If you watched both sides let’s have a discussion

[ttwtt78640]

How about one which identifies exactly what the problem is and what exactly we can do about it?

In this case I think we cannot even agree on what the main problem specifically is. And I do NOT mean the vague and nebulous "border security issues" which means all things to all people while meaning nothing specifically.

Do you know what it is?

The same reason that the 'war on drugs' is not being won. Demand remains unaddressed and therefore efforts to control the supply are failing miserably.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

But they never said .what those smart security measures are. They’ve been for border security for years, they’ve all voted for it and campaigned for it, so why can’t they just lay it out for us? Like, we are gonna us this then do this. I didn’t hear none of that last night.

Check into some DHS websites to see where money has been spent. As for last night, it was all about the wall. Nothing, but the wall.

It isn't about me either. Zero has been allocated for more physical barriers on the border. The 'budget' debate is now over how much, over zero, will be allocated for physical barrier border security.

Wrong, genius. I’ve already provided you with proof that Trump was given $1.6B to spend on border security in 2018. And the debate now is not over “physical barriers”, it’s over Trump’s wall.

 

[haymarket]

The same reason that the 'war on drugs' is not being won. Demand remains unaddressed and therefore efforts to control the supply are failing miserably.

So are you saying that ILLEGAL DRUGS are the main issue when we talk about border issues?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Check into some DHS websites to see where money has been spent. As for last night, it was all about the wall. Nothing, but the wall.


Wrong, genius. I’ve already provided you with proof that Trump was given $1.6B to spend on border security in 2018. And the debate now is not over “physical barriers”, it’s over Trump’s wall.

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously asserting that "Trump's wall" is not a physical barrier?

 

[Mr Person]

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.

You aren't going to reduce demand for drugs by "interior law enforcement". You could, however, pointlessly extend the failed War on Drugs with said enforcement.

The same reason that the 'war on drugs' is not being won. Demand remains unaddressed and therefore efforts to control the supply are failing miserably.

Well, what is your idea then? Specifically. Don't say "we should address demand" or "we should have interior law enforcement." What specifically could be done and why should anyone think it would make other people not want to do drugs.

Remember: we tried heavily policing drug users and ramping up penalties. That failed.

So what exactly is supposed can police do to reduce demand for drugs?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So are you saying that ILLEGAL DRUGS are the main issue when we talk about border issues?

Nope, I am saying that so long as "job creators" are employing illegal immigrants and they are allowed to use public facilities/social programs then they will continue to come into and remain in the country "illegally". So long as simple possession and personal abuse of illegal drugs is not rigorously prosecuted then illegal drugs will continue to be imported, manufactured and sold.

 

[iguanaman]

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

Funny but all I heard were opinions by BP agents who approve Trumps $5.6 billion request for a non-existent plan for his non-existent proposal for some kind of barrier to be determined later. Trump had 2 years to develop something concrete and we got nothing. Why do you think that is?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously asserting that "Trump's wall" is not a physical barrier?

One type of many physical barriers.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You aren't going to reduce demand for drugs by "interior law enforcement". You could, however, pointlessly extend the failed War on Drugs with said enforcement.




Well, what is your idea then? Specifically. Don't say "we should address demand" or "we should have interior law enforcement." What specifically could be done and why should anyone think it would make other people not want to do drugs.

Remember: we tried heavily policing drug users and ramping up penalties. That failed.

So what exactly is supposed can police do to reduce demand for drugs?

It did not fail - it got very expensive and was stopped being adequately funded. Drug abusers are referred to as victims. That is totally moronic since they are 100% responsible for those that supply them drugs. Why am I not a "victim" of a drug dealer or "pusher"? Simple - I refuse to poison myself with their high profit, toxic and addictive products.

 

[ttwtt78640]

One type of many physical barriers.

OK, so is the debate now about the type of physical barrier? I don't think so - it is simply resisting giving Trump any way to assert that he kept a campaign promise.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

OK, so is the debate now about the type of physical barrier? I don't think so - it is simply resisting giving Trump any way to assert that he kept a campaign promise.

I believe it’s both. Dems, and most Americans, don’t buy the exaggerated claims Trump uses to prop up his argument for a wall, and the Dems also see it as way of preventing him from fulfilling his number one campaign promise.

 

[Mach]

OK, so is the debate now about the type of physical barrier? I don't think so - it is simply resisting giving Trump any way to assert that he kept a campaign promise.

You do understand that these are separate branches of government, right?

The idea that our congress cannot make decisions independent of Trump, is absurd.
The idea that congress cannot make decisions based on the MERITs of a presidential request, and not simply oppose it because it was requested, (at least for Democrats), is absurd.

Remember, Republican senators already approved a spending bill that didn't include the wall.
Trump had already agreed it wasn't necessary to include.
He changed his mind at the last minute, kicking this whole thing off.

In these high stakes negotiations, he blinked. To reward him for failing, would also be absurd.
He wants to scuttle the deal and Mitch his hiding from having the Senate weigh in, in a cowardly effort to try and portray this as Democrats vs Trump.

Trump wants to fail, be sloppy, and still win.

We could call all opposition in any negotiation "resistance", it's a moot point you make.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You do understand that these are separate branches of government, right?

The idea that our congress cannot make decisions independent of Trump, is absurd.
The idea that congress cannot make decisions based on the MERITs of a presidential request, and not simply oppose it because it was requested, (at least for Democrats), is absurd.

Remember, Republican senators already approved a spending bill that didn't include the wall.
Trump had already agreed it wasn't necessary to include.
He changed his mind at the last minute, kicking this whole thing off.

In these high stakes negotiations, he blinked. To reward him for failing, would also be absurd.
He wants to scuttle the deal and Mitch his hiding from having the Senate weigh in, in a cowardly effort to try and portray this as Democrats vs Trump.

Trump wants to fail, be sloppy, and still win.

We could call all opposition in any negotiation "resistance", it's a moot point you make.

Negotiating requires proposing an alternate bill/proposal - where is the demorats' border security enhancement alternative? Schumer offered to "negotiate" only after the shutdown was over - that is pure BS since he has had since last march to do so.

 

[Acadia]

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.

Trump has long since softened the language about he wall and is calling it a fence; steel slats. Trump has long since said the wall will not be all along the border, but a couple hundred miles where it it viable, possible and needed. This has long been talked about by Trump.
That Dems will offer a false narrative of Trump's current position tells me that they are unwilling to bargain and soften, as Trump has.

 

[Mr Person]

You aren't going to reduce demand for drugs by "interior law enforcement". You could, however, pointlessly extend the failed War on Drugs with said enforcement.




Well, what is your idea then? Specifically. Don't say "we should address demand" or "we should have interior law enforcement." What specifically could be done and why should anyone think it would make other people not want to do drugs.

Remember: we tried heavily policing drug users and ramping up penalties. That failed.

So what exactly is supposed can police do to reduce demand for drugs?

It did not fail - it got very expensive and was stopped being adequately funded. Drug abusers are referred to as victims. That is totally moronic since they are 100% responsible for those that supply them drugs. Why am I not a "victim" of a drug dealer or "pusher"? Simple - I refuse to poison myself with their high profit, toxic and addictive products.

The first is simply false. "It stopped being adequately funded"? You're just making things up to try to support some kind of hard-line anti-drug stance.

The rest the goalpost over to your personal moralizing about the ingestion of substances for purposes of their psychoactive effect (I do hope you neither drink coffee nor alcohol).



Absolutely nothing you say suggests any reason to think that if we just enforce the law harder, the War on Drugs will finally be over. It's just the same kind of moralist swill that has lead this country in the opposite direction from pragmatic approaches, the same dangerous lies that fueled the War on Drugs.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Democrats are not going to fund any kind of wall. End of story.

Actually that's not true. What they won't acknowledge is hostage taking.
Once this "humorous" one-act drama is over, if Republicans want to hammer out a deal for border security, I am sure a lot of Democrats will be willing to try.

But not while Donnie is holding hostages. That will fail.

 

[JasperL]

It did not fail - it got very expensive and was stopped being adequately funded. Drug abusers are referred to as victims. That is totally moronic since they are 100% responsible for those that supply them drugs. Why am I not a "victim" of a drug dealer or "pusher"? Simple - I refuse to poison myself with their high profit, toxic and addictive products.

It lost support for funding because there was never any evidence the War on Some Drugs worked, at all. It was just a never ending game of whack-a-mole that cost $billions to house non-violent criminals in jails and prisons, and ruined lives, while doing little to nothing to stem demand or supply. I guess if we WANT to be the world leader in incarcerated people per capita (AFAIK we are still Number 1! there. USA! USA! USA!) then we could keep up the War on Some Drugs, but otherwise, can you point to any evidence of it ever working, at all?

 

[KLATTU]

Actually that's not true. What they won't acknowledge is hostage taking.
Once this "humorous" one-act drama is over, if Republicans want to hammer out a deal for border security, I am sure a lot of Democrats will be willing to try.
ail.

but wait. Isn't a wall immoral?

#GUFFAW

 

[ttwtt78640]

The first is simply false. "It stopped being adequately funded"? You're just making things up to try to support some kind of hard-line anti-drug stance.

The rest the goalpost over to your personal moralizing about the ingestion of substances for purposes of their psychoactive effect (I do hope you neither drink coffee nor alcohol).



Absolutely nothing you say suggests any reason to think that if we just enforce the law harder, the War on Drugs will finally be over. It's just the same kind of moralist swill that has lead this country in the opposite direction from pragmatic approaches, the same dangerous lies that fueled the War on Drugs.

You are overcomplicating the matter and ascribing a moral position to me which I do not hold. If X is not illegal to possess or ingest then it should not be illegal to sell X (to adults). I am not for prohibition - but seriously doubt that if cocaine, meth or heroin was legalized (decriminalized?) tomorrow that many businesses would risk the civlil liability of selling it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It’s all bs. There is no crisis at the border. And the wall is stupid. But denying Trump a measly $5b is also a political move.

True, it IS a political move, one called "we do not negotiate with hostage takers", because once you reward hostage takers, expect MORE hostages, and in the case of Trump, it will be like watching a pubescent teenage male discovering masturbation for the first time.
Suddenly anything and everything will become a hostage. It will be his sole response to everything when he doesn't get what he wants.

NO WAY IN HELL can that be allowed, thus NO WAY in Hell should it be rewarded.

Do you see any flaws in my statement?
Am I exaggerating about Trump's predicted behavior once he is rewarded for taking hostages?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I’m totally for that, lay it all out and let’s fix the problem and stop talking about it.
And investigate how illegals are allowed to come here and take American lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The majority of illegals come in through ports of entry.

That is a fact.

The majority of drugs come in through ports of entry.

That is also a fact.

Now that we've gotten square with the facts, would you like to discuss WHY Democrats will not cave on Trump's shutdown?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It lost support for funding because there was never any evidence the War on Some Drugs worked, at all. It was just a never ending game of whack-a-mole that cost $billions to house non-violent criminals in jails and prisons, and ruined lives, while doing little to nothing to stem demand or supply. I guess if we WANT to be the world leader in incarcerated people per capita (AFAIK we are still Number 1! there. USA! USA! USA!) then we could keep up the War on Some Drugs, but otherwise, can you point to any evidence of it ever working, at all?

I never said that drug prohibition worked or that I favored it - my point was simply that if you do not quash X demand then you will never quash X supply. The same is true of illegal immigration - if you do not stop the employment of or use of public facilities/social services by illegal immigrants then you will never stop those seeking those rewards from entering illegally or overstaying their 'temporary' visas.

 

[jghiretire]

It’s all bs. There is no crisis at the border. And the wall is stupid. But denying Trump a measly $5b is also a political move.

If we give into him now, what do you think he'll do the next time someone actually says NO to him?? Who will he blow up then? What will he threaten then??
He had a bipartisan deal in place - TRUMP said NO. What part of that are people missing?? It wasn't the dems that said no.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

but wait. Isn't a wall immoral?

#GUFFAW

Are you asking ME if I THINK a wall is immoral? I don't think it's immoral.
I also don't think walls are the best application of our resources but in the larger picture, putting another 5.7 billion dollars toward construction of more walls is NOT an enormous hurdle, absent the current hostage taking drama, which is acknowledged by many as having been completely avoidable.

If some Democratic lawmakers wish to try playing the "immoral" card, I suspect that argument will fail WHEN DISCUSSING five point seven billion dollars in additional wall funds.

And seeing as how we already HAVE quite a bit of the border separated by walls and fences, it's too late to tear them all down, which is further evidence that the "immoral" card will fail even with most of their Democratic peers. I suspect that, given time and the political process, Democrats will arrive at a compromise which serves both sides if they have a chance.

Just not as a hostage taking drama, that's all. That will only spur one thing, a huge spike in more Trump hostage dramas, because Trump will know that those work if he's allowed to put points on his scoreboard using that tactic.

 

[jghiretire]

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.

McCaffrey was also on last night - fentanyl is coming by mail from China.

Fact checking is your friend. g-you - not you you. It is sad that so few bother to check anything.