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 don't have an issue with fencing and walls in some areas where border patrol needs a more fortified area, but this vanity wall project is not something I support, much like I would not support my neighbors erecting a 30ft wall around their property in my HOA neighborhood and asking the rest of us to pay for it because they were concerned about burglary.
Note: I have far more faith in the "virtual wall" and in other types of border security... and yes, we need secure borders.
Trump is advocating just for that. He merely wants the 700 miles along the most porous areas of our border fortified. That bill was passed by a bi-partisan congress back in 2006. So what's the problem now?
We tried the virtual wall a few years ago and it was such a failure that we scrapped it. What a waste of the taxpayer's money.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Again, as someone who has family in Eastern Europe still, I just get visions of the Berlin Wall and Inner German border whenever the stupid wall is brought up
That makes sense. I guess you take what you can get. It's Trump doing something a least or a Dem putting out the red carpet for anyone walking across the border.
I think E verify was in the budget. I'm not sure what happened. I would prefer that there was a wall. But E verify would be a lot more effective for the cost. The wall does nothing for those here already and for people overstaying visas.
The other side to it is, if Trump was talking about E verify like he talks about the wall, then we would also be hearing all sorts of argument as to why it won't work, isn't fair, will hurt the economy, and so on. I bet it would be called a humanitarian crisis by Liberals if Illegals lost their jobs. Sometimes, you just can't win. But E verify is a very good idea.
Yup.
Because Dems don't really oppose border security so much as they oppose anything that Trump does/wants.
If Trump did somehow get Mexico to pay for it, they'd be crying about how racist and immoral it is to make such a poor third world country pay for our wall.
Trump is literally damned if he does and damned if he doesn't as far as they're concerned.
If the GOP could shake off it`s gun hugging white supremacist base perhaps they could get new voters too!
Yeah right, as if most conservatives fit your description. Is that all you've got? You don't think that there are plenty of brown and blacks supremacists who are Democrats? Don't be a hypocrite!
The little old widow beat him at getting her property.
Reminds me of that line from Mommie Dearest where she goes toe to toe with entire boardroom of men and she slays - "trying to sweep the poor little widow under the carpet? Think again." and then the Big Topper that left them all speechless "Dont F**K with me fellas!"
You forgot to actually answer the question the OP asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Because Dems don't really oppose border security so much as they oppose anything that Trump does/wants.
If Trump did somehow get Mexico to pay for it, they'd be crying about how racist and immoral it is to make such a poor third world country pay for our wall.
Trump is literally damned if he does and damned if he doesn't as far as they're concerned.
Well said and all true, except they have been promising border security since Tip O'Neal promised Reagan immigration reform in exchange for amnesty. A few million got amnesty and the Dems kicked the reform can down the road.
THEY do not want reform, they want more uninformed voters. They'll get 2M of them if Trump trades DACA amnesty for immigration reform. DACA and the Dems will get their way, immigration reform will never happen. Rinse Repeat.
Really, then how is the Democrat Schumer still a senator since he signed on for the wall bill back in 2006 and there were fences that were built due to that bill. They just weren't the double barriers that were promised.
Because back then it was a 18 foot fence, cost only 2.5 billion TOTAL, and was placed on the sites where it made sense to do so. Thats a VAST difference between it and a steel slat fence 30 feet high covering places where it makes little to no sense to do so, and costing more then 25 billion.
Its like your family buying a nice used van for you and the kids, and instead going out and buying a RV for your transportation needs to pick up groceries.
Do you need some smelling salts? That was a hell of a swoon there, chief.
She does not support killers.
She also doesn't support irrational spending of money on a wall.
Odd how all of a sudden Congress is concerned about spending money, isn't it?
No problem spending $96 million on the Obamacare website (to a friend of Michelle's), 11 billion disappeared in Iraq, $150 billion to Iran, etc. and that's is in recent years. Both sides have no issue spending someone else's money.
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.
