America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by tailgater. 81 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Big shout out to Jim Acosta
delta1 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
DrafterX wrote:
If he lost interest why the standoff with The Old Hag..?? Do you believe the new caravan is fake news..?? Mellow


the "danger to America" caused by a group of dirt poor people banding together for safety, hoping to come to the US, is fake news...

we have turned away and deported thousands of people trying to get into the US, but those numbers are less than they were 10-15 years ago...

Bush and Obama dealt with hundreds of thousands more illegal immigrants at the southern border than what Trump is facing today...and yet Trump is afraid, very afraid...and wants Americans to be afraid...
DrafterX Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Well, Trump has only served a quarter of his term sofar... And I'm pretty sure Bush or Obama didn't have 100,000 rushing the border everyday.. Mellow


This happened at the Mexico/ Guatemala border last night...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DefILRrX77k
delta1 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
the annual comparisons indicate fewer deportations and apprehensions at the border than occurred in the past...

here's some surprising data: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs

you won't hear these numbers from the con fear mongers led by Trump...

speaking of ......hmmm....that number, 100,000 everyday, sounds suspiciously fake...

I looked up some recent numbers at the US Customs and Border Patrol website, from 2017 ...they arrested about 871 people crossing illegally between ports of entry...the other 99,229 musta gotten scared and went away...


our flying female border patrol agents will definitely take care of those invaders at Mex/Gua border if they dare to come here...so rest your frightened and weary soul...
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Ain't Skeerred.... Not talking
dstieger Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
the job of reporters is to provide the public with facts and the truth...


I used to think so, too. Times have passed us by, delta
dstieger Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
the annual comparisons indicate fewer deportations and apprehensions at the border than occurred in the past...

here's some surprising data: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs

you won't hear these numbers from the con fear mongers led by Trump...

speaking of ......hmmm....that number, 100,000 everyday, sounds suspiciously fake...

I looked up some recent numbers at the US Customs and Border Patrol website, from 2017 ...they arrested about 871 people crossing illegally between ports of entry...the other 99,229 musta gotten scared and went away...


our flying female border patrol agents will definitely take care of those invaders at Mex/Gua border if they dare to come here...so rest your frightened and weary soul...


Trump is only using data that supports his position? WTF?

Are apprehensions down because fear of deportation is up and unemployment is down? (Both of which Trump will gladly take credit for.)

I am not going to argue that there's any sort of crisis -- because even if I believed it, the subjective nature of the word begs non-productive argument.

I do think that the 10-20 million illegals in this country is a significant number.
I also think that more physical barrier just might be cost-effective in reducing illegal crossings.
I think that many in the caravans have been duped and lied to....convinced that entry to US will be automatic, or ate least fairly easy and low risk. I think the organizers are more villainous than the trekkers
I think that reviewing the border fencing article I posted a week or two ago was pretty enlightening. Does anyone really believe that more walls would NOT reduce illegal crossings?
Does anyone really believe that a wall is immoral?

Now, I'm not even in favor of a wall, necessarily....at least not without more data, and proper evaluation of possible alternatives. But, I would like to be done with the wall mess as it currently exists: a silly campaign promise that the president is being held to regardless of effectiveness; and the dem absolute refusal to give Trump a win whether its a good idea or not.

Do you, really believe that any increased physical barrier is a bad idea?
delta1 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
dstieger wrote:
I used to think so, too. Times have passed us by, delta


it seems that way, dstieg...sad to say...

saw an article in the newspaper today about how local newspapers are being scooped up by a venture/vulture capitalist media conglomeration, having their assets sucked dry and long-time employees fired to cut costs, then put out of misery, to the detriment of local communities who need a local watchdog to report on their elected officials...pols who will prolly behave quite differently and more selfishly without the reporters around...
dstieger Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
heard yesterday that even Gannett, which used to be one of the usurpers, conquering and gutting...is facing a hostile takeover by an even bigger, badder conglomerate
delta1 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
dstieger wrote:
Trump is only using data that supports his position? WTF?

Are apprehensions down because fear of deportation is up and unemployment is down? (Both of which Trump will gladly take credit for.)

I am not going to argue that there's any sort of crisis -- because even if I believed it, the subjective nature of the word begs non-productive argument.

I do think that the 10-20 million illegals in this country is a significant number.
I also think that more physical barrier just might be cost-effective in reducing illegal crossings.
I think that many in the caravans have been duped and lied to....convinced that entry to US will be automatic, or ate least fairly easy and low risk. I think the organizers are more villainous than the trekkers
I think that reviewing the border fencing article I posted a week or two ago was pretty enlightening. Does anyone really believe that more walls would NOT reduce illegal crossings?
Does anyone really believe that a wall is immoral?

Now, I'm not even in favor of a wall, necessarily....at least not without more data, and proper evaluation of possible alternatives. But, I would like to be done with the wall mess as it currently exists: a silly campaign promise that the president is being held to regardless of effectiveness; and the dem absolute refusal to give Trump a win whether its a good idea or not.

Do you, really believe that any increased physical barrier is a bad idea?


take a look at the graph in the article, which shows a large decline in the number of apprehensions at the border...it does show that after the Border Fence Act of 2006 the numbers had a dramatic reduction...the funding of the law provided for physical barriers/fences/walls that are erected in high risk areas determined by the experts in the US Customs and Border Patrol, as well as more border patrol agents and technological enhancements to improve the ability to detect illegal entry and the effectiveness of the people patrolling...

much of the crisis numbers Trump openly talks about in making a case for an emergency at the southern border, one that only a wall can stop: drugs flowing in, terrorists captured, violent crimes - murders and rapes - committed by illegals, illnesses/disease brought by illegals are not occurring at the southern border or slanted or exaggerated to hype the danger....

I do believe that enhanced physical barriers would buttress the border and deter illegal entry...but I don't believe it is necessary to build a wall that stretches the entire length of the border nor be built with concrete and to the specs Trump originally proposed...

the Border Security Act of 2006 is proof that well-placed barriers, not necessarily expensive concrete walls, along with more border patrol personnel armed with technological detection enhancements would be more effective...and much less costly than a massive wall...
dstieger Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I realize it's dangerous for anyone to guess what Trump thinks but I think that if asked he would agree with you that a wall from end to end is not at all what he would like to see built. If he got wall extended through some of the higher traffic areas that currently have nothing (or just 'vehicle barriers'...well...you would not likely see another dollar asked by him
delta1 Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
but his apparent advisers in con media: Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, seem to want him to keep his campaign promise of building the big beautiful wall and having Mexico pay for it...he assumed this current stance only after he apparently agreed to sign a House bill approved by the Senate that had a CR, and got blow-back from them...they are as much to blame here for this mess as Trump or the Dems..

IMO, Trump is stuck because anything less would be a sign of weakness and a "bait and switch"...if he caves, the media, maybe including Limbaugh and Coulter, will play his dozens of campaign speeches on an endless loop, speeches where he said "I'm gonna build a big beautiful wall and who's gonna pay for it? ... Mexico!!!"

would this be tantamount to GHBush's "read my lips" moment? ... dunno...
DrafterX Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
So you think Pelosi is being reasonable here..?? Mellow
dstieger Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
but his apparent advisers in con media: Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, seem to want him to keep his campaign promise of building the big beautiful wall and having Mexico pay for it...he assumed this current stance only after he apparently agreed to sign a House bill approved by the Senate that had a CR, and got blow-back from them...they are as much to blame here for this mess as Trump or the Dems..

IMO, Trump is stuck because anything less would be a sign of weakness and a "bait and switch"...if he caves, the media, maybe including Limbaugh and Coulter, will play his dozens of campaign speeches on an endless loop, speeches where he said "I'm gonna build a big beautiful wall and who's gonna pay for it? ... Mexico!!!"

would this be tantamount to GHBush's "read my lips" moment? ... dunno...

agree with all -- but he's made his line in the sand @ $5Bil -- he gets that and you probably won't hear another ask....of course, you'll have to listen to him boast about how he got his wall.....but ignore the bluster just be happy that you got out for cheap....and actually might even get some enhanced security
delta1 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
DrafterX wrote:
So you think Pelosi is being reasonable here..?? Mellow


if you were OK with McConnell during Obama's watch, you didn't need to ask...
victor809 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Pelosi is under no obligation to go against her constituents. Just as trump is under no obligation to go against his.

To think one side over the other is being "unreasonable" is showing clear partisanship.

Either both sides come to a compromise, or neither side should budge. That's the simplest analysis of this. There is no reason to believe one side should "lose" as they are both doing what they were elected to do.

So leave it as is. Im curious how long we can go without restarting the government anyway.
DrafterX Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
So, you're backing Pelosi and supporting the shutdown... You do realize Trump is asking for 0.09% of da budget right..?? Mellow
victor809 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Doesn't matter what he's asking for.

He said he will not accept anything other than 100% of what he asked for. That's not compromise. It doesn't matter if all he asked for is $1. He is unwilling to compromise.

That's his perogative. He was elected by 45% of the voters to do exactly that.
Similarly, the Democrats in the house and Senate were elected to do what they are doing. Why would you expect them to budge if he refuses to?

A compromise where both sides get something they want is acceptable (and no. A "funded government" is not a compromise position). Otherwise why would you expect either side to move from their stance.

Expecting either side to budge when the other isn't willing to is a very anti-american attitude.
DrafterX Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Last I heard Trump has called several meetings to discuss this.. Pelosi and goons haven't showed or made it clear they weren't negotiating.. why are you blaming only Trump..?? Mellow
victor809 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
He said he won't accept anything other than 100%. Why would they meet with him then?

(And incidentally your facts are incorrect. I don't believe pelosi has turned down anything)
DrafterX Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
You sure love Pelosi... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Keep trolling drafter.
Why would they meet with him?
What would it accomplish?
tailgater Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Both sides are being unreasonable. But more than that, they are letting petty differences interfere with a juicy opportunity to capitalize on other pet projects.
The Dems could revisit the DACA debacle.
Trump could concede some of the $5B and build an execution center for young families that sneak over the border.

It could be a win/win.


victor809 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Honestly, a smart person should be asking why pelosi and McConnell aren't talking. (Don't worry drafter, I don't expect you to ask this).

It's much more likely that the Dem and republicans could come up with a veto overriding majority on a bill. Neither of these 2 groups have stated they will accept nothing less than 100% win. So a negotiation is possible between them.

Otherwise, no reason to do anything but see how long a shutdown can go.
DrafterX Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
A group of 24 Bipartisan problem solvers met today but I'm not sure what happened...
Trump set up a lunch to talk with Dems yesterday but none showed..
Several Republican Senators have stated Trump will negotiate...

This is all on Nancy... Mellow
rfenst Online
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
DrafterX wrote:
A group of 24 Bipartisan problem solvers met today but I'm not sure what happened...
Trump set up a lunch to talk with Dems yesterday but none showed..
Several Republican Senators have stated Trump will negotiate...

This is all on Nancy... Mellow


Opening the government doesn't require meetings. It just requires one person's signature...
DrafterX Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Everybody knows this is only happening because they hate Trump... When Obama wanted border money the Dems kissed his azz and praised him for asking...
Doesn't matter how you spin it.. everybody knows what's going on.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Trump himself has said he will not negotiate.

There is no reason to include him at that point.

The Congress should find a solution that allows an override. Or just keep shut down
DrafterX Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
And Pelosi saying, 'you can give me everything I want and you still won't get a dime for your wall' is negotiating..?? Think
victor809 Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Nope.

But she is required for creating a bill. Trump isn't.

rfenst Online
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
DrafterX wrote:
And Pelosi saying, 'you can give me everything I want and you still won't get a dime for your wall' is negotiating..?? Think


They are negotiating. It's just that they are stuck in the posturing phase...
tailgater Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Does anyone think this isn't the fault of both sides?


Forget what the MEDIA is saying.

This isn't Trump, and it's not Pelosi et al.

It's BOTH.


Meanwhile Rome burns.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12