California tells Trump that lawsuit over border wall is 'imminent'

[Thainesss]

10 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

I guess I better ask my old University for a refund. I'll tell them someone on a forum didn't believe me. ????

 

Thats right. 

[Bundooman]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Well most Californians despise Donald they know a con man when they see one we are still a democracy Donald it’s not your or Putin’s money you don’t have permission so hands off us taxpayers say no!

_{What it needs is 'civil disobedience' from those millions of Americans who disagree with this "Emergency".}

_{Simply work together and refuse to pay your taxes. That way, the majority will win.}

[DM07]

38 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Trump using executive power to secure the nations borders and the sovereignty of our rebublic is “brazen” and “flaunting of power”? 

 

Ahahah riiiiiight. 

 

So this president is using his power for the good of this nation (and not other nations) and all of a sudden - outrage. 

 

Spare me the hyperbole. 

 

There is zero doubt the Supreme Court will uphold this declaration. It’s probably one of the most justifiable issues to date. Doesn’t matter that Democrats want and need migrants to bolster their base. 

"...the good of this nation..."

 

Excuse me, since I am not 'Murican, but...how is "the good" of your nation a stupid wall, which effects are strongly contested by...you know...facts and reality and not the disaster relief- funds (and you have many disasters over the span of year...and I am talking floods and fires and hurricanes ...not an idiotic president!) or the fund for housing for military - families, for example?

 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, Bundooman said:

_{What it needs is 'civil disobedience' from those millions of Americans who disagree with this "Emergency".}

_{Simply work together and refuse to pay your taxes. That way, the majority will win.}

 

Hopefully the next time they do that they refrain from waving Mexican flags. 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

????

 

 

Weird. Nobody is talking about “immigration”. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and a nations sovereignty. Why do you guys struggle with this concept?

 

And don’t forget about drugs, human trafficking, child trafficking, opioid crisis, fentanyl, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money thrown at the problem, and you guys really just don’t have an argument other than wanting to change the electorate through illegal immigration to bolster your base. 

What anti-truth vaccine were you injected with? Drugs overwhelmingly enter the US through legal ports of entry. Fentanyl mostly comes to the US straight from China. Do you want to build a wall on the Pacific Coast to stop that?Not only do US law enforcement authorites affirm that most illegal drugs enter via legal entry points, but anyone who watched the recent El Chapo trial would have learned that, too.

And despite Trump's claim of women being bound with "blue duct tape" there's very little evidence of large scale human trafficking.

And it's not some future electorate fueled by illegal immigrants who voted against the Trump's stance on immigration, it's the current one that did.

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, Bundooman said:

_{What it needs is 'civil disobedience' from those millions of Americans who disagree with this "Emergency".}

_{Simply work together and refuse to pay your taxes. That way, the majority will win.}

 

Yep. Line up all the democrat politicians and their supporters and have them rally on behalf non-Americans. 

 

Please do that. 

[DM07]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What anti-truth vaccine were you injected with? Drugs overwhelmingly enter the US through legal ports of entry. Fentanyl mostly comes to the US straight from China. Do you want to build a wall on the Pacific Coast to stop that?Not only do US law enforcement authorites affirm that most illegal drugs enter via legal entry points, but anyone who watched the recent El Chapo trial would have learned that, too.

And despite Trump's claim of women being bound with "blue duct tape" there's very little evidence of large scale human trafficking.

And it's not some future electorate fueled by illegal immigrants who voted against the Trump's stance on immigration, it's the current one that did.

...ooooooh...you again with your facts!

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Yep. Line up all the democrat politicians and their supporters and have them rally on behalf non-Americans. 

 

Please do that. 

 

They come to the border with Mexican flags and anti-American rhetoric in Spanish. The approach is quite comical. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Hopefully the next time they do that they refrain from waving Mexican flags. 

Why is that the display of ethnic pride by citizens of Mexican background is suspect? 

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.

[Thainesss]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What anti-truth vaccine were you injected with? Drugs overwhelmingly enter the US through legal ports of entry. Fentanyl mostly comes to the US straight from China. Do you want to build a wall on the Pacific Coast to stop that?Not only do US law enforcement authorites affirm that most illegal drugs enter via legal entry points, but anyone who watched the recent El Chapo trial would have learned that, too.

And despite Trump's claim of women being bound with "blue duct tape" there's very little evidence of large scale human trafficking.

And it's not some future electorate fueled by illegal immigrants who voted against the Trump's stance on immigration, it's the current one that did.

 

You see, all this post is, is deflection. Denial. Finding any and all reason to bury your head in the sand and continue the status quo because you want and need it to continue to aid your party’s voter base. 

 

PS, from China, to Mexican cartels and into the USA. You know, those Mexican cartels that are more brutal than ISIS. 

[Basil B]

Yes, there will be lots of law suits to stop him, but unfortunately they will only slow down the process, the highest court in the land is politically biased and will likely prostitute it's self for that baboon.

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why is that the display of ethnic pride by citizens of Mexican background is suspect? 

That they are trying to come into America. They wave flags of the homeland they flee. I should have said Honduras. The fact that the refugees come to the USA border and wave flags of their perspective countries whom they fled under the threat of death and wave that flag and can not seem to translate anything into English makes people wary.

 

they could approach it very differently and then people wouldn’t be as worried.

[Thainesss]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why is that the display of ethnic pride by citizens of Mexican background is suspect? 

 

Yep, March on a sovereign nations border, waving a foreign flag, and demand entry/attempt to illegally cross. 

 

Please, please do more of this. Get the dems on record supporting it too. 

[Becker]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You see, all this post is, is deflection. Denial. Finding any and all reason to bury your head in the sand and continue the status quo because you want and need it to continue to aid your party’s voter base. 

 

PS, from China, to Mexican cartels and into the USA. You know, those Mexican cartels that are more brutal than ISIS. 

And there will be a reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast??

 

PS. If all you have are sad deflections why reply to posts that contain facts? It only highlights your own weak position.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You see, all this post is, is deflection. Denial. Finding any and all reason to bury your head in the sand and continue the status quo because you want and need it to continue to aid your party’s voter base. 

 

PS, from China, to Mexican cartels and into the USA. You know, those Mexican cartels that are more brutal than ISIS. 

Once again. As anybody who watched the El Chapo trial knows, no mention was made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border. It all came in via legal points of entry.

And considering by how huge a margin millenials and younger generations favor the Democrats, future formerly illegal immigrants now voters aren't really necessary. The Republicans aren't just the party of fossil fuels, but  fossil voters.

[metisdead]

Another troll post has been reported and removed. 

[Thainesss]

21 minutes ago, Becker said:

And there will be a reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast??

 

Ah yes the rofl emoji. The debate tactic of the 12 year old is mockery when getting emotional. 

 

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

El Chapo

 

Only a liberal would keep banging on about a murderous drug kingpin rapist and child abuser over the requests of homeland and CBP. Pretty fitting considering the context of this conversation. 

 

By the way, all trump wanted was the 5.7b that was needed to give CBP & DHS the resources they requested. But oh no, Dems just HAD to insult the “bipartisan” committee and try to stick it to Trump. 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Ah yes the rofl emoji. The debate tactic of the 12 year old is mockery when getting emotional. 

 

 

Only a liberal would keep banging on about a murderous drug kingpin rapist and child abuser over the requests of homeland and CBP. Pretty fitting considering the context of this conversation. 

 

By the way, all trump wanted was the 5.7b that was needed to give CBP & DHS the resources they requested. But oh no, Dems just HAD to insult the “bipartisan” committee and try to stick it to Trump. 

The DEA's 2018 report specifically says that with the exception of marijuana, the vast majority of illegal drugs come mexico.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

[VincentRJ]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again. As anybody who watched the El Chapo trial knows, no mention was made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border. It all came in via legal points of entry.

 

Excellent point! No mention is made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border because such traffickers are rarely caught.

 

If you were a drug smuggler, which would you rather do; risk detection by transporting drugs through legal points of entry with all the customs checks that are in place, or carry your drugs across unwalled and unmanned sections of the US border?

 

There are pros and cons of course. Crossing an unmanned, or unwalled border, with probably no roads, is physically challenging, perhaps requiring a lot of hiking, or at least a rough ride on a 4WD. But the success rate is probably higher.
 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent point! No mention is made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border because such traffickers are rarely caught.

 

If you were a drug smuggler, which would you rather do; risk detection by transporting drugs through legal points of entry with all the customs checks that are in place, or carry your drugs across unwalled and unmanned sections of the US border?

 

There are pros and cons of course. Crossing an unmanned, or unwalled border, with probably no roads, is physically challenging, perhaps requiring a lot of hiking, or at least a rough ride on a 4WD. But the success rate is probably higher.
 

The DEA whose business it is to know, disagrees with you. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall. Lots of evidence about tunnels, though. And transport via trucks and train crossing at legal entry points.

[Becker]

27 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Ah yes the rofl emoji. The debate tactic of the 12 year old is mockery when getting emotional. 

Ah yes, another deflection. Again (and without any emoji that so upsets you):

Do you honestly believe there will be a great reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast?

[Thainesss]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The DEA whose business it is to know, disagrees with you. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall. Lots of evidence about tunnels, though. And transport via trucks and train crossing at legal entry points.

 

But but but El Chapo! 

 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

But but but El Chapo! 

 

 

"but but but is valid" when used against a deflection. I am referring to what was Mexico's largest drug cartel by far. It is entirely relevant. Your use of "but but but" is the deflection.

And i noticed you disregarded the evidence offered by the DEA.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Do you honestly believe there will be a great reduction in illegal drugs coming into the US if a wall is built coast to coast?

 

A wall built coast to coast? Absolutely. It would cause a great reduction in illegal immigration too, with the added benefit of hamstringing Democrats and their ploy to import voters, and freeing up manpower and resources to monitor other areas that cartels and coyotes will try and work around. 

 

But I don’t believe a wall is going to be built coast to coast, unfortunately, so I’ll settle for whatever Trump can get pushed through, and by any means necessary. 

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall.

And as I will point out again, no mention of it means no knowledge of it, or perhaps a reluctance to admit it for political reasons.

Isn't it obvious. If there is no wall, or customs personnel (or soldiers), then everyone has free access.

 

Do you have a fence around your own property, or do you just allow anyone to walk into you garden and take whatever they fancy?

[bristolboy]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

And as I will point out again, no mention of it means no knowledge of it, or perhaps a reluctance to admit it for political reasons.

Isn't it obvious. If there is no wall, or customs personnel (or soldiers), then everyone has free access.

 

Do you have a fence around your own property, or do you just allow anyone to walk into you garden and take whatever they fancy?

It was as easy as you say, why has there been a huge reduction in illegal immigration? Why are would be illegal immigrants paying coyotes thousands of dollars to get them across the border? E

[ricklev]

It's hard for me to understand why the idea of building a barrier where it is effective and not spending billions of dollars to build a wall where it is not effective is an unreasonable position?  

 

I get that it is symbolic of your support for Trump and the wall is symbolic for him but doesn't rationality play a role in your policy ideas?  

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"but but but is valid" when used against a deflection. I am referring to what was Mexico's largest drug cartel by far. It is entirely relevant. Your use of "but but but" is the deflection.

And i noticed you disregarded the evidence offered by the DEA.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

 

You’re confused about what a deflection is. A deflection is what you’re doing by trying to condense the entire border emergency down into “what El Chapo did” so you can hang your straw man on it. 

 

Drugs are smuggled across the border. Fact. 

 

Humans are trafficked across the border. Fact. 

 

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are apprehended trying to cross the border illegally every year. Fact. 

 

Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars are spent every year on the emergency at the southern border. Fact. 

 

You can’t polish this turd with childish deflections, straw man arguments, and do-nothing defeatist attitudes. You want to listen to Democrat politicians with an agenda over CBP & Homeland? Go ahead but it speaks to your bias and agenda more than your willingness to solve this problem. 

[Becker]

18 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

A wall built coast to coast? Absolutely. It would cause a great reduction in illegal immigration too, with the added benefit of hamstringing Democrats and their ploy to import voters, and freeing up manpower and resources to monitor other areas that cartels and coyotes will try and work around. 

 

But I don’t believe a wall is going to be built coast to coast, unfortunately, so I’ll settle for whatever Trump can get pushed through, and by any means necessary. 

Well then, I guess Ann Coulter was correct.