Keep those seatbelts fastened
capitulate.
The irony is that Trump can easliy appropriate these funds with exec power. But he wants to break the Dems with this issue which is a loser for them, and he wants to also let the public see how much thy really miss the nonessential governemtn.
The Dems have used this issue against cowardly Republicans since 1996 every time the budget comes up.. Time to put the pressure back on them.
Trump gets 99% support from his base on this and from a fair number of mod Dems, southern border Dems, and minorites. he would lose if he caved. As it stands, this should go on a very ong time until the Dems feel it in the polls and find a way to capitulate while saving face.
(no message)
More than a billion has already been budgeted for it. And there was a deal to fund it fully, in exchange for DACA, which Trump nixed.
So you nothing, Baron Snow.
Surely that would end your support of him, no?
(no message)
I've heard somewhere that the money would be allocated to repairing something like 240 miles of existing fence, and creating another 100 miles of fence/slats. I don't know whether to believe that.
But the open debate has been purposefully obscured by both sides. The Democrats definitely do not want a 2000 mile concrete barrier, which is what Trump campaigned on. Trump is being evasive and/or stupid and does not seem to articulate exactly what he is proposing. He hints at something different from 2000 mile concrete barrier, but never actually states what it is.
If he came out and said, "look, I am not building a wall. I want to add 100 miles of fence to these key areas." Then I think he might get it. But he needs say it clearly, and out loud, and in a proposal to Schumer and Pelosi. If they reject that clear offer, then I might start listening to whether the Dems are being spiteful or unreasonable.
(no message)
If what you are trying to do is actually stop terrorists and drugs from getting in.
1) No terrorists have ever been caught at the southern border. The 3000+ person number bandied about (and utterly unexplained, even this afternoon) by DHS is meant to be misleading.
How do I know? Because if any ISIS or Al Q people had ever been caught at the border, it would have leaked immediately and been splashed on every news report for years. Trump would declassify it right away.
The 3000 are gang types. 100% of them.
2) The bulk of the drugs coming into this country come in cars or trucks. A wall would do nothing - nothing! - to stop the flow of drugs into this country.
also!
Immigration has been net zero for years. Migrants move back and forth, based on seasonal work patterns. A wall would actually keep them IN, since it would be harder to move back and forth. You'd end up with MORE MEXICANS in the country (gasp!).
So there would be zero benefit for the cost of five billion and - much more - a terrible, unnecessary message sent to our southern neighbor.
ng across the border. You mention migrants moving back and forth for work. True, some do, but they aren't the ones running across the border. A wall would help control the flow, just like customs at an airport. The unfortunate part is that both sides are bitching about a wall when they really should be discussing how to deal with immigration, in general.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Doing nothing would be just fine.
(no message)
(no message)
Don't just spend 5 billion dollars on the first idea that popped into your head when you were starring in the Apprentice.
But, I do think video of building a wall (even just a 1 mile segment) would have a tremendous practical effect in Latin America.
We've heard nary a word, except that steel slats would be artistic.
Do you disagree?
(no message)
Do you have a link?
These types of things are effective at the margins. Make it a little harder, and the people who don't want that hardship will avoid it, but the people willing to endure it will. Make it even more harder, and even fewer people will endure the hardship. A longer wall will be effective at the margins. Putting a longer wall at all the crossing points makes people go further into the wilderness, and makes it easier for border guards to guard the border.
Anyway, I just didn't see how the wall would be ineffective. Sounded like your standard for being effective was a little high, as in, you expected perfection, and since we can't achieve perfection, why try.
a wall, it matters."
Funny watching people twist themselves into knots saying a wall won't work. It might not be completely effective, but it will work in large part.
1. What does a 5 Billion dollar wall accomplish (outside of giving Trump a win!) ?
2. Could less money accomplish more?
That's a pretty straightforward calculus. Right now, it seems that Trump just wants a wall, not an effective way to accomplish what he thinks a wall might accomplish.
Honestly, I think publicizing the wall would have more effect than having the wall itself. People in Honduras would be less likely to form a caravan when the news reaches them. Same with the teargas...when the news reaches them, fewer people will come.
Is that a lot to ask?
I'm sure there are a dozen studies out there that they could use to justify the wall, just as there are a dozen studies out there to support any other spending bill. In the end, we will have to accept what our politicians campaign on, and are elected for.
Besides, why is everyone acting like this is a lot of money? It's not like we will ever have to pay off our national debt.
He made it up out of whole cloth (or got the idea from one of his Breitbard on National Enquirer buddies). Maybe ex post facto studies have popped up. But I am not aware of any serious wall proponents prior to the Trump campaign.
I mean, doesn't the very fact that he morphed from a concrete wall to steel slats worry you that he is making it up as he goes along? He wanted a concrete wall for no good reason. When people said it was a terrible idea, he asked for less terrible alternatives that he could still call his "wall". He never actually said, what's the best way to improve border security?
Attorneys, engineers, law enforcement folks, HR professionals, logisticians, etc. Once I hear the line "months, even years" I'm gone. It isn't as if there aren't other jobs out there.
The man is sick.
Do you think these people didn't know they were facing forced paid vacation (with a delay in pay)?
nonessential. There will be a few jobs that would be nice to be preserved and funded in the side, but >90% is BS deadwood.
(no message)
(no message)
He’s not just a moron, but a scary moron nut.
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1081292932660060170
(no message)
"America, meet the Pelosi House. Articles of impeachment, a move to abolish the electoral college, comparisons of the president to Hitler, a nonstarter vote on the shutdown, profanity, a proposal for a 70% tax on the 'wealthy'--all under 36 hours. Wait till they get rolling." - Kim Strrassel
Why should our government be shutdown over US taxpayers not paying for a wall that Orange PROMISED would be paid for by Mexico? When we collect the money from Mexico we build it. Moreover, Trump had already agreed to the very spending packages now being passed in the HR and also previously passed by the Senate before Limbaugh and Ann Coulter yelled at him over it. It’s all over him saving face with his knuckledraggers like you. It’s NOT a valid reason to shutdown the govt. This issue can wrangled out after the govt reopens.
The remainder of the theatrics in the HR are typical far lefty D moves. I expect such buffoonery from 29 year old socialist D’s from the Bronx. The leader of the free world is held to a higher standard._
You realize they passed a bill identical to the one the Senate passed unanimously under Republican control, right?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)