U.S. House passes bills that would end government shutdown, without wall funds

[mcambl61]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh you’re playing the ‘you hate white men’ victim card.

 

I guess that Trumps rational discussion, pun intended.

 

 

 

no, I'm just questioning where the white man bad nonsense

[mcambl61]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Keep waiting.

 

If I have an opinion I wish to express I shall do so.

 

If you feel that it is ‘obvious’[ly] I ‘have these precise details and have great intellectual insight as to how they are better than a physical barrier and the sensors and cameras that go with them.‘ what more can I add to what you find so ‘obviously’ apparent?

 

Nothing at all to some who forms the opinions of others on their behalf.

 

Go argue with yourself.

so no actual details to back up the statement that was replied to, ok got it. thanks

[direction BANGKOK]

The irony is if he just dropped this thing about the wall he would probably be completely unscathed in two days. He obviously does not care about the potential benefits the wall may afford anyway, it is all about the win. Dropping it would be a win for him. But what seems like is going to happen is this wall obsession is going to be his tombstone whether he gets it or not. 

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

so no actual details to back up the statement that was replied to, ok got it. thanks

What have you got against this guy that you won't acknowledge what he wrote? Admittedly his posts are often off-target but this selection scores a bullseye:

"The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles."

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

so no actual details to back up the statement that was replied to, ok got it. thanks

Hang on a minute, it was you who said I obviously had.

 

Now you want me to provide you with evidence of what you have declared as obvious.

 

Go argue with yourself.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

so no actual details to back up the statement that was replied to, ok got it. thanks

Just like your posts.

[Cryingdick]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A great example of why it is a total waste of time to try to have a rational discussion with "trump" fans. That doesn't mean that everyone that voted for him is like that. We saw that in the midterms when so many independents, more conservative democrats, and more traditional republicans created a historical wave landslide in the house ending the total control of the criminally corrupt demagogue president. 

 

Historical landslide? I believe Clinton and Obama both lost more than 40 house seats in the midterms. It was a small victory. A purple puddle.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Historical landslide? I believe Clinton and Obama both lost more than 40 house seats in the midterms. It was a small victory. A purple puddle.

Latest House results confirm 2018 wasn't a blue wave. It was a blue tsunami

"This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/latest-house-vote-blue-wave/index.html

 

[Cryingdick]

I am measuring in seats changed. The popular vote doesn't matter. CNN? I am sure I can find sites that say differently. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

I am measuring in seats changed. The popular vote doesn't matter. CNN? I am sure I can find sites that say differently. 

On the congressional level, the democrats had to contend with Republican gerrymandering. But it's just about impossible to win the electoral college when the margin against you is 8.6 percent.

Which of the facts cited in that article are you going to find disputed elsewhere? But if you're so sure of it, go look.

[Cryingdick]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

On the congressional level, the democrats had to contend with Republican gerrymandering. But it's just about impossible to win the electoral college when the margin against you is 8.6 percent.

Which of the facts cited in that article are you going to find disputed elsewhere? But if you're so sure of it, go look.

The republican seats lost were almost Democrats anyway. They got no love and lost it was really a shame.  The electoral college doesn't matter for the house. It was however put in place by the founding fathers to protect the country from being controlled by the elites back in DC and on the coast. Now it serves a dual purpose with California. If it weren't for the EC Hillary would have gotten away with ignoring PA, WI, MI etc. It functioned very well just as it should have last election.

 

Anyway make your reply because so long was you reply to every post that's victory in your mind.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Credo]

12 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

so, previously these same Dems voted for a barrier, but now its not needed and is "immoral", amazing:

 

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.

 

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061026-1.html

 

For some strange reason you and a few others think that Democrats, liberals or whatever label you decide to put on those who don't agree with you are against border security.   They (we) are not.   I don't know anyone who is favor of 'open' borders.   I know of people who are, but they don't believe there should be geo-political borders anywhere in the world.

 

As noted in your previous posts, both Democrats and Republicans want a secure border and have voted for such.   Building a wall is not going to achieve that goal.   It sounds good, but it won't work and it is an unnecessary expenditure of funds to try.   In many places continuing to expand the physical barrier is effective, but not across the entire border.   

 

Large areas of the border are wide open, remote places where getting to the border is not easy from the Mexican side.   There are large swaths of Sahara like dune, located south of Dunes National Monument, that will quickly be buried by sand.   Keeping the US side clear is going to be costly and as sand piles up on the Mexican side, you will have nothing more than a hill.   Right now, because of the lack of roads, aerial surveillance, drones and heat detection is feasible. 

 

I won't get into some of the areas where the terrain where building a wall is completely not feasible.    I think its been well documented that cutting the US off from the waters of the Rio Grande would cause major economic hardship.    

 

A wall requires constant maintenance and guarding.   A better option is putting the personnel needed on those stretches of border, since a wall will not be a deterrence without personnel guarding it.   

 

Historically, walls haven't worked well in the past.   There is no indication that this one will.   Where there are (or were) walls, there are large numbers of troops that guard it continuously.   

 

A final consideration is the free movement of wildlife, including some endangered species, such as the Mexican Grey Wolf.   There are others. 

 

Most people are in favor of border security, but it has to be effective, it has to be reasonably priced and it has to be sustainable.   A wall isn't.   That is why border security gets votes from both sides, but a wall doesn't.

 

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The republican seats lost were almost Democrats anyway. They got no love and lost it was really a shame.  The electoral college doesn't matter for the house. It was however put in place by the founding fathers to protect the country from being controlled by the elites back in DC and on the coast. Now it serves a dual purpose with California. If it weren't for the EC Hillary would have gotten away with ignoring PA, WI, MI etc. It functioned very well just as it should have last election.

 

Anyway make your reply because so long was you reply to every post that's victory in your mind.

"The electoral college doesn't matter for the house. It was however put in place by the founding fathers to protect the country from being controlled by the elites back in DC and on the coast."
 

Where did you learn American history from? Fox News? First of all, back when the country was founded, every state except Pennsylvania had some coastline.

 

And the electoral college was established to prevent the slave states from being overwhelmed by the more populous northern states. Remember the 3/5 of a person each slave was reckoned to be in the Constitution? That's what the electoral college was about.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

The republican seats lost were almost Democrats anyway. They got no love and lost it was really a shame.  The electoral college doesn't matter for the house. It was however put in place by the founding fathers to protect the country from being controlled by the elites back in DC and on the coast. Now it serves a dual purpose with California. If it weren't for the EC Hillary would have gotten away with ignoring PA, WI, MI etc. It functioned very well just as it should have last election.

 

Anyway make your reply because so long was you reply to every post that's victory in your mind.

And as for your comment about the Republican seats being almost Democratic. They didn't all used to be almost Democratic though, did they? And Trump certainly accelerated the process.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 The electoral college doesn't matter for the house.

 

The electoral college may not matter for the house but the vote totals in each state for the house are significant prognistacators of the next election. Trump ain't real popular in the Midwest and Pennsylvania anymore.

[Opl]

16 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Well before that Mexico and America stole that same land from the Native Americans. Waves of millions of unchecked immigrants didn't work out that well for the indigenous population. The USA didn't steal anything from Mexico as it was never legitimately Mexico's land in the first place. 

 

The entire premise of the feel  good story that America is a melting pot of immigrants  is founded on the genocide basic to this countries birth. That makes it a laughable argument.

 

 

[cameraman888]

This whole border wall government shutdown is a total diversion from all the corruption investigations going on with Criminal Trump. Nobody really cares about the wall except his most deplorable followers who follow his every lie, and believe this jerk president who thinks his followers are all dummies. It's a diversion and Trump often uses diversions to hide the other news going on to keep people from following his criminal activities.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, cameraman888 said:

This whole border wall government shutdown is a total diversion from all the corruption investigations going on with Criminal Trump. Nobody really cares about the wall except his most deplorable followers who follow his every lie, and believe this jerk president who thinks his followers are all dummies. It's a diversion and Trump often uses diversions to hide the other news going on to keep people from following his criminal activities.

I agree with your statement about his followers, but not your conclusion. I think in this case it is not a diversion, but he is serious. He needs the wall or he is done.

[mikebike]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I agree with your statement about his followers, but not your conclusion. I think in this case it is not a diversion, but he is serious. He needs the wall or he is done.

3 dimensional chess... its both!! ????????????

[Opl]

"In a bold gambit to end the government shutdown, the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said on Saturday that she would bypass Donald J. Trump and negotiate directly with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. “I owe it to the American people to bring this shutdown to the swiftest possible conclusion, and so I’m avoiding the middleman,” she said."

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/pelosi-says-she-will-skip-trump-and-negotiate-directly-with-putin-shutdown

 

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Historical landslide? I believe Clinton and Obama both lost more than 40 house seats in the midterms. It was a small victory. A purple puddle.

Do you have any links to back up your "beliefs" or do we have to accept your "beliefs" as Gospel?

 

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

I am measuring in seats changed. The popular vote doesn't matter. CNN? I am sure I can find sites that say differently. 

Then please do so.