posted by geeblockSimilarly there was no emergency for the two years the gop had control of the house or even the last budget when they also denied the wall money 🤦♀️. He is using the issue to rally his base and get re elec
I don't disagree. He could have done this anytime in the last 2 years. But downplaying border security to own the cons is stupid. Although half of them want open borders anyway.
posted by iclfan2The facts are people still come through the border and a wall still prevents that, regardless if it is the best option. They are only doing this because they refuse to agree with Trump. These same people, and probably you, balk at $5B, but are willing to try to fund Trillions for a "Green" new deal or single payer. Don't pretend it has anything to do with caring about the dollar amount.
The whole thing is progressing on the assumption that: a) the "problems" Trump alleges illegals are causing are actually true; b) the wall will fix those problems. Saying that people only disagree because they don't like Trump is ridiculous. That logic means he can never be questioned on the facts.
What does this have to do with green energy or healthcare - or with Thanksgiving dinner for that matter?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Since I am a liberal on here....No...
I just think the wall is a stupid idea and shutting down part of the government is also stupid.
The time, effort, and money could be used for more effective means and methods to address the issues at the southern border. Building a wall is a giant waste of time and money. It's the perfect case of a government boondoggle. You really think that wall is going to be built on time and budget? Please....
It also takes away from the more important issue of immigration reform. Immigration reform would address more of the concerns and issues than a wall. But, no one wants to address that.
Lol....socwhen obama wanted the wall you were against him?
Money and time.....those words dont matter to the government.
Takes away from immigrant reform? No its not about immigrants. The wall is about illegal aliens.....2 different things
posted by SpockLol....socwhen obama wanted the wall you were against him?
Money and time.....those words dont matter to the government.
Takes away from immigrant reform? No its not about immigrants. The wall is about illegal aliens.....2 different things
Obama voted for a fence as a compromise that the gop stop propsed legislation that unauthorized immigrants and anyone that helped them would be charged with a criminal offense. Apple to oranges comparison
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThis is misdirection. According to this logic, anytime someone disagrees with Trump, it is because of personal hatred only.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer either. Trump is the one who make the wall an urgent issue. People are allowed to have opinions on the matter based on facts of the case.
Eh, I don't think the statement requires any disagreement to be rooted in an unwillingness to agree with Trump. I read the statement to simply mean that he believes that to be the case here.
Based on the past, I'm generally inclined to agree in part, and I don't even support the building of the wall.
posted by iclfan2The facts are people still come through the border and a wall still prevents that, regardless if it is the best option. They are only doing this because they refuse to agree with Trump. These same people, and probably you, balk at $5B, but are willing to try to fund Trillions for a "Green" new deal or single payer. Don't pretend it has anything to do with caring about the dollar amount.
Not I, but yes, many of them would be completely okay ... even supportive ... of the 70% tax rate proposed by AOC to pay for the "Green New Deal."
If it was such an emergency why didn’t all this happen in 2017 when the gop was in control? 🤷♂️
posted by geeblockIf it was such an emergency why didn’t all this happen in 2017 when the gop was in control? 🤷♂️
A couple reasons:
a. Government would have actually had to do something.
b. I believe the whole "Mexico is going to pay us back" lie was still being pushed.
c. There would be no proverbial fall guy for it costing so much. Remember, Republicans still like to pretend they're the "small government" and "fiscal responsibility" party.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Since I am a liberal on here....No...
I just think the wall is a stupid idea and shutting down part of the government is also stupid.
The time, effort, and money could be used for more effective means and methods to address the issues at the southern border. Building a wall is a giant waste of time and money. It's the perfect case of a government boondoggle. You really think that wall is going to be built on time and budget? Please....
It also takes away from the more important issue of immigration reform. Immigration reform would address more of the concerns and issues than a wall. But, no one wants to address that.
Obama’s border patrol chief was on this morning and even he said he agreed with everything Trump is trying to do. All the border agents I saw speak last week said the same thing. So the people in the trenches want the wall, but you and Chuck and Nancy know better. Gotcha.
BTW, Trump takes out Jamal al-Badawi ………..obviously the mainstream media was remiss in mentioning.
posted by SpockLol....socwhen obama wanted the wall you were against him?
Money and time.....those words dont matter to the government.
Takes away from immigrant reform? No its not about immigrants. The wall is about illegal aliens.....2 different things
Obama was not for a wall across the whole U.S. border.
Good to know you fully support a project that is going to go way over time and budget. Shows you do not give a damn about the U.S. debt.
Aliens=immigrates. I can't help you if you do not understand that. Building a wall without dealing with the broken system we have right now is just dumb.
posted by QuakerOats
Obama’s border patrol chief was on this morning and even he said he agreed with everything Trump is trying to do. All the border agents I saw speak last week said the same thing. So the people in the trenches want the wall, but you and Chuck and Nancy know better. Gotcha.
I'm sure they want border security, fine. But a wall is so dumb in that topography.
I kinda just want the Ds to pass $10B for border security that includes more money for ports of entry, border guards, and tech, but state it will not include any of a wall . I wonder is Trump signs it?
posted by QuakerOats
BTW, Trump takes out Jamal al-Badawi ………..obviously the mainstream media was remiss in mentioning.
Oh, I read that last week man.
You are late to the party.
posted by ptown_trojans_1
Good to know you fully support a project that is going to go way over time and budget. Shows you do not give a damn about the U.S. debt.
Most fake conservatives don't, but please don't tell me you are trying to imply that YOU actually care about the US debt. LOL.
posted by like_thatMost fake conservatives don't, but please don't tell me you are trying to imply that YOU actually care about the US debt. LOL.
Funny how the debt is a concern. Ptown can GTFOH with that
posted by SpockFunny how the debt is a concern. Ptown can GTFOH with that
To be fair, his party doesn't champion itself as the party of "fiscal sanity."
That party would be the one trying to spend $5 billion+ on a defense tactic that was state-of-the-art about 6000 years ago.
posted by like_thatMost fake conservatives don't, but please don't tell me you are trying to imply that YOU actually care about the US debt. LOL.
I do actually. I'm not a bleeding heart spending liberal, but I'm also not a Grover Norquist folower or debt hawk either.
There are things the government should spend money on, but also areas where they can really scale back, cut, and be more selective. Like most things it is a balanced approach. I was actually a big fan of the Simpson-Bowles plan back in 2010.
We should just be more smart about where we spend our border security dollars and not go over the big shiny thing.
posted by SpockFunny how the debt is a concern. Ptown can GTFOH with that
Funny how you do not seem to care.
posted by O-TrapTo be fair, his party doesn't champion itself as the party of "fiscal sanity."
That party would be the one trying to spend $5 billion+ on a defense tactic that was state-of-the-art about 6000 years ago.
To be fair, it is not my party. I am not a registered D, nor have I ever been affiliated with any political party.
But, your last point is correct.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I do actually. I'm not a bleeding heart spending liberal, but I'm also not a Grover Norquist folower or debt hawk either.
There are things the government should spend money on, but also areas where they can really scale back, cut, and be more selective. Like most things it is a balanced approach. I was actually a big fan of the Simpson-Bowles plan back in 2010.
We should just be more smart about where we spend our border security dollars and not go over the big shiny thing.
I have been posting on the OC and JJhuddle for a long time. I did not see you express concern for the debt ONCE during the Obama admin. Just like every Obama fanboy/girl, I call bullshit that you genuinely care about the debt. For most, spending is ok when their "team/guy" is doing it. You all just justify it with "muh slightly less deficit." At least boatshoes is consistent and loves himself government spending regardless of who is in charge. I am sure he will reply to this post months later with a tl;dr post. Also, shout out to me for remaining consistent on government spending and believing we need to scale back on everything regardless of who is in charge.
I will keep your concern of the debt in mind when the single-payer debate heats up.
posted by like_thatI have been posting on the OC and JJhuddle for a long time. I did not see you express concern for the debt ONCE during the Obama admin. Just like every Obama fanboy/girl, I call bullshit that you genuinely care about the debt. For most, spending is ok when their "team/guy" is doing it. You all just justify it with "muh slightly less deficit." At least boatshoes is consistent and loves himself government spending regardless of who is in charge. I am sure he will reply to this post months later with a tl;dr post. Also, shout out to me for remaining consistent on government spending and believing we need to scale back on everything regardless of who is in charge.
I will keep your concern of the debt in mind when the single-payer debate heats up.
Well, you are wrong. I think I have been pretty consistent over the years.
I took a look at the old OC archive and this is a post from me in 2010 from the old What would you cut from the budget?
http://archive.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?18953-What-would-you-cut-from-the-budget
"What would I cut?
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
I would raise the SS age gradually to 70 and cap the current benefits to the current $ amount.
I would start to really tear into to contracts for the defense budget, elongating some of the timelines for big ticket projects as well as cap personal pay and freeze promotions. Encourage the DoD to really look at lowering the cost of their healthcare plans.
I would tackle agricultural subsidies as they are way too large and have too much influence in the Congress.
I would put a freeze on all federal pay at all levels."
posted by ptown_trojans_1Well, you are wrong. I think I have been pretty consistent over the years.
I took a look at the old OC archive and this is a post from me in 2010 from the old What would you cut from the budget?
http://archive.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?18953-What-would-you-cut-from-the-budget
"What would I cut?
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
I would raise the SS age gradually to 70 and cap the current benefits to the current $ amount.
I would start to really tear into to contracts for the defense budget, elongating some of the timelines for big ticket projects as well as cap personal pay and freeze promotions. Encourage the DoD to really look at lowering the cost of their healthcare plans.
I would tackle agricultural subsidies as they are way too large and have too much influence in the Congress.
I would put a freeze on all federal pay at all levels."
I will give you half credit and say I stand corrected in respect to you suggesting where to cut. You claiming you were legitimately concerned about the debt all along I have a hard time believing. A thread about where to cut (because conservatives on the OC at the time were complaining about spending) isn't going to convince me it was top priority for you. Otherwise we would have seen more posts criticizing every dem spending package (i.e. the porkulus bill). If you were actually critical the entire time, then I am more than happy to admit I was wrong and congratulate you for not being a sheep.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Well, you are wrong. I think I have been pretty consistent over the years.
I took a look at the old OC archive and this is a post from me in 2010 from the old What would you cut from the budget?
http://archive.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?18953-What-would-you-cut-from-the-budget
"What would I cut?
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
I would raise the SS age gradually to 70 and cap the current benefits to the current $ amount.
I would start to really tear into to contracts for the defense budget, elongating some of the timelines for big ticket projects as well as cap personal pay and freeze promotions. Encourage the DoD to really look at lowering the cost of their healthcare plans.
I would tackle agricultural subsidies as they are way too large and have too much influence in the Congress.
I would put a freeze on all federal pay at all levels."
completely cut the Department of Ed. Federal government doesnt need to be in local education
Bingo
posted by ptown_trojans_1To be fair, it is not my party. I am not a registered D, nor have I ever been affiliated with any political party.
But, your last point is correct.
I stand corrected on the party affiliation. My mistake.
posted by Spockcompletely cut the Department of Ed. Federal government doesnt need to be in local education
But why shouldn't the authoritative power control and regulate what is taught to the general public, including what it's taught about that authoritative power?
I'm not exactly a conspiracy guy, but that's hardly a good precedent. Then again, I think that's probably true about virtually any system of authority that requires the "right people" to hold the positions in it.
