The Trump Shutdown

[BeginnersMind]

20 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Hypocrisy isn't lazy in argument. It's lazy in execution. You'd know that if you had the ability to grasp the concept of original thinking.

 

But hey...you keep up the good work. AOC needs people like you so she appears intelligent by comparison.

 

 

Strawman and hypocrisy. You’re killing it tonight LA!

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

The suggestion that the motives of a person breaking into your house are somehow analogous to the motives of a person unlawfully crossing the border...is that what the argument over immigration has become? 

Well, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. How about one person breaking into my house vs. 1023 people jumping the border illegally?

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Well, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. How about one person breaking into my house vs. 1023 people jumping the border illegally?

I was talking about comparative motivations, but if you want to do it by numbers just take the square footage of your house and divide it by the 3,800,000 square miles. Pretty sure its less than 1/1023.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I was talking about comparative motivations, but if you want to do it by numbers just take the square footage of your house and divide it by the 3,800,000 square miles. Pretty sure its less than 1/1023.

You vastly underestimate the square footage of my house. As far as motivations go, out of the hundreds of thousand of border jumpers there's got to be a few thousand MS-13ers or otherwise nefarious people busting there way into our country.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

You vastly underestimate the square footage of my house. As far as motivations go, out of the hundreds of thousand of border jumpers there's got to be a few thousand MS-13ers or otherwise nefarious people busting there way into our country.

The amount of people immigrating unlawfully to the US with some nefarious goal in mind is the significant minority, whereas 100% of people breaking into your house are there to rob you. The two situations are so vastly different to render the comparison ridiculous. Your property lines are not an international border. Your house is not the United States of America. It's totally useless rhetoric.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

The amount of people immigrating unlawfully to the US with some nefarious goal in mind is the significant minority, whereas 100% of people breaking into your house are there to rob you. The two situations are so vastly different to render the comparison ridiculous. Your property lines are not an international border. Your house is not the United States of America. It's totally useless rhetoric.

Define "significant minority" from the perspective of the victim.  

[GoBills808]

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

Define "significant minority" from the perspective of the victim.  

Almost certainly less than 5% across all nationalities. 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The amount of people immigrating unlawfully to the US with some nefarious goal in mind is the significant minority, whereas 100% of people breaking into your house are there to rob you. The two situations are so vastly different to render the comparison ridiculous. Your property lines are not an international border. Your house is not the United States of America. It's totally useless rhetoric.

100% percent of the people crossing our border are breaking the law. Are you proposing that it is ok to break our laws?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

38 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Almost certainly less than 5% across all nationalities. 

I wasn't clear, I really was trying to get some feedback on what a victim of a violent crime (sexual assault, assault, armed robbery etc) or the family of a victim (homicide, vehicular manslaughter) committed by someone might consider an acceptable level of nefarious activity.  For example, the family of a murder victim might think "Man, this is heartbreaking, but thankfully the murdered represents a very small percentage of the whole.". Not as a whole of the population of the US, but just those here illegally. 

 

5% of what number?  

Edited January 26, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[GoBills808]

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

I'm wasn't clear, I really was trying to get some feedback on what a victim of a violent crime (sexual assault, assault, armed robbery etc) or the family of a victim (homicide, vehicular manslaughter) might consider an acceptable level of nefarious activity.  For example, the family of a murder victim might think "Man, this is heartbreaking, but thankfully the murdered represents a very small percentage of the whole.".

 

5% of what number?  

Almost certainly less than 5% of total unlawful immigrants regardless of nation of origin. They tend to commit crime at a much lower rate than the native born population. 

 

Re: the hypothetical grieving family-  murder is always heartbreaking. Percentages large or small won't provide any comfort. These figures are useful in crafting effective policy, not particularly so when utilized in your example above.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Remember when I posted about those?

 

No? Me either. 

 

Stay on target Red Leader. 

 

No, you posted poetry.  Why the ***** are you even here?

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Almost certainly less than 5% of total unlawful immigrants regardless of nation of origin. They tend to commit crime at a much lower rate than the native born population. 

 

 

No, they commit crime at a much, much higher rate, through virtue of BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAW.  

 

You really have to accept that to begin to address the issue.  "They're not really breaking the law" is a simple dismissal of a law you don't like, which means you never have to actually...y'know...change it.  It perpetuates the problem, it doesn't solve it.  Until you admit that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, you are part of the problem.

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, it's all about the federal judges. If one hadn't ruled a year ago against Trump rescinding one of the Obama era rules (not even an Executive Order) unconstitutionally we wouldn't be in this place. Leftist federal judges are being phased out. The war was won on 11-8-16, the left just doesn't know it yet. 

I didn't realize we were in a war.  One positive about alternating between Democratic and Republican presidents is we get a good balance of federal judges.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

No, they commit crime at a much, much higher rate, through virtue of BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAW.  

 

You really have to accept that to begin to address the issue.  "They're not really breaking the law" is a simple dismissal of a law you don't like, which means you never have to actually...y'know...change it.  It perpetuates the problem, it doesn't solve it.  Until you admit that illegal immigrants are breaking the law, you are part of the problem.

It's kind of a given I've 'accepted' that crossing the border illegally is illegal- I've been referring to illegal/unlawful immigration the whole time. The population I'm referring to is here illegally as a result of their illegal immigration. 

[Q-baby!]

3 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Hey, I don't make the leftist rules. I just use them to prove hypocrisy. No one cares what you, as an individual, did.

 

Leftists embarrassed themselves with Buzzfeed and Fake Indian.  You're a leftist.Therefore, you embarrassed yourself because one leftist represents all leftists.

 

What? It doesn't work that way now? 

 

You dumbasses.

So does that mean that you are a moron like Trump?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

27 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Almost certainly less than 5% of total unlawful immigrants regardless of nation of origin. They tend to commit crime at a much lower rate than the native born population. 

 

Re: the hypothetical grieving family-  murder is always heartbreaking. Percentages large or small won't provide any comfort. These figures are useful in crafting effective policy, not particularly so when utilized in your example above.

You mentioned the statistic, not me.  You said "almost certainly less than 5%", though 5% of what number you seem not to be willing to discuss.  Then you mentioned the oft-repeated never cited anecdotal evidence that illegal immigrants "commit crime at a much lower rate than the native population".  Of course, it's widely accepted that undocumented immigrants underreport crimes for a variety of reasons, and the population is impossible to gauge for obvious reasons, that statement sounds much more anecdotal than verifiable. Numbers range from 11-20million, putting your 5% number at 550,000-1,000,000 people here for  "nefarious gain".  

 

Of courose, that's not counting those who will enter unlawfully in the future at a conservative 400k per year (20,000 nefarious types), nor the ongoing human tragedy on the other side of the border as people are taken advantage of, robbed, assaulted and murdered.  Then again, maybe that number is a very comfortable "certainty less than 5%" as well. 

 

 

[GoBills808]

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

You mentioned the statistic, not me.  You said "almost certainly less than 5%", though 5% of what number you seem not to be willing to discuss.  Then you mentioned the oft-repeated never cited anecdotal evidence that illegal immigrants "commit crime at a much lower rate than the native population".  Of course, it's widely accepted that undocumented immigrants underreport crimes for a variety of reasons, and the population is impossible to gauge for obvious reasons, that statement sounds much more anecdotal than verifiable. Numbers range from 11-20million, putting your 5% number at 550,000-1,000,000 people here for  "nefarious gain".  

 

Of courose, that's not counting those who will enter unlawfully in the future at a conservative 400k per year (20,000 nefarious types), nor the ongoing human tragedy on the other side of the border as people are taken advantage of, robbed, assaulted and murdered.  Then again, maybe that number is a very comfortable "certainty less than 5%" as well. 

 

 

In my comment you quoted I said <5% of the total population of illegal immigrants. The evidence isn't anecdotal, it's widely available from various studies including this one:

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-reform-bulletin/criminal-immigrants-their-numbers-demographics-countries

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

38 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

In my comment you quoted I said <5% of the total population of illegal immigrants. The evidence isn't anecdotal, it's widely available from various studies including this one:

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-reform-bulletin/criminal-immigrants-their-numbers-demographics-countries

 

 

I didn't suggest your "certainly less than 5%" figure was anecdotal, I said your "they commit crimes at a lower rate than the native population" was anecdotal. And, it is, given that the article linked states:

 

Empirical studies of immigrant criminality generally and that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and are less likely to cause crime than their native-born peers, and that na- gives are more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants.4 

 

Note the reference to "immigrants", not non-citizen immigrants from earlier in the text:

 

Estimates of the total criminal noncitizen population vary widely, from about 820,000 according to the Migra- tion Policy Institute to 1.9 million according to Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but rarely is the number of those incarcerated estimated. 

 

Perhaps it's a typo, but for such a well-researched paper from a source you trust it seems you've misunderstood what the author was actually saying.  Or, you were being mislead. 

 

We obviously view this issue differently, we won't be the first nor the last.  My personal opinion is that a robust and well administered immigration policy is good for those who wish to emigrate, for citizens and the country.  We don't have that now, and while virtually every politician has talked a good game about it, we still see hundreds of thousands of people entering the country illegally, and we're supposed to take solace that our leaders have kept the violent criminality down around 1.9million people, and those numbers are a guess at best. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[GoBills808]

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

I didn't suggest your "certainly less than 5%" figure was anecdotal, I said your "they commit crimes at a lower rate" was anecdotal. And, it is, given that the article linked states:

 

Empirical studies of immigrant criminality generally and that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and are less likely to cause crime than their native-born peers, and that na- gives are more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants.4 

 

Note the reference to "immigrants", not non-citizen immigrants from earlier in the text:

 

Estimates of the total criminal noncitizen population vary widely, from about 820,000 according to the Migra- tion Policy Institute to 1.9 million according to Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but rarely is the number of those incarcerated estimated. 

 

Perhaps it's a typo, but for such a well-researched paper from a source you trust it seems you've misunderstood what the author was actually saying.  Or, you were being mislead. 

 

We obviously view this issue differently, we won't be the first nor the last.  My personal opinion is that a robust and well administered immigration policy is good for those who wish to emigrate, for citizens and the country.  We don't have that now, and while virtually every politician has talked a good game about it, we still see hundreds of thousands of people entering the country illegally, and we're supposed to take solace that our leaders have kept the violent criminality down around 1.9million people, and those numbers are a guess at best. 

Couple points: the study does indeed reference illegal immigrants as opposed to legal immigrants, specifically here:

 

...Illegal immigrant incarceration rates are not well studied, although one investigation estimated that 4.6 percent of Texas inmates are illegal immigrants while illegal immigrants comprise 6.3 percent of that state’s total population.⁷

The best research on illegal immigrant crime exploits a natural experiment to see how the removal of illegal immigrants from an area through the Secure Communities (SCOMM) program affects local crime rates. SCOMM was an interior immigration enforcement program started in 2008 that checked the fingerprints of local and state arrestees against federal immigration databases. If ICE suspected the arrestee of being an illegal immigrant, then ICE would issue a detainer to hold the arrestee until ICE could pick them up. The Obama administration ended SCOMM in 2014, but the Trump administration reactivated it. If illegal immigrants were more crime prone than natives, the crime rates in those local areas that were first enrolled in the program should have seen crime decline relative to areas that were not. As it turned out, SCOMM had no significant effect on local crime rates, which means that illegal immigrants were not more crime prone than natives.⁸

 

^{and here again:}

 

There were an estimated 2,007,502 natives, 122,939 illegal immigrants, and 63,994 legal immigrants incarcerated in 2014. The incarceration rate was 1.53 percent for natives, 0.85 percent for illegal immigrants, and 0.47 percent for legal immigrants (see Figure 1). Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented (see Figure 2). If native-born Americans were incarcerated at the same rate as illegal immigrants, about 893,000 fewer natives would be incarcerated. If natives were incarcerated at the same rate as legal immigrants, about 1.4 million fewer natives would be incarcerated.

 

Secondly, the Cato Institute is hardly my go-to source for policy studies. I linked it because imo they are more likely to publish in support of more stringent immigration policies; that this study found the opposite was more a nod to the idea that the data is likely to be reasonably unbiased. Another study among numerous others that finds similar results is here: https://www.nap.edu/read/21746/chapter/9#328 and while it does not differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants specifically, it includes in their 'crime' figures illegal immigrants whose sole offense was entering the country illegally, and the percentage of total immigrant crime (both legal and illegal) is still sufficiently low to support the findings of the Cato Institute I referenced.

 

It takes a little bit of math (partly because there are some conclusions to draw from the data that aren't stated outright but fall into the 'generally accepted' category like the <5% figure, and partly because some data for illegal immigrants like incarceration rates aren't totally reliable) but you can work it out yourself. Most of these studies agree that we tend to overestimate rates of crime (again, other than entering the country illegally, which I am well aware is a crime) and incarceration for illegal immigrants, so the rates could actually be lower still. We have a difference of opinion on what good policy for immigration might look like (logically, advocating for an open border policy in light of the data seems to make the most sense, if crime is the motivating issue) but I think the statistics are generally agreed upon.

 

 

 

[unbillievable]

If you look at any crime statistic map for any city, the lowest incidence of reported crimes are always in the worst parts of the city.

 

Also, 100% of illegal aliens have committed a crime.

If you stop a crime that was never going to be reported, does it still lower the statistics?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

15 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

And this whole thing isn’t about winning and losing, what’s the matter with all of you?  If it opens with a wall, who cares if trump won.  If it doesn’t, who cares dems won.  The country has lost over this stupid shutdown.

 

No it hasn't. I'd wager 90 per cent of the productive population of this country didn't even notice the shutdown. 

[Foxx]

5 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

... It takes a little bit of math (partly because there are some conclusions to draw from the data that aren't stated outright but fall into the 'generally accepted' category like the <5% figure, and partly because some data for illegal immigrants like incarceration rates aren't totally reliable) but you can work it out yourself. Most of these studies agree that we tend to overestimate rates of crime (again, other than entering the country illegally, which I am well aware is a crime) and incarceration for illegal immigrants, so the rates could actually be lower still. We have a difference of opinion on what good policy for immigration might look like (logically, advocating for an open border policy in light of the data seems to make the most sense, if crime is the motivating issue) but I think the statistics are generally agreed upon.

just so i understand your position here... a 5% crime level by people who are here illegally, is acceptable ?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Crime - in one of the threads in this group I posted the link to the stats for illegals in AZ (plain vanilla stats, no manipulations). You can search the forum to find it. It was illegals committed crimes at a MUCH higher rate than citizens (blowing up the narrative that people who break the law to get into the country don't break more laws when they get here *insert eye roll*). 

[The_Dude]

Shame on Trump for backing down. 

 

Pelosi has bigger balls than Trump. 

[3rdnlng]

34 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Shame on Trump for backing down. 

 

Pelosi has bigger balls than Trump. 

Stop and think. By bending over backwards to come to an agreement here, Trump is displaying his reasonableness. If an agreement can't be reached he'll simply declare an emergency and move money from other sources to the wall. That move will be challenged in court. In order to prevail in court he will need to show that he did his utmost to avoid having to declare an emergency. Sometimes it's more important to have a bigger brain than balls.

[The_Dude]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Stop and think. By bending over backwards to come to an agreement here, Trump is displaying his reasonableness. If an agreement can't be reached he'll simply declare an emergency and move money from other sources to the wall. That move will be challenged in court. In order to prevail in court he will need to show that he did his utmost to avoid having to declare an emergency. Sometimes it's more important to have a bigger brain than balls.

 

 

We’ll see. We shall see. 

[Big Gun]

42 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Stop and think. By bending over backwards to come to an agreement here, Trump is displaying his reasonableness. If an agreement can't be reached he'll simply declare an emergency and move money from other sources to the wall. That move will be challenged in court. In order to prevail in court he will need to show that he did his utmost to avoid having to declare an emergency. Sometimes it's more important to have a bigger brain than balls.

Yup, for a few years now Trump seems to be one step ahead of everyone else. I have to believe he has a plan "B" and plan "C" and "D" in place or he wouldn't have given in. Wee shall see. 

 

IMO he is not interfering with Mueller and letting him do his thing with no worries but when Mueller is done it's going to be Trumps turn and watch how scared everyone on the left gets. He's just biding his time.

 

[TH3]

54 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Stop and think. By bending over backwards to come to an agreement here, Trump is displaying his reasonableness. If an agreement can't be reached he'll simply declare an emergency and move money from other sources to the wall. That move will be challenged in court. In order to prevail in court he will need to show that he did his utmost to avoid having to declare an emergency. Sometimes it's more important to have a bigger brain than balls.

 

43 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

We’ll see. We shall see. 

 

4 minutes ago, pop gun said:

Yup, for a few years now Trump seems to be one step ahead of everyone else. I have to believe he has a plan "B" and plan "C" and "D" in place or he wouldn't have given in. Wee shall see. 

 

IMO he is not interfering with Mueller and letting him do his thing with no worries but when Mueller is done it's going to be Trumps turn and watch how scared everyone on the left gets. He's just biding his time.

 

LOL...no....ROTFLOL.....

A step ahead?.....When you are about to get lapped.....it seems like you are ahead.....

 

DT is an absolute embarrassment 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Couple points: the study does indeed reference illegal immigrants as opposed to legal immigrants, specifically here:

 

...Illegal immigrant incarceration rates are not well studied, although one investigation estimated that 4.6 percent of Texas inmates are illegal immigrants while illegal immigrants comprise 6.3 percent of that state’s total population.⁷

The best research on illegal immigrant crime exploits a natural experiment to see how the removal of illegal immigrants from an area through the Secure Communities (SCOMM) program affects local crime rates. SCOMM was an interior immigration enforcement program started in 2008 that checked the fingerprints of local and state arrestees against federal immigration databases. If ICE suspected the arrestee of being an illegal immigrant, then ICE would issue a detainer to hold the arrestee until ICE could pick them up. The Obama administration ended SCOMM in 2014, but the Trump administration reactivated it. If illegal immigrants were more crime prone than natives, the crime rates in those local areas that were first enrolled in the program should have seen crime decline relative to areas that were not. As it turned out, SCOMM had no significant effect on local crime rates, which means that illegal immigrants were not more crime prone than natives.⁸

 

^{and here again:}

 

There were an estimated 2,007,502 natives, 122,939 illegal immigrants, and 63,994 legal immigrants incarcerated in 2014. The incarceration rate was 1.53 percent for natives, 0.85 percent for illegal immigrants, and 0.47 percent for legal immigrants (see Figure 1). Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented (see Figure 2). If native-born Americans were incarcerated at the same rate as illegal immigrants, about 893,000 fewer natives would be incarcerated. If natives were incarcerated at the same rate as legal immigrants, about 1.4 million fewer natives would be incarcerated.

 

Secondly, the Cato Institute is hardly my go-to source for policy studies. I linked it because imo they are more likely to publish in support of more stringent immigration policies; that this study found the opposite was more a nod to the idea that the data is likely to be reasonably unbiased. Another study among numerous others that finds similar results is here: https://www.nap.edu/read/21746/chapter/9#328 and while it does not differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants specifically, it includes in their 'crime' figures illegal immigrants whose sole offense was entering the country illegally, and the percentage of total immigrant crime (both legal and illegal) is still sufficiently low to support the findings of the Cato Institute I referenced.

 

It takes a little bit of math (partly because there are some conclusions to draw from the data that aren't stated outright but fall into the 'generally accepted' category like the <5% figure, and partly because some data for illegal immigrants like incarceration rates aren't totally reliable) but you can work it out yourself. Most of these studies agree that we tend to overestimate rates of crime (again, other than entering the country illegally, which I am well aware is a crime) and incarceration for illegal immigrants, so the rates could actually be lower still. We have a difference of opinion on what good policy for immigration might look like (logically, advocating for an open border policy in light of the data seems to make the most sense, if crime is the motivating issue) but I think the statistics are generally agreed upon.

 

 

 

The Government Accounting Office reported that in 2009, there were 351,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in fed/state/local facilities. It is commonly agreed that crime is undereported in the undocumented community, and again, that's just on this side of the border.

 

In the US, we often export jobs and import crime. In addition, we can skip the competing narratives, but the cost borne by the taxpayer for this broken immigration system is massive.  I'll do us both a favor and not link a study showing it's in the billions, you do us both a favor and don't bother citing a study where it's an economic windfall for the American taxpayer and we should double the number of folks here under the radar. 

 

"Open Borders" is no more the answer (logically) than is eliminating checkpoints at airports, the Washington monument, The Super Bowl or the White House. It simply leads to chaos,  where folks like you and I discuss what's an acceptable level of violent crime and economic impact on the American taxpayer.  

[plenzmd1]

15 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Have you run through the back yard? What's that like? 

Not quite the backyard, but close. Ivanka's place too!

14 hours ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Why is it understandable? Anyone that would want to get onto/into his property is just a desperate person looking for a better life. Don't be such a bigot.

Really? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Not quite the backyard, but close. Ivanka's place too!

Really? 

Hmm. Close like you could look in the living room windows, close like you were on the front porch collecting for UNICEF, or close like far enough away so that the secret service could use a few million dollars worth of technology to analyze any potential threat to the monarchy? 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Not quite the backyard, but close. Ivanka's place too!

Really? 

Are there any barriers on the street near Obama's place? Patrol cars? Bushes or hedges? As you run by can you see the front entrance?

[plenzmd1]

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

Hmm. Close like you could look in the living room windows, close like you were on the front porch collecting for UNICEF, or close like far enough away so that the secret service could use a few million dollars worth of technology to analyze any potential threat to the monarchy? 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Are there any barriers on the street near Obama's place? Patrol cars? Bushes or hedges? As you run by can you see the front entrance?

So, Ivanka lives at the corner of Tracy PLace and Kalorama RD

this is her house

https://tinyurl.com/ya2ddaqn.

only thing that changed from this picture is there are those gate control gates that look like bike racks on the sidewalk. When she is there, always two Black Suburbans parked out front, and there is always at least 4 other various cars parked around the place with Secret Service( i assume) parked around the place. One block down is Obama's street, Belmont Ave..jersey walls and both entrances to the street, manned cop car and secret service car there 24/7, no getting on the street without being on list. Can see his backyard from street i run on.

Know one the folks that live on the street, they actually like having him there.

 

People who don't like them there are the Muslim cabbies. His house is about a 2-minute walk from the Islamic center, and that street was packed with parked cabs at Friday prayers..now they have to park much further away!

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

So, Ivanka lives at the corner of Tracy PLace and Kalorama RD

this is her house

https://tinyurl.com/ya2ddaqn.

only thing that changed from this picture is there are those gate control gates that look like bike racks on the sidewalk. When she is there, always two Black Suburbans parked out front, and there is always at least 4 other various cars parked around the place with Secret Service( i assume) parked around the place. One block down is Obama's street, Belmont Ave..jersey walls and both entrances to the street, manned cop car and secret service car there 24/7, no getting on the street without being on list. Can see his backyard from street i run on.

Know one the folks that live on the street, they actually like having him there.

 

People who don't like them there are the Muslim cabbies. His house is about a 2-minute walk from the Islamic center, and that street was packed with parked cabs at Friday prayers..now they have to park much further away!

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?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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? 

Edited January 26, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

Shame on Trump for backing down. 

 

Pelosi has bigger balls than Trump. 

 

It was a shrewd move. The Democrats have been saying for weeks that they'd negotiate in good faith if Trump agreed to reopen the government (even though Pelosi has explicitly stated that she would not ever agree to fund a wall.) This puts the onus on the Democrats when they refuse to compromise and the government shuts down again. Trump will beat the drum that he was ready and willing to talk, and that the Democrats lied, yet again, about being willing to negotiate and lied, yet again, about being serious about protecting the country.

 

He's doing what he does: Allowing the Democrats to make themselves look like dishonest irrational morons.

[Big Gun]

1 hour ago, TH3 said:

 

 

LOL...no....ROTFLOL.....

A step ahead?.....When you are about to get lapped.....it seems like you are ahead.....

 

DT is an absolute embarrassment 

I guess we will see as you dumb lefties have been proven wrong time and again. 

[KRC]

13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It was a shrewd move. The Democrats have been saying for weeks that they'd negotiate in good faith if Trump agreed to reopen the government (even though Pelosi has explicitly stated that she would not ever agree to fund a wall.) This puts the onus on the Democrats when they refuse to compromise and the government shuts down again. Trump will beat the drum that he was ready and willing to talk, and that the Democrats lied, yet again, about being willing to negotiate and lied, yet again, about being serious about protecting the country.

 

He's doing what he does: Allowing the Democrats to make themselves look like dishonest irrational morons.

 

I agree. It then goes from the Trump Shutdown to the Democrat Shutdown.

[The_Dude]

19 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It was a shrewd move. The Democrats have been saying for weeks that they'd negotiate in good faith if Trump agreed to reopen the government (even though Pelosi has explicitly stated that she would not ever agree to fund a wall.) This puts the onus on the Democrats when they refuse to compromise and the government shuts down again. Trump will beat the drum that he was ready and willing to talk, and that the Democrats lied, yet again, about being willing to negotiate and lied, yet again, about being serious about protecting the country.

 

He's doing what he does: Allowing the Democrats to make themselves look like dishonest irrational morons.

 

 

But the democrats have decided walls are racist. I do not believe in their good faith 

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

I agree. It then goes from the Trump Shutdown to the Democrat Shutdown.

 

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.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 

But the democrats have decided walls are racist. I do not believe in their good faith 

I think we'll find that there are enough dems that know that refusing to consider a wall or barrier is a losing proposition for them. The onus is back on the dems without a doubt.