Jump to content

Photo

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


Necrobump!

Guest, the last post on this topic is over 30 days old and a new post will be considered as necrobumping!



298 replies to this topic

#61
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,904 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:48 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

 
That's exactly my point. If he doesn't need to do it faster, it doesn't sound like there's much of an emergency. This comes down his own personal preference.

zQu6ewx.png

No no, he has to do it faster since it IS an emergency

 

He shouldn't need to do it, but the democrats are willing to let their country be invaded for cynical politics

 

His hands are tied


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#62
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

https://www.factchec...rgency-remarks/

https://www.aclu.org...aration-illegal

https://www.nbcnews....-crisis-n971911

 

There is no emergency, certainly not at the border. The Democrats are not at fault here, because Trump has either outright lied about where the most vulnerable parts are (Assuming he even knows what they are; it's entirely possible he's just wrong and doesn't realize that), or has ignored the data that contradicts him. The deals rejecting Trump were bipartisan, then either the Republicans owe just as much blame as the Democrats, or if both parties are rejecting Trump, maybe the issue isn't that both parties are willing to let the country be invaded, but that Trump himself is the problem here. Trump's hands are only tied because the wall was his biggest campaign promise, and he's over halfway through his first (And possibly only) term. This isn't him taking a last resort to prevent an imaginary invasion, this is him panicking to deliver on his campaign promise.

 

Let me put it this way: When your entire campaign hinged on a wall, and people were eager to believe it, it would be completely humiliating to concede that the general consensus from most sources of data prove that the "causes of invasion" come from areas that would not be targeted by the wall. He made his bed, and now he has to lie in it. He also has a history of largely sticking to the same script. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where it felt like it didn't matter what you would say, because the other person seemed to be prefer responding in only one specific way? That's Trump. It doesn't matter what the facts are, he's going to stick to his script.

 

Democrats and Republicans do both care about border security, but Trump seems to believe that his wall is the only way to achieve ideal border security. While the wall and border security are not one and the same, Trump is treating them as though they are. Opposing the wall doesn't mean that either party opposes border security, and it doesn't mean that they're willing to let the country be invaded. They just don't think the wall that Trump staked his entire campaign on is the ideal way of maximizing border security.



#63
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,904 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:48 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

Democrats don't care about illegal immigration cuz it's more votes for them

 

Most old fashion republicans don't care cuz it's cheap labor

 

Yeah man, I'll take the ACLUs word over what any non partisan can see with his own eyes

 

The GOP folded on every bill cuz 1) they're spineless, and 2) they don't really care about illegal immigration 

 

The democrats all supported a border wall/fence as recent as this decade, but merely oppose it cuz Trump now. 

 

You never really argue in good faith roxas, but this should be mental gymnastics even for you. I also noticed how you tried to spin Trump's words, and when confronted with that you just started talking about something else. Cute


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#64
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

Democrats don't care about illegal immigration cuz it's more votes for them
 
Most old fashion republicans don't care cuz it's cheap labor
 
Yeah man, I'll take the ACLUs word over what any non partisan can see with his own eyes
 
The GOP folded on every bill cuz 1) they're spineless, and 2) they don't really care about illegal immigration 
 
The democrats all supported a border wall/fence as recent as this decade, but merely oppose it cuz Trump now. 
 
You never really argue in good faith roxas, but this should be mental gymnastics even for you. I also noticed how you tried to spin Trump's words, and when confronted with that you just started talking about something else. Cute

 
You're really going to accuse me of arguing in bad faith immediately after you dismiss ACLU without any reason?
 
Where did I start talking about something else? I've been consistent in discussing the topic, and provided multiple sources beyond the ACLU to back up my argument.

 

The idea that Democrats only oppose the wall because Trump is the one behind it is something I already talked with vla1ne about here, and I've already argued against that point, with Democrats offering other reasons, such as Trump either not providing a coherent plan, they're supporting the fence that's already in place, or they believe that the amount of asking for is far too excessive. I brought up the quote because he is openly attempting to violate the Revenue Clause of the Constitution because he failed to get the money that he wanted.

 

There are plenty of other reasons for both parties to refuse funding the wall, and it's not as simple as "They just don't like Trump." Consider those other possibilities before you continue passing off shallow attacks and deflection as coherent arguments.



#65
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

We've seen that trump has attempted, multiple times, to get funding for the wall through the proper channels, After 2 shutdowns, and as many months of waiting and compromise attempts, democrats are unwilling to budge for funding. Trump has already placed troops at the border to assist with the problem. He's got reasonable grounds to argue for a national emergency at this point. It is a fact that democrats will fight anything at all that trump does, one look at the state of the union, the shutdown deal, or the supreme court nomination, should tell you everything you need to know about the democrats supporting trump related topics. At this point, a national emergency is required, because a compromise cannot be reached.  Anything short of pretty much not building the wall, and the democrats would veto the hell out of it in house. This is a fact.

 

Using past actions taken as a precedent, trump could be literally be talking about the cure for cancer, and they would not even agree with him there. Thy could be calling the caravans coming over a crisis one day, and the second that trump says "I agree, we need to work on it" they would revoke their statements and fight tooth and nail to deny that anything at all is wrong on the border regarding people trying to break across.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#66
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

Again, both of you are disregarding that Republicans are just as divided over Trump's actions. You cannot keep blaming Democrats forever, and frankly your posts are becoming less about rational arguments, and instead just complaining about Democrats for the sake of it. Trump himself has also completely changed his motto from "Build that wall" to "Finish that wall." The spending bill passed 83-16, and yet Trump is calling a national emergency to ask for money in direct violation of the Constitution.

 

This isn't about Democrats hating what Trump's doing just because Trump's the one doing it. This is because his actions are an actual abuse of power, and they're against that abuse of power. They are opposing him because of what his actions cause, not because Trump is the person behind those actions. I can  say that Republicans will only ever support Trump because it's Trump, but does that sound the least bit logical to you? It's about as logical as what you two are saying. I tend to think that Republicans are sycophants, but if Republicans are divided over Trump declaring a national emergency, at least I can take a step back and recognize that instead of making sweeping generalizations against the party.



#67
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Again, both of you are disregarding that Republicans are just as divided over Trump's actions. You cannot keep blaming Democrats forever, and frankly your posts are becoming less about rational arguments, and instead just complaining about Democrats for the sake of it. Trump himself has also completely changed his motto from "Build that wall" to "Finish that wall." The spending bill passed 83-16, and yet Trump is calling a national emergency to ask for money in direct violation of the Constitution.

 

This isn't about Democrats hating what Trump's doing just because Trump's the one doing it. This is because his actions are an actual abuse of power, and they're against that abuse of power. They are opposing him because of what his actions cause, not because Trump is the person behind those actions. I can  say that Republicans will only ever support Trump because it's Trump, but does that sound the least bit logical to you? It's about as logical as what you two are saying. I tend to think that Republicans are sycophants, but if Republicans are divided over Trump declaring a national emergency, at least I can take a step back and recognize that instead of making sweeping generalizations against the party.

republicans are willing to budge fr 5 billion though. they aqren't willing to toss in the whole pile of money, but they are indeed willing, for the most part, to budge for 5 billion instead of the full budget. in addition, there isn't as large a republican force against him in congress as there are democrats. there are individuals against him, but it isn't a party wide thing. Yeah, we can talk about the republicans too, i've got my gripes with them, but they aren't the largest thorn, and they are more willing to negotiate than democrats. The spending bill has pretty much nothing for the wall though. we've been over this. 1.3 billion is useless for anything notable. It was more to get the government open than from him being happy with it.

 

Pretty sure no other president has been hated to the level where their opponents refused to stand and clap for anything positive they said unless it was about them. seriously. you can say it's not about trump, but the people against him refused to so much as clap for cancer treatment, holocaust survivors, peace negotiations, and veterans, Tell me what that hatred of a person looks like, if not refusal to acknowledge what they say, no matter how positive? Every president prior for the past 3 administrations has declared national emergency multiple times, and they have all been contested by the opposing party. this Is party politics as usual. and like the past ones, this one will make it through same as always. You yourself, have already admitted that republicans have contested him as well as supported him within this same statement. your statement sounds wrong, because the actions of the people mentioned disprove it. the statement that democrats hate trump, is backed by their own actions towards him. democrats have been wholly against all of his attempts at concessions. republicans have been for and against him at varying intervals. to claim they are on the same level is to ignore every action democrats and republicans have taken since trump made it into office.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#68
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

The issue is that you have offered absolutely no reason for why the Democrats would hate him, other than just saying that they hate him. And I've seen this type of argument before, that someone just hates an individual, but can't offer a reason for it. Is the issue that you cannot understand why Democrats hate Trump, or do you think they have no reason for it?

 

Among the 59 national emergencies, how many of them were declared after the President

 

If oncologists and cancer patients are unhappy with Trump's plans for cancer treatment, then why should I expect Democrats to applaud Trump? He also deserves no credit for peace negotiations when he had threatened to destroy North Korea. He banned Jim Acosta from the White House for asking a question, then used a doctored video from InfoWars to slander him.

 

Trump has tried to circumvent the separation of powers, and has gone out of his way to try and repeal Obamacare. Mitch McConnell was singled out for his hypocrisy in moaning about the opposition to Kavanaugh's nomination, because McConnell personally opposed Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court for absolutely no other reason than Obama nominated him. Republicans viciously hated Obama, as well as Trump.

 

Trump has also overseen attempts to ban transgender people from the military, and his Muslim ban was nothing short of discrimination. The hatred towards Trump is based entirely on him ruling more from his own irrational hatred than out of anything purely logical. Democrats detest him because he represents a regression in values. At the Munich Security Conference, Pence made a statement expecting an applause, and none of the world leaders present clapped. The United Nations laughed at Trump when he claimed that his administration has accomplish more than any other in history.

 

When the world is hating Trump, they're judging him for his reactions. I'm not saying that this isn't about Trump. You seem to believe that Democrats hate Trump as if his only crime was existing. My issue is that Trump has consistently operated in bad faith as president. The Russian probe against him is being led by Republicans because of the specific circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. All the hate against him is a reaction to what he has said and done.

 

If you truly believe that Trump has done nothing to earn the level of scorn he gets, take a step back and try to assess where he has gone wrong. Thankfully, Trump isn't the only president who's been hated this much. He's hated as much as Nixon was before Nixon resigned. Maybe screaming about a witch hunt in an investigation where several of the suspects have been found guilty could have something to do with that.



#69
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    My Friends Are My Power!

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,650 posts
    Last Visit Jun 02 2019 02:43 AM
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker
CNN: 16 states file lawsuit to stop Trump's national emergency declaration.
https://www.cnn.com/...ency/index.html

The legal battles have begun. I expect this to be expedited through the courts so that an answer is given swiftly.

eqa4wo.jpg


#70
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

"At the core of each lawsuit is the argument that Trump is circumventing Congress to fund the wall along the US-Mexico border by declaring an emergency."

Huh, weird how this is consistently the main reason people have cited for why they oppose this fake national emergency. It's almost as if Trump has legitimately done something wrong here, so the argument that Democrats are opposing Trump merely because it's Trump willfully ignores the faults in Trump's own actions.



#71
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

He has the authority to circumvent congress using this method. and he's spent about 3-4 months trying to get them to work with him instead of doing this. The entire argument of the moment being "Is there a national emergency or not?" One side claims it is, the other side stopped claiming it is the second trump said it is. Looking back about 4-5 months will show you that most people on the democrat side were calling this a crisis well before trump did, and while caravans are still coming, and troops are still stationed there, democrats hae decided that it is no longer an emergency. The grounds for the national emergency claim exist. They don't wish to acknowledge them in any aspect though. Considering we've called national emergencies, and consequently spent billions of dollars for events that happened in other countries across the ocean, i'd say he has strong grounds to call one for an event occurring right at our own border.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#72
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

Again, statistics from the DHS suggest that there is no crisis, and the numbers Trump used to support his claim were false numbers provided by Steve King. Again, every other source confirms that most drugs use legal ports of entry, which you rejected not by providing any facts, reports, or any other source, but by your own personal guesses.
 
Here's what it comes down. You believe that Democrats oppose Trump simply because he's Trump, and support him circumventing Congress because he spent months trying to negotiate for money. I criticized him for taking that specific course of action because it's completely hypocritical when he accused Obama of doing the same. I also believe that Democrats have offered more than enough reasons to oppose Trump, such as border lawmakers explicitly telling Trump to focus on the legal ports instead of the border. The drugs that are seized at legal ports also tend to be thrice as valuable as the drugs seized at the border. You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough, so I have to ask, where is your preponderance of evidence that the smugglers who don't get caught are more likely to come through the border?

 

The difference between our arguments is that I can cite data that shows the merits of Democrats opposing a border wall, because it's been established that there are better places to spend the money. You have nowhere near as much factual data that supports why Trump is right to target the border. Democrats also could have shifted their positions upon seeing the data and simply agreeing with what that data suggested, and decided to change their focus towards what has now been shown to be more vulnerable. That would mean the Democrats deferred to proper sources, rather than using data that a white supremacist cherrypicked in bad faith.

 

I'm willing to consider multiple possibilities, but you want to keep repeating "Democrats oppose Trump because it's Trump" ad infinitum, and simply don't want to consider anything else.



#73
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Your citation does nothing but attempt to skew the points.id does not deny that at least 28% percent of all prisoners are to illegal immigrants, it does not deny that people are dying due to illegal immigration, though it attempts to skew the numbers, in which case you could easily cut them in half and still have enough people killed per year to support building a wall. It attempts to discredit drug deaths as a part of the statistic, when drugs coming across the border are directly related to the lack of security. It attempts to discredit diseases and anchor babies as a drain on the system, when we have ample evidence of people desperately trying to make it over the border just to pop out a baby to take advantage of the anchor baby rules. and the cost required to treat illegal immigrants is exemplified by the sheer amount of times the media tries to blame people dying from sickness on the administration instead of on the abusable programs that make people so desperate to get here. in their attempt to discredit parents being separated from their children, they conveniently forget about child traffickers, AKA the reason we separate them in the first place. The entire article is a swing and a miss. they try to claim there's no crisis, but they ignore mexico preparing to break apart the caravan sanctuaries, many of whom are liable to rush the border once again once mexico stops cradling them. it also ignores the confirmations of additional ms-13 members attempting to get in through the border, the fact that women and children are practically used as shields by people attempting to pass the wall, the monetary drain on the system supporting entitlement programs for illegal immigrants (mostly in california) the increase in criminals coming across, ect. No crisis at all? They barely even looked into it.

You are once again conflating amount of drugs caught, with number of drugs making it across. 90% of drugs caught are caught at points of entry, we know for a fact that more drugs than that are coming across, we know for a fact that drugs are transported across the unprotected points across the border. Again, what criminal, in their right mind, sends 90% of their drugs through the easiest place to catch? that's a false point that's being touted as if it were true. literally nothing backs the claim that most drugs come across through points of entry. The only stat we know that places points of entry as a majority, is drugs caught. tell me what intelligent drug dealer is going to send the majority of their drugs through one of the best protected parts of the border (aka the point of entry).

 

border lawmakers are using some of the most asinine arguments i've ever seen. Trump points out that there's 2k+ miles shared between points of entry, yet somehow those lawmakers are attempting to cite the numbers of drugs caught to argue against him. at points of entry, drugs are far easier to catch, you have a slowed pace, you have more security, you have actual barriers, and you have respectable surveillance. you have all 3 prongs required for effective security. trumps argument is that he wants to extend those 3 prongs across the border, lawmakers are arguing that there is no need because drugs only come in across the most well guarded, well watched, hardest to pass areas. Why i the literal hell would i take their argument over trump? Even 5 seconds of thinking like a criminal will tell you that you do not go across the path where it's easiest to get caught. and' that th's the thing about the drugs that make it across, They don't get caught. the drugs that don't get caught, cannot be classified, because we don't see what is used to transport them. that said, we do know that recently a couple cars were busted, miles away from any feasible checkpoint, with ample drugs stored within. That is all i need to say on the topic. Drugs coming through points of entry are, from the data we currently have now, at least 9 times more likely to get caught. of course the higher number f drugs we know about come frome vehicles, because they catch more vehicles at points of entry, but why act like we haven't seen vehicles offroad between checkpoints? We know people and vehicles come across between checkpoints, and we know that there is far more ground between checkpoints that can be exploited as opposed to limiting themselves to checkpoints. Drugs coming between points of entry, have the advantage of weaker security, zero camera surveillance, and no notable barriers preventing passage.Were you a drug dealer, where would you send the majority of your product? Through the hardest part of the border to pass? Or through the rougher terrain that guarantees an easier, if bumpier transport?

 

I use basic logic to disprove narratives, and point out where your numbers skew the story. I have facts where i need them and logic everywhere else. I don't just believe they oppose him because he's trump, but fact is, trump being trump, is a massive part of why they oppose him. He's embarrassed the entire democratic party, and has continued to do so to this day. Russia is on track to come up empty, they fall for the slightest insult, He shakes off bad press like water on oiled leather, and he's getting more results both for peace talks, trade and the economy, than they ever thought he would. He's a walking insult to the democrats. and the worst part about it is that his policies are pretty much those of a 90's democrat.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#74
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

https://www.npr.org/...e-violent-crime
 
The increase of illegal immigration has not increased the rate of violent crime, and in fact more American citizens commit murder than illegal immigrants do. My citation from Des Moines Register was literally a critique of how King and Trump skew the numbers themselves to twist the narrative in their favori. You claim that DMR were the ones trying to skew the numbers, which would still be more than enough to support a wall, except their point was that nobody actually keeps track of the number of people murdered by immigrants, and they said that only half of the immigrants (Legal and illegal, since they were referring to immigrants as a whole) were being charged with being here illegally. Claiming that you could cut the number in half and still have enough people killed per year is completely ignoring that their entire point is that the worse crimes illegal immigrants commit is literally just being here illegally.
 
"You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough…" Did you miss this part? I took special care to not conflate the number of drugs caught with the number of drugs making it across, and yet you're claiming that I was still doing that. My question to you was to provide actual evidence of the people who are not caught, and how that warrants the border wall. Given that you failed to comprehend the data that I discussed in the previous paragraph, I'm going to say that you failed to accomplish that.

 

The analysis that most drugs come across the legal points of entry was explicitly provided from southern Border Patrol. The people explicitly designed to oversee the area that the wall would be designed over are outright telling us that most drugs coming through legal points of entry. I find it utterly baffling that you will claim that nothing backs it up when the people whose job is to know this stuff are outright telling you otherwise. You're not using logic or facts, you're outright dismissing actual the evidence and data because it completely contradicts your positions and you don't want to believe it.

 

So you have no actual data of how many people illegal immigrants bring drugs across the border and contribute to the death toll of Americans, but it just… makes sense to you that it's totally happening to such a degree that it warrants a wall? You still haven't provided any actual evidence or sources to back up your point. Your arguments are reasonable, but they aren't backed up by any credible evidence, and when all the data completely disagrees with you, I'm going to believe that data. Until you can actually provide specific numbers from credible sources to back up your argument, why should I believe the wall is necessary? I agree with your point that it's more logical to go through points with weaker security, but you need to show proper statistics that show that this is happening. I understand that it would be difficult because I'm asking for data about people who don't get caught, but for as much as you claim that you have facts on your side, I can't help but notice how you haven't actually shown any.

 

The Mueller investigations has resulted in 199 criminal charges and 37 indictments. Again, this seems to be an issue where you claim that nothing backs something up, except the results prove that Mueller has found far more than nothing. If you want people to believe that you have facts on your side, maybe you need to actually look at data instead of just blindly repeating that nothing is backing me up.

 

Trump has attacked media not because it's bad press (Except Fox News, which threw a fit about fairness as if children being taught basic human decency is some nefarious liberal agenda), but because they challenge him to actually back up his arguments, and much like yourself, Trump refuses actual facts and instead just repeats the same exaggerated talking points, and had to use a doctored video to justify throwing out Jim Acosta for no reason other than he was from CNN. Trump all but threatened Venezuela two days ago, he's trying to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia without any kind of deal, and he was comparing sizes with Kim Jong-Un about nuclear buttons. Trump's strategy is basically to claim that he's preventing a war with North Korea that Obama would have caused, even though Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea himself. The deficit has also hit $22T for the first time ever. We're always going to have a debt, but I would rather see Trump take more strides to minimize it than allow it reach a new record.

 

While his policies are like those of a 90's Democrat. The key point there being 90's, and I would be more than happy for more sitting Democrats to leave. Frankly, both parties have their fair members who only seem to still be in power because they've been there for so long, and I would like them to be held to term limits. But I feel like talking about why Democrats hate Trump is just going to be a pointless back and forth if we don't stick to how that relates to the shutdown over the border wall.



#75
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

https://www.npr.org/...e-violent-crime
 
The increase of illegal immigration has not increased the rate of violent crime, and in fact more American citizens commit murder than illegal immigrants do. My citation from Des Moines Register was literally a critique of how King and Trump skew the numbers themselves to twist the narrative in their favori. You claim that DMR were the ones trying to skew the numbers, which would still be more than enough to support a wall, except their point was that nobody actually keeps track of the number of people murdered by immigrants, and they said that only half of the immigrants (Legal and illegal, since they were referring to immigrants as a whole) were being charged with being here illegally. Claiming that you could cut the number in half and still have enough people killed per year is completely ignoring that their entire point is that the worse crimes illegal immigrants commit is literally just being here illegally.
 
"You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough…" Did you miss this part? I took special care to not conflate the number of drugs caught with the number of drugs making it across, and yet you're claiming that I was still doing that. My question to you was to provide actual evidence of the people who are not caught, and how that warrants the border wall. Given that you failed to comprehend the data that I discussed in the previous paragraph, I'm going to say that you failed to accomplish that.

 

The analysis that most drugs come across the legal points of entry was explicitly provided from southern Border Patrol. The people explicitly designed to oversee the area that the wall would be designed over are outright telling us that most drugs coming through legal points of entry. I find it utterly baffling that you will claim that nothing backs it up when the people whose job is to know this stuff are outright telling you otherwise. You're not using logic or facts, you're outright dismissing actual the evidence and data because it completely contradicts your positions and you don't want to believe it.

 

So you have no actual data of how many people illegal immigrants bring drugs across the border and contribute to the death toll of Americans, but it just… makes sense to you that it's totally happening to such a degree that it warrants a wall? You still haven't provided any actual evidence or sources to back up your point. Your arguments are reasonable, but they aren't backed up by any credible evidence, and when all the data completely disagrees with you, I'm going to believe that data. Until you can actually provide specific numbers from credible sources to back up your argument, why should I believe the wall is necessary? I agree with your point that it's more logical to go through points with weaker security, but you need to show proper statistics that show that this is happening. I understand that it would be difficult because I'm asking for data about people who don't get caught, but for as much as you claim that you have facts on your side, I can't help but notice how you haven't actually shown any.

 

The Mueller investigations has resulted in 199 criminal charges and 37 indictments. Again, this seems to be an issue where you claim that nothing backs something up, except the results prove that Mueller has found far more than nothing. If you want people to believe that you have facts on your side, maybe you need to actually look at data instead of just blindly repeating that nothing is backing me up.

 

Trump has attacked media not because it's bad press (Except Fox News, which threw a fit about fairness as if children being taught basic human decency is some nefarious liberal agenda), but because they challenge him to actually back up his arguments, and much like yourself, Trump refuses actual facts and instead just repeats the same exaggerated talking points, and had to use a doctored video to justify throwing out Jim Acosta for no reason other than he was from CNN. Trump all but threatened Venezuela two days ago, he's trying to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia without any kind of deal, and he was comparing sizes with Kim Jong-Un about nuclear buttons. Trump's strategy is basically to claim that he's preventing a war with North Korea that Obama would have caused, even though Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea himself. The deficit has also hit $22T for the first time ever. We're always going to have a debt, but I would rather see Trump take more strides to minimize it than allow it reach a new record.

 

While his policies are like those of a 90's Democrat. The key point there being 90's, and I would be more than happy for more sitting Democrats to leave. Frankly, both parties have their fair members who only seem to still be in power because they've been there for so long, and I would like them to be held to term limits. But I feel like talking about why Democrats hate Trump is just going to be a pointless back and forth if we don't stick to how that relates to the shutdown over the border wall.

 

The argument that more citizens commit violent crimes than illegal immigrants is a pointless statement. First and foremost, this is the united states of america. More citizens committing crime here is to be expected. The difference is, One is supposed to be here, the other is not. We are discussing people who have no business being here in the first place, Not people who were born and raised here. We are talking about the illegally imported problems, not the home grown ones. It does not matter how many Americans commit violent crimes (in the context of this discussion) unlike Americans, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. No matter what the crime ratio is, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. Americans belong in america, illegal immigrants do not. 100% of illegal immigrants broke the law. Violent or not. They are not supposed to be here. There is nothing more to discuss in comparison. If you want the numbers, then at the lowest estimate, just over 5k people are killed yearly by illegal immigrants ( https://www.national...al-immigration/ yes, people do keep track of the numbers.) and far more go down for other violent/otherwise illegal offenses, like drug dealing, DUI, rape, assault, ect.

 

 

The cost of anchor babies from people who plop over and pop one out (K-12 school funding for illegal immigrants is a thing, especially in sanctuary cities), the cost of healthcare and prison cells, the cost of Californias' sanctuary programs in total, The damage done from illegal wages on the working class, the number of people killed per year by illegal immigrants, or border related crime (MS-13 happens to be one of those related problems), the drug problem in and of itself, human trafficking, ect. These are all separate topics that can be used to point out the need of a border wall. Logic and math could even be used if you look at the cost of the wall (building AND maintenance) vs the yearly budget to compare how it measures up to other programs and helps/harms job creation. By the way, one of the articles you linked had lawmakers using the exact same argument that you just agreed was pretty much worthless, which is the entire reason i posted what i did. The lawmakers you claim are against trump, use the exact same arguments that you, not moments later, agreed were garbage. You missed where my comment was pointed.

 

 

The links you use say most drugs caught by border patrol, are caught at legal points. Where exactly do you expect to find the data on the drugs we don't catch, but clearly see the effects of on the streets? Like the times border patrol finds traces of drug gang violence across unprotected parts of the border? Like the vehicles recently caught trying to make it across the less guarded terrain with hefty loads of drugs? Or the people on foot that we catch miles away from checkpoints with packs full of drugs on their backs? Or the tunnels that we discover from time to time that attempt to circumvent border patrols? Yeah we catch more drugs at the most heavily guarded points, aka checkpoints but Thinking like a criminal and/or pondering the evidence will tell you the majority of what we don't catch is coming across at the lesser guarded points of entry, like the large stretches of unfenced, unsurveyed, and unguarded land between checkpoints.

 

 

Step back for a bit, and look at the rest of the factors, it's not just drugs, it's gang violence, it's human trafficking, it's the drain on the system from an influx of people using entitlement programs, ect. drugs is one of the aspects, and border patrol interview after border patrol interview confirms as much. Border security is, in my opinion, a combination of physical barrier, camera surveillance, and personnel deployment. At many areas along the border, we have none of those 3, and all 3 are required for any of them to work at their best. You can ask for data all day, and sure, i'll give you some since i have the time right now:

https://www.investor...-at-the-border/ This one addresses quite a few of your arguments.

https://www.washingt...38-000-assaults This one lays out a large number of problems that will be faced by illegal immigrants just on the way here, from other illegal immigrants. al arge portion of said problems being rape, murder, abduction, assault, and robery. (the largest slice problem being getting caught, but hilariously enough, they don't list that as a large problem when they point out the troubling ones.) personally, i don't like how it attempts to quietly conflate arrest by border patrol with rape and robbery, but besides that shot in the dark, it's rather on point. 

https://www.conserva...gal-immigrants/ more conservative than i'd like, but google seems to enjoy placing the most anti trump news on the first page, and has the rest pages behind it. it basically points out the media bias in reporting deaths from illegal immigration and lays out an argument that many of the illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are among the same pool of people that sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for other types of less violent crimes, such as DUI, drug related offenses, and nonlethal assaults.

 

The argument remains the same though. I'm using standard logic and basic facts to point out and make my arguments, all the while reading through your rebuttals and citations and explaining why they are either flawed, or do not apply to the discussion at hand. Even giving some ground for points i agree with. I don't have the time that i used to, so the posts where i make an entire page worth of text on my own, with fully searched citations, is diminishing as well. On the next topic though, 200K+ arrests and detentions of illegal immigrants ( https://www.national...al-immigration/ paragraph 3 ) per year is a hell of a lot of taxpayer money to spend on people who should not even be here, no matter how you slice it. This is an unnecessary drain on taxes, for people who should not exist in america in the first place. that is why the border wall is a strong argument. A proper border with surveillance tech, can cover for lacks in personnel, delaying long enough for border patrol to notice and more often than not catch the perpetrators far sooner than we do now. My own argument is to remove incentives in the first place, as that's a large part of the magnet dragging illegal immigrants over, but drugs and human traffickers don't care about laws, and as such, a barrier is the best possible way to block, deter, or at least delay such problems till the border patrol can get there. It's a much needed stop gap for the overall problem, and both the creation and maintenance would create proper jobs along the border for at least decades to come.

 

 

Like i said, nothing. So far, not a single one of the things anybody has perused (as far as tying something to trump) has been shown to be anything even remotely connected to trump on a criminal level ( http://archive.is/HJJoz ). The most he has that we know of at the moment is a couple past events that everybody knew of, or some mixups that got blown out of proportion in the effort to nail trump. Don't forget, the investigations had one main goal, to find a concrete connection between trump and russia related to the 2016 election. They have not done so, unless you have some info I don't relating to the cases. At the moment, they have nothing. Will they have something new after the muller probe? Maybe, but we have seen nothing yet, and i expect nothing different from the probe. Trump has been a businessman for a long time. making company connections all across the globe. We have yet to see anything relating to anything but business, and i don't expect that to change.

 

 

Do you know what's going on in Venezuela right now? How things are for the people living there? Why wouldn't he threaten them? The country is being destroyed from the inside out, the citizens are legit refugee status at this point, and the entire area is arguably being dragged down from the problems Venezuela is suffering. Somebody stepping in has been long overdue. Hopefully not us, we have our hands full here and can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them of natural resources after the fact. There is an actual humanitarian crisis. The alleged nuclear secrets deal is just breaking, and the allegation is that the department head is selling secrets, not trump himself. He is indeed responsible if it happens by proxy, but the correct allegation till more details come in, is that a department under him is attempting to do so. Till we get more info, I won't comment fully, but i will say that saudi arabia already knows how to make nukes, the problem is attaining the materials to do so. We'll see the details on that in a few days most likely, so you can bring it back up then if you'd like, as I too disagree with it. HIs "comparing sizes" has lead to the first peace talks between north and south korea in decades, and is still going well by all accounts. The threat was essentially "cut out the nuclear threat bullshit or america will make you." and as ridiculed as it has been, it worked like a charm, it only counts as an argument in favor of him as a result. As for the deficit, it has increased and reached record highs under every president for the past 30-40 years at least

https://www.thebalan...percent-3306296

https://www.thebalan...r-obama-3306293

https://www.thebalan...al-debt-4114401

It's not an argument unless you want to aim it at literally every president for the past 30+ years. I agree that trump should be working harder at decreasing it, but considering many of his plans have been blocked far harder than he expected (I blame him for underestimating congress) that particular promise is liable to not kick in till year 8, or never at all, if they all keep fighting like this.

 

I agree with you there. Thing is, like i've said before, many of the democrats opposed to the wall were all in for a border wall of some sort just a decade or so prior, and were up in arms claiming bushs' wall was too weak of a wall. many republicans and southern democrats even campaigned on it for a time, and have flopped had on it now. the cost of it in total would be no higher than 30-40 billion if it goes above professional estimate. The total budget for the year is 4.4 trillion dollars. At 30-40 billion (an overestimate), It is still less than 5% of the yearly budget, that amount could be recouped just by removing the incentive programs for illegal immigrants coming over, and much of the money would be going to companies in the united states, ensuring that more jobs would be available. the damage to the farming sector isn't something to be overlooked, as they do rely heavily on illegal immigrants, but fact is, cutting money from entitlement programs for illegal immigrants would free up money to aid farms in hiring actual citizens, reform deals could even be made to grant those jobs to former criminals rehabilitating for the first time, ensuring the people have a proper way to reintegrate into society, while ensuring farms have a source of work and ex-convicts have a source of honest income. combine that with research into better handling of crops and you could potentially revolutionize farming, take another step towards prison reform, and knock out a portion of illegal revenue leaving america. not saying it'd be that easy, but the possibilities are there. this is just me spit-balling ideas for a bit, and i've got this much, imagine what congress as a whole could get done or introduced if they actually wanted to tackle the problem properly.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#76
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

The argument that more citizens commit violent crimes than illegal immigrants is a pointless statement. First and foremost, this is the united states of america. More citizens committing crime here is to be expected. The difference is, One is supposed to be here, the other is not. We are discussing people who have no business being here in the first place, Not people who were born and raised here. We are talking about the illegally imported problems, not the home grown ones. It does not matter how many Americans commit violent crimes (in the context of this discussion) unlike Americans, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. No matter what the crime ratio is, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. Americans belong in america, illegal immigrants do not. 100% of illegal immigrants broke the law. Violent or not. They are not supposed to be here. There is nothing more to discuss in comparison. If you want the numbers, then at the lowest estimate, just over 5k people are killed yearly by illegal immigrants ( https://www.national...al-immigration/ yes, people do keep track of the numbers.) and far more go down for other violent/otherwise illegal offenses, like drug dealing, DUI, rape, assault, ect.


Which Americans are supposed to be here? Native Americans, or the people descended from Europeans who came here and stole land from those Native Americans, kidnapped and enslaved African people, then decided to dictate who should and should not be allowed to come here? You can keep repeating that they aren't supposed to be here all you want, but if their biggest crime is quite literally just coming here, I don't see how the Americans that you're batting for are any less guilty.
 
U.S. immigration is a ridiculously skewed system that makes it difficult for immigrants to even meet legal burdens, and "illegal immigrants" is just a dog whistle for Mexicans. I think it's more important to make our immigration system less restrictive, rather than making it even more restrictive like white nationalist ally Stephen Miller wants it to be. I frankly see no issue in making legal immigration easier.
 
But, okay, so illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be here. Why shouldn't they be?
 

The cost of anchor babies from people who plop over and pop one out (K-12 school funding for illegal immigrants is a thing, especially in sanctuary cities), the cost of healthcare and prison cells, the cost of Californias' sanctuary programs in total, The damage done from illegal wages on the working class, the number of people killed per year by illegal immigrants, or border related crime (MS-13 happens to be one of those related problems), the drug problem in and of itself, human trafficking, ect. These are all separate topics that can be used to point out the need of a border wall. Logic and math could even be used if you look at the cost of the wall (building AND maintenance) vs the yearly budget to compare how it measures up to other programs and helps/harms job creation. By the way, one of the articles you linked had lawmakers using the exact same argument that you just agreed was pretty much worthless, which is the entire reason i posted what i did. The lawmakers you claim are against trump, use the exact same arguments that you, not moments later, agreed were garbage. You missed where my comment was pointed.

 
So the cost of all those programs and facilities could be better spent elsewhere? That's a fair point. So put it towards expanding the ports of entry. It doesn't seem like the lawmakers were making any argument that I said was worthless. They say that the wall is taking too much attention away from ports of entry, and I think Vicente Gonzalez is right to suggest filling out positions at Border Patrol. Can you specify which exact argument they made that I said was garbage?
 

The links you use say most drugs caught by border patrol, are caught at legal points. Where exactly do you expect to find the data on the drugs we don't catch, but clearly see the effects of on the streets? Like the times border patrol finds traces of drug gang violence across unprotected parts of the border? Like the vehicles recently caught trying to make it across the less guarded terrain with hefty loads of drugs? Or the people on foot that we catch miles away from checkpoints with packs full of drugs on their backs? Or the tunnels that we discover from time to time that attempt to circumvent border patrols? Yeah we catch more drugs at the most heavily guarded points, aka checkpoints but Thinking like a criminal and/or pondering the evidence will tell you the majority of what we don't catch is coming across at the lesser guarded points of entry, like the large stretches of unfenced, unsurveyed, and unguarded land between checkpoints.

 
I'm reminded of something you said the other day, that just because someone says the evidence, and that they conducted an investigation, does not really obligate you to suddenly believe them. I don't expect to find any data on the drugs we don't catch, and that's what I'm trying to get at. It's not enough to prove that the greatest problem is at the border.
 
Who do you think I'm going to believe: One person who simply claims that the majority of what we don't catch is coming across the border, or people whose job is specifically to watch the border telling us that we should be more concerned with the legal ports of entry, because the data that they have led them to that conclusion?
 

Step back for a bit, and look at the rest of the factors, it's not just drugs, it's gang violence, it's human trafficking, it's the drain on the system from an influx of people using entitlement programs, ect. drugs is one of the aspects, and border patrol interview after border patrol interview confirms as much. Border security is, in my opinion, a combination of physical barrier, camera surveillance, and personnel deployment. At many areas along the border, we have none of those 3, and all 3 are required for any of them to work at their best. You can ask for data all day, and sure, i'll give you some since i have the time right now:
https://www.investor...-at-the-border/ This one addresses quite a few of your arguments.
https://www.washingt...38-000-assaults This one lays out a large number of problems that will be faced by illegal immigrants just on the way here, from other illegal immigrants. al arge portion of said problems being rape, murder, abduction, assault, and robery. (the largest slice problem being getting caught, but hilariously enough, they don't list that as a large problem when they point out the troubling ones.) personally, i don't like how it attempts to quietly conflate arrest by border patrol with rape and robbery, but besides that shot in the dark, it's rather on point. 
https://www.conserva...gal-immigrants/ more conservative than i'd like, but google seems to enjoy placing the most anti trump news on the first page, and has the rest pages behind it. it basically points out the media bias in reporting deaths from illegal immigration and lays out an argument that many of the illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are among the same pool of people that sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for other types of less violent crimes, such as DUI, drug related offenses, and nonlethal assaults.


I give credit for the Investor's Business Daily article for having some sources to back up its argument. Not sure what much else I can say in response to it, but ultimately that article does have its fair share of merits.
 
The Washington Examiner's source is more about events that immigrants will be subjected to by criminal Mexicans, not other illegal immigrants.
 
Like you said, the Conservative Review is... well, pretty conservative. In trying to critique the media's bias, it reveals its own biases. My issue is that it's cherrypicking crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and while their status as illegal immigrants is indeed something they all have in common, it acts as though illegal immigration in and of itself is the exact reason for all those murders, and that's just such a desperate association I simply cannot accept. Plus, the complaints against sanctuary cities ring hollow when, if I understand correctly, the administration has actually lost more cases opposing sanctuary cities than it has won. Trump tends to use withholding funds as a popular threat, so that source seems less like a legitimate case against illegal immigrants, and Conservative Review is suggesting that he should double down on that threat. They may have had a point, but it's muddled in being vindictive rather than logical.
 

The argument remains the same though. I'm using standard logic and basic facts to point out and make my arguments, all the while reading through your rebuttals and citations and explaining why they are either flawed, or do not apply to the discussion at hand. Even giving some ground for points i agree with. I don't have the time that i used to, so the posts where i make an entire page worth of text on my own, with fully searched citations, is diminishing as well. On the next topic though, 200K+ arrests and detentions of illegal immigrants ( https://www.national...al-immigration/ paragraph 3 ) per year is a hell of a lot of taxpayer money to spend on people who should not even be here, no matter how you slice it. This is an unnecessary drain on taxes, for people who should not exist in america in the first place. that is why the border wall is a strong argument. A proper border with surveillance tech, can cover for lacks in personnel, delaying long enough for border patrol to notice and more often than not catch the perpetrators far sooner than we do now. My own argument is to remove incentives in the first place, as that's a large part of the magnet dragging illegal immigrants over, but drugs and human traffickers don't care about laws, and as such, a barrier is the best possible way to block, deter, or at least delay such problems till the border patrol can get there. It's a much needed stop gap for the overall problem, and both the creation and maintenance would create proper jobs along the border for at least decades to come.

 
Since I'm going over each of these quotes one by one, pardon any inconsistencies in my tone or arguments here. If nothing else, just assume that I'm trying to respond to this particular post from different perspectives than I had in my previous posts.
 
I agree that it is an unnecessary drain on taxes, so how about this? Let's try to find some common ground on what we could agree on, and where exactly our differences are stemming from, and to work towards a compromise for the sake of this discussion based on that? The bottom line is that illegal immigration is the main issue that this shutdown was fought over. The difference is what we think would be the most appropriate solution for illegal immigration.
 
I do not think that a physical barrier would be the best possible way to deter or block them. While I think you're onto something with how it could delay problems until the border patrol gets there, the issue then is that you actually need a border patrol in the first place. It's more important to fill the job vacancies in border patrol before dealing with the wall. While there's no reason the administration can't focus on both, if it comes down to choosing one over the other, I would rather increase the border patrol first. However, that becomes much more difficult when there has been an increase in vacancies, which I discussed before.
 

Like i said, nothing. So far, not a single one of the things anybody has perused (as far as tying something to trump) has been shown to be anything even remotely connected to trump on a criminal level ( http://archive.is/HJJoz ). The most he has that we know of at the moment is a couple past events that everybody knew of, or some mixups that got blown out of proportion in the effort to nail trump. Don't forget, the investigations had one main goal, to find a concrete connection between trump and russia related to the 2016 election. They have not done so, unless you have some info I don't relating to the cases. At the moment, they have nothing. Will they have something new after the muller probe? Maybe, but we have seen nothing yet, and i expect nothing different from the probe. Trump has been a businessman for a long time. making company connections all across the globe. We have yet to see anything relating to anything but business, and i don't expect that to change.

 
We have a thread about the investigation. I would rather not make any proper response here, because that would be inviting further discussion on this point, and both of us have been writing long posts. You say that you don't have as much time as you used to, so I will respect that and simply say that you can either reiterate this in that thread if you'd like to continue this line of discussion there, or if you'd rather not, I'll leave well enough alone.
 

Do you know what's going on in Venezuela right now? How things are for the people living there? Why wouldn't he threaten them? The country is being destroyed from the inside out, the citizens are legit refugee status at this point, and the entire area is arguably being dragged down from the problems Venezuela is suffering. Somebody stepping in has been long overdue. Hopefully not us, we have our hands full here and can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them of natural resources after the fact. There is an actual humanitarian crisis. The alleged nuclear secrets deal is just breaking, and the allegation is that the department head is selling secrets, not trump himself. He is indeed responsible if it happens by proxy, but the correct allegation till more details come in, is that a department under him is attempting to do so. Till we get more info, I won't comment fully, but i will say that saudi arabia already knows how to make nukes, the problem is attaining the materials to do so. We'll see the details on that in a few days most likely, so you can bring it back up then if you'd like, as I too disagree with it. HIs "comparing sizes" has lead to the first peace talks between north and south korea in decades, and is still going well by all accounts. The threat was essentially "cut out the nuclear threat bullshit or america will make you." and as ridiculed as it has been, it worked like a charm, it only counts as an argument in favor of him as a result. As for the deficit, it has increased and reached record highs under every president for the past 30-40 years at least
https://www.thebalan...percent-3306296
https://www.thebalan...r-obama-3306293
https://www.thebalan...al-debt-4114401
It's not an argument unless you want to aim it at literally every president for the past 30+ years. I agree that trump should be working harder at decreasing it, but considering many of his plans have been blocked far harder than he expected (I blame him for underestimating congress) that particular promise is liable to not kick in till year 8, or never at all, if they all keep fighting like this.
 
I agree with you there. Thing is, like i've said before, many of the democrats opposed to the wall were all in for a border wall of some sort just a decade or so prior, and were up in arms claiming bushs' wall was too weak of a wall. many republicans and southern democrats even campaigned on it for a time, and have flopped had on it now. the cost of it in total would be no higher than 30-40 billion if it goes above professional estimate. The total budget for the year is 4.4 trillion dollars. At 30-40 billion (an overestimate), It is still less than 5% of the yearly budget, that amount could be recouped just by removing the incentive programs for illegal immigrants coming over, and much of the money would be going to companies in the united states, ensuring that more jobs would be available. the damage to the farming sector isn't something to be overlooked, as they do rely heavily on illegal immigrants, but fact is, cutting money from entitlement programs for illegal immigrants would free up money to aid farms in hiring actual citizens, reform deals could even be made to grant those jobs to former criminals rehabilitating for the first time, ensuring the people have a proper way to reintegrate into society, while ensuring farms have a source of work and ex-convicts have a source of honest income. combine that with research into better handling of crops and you could potentially revolutionize farming, take another step towards prison reform, and knock out a portion of illegal revenue leaving america. not saying it'd be that easy, but the possibilities are there. this is just me spit-balling ideas for a bit, and i've got this much, imagine what congress as a whole could get done or introduced if they actually wanted to tackle the problem properly.


I am aware of what's going on in Venezuela, but I'll admit I don't know enough about the situation as I would like. Trump supposedly does want a war with Venezuela because of oil, but I think "we can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them" is an absolutely despicable reason. That's directly encouraging war profiteering.

 

Fair point on it being the department head selling secrets rather than Trump himself. Since we both disagree with the issue, I think we can leave well enough alone on that front for now.

 

...Yeah, I see absolutely no point on discussing the ups and downs of the deficits, so I'm just going to leave that be. And the peace talks between Korea are further off-topic, since the main reason you brought it up was about why Democrats stand against Trump.

 

The shift in Democrats supporting a wall and now opposing it likely to do with both a change in the individuals currently making up the Democratic party. While I'm sure they are specific individuals who could be singled out (Particularly Schumer), it's more that Trump getting elected wasn't the only result from 2016. After their utterly disastrous attempt to install Clinton as their figurehead (For what it's worth, I will always be happy to condemn them for the absolute shitshow that was their 2016 primaries), the main issue was that they faced internal pressure to move further left. That support for a border fence, and wanting to be more ambitious than Bush was something that the party had simply grown tired of from their leaders.

 

Some of them may have genuinely changed in their positions, while others I'm sure just want to save face. But the change in the Democrats' position on the wall likely has more to do with the party's internal strife than it has to do with Trump.



#77
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,904 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:48 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate
Didn't Obama circumvent congress to pass DACA when it was clear he didn't have the votes?

GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#78
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Legendary Member

  • The Chariot
  • 26,781 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago

Didn't Obama circumvent congress to pass DACA when it was clear he didn't have the votes?

 

Nice deflection, but we're not talking about Obama. Stay on topic instead of indulging in whataboutism.



#79
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
    Last Visit Jun 11 2019 10:51 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Not playing that game. Americans, the people who are born and raised in the United States of America by legal immigrants. I couldn't care less about who stole what from who before i was a semen drop in a nutsack. Indians lost that battle, america now is not theirs, and unless you really want me to justify the eradication or complete takeover of mexico, we aren't playing sins of the great great grandfather game, or who asking who really deserves what land.

 

It does not negate the need for proper a border barrier. We aren't talking about the legal immigration system, We're discussing drug trafficking cartels, and human traffickers, and illegal immigration. If you want to take that route i can discuss and agree with you that the system needs improvement, and can even come up with ways to improve it. I've made the arguments countless times before for making, and how to make, the immigration system better, but we're discussing a government shutdown (and more recently a national emergency declaration) centered around border wall funding here. the first link I will likely address sometime later tomorrow in full detail as there's a hell of a lot i disagree and agree with in it, while the last two are irrelevant to the discussion on my end, and not my arguments at all.

 

Because nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum. Would you leave your door open all day and let everybody who wanted to come in? Of course not, because there is no real limit of people who would likely come in to take advantage of your home country, draining your resources without contributing anything in return so long as there was even the slightest incentive to do so. Are there those who wouldn't? Of course, but then they could be regular citizens and come in normally via visa at least, if they'd like to try entering. America is a country that contains many social programs that use taxpayer money, not placing a cap on the number of people who can enter and take advantage of these programs is tantamount to cutting your wallet open and ensuring that money flows out consistently. you can have wide open borders, or well funded social programs. you cannot have both.

 

 

They do not take away from the points of entry. How does that even become as an argument? If you build a wall around your property, do you then become incapable of looking at your driveway? A wall (in combination with proper surveillance tech) allows for better attention to be paid towards points of entry. The open space are literally an expanded entry. People can come across any wide open space far easier than they could a solid barrier.

 

 

Extrapolation. We know drug cartels are active along the border, we see busts across the border and at points of entry alike. We know from evidence, like tunnels, testimony, drug busts, drug crime on the streets, human abductions, and surveillance footage that cartels move drugs and people across the border. We have ample evidence beyond just he said she said. r/watchpeopledie has cartels on camera killing people in drug wars near the border almost every other week (not linking for obvious reasons). it's logic combined with evidence, testimony, and a recorded history of this happening and being acknowledged, but never fully addressed by past presidents.

 

Who do you think I'm going to believe: One person who simply claims that the majority of what we don't catch is coming across the border, or people whose job is specifically to watch the border telling us that we should be more concerned with the legal ports of entry, because the data that they have led them to that conclusion?

 

 

It's data on what happens to the people trying to come across. The people they encounter are also other people attempting to break across the border. it could be argued not all, but it has to be acknowledged that alongside mexico handing out pamphlets on how to break across the border, and american incentives encouraging people to come over, it's a fact that people shouldn't be coming across illegally (be they hardened drug/human traffickers or people breaking the law via illegal immigration). that's the point.

 

It is not cherry picking to point out the crimes of illegal immigrants, when the discussion is about illegal immigration and border security. Illegal immigration is the cause of those crimes. They should not have been in the country in the first place. Unlike americans, who are a home grown problem, crimes of illegal immigrants, are crimes that should never have been possible in the first place, because they should never have been in the country in the first place (as in they should have been vetted prior to entry, which illegal immigrants are not). As for sanctuary cities, they are in fact ignoring the federal laws of the land. Allowing unvetted people to come across and hide out in the country within sanctuary cities. We already know the 9th circuit won't let trump remove federal funding from countries ignoring federal laws, but we also know The SC wouldn't step in the last time, so it stopped at the 9th circuit. That was well before trump took the SC. Trying for a 2nd run through the SC would be rather amusing right about now, all things considered. 

 

The best solution imo is the combination of the 3 pronged solution of Wall-Tech-Personnel, combined with removing any and all incentives directed towards illegal immigrants. It handles drug trade, human traffickers, and a decent chunk of illegal immigrants. The amount of funding is peanuts compared to the national budget, and if it had been passed from the start, at least in 1/4 increments, there would be no relevant strain on the total national budget, and border construction related jobs (physical and technological) would be effectively raising the number of created jobs, while reducing the required ground to track constantly. 

 

A physical barrier is a deterrent. Walls have worked in many a country when combined with tech, legislation, and border patrol. We do have a border patrol. We simply have lass people than we need right now, and fewer than we want overall. A wall mitigates the strain of that though, as it creates a clear line to pass that border patrol can monitor instead of looking across a vast stretch of plains. Cameras add into this, allowing border patrol to monitor the wall situation at a distance, and have enough time to get there if anything seems off. A wall is a larger boon to a smaller immigration force than a large one (though it benefits both greatly as it reduces overstretching of assets.). If you have a smaller force, the ability to survey and deter from a distance is invaluable. Which a wall and a camera system would do far better than an open space. Personnel are important, but a wall does not restrict them so much as it frees them up to address problems across a larger range without fear of missing large swathes. also good news, hiring speed, from the last heard report, seems to be picking up speed: https://www.govexec....-losing/151987/

and on top of that, they seem to have worked through their internal issues and are no longer pouring so much money into outside hiring corps (though they're still paying for the additional advertising.) https://www.govexec....=relatedstories

 

 

It's despicable, but it's a fact. If we step in for nothing, we lose money we really shouldn't be wasting outside america in the first place. Then again, robbing them might be a harsh way of putting it. More like setting up trade deals in our favor after helping them restructure. Which is the same thing, just dressed up prettier. In either case, if there's nothing in it for america, wasting time fighting for them is just throwing money to people who can never pay us back. We do that too often as it is.

 

Thing is, Even by those standards, moving further left is a bad look to the center left, and independent voters. the far left is on par with the worst of the far right, and neither should hold sway on their party the way we're seeing these days. You can shit on him all day for the "mexico will pay for it" spiel. I'd agree that he clean fucked up there (at least so far), but we really do need a border barrier to reduce the overall strain on border patrol's surveillance regimen. It is seriously one of the best of the potential "all around" solutions that i can think of. Removing illegal immigration incentives does nothing to the drug and trafficking trade. Camera surveillance does nothing to prevent or even deter the crossing of anybody who moves faster than a small child. Drone striking across the border would leave a bad taste in the mouths of pretty much anybody who isn't an absolute monster, Pure human patrol is already straining at the bit. accepting everybody who comes in is completely out of the question. Helping mexico become a better country permanently (aka breaking up cartels ourselves) would require absolutely dominating mexico and enforcing their laws and southern border, which most people would object to pulling off outright. Making them enforce their own southern border alone still leaves Mexican illegal immigrants and cartels, and assumes we can trust the same government that tells it's own citizens to go to america. There's far more i thought through, but yeah, border wall+human personnel+camera system in collaboration with incentive removal is the best solution possible, It worked well enough for pretty much every country that invested in setting it up today. Even if it's less effective here than elsewhere, if it's even 70% of the success seen elsewhere, the results will really pay for themselves imo.

 

 

My personal stance is mexico deserves to be great again, and absorbing citizens from mexico and other south american countries is not the way to go about it. Helping mexico get back on it's feet is not our responsibility, but We would benefit greatly from having them step up as a proper first world country. but before we help them, we have to clean our own house, and keeping the door open to mexican everything on the southern border, is not going to do uur country, or theirs, any favors.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


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

#80
Ryusei the Morning Star

Ryusei the Morning Star

  • Night's Watch

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,904 posts
    Last Visit Today, 01:48 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

Nice deflection, but we're not talking about Obama. Stay on topic instead of indulging in whataboutism.

It's no a deflection darling, it's that Trump is following precedent set his predecessor 


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif




Necrobump!

Guest, the last post on this topic is over 30 days old and a new post will be considered as necrobumping!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users