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.
Approaching the 2,000 comment mark and this thread to nowhere still inspires more time and effort that no doubt will result in a "meeting of the minds" just like we expect from Trump and Congress...
But seriously folks! How much more time can you spend arguing about whether walls work? Of course walls work or there wouldn't be so many of them. Why did we build what barriers at the border already if barriers don't work? Asking border patrol agents their opinion about the same thing is like asking whether our elected officials could use more money for their pet projects. What a moronic use of brain cells. Not sure what to make of the ongoing effort, so obviously futile, but rather than go back-and-forth ad nauseum with all the same old PROOF your opinion is right, consider a different way of looking at the problem here.
Needless to say, there has been a fairly long bi-partisan history of progress related to securing our southern border. What's the big difference or the unique hang-up now? Maybe it isn't the right or wrong of a wall but Trump himself.
If Mitt Romney, for example, were POTUS instead, I have little doubt we would be well past all this by now, with some further more intelligent progress toward securing the border, maybe even including more funding for a longer bigger wall. We might not all be 100 percent satisfied with the next level of progress, but at least we wouldn't be bogged down with this mess. We would no doubt be onto our more REAL problems of consequence to more average Americans.
Trump, on the other hand, is so offensive in terms of his brinksmanship way of doing things, he INSPIRES push back! This is not the "art of negotiation!" This is not leadership. This is a closed-minded self-righteous showboat of a politician who will say anything, do anything to have his way as he has always been afforded while running his own little kingdom, up in his Trump tower where no one dare question his self described genius.
Trump WANTS a fight, and those not too fond of those sorts of tactics, that sort of Trump character, are more than willing to fight back, with pleasure! Like most of us are inclined to do when we confront a bully, a full-of-himself authoritarian.
All to say that much of this debate, stalemate, shut down, appears more and more about a rejection of Trump and his way of doing things rather than whether a wall really works, how much it costs, or what alternative ways to secure our border might be more effective.
Or maybe there isn't a shred of justification for my observation here. Right. Back to whether walls work. No doubt another 2,000 comments should do the trick figuring that one out...
If the wall is so important and such an emergency, why did the republicans not fund the wall over the last two years when they controlled the entire federal gov't?
But 45 days after the GOP loses the House, they suddnely want to shut down the gov't over the wall? Why didn't they shut it down the two years before when repubs controlled Congress entirely?
If the wall is so important and such an emergency, why did the republicans not fund the wall over the last two years when they controlled the entire federal gov't?
But 45 days after the GOP loses the House, they suddnely want to shut down the gov't over the wall? Why didn't they shut it down the two years before when repubs controlled Congress entirely?
Short answer:
Because two years ago Dems were completely powerless and couldn't be blamed.
More to the point, tRump wasn't as threatened by the investigations into his crimes and so he wasn't as desperate for a headline grabbing distraction that could play out over a period of weeks.
LOL, yea facts....read the second set of bold.....even though you won't like it....
The point was that the pattern (along with which Republicans sponsored the amendment to the Fence Act of 2006) demonstrated that those on the border tend to have different takes on these issues than those who do not actually live there.
Per the msnbc listing (feel free to check my math, I went quickly tho skimmed twice) ... there were only 3 Democratic senators that opposed. It's not clear what their votes would have been had one been determinative. None of them were swing votes. The party block that determined the outcome (mathematically) were Republican votes, with our having, of course, a Republican President with presumed negotiation power. Not only did Trump not advocate for the bill, he sent a clear signal by announcing he would veto it.
Edited to add - It's time for me to move on, as it may well be for you. But you could go back to the vote schematic that you linked. It's harder to use so I counted from the msnbc ... but that one should be the most accurate for the vote for the Third Bill.
Last edited by EveryLady; 01-13-2019 at 10:55 AM..
Because two years ago Dems were completely powerless and couldn't be blamed.
More to the point, tRump wasn't as threatened by the investigations into his crimes and so he wasn't as desperate for a headline grabbing distraction that could play out over a period of weeks.
Bullcrap, Trump blamed Democrats even when they didn't help with many things during his first two years. He'd still say it.
No, I don’t think they did.
That legislation resulted in court cases that are still being litigated as well as the realization that it was impractical, hence the amendment to the legislation in 2007.
“Responding to urging from the Department of Homeland Security -- which argued that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."”
My link states that Homeland Security and/or the Border Patrol just didn't want a solid wall because it wasn't see through and therefore they couldn't see who was approaching. Congress itself should have known the terrain and the logistics of building the wall in the first place. I find it hard to believe that they didn't. Why would Homeland Security choose mere fencing over good barriers anywhere on the 700 miles of porous border? Just what were these particular locations where it wasn't feasible? I smell a rat.
As usual, the Left is so anxious to believe their own nonsense that they fall all over themselves to spread the word.
Go back and read all the celebrating and "I knew it all along". Then laugh.
The Wall is still on. Read the text.
Just like Trump''s emails the day he gave his Wall speech
Any donations people made in response went to Trump''s re-election campaign
Not to the wall---
Another example of Trump's affinity for lying and scamming the public....
I was reading an article this morning about how the Vet that started this go fund me campaign harvested a lot of emails, which activity he has done in the past. Your email address is probably being sold, or at least provided to Republicans and like organizations.
GoFundMe is refunding the money people sent in. However, some supporters sent personal checks directly to the veteran. Whether they will get a refund remains to be seen, but I harbor doubts.
He is not "providing" anything for free
You can bet on that
And by doing that he could have violated the terms of service for Go Fund Me Site and opened himself to civil/criminal liabilities
And I hope if that IS a possibility that some US attorney and/or the GoFundMe site investigates and takes him to court...
Wouldn't need to be this type of fund for the wall if liberals wouldn't vote for traitors that couldn't care less about immigration laws. Democrats want more voters. They don't care how they get them or at what expense to American citizens.
And many of those supporters don't care for securing a wall because Trump is in office. Put Bernie or Hillary in there and they'd be fine with it.
How about you agree that the Democrats offered 25 billion for trumps wall in exchange for DACA but almost every GOP senator voted this down.
The “Common Sense” plan
What the bill would do?
$25 billion for the wall and other stuff at the border. The bill would appropriate $25 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for border infrastructure (including “the construction of physical barriers”) and technology. That money would be doled out at the rate of $2.5 billion a year for the next 10 years — with specific instructions for how it should be spent in 2018. It would require DHS to submit detailed plans to Congress of how it planned to spend the money each year, and to meet 75 percent of the goals it set each year in order to get the next year’s money.
That's one of the stoppers. The next Dem Congress would simply kill it.
The other stopper, conveniently omitted from the bullet points, was the bill restricted ICE from deporting illegals except felony convictions. Essentially a full amnesty for all.
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.
