• 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!

What to Watch for in Trump’s National Address on Immigration

Xyce said:
He already has a thread about this. It's called: "Trump’s big speech won’t matter"

It's the same subject.

He's just spamming it on these forums. Can a moderator please remove one of them? This is tantamount to propaganda at this point.
Click to expand...

Stop the nonsense. You have not been around long enough to know how this forum operates or you have been around long enough and have adopted a new account. But your claim is pretty bogus and smacks of unscrupulousness.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What to Watch for in Trump’s National Address on Immigration



• The southern border wall is merely a campaign promise Donald Trump made to his political support base.
• Trump stated 92 times during his election campaign that "Mexico would pay for the wall." (a Trump campaign lie)
• Declaring the southern border to be in a "crisis" or a "national emergency" does not make it so.
• Trump ordered a stop to asylum applications on the southern border. (overturned by a Federal judge)
• Parents and children are separated at the border by CBP and DHS cannot always adequately locate incarcerated children. (at one point DHS lost 1,500 children)
• US Big Pharma dumped millions of opioid pills in US pharmacies triggering the opioid addiction epidemic. (Trump ignores this)
• Most illegals in the US enter via airports and overstay their visas. (Trump ignores this)
• The US State Dept. says no terrorists have been apprehended trying to enter the US at the southern border. (Trump lied about this)
• None of the border state Senators want Trumps wall.
• No, none of the recent living or deceased US presidents ever told Trump they wished they had built a wall. (a Trump lie)
• The Trump administration has spent less than 50% of Congressional funds appropriated for border security in May, 2018. (crickets on this from Trump)
• Illegal border crossings have actually declined during the past five years. (Trump ignores the statistics)
• The Trump administration has not filled 7,500 CBP officer positions. (silence on this from Trump)
• Most trafficked females/children enter the US via plane and ship.
• Trumps $5 Billion vanity wall demand is for a 13th century solution to 21st century problem. Walls are easily circumvented.
• The US government could be 98% funded tomorrow if Trump wanted it to be. Border security funding could then be negotiated separately.
• Polls state that the majority of Americans do not want Trumps wall built and do not believe it to be worth a government shutdown.
• Trump is holding government services and government employee paychecks hostage until he gets his way - his legacy wall.
• Start protesting in front of the White House en-mass to end this Trump-fabricated government shutdown.
Click to expand...

When one who thinks this whole government shutdown is asinine, who cares what Trump says or what Schumer and Pelosi respond with? When you're talking about 5 billion dollars out of a 4 trillion dollar budget, get real. If a compromise can't be worked out over .00125 of a percent, what the heck is going on?

I know, it's a matter of principal. A battle of huge ego's, Trump vs. Pelosi and Schumer. There's no reason a compromise can't be worked out. Here's two questions each side should consider. Question 2. 2. Importance of compromise-oriented congressperson
If you had to choose, would you rather have a member of Congress who...Compromises to get things done. 65%, Sticks to their principles, no matter what 35%

Question 3 3. Importance of compromise-oriented President If you had to choose, would you rather have a President who...Compromises to get things done 61%, Sticks to their principles,no matter what. 39%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oijdv5i5r9/econTabReport.pdf

Get-er-done.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I thought Trump performed very well. Really if he chooses to act like his presidential address and stops the petty BS over the next two years he will walk straight in to reelection
Click to expand...

Really...so you bought the give me $5.7B for my wall so I can stop the drugs across the border bit? The drugs come through ports of entry and his wall won't stop them.
 
Perotista said:
When one who thinks this whole government shutdown is asinine, who cares what Trump says or what Schumer and Pelosi respond with? When you're talking about 5 billion dollars out of a 4 trillion dollar budget, get real. If a compromise can't be worked out over .00125 of a percent, what the heck is going on?

I know, it's a matter of principal. A battle of huge ego's, Trump vs. Pelosi and Schumer. There's no reason a compromise can't be worked out. Here's two questions each side should consider. Question 2. 2. Importance of compromise-oriented congressperson
If you had to choose, would you rather have a member of Congress who...Compromises to get things done. 65%, Sticks to their principles, no matter what 35%

Question 3 3. Importance of compromise-oriented President If you had to choose, would you rather have a President who...Compromises to get things done 61%, Sticks to their principles,no matter what. 39%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oijdv5i5r9/econTabReport.pdf

Get-er-done.
Click to expand...

What did you think of the President's speech, Pero?
 
Perotista said:
When one who thinks this whole government shutdown is asinine, who cares what Trump says or what Schumer and Pelosi respond with? When you're talking about 5 billion dollars out of a 4 trillion dollar budget, get real. If a compromise can't be worked out over .00125 of a percent, what the heck is going on?

I know, it's a matter of principal. A battle of huge ego's, Trump vs. Pelosi and Schumer. There's no reason a compromise can't be worked out. Here's two questions each side should consider. Question 2. 2. Importance of compromise-oriented congressperson
If you had to choose, would you rather have a member of Congress who...Compromises to get things done. 65%, Sticks to their principles, no matter what 35%

Question 3 3. Importance of compromise-oriented President If you had to choose, would you rather have a President who...Compromises to get things done 61%, Sticks to their principles,no matter what. 39%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oijdv5i5r9/econTabReport.pdf

Get-er-done.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it because I generally like your posts. But that is a bit obtuse. Trump and his hordes have tried to do this by bootstrapping New wall funding onto CR's. CR's avoid the Appropriations process. They are not designed for New Funding. They are designed to extend the time for existing Appropriations.

Now he claims that he has a proposal to make. But even in that he is trying to force feed funding that should go through the Appropriations process by bootstrapping the whole thing onto a CR. That is why he won't sign a CR with either $1.3B in border security or $1.6B in border security because he wants to avoid the Appropriations process entirely.

He expects to avoid the Appropriations process because he could not get it done through normal Appropriations and actually did not even try to get it done while he had GOP majorities in both House and Senate. The Congress holds the power of the purse, NOT THE EXECUTIVE.

The dems are right. Open the parts of the government that are not part of DHS. Go through an Appropriations process for new DHS funding. Give Congress your proposal, not some negotiating group sitting in the WH. Congress will decide what you get based on their view of what you put in your proposal. THE END!
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Really...so you bought the give me $5.7B for my wall so I can stop the drugs across the border bit? The drugs come through ports of entry and his wall won't stop them.
Click to expand...

And? So what?

Is your argument that all government programs must be 100% effective?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EMNofSeattle said:
And? So what?

Is your argument that all government programs must be 100% effective?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No but they must be at least reasonably effective. Virtually over 90% of the drugs coming into this country come through ports of entry. So Trump's wall only even has a chance at stopping less than 10% of it.

This from John Kelly when Drug trafficking fell into his responsibility
“The most common method employed by Mexican TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] involves transporting drugs in vehicles through U.S. ports of entry (POEs),” the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported in its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment. “Illicit drugs are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers,” according to the document.

Heroin is small in volume. “It’s a relatively small amount—40-50 tons, we think—of heroin that feeds the heroin epidemic in the United States,” Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee in 2015. The amount has probably increased somewhat today, but still takes up little space: all the heroin consumed in the United States in an entire year could probably fit into two 40-foot shipping containers.

Now, imagine the contents of those containers broken up into tiny amounts and scattered across vehicles, luggage, and cargo shipments and sent through 48 land crossings, plus airports, over the course of 365 days. The difficulty explains why in 2015, the DEA reported that U.S. authorities managed to seize 6.8 tons of heroin, an amount equal to perhaps one-seventh of Gen. Kelly’s demand estimate.

The dynamic is similar for other compact-volume drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, which are overwhelmingly seized at ports of entry. Cannabis, which is larger and bulkier, appears to be trafficked more frequently in the areas between the ports.

With a small, compact, and expensive product, and a six-sevenths chance of avoiding detection and seizure, it’s unsurprising that most heroin smugglers don’t bother to transport it between the ports of entry, in the sparsely populated or wilderness zones where proposed border fencing might be built.

The ports of entry are a big part of the picture. Yet while the Trump administration is loudly proposing ambitious, expensive wall-building plans, its budget requests would do very little to address the US$5 billion in documented needs, from renovations to staffing, at the ports of entry."

All that idiot Wall money needs to be spent on enhanced drug scanning technology at the 328 ports of entry if the issue is drug trafficking.
 
jnug said:
No but they must be at least reasonably effective. Virtually over 90% of the drugs coming into this country come through ports of entry. So Trump's wall only even has a chance at stopping less than 10% of it.

This from John Kelly when Drug trafficking fell into his responsibility
“The most common method employed by Mexican TCOs [Transnational Criminal Organizations] involves transporting drugs in vehicles through U.S. ports of entry (POEs),” the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported in its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment. “Illicit drugs are smuggled into the United States in concealed compartments within passenger vehicles or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers,” according to the document.

Heroin is small in volume. “It’s a relatively small amount—40-50 tons, we think—of heroin that feeds the heroin epidemic in the United States,” Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee in 2015. The amount has probably increased somewhat today, but still takes up little space: all the heroin consumed in the United States in an entire year could probably fit into two 40-foot shipping containers.

Now, imagine the contents of those containers broken up into tiny amounts and scattered across vehicles, luggage, and cargo shipments and sent through 48 land crossings, plus airports, over the course of 365 days. The difficulty explains why in 2015, the DEA reported that U.S. authorities managed to seize 6.8 tons of heroin, an amount equal to perhaps one-seventh of Gen. Kelly’s demand estimate.

The dynamic is similar for other compact-volume drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, which are overwhelmingly seized at ports of entry. Cannabis, which is larger and bulkier, appears to be trafficked more frequently in the areas between the ports.

With a small, compact, and expensive product, and a six-sevenths chance of avoiding detection and seizure, it’s unsurprising that most heroin smugglers don’t bother to transport it between the ports of entry, in the sparsely populated or wilderness zones where proposed border fencing might be built.

The ports of entry are a big part of the picture. Yet while the Trump administration is loudly proposing ambitious, expensive wall-building plans, its budget requests would do very little to address the US$5 billion in documented needs, from renovations to staffing, at the ports of entry.
Click to expand...

So in addition to reducing illegal crossings by 70+ percent it will reduce drug traffic by 10%? That’s a nice bit of frosting on the cake
 
EMNofSeattle said:
So in addition to reducing illegal crossings by 70+ percent it will reduce drug traffic by 10%? That’s a nice bit of frosting on the cake
Click to expand...

No, a Wall would only have a shot at LESS THAN 10% of the traffic in drugs because more than 90% comes through ports of entry. Hey its your guy that clearly has changed gears to drug traffic. Most of his speech tonight was aimed at drug traffic. To your other point there is no evidence that his Wall or whatever it is now (who knows) would stop over 70% of illegal crossings.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What to Watch for in Trump’s National Address on Immigration



• The southern border wall is merely a campaign promise Donald Trump made to his political support base.
• Trump stated 92 times during his election campaign that "Mexico would pay for the wall." (a Trump campaign lie)
• Declaring the southern border to be in a "crisis" or a "national emergency" does not make it so.
• Trump ordered a stop to asylum applications on the southern border. (overturned by a Federal judge)
• Parents and children are separated at the border by CBP and DHS cannot always adequately locate incarcerated children. (at one point DHS lost 1,500 children)
• US Big Pharma dumped millions of opioid pills in US pharmacies triggering the opioid addiction epidemic. (Trump ignores this)
• Most illegals in the US enter via airports and overstay their visas. (Trump ignores this)
• The US State Dept. says no terrorists have been apprehended trying to enter the US at the southern border. (Trump lied about this)
• None of the border state Senators want Trumps wall.
• No, none of the recent living or deceased US presidents ever told Trump they wished they had built a wall. (a Trump lie)
• The Trump administration has spent less than 50% of Congressional funds appropriated for border security in May, 2018. (crickets on this from Trump)
• Illegal border crossings have actually declined during the past five years. (Trump ignores the statistics)
• The Trump administration has not filled 7,500 CBP officer positions. (silence on this from Trump)
• Most trafficked females/children enter the US via plane and ship.
• Trumps $5 Billion vanity wall demand is for a 13th century solution to 21st century problem. Walls are easily circumvented.
• The US government could be 98% funded tomorrow if Trump wanted it to be. Border security funding could then be negotiated separately.
• Polls state that the majority of Americans do not want Trumps wall built and do not believe it to be worth a government shutdown.
• Trump is holding government services and government employee paychecks hostage until he gets his way - his legacy wall.
• Start protesting in front of the White House en-mass to end this Trump-fabricated government shutdown.
Click to expand...
I see that several people like this post, but all I see is a bunch of radical left talking point lies.
 
Logical1 said:
I see that several people like this post, but all I see is a bunch of radical left talking point lies.
Click to expand...

But of course you made no effort to point out where they were.
 
jnug said:
No, a Wall would only have a shot at LESS THAN 10% of the traffic in drugs because more than 90% comes through ports of entry. Hey its your guy that clearly has changed gears to drug traffic. Most of his speech tonight was aimed at drug traffic. To your other point there is no evidence that his Wall or whatever it is now (who knows) would stop over 70% of illegal crossings.
Click to expand...

Historically sectors have seen 70% decreases in apprehensions after building walls.

If it stops one tenth of one percent of drugs it is worth it, and the reality is, it will stop much more then that, and increase costs of business for drug traffickers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
nota bene said:
What did you think of the President's speech, Pero?
Click to expand...

I didn't watch it. I didn't watch the rebuttal by Pelosi and Schumer either. In fact I can't remember the last time I watched a president's speech. Perhaps a couple of Eisenhower's, but there was only 3 channels on TV, it was watch his speech or nothing. JFK, I remember two. One about Laos and the other on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think you have to fast forward to Reagan where I may have watch some of his forgive me for Iran-Contra and trading for hostages. Since then, nada. No need. Most are political in nature. Besides, there is always a quick wrap up of all their speeches in the AM the following day.

I really don't give a dang one way or the other about the wall. I do blame both sides for not working something out. Adults would. If Reagan and Tip O'Neal could work out deals almost every year on SDI, surely, Trump, Pelosi and schumer could on this. But one has to consider their huge ego's.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I proposed a drinking game for the address this evening, no takers so far.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty drunk at the moment. It didn't take much because I'm a lightweight. Three shots of Kahlua and BZZZZZZ. :lamo
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Historically sectors have seen 70% decreases in apprehensions after building walls.

If it stops one tenth of one percent of drugs it is worth it, and the reality is, it will stop much more then that, and increase costs of business for drug traffickers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because those barriers have been installed where they would be most useful when integrated with other border security. That has been done. You are utterly making my point that a sea to shining sea wall, fence, beaded curtain is a LOSER because it would be ineffective, inefficient and costly. Do you think they put the 600+ miles of fencing that exists today up randomly? NO!!!!!

Some and I do mean some additional physical barrier makes sense. Nothing sea to shining sea makes sense.
 
PoliSciXtina said:
Great refresh of all the trump propaganda. Forgot a lot of that already. Hard to keep up with his lies. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's six thousand of them, and with tying Central American refugees directly in with illegal immigrants as if they are one and the same, 6001.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I didn't watch it. I had more important things to do (seriously).

What's your take?

Thx in advance.
Click to expand...

I thought the performance was measured and that Trump mustered the necessary gravitas, and again, I appreciate brevity. His argument was the expected one, so no surprise there.
 
nota bene said:
I thought the performance was measured and that Trump mustered the necessary gravitas, and again, I appreciate brevity. His argument was the expected one, so no surprise there.
Click to expand...

I was only surprised that he spent so much time trying to rationalize his concept of a border barrier based on drug trafficking. That was and is still today the weakest argument for his wall and he treated it like it was his strongest.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The physical location of the DHS Secretary is 100% irrelevant to the need for border security. It means nothing at all. Whether she’s in Davos, or Argentina, or The North Pole or Mars. It doesn’t matter one iota


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Apparently that also applies to Mitch McConnell as well, not to mention most of the American diplomatic corps, and half the White House staff.
Eureka! I've got it! Trump and Jared can run the ENTIRE US government ALL by THEMSELVES! :lamo

After all, he also knows more than the generals.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Apparently that also applies to Mitch McConnell as well, not to mention most of the American diplomatic corps, and half the White House staff.
Eureka! I've got it! Trump and Jared can run the ENTIRE US government ALL by THEMSELVES! :lamo

After all, he also knows more than the generals.
Click to expand...

A Junta consisting of Jared, Ivanka and the Donald sounds like a plan to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jnug said:
I hate to say it because I generally like your posts. But that is a bit obtuse. Trump and his hordes have tried to do this by bootstrapping New wall funding onto CR's. CR's avoid the Appropriations process. They are not designed for New Funding. They are designed to extend the time for existing Appropriations.

Now he claims that he has a proposal to make. But even in that he is trying to force feed funding that should go through the Appropriations process by bootstrapping the whole thing onto a CR. That is why he won't sign a CR with either $1.3B in border security or $1.6B in border security because he wants to avoid the Appropriations process entirely.

He expects to avoid the Appropriations process because he could not get it done through normal Appropriations and actually did not even try to get it done while he had GOP majorities in both House and Senate. The Congress holds the power of the purse, NOT THE EXECUTIVE.

The dems are right. Open the parts of the government that are not part of DHS. Go through an Appropriations process for new DHS funding. Give Congress your proposal, not some negotiating group sitting in the WH. Congress will decide what you get based on their view of what you put in your proposal. THE END!
Click to expand...

Not to mention, by caving in to this kind of abuse of the process, expect more hostage taking, next week, and the week after that, and the week after that, etc etc etc.

Git 'er done?? Yeah, nip 'er in the bud right from the git go.
 
jnug said:
Heroin is small in volume. “It’s a relatively small amount—40-50 tons, we think—of heroin that feeds the heroin epidemic in the United States,” Gen. John Kelly, then the commander of U.S. Southern Command, told a Senate committee in 2015. The amount has probably increased somewhat today, but still takes up little space: all the heroin consumed in the United States in an entire year could probably fit into two 40-foot shipping containers.
Click to expand...

You're telling these facts to people who get a hard on when Trump and Steve King foam at the mouth and talk about "very bad hombres with calves the size of cantaloupes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom