U.S. Democrats manoeuvre to end shutdown, without Trump wall money

[DrTuner]

I have an idea. Let the Chinese build the wall and let the tourists pay for it. Worked for them.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

I have an idea. Let the Chinese build the wall and let the tourists pay for it. Worked for them.

That actually isn't a horrible idea. The Chinese are into building big stuff all over the world now, they do it very cost effectively (slave labor helps), and they have very good (long term) plans on how to make all that spending reap dividends. U.S. politics is more about results that will show up for five minutes, until the next game for the next five minutes.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Jingthing

[Basil B]

6 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

The dirty little secret is in reality BOTH parties turn the blind eye to illegal immigration.  There is a demand for migrant labor -- and a real immigration solution of filling that demand through a legal system (which would cut illegal immigration) is politically dangerous - so both parties tend to turn a blind eye... while at the same time they pretend to want to fix it (in various ways).

That explains why the Democrats as a minority in the Senate can block spending on the wall...

[TonyClifton]

Not your Googlebot.

And you're certainly not a source of anything verifiable

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

[TonyClifton]

Strange, coming from the person who claimed 'Americans want a wall'.

I didn't claim that came from a poll, did I?

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Trump wants a wall.  We the Citizens of the United States of America want a wall.

 The national polls I've seen on the subject have a majority of Americans opposing Trump's wall. And even a larger majority opposing his shutting down the federal government and holding it hostage over the wall issue.

 

 

[TonyClifton]

 The national polls I've seen on the subject have a majority of Americans opposing Trump's wall. And even a larger majority opposing his shutting down the federal government and holding it hostage over the wall issue.

 

 

Another poster who references a poll but doesn't say which one it is. How lame.

 

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Another poster who references a poll but doesn't say which one it is. How lame.

 

Not one.. Many..,.,,,

 

Quote

 

I also checked Polling Report to see what other polls in the past two months said about U.S. attitudes about building the wall. Here’s what I found:

--Quinnipiac University Poll. June 14-17, 2018: 39 percent support building a wall, 58 percent are opposed.

--Pew Research Center. June 5-12, 2018: 40 percent support building a wall, 56 percent are opposed.

--CBS News Poll. May 3-6, 2018: 38 percent support building a wall, 59 percent are opposed.

 

So, since May, five polls have been conducted on the question of building the wall. Exactly one of them shows a bare majority in favor of building the wall if the responses are aggregated. The other four show pretty solid majorities in opposition. Going further back, the numbers pretty much have looked like this since the 2016 election. The only exception is if the $25 billion price tag gets mentioned — in which case, support for building the wall drops to the low 30s.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/27/what-do-americans-think-about-the-wall-the-answers-may-surprise-you-only-if-you-read-drudge/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a88f37f58c3d

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

Another poster who references a pole but doesn't say which one it is. How lame.

Where exactly was the reference backing up your initial claim that “we Americans want a wall”? 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And a more recent poll result from November:

 

Quote

CBS News polling from mid-November found that a majority -- 59 percent of Americans -- oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a partisan issue, though. A large majority of Republicans support the wall -- 79 percent. A majority of independents -- 66 percent -- oppose the wall, and 84 percent of Democrats are also against it.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-dont-support-building-the-wall/

 

[bkkcanuck8]

42 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And a more recent poll result from November:

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-dont-support-building-the-wall/

 

It is not a surprise.  When it comes down to it most peoples priorities are related to meat and potatoes issues... Jobs, Education, Healthcare...  The economy had recovered under President Obama, but for many / most they were not feeling it.  The Stock Exchange was up, but the standard of living drifted lower.   If you can convince them that those aliens are marching on the US to rape their children, steal their jobs and murder their wives... you can get their numbers to go up (aka caravan hysteria - simple scapegoating).  Even though it has worked for a sizeable percentage of the people, luckily it has not worked for the majority (yet).  If it did, cost would not be an issue. 

 

Unfortunately, things are probably going to get worse before they get better.  A confluence of factors are all converging rapidly and accelerating.  The US (and several western nations) benefited by the rest of the world being basket case during the second half of last century, now at least half the worlds population is now rising - so the living standard in comparison is falling.   The requirement for labor (car manufacturing etc.) is being replaced (and accelerating) with automation... so the higher than average wages for low high-school level educated labor have fallen and will be unlikely to recover.  An attempt to push up the wages through legislation would only likely hasten the automation trend.   Personal car ownership will likely be mostly a thing of the past for the masses in 10 or so years (AI / Uberization of transit).  Long haul truck drivers will be replaced by convoy truck automation (less likely in the city in the short term since it is more difficult). 

 

This has been a factor throughout the last century but it is happening too fast at this point to absorb the issue and it likely will become a destabilizing factor.

[Toosetinmyways]

Can't wait for T rump's next campaign rally

DJT  What do we want?

Crowd    A wall.

DJT     Who's going to pay?

Crowd  American tax payers.

 

Doesn't have the same ring does it.

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

Another poster who references a poll but doesn't say which one it is. How lame.

 

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

 

 

 

 

Poll: 69% of Americans Think Trump's Wall Isn't a Priority | Fortune

"50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all."  Dec 12, 2018

 

But why would you be influenced by a "majority".......either way?

 

You "despise" Democracy.

 

Tony Clifton was an extreme, absurd, grotesque, caricature........and amusing.

 

You score 4 out of 5.

 

Bang goes my New Year Resolution.

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Enoon

[TonyClifton]

3 hours ago, samran said:

I might not be a constitutional expert

 

I'll take you at your word.

 

3 hours ago, samran said:

Donnie isn’t their leader.

No, he is their President.

 

3 hours ago, samran said:

this is your republican form of government working as it always has ..

It has not always worked this way.

[Becker]

2 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

I didn't claim that came from a poll, did I?

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.
 

No, that claim obviously came from a dark, damp and smelly place.

[TonyClifton]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

No, that claim obviously came from a dark, damp and smelly place.

Stop projecting.

[TonyClifton]

2 hours ago, Basil B said:

That explains why the Democrats as a minority in the Senate can block spending on the wall...

It doesn't.  The Democrats don't want a wall because Trump wants it.  5 years ago Schumer and Pelosi were talking about building a better wall/barrier and spending more money on border security.

[TonyClifton]

I spy with my little eye a fence.  I spy with my little eye a wall! It looks to be 10 foot high. Why the fence looks at least 10 feet high. 

 

I spy with my little eye, an imaginary wall created by secret service agents who guard and protect The Obama's.  

 

No wall?  Surely you jest.

[Becker]

37 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

I spy with my little eye a fence.  I spy with my little eye a wall! It looks to be 10 foot high. Why the fence looks at least 10 feet high. 

 

I spy with my little eye, an imaginary wall created by secret service agents who guard and protect The Obama's.  

 

No wall?  Surely you jest.

Why not sober up before continuing to post? That way you should be able to distinguish between fences and walls.

Maybe you can spy with your little eye your bed and have someone tuck you in.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, TonyClifton said:

It doesn't.  The Democrats don't want a wall because Trump wants it.  5 years ago Schumer and Pelosi were talking about building a better wall/barrier and spending more money on border security.

They are still talking about spending more money on border security. Unfortunately some confuse 'border security' with 'wall'.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Funny how you mention polling, but no reference to an actual poll.  

 

4 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

The sound of backpedaling drowned your message in a wash of confusion.  Cite the source, or shut up.

Apologies from you will be accepted, though I won't be holding my breath.

 

Google says something different to you.

 

Is this a good enough reference for you?

 

http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/trump-border-wall-poll/

 

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Immigration_1812051721.pdf#page=3

 

Nature of the Sample: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll of 1,075 National Adults This survey of 1,075 adults was conducted November 28th through December 4th, 2018 by The Marist Poll sponsored in partnership with NPR and PBS NewsHour. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the contiguous United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed in English by telephone using live interviewers. Mobile telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from Survey Sampling International.

 

This came from the second link. If you go through the pages carefully you can find out exactly which questions were asked and the responses.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Another poster who references a poll but doesn't say which one it is. How lame.

 

Sent from my Star Trek Communicator.

 

 

 

You seem to be in complete denial and can't be bothered to look for yourself.

[Becker]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You seem to be in complete denial and can't be bothered to look for yourself.

Hush, he's sleeping now

[bkkcanuck8]

2 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

It doesn't.  The Democrats don't want a wall because Trump wants it.  5 years ago Schumer and Pelosi were talking about building a better wall/barrier and spending more money on border security.

You are correct in that may be the motivation now, but building a 'wall' 'a big beautiful wall' is a simplistic approach that politicians can parrot.  Border security and the wall are not necessarily the same thing.  Being able to secure the border (the border is much more than what they are talking about) which includes the ocean, Canada, Mexico, Ocean going vessels, (lake speedboats), ports, airports, etc.   With or without a wall, people will find a way in... and once they are in they have the same due process under the constitution as everyone else.  To take away the draw, you have to take away the financial incentive.  That is only possible by things like national ids -- which everyone must carry, non-racially profiled spot checks where you must present your id, having employment or hiring of any person require an id check to see if they have the right to work etc. 

 

In any case -- the funding of border security should increase (potentially at the expense of a small small portion of the military budget) dramatically -- and that means more boots on the ground and more electronic surveillance. 

 

The priority should also always be given to those that can do the most harm.... and that means potential foreign terrorists (for border security; domestic terrorism tends to be a higher risk occurrence-wise).  Most of those making their way on the southern border are illegal border migrants... and the vast majority of those are not a threat... the ones that are tend to be just normal criminal activity (and I don't have stats that they commit more crimes than the normal average -- maybe less since that would bring attention). 

 

Assuming that you are not going to introduce a national ID system, with spot checks and some loss of freedom... the best approach would be to legalize the economic migrants and control it.  Reduce the flow of economic migrants coming through the border -- and you vastly reduce or eliminate the vast majority of illegal entries over the border.   Lower the flow to a trickle and you can focus you enforcement to those that are a threat... instead of a needle in a haystack -- a needle in a small bowl of rice.   Use a carrot and stick approach where the increase in legal migrants is dependent on Mexico controlling the flow through their country - i.e. give them more to lose and more of an incentive. 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

You are correct in that may be the motivation now, but building a 'wall' 'a big beautiful wall' is a simplistic approach that politicians can parrot.  Border security and the wall are not necessarily the same thing.  Being able to secure the border (the border is much more than what they are talking about) which includes the ocean, Canada, Mexico, Ocean going vessels, (lake speedboats), ports, airports, etc.   With or without a wall, people will find a way in... and once they are in they have the same due process under the constitution as everyone else.  To take away the draw, you have to take away the financial incentive.  That is only possible by things like national ids -- which everyone must carry, non-racially profiled spot checks where you must present your id, having employment or hiring of any person require an id check to see if they have the right to work etc. 

 

In any case -- the funding of border security should increase (potentially at the expense of a small small portion of the military budget) dramatically -- and that means more boots on the ground and more electronic surveillance. 

 

The priority should also always be given to those that can do the most harm.... and that means potential foreign terrorists (for border security; domestic terrorism tends to be a higher risk occurrence-wise).  Most of those making their way on the southern border are illegal border migrants... and the vast majority of those are not a threat... the ones that are tend to be just normal criminal activity (and I don't have stats that they commit more crimes than the normal average -- maybe less since that would bring attention). 

 

Assuming that you are not going to introduce a national ID system, with spot checks and some loss of freedom... the best approach would be to legalize the economic migrants and control it.  Reduce the flow of economic migrants coming through the border -- and you vastly reduce or eliminate the vast majority of illegal entries over the border.   Lower the flow to a trickle and you can focus you enforcement to those that are a threat... instead of a needle in a haystack -- a needle in a small bowl of rice.   Use a carrot and stick approach where the increase in legal migrants is dependent on Mexico controlling the flow through their country - i.e. give them more to lose and more of an incentive. 

Why exactly is it so urgent to great increase security on the southern border or any border? Illegal immigration is way way down from its historic highs. What threat does it pose that would justify vastly increased spending. There are all sorts of law enforcement activities the government funds? Why is this one such a priority?

 

[keemapoot]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Why exactly is it so urgent to great increase security on the southern border or any border? Illegal immigration is way way down from its historic highs. What threat does it pose that would justify vastly increased spending. There are all sorts of law enforcement activities the government funds? Why is this one such a priority?

 

Actually you are right. The actual verifiable facts show you are right, but Trump made this a legacy-defining issue that pandered to the fear and loathing of his base, and that is the reason for the hyperbole and heightened arguments of urgency by Trump administration, and response by Democrats so as not to be seen as anti-homeland security. At the same time, Trump also sees this as a chance to build a huge monument to his ego, as he already stated early in his Presidency that he felt he belonged to be engraved into the chief figure of a probably re-imagined Mount Rushmore.

 

[samran]

3 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

I'll take you at your word.

 

No, he is their President.

 

It has not always worked this way.

 

Well, last I looked their bosses are the people who elected them, not Donnie.

 

And I can still count, and Donnie doesn’t have the numbers on the floor for border wall.

 

I mean, he had a majority in both houses for two years and still couldn’t get the idea up. When you have this as advantage, and you still can’t make it work, as the Australians say, it sounds like Donnie couldn’t organise a root in a brothel. 

 

Some ‘leader’ you have there. 555

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by samran

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

Grunt.  Grumble.  Mumble ..... Build the wall.  

Yeah, the East Germans have set the benchmark for success.

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, TonyClifton said:

I spy with my little eye a fence.  I spy with my little eye a wall! It looks to be 10 foot high. Why the fence looks at least 10 feet high. 

 

I spy with my little eye, an imaginary wall created by secret service agents who guard and protect The Obama's.  

 

No wall?  Surely you jest.

 

You can see the front of the house in your picture.  Here; I'll zoom in on it:

 

 

And here's a better view from the front:
 

 

How high would you say that wall is?

 

 

[TonyClifton]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

You can see the front of the house in your picture.  Here; I'll zoom in on it:

 

 

And here's a better view from the front:
 

 

How high would you say that wall is?

 

 

That's the front of the house.

 

Around the house is a 10 foot wall.  Stop zooming my photo and quit the games.  Go zoom someone else.