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.
On Fox News I saw another Repub Congressman from GA who is on Nancy's committee and he said they've still done nothing after the first meeting. Fancy Nancy and her people are in charge and clearly have no interest in even pretending to get things done. So much for border security, eh? At least the Dems' true colors are being exposed.
Meanwhile the Army Corps of Engineers is diligiently putting up barriers. They need them fast with the thousands of Hondurans on their way. One group has already arrived and Mexico has just given another group buses and visas. Trump needs to demand the return of the billions we just sent to the new corrupt president. Did it just go into his pocket?
I'm sure it's not. Because he wants a wall and only a wall. He doesn't care about the border or immigration or American citizens. He cares about getting credit for a "wall."
... Meanwhile the Army Corps of Engineers is diligiently putting up barriers. They need them fast with the thousands of Hondurans on their way. One group has already arrived and Mexico has just given another group buses and visas. Trump needs to demand the return of the billions we just sent to the new corrupt president. Did it just go into his pocket?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
I'm sure it's not. Because he wants a wall and only a wall. He doesn't care about the border or immigration or American citizens. He cares about getting credit for a "wall."
Wonder about the possible scope for the ongoing negotiations? The "crisis" on the border surrounds the caravans, with the issue more than mere numbers.
Obrador's made it clear Mexico will not act as a paid U.S. mercenary for the US. There's no US desire to process the influx for asylum, nor port or CIS infrastructure to maintain them if we do.
What we need are changes to US laws concerning asylum. Most do not want an unlimited influx of what amounts to refugees over the US border. It's not sustainable. There Trump probably would have found Democratic votes or failing THAT, then turn to brinksmanship politics. Doing it over a wall --- meh.
He rails about the caravans, but uses them to justify the wall (which is fine in the POEs and for crowd-control etc.). The focus instead should be ON the caravans, with a wide-ranging examination of how to address it. Here, walls are only one part - and a minor one at that (given the currently existing port footage, which is being rebuilt under current appropriations).
So, yeah, his wall thing sure appears more as playing to the base than part of functional border management.
The influences that prevent that sort of exchange on the national stage also are formidable. Fortunately no one on this forum is responsible to the country and so we are free to pontificate away. Some for amusement ... some to be argumentative ... some for ideology ... some simply to speak, void or not for that's in the end irrelevant. For as you say in your first paragraph maybe it's enough to stick to our various versions of right vs wrong, truth or falseness.
I hate to repeat myself, but I'm only pointing out, again, the depth of confirmation bias that further entrenches our partisan bias is significant, whether we are in politics or C-D arm-chair pontificators. Significant enough that facts, reason and logic take a big back seat to ego, emotion and personal prejudices.
Doesn't really matter what we say or write, so chock this up to just more pontificating, but I think part of the problem is how we describe our views and those of others, in common partisan terms rather than sticking to the facts, reason and logic that might give objective critical thinking a better chance. That's all.
I hate to repeat myself, but I'm only pointing out, again, the depth of confirmation bias that further entrenches our partisan bias is significant, whether we are in politics or C-D arm-chair pontificators. Significant enough that facts, reason and logic take a big back seat to ego, emotion and personal prejudices.
Doesn't really matter what we say or write, so chock this up to just more pontificating, but I think part of the problem is how we describe our views and those of others, in common partisan terms rather than sticking to the facts, reason and logic that might give objective critical thinking a better chance. That's all.
Agree. Per my original observation about another poster's "leftie" comment .. there has not been that much expression of the Democratic progressive view in these threads. No argument this is less true of the far right views with concerns expressed using language like "invasions" etc. I also said that I wouldn't have minded hearing the progressive views.
Wonder about the possible scope for the ongoing negotiations? The "crisis" on the border surrounds the caravans, with the issue more than mere numbers.
Obrador's made it clear Mexico will not act as a paid U.S. mercenary for the US. There's no US desire to process the influx for asylum, nor port or CIS infrastructure to maintain them if we do.
What we need are changes to US laws concerning asylum. Most do not want an unlimited influx of what amounts to refugees over the US border. It's not sustainable. There Trump probably would have found Democratic votes or failing THAT, then turn to brinksmanship politics. Doing it over a wall --- meh.
He rails about the caravans, but uses them to justify the wall (which is fine in the POEs and for crowd-control etc.). The focus instead should be ON the caravans, with a wide-ranging examination of how to address it. Here, walls are only one part - and a minor one at that (given the currently existing port footage, which is being rebuilt under current appropriations).
So, yeah, his wall thing sure appears more as playing to the base than part of functional border management.
Not sure I've ever heard ANYONE argue for "an unlimited influx of what amounts to refugees over the US border," but since everyone likes these sorts of straw man arguments, I suppose "anything goes" as usual here. Same as the prior comments suggesting that any way other than Trump's way is to care nothing of border security.
These are the same sort of "blind spots" that keep Trump from doing what would actually help America make progress with our border security and immigration policies, but of course when you think in terms of these sorts of straw man arguments (to misrepresent the real arguments), and when you think in terms of "my way or the highway," America ends up right where it is today. Stuck on the side of the road...
Can't wait to see how Trump otherwise describes our state of the Union. No doubt this too will be more than most thinking informed people can swallow.
Sorry, guess I'm old school, because when I state something as fact, I always provide a link to back myself up....you should try it sometime.
I always like to ask for a link when the expressed opinion seems unfounded, unjustified, but when someone asks for a link about something that should be common knowledge and/or easily Googled, I don't usually see the need to provide the link as you do. Trump is going to make a State of the Union address tonight. Need a link?
"Old school?" Or just lazy? Or maybe just not that interested to know the facts, follow the news, rather than this thread?
Just saying...
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.
