Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Lanny, Feb 10, 2019.
Again, you stated that democrats didn't put kids in cages. Admit you are wrong and I'll answer you.
Here’s an MSNBC interview where they quote Pelosi as saying the wall is immoral and Jeff Merkley says the wall is a racist symbol.
Walls are not outdated but they only work in some places and not to the extent that Trump wants. More officers and technically sophisticated methods are what's needed.
Nobody in the House that has a constituency along the border wants a wall more than what we have now.
It seems right to fix this shit.
Doesn't mean they aren't full of shit
Dude......you literally changed your argument in mid argument.
You said, and I quote
"Democrats aren't putting kids in cages"
Yes, they were, so you changed your argument to separated
Agree completely with the first paragraph. The second one is nonsense. I looked up congressional representatives for Texas and Arizona. Texas has 36 reps about 2/3 of whom are Republicans. First guy I googled about the wall, Louie Gohmert, is fully supportive of Trump on the wall. I picked a random Republican Arizona rep, Martha McSally, and she says, "It needs to be a bottom-up approach as far as what the agents need, what the sectors need," McSally said during a discussion on border security last year. "But it certainly includes the border wall, access roads, agents patrolling the border, technology and situational awareness, so they can detect and shut down the activity."
All this rhetoric is getting out of hand. There was an "incredibly violent" attack on a cameraman at a Trump rally.
The cameraman is fine thank God.
I have to go to work while suffering through the end of a devastating illness (bronchitis) so I feel his pain.
Just read the OT section here... People are angry, are constantly being riled up, neither side respects the other for the most part. Trump and Hillary spent an entire campaign dividing people as much as possible, most people seem so entrenched in, “Im right you’re wrong”, its almost impossible to have good dialogue and discussion about anything publicly anymore. Trump definitely enjoys the division, much of the major networks do too because it gets ratings.
In politics it has always been get one leg up on the opponent, the obvious out come of that is eventually everyone gets to a height where when they look down they cant see the bottom, so they think the only direction they can go without dying is up.
Identity politics make the country easier to govern but it does make it tougher to live in too. I feel sorry for my grandkids and youngsters because they are being taught basically to pick a side or group. This kind of politics is driven by that all Americans are part of a subgroup, unfortunately many times it's a racial category. The motivation is pretty much achieving political power and driving resources to your party or group. This is tribalism. We are seeng it first hand now and its no way to run country, to divisive, No more room for respect of other views, tribalism is inherently unreasonable. Its impossible to have debates anymore, it's only victory or defeat for the side or group. Basically anymore its your gain is my loss approach, tribalism. It doesn't end well for countries that are entrenched with such behavior.
I think you misunderstood the claim. Louie Gohmert's district is not on the border, even though it is in a border state.
Ah. I guess I didn't get the Democrat talking points so I missed the subtlety of the argument. So, there are nine House districts across 4 states that border Mexico. Eight of these seats are held by Democrats, so it isn't hard to guess which way they're voting. The lone Republican, Will Hurd of Texas, opposes a concrete/steel slat wall. Instead, he favors a "smart wall".
While the claim that no representatives of districts along the border support the wall makes a nice talking point, I don't think it means much in the overall debate. Actually, that's not correct. There is no debate going on, just people entrenched in highly partisan positions. And that's my problem with the state of this whole issue.
The first issue that needs to be tackled is the very notion of do we want a secure border, do we want to let things continue with the chaos that currently exists, or do we want something in the middle. That discussion needs to include policy decisions about what we want to do with immigration laws in general, and of course the issue of what to do with the millions of undocumented people who are already here. I don't see how we can move on in the discussion of the wall until there is some resolution of these issues. It's going to take leadership and compromise, so I have little hope that the current crop of dopes in DC have any chance of getting anywhere soon on a resolution.
Securing the border, if that's the direction we want to go, should be a matter of studying what makes the most sense in given areas along the border with Mexico. It should be done with a cost benefit type of analysis of what will work the best in those varying segments of the border. That kind of study needs to be nonpartisan and it needs to include all of the various law enforcement and border security agencies.
Yeah. I'm tilting at windmills this morning. It's much easier to sit back and yell at each other and continue to use this issue as a means of convincing your base of just how truly awful the "other side" is.
I don't think he enjoys the division. I do think he is fully aware of the division. I do not believe the division is separated by racial categories although the the democrats
strive mightily to make it appear as so.
The division is really along lines that separate decision making processes, what feels right vs what is logical or which reality we wish to achieve and the difference in the knowledge base as to what is achievable. Example, going to the moon was and is achievable, going to the a livable planet orbiting the nearest star to us, is not. Nor is laying enough track to get every where people wish to go in this country by high speed rail. If it were, we would already have high speed digital lines crisscrossing the country for data. We do not, because of the physical difficulties, where using the airwaves is relatively easy. So we go with the achievable.
Democrats call this setting the goals high, even though individual liberty must be abandon, without a hesitation to consider achievable or not.
Since you apparently can't admit you are wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I'll answer your question.
Two kids died in US Custody after being dragged from Central America to the Mexican/US Border in a large caravan of unknown migrants in an unknown state of health.
I believe Trump likes the division, if not then why does he feel the need to go on Twitter all the time just to stir it up. He spends way too much of his energy as a leader purposefully seeking out controversy. He has NEVER really sought unity. He wants to rile up his base and the opposition.
I wouldn't go that far. If the debate was about employment of border-crossers, or about those seeking asylum, then I'd agree. However since the debate is about rapists coming to rob and kill Americans, it makes sense that the border regions are the most affected by all the raping and pillaging.
You have my vote.
Of course he likes the division. That is his primary goal. Anyone that claims otherwise has no clue what they're talking about.
Uhm, we do have fiber optic lines crisscrossing the country for data. Lots of them. It might be true that sailboats don't have fiber connections, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
So? It's what I meant to say. Now you understand.
Separate names with a comma.