Jump to content

Photo

U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year


128 replies to this topic

#21
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,688 posts
    Last Visit 32 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

I love how Roxas just ignore my post clearly calling out his hipocracy 


Watching the media flail around trying to defend the Dems and attack Trump is very amusing.

 

They’re tweeting furiously about Davos, the First Lady and Trump revealing top secret travel plans. They’re just throwing up anything at the wall at this point.

 

And when Obama refused to sign a spending bill, it was never called the Obama shutdown


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#22
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

 

 

He's being petty and vindictive because she suggested delaying the State of the Union address. What's also important is that this trip was supposed to be kept under wraps to preserve national security, so he blew the lid on this out of pure spite.

 

There is no good reasoning it. It was just a stupid move.

Well, he shut the trip down, so there's not really a lid to be blown at this point. petty or not, politics has always been dirty. Look at the people trying to make him a villain for spending 3K+ of his own money on mcdonalds for a couple hungry college students during the shutdown. people on both sides are pretty terrible to each other right about now..

 

 

 

Cite your sources here.
 


"I am proud to shut down the government for border security. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down.”

 

That is a direct quote from Trump himself. Trump openly admitted that he would be the one to shut down the government, and is only blaming the Democrats after the fact. Claiming that it's a "fact" that Democrats are the ones willing to shut down the government is just peddling the same false arguments as Trump, and ignores that they've already offered $1.3B for border security.

 

EDIT:

https://twitter.com/...653924063862784

 

While it is a joke, I would like to reiterate the question: Can you show what efforts McConnell has personally made to reopen the government?

 

https://nypost.com/2...l-and-it-works/

These are stats from one of the better portions of the wall completed during the bush era (which is still far smaller than the wall trump is proposing and constructing). That's over ten years of info collecting, though it's in a smaller area in general than the total wall we're gunning for. so in short, we have a smaller wall than trump has been building, with sustained stats from the bush era. the wall there has been followed by a massive reduction in crime, and yet remains close to what has been known as one of the more dangerous border areas. that's pretty strong evidence that walls, while not a guaranteed solution, are pretty good at dissuading criminals from coming over the border to your particular area. keep in mind, this is without the additional kinds of surveillance that trump has also proposed, and requested a budget for. in short, we've got data that tells us a wall, even smaller than what trump is asking for, can do the trick pretty well.

 

 

I'm not saying trump's not responsible for shutting it down. What i'm saying is that the democrats are responsible for not getting it open again. it's 5 billion, 20-15 billion less than the starting price, and less money than we gave to south america just last year. We know the wall can do it's job (if backed by proper legislation, surveillance, and and removed incentives), and the people obstructing it today were asking for a border barrier decades ago, claiming bush's fences were not enough just a decade ago. This is nowhere near the first thing they've flipped on recently.

 

 

 

As a side note: https://www.fairus.o...der-fence  Thisis a report on the walls costs as estimated by professional building contractors and determined by prior pecedents. The short of it is, the wall, if built using the same materials we're already using, in a similar manner to israel, would cost around 25 billion, and would be about 40 feet high and 7 feet deep. Personally i would prefer it be 30 feet high and 17 feet deep to further dissuade tunnels, but i suppose that would be a bit more expensive, to the tune of probably 5-10 billion extra. As digging deeper would be more difficult than building higher. Even so, considering we gave out far more than 35 billion in foreign aid, and our entitlement spending for many programs are generally far higher than 35 billion (some being closer to the trillion mark), i'd say it's pocket change (in government terms) and is only being postponed because they don't like the person promoting it.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#23
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,649 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:41 PM

Well, he shut the trip down, so there's not really a lid to be blown at this point. petty or not, politics has always been dirty. Look at the people trying to make him a villain for spending 3K+ of his own money on mcdonalds for a couple hungry college students during the shutdown. people on both sides are pretty terrible to each other right about now.


The lid was blown because he shut the trip down. And yes, politics has always been dirty, which is why he is being criticized for the decision.
 
Him spending money on McDonald's is not why people are calling him evil. It's that he had to do so because the White House's chefs are going unpaid because of the shutdown. He's being derided as pathetic for the McDonald's meal, and his being labeled a villain because of the shutdown. They are two circumstances that directly overlap, but it does not mean people are calling him a villain because he paid for McDonald's.
 

https://nypost.com/2...l-and-it-works/
These are stats from one of the better portions of the wall completed during the bush era (which is still far smaller than the wall trump is proposing and constructing). That's over ten years of info collecting, though it's in a smaller area in general than the total wall we're gunning for. so in short, we have a smaller wall than trump has been building, with sustained stats from the bush era. the wall there has been followed by a massive reduction in crime, and yet remains close to what has been known as one of the more dangerous border areas. that's pretty strong evidence that walls, while not a guaranteed solution, are pretty good at dissuading criminals from coming over the border to your particular area. keep in mind, this is without the additional kinds of surveillance that trump has also proposed, and requested a budget for. in short, we've got data that tells us a wall, even smaller than what trump is asking for, can do the trick pretty well.

 
What exactly is Trump asking for that makes his own plans for a wall superior to the border fence that we have now? What would that do to further decrease crime?
 

I'm not saying trump's not responsible for shutting it down. What i'm saying is that the democrats are responsible for not getting it open again. it's 5 billion, 20-15 billion less than the starting price, and less money than we gave to south america just last year. We know the wall can do it's job (if backed by proper legislation, surveillance, and and removed incentives), and the people obstructing it today were asking for a border barrier decades ago, claiming bush's fences were not enough just a decade ago. This is nowhere near the first thing they've flipped on recently.

 
Democrats pushed for a bill specifically designed to open the government, only for it to be blocked by McConnell, and, again, they explicitly offered 1.3 billion for a border fence. That is neither obstruction, nor does it mean that they are the ones responsible for not opening the government again. It's McConnell and Trump outright rejecting the efforts that Democrats have made to open the government.
 

As a side note: https://www.fairus.o...der-fence  Thisis a report on the walls costs as estimated by professional building contractors and determined by prior pecedents. The short of it is, the wall, if built using the same materials we're already using, in a similar manner to israel, would cost around 25 billion, and would be about 40 feet high and 7 feet deep. Personally i would prefer it be 30 feet high and 17 feet deep to further dissuade tunnels, but i suppose that would be a bit more expensive, to the tune of probably 5-10 billion extra. As digging deeper would be more difficult than building higher. Even so, considering we gave out far more than 35 billion in foreign aid, and our entitlement spending for many programs are generally far higher than 35 billion (some being closer to the trillion mark), i'd say it's pocket change (in government terms) and is only being postponed because they don't like the person promoting it.


https://www.cnsnews....o-plan-build-it

 

The answer is actually much simpler than that: Trump just hasn't provided a detailed plan for how to build it. They're not opposing because they don't like the person promoting it; it's because there's a clear process that needs to be followed, such as asking owners to give up land that would need to be used for the wall, and Trump has shown no indication that he would follow that process. If Trump cannot clearly lay out how he would be able to gain the land necessary for the wall, why should Democrats support it? It would still be setting aside too much money without a coherent plan for how to use that money.

 

It's just not Democrats in Congress that are obstructing him; it's landowners refusing to let him use their property. Democrats also asked him how he plans to take land from unwilling churches, so the burden is still on Trump. If the issue is that the people who do not concede to Trump's demands are responsible for the government not being open again, does that mean it's the landowners who are responsible for the continuing shutdown?


Posted Image


#24
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

 

What exactly is Trump asking for that makes his own plans for a wall superior to the border fence that we have now? What would that do to further decrease crime?
 

 
Democrats pushed for a bill specifically designed to open the government, only for it to be blocked by McConnell, and, again, they explicitly offered 1.3 billion for a border fence. That is neither obstruction, nor does it mean that they are the ones responsible for not opening the government again. It's McConnell and Trump outright rejecting the efforts that Democrats have made to open the government.
 


https://www.cnsnews....o-plan-build-it

 

The answer is actually much simpler than that: Trump just hasn't provided a detailed plan for how to build it. They're not opposing because they don't like the person promoting it; it's because there's a clear process that needs to be followed, such as asking owners to give up land that would need to be used for the wall, and Trump has shown no indication that he would follow that process. If Trump cannot clearly lay out how he would be able to gain the land necessary for the wall, why should Democrats support it? It would still be setting aside too much money without a coherent plan for how to use that money.

 

It's just not Democrats in Congress that are obstructing him; it's landowners refusing to let him use their property. Democrats also asked him how he plans to take land from unwilling churches, so the burden is still on Trump. If the issue is that the people who do not concede to Trump's demands are responsible for the government not being open again, does that mean it's the landowners who are responsible for the continuing shutdown?

 

the fact that the border fense is barely complete, as explained in the second article kinda makes it superior. it would cover more ground that is currently unprotected by any manner of barrier, and even with 7 feet of depth, t would do more to dissuade tunnels than the current wall does.

 

they are trying to cut funding down to 1 billion, after it's already been cut down to 5 billion from 20+ billion. that's not compromise, that's a leash. 5 billion is barely enough to do what trump is asking for properly, and it goes to far mor htan just building the wall, it also applies to the border agents, testing new methods, and looking into even better material and technology to use in combination with the wall. can you really tell me that him reducing his budget request by 75% is him being unwilling to compromise?

 

 

Thing is, he's already building it, and he does not yet have to touch land that is owned by other people. That's the definition of a red herring. that's the kind of problem that can be solved as they go along, and has nothing to do with the work that's already being done. Not that it's unimportant, only that it's not so big on an issue that they should be holding the entirety of it hostage, and they're betrayed by their own words. what difference, on thir end, does 1.3 billion make in comparison to 5 billion, when it comes to discussing land rights? It's underway already, the materials have been decided, and the wall would be going along at a steady pace if he had the funding. land rights is an important discussion, but they are flat out bullshitting if that's their reasoning. Why even approve of 1.3 billion if the real reason is land rights? the difference, as far as democrats would be concerned, is minuscule, and if that's really the case, then the more money he has to work with, the better that particular roadblock would go, as he could more easily fund reimbursement efforts for those who wished it, with a proper budget.

 

 

They can build right outside the owned area if that's the case. This isn't a supermall, It's  a border wall. They don't need so much room that they would absolutely have to build it on the land of the people who object when they could build it right outside their property space. If mexico objects to having their land encroached a bit, he can counter by telling them it's either that, or force their government to take responsibility for the actions of their cartels. In other words, he can play nice with the american land owners, and take it out on mexico like he said from the start. 


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#25
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,649 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:41 PM

the fact that the border fense is barely complete, as explained in the second article kinda makes it superior. it would cover more ground that is currently unprotected by any manner of barrier, and even with 7 feet of depth, t would do more to dissuade tunnels than the current wall does.
 
they are trying to cut funding down to 1 billion, after it's already been cut down to 5 billion from 20+ billion. that's not compromise, that's a leash. 5 billion is barely enough to do what trump is asking for properly, and it goes to far mor htan just building the wall, it also applies to the border agents, testing new methods, and looking into even better material and technology to use in combination with the wall. can you really tell me that him reducing his budget request by 75% is him being unwilling to compromise?
 
 
Thing is, he's already building it, and he does not yet have to touch land that is owned by other people. That's the definition of a red herring. that's the kind of problem that can be solved as they go along, and has nothing to do with the work that's already being done. Not that it's unimportant, only that it's not so big on an issue that they should be holding the entirety of it hostage, and they're betrayed by their own words. what difference, on thir end, does 1.3 billion make in comparison to 5 billion, when it comes to discussing land rights? It's underway already, the materials have been decided, and the wall would be going along at a steady pace if he had the funding. land rights is an important discussion, but they are flat out bullshitting if that's their reasoning. Why even approve of 1.3 billion if the real reason is land rights? the difference, as far as democrats would be concerned, is minuscule, and if that's really the case, then the more money he has to work with, the better that particular roadblock would go, as he could more easily fund reimbursement efforts for those who wished it, with a proper budget.
 
 
They can build right outside the owned area if that's the case. This isn't a supermall, It's  a border wall. They don't need so much room that they would absolutely have to build it on the land of the people who object when they could build it right outside their property space. If mexico objects to having their land encroached a bit, he can counter by telling them it's either that, or force their government to take responsibility for the actions of their cartels. In other words, he can play nice with the american land owners, and take it out on mexico like he said from the start.

 
 
The border fence is incomplete because of the land ownership issues in Texas. This isn't a problem that can be solved "as they go along"; it's the immediate issue at hand.
 
Trump stormed out of a bipartisan meeting, and the fact that the Democrats were even willing to lend any money still completely flies at odds with Trump and McConnell claiming that they're refusing to fund the wall at all. While you offered examples of what else that money could go towards, has Trump himself explicitly laid out how the 5 billion that he is asking for would be allocated and spent?
 
You're conflating two completely separate issues, so claiming that this is somehow a red herring disregards that there can be multiple factors. The difference between 1.3 billion and 5 billion has nothing to do with the land rights; the first is a matter of him having the funds to build the wall, and the second is whether or not he has the legal authority to do so. It is the combination of both factors (among others) that have progress on the wall. It's also difficult to claim that the materials have been decide when Trump has been inconsistent about that.
 
You also seem to be under the impression that the land rights are the Democrats' reasoning, so I encourage you look at it again. The reasoning the Democrats gave was that he has no plan. Land rights were not brought up by Democrats (Or if they were, that's not at all what I was talking about), but rather independent homeowners have been suing against land seizures on their own.
 
Homeland Security had to build gates to claim that they technically did not seize property, so while they could build land outside of the owned area, the only way to do so would simply perpetuate the perceived weaknesses in the current fence.

Posted Image


#26
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

 
 
The border fence is incomplete because of the land ownership issues in Texas. This isn't a problem that can be solved "as they go along"; it's the immediate issue at hand.
 
Trump stormed out of a bipartisan meeting, and the fact that the Democrats were even willing to lend any money still completely flies at odds with Trump and McConnell claiming that they're refusing to fund the wall at all. While you offered examples of what else that money could go towards, has Trump himself explicitly laid out how the 5 billion that he is asking for would be allocated and spent?
 
You're conflating two completely separate issues, so claiming that this is somehow a red herring disregards that there can be multiple factors. The difference between 1.3 billion and 5 billion has nothing to do with the land rights; the first is a matter of him having the funds to build the wall, and the second is whether or not he has the legal authority to do so. It is the combination of both factors (among others) that have progress on the wall. It's also difficult to claim that the materials have been decide when Trump has been inconsistent about that.
 
You also seem to be under the impression that the land rights are the Democrats' reasoning, so I encourage you look at it again. The reasoning the Democrats gave was that he has no plan. Land rights were not brought up by Democrats (Or if they were, that's not at all what I was talking about), but rather independent homeowners have been suing against land seizures on their own.
 
Homeland Security had to build gates to claim that they technically did not seize property, so while they could build land outside of the owned area, the only way to do so would simply perpetuate the perceived weaknesses in the current fence.

 

Like i said, the wall can be built around said land, negotiating to get what you can where you can. For the rest, you can actively fine any land owner that tries to deny the building of the wall, yet does not do it's part to prevent illegal immigration. It is a matter of national security. People who block the wall being built on their land, yet do nothing to keep the borders on their land secure, are actively working against the best interests of the country, and we'll know exactly who to look at when illegal immigrants enter the country illegally.

 

He walked in, asked "are you willing to give the 5 billion?" and walked out when he got a no. anything else would be a waste of time. I've said it before, and i'll say it again, he has already cut the asking price by 75%. Telling him to cut it any further is pointless. he's given more than enough up in consessions.

 

You brought the question of landowners into this, and i've explained it two different ways. We already have parts of the wall built on the Mexican side of the border. for the people who are too paranoid to allow the wall, the wall can be built on mexican land. We've done so already, we can do so again. There is no reason that they cannot give him the 5 billion other than they do not like him. He has the authority, as the top dog of the foreign relations for the country, and he is already going by the books with it, doing very little in relation to the wall that has not already been done by prior presidents (aside from the wall type, and wall size, former presidents have already done pretty much everything he's doing, just not on as big a scale, and there is infinite precedent from other countries for how to do it. like egypt and israel for some of the most recent cases) 

 

 

He's already acting on the wall, and has already begun construction. whether they claim he has a plan or not, withholding the money, when he is clearly doing the job already, and clearly has people working to keep things going smooth down on the border, makes absolutely no sense, because there is nothing illegal, impossible, or unreasonable about 5 billion dollars for a years worth of funding. as for the homeowners, they are well within their rights, and they can get slammed hard for obstruction and abetting illegal immigration when the rest of the wall is complete and they're the only open spots, as they will be the clear goals of all illegal immigrants and foreign cartels, as the easiest point of entry. It's not hard to play hardball, and telling the plan early, if that is how he's going to play it, would heavily dampen the overall effect.they don't want a written plan, they want something they can attack from every conceivable angle. were trump to send them a written out plan, or even a dozen written out plans tomorrow, no matter if he wanted to keep it under wraps, they'd all be fully leaked, and rejected by the end of the day.

 

There's still areas that actually require the wall trump is building, that are not privately owned. Securing those areas, would go a long way to getting the landowners to either accept the wall, or to guard their own border areas better. we see from the indian tribes on the border that drug cartels and illegal criminal activity is strongest where there is no defense. (if i recall, there are actually Indian tribes who have complained for years to congress to do something about it) if the wall is guarded fully, yet the private land is the only land not tightly secured, then guess where the cartels will funnel to? and that, is how you hardball people into accepting the wall on the border. despicable? Yes, but so is endangering your neighbors by not at least securing your own borders. 5 billion would allow those who are able to be persuaded, to be reimbursed quickly, while still keeping funds in the bank for minor changes and upgrades to the already established wall. 1.3 can do none of that.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#27
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,688 posts
    Last Visit 32 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate
Also please note the 1.3 could only be used to fix existing walls

GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#28
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Side note:tfo9jkcnk8b21.png

 

In short, government transportation features barring security are now pretty much barred for congress officials during a shutdown. vacations with lobbyists and broadway shows are now exclusively gonna be either out of pocket, or lobbyist paid. Petty or not, I was hoping for this one for a while.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#29
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    My Friends Are My Power!

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,600 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 04:18 PM
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker
You know, I've been thinking. Trump's initial offer of $25 billion is still not going to be enough for the wall. You gotta factor in the increased cost of upkeep compared to the border fences we have now, the increased cost in actual border patrol on the wall (technology can only help detect, not arrest, so you would need more patrol to deal with anybody that gets through), etc. Where is that money going to come from? How much would that even cost in the long term? I don't think people have thought far enough ahead to see that this may be a bad idea.

I haven't even touched upon the fact that the majority of the border is in the middle of nowhere, which doesn't seem worth the extra cost that a border wall encompassing the entire border would bring. Simple cost benefit analysis yeah, but it helps paint the picture.

eqa4wo.jpg


#30
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

You know, I've been thinking. Trump's initial offer of $25 billion is still not going to be enough for the wall. You gotta factor in the increased cost of upkeep compared to the border fences we have now, the increased cost in actual border patrol on the wall (technology can only help detect, not arrest, so you would need more patrol to deal with anybody that gets through), etc. Where is that money going to come from? How much would that even cost in the long term? I don't think people have thought far enough ahead to see that this may be a bad idea.

I haven't even touched upon the fact that the majority of the border is in the middle of nowhere, which doesn't seem worth the extra cost that a border wall encompassing the entire border would bring. Simple cost benefit analysis yeah, but it helps paint the picture.

According to contractors (cited above), 25 million is not too unreasonable. It would be enough for the wall itself, not the additional tech, but it would still get enough of the job done to justify it. middle estimates are around 40-50 billion, but that's down the line, taking it one step at a time is the point here as we're stuck at a refusal for just 5 billion. take it out of foreign spending. if we can give billions to other countries before our own, then we can cut a couple billion back, I admit i can't name specific countries right now, but that's due to a lack of time to look up total funding for each one. next up, cutting out entitlement and assistance programs for illegal immigrants, reducing assistance for immigrants who come over and sustain solely on welfare, meaning without proof of work after a year or two, asistance would be cut off. Then we can remove the program that rewards you for having as many children as possible (there is an assistance program that pays you assistance money for every child you have, restraining it down to the first two children would do absolute wonders for the U.S. budget. If you can't take care of kids past the second, simply don't have them. there is no logical reason you should be having 3-4 kids if you have no way to sustain even two. we're already saving money when we pull out of syria as well. that's definitely a good start for places we can both gain funding and reduce incentives for illegal immigration. as far as long term, the largest costs are up front, maintinance of the border would not be free, but compared to the initial building, it would be peanuts, and the initial build isn't all that drastic comparatively either.

 

The middle of nowhere is exactly where cartels, human traffickers, and illegal immigrants are most likely to try and cross over. Why cross over near cities, where the most surveillance is? Build the wall, and a couple outposts, add some surveillance and communication tech, and you have a drastically more effective solution that leaving the middle of nowhere open.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#31
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,649 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:41 PM

Like i said, the wall can be built around said land, negotiating to get what you can where you can. For the rest, you can actively fine any land owner that tries to deny the building of the wall, yet does not do it's part to prevent illegal immigration. It is a matter of national security. People who block the wall being built on their land, yet do nothing to keep the borders on their land secure, are actively working against the best interests of the country, and we'll know exactly who to look at when illegal immigrants enter the country illegally.
 
He walked in, asked "are you willing to give the 5 billion?" and walked out when he got a no. anything else would be a waste of time. I've said it before, and i'll say it again, he has already cut the asking price by 75%. Telling him to cut it any further is pointless. he's given more than enough up in consessions.
 
You brought the question of landowners into this, and i've explained it two different ways. We already have parts of the wall built on the Mexican side of the border. for the people who are too paranoid to allow the wall, the wall can be built on mexican land. We've done so already, we can do so again. There is no reason that they cannot give him the 5 billion other than they do not like him. He has the authority, as the top dog of the foreign relations for the country, and he is already going by the books with it, doing very little in relation to the wall that has not already been done by prior presidents (aside from the wall type, and wall size, former presidents have already done pretty much everything he's doing, just not on as big a scale, and there is infinite precedent from other countries for how to do it. like egypt and israel for some of the most recent cases) 
 
 
He's already acting on the wall, and has already begun construction. whether they claim he has a plan or not, withholding the money, when he is clearly doing the job already, and clearly has people working to keep things going smooth down on the border, makes absolutely no sense, because there is nothing illegal, impossible, or unreasonable about 5 billion dollars for a years worth of funding. as for the homeowners, they are well within their rights, and they can get slammed hard for obstruction and abetting illegal immigration when the rest of the wall is complete and they're the only open spots, as they will be the clear goals of all illegal immigrants and foreign cartels, as the easiest point of entry. It's not hard to play hardball, and telling the plan early, if that is how he's going to play it, would heavily dampen the overall effect.they don't want a written plan, they want something they can attack from every conceivable angle. were trump to send them a written out plan, or even a dozen written out plans tomorrow, no matter if he wanted to keep it under wraps, they'd all be fully leaked, and rejected by the end of the day.
 
There's still areas that actually require the wall trump is building, that are not privately owned. Securing those areas, would go a long way to getting the landowners to either accept the wall, or to guard their own border areas better. we see from the indian tribes on the border that drug cartels and illegal criminal activity is strongest where there is no defense. (if i recall, there are actually Indian tribes who have complained for years to congress to do something about it) if the wall is guarded fully, yet the private land is the only land not tightly secured, then guess where the cartels will funnel to? and that, is how you hardball people into accepting the wall on the border. despicable? Yes, but so is endangering your neighbors by not at least securing your own borders. 5 billion would allow those who are able to be persuaded, to be reimbursed quickly, while still keeping funds in the bank for minor changes and upgrades to the already established wall. 1.3 can do none of that.

 
That is extremely paranoid to go after private landowners because they won't give up the land that they are entitled to. They are under no obligation to "do their part", and while I suppose you could try fining land owners, the ability to seize that land requires a gross abuse of power.
 
How would that 5 billion be spent? I don't care how much he has given up already, I want to know what exactly he plans to do with the money that he is demanding, and that is why Schumer refused to fund it: Because Trump did not give specific details on how that money would be spent outside of funding the wall.
 
I brought up landowners by explicitly stating that they were separate from Democrats, and yet you completely misread that statement and claimed that it was somehow the Democrats' reasoning. It's not that people are too "paranoid" to allow for a wall, it's that the burden is on Trump to prove the value of his value, and he has failed to meet that burden. Again, if you all you can assume is that they're doing this solely because they don't like Trump, you're choosing to ignore any other reasons, and instead just resorting to attacking their character, reasons be damned. While part of it is that the wall was the centerpiece of Trump's campaign, it is, again, because his plans are simply unrealistic. If you read that article, you'll see that even Republican Will Hurd has opposed the wall at every opportunity, and it doesn't come down to "Well they just don't like Trump." It's that he's focused so damn much on just the wall that he hasn't been focusing on other aspects of border security. Why should they support his plans for border security when Trump's own plans are incomplete?
 
Construction has only gone as far as replacing fences that were already in place with modern alternatives. It's only been on areas that were already in place, and no progress has been made on the new additions that Trump has asked for the wall. How could landowners refusing to give up the land that they own be charged with obstruction of justice and abetting illegal immigration? That would be the actual paranoia, because it is trying to file criminal charges against people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, simply because they are owning land.
 

they don't want a written plan, they want something they can attack from every conceivable angle. were trump to send them a written out plan, or even a dozen written out plans tomorrow, no matter if he wanted to keep it under wraps, they'd all be fully leaked, and rejected by the end of the day.


I think you're constructing this argument because you're standing by your position that they're only opposing his wall because they don't like Trump. You're either refusing to acknowledge any other possibility, or rejecting those possibilities by making up situations that would prove your specific belief. That is disregarding the actual facts so that the power dynamics you're expecting can suit your narrative. Prove that this is what would happen instead of relying on pure speculation.
 

if the wall is guarded fully, yet the private land is the only land not tightly secured, then guess where the cartels will funnel to? and that, is how you hardball people into accepting the wall on the border. despicable? Yes, but so is endangering your neighbors by not at least securing your own borders. 5 billion would allow those who are able to be persuaded, to be reimbursed quickly, while still keeping funds in the bank for minor changes and upgrades to the already established wall. 1.3 can do none of that.


I realize that this was intended to come across as a rational argument that touches on the inevitable progression of events, but it's just fearmongering and further speculation, and again acting as though its the landowners who are despicable. Homeland Security also did not fairly compensate landowners whose properties were taken for the current border fence, so we do have a precedent that the 5 billion would not allow people to be reimbursed quickly. You're also acting entirely under the assumption that waving the 5 billion around would immediately persuade those landowners while having enough in reserve.
 
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly: Pay funds from the 5 billion to reimburse every landowner that could be persuaded, keep some money in reserve for other border security needs, and slam obstruction of justice charges on anyone who is not persuaded by the 5 billion, because refusing to sell your property is tantamount to aiding and abetting illegal immigrants?
 
There's also the fact that, prior to the Trump taking office, up through today, without the wall, illegal entry by individuals from Mexico has fallen by more than 90% since FY 2000. In fact, most drug smugglers actually use legal ports of entry. Incidentally, that same article points out that Democrats prefer to invest more heavily in ports of entry, so it seems like Democrats are actually putting more than enough effort into the actual channels that drug smugglers use.

 

That's what makes this shutdown so ridiculously stupid. It's Trump demanding money for a wall that does not actually address the main methods drug cartels rely on, and he's trying to scapegoat a party that has been doing their part to protect national security. So perhaps that may be another reason they won't give him the 5 billion; it would be wasting far too much money on constructing a wall that doesn't even target the actual crisis points.


Posted Image


#32
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,688 posts
    Last Visit 32 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

POTUS offered them a deal, the Bridge act the dems wanted, renews DACA for 3 years in exchange for 1/5th of the wall

 

As expected, they're already saying no


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#33
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Nothing at all is paranoid about it. I meant fining from the start, if negotiations to be allowed to build a wall in exchange for compensation are shot down. If the wall is completed, and theirs are the only open areas, if it is discovered that cartels, traffickers, or illegal immigrants are entering through said gaps, then fining them is pretty much in order, as they are at that point, willfully compromising the security of the border. But I already suggested an alternative, aka building the wall outside their land, just around it. That would work as well.

 

 

He just gave a speech on what he would like to have allocated in funds, the 5 billion goes directly to the wall, he also requested additional border security guard funds among other things as well. Stating it goes towards the wall is more than enough info.

 

And like I said, they don’t have to accept the wall on their land, but they will damn sure accept the responsibility of monitoring their part of the border if they do not allow it, and will be fined accordingly if they are proven to be slipping on their end of upkeep.

I’m not even claiming that he’s already built the entire part of the border that’s unowned by the sovereign folks. Fact remains, there’s more wall to be built than just the bits owned by people who disagree with him, and that 5 billion he’s looking for is aimed directly at it.

 

He laid out a deal with them today, and stated his requests, we’ll see just how wrong I am about that.

EDIT: Turns out, she rejected the deal before he even made it, citing several reasons why she wouldn't accept it, he then makes the speech, addresses each and every issue she preemptively cited, and she STILL rejected it. I was right, and for this one, i'm flat out boasting about it, because not only did i call it, he directly addressed every thing she used in her statement against him, giving her ALL of it and then some, and she said exactly what i said she would, Dude played every move right, gave her everything that she, practically minutes prior said she wanted in the deal, and the answer was still no. Do you doubt my point any further? She rejected it before it even existed, AND after he gave her everything she claimed to want just minutes prior.

 

 

There is no fear there. It’s reasonable point making. The biggest gaps in a barrier are the easiest to break through. Do you disagree? If the wall’s completed everywhere but on citizen owned land, would that not make said land (the main land open) the most simple place to break through? What homeland security did in the past has nothing to do with trump at the moment, and with actual funding, I’d say he’s far more likely to be able to do something with the stubborn folks than without it. No, I’m not imagining that the 5 billion would convince them all, I’m stating that it would be better leverage, and grant more wiggle room by far than 1.3 billion, which is a complete fact, as you can do more with 5 billion than you can with 1.3 billion (over 3x more in fact, that 1.3 billion itself could be allocated to opening up negotiations). A few dozen million to build a fence on private land is a price that could be well worth negotiating. Like that, you could slowly make deals with those who agree, and temporarily skip over those who do not. Sure, it’s slow, but I doubt most people would absolutely refuse 30-40 million in exchange for a fence in their distant backyard. This isn’t a mall, it’s a border barrier, if anything, it would protect their peace and quiet. Given some time, and upfront money available, I’m pretty sure a decent number of them could be convinced.

 

No, almost had it though

  • Cut out a couple hundred million of the 5 billion budget to negotiate with a few of them (small steps, not covering the whole thing at once, as 5 billion cannot reasonably do that) 
  • Notify those who refuse, that they will be responsible for their open border section from the point of the walls completion on, (as it IS a matter of national security)
  • If they are found to be actively negligent in their maintenance, say if drugs or human traffickers are found to be coming through their area en masse, and they are doing nothing to report, stop, or at least slow the flow till border patrol can begin handling it, then they will be fined appropriately.
  • Provide some form of incentive to upkeep their area of the border in either case, like tax cuts, or yearly assistance so long as they help with the due diligence.

This is border security, not home upkeep. That’s as nice a deal as they can get, and be it church or individual, the same conditions will apply. They would have had a chance to at least leave part of it up to the authorities, yet chose to send them packing at that point.

 

 

That article is not actually true, see, the ones who get caught, are generally those using legal ports of entry, there are thousands of pounds in the U.S. though.  You telling me all the stuff we miss comes in right through the front door? No, that’s them twisting the fact that 90% of the drugs we catch, we catch at points of entry. Unless you can explain to me how they know exactly where the people we don’t catch (and thus don’t know about) are coming in from? We may catch the greatest number of drugs at the entry port, but the amount in america due to cartels is far more likely to come in from far away from the point of entry, as they are clearly quite good at catching them there. Unless you're telling me the drug cartel is entirely dependent on coming in through the most basic ports of entry, instead of the slightly bumpier, but far less occupied middle of nowhere? Where the security is far lower, and their escape routes don't involve traffic, drug dogs, and higher overall security? Where's the logic in that claim?

 

It’s trump demanding funds for a wall, in combination with a request for future legislation that would rework and remove some incentive programs. Border security, whom are the people he got the facts in his speech from, are the ones dealing with it day in and out, and they are the ones he’s getting his wall update ideas from. In other words, the people who actually do the job, are the people giving him advice and new ideas for the wall. As far as plans go, the guy who’s talking directly with those whose boots are on the ground, is higher up on the list than the people writing incorrect articles.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#34
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    My Friends Are My Power!

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,600 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 04:18 PM
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker
The New York Times: Senate Leaders Plan Competing Bills to End Shutdown.
https://www.nytimes....own-senate.html

An end to this shutdown may be in sight. I expect both votes to not get 60, but I do expect a bipartisan effort to come out of this once both sides see the support isn't there for either bill in the Senate. Though, it remains to be seen how the House would respond.

eqa4wo.jpg


#35
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Seriously hope they just take the deal. From most fronts, nobody is happy with the entirety of the deal, and that is exactly what compromise looks like. All sides get something they want, and nobody gets everything they want. How could that be so a bad thing?


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#36
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,649 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:41 PM

The New York Times: Senate Leaders Plan Competing Bills to End Shutdown.
https://www.nytimes....own-senate.html

An end to this shutdown may be in sight. I expect both votes to not get 60, but I do expect a bipartisan effort to come out of this once both sides see the support isn't there for either bill in the Senate. Though, it remains to be seen how the House would respond.


"But even the provisions ostensibly meant to attract Democratic support for the proposal fell short. While Republicans say the protections are drawn from the Bridge Act, a bipartisan measure, that bill would in fact protect hundreds of thousands more Dreamers, who were brought to the United States illegally as children. The Republican proposal would shield only those who applied for and received work permits under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, created by President Barack Obama, which Mr. Trump rescinded in 2017.
 
Federal court decisions have kept DACA in place, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court again declined the Trump administration’s request to review the legality of the program, almost certainly keeping it in place for the rest of the year. That decision by the court significantly devalued Mr. Trump’s overture to Democrats resisting wall funding."

 
In other words, this deal was only made in bad faith, and makes glaring exceptions because Republicans outright lied about this being drawn from the Bridge Act. And since the Supreme Court denied the administration's request against DACA, this is a hollow gesture, because DACA is going to be upheld even without this deal, and the GOP bill actually excludes a lot of groups that are meant to be protected under DACA. It's taking groups hostage and trying to use them as bargaining chips. That isn't compromise, that's being completely disingenuous, especially when this is apparently just a compilation of past bills that had already been rejected anyway.


Posted Image


#37
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,708 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 06:33 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

At some point the question of what to do with them is going to have to be answered, This is arguably the closest thing they're getting to a deal, maybe one more concession for the sake of them saving face, but the deal sounds good enough to me. it protects those who have working permits (and hopefully overlooks those who have above the table jobs without such) that sounds good enough to me. also, if the additions had already been rejected, and he's giving it to them now, that counts as compromise right? This is a concrete guarantee that those under DACA making an effort to live and work in america get to stay for at least 3 additional years on top of their current limits. It looks like a good enough deal to me, unless i'm missing something major.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#38
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Warrior's Strike R when?

  • The Chariot
  • 26,649 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:41 PM

At some point the question of what to do with them is going to have to be answered, This is arguably the closest thing they're getting to a deal, maybe one more concession for the sake of them saving face, but the deal sounds good enough to me. it protects those who have working permits (and hopefully overlooks those who have above the table jobs without such) that sounds good enough to me. also, if the additions had already been rejected, and he's giving it to them now, that counts as compromise right? This is a concrete guarantee that those under DACA making an effort to live and work in america get to stay for at least 3 additional years on top of their current limits. It looks like a good enough deal to me, unless i'm missing something major.

 
https://theweek.com/...ted-initiatives
 
No, it's that Trump's offers had already been rejected, so what he's offering now doesn't count as a compromise. The issue is that he's offering nothing new, nor is there anything he's offering in good faith, and when the issue with DACA is that he's excluding a majority of the people meant to be protected under it. Again, as the Supreme Court is taking no action for or against DACA, current recipients are protected anyway, so Trump's "concessions" regarding DACA in this deal make absolutely no difference because it's what's going to be happening anyway.
 
In other words, Democrats will still be getting what they want, and they don't even have to make a deal with Trump to get it. So what's the point of this deal? With SCOTUS upholding DACA, all this deal amounts to is Trump still asking for his $5.7B and offering nothing in return, which just brings us back to square one. Nothing about this deal changes anything.
 
EDIT:
https://www.vox.com/...hutdown-polling

"According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll of 1,996 voters conducted from January 18 to 22 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent, only 7 percent of voters say they support 'dedicating funding to a border wall if it was the only way to end the government shutdown' - in other words, Trump’s strategy so far."

 

The article also shows that his base fracturing as his approval rating hits record lows, with the majority of voters - particularly Republicans - agreeing that this shutdown is not worth it, and that he should agree to a deal without wall funding. Polls also indicate that Pelosi is doing a more favorable job in negotiations than Trump.


Posted Image


#39
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    My Friends Are My Power!

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,600 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 04:18 PM
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker
CNBC: Senate votes on government shutdown and Trump border wall bill.
https://www.cnbc.com...-wall-bill.html

As I thought, both Senate bills didn't get 60 votes. However, the Democratic bill received more votes than the GOP bill. Take that for what you will, but it suggests that Democrats may be "winning" this shutdown.

eqa4wo.jpg


#40
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,688 posts
    Last Visit 32 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

CNBC: Senate votes on government shutdown and Trump border wall bill.
https://www.cnbc.com...-wall-bill.html

 

As I thought, both Senate bills didn't get 60 votes. However, the Democratic bill received more votes than the GOP bill. Take that for what you will, but it suggests that Democrats may be "winning" this shutdown.

Yeah totally, 1 GOP senator didn't vote, and the other two didn't back Trump's bill for being too moderate

 

The number of people seeking jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level since November 1969, a sign the job market remains strong despite the partial government shutdown, now in its fifth week.

https://apnews.com/6...aign=SocialFlow

Guess we really don't need em


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users