I'm not sure what you think you are proving. Yeah, Republicans wanted Obama to be a one term president. How does that dispute the fact that the primary goal of Democrats has been obstructionism since Trump was elected?
I have a different take. First, as we saw when the Honduran migrants reached the wall there...it did indeed stop them. Not because it stretched across the entire border, but because it was there were they were trying to cross. Yes, you implement things where they are cost effective. It is cost effective to put the wall up along the entire border, most of which is completely uninhabited? No, I don't think it is. But those areas are easier to monitor through other means...precisely because they are uninhabited. So, if you see someone there, it's a near certainty they are people who aren't supposed to be there. In a populated area, that's not the case. So, you put up the wall where it is needed, and rely on other measures where it isn't. Net result: Better border security at an effective cost point. But this isn't the issue. The issue is building the wall at all. And I truly see no argument against having a wall in places where it is pretty obvious one is needed...other than one of politics. Because there really isn't much of an argument against this portion...politically this strikes me as a losing issue for the Democrats. It isn't worth holding up government for ($5B? really?), and I think they are going to come out on the losing side of the political fight (maybe not, we shall see). This then creates a much bigger problem for them, as they've drawn a really hard line in the sand, they'll lost lots of political power if they have to step across it. Same for Trump, but I think he would have more political cover (look, I tried, ok). But it is the Dems that seem to be really reaching for argument. 'Wall are Immoral! Really? That's farcical on its face. It is also really hard to support when it was apparently completely moral and necessary when they proposed it themselves. Eventually, you can only be so hypocritical (although the degree of hypocrisy we the people are willing to tolerate is pretty incredulous). Does anyone here really think that if you took the politics out of it, that getting $5B for this part of the wall would really be an issue...or that any objective plan developed would include no walls at all? Of course not. This is all politics. But the stakes have been escalated really high, all out of proportion that is only $5B..and which almost all of those actually responsible for border security are saying is needed.
Obstructionism is the standard operating procedure for both parties now though. It just sucks when it's your party that is being obstructed.
Uh oh, the dbag in it is coming out again (in case you're not sure why I said that, saying "I'm not sure what you think are you proving" is the type of passive aggressive crap we've come to know and love from you). Hide yo kids, hide yo wife. I don't care to have a back and forth with you. You think you know it all, and even when you are proven wrong time and time again (which is fine, because every single one of us is wrong at times, so being wrong is not a knock against you specifically), you lack the capability to objectively understand that fact. I'm not wasting my time, but feel free to waste yours by replying to me.
I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that ever since the Senate perverted the filibuster into something that you can merely say you are going to do in order to force the majority into overcoming before anything can proceed, you need a filibuster proof majority to get just about anything done. That's why talk about "Republicans controlling the Senate" is intellectually dishonest just as it would be if the Democrats had a slim majority in the Senate. There's no true control of the Senate without a filibuster proof majority. Now if they change the Senate rules back to what they were for nearly the entire history of the country when it comes to filibusters, that would change....but they won't.
This is basically the NFL kneeling fake controversy but with real life implications. This is manufactured with the sole purpose of division. An authoritarian cheap power grab to manufacture chaos, divide the public, turn everyone against each other and then seize power. Trump is an idiot in many basic ways, but he is cunning in this way of being a natural con artist and manipulator. I honestly think the game plan here is to completely seize power by forcing impeachment now before the Mueller report in a way that gives him the ability to win impeachment to the point where he then is essentially invincible. This man obviously wants the fight. He wants to be impeached on his terms. The Dems cannot do this and we all need a normal rational functioning Republican Senate. One that doesn’t placate to authoritarian strongmen and actually wants to limit the powers of the executive branch. Everyone needs to be calling their Republican congressman and flooding their office to do everything we can to get Republicans in Congress to put an end to this madness and stop paving the way for autocracy.
LOL, now this is the kind of response I expect from someone who was called out that doesn't have any real defense for their comment. You just go with a personal attack instead. Good job, I'll consider that to be a concession on the issue and I'll move on.
Under trump's vanity wall project, U.S. land and U.S. citizens homes will be essentially ceded to Mexico, as the planned vanity wall path will put a number of homes currently in the U.S. in between the wall and the river and Mexico border. Those folks will then live on the wrong side of the vanity wall. Probably one reason many people that live along the border are opposed to the trump vanity wall.
Absolutely, we all know that there's no such thing as illegal immigration, it was all something that Trump made up a few years back. The talk of 12 million illegal immigrants in the US and 300,000+ illegal immigrants forced into sex slavery in Texas alone is FAKE NEWS. Everything is amazing, nothing to see here
Do you consider the Cato Institute and Brookings Institute studies "abstract"? https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work https://www.cato.org/blog/new-cato-...top-drug-smuggling-mar1juana-legalization-has https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-wall-will-not-stop-terrorism https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the...barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/ What really appears to be hard to prove... the need and benefits of trump's vanity wall. The very fact that trump and his people outright lie so often about the wall so much should be more clear proof that the facts don't support their argument.
It's rich as hell that you try to lecture me on "personal attacks." Haha what a hypocrite. I'd love to have a back and forth with you that will accomplish nothing, but I need to work. You know, I gotta keep this job before all the big bad brownies come and take it from me. This provides a nice break though, which is why I engaged in the first place. Carry on.
You're right. Perhaps I should apologize. Can you help me with that, you're tremendous with apologies.
I am actually and I could, but there's no need for you to apologize for being wrong and getting called out on it. Just acknowledge it and move on....or if you can't bring yourself to do that, just move on. Glad I could help.
This seems like a totally unbiased news network... . I do enjoy "sanctity of the media" folks though. What a farce.
Maybe Trump has reached that point where not being critical of him is being biased in itself? Jim Acosta definitely doesn't like Trump. That is obvious but that doesn't imply "fake news".
