MrShangles
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 357
Could we please just have open minded Americans that actually watched both the President’s address and the democrats address. If you only wanted one then you’re close minded, please go to another post.
I thought the president was very professional, he put the facts that he gets from professional border security agents out for us to see, and told Americans about how the democrats are on video saying we must stop the illegal immigrant flow at our southern border, and he addressed the murders, rapes, and assaults. Now I listened to democrats hoping they would lay out their plan for the more advanced technology to stop border crossing, but all I heard was about putting technology at border crossings to catch drugs, I didn’t hear anything about stopping illegal criminals, or the murdered Americans. I gave them an open mind but they had nothing that sounded feasible, they did say open the government and discuss wall later, but they’ve already voted for it before so why do they need to discuss.
I also watched Bernie, his statement had more ideas than democrats, but he had also voted for border security before also. He got off on free stuff and old folks and such.
I personally think our president has our safety in mind so I like his ideas.
Tell us what you got from the addresses. But only if you watched both sides!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Could we please just have open minded Americans that actually watched both the President’s address and the democrats address. If you only wanted one then you’re close minded, please go to another post.
I thought the president was very professional, he put the facts that he gets from professional border security agents out for us to see, and told Americans about how the democrats are on video saying we must stop the illegal immigrant flow at our southern border, and he addressed the murders, rapes, and assaults. Now I listened to democrats hoping they would lay out their plan for the more advanced technology to stop border crossing, but all I heard was about putting technology at border crossings to catch drugs, I didn’t hear anything about stopping illegal criminals, or the murdered Americans. I gave them an open mind but they had nothing that sounded feasible, they did say open the government and discuss wall later, but they’ve already voted for it before so why do they need to discuss.
I also watched Bernie, his statement had more ideas than democrats, but he had also voted for border security before also. He got off on free stuff and old folks and such.
I personally think our president has our safety in mind so I like his ideas.
Tell us what you got from the addresses. But only if you watched both sides!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I watched both.
I felt Trump was Dull Donnie who used fear and deceit to try and make his case for a phony southern border crisis that does not exist and a phony solution that does not begin to actually speak to the real problems we have with drugs coming into the nation.
Pelosi was also dull and forgettable.
Schumer was the best of the bunch and actually made a good intelligent case for his position.
I watched both.
I felt Trump was Dull Donnie who used fear and deceit to try and make his case for a phony southern border crisis that does not exist and a phony solution that does not begin to actually speak to the real problems we have with drugs coming into the nation.
Pelosi was also dull and forgettable.
Schumer was the best of the bunch and actually made a good intelligent case for his position.
Trump tried, and failed, to look and sound presidential while making his fake case for the unnecessary wall. Pelosi was unemotive. Schumer was clear and direct in his messaging. Easily the most persuasive of the three.
...However, we sharply disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it. So, how do we untangle this mess? There is an obvious solution: separate the shutdown from the arguments over border security. There is bipartisan legislation — supported by Democrats and Republicans — to reopen government while allowing debate over border security to continue.
Trump tried, and failed, to look and sound presidential while making his fake case for the unnecessary wall. Pelosi was unemotive. Schumer was clear and direct in his messaging. Easily the most persuasive of the three.
Could we please just have open minded Americans that actually watched both the President’s address and the democrats address. If you only wanted one then you’re close minded, please go to another post.
I thought the president was very professional, he put the facts that he gets from professional border security agents out for us to see, and told Americans about how the democrats are on video saying we must stop the illegal immigrant flow at our southern border, and he addressed the murders, rapes, and assaults. Now I listened to democrats hoping they would lay out their plan for the more advanced technology to stop border crossing, but all I heard was about putting technology at border crossings to catch drugs, I didn’t hear anything about stopping illegal criminals, or the murdered Americans. I gave them an open mind but they had nothing that sounded feasible, they did say open the government and discuss wall later, but they’ve already voted for it before so why do they need to discuss.
I also watched Bernie, his statement had more ideas than democrats, but he had also voted for border security before also. He got off on free stuff and old folks and such.
I personally think our president has our safety in mind so I like his ideas.
Tell us what you got from the addresses. But only if you watched both sides!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Big nothingburger.
The only real comment I have is what the frigg is going on with the Dems. No money? They could not afford two podiums!!!!! Pelosi looked frozen as if somebody told her she had to tuck herself in close enough to Schumer to keep any of her body from hanging out over the side of the single podium. She never looked comfortable with that and never got comfortable with it. It was even more stiff and uncomfortable looking than the Grant Wood painting, American Gothic. My God, the two people in that painting look much more comfortable and animated than Pelosi looked.
I should also add that Nancy NEVER likes to be forced to be at 90 degrees to the cameras and lights. Neither does Trump for that matter. Both of them like to be just a bit off 90 degrees....just enough to feel comfortable. The single podium robbed Nancy of her standard positioning at a podium and the Oval office desk robbed it from Trump. Really bad jobs by all the communications aides involved.
Amazing what good and/or poor communications aides can mean to a politician. As much whining as Trump did about his end of that deal and his Communications team, the Dem Communications teams did not do any better. Hard to believe but IMO they actually did worse. I would have never put my bosses through that ordeal. There would have been two podiums or nothing for the Dems and I am not sure the Trump teams should have put Trump through any of that.
Thanks you’re the first to want a discussion, as far as Donnie, he put out facts from the professional border patrol agents, they know more about their needs than me or you, right?
And I agree Pelosi, what was she there for? And what case did Schumer have, I didn’t catch it, all I heard was more technology at border crossings to catch drugs, what did he offer to stop illegals from killing our fellow Americans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since such a large part of the Trump case is based on illegal drugs coming into our country, it is deceitful to pretend the wall will solve that problem. All that I have seen says drugs are NOT being smuggled by souther border crossers that a wall is designed stop. They largely come in at legal ports of entry and the wall does nothing about that.
Schumer made that point last night.
Democrats, along with the majority of Americans, are not interested in Trump’s wall. Only Trump and his minority base are pushing for it on the grounds of it being a “national emergency”. It is not and the facts prove it. Schumer’s argument for opening the government was right. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are now suffering for no valid reason. If Trump actually gave a s**t about Americans he’d open the government and negotiate for appropriate border protection measures. And don’t say the Dem run Congress isn’t willing to provide funds for border security because facts don’t support that argument either.Schumer's point:
Open the government now and we demorats will remain resistant is not "persuasive" unless that was already your position.
Make an appointment with your local audiologist. You apparently have a hearing problem. The Dems have been willing and ready from day 1 to support smart border security measures. Just not Trump’s dumbazz wall.Y’all are right I guess, maybe I’m blinded by Trump, but could someone please tell me what Schumer said that explained what we need to do to stop illegals from killing and assaults. Sorry I heard nothing about that, did I miss it?
Did they explain why they changed from saying we gotta have border protection a few years ago to not wanting it now, did he say what changed?
This. A thousand times. I keep posting something similar. A border wall with Mexico will not stop the influx of fentanyl and heroin and so forth. Those drugs are not coming into this country in the pockets of some Honduran jumping the border.
It doesn't help Trump's case when he tells what is an obvious lie.
Democrats are not going to fund any kind of wall. End of story.
I get that, but I wish Americans would ask themselves, "why?".
I watched both "sides" ignore why we have an illegal immigration problem and a drug problem - lack of interior law enforcement aimed at reducing demand. If not for plentiful job offers paying far better than those available in their homelands and "access to" better social programs illegal immigration would drop to a trickle. If not for US demand for illegal drugs there would be no supply of illegal drugs.
That leaves only the alleged crime/terror problem mentioned by Trump (and ignored by both Pelosi and Schumer) which should be addressed by using increased interior law enforcement because, no matter how secure that you pretend the border and/or ports of entry to become, crime/terror will continue to be a problem requiring increased interior law enforcement.
I get that, but I wish Americans would ask themselves, "why?". The Gang of Eight put forth a "Southern Border Wall Strategy" just a few short years ago, and it called for 700 miles of fencing, even double and triple-layers in places. That legislation was supported unanimously by Democrats, including many still in Congress who have dug in and vowed not one dollar for Trump's border wall system (fence). They include: Schumer, Durbin, Murray, Baldwin, Bennet, Blumenthal, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Coons, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Hirono, Kaine, Klobuchar, Leahy, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Reed, Sanders, Shaheen, Stabenow, Tester, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wyden — name any, and they voted for the bill that included the Southern Border Fencing Strategy.
In the starkest contrast, Schumer was 1/4 of the Democrats who made up the Gang of Eight, and now, he's completely against funding fencing and his sidekick is now calling what he and the rest of the Dems voted for, "immoral".
That is not the impression I get of the Democratic position. They are against the Trump wall as the solution. I know of no position they have taken which says they are not against considering strategic fencing is locations that would benefit from it and have been carefully selected after the problem was studied.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?