• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump vows 'very long' government shutdown over border wall

SLC said:
Yeah sure hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Mitch will grow a pair when he sees his caucus slipping away. 67 votes is all it takes to make it all go away. None of the Senate wants to go down for this stupid wall.
 
iguanaman said:
Mitch will grow a pair when he sees his caucus slipping away. 67 votes is all it takes to make it all go away. None of the Senate wants to go down for this stupid wall.
Click to expand...
Mitch is from Kentucky and Kentucky voted 2-1 for Trump and trump wants the Wall. Mitch's constituency wants the wall and Kentucky has relatively few government workers unlike most blue states. So don't hold your breath.
 

Or The Donald can give in. Like an adult, like a leader that has the best interests of the country in mind.

The Dems did put the best interests of the country foremost...and $5 billion for the wall isnt it.
 
SLC said:
Pence spilled the beans. Early on. Trump backed away but that is likely a negotiating ploy. At this point all sides should meet in the middle. Nancy repeatedly said nothing for the wall.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Fletch said:
No, its both sides. Youre not catching on.
Click to expand...

Only one side is resisting out of ego. OTOH, the Dems have the best interests of the country foremost in mind...and that's not $5 billion for a wall that can be better spent, even for addressing illegal immigration.
 

So you start with a lie, that I dont have compassion for that family...you can tell yourself that out of convenience for your argument but it's low brow.

And while I'm sure that emotionally such violence against my family would affect me terribly, I wouldnt separate it out by legal or illegal, by race, or anything else.

Btw, I didnt see you compare the illegal stats with those of Americans. Which is what I asked.
 
I didn't compare them because its a specious augment. Its not worthy of comment. You do know what specious means don't you?

The point is you aren't offended by crime that could be prevented or reduced by simply eliminating or at least reducing illegal immigration. You try to use a specious argument that illegals have less crime than citizens do. The problem is any crime from illegals is too much because they should not be here to commit the crime in the first place. And if they do commit crime they should be deported and not offered sanctuary as Singh's killer was. Did you not see the murders in the Texas data? I personally have taken care of patients in the ER that died at the hands of illegals. I have had to tell families their son did not survive. I have had to tell a wife her husband was dead after he was robbed and needlessly shot in the head while working in a convenience store . That kind of thing is going on across the country. We can't stop all crime but we can reduce illegal entry and reduce crimes committed by non Americans. We are stuck with violent Americans if I could I'd send them to m
Mexico too. but we don't need to add to our problem by allowing illegal immigration. One of the biggest problems is we can't vet illegal when they sneak across the border. If you want to come to America come through the front door and let us size you up. Now we don't know if we are getting a hard working dairy hand or a dairy hand that rapes and kills a college girl like happened last year. People that want jobs should apply for J Visa's and be vetted so the ones with criminal histories can be denied entry. That is the reason we need to control illegal entry. . Officer Singh and his family suffered because of our failure to secure our border.
 
Lursa said:
Only one side is resisting out of ego. OTOH, the Dems have the best interests of the country foremost in mind...and that's not $5 billion for a wall that can be better spent, even for addressing illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

I generally like your posts, but that is just laughable. This is a clash of egos that has spiraled into political death match
 

It really is stunning the passion you and others have against spending 5 billion dollars on a wall. We have the best technology and laws on the books that aren't being enforced so fact illegals keep coming to this country, keep getting booted out and keep coming back. Time to try something different, plug the dike while bailing out the water
 
The government claims to be "shut down", but my paycheck determined that to be a lie. The Political Ruling Class is stating that tax returns will not be given during a shutdown. The government can collect and process taxes, but not return taxes collected that by rights is money they were NEVER entitled to in the first place (overpayment). If the government is refusing to return the money to citizens, which has already been held interest free all year, how is this not theft? If you owed me 5 bucks, and you gave me 10, and I held your extra 5 bucks all year doing what I wanted with it free of interest, and then return it to you next year when the value of the money has changed over time, and then REFUSE to return your money... how is this not theft? Not only is the money interest free, but it also has lost value during that year. It has been returned, when it does eventually get returned, at a diminished value. Theft!
 
Fletch said:
So what? The fact is, if democrats wanted to open the government tomorrow, they could.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and Mr. Trump could open the government tomorrow, if he wanted to.

The difference between those two statements is so patently obvious that I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it to you.
 
Fletch said:
The money is insignificant. This is about egos and political victory. Period.
Click to expand...

Quite right, the Democrats have taken the position that they will not lose and Mr. Trump has taken the position that he will win.

The differences between those two positions are so obviously minuscule that I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how easy it would be to achieve a compromise.
 
SLC said:
If it isn't about Chuck and Nancy's then all they have to do is fund the wall. This isn't a money thing to them it's a political thing.
Click to expand...

I always admire how "Conservatives" think that "government money" springs fully formed out of the US Mint and has nothing whatsoever to do with the money that the working stiffs pay in taxes.

If each and every one of Mr. Trump's supporters would pledge $24.31 per year out of their personal funds over the next 10 years, then that would pay the full $35Bn (I allowed for interest and cost overruns) cost of "The Wall".

Why Mr. Trump's supporters think that they have an entitlement to force those who don't want to see the wall built pay for it, I have no idea.

Surely you, personally, would be more than willing to pay a mere $0.7985 per day out of your own pocket to "Keep America Mexican Pervert Free" any you can proclaim that fact your wearing your "KAMPF" hat.
 

Unfortunately your "Trump will go for it" statement is about as close to 100% reality free as you can get - outside of "The Home" that is.
 

You make some very cogent points, but, somehow, I can't find out what percentage of crimes in the United States of America would never have happened if no one who was born in the United States of America was allowed to live there.

Could you help me out there?
 
SLC said:
Mitch is from Kentucky and Kentucky voted 2-1 for Trump and trump wants the Wall. Mitch's constituency wants the wall and Kentucky has relatively few government workers unlike most blue states. So don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

So you think it is ok to keep the Govt. shut down because 2 people are not getting what they demand? You will soon see that it is not. Trump and Mitch do not have the votes to get what they demand. In this country that means they don't get it.
 
iguanaman said:
So you think it is ok to keep the Govt. shut down because 2 people are not getting what they demand? You will soon see that it is not. Trump and Mitch do not have the votes to get what they demand. In this country that means they don't get it.
Click to expand...
Try 62,984,828 people. Pelosi and Chuck don't have enough votes for a veto proof funding bill that doesn't have wall funding so in this country that means they don't get it.
 
And as usual this post is nothing more than bloviating from you. And it adds nothing to the conversation. :roll:.
 
SLC said:
Try 62,984,828 people. Pelosi and Chuck don't have enough votes for a veto proof funding bill that doesn't have wall funding so in this country that means they don't get it.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? The last time the Senate voted they had more than enough votes to override. GOP Senators do not want to go down in flames for this.
 

So then the smarter, cheaper thing to do would be to enforce the laws...just think how far a fraction of $5 billion would go in doing that, esp. in going after employers?

But no, let's keep useless laws and lack of enforcement and waste $$ on some other partial solution. If we remove the main reason they come here, we dont need more wall.

If you want border coverage, hire more border guards. Create jobs, have them out there every 100 yards, and it will still cost a fraction of $5 billion. Then, when we dont need them anymore, we remove them and have saved a ton of $.
 

The border guards want the wall, the mayors of cities on the border want the wall, we have laws on the books that the state of California won't help the govt. enforce so you plug the hole in the dike first
 
Conservative said:
The border guards want the wall, the mayors of cities on the border want the wall, we have laws on the books that the state of California won't help the govt. enforce so you plug the hole in the dike first
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Millions of other Americans dont want the wall, including those in those areas.

Again...'plug the hole' with guards...they will be cheaper, it creates jobs, and arent permanent (unless needed).
 
Lursa said:
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Millions of other Americans dont want the wall, including those in those areas.

Again...'plug the hole' with guards...they will be cheaper, it creates jobs, and arent permanent (unless needed).
Click to expand...

Please tell me how a "guard" is to stop hundreds from crossing the boarder. What power would this "guard" to prevent it? And who would these guards be? hired private citizens? police? military?
 
Lursa said:
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Millions of other Americans dont want the wall, including those in those areas.

Again...'plug the hole' with guards...they will be cheaper, it creates jobs, and arent permanent (unless needed).
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** what millions of other Americans want, this is a national defense issue and thus the responsibility of the federal govt. We pay billions each and every year in state, federal. and local expenses for the govt. not doing its job. All the money in the world isn't going stop human behavior but a wall will. Nothing is going to change your mind or mine on this issue.
 
Sabre said:
Please tell me how a "guard" is to stop hundreds from crossing the boarder. What power would this "guard" to prevent it? And who would these guards be? hired private citizens? police? military?
Click to expand...

The guards are on a post. It's not like we cant see the hoards you imagine in the roadless desert coming. You do know we have communications technology right? And technology to observe from the air (we've invented cameras, aircraft, drones, etc). If you need reinforcements you call them (we have things called cell phones and radios now).

And is there a reason why the border guards would be any different than the ones hired now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…