4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

So you don't think this site leans left in general?

Certainly not from a Brit's POV. Read the Brexit threads. Extreme right wing is the order of the day.

Just now, Spidey said:

Certainly not from a Brit's POV. Read the Brexit threads. Extreme right wing is the order of the day.

 

You might be right about that. I don't generally opine in Brit threads even though my husband is British.

What is the point of electing Presidents if they cannot do what they were elected to. Large part of his election pledge was to build the wall to keep illegals, drugs and criminals out, BUILD IT THEN.

13 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

So you don't think this site leans left in general?

Some of the posters definitely lean left, or at least anti Trump, but a lot of people read it, and apparently never post, so we don't know which way they lean.

A baiting post and a reply have been removed

14 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Another group of his fans soon to face reality

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/14/685062303/trump-expected-to-get-warm-welcome-at-farm-bureau-convention

Hasn't farm income fallen for years, and certainly for more than 2 years?

Posts removed.

 

3 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

What is the point of electing Presidents if they cannot do what they were elected to. Large part of his election pledge was to build the wall to keep illegals, drugs and criminals out, BUILD IT THEN.

Actually, he only won a minority of votes, so you could say that the majority of Americans are against the wall being built.

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss the point, which is that Trump promised a wall, therefore he must build it or his base will abandon him. His base is all that Trump has as everyone else hates him, so he's going to do everything he can to satisfy his base. Whether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant. This is because politics these days is rubbish and all about promising stuff that gets votes instead of doing what is right, and is a problem in every western "democratic" country. However, that's not relevant to this thread. Perhaps someday we'll get a thread about how rubbish western politics is.

Sorry, but the survey is " SURVEY: Build the Wall -- Yes or No? "

 

I say no and I provide my rationale.

 

Quite frankly, I really do not care about Trump's promises or whether he loses the support of his base. In fact, I doubt his base will abandon him; after all Trump criticizes our military leaders, insults our military heroes, denigrates our intelligence agencies, and acts the buffoon in front of all the world and he is still loved by them.

 

More specifically, if you think you are making some break-through stating politicians go about, " . . . promising stuff that gets votes instead of doing what is right . . .," well, bless your heart.

16 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Executive Vice President Dale Moore of the Farm Bureau says net farm income fell an estimated 12 percent last year and about 40 percent from its peak in 2013.

Soooo it fell 28 percent before Trump was president.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo it fell 28 percent before Trump was president.

Sure, and Trump's policies are not stopping that steep trend since 2013.

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some of the posters definitely lean left, or at least anti Trump, but a lot of people read it, and apparently never post, so we don't know which way they lean.

Yes that's the point I was making. That's why the vote is generally in favor of a wall where as the general posts on this site do not.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Soooo it fell 28 percent before Trump was president.

Over 3 years. 28 over 3 = 9.33% P.A.

 

12% last year alone.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Actually, he only won a minority of votes, so you could say that the majority of Americans are against the wall being built.

Bush won a minority of the votes, other presidents too that's the system you have. Actually it's more a case of completing the wall as some of it exists already.

On 1/13/2019 at 11:03 AM, Chippy151 said:

Improve your schools, take care of your sick and help the working poor.

All best accomplished by removing illegal-aliens from the population.

 

Schools: Overburdened with illegal-aliens and the cost of ESL classes.  Texas tried to stop this, but SCOTUS ruled it is illegal to even inquire as to whether a student is legal or not, and the taxpayers must fund free education for as many as can be snuck in.

 

Disease / Sickness: Preventing foreigners entering without any medical-screening with TB, and various other diseases which were formerly eradicated from the USA.  In addition, states like California have special funds just to pay the medical-expenses of illegal-aliens - money and medical-services which are then not available to vulnerable citizens.

 

Working Poor: The demographic groups most harmed by illegal immigration are those with the highest proportion of working-poor.  African Americans and Hispanic Americans at the top of the list, respectively.  Wages have fallen drastically in all fields where illegal-aliens have been hired en-masse.  Construction Trades and Food-Packing were formerly good union jobs with high-wages, benefits, and pensions; not anymore.

It is a red-herring that "racism" is the motivation - a cry often used by business-groups to provide left-cover to a policy which clearly undermines the working poor.  A review of the Midwestern counties that switched from Obama to Trump is a clear indicator that the motivation is economic.  Also note that the majority of African Americans (56%) voted for proposition 187 in California (1994), to deny state-benefits to illegal aliens.  See: https://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492 (the referendum became moot when Gov Davis refused to appeal a court-decision overturning the will of the people).

6 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

All best accomplished by removing illegal-aliens from the population.

 

Schools: Overburdened with illegal-aliens and the cost of ESL classes.  Texas tried to stop this, but SCOTUS ruled it is illegal to even inquire as to whether a student is legal or not, and the taxpayers must fund free education for as many as can be snuck in.

 

Disease / Sickness: Preventing foreigners entering without any medical-screening with TB, and various other diseases which were formerly eradicated from the USA.  In addition, states like California have special funds just to pay the medical-expenses of illegal-aliens - money and medical-services which are then not available to vulnerable citizens.

 

Working Poor: The demographic groups most harmed by illegal immigration are those with the highest proportion of working-poor.  African Americans and Hispanic Americans at the top of the list, respectively.  Wages have fallen drastically in all fields where illegal-aliens have been hired en-masse.  Construction Trades and Food-Packing were formerly good union jobs with high-wages, benefits, and pensions; not anymore.

It is a red-herring that "racism" is the motivation - a cry often used by business-groups to provide left-cover to a policy which clearly undermines the working poor.  A review of the Midwestern counties that switched from Obama to Trump is a clear indicator that the motivation is economic.  Also note that the majority of African Americans (56%) voted for proposition 187 in California (1994), to deny state-benefits to illegal aliens.  See: https://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492 (the referendum became moot when Gov Davis refused to appeal a court-decision overturning the will of the people).

Well if you use the 5 billion on eradicating the problems you have outlined, it will have been of far more use than building a pointless wall.

18 hours ago, keemapoot said:

 

 

We just get "build a wall." He wants a blank check to "build a wall." ridiculous. Do you think he ever built a hotel or office building without a thorough feasibility study, articulated business plan, marketing plan, operations plan and most importantly, proforma financials and budget???

It's quite possible he has, because the source of his finances are far from clear. Perhaps that's why he has a habit of dudding sub-contractors.

Building a wall, literally, in this day and age is medieval (to quote Trump). Sometimes I wonder if he is into the concept of a Kingdom of America, which is also medieval thinking. I suggest something hi-tech,. along the lines of  Revenge of the Machines type technology - 1,000 drones - each patrolling 2 miles of border, ought to do the job; the cost will be considerably lower, creating hi tech jobs for Americans and businesses.  equipped with heat seeking sonic death rays.                            If the US would only change that silly/xenophobic rule......Arnold for President, I say. ???? 

48 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

So you don't think this site leans left in general?

Left of what?

23 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Well if you use the 5 billion on eradicating the problems you have outlined, it will have been of far more use than building a pointless wall.

It is far from pointless.  It has worked everywhere it has been used - in the USA, and around the world.  And, in terms of the Fed-Gov's budget, it is tiny.  Senator Cruz has even introduced legislation to pay for the wall from drug-kingkpin money - the "EL CHAPO" act.  That's fine, but I'd prefer remittances were taxed - not only to pay for the wall, but to pay 100% of the unemployment / food-stamps and other benefits Americans need due to the lower-wages and outright "replacement" by illegal aliens at their jobs.

Other supporting elements would include strict enforcement of e-verify, so that Americans in working-class jobs can return to the middle-class.  I think e-verify is much more important than the wall, personally - but that is even more hated by lobbyists paid to undermine American-workers on both sides of the aisle. 

And of course, no foreigner - even children of legal immigrants - should get an education paid for by taxing American citizens.  The property-tax is another tangent, but pure-evil in how it denies a person to ever fully-own a "place to be" in their own country (the tax amounting to rent-due the govt for permission to keep it) - justified by a "for the children" propaganda-cry.  And now being raised, throwing more and more Americans off their own land/homes, for every child who can be snuck-in?  That's sick.

 

We also have to end birthright-citizenship, which is another magnet for illegal aliens.  Back when Harry Reid was honest:

Quote

If making it easy to be an illegal alien is not enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?

... almost the exact language used by Trump, who was then called racist, to spite the observation being undeniable.  Yet Trump's promised executive-order, which would force the courts to finally rule on this issue, has never been issued.  

25 minutes ago, sendintheclowns said:

Building a wall, literally, in this day and age is medieval (to quote Trump). Sometimes I wonder if he is into the concept of a Kingdom of America, which is also medieval thinking.

Wheels are also of medieval origin.

25 minutes ago, sendintheclowns said:

I suggest something hi-tech,. along the lines of  Revenge of the Machines type technology - 1,000 drones - each patrolling 2 miles of border, ought to do the job; the cost will be considerably lower, creating hi tech jobs for Americans and businesses.  equipped with heat seeking sonic death rays.                            If the US would only change that silly/xenophobic rule......Arnold for President, I say. ???? 

That's the thing with "surveillance" - we already have mini-blimps "watching" the illegals and drugs cross the border.  But what to do when you see them?  A full frontal-attack on agents was repelled with tear-gas, and because human-shields where mixed in, the press went nuts (though the same happened under the last president absent the huge outcry).  We don't want to shoot people - though that would certainly be an effective deterrent. 

 

A wall is the least-violent option.  It just sits there and blocks entry.  No one has to be gassed, tazed, shot (rubber bullets), flash-bang grenaded, or otherwise harmed.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

It's quite possible he has, because the source of his finances are far from clear. Perhaps that's why he has a habit of dudding sub-contractors.

First we need to abolish ICE.

On 1/13/2019 at 1:15 PM, bristolboy said:

Ya think it's the grunts that are responsible for strategy? What military or paramilitary force did you ever work for?

Ya it's their officers actually not that you would care a jot what those who are doing the job think. Closed mind.

Trump wins either way. Another rope a dope the Dems can't comprehend.

 

If wall is built Trump wins.

If wall is not built Dems look weak on border security everytime an illegal commits a crime resulting in death or a caravan comes. Dems lose.

caravan #2 is coming.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

Trump wins either way. Another rope a dope the Dems can't comprehend.

 

If wall is built Trump wins.

If wall is not built Dems look weak on border security everytime an illegal commits a crime resulting in death or a caravan comes. Dems lose.

caravan #2 is coming.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm sure that's how you see it in Trump world, or the alternative universe.  But in the real world, the majority of Americans don't see it that way. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Yes, I'm sure that's how you see it in Trump world, or the alternative universe.  But in the real world, the majority of Americans don't see it that way. 

You wouldnt know what the majority think anymore then what the pollsters in the msm spin world told you they think. 

You still don't know how a rope a dope works lol

 

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

You wouldnt know what the majority think anymore then what the pollsters in the msm spin world told you they think. 

You still don't know how a rope a dope works lol

 

Trump headed the midterm elections by promoting fear of immigrants. How did that poll work out for him?

1 hour ago, Srinivas said:

You wouldnt know what the majority think anymore then what the pollsters in the msm spin world told you they think. 

You still don't know how a rope a dope works lol

 

Just took a look at Rasmussen which is more or less a pollster/shill for Republicans. Trump is underwater by 14 points. The last time he was that low was 10 months ago:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

7 hours ago, smotherb said:

Dear Sheik of the Burning Sands, the numbers of border crossings have reduced dramatically--" Illegal border crossings have been declining for nearly two decades. In 2017, border-crossing apprehensions were at their lowest point since 1971. " https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/11/us/politics/trump-border-crisis-reality.html

 

In large part due to better management of the problem.

 

Walls have always been breached; it only takes the will to do so. Note the numbers of prison breaks, the numbers of secured houses/neighborhoods burgled, the numbers of breaks in the border walls in the past. 

 

The wall would cost between $20B and $70B depending upon whether you listen to the lies of the contards or the libtards. How much more would it cost each year to maintain and monitor the wall, maybe $250M more. For that kind of money, we can implement and staff some really good technology.

 

As you should know, we can identify when anyone approaches any part of our boarder and can affect means to stop them. I would suggest M134-equipped drones monitoring our border and blasting anyone attempting to cross it in other than a border-patrol monitored areas. Yeah, I know too wild-west for most.  

 

In more practical terms, over 1250 miles of the proposed wall is on the Rio Grande river. What Texas riverfront land owner would like a wall blocking his riverfront?

 

More simply put; the wall is just a poor idea.

Then maybe we should tear down the existing walls near San Diego and El Paso after all they are not effective and a waste of money. Said no one ever!

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then maybe we should tear down the existing walls near San Diego and El Paso after all they are not effective and a waste of money. Said no one ever!

Anyone dissagree a wall would help at criticle points? It is just the idea of a Chineese wall from east to west!