I think we now know who dachuda86 really is... Alt-right loon Laura Loomer is at it again. This time, she trespassed at Nancy Pelosi's California home, literally jumping the wall, to sell her case that walls work Spoiler: article RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST LAURA LOOMER ALLEGEDLY TRESPASSES AT NANCY PELOSI'S CALIFORNIA HOUSE TO STAGE PROTEST BY DANIEL MORITZ-RABSON ON 1/14/19 AT 3:41 PM Right-wing activist Laura Loomer reportedly jumped the fence around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's California house on Monday and set up a tent to protest, according to a Daily Beast reporter. Will Sommer ✔@willsommer Right-wing activist Laura Loomer, last seen chaining herself to Twitter HQ, has jumped the fence at Nancy Pelosi's Napa home and set up a tent protesting immigration. Now she's chanting "Nancy, Nancy!" The reporter, Will Sommer, tweeted at around 3 p.m. EST: "Laura Loomer has walked off the stream, on her way to Pelosi's house. One of her crew is claiming that it's legal to jump the fence because there were no 'no-trespassing' signs. I don't know about that!" "One of Loomer's pals is urging viewers to come and ask for 'sanctuary' at Pelosi's house. He claims they'll be allowed to stay and won't get in legal trouble because 'we're not antifa.' Hmm!" he continued. "Now Laura Loomer is back and saying she tried to open the doors to Pelosi's house, but they were locked. This seems like an unwise thing to be admitting!" Will Sommer ✔@willsommer · 19h Replying to @willsommer For lack of anything better to do, Laura Loomer is now carrying her tent back and forth on Nancy Pelosi's lawn Will Sommer ✔@willsommer The police have arrived! But Loomer and crew are refusing to give identification, saying "Gavin Newsom said we don't need ID's." Cops aren't thrilled. pic.twitter.com/dFaskZs2gt Sommer tweeted at 3:23 that police had arrived. Around 4 p.m. EST, he wrote that Loomer was removed from Pelosi's lawn by the authorities but not arrested. Loomer reportedly said that some people with her were undocumented immigrants. Loomer was kicked off Twitter in November after criticizing U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Muslim and the first Somali-American elected to Congress. Loomer's tweet said that "Ilhan is anti Jewish," according to The Daily Beast. It also took aim at Islam. Loomer subsequently staged a protest by handcuffing herself to Twitter headquarters in Manhattan, yelling at employees that they worked for an "evil" company. "I am not going to stand by as people like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg [try to] silence the voices of millions of conservatives," she said while handcuffed to the building, according to NBC News. Loomer and other right-wing figures have claimed that social media platforms have an anti-conservative bias. Other prominent right-wing personalities, including Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, have recently been removed from Twitter. In 2017, Loomer was banned from ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft after tweeting that "someone needs to create a non Islamic form of Uber or Lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver" and tagging both companies in the post. She also wrote that she tried "not to support Muslim-owned businesses companies here in NY" and that "nearly every cab driver in NYC is Muslim. It’s extremely unfortunate and this is a conversation we need to have for our safety." After she was removed from the apps, she wrote that "Uber will literally hire an Islamic terrorist, but they will ban a conservative journalist for addressing legitimate safety concerns," according to NBC News.
I have posted my position a number of time on this thread and others: Here is a quick summary of my position: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/breaking-trumps-wall.295110/page-50#post-12167469 And more recently here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/breaking-trumps-wall.295110/page-56#post-12170241 Heck, I even discussed the "wall morality" argument: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/breaking-trumps-wall.295110/page-51#post-12167668
That is probably their thinking, but still a separate discussion. Note that the wall has already started, yet funding for any more of it is clearly up in the air. Personally, I don't think it will get extended much beyond the 234 miles the $5B is for. The arguments against the wall fall flat in populated areas, but have merit in unpopulated ones. Pretty soon you run out of populated areas. Congress' duties isn't what this is about. It's about catering to their base...on both sides. Nor is it about doing anything in the middle of the desert...just extending through more of the populated areas. One could easily say the same about Pelosi. Trump is merely following through on what he said he'd do. But Pelosi campaigned against that...hence the standoff we have now. True. BUT there is a large body of evidence including support from most of those actually securing the border, for building the wall. It isn't all rhetoric on that side. Immigration reform and control has been about the fight and political posturing for quite some time. One could easily, and correctly, point out the left wants the fight just as much, if not more...AND there is a good argument that many of them don't want border security at all. Yes...this accounts for far too much of any debate...from both sides. Y Yes, almost always true. The crux of the dislike of Trump. What he says vs what he does. Most of those so virulently against him point to what he says, vs what he does. Agree, and that does both ways. Why was the caravan created and sponsored in the first place? Why did the left wing media portray all the social justice angles of it, and not cover how/why it was created and funded. Why did all that support dissipate and disown them when it became clear it was becoming a problem at the border, and they no longer served their purpose? Done. FWIW, I've always said politics is all about the politics. Yes, except its extended beyond that, into shutting down the government. Meaning the stakes have increased exponentially from just an internet fight.
Actually I am a libertarian who believes in borders. Definitely not a person who identifies as right wing. That's a box that is convenient to put me I admit, but I don't agree with that. I can actually explain it more to you if you want. I am close to what is called a minarchist.
No need to explain what it is. You certainly don't come off like that as you've been in lock-step with the policies of the right, at least in your posts.
"I've clearly posted my position on increasing border security. Increased use of technology, ie drones, surveillance, satellite imagery. Increased hiring of border patrol agents. Increased enforcement of hiring laws. And repair and reinforcement of existing barricades as needed. And working with Mexico and other countries to reduce the number of people that want to come to the United States. I've posted this numerous times." "Drop the wall word from your pitch. Change it to fence, and focus on repair, replacement, and reinforcement at areas where border patrol says is most in need and targeted new fencing where most needed." "What you should be asking is whether trump's policy towards building a wall stretching along the entire southern border is moral. Now that is a logical question... and one I can easily answer. No, clearly not. If it was, trump wouldn't feel the compulsion to lie so much about it to support its construction. Since lying is both morally and ethically wrong, the policy of building his vanity wall is immoral." I picked out some of these, and no not trying to cherry pick. Just noting that I don't agree with you on just replacing. I would like to see additional walls added, and yeah "fence" of steel slats are fine I guess. I don't think Trump should rebrand that and show weakness (If I were him). I would like to see what you said, and a compromise of adding more walls in places where we lack them and walls that could deter adults from bringing kids in through dangerous areas. I think working with Mexico and establishing an agreement to work together could be effective, if they would play ball. As for morals, I mean it is a really difficult topic because that is usually considered relative to people. You could argue that yes lying is wrong, but trying to fulfill a promise is not morally wrong. Also building a wall all the way across in my opinion isn't the best. I don't like its affect on wildlife migration patterns actually, which is why I want more wall but not a complete wall. I want choke points and look out stations that would create jobs for Americans. Anyways, just responding because you took the time to pull those. Thanks for sharing.
Well, if you are going to post inaccuracies, I will speak up. I don't go around labeling you a communist because you seem to post like one (actually you don't, but it is an example). I am very pro border control, but I don't even agree with a full wall. I have said it in several posts: I want more wall, but not a complete wall to A: protect wildlife migration and B: create choke points where we can establish a system for catching people easily. I really don't think a complete wall is needed and is one of the worst things I didn't like about Trump, which is why I didn't vote for the guy. I do however think he is the only one with a plan. The Dems don't want to really do anything about it these days and Washington is negligent of this issue. Also our border patrol wants it. Who am I to deny the pros the tools they need? I say fund the 5 billion, get some more wall up. It won't get finished anyways by the time a new President comes into power.
trump (and his supporters) are allowing their ego to dictate their position, and in doing so digging themselves into an unreasonable hole. trump has obviously been advise to soften his rhetoric to go from "wall" to "wall or steel slats". He should have just used the words "physical barriers". And used the term "reinforced" or the need "to reinforce." His ego and obsession to spout rhetoric pushed him to say "wall". trump further hurt his position by initially saying "a wall across the entire southern border". Again,k if he had simply said repair and reinforcement of existing fences he would have not created the "wall of china" argument. But again, he was driven by ego, fueled by anti-immigration advisers like bannon and miller. He can still solve the problem by changing his rhetoric to fences, or reinforced fences. He gets to stop the government shutdown, address border security, and get his "improved physical barriers". And sorry... lying to fulfill a promise (especially one that is tied so deeply with ego) is still lying, and still wrong. trump and his admin have lied continuously about the wall. There is no "ends justify the means" especially when the "ends" are debatable.
I will not argue with you. My assumption is that your opinion was posted here just to get people on this board to waste their time replying to you, when in fact no one holds these ridiculous opinions. I can only say that if you really believe what you posted, you are confusing political dogma with facts.
Seriously, I am encouraged by the civility being shown the last page or so. These topics get everyone heated (myself included), so if they can be discussed in a respectful manner, even in spurts, that is progress.
Many democrats are not advocating completely open borders. Democrats have supported budgets that have money eat marked for border control and surveillance. Your position that Democrats “honestly want no border protection” is not supported by the evidence or history. Also your idea that this is on Nancy Pelosi (who I cannot stand) is interesting...it was the President that said he would get a wall, it was the President that said he would shut down the government and would do so for a long time. This is on the President for better or worse.
History also suggests that Democrats support building physical barriers on the border to help control illegal immigration.....at least they did before Trump Derangement Syndrome largely took over the party causing anyone who once supported that to change their mind and suggest they never supported it in the first place.
Actually, I think it went like this: a) the far left took over the Democratic party b) Trump won, and advocated building a wall c) the Democrats, having been taken over by the Far Left, and Virulently Opposed to Anything Trumps Wants (TDS), start calling walls "immoral" and "not who we are," etc. The support for the open border policy is there, it's just in between the lines.
The magnitude of all of the facts you have to ignore to reach this conclusion is stunning. The Democrats support open borders by: voting to spend $1.3B in last years budget voting to spend $1.3B for border barriers in the House in January (same bill as the Senate passed in December) all of the other votes that made it into law to over the last 20 years
If that support still exists, people are too scared to admit it. The inquisitors on the left will get them if they aren't in lock step.
