee spouts the White House party line, stating 4000 suspecting terrorists are coming in and thankfully F&F’s called her out on that. Almost all of those are picked up at points of entry, while only 6 were even questioned at the southern border, yet in the same year over 40 were detained at our northern border. Data proves illegal immigration at our southern border is at an all time low, yet somehow we have a national crisis there. The idiot in charge is putting our borders in jeopardy with this BS political wall fight, I feel sorry for the government workers paying the price for his fing ego.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch
They say if you tell a big enough lie, people will believe you. (I am guessing Detbuch its talking about Trump ... but of everyones elses lies about Trump )


To bad his base only support F&F when they are cheerleader mode ... when they switch to News mode is fake mainstream media ..

Yeah, that was genius. The 'practical' arguments against the wall are that they erode, natural events create gaps, and that migrants can penetrate.

I can say the same exact things about doors. But the idiot who wrote this piece, still has a door on his house that he closes every single night. There's a reason for that. The reason is, while the door isn't perfect, it's not a guarantee, it still helps. It can be penetrated by a hurricane or by human action. Yet still, having a door makes us more secure than we'd be without the door. TRY MAKING THAT WRONG.

If anyone was saying that the wall will forever reduce illegal immigration to zero, this piece would be an effective rebuttal. Since no one on the planet is saying that, I don't know what he is responding to. The wall will REDUCE, not permanently eliminate, illegal crossing.

Spence, do you understand the difference between eliminate and reduce? It appears to me, that you are confusing one for the other.

The "wall" is not the same thing as a door or a lock. The wall is the same thing as a wall around my house. In the 17th century I'd put a moat around my house. In the 18th century I'd put a wall around my house. In the 19th century, I'd put a piece of wood across the inside of my door. In the 20th century, I'd put a lock on my door. In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it.

Walls still have a place in defense but they may not be appropriate (or needed) everywhere. No single solution works for every instance. And that is why there are walls in some spots along the border and not in all spots and why people have supported walls on the border in the past for some sections and don't support putting a wall along the full border.

This is your own argument that you made up in an attempt to debate yourself I guess, really have no clue how your thought process works these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it."

Almost all of us still use metal locks. But whatever. Just as a door isn't the same as a wall, your house doesn't have 2,000 miles of lateral frontage with which one can enter. You need to secure a much smaller linear area in your house, much easier to do with electronic surveillance.

Paul, if your young children slept in a guest house which was 10 miles away from the house in which you slept, would you be satisfied with electronic locks and cameras to alert you if a murderer was sneaking into their room? No. Because by the time you got there, it would be too late. Right? You'd have guards and a barrier. Right?

On a 2,000 mile border, drones and cameras might be effective at telling us that people are crossing, and where. I'm not sure I see how it helps us stop them, unless they all happen to cross within 100 yards of where the nearest border security personnel are. A camera might allow us to get a better count of how many are coming in, how does it help us prevent them from coming in, on a 2,000 mile border?

That's a sincere question. Not trying to be a wise azz.

Don't we already use drones and cameras?

Here's how it works.

I never said, nobody ever said, that the wall would eliminate 100% of illegal crossings, or that it would last forever.

I said with a wall, fewer people would cross illegally, than do without a wall.

Do you really disagree with that simple notion? Seriously?

We do already use drones and cameras and people in certain spots. but some of the areas Trump wants the walls are very remote and get very very few people going through bc it is mountainous or in the desert so a wall is a waste. In San Diego a wall makes sense but in the hot desert w/no people walking through it makes less sense. Also, the guards say a concrete wall is not preferred as they want to see what is on the other side.

Plus you have the issue of much of the land is privately held.

I see a compromise evolving here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump isn't suggesting we wall the whole border, just sections. I presume, he's talking about the places most used by the 1,000 - 3,000 who cross every day.

Does it not bother you on the right or independents like me, that there is a coordinated propaganda campaign going on by the White House? The rehtoric has been carefully changed as the fact checking dispels the lies coming out of Trumps, Pence and the director of Homeland, clearly meant to convince the weak minded there is a “national security and humanitarian crisis” at our southern border. When the numbers are at historic low, half of what they were a decade ago and only 6 people vs 41 at our northern border were tagged as possibly suspicious; tell me how that justifies a national emergency. I thing the reality TV Star is finally getting his moment tonight and we can all look forward to more lies and misdirection. Jim I appreciate you see the wall as important, but do you not have a problem with a state run propaganda machine being run from the Oval Office?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Does it not bother you on the right or independents like me, that there is a coordinated propaganda campaign going on by the White House?"

It does. It also bothers me that there is a left-wing propaganda war waged by the democrats and the media, to the extent that we even differentiate between those two things anymore.

I thought facts and lies were 2 different things yet once again you have some how made them the same

Plz share with us this left propaganda war
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has gone back and forth with saying the full length. I think recently (last year or so) he hasn't said "the full length". At this point I don't know how long he is proposing. If he were to say that it is just filing in areas these and those area I could support that but I don't think so.

I don't think he really knows or cares what would get built, it's all about riling up the base and being able to declare total victory, probably, like has never been seen in this or any other nation.

This is pure opinion, not an argument. It amounts to a slick tactical lie. It ignores the mirror image of Pelosi and Schumer being all about riling up their base and declaring the defeat of Trump. And it is spiced with an uncorroborated and patently untrue notion that nothing like this has ever been seen in this or any other nation. Your seriously of the opinion that no politician in the history of the world has ever wanted to get something done in order to declare victory?