The Trump Shutdown

[KRC]

5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

That said, while the wall is critical to the safety of our country, it is second to replacing Ginsburg. We're going to find out she's a veggie soon and literally nothing else to this point in Trumps presidency will matter.

 

I am not so sure about that. RBG looks like she is doing well, based off of the clips I have seen of the new Lego movie. Hollywood wouldn't lie to me, would they?

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

While waiting for a haircut yesterday, KCAL News was on the TV and the story was "President Trump Caves..." following by an at-the-scene reporter who reiterated the "Caved" comment before ending his report with Anne Coulter's tweet about GHWB no longer being the wimpiest president.

 

There was nothing in the report about Dems promising to negotiate in good faith. Trump lost this battle, but if there is anything we have learned about the left over the past three years is they are completely unable to get out of their own way. The long game is not in their favor. 

 

That said, while the wall is critical to the safety of our country, it is second to replacing Ginsburg. We're going to find out she's a veggie soon and literally nothing else to this point in Trumps presidency will matter.

Did you listen to Schumer's little talk yesterday where he mentioned that Trump had to learn his lesson? It reminded me of their Gloat Parade when the ACA was passed. They never learn to not celebrate first downs unless it seals the game.

[plenzmd1]

46 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, in other words they are both pretty well protected? Could we provide this same level of protection to our southern border or do you think that might be too expensive?

so in other words...both folks are not ordinary citizens and to equate the two is just nonsensical. Would a wall around our southern border saved JFK or MLK? Are is the argument you are espousing is that if some folks have certain things, all folks need those things? So if you can afford to send your kids to private school, all kids should be afforded to go to private school? Is that really the rights position?

38 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, close like the secret service/technology/sniper/surveillance option. 

 

I understand your desire to push back on what you may see as the oversplification on the wall issue, but imo this is a fail on a massive level. BO and his family are protected by walls, technolgy, people beyond what any reasonable conservative would ever suggest at the border. I understand the need to protect these people and have never spent much time worrying about the enormous cost to do so.  (Actually I wonder more about the hypocrisy of a guy telling me the planet is doomed if I buy an SUV polluting the planet like it's his personal carbon playground but that's an issue for another day).

 

On a national level, providing security for people in this circle is of the utmost importance.  However, all politics are local and the argument most people I know make is the border can be secured, reasonably but not without cost.  It sure would be nice if our politicians cared even 10% as much about the people they serve as they do about the elite ruling class of American politics.  Instead, they treat the victimized as disposable, collateral damage. 

 

Then again maybe im missing something and you were able to run up to the front lawn and buy some lemonade from one of the Obama girls when they were kids? 

BO was the freaking President of the United States...cmom guys, this argument is just silly. Make a case for a wall, but certainly not the basis that a ex-president has more security than you or I..

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so in other words...both folks are not ordinary citizens and to equate the two is just nonsensical. Would a wall around our southern border saved JFK or MLK? Are is the argument you are espousing is that if some folks have certain things, all folks need those things? So if you can afford to send your kids to private school, all kids should be afforded to go to private school? Is that really the rights position?

BO was the freaking President of the United States...cmom guys, this argument is just silly. Make a case for a wall, but certainly not the basis that a ex-president has more security than you or I..

It seems to me that you were at least insinuating that walls weren't needed because Obama didn't even need a wall at his home. I was just pointing out that he had plenty of other protection. It goes without saying that of course we couldn't put guards every 20' along the border.

[Deranged Rhino]

40 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

We're going to find out she's a veggie soon and literally nothing else to this point in Trumps presidency will matter.

+1

Why do you think Pelosi is STILL trying to delay the SOTU? 

 

She knows RBG can't be on camera or else the gig is up. 

[keepthefaith]

Trump is just setting himself up for embarrassment #2 with this 3 week negotiating period.  Nancy and Chuck don't want border security or revisions to asylum laws AT ALL.  They will be more than happy to let Trump invoke "national emergency status" and subject his decision to all the legal entanglements which will ensure that the wall an actual border security is substantially delayed at best.  The media will certainly give them cover for walking away from the table. 

 

For a guy that claims to be a great deal maker, he's mostly getting his ass kicked on this one.  The facts are on your side DT, but you have to sell it and it's a process that will take time.  The only way to put political pressure on the other side is to make a cogent case to the nation on an ongoing basis through every medium available and expose the other side for opposing what should be a no brainer, the end of significant illegal immigration. 

 

At this point he has very little time with an election right around the corner.  Frankly the odds of him getting something meaningful done are pretty slim and much slimmer if he continues his poor approach to this. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

so in other words...both folks are not ordinary citizens and to equate the two is just nonsensical. Would a wall around our southern border saved JFK or MLK? Are is the argument you are espousing is that if some folks have certain things, all folks need those things? So if you can afford to send your kids to private school, all kids should be afforded to go to private school? Is that really the rights position?

BO was the freaking President of the United States...cmom guys, this argument is just silly. Make a case for a wall, but certainly not the basis that a ex-president has more security than you or I..

I already acknowledged the need for security. I agree 100%, but let's not pretend your comments on your "Couch Potato to 5k" morning jog past BOs house was a reasonable counterpoint to the argument that physical barriers to entry and a reasonably secure border make sense.

 

Even assuming the former prez had physical barriers out front, he's still behind reinforced walls and bomb resistant glass with Bill Gates level technology to keep him safe from harm. Bottom.line...hes got walls and they are damn good ones to boot. 

 

Conversely, the southern border would be improved substantially if the best plan our leaders came up with was to stack a few rows of Kleenex boxes 10 feet high.  Somewhere between the Kleenex boxes and BO technology would be fine with me. I think walls are a part of that because walls are quite literally used....everywhere. 

 

Last thought on the safety issue. The president is rightly entitled to protection funded by the American people. On a national level, for the greater good, we all should recognize and support that.  However, the tragic victimization of one not named bush/Clinton/Obama/Pelosi/schumer/Ryan  at the hands of someone who entered the country illegally is no less tragic to the family than it would be if it happened in the family of the political ruling class.  It would be no greater loss to see the name Chelsa Clinyon in the headlines rather than Molly Tibbets, though I'd bet you'd see a lot more political activity and handwringing afterwards.  Molly Tibbets was disposable. Others are not.  We know that because this problem has been going on for decades. 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

Trump is just setting himself up for embarrassment #2 with this 3 week negotiating period.  Nancy and Chuck don't want border security or revisions to asylum laws AT ALL.  They will be more than happy to let Trump invoke "national emergency status" and subject his decision to all the legal entanglements which will ensure that the wall an actual border security is substantially delayed at best.  The media will certainly give them cover for walking away from the table. 

 

For a guy that claims to be a great deal maker, he's mostly getting his ass kicked on this one.  The facts are on your side DT, but you have to sell it and it's a process that will take time.  The only way to put political pressure on the other side is to make a cogent case to the nation on an ongoing basis through every medium available and expose the other side for opposing what should be a no brainer, the end of significant illegal immigration. 

 

At this point he has very little time with an election right around the corner.  Frankly the odds of him getting something meaningful done are pretty slim and much slimmer if he continues his poor approach to this. 

Holy crap.  A Trump supporter that recognizes his flaws in negotiations throughout this process and not think he's playing 4d chess.  Saying you'll take the blame for the shutdown and then blaming the other side when the shutdown is in progress.  Not smart.  Confusing people about whether you want to build a wall all the way across the border to sections of th border to whether it will be a wall at all (maybe it's a fence or a steel barrier) - not smart.  It makes people wonder what you actually will make good use of the money.

[Figster]

The best way to secure our borders on the ground is by using patrol dogs trained to track, catch and hold their intruder/s until help arrives in my humble opinion. The dog provides a moving wall that is hard to detect, even harder to out smart IMO. Cheap, border patrol could manage them and you could designate Shep off of Live PD as their fearless 4 legged leader. ( kidding )

 

Does this sound humane to woman and children, no, absolutely not. It is my belief however the dangerous cross country migration teamed with the thought of Patrol dogs trained to apprehend you when you reach the US border would eliminte 99% of the problem.

 

thoughts? 

[Hedge]

4 minutes ago, Figster said:

The best way to secure our borders on the ground is by using patrol dogs trained to track, catch and hold their intruder/s until help arrives in my humble opinion. The dog provides a moving wall that is hard to detect, even harder to out smart IMO. Cheap, border patrol could manage them and you could designate Shep off of Live PD as their fearless 4 legged leader. ( kidding )

 

Does this sound humane to woman and children, no, absolutely not. It is my belief however the dangerous cross country migration teamed with the thought of Patrol dogs trained to apprehend you when you reach the US border would eliminte 99% of the problem.

 

thoughts? 

 

Do you propose to have a huge pack of hundreds of these dogs that go around together that catch the *groups* of illegals that come across? But at least they wouldn't think of bringing along shotguns to dispose of these dogs, so the plan has that going for it...

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Figster said:

The best way to secure our borders on the ground is by using patrol dogs trained to track, catch and hold their intruder/s until help arrives in my humble opinion. The dog provides a moving wall that is hard to detect, even harder to out smart IMO. Cheap, border patrol could manage them and you could designate Shep off of Live PD as their fearless 4 legged leader. ( kidding )

 

Does this sound humane to woman and children, no, absolutely not. It is my belief however the dangerous cross country migration teamed with the thought of Patrol dogs trained to apprehend you when you reach the US border would eliminte 99% of the problem.

 

thoughts? 

You're using a Medieval tactic to attack drug dealers and coyote smugglers. They'll just shoot the dogs.

[Swill Merchant]

I believe the Democrat's victory lap will prove to be premature.

[Albwan]

He had no choice but to lift the shutdown. All the nonsense that would have happened

with or wo the shut down at the super bowl would literally have kept the hate party and their talking heads

busy with trump propaganda for months. Actually a very shrewd move on Trumps part. I wouldn't be surprised if

the left had some 'things' planned for the SB.

 

"The art of the kneel" If anyone knows about kneeling it's hollywood.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Albwan

[Figster]

6 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

Do you propose to have a huge pack of hundreds of these dogs that go around together that catch the *groups* of illegals that come across? But at least they wouldn't think of bringing along shotguns to dispose of these dogs, so the plan has that going for it...

Shoot our patrol dogs and go to prison for 10 years.

 

Its highly unlikely you get away with it IMO.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Figster

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, Figster said:

Shoot our patrol dogs and go to prison for 10 years.

 

While patrol dogs could be part of a comprehensive plan, pretty sure that human traffickers get significantly more than 10 years when caught.  Also, believe major narcotics trafficking sentences are significantly greater than 10 years.

 

How does the possibility of 10 years added on to a sentence keep the dogs alive past their 1st encounter with a really bad guy?

[Figster]

18 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

While patrol dogs could be part of a comprehensive plan, pretty sure that human traffickers get significantly more than 10 years when caught.  Also, believe major narcotics trafficking sentences are significantly greater than 10 years.

 

How does the possibility of 10 years added on to a sentence keep the dogs alive past their 1st encounter with a really bad guy?

It may not, but the bad guy has very little chance of completing his objective.

 

 Drones could assist the dog/border patrol to help keep them safe.

 

I dogs nose, knows...

Edited January 26, 2019 by Figster

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, Figster said:

It may not, but the bad guy has very little chance of completing his objective.

 

Not really seeing how having 270 miles or so of desert patrolled by dogs, especially dogs not accompanied directly by handlers (which is what your original post implied, if that wasn't your intention, my bad), both keeps a trafficker from completing his objective and remains "cheap."

[njbuff]

This time in three weeks we will be in the middle of the President declaring a national emergency.

 

The Dems won't spend one second at the negotiating table with the President.

 

Trump's failure is more important than the country's security concerns at the southern border.

 

This is something that can easily be fixed just by simply listening to the people who patrol our border, BUT NO.

 

The American Dream will soon become the Illegal Immigrant Dream, sponsored by radical leftists who will violently oppose you if you disagree with them.

 

 

[Figster]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

Not really seeing how having 270 miles or so of desert patrolled by dogs, especially dogs not accompanied directly by handlers (which is what your original post implied, if that wasn't your intention, my bad), both keeps a trafficker from completing his objective and remains "cheap."

Myself personally,  the idea of an actual wall is going to cost a fortune and people are going to find ways to dig under it, and go over it IMO. What does this do to the wild life? Animals need room to roam, so are we putting their backs against the wall? On the other hand dog patrols offer a more mobile form of security that would be way, way cheaper then a wall that will eventually get conquered in my humble opinion. Yes , the dogs need handlers and border patrol would have to take on the responsibilities.

 

I get where your coming from and some parts of the border, deserts for instance may not need any type of barrier because of how easy it is for detection.

 

One of the biggest obstacles the right has of convincing the left a wall will work is a wall where? and why? Show me a plan that makes sense. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by Figster

[snafu]

The President caved and anyone who thinks this was strategically smart forgets that Democrats won’t bend or twist or back down. Republicans in Congress would, but Democrats won’t. 

 

The national emergency angle is a morass waiting to happen and it will eventually make Trump look weak to anyone but his core. I personally don’t believe that a court can properly say whether their interpretation of an emergency overrules the President’s. That won’t stop an injunction. 

[njbuff]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

The President caved and anyone who thinks this was strategically smart forgets that Democrats won’t bend or twist or back down. Republicans in Congress would, but Democrats won’t. 

 

The national emergency angle is a morass waiting to happen and it will eventually make Trump look weak to anyone but his core. I personally don’t believe that a court can properly say whether their interpretation of an emergency overrules the President’s. That won’t stop an injunction. 

 

The Democrats did say to the nation that they will talk with the President if he re-opens the government.

 

Now if they go back on their word................ it's Trump that still looks bad?

[snafu]

Yes, because EVERYONE knows they were lying.

 

[njbuff]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

Yes, because EVERYONE knows they were lying.

 

 

So, everyone knows that the Dems were lying and Trump is the one who looks bad.

 

What a cockeyed political environment we live in, huh?

Edited January 26, 2019 by njbuff

[snafu]

He’s catching hell from the right and being mocked from the left.

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

The President caved and anyone who thinks this was strategically smart forgets that Democrats won’t bend or twist or back down. Republicans in Congress would, but Democrats won’t.

 

We all know they won't. They never had any intention of negotiating in good faith - they explicitly said so.

 

Now Trump has the opportunity to shift the narrative against them. Let them crow about him "caving". Let Schumer run his victory lap. In 3 weeks, they're going to have to explain why they lied about negotiating if Trump agreed to open the government.

 

All the Democrats have to do is not be insane, and they can't pull it off.

[snafu]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

We all know they won't. They never had any intention of negotiating in good faith - they explicitly said so.

 

Now Trump has the opportunity to shift the narrative against them. Let them crow about him "caving". Let Schumer run his victory lap. In 3 weeks, they're going to have to explain why they lied about negotiating if Trump agreed to open the government.

 

All the Democrats have to do is not be insane, and they can't pull it off.

 

Let’s see what these three weeks brings.

if I were advising the President, I’d have him make an offer to negotiate with Congressional leadership, from both parties, every single day from here until the next deadline. That’s the only way I see his high ground meaning something. 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

Myself personally,  the idea of an actual wall is going to cost a fortune and people are going to find ways to dig under it, and go over it IMO. What does this do to the wild life? Animals need room to roam, so are we putting their backs against the wall? On the other hand dog patrols offer a more mobile form of security that would be way, way cheaper then a wall that will eventually get conquered in my humble opinion. Yes , the dogs need handlers and border patrol would have to take on the responsibilities.

 

I get where your coming from and some parts of the border, deserts for instance may not need any type of barrier because of how easy it is for detection.

 

One of the biggest obstacles the right has of convincing the left a wall will work is a wall where? and why? Show me a plan that makes sense. 

The wall is not intended to be as impenetrable as a prison wall. In other words, not perfect. It is meant to slow down any crossing so Border Patrol may arrive. The wall is most effective in reducing drug smuggling and the illegal/immoral sex trafficking of children. Sure, it will help some with illegal immigration and prevent caravans rushing our border but again it is only part of a border security system. Dogs may be helpful on patrol or seeking out illegals, criminal or otherwise, but they're just one  tool in the bag.

[Nanker]

FWIW drug detecting canines cost several thousands of dollars each.

 

One sniff of fentanyl can kill a dog. 

 

Drug dealers would slaughter them without mercy. 

 

So so not only are the “NEVER FENCERS” pro human and drug trafficking, they also hate dogs. 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Let’s see what these three weeks brings.

if I were advising the President, I’d have him make an offer to negotiate with Congressional leadership, from both parties, every single day from here until the next deadline. That’s the only way I see his high ground meaning something. 

He's already stated that he will do that.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

 

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He's already stated that he will do that.

 

I haven’t checked.  Has he said it today?

[Figster]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

The wall is not intended to be as impenetrable as a prison wall. In other words, not perfect. It is meant to slow down any crossing so Border Patrol may arrive. The wall is most effective in reducing drug smuggling and the illegal/immoral sex trafficking of children. Sure, it will help some with illegal immigration and prevent caravans rushing our border but again it is only part of a border security system. Dogs may be helpful on patrol or seeking out illegals, criminal or otherwise, but they're just one  tool in the bag.

Absolutely 3rd, and I do believe a wall in higher traffic areas might make more sense.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I haven’t checked.  Has he said it today?

Yesterday in his Rose Garden speech.

[Figster]

 

15 minutes ago, Nanker said:

FWIW drug detecting canines cost several thousands of dollars each.

 

One sniff of fentanyl can kill a dog. 

 

Drug dealers would slaughter them without mercy. 

 

So so not only are the “NEVER FENCERS” pro human and drug trafficking, they also hate dogs. 

Drug detecting canines are not whats needed to patrol our border from the people carrying them.

 

Again, kill a patrol dog and go to prison. You will get caught and you won't complete your objective.

 

One sniff of fentanyl can kill the person that dispenses it.

 

Thanks for the input, much appreciated Nanker

 

 

[DC Tom]

25 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

 

 

He's wrong, on so many levels.  9th Circuit wouldn't, as it would get to a district court first - and whichever one heard the case would certainly issue a stay (because the filers would venue-shop to find one that would) pending hearings, on the grounds that "the national emergency is racist" - the same grounds they stayed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in revoking DACA.

 

And if it eventually got to the 9th Circus, after hearing after hearing...they absolutely could rule the law unconstitutional.  Which would just send it to the Supreme Court...and would be hilarious, as it would suspend some 25 other national emergencies currently in force.  They'd be stupid to do it...but I never trust the 9th Circuit to make the smart decision when they can make the stupid progressive decision.

[/dev/null]

30 minutes ago, Nanker said:

FWIW drug detecting canines cost several thousands of dollars each.

 

One sniff of fentanyl can kill a dog. 

 

Drug dealers would slaughter them without mercy. 

 

So so not only are the “NEVER FENCERS” pro human and drug trafficking, they also hate dogs. 

 

We should build a wall just to throw those dog killing ers off

 

[snafu]

48 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yesterday in his Rose Garden speech.

 

What I meant was whether he offered to talk today, like he should offer tomorrow, and Monday.

invite Pelosi over to the White House every day.  

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

What I meant was whether he offered to talk today, like he should offer tomorrow, and Monday.

invite Pelosi over to the White House every day.  

He invited them over every day until it was settled.

 

I think Nancy said she couldn't make it, she had prior plans. We just don't know at what Sandals though.

Edited January 26, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[Nanker]

38 minutes ago, Figster said:

 

Drug detecting canines are not whats needed to patrol our border from the people carrying them.

 

Again, kill a patrol dog and go to prison. You will get caught and you won't complete your objective.

 

One sniff of fentanyl can kill the person that dispenses it.

 

Thanks for the input, much appreciated Nanker

 

 

Just some stuff I learned from Officers at the Citizen’s Police Academy that I’ve been attending. It’s not just the dogs, the agents get exposed to all thatshit too. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Just some stuff I learned from Officers at the Citizen’s Police Academy that I’ve been attending. It’s not just the dogs, the agents get exposed to all thatshit too. 

George Zimmermann, is that you?