Jump to content

The Trump Shutdown


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

One more time:

 

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

 

He can own the shutdown and still be considered as taking one for the American people. What's more important, part of the government shut down or America's safety?

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact.  That does not mean 2000 miles of wall.  Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right?  How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border?  Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? 

 

Both sides shoulder responsibility for this.  Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long.  But shutting down government over a wall is pointless.  Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at.

 

And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect.  You say something, own it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Building a useless, stupid wall is not in the country's best interest

i agree. building a useful wall is in the country's best interests however.

 

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

... Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at....

i'm sure you know that this is never going to happen, so the suggestion of it is a non starter and does little to bolster your argument.

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact.  That does not mean 2000 miles of wall.  Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right?  How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border?  Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? 

 

Both sides shoulder responsibility for this.  Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long.  But shutting down government over a wall is pointless.  Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at.

 

And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect.  You say something, own it.

 

 

How can you collect data on drugs being smuggled across the border not going through the checkpoint? 

If you can't realistically collect data, does it mean it's not happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

 

Look up "cloture". The Dems blocked the vote. It was out of McConnell's hands.

 

As far as your "words have consequences" rhetoric, it's an empty argument that is fit for cable news segments, but it does little to inform the reality of the situation.

The president said he'll own it, then he needs to own it.  And that means having actual negotiations where eh side gives a little.  He needs to give, so do Democrats.  quit trying to deflect thinking he has no blame.  Both sides have to answer for this nonsense.

 

And blocked what vote?  The last vote I recall there were over 90 senators who voted for the CR that the president said no to.  Bring the House bill up for a vote; the Democrats in the Senate block that then they should be shot.  I would wager that if the House bills opening all but Homeland security wee brought up they'd pass the Senate, then assuming a veto you'd see if the Senate and House override.  Which is the way the legislative process is supposed to work.

Just now, westside said:

How can you collect data on drugs being smuggled across the border not going through the checkpoint? 

If you can't realistically collect data, does it mean it's not happening?

It is likely happening, but not near the extent as at border crossings.   Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security.

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i agree. building a useful wall is in the country's best interests however.

 

i'm sure you know that this is never going to happen, so the suggestion of it is a non starter and does little to bolster your argument.

Why can't it happen though?  The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security.

 

A wall is part of that comprehensive approach which is needed. Pretending that the border can be secured properly without a wall in certain stretches trivializes the entire issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

... Why can't it happen though?  The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

well, for one thing.... when is the last time your elected representative represented you? they are beholden to their own, not you nor i. they legislate by what they think is best for you (and what they are told is best for you), not what you think is best.

 

again, it is unreasonable based upon recent history to say they need to be locked in a room because that is never going to happen. period.

Edited by Foxx
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

A wall is part of that comprehensive approach which is needed. Pretending that the border can be secured properly without a wall in certain stretches trivializes the entire issue.

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this:  we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings.  Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border.  That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. 

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

well, for one thing.... when is the last time your elected representative represented you? they are beholden to their own, not you nor i. they legislate by what they think is best for you (and what they are told is best for you), not what you think is best.

 

again, it is unreasonable based upon recent history to say they need to be locked in a room because that is never going to happen. period.

Perhaps you've just identified the real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this:  we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings.  Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border.  That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. 

 

No one is asking for a 2,000 mile uninterrupted border. All Trump is asking for, and what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for, are strategically placed stretches of wall in the most difficult areas along the border to patrol. The strategy is to drive the flow of traffickers back towards easier to cover/better covered areas. This is what Trump is looking for... 

 

... Along with added technology and manpower to help enforce it. 

 

No one in the administration is arguing that the wall alone is all that is needed, or that it will solve the problem by itself. It's part of a bigger tapestry of items needed to help better enforce the border - but it's specifically aimed at curbing trafficking and smuggling rather than illegal immigrants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one is asking for a 2,000 mile uninterrupted border. All Trump is asking for, and what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for, are strategically placed stretches of wall in the most difficult areas along the border to patrol. The strategy is to drive the flow of traffickers back towards easier to cover/better covered areas. This is what Trump is looking for... 

 

... Along with added technology and manpower to help enforce it. 

 

No one in the administration is arguing that the wall alone is all that is needed, or that it will solve the problem by itself. It's part of a bigger tapestry of items needed to help better enforce the border - but it's specifically aimed at curbing trafficking and smuggling rather than illegal immigrants. 

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.  All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security. 

 

Never gonna happen.  Both parties want to maintain immigration reform as an election issue - actually reforming immigration means they have one less issue to rile up their base.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldmanfan said:

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.

 

It is true. Since he got into office in 2017 and was briefed by DHS, he has not been asking for a 2,000 mile border wall. Those pushing that line are lying to you and conflating campaign rhetoric with the actualities of his administration. Every deal offered so far to the left has not included such an ask. 

 

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

Reality came home to roost in 2017 after he sat down with then DHS secretary Mattis. This shut down hasn't changed his mind, implying that it has is revisionist history. 

 

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  

 

I've spent a lot of time asking them precisely that. And to a man they've told me a wall is a necessary part of the equation to stopping the worst of the human smuggling routes in and out of the country. What Trump is asking for is what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for. They are aligned. 

 

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

 

One side does want open borders, but it's not the democrats. It's the uniparty establishment who has been benefiting from kickbacks in various forms from having an unsecured southern border for decades. That's who is truly being the most stubborn. 

 

The question one should ask is why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.  All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

 

I hear what you're saying. You want a comprehensive bill that addresses the issue more thoroughly. But understanding that building a physical boundary now does not preclude the adoption of such policies later, I pose a question:

 

What is your best argument for denying funding for a physical barrier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Never gonna happen.  Both parties want to maintain immigration reform as an election issue - actually reforming immigration means they have one less issue to rile up their base.  

Probably right.  I am an advocate of voting every single incumbent out of office and electing all new folks who are in the middle politically, with some liberal and some conservative thoughts, and let them get the country back on track.  Actually have meaningful debate and compromise for the good of all.  I myself?  More liberal on social policies, more conservative on fiscal and law & order policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leader Pelosi has written Trump to not give the State of the Union during the shut down 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-asks-trump-to-postpone-state-of-the-union-address-because-of-government-shutdown--or-deliver-it-in-writing/2019/01/16/f1c3026c-199b-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.626a6435b760

Quote


In a letter to Trump, Pelosi said the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which have key responsibilities for planning and implementing security at the scheduled Jan. 29 address in the House chamber, have been “hamstrung” by furloughs.

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th,” Pelosi wrote in the letter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...