Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, Trump could have asked much more deeper questions than he did, called their bluff and exposed them for the anti-American traitors that they are. Same goes for other interviews I have seen on TV. I just wonder why the interviewers aren't more informed and don't ask the deeper and more important questions. So often I have seen them just let lies and spin go without addressing them. Here's an example. Yesterday a Fox commentator interviewed a half dozen liberal women on Border Security all at once. Their answers were so stupid and they looked like zombies or the Stepford Wives just repeating what they are fed by the media along with their constant stupid grinning and smirks on their faces. The interviewer missed a lot of points she could have made to makes the fools out of them that they were.
He could have asked deeper questions and had a real discussion on the issue -- if he had the knowledge or intellect to do so.
He doesn't.
He's a showman -- he's not well versed nor has the ability to debate someone on a specific issue.
As easily as you argue that someone who disagrees with you is misinformed, I can claim that your perception of the information you hear is tainted by your own bias.
That's how it works.
That how human beings work.
You aren't any better than anybody else. You just aren't.
I'm not either.
We have different ideas of how things should be done....sometimes we have the same goals in mind -- just a different idea of how to reach those goals.
Pelosi and Schumer went into that meeting hoping that Trump would go on record owning any government shutdown and they had the perfect strategy for a primitive-thinking megalomaniacal contrarian like Trump: Just tell him he should do the opposite of what they wanted.
Ask him to have the press leave so he will make the press stay and record his statements.
Ask him not to shut the government down so he will insist could be shut down.
Tell him that they will work to avoid a shutdown so he insists that he will shut it down himself and that it will be his shutdown.
Brilliant in its simplicity.
I don't think it was planned to have Trump own the shut down. In fact, it was suppose to be just a pr/photo op that has been done a million times.
Pelosi & Schumer took advantage and were happy to have Trump own it but it wasn't something they had planned before they walked in that room.
Also Pelosi put it out there that the House does not have the votes, which created doubt. Trump was adamant they did....but as we have found out since that -- the House Republicans are scrambling to get the votes. It isn't a sure thing.
The whole rhetoric of no wall means open border is getting old and most people with some common sense are starting to see this for the empty statement it is.
You can be for strict immigration regulations and control without building a wall.
IDGAF about Bernie Sanders or his opinions, Democrats have repeatedly called forICE to be obolished. Stop lying and I’ll stop pointing it out.
ICE is an umbrella office that encompasses many departments with different functions which previously worked separately. ICE is a control mechanism over the the United States Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Protective Service. It has only been this way under ICE since sometime after 9/11, which was the same time frame that the NSA was given sweeping powers to surveil us all electronically and the use of torture was approved. There was a real concentration of Federal police powers at that time (which was odd under a conservative administration).
Anti-terrorism, customs enforcement and border patrol are separate functions and conflating their roles is not particularly helpful nor as effective as it would be hoped for. Separating them as it was before could possibly be an improvement.
Abolishing ICE does not eliminate the functions that are carried on under it's control.
LOl, thanks for the laugh of the day. Pelosi would never admit she is wrong so she pretends she was triumphant? All she did was flail her arms around mumbling incoherently while Schumer just kept staring at his crotch. They couldn't stand for this meeting to be televised for all the public to see their foolishness.
Trumptie Dumptie? How old are you?
Name calling -- not something I've really embraced -- even as a child. I always thought it was mean.
No, it's not a subsidy. Low cost insurance is available to all California drivers who meet the income guidelines. If an AB60 driver has an income exceeding the limits they can't get low cost auto insurance.
When the taxpayer kicks in to cover part of the cost so a low income person can have a benefit, that's called a subsidy. The state insurance program is one third the cost of private insurance. Do you think the state itself is acting as an insurer? They are subsidizing 2/3rd of the cost of insurance for low income drivers. Most illegals do not exceed the income limits. They are picking avocados for minimum wage, remember?
No, the article you posted stated that when illegals obtained drivers licenses they also obtained low cost insurance through the state, which completely undercuts your claim that they are new drivers that add "millions" of uninsured motorists to the road. If they are buying low cost insurance, they are not uninsured.
No it doesn't and you struggle with the mathematical fact that if you increase the total drivers you can also increase the number of uninsured as well as insured.
Bottom line - licenses for illegals makes life easier here for illegals and is one more incentive for them to come here.
As I said, it's merely your opinion that he's not mature. I don't recall him using inflammatory remarks describing anyone unfairly or that haven't attacked him first. You and yours are in here all day long calling him the "Orange one", Cheeto, fat pig, etc. You all are such hypocrites attacking Trump in that manner while you chastise him for his supposed immaturity. Why can't you disagree with him without the nasty physical descriptions and insults?
"Mr. Magoo" or "dumb southerner" ring a bell? And Sessions never attacked Trump.
“Trump’s best chance for border wall funding at the level he wants came in February 2018, when Republican Senator Mike Rounds teamed up with independent Senator Angus King on compromise immigration legislation.
It included $25 billion over a decade to build a wall along the southern border and a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It also barred green card holders from sponsoring adult children for permanent residency and reoriented enforcement priorities to focus on criminals in the country illegally.”
That may have been his "best chance" but it was not an adequate solution. We've seen that movie before. DACA would have been fast-tracked to citizenship while the funding for the wall would have been a trickle in the early years. Then when Dems held both chambers, as politics tends to go in cycles, the funding would have been killed. And no courts would allow DACA "citizens" to be denaturalized.
The reason Republicans consider a wall to be crucial is to have a physical barrier for the next inevitable time the Dems control the govt. An electronic or human barrier can be quickly and cheaply be ordered to stand down with an executive decision. We don't trust that the party that supports "catch-and-release" will enforce the border.
I think Americans should be allowed to contribute to a fund to pay for a portion of the wall or barrier. "A gift from Americans to the US."
Better still have businesses sponsor sections and use it for advertising.
I'm actually surprised someone hasn't started a wall bond drive similar to the war bonds that were sold to support WWII. But I would hate a wall with advertising on it. Why should the people who live near it have to put up with that ugliness? More importantly, in this day and age of high tech, why do we need an actual physical wall which would cost more and require maintenance? A physical wall would take land away from private citizens and destroys important environmental pockets.
Democrat leadership used to promote enforcement of our immigration laws, and even voted to build a wall back in 2006. Now these same liars favor open borders, hate immigration enforcement, and hate the very wall/fence they passed into law.
Why can't voters see how they have been played, lied to and manipulated??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Just to be clear, you do not want our immigration laws to be enforced, you want open borders, you applaud illegal immigration and promote sanctuary cities, etc...?
Once again and for the millionth time. Just because yall keep telling a lie doesn't make it true. Very very few people are calling for open borders and the vote in 2006 was not, repeat WAS NOT for a stupid wall. It was for a fence and better security. Plain and simple So when you talk about liars, please look in the mirror and at your dear leader.
I agree that Republican voters need to look at how they are played, lied to, and manipulated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
