# The Border Wall or Fence

## Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

Democrats need to base their decision on what they deem to be best for Americans, not what is best for them.

Exactly.

What's best for America? Giving $5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions? Additionally, not addressed to you specifically Zapatos, but the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere doesn't convince me. There is a crap ton of money that is wasted on projects and corruption by both sides, and if they really want to tell me that they could be spending the money on A,B, and C instead of X, then they should be doing it already. Not waiting until X is being talked about to consider spending more money on A,B, and C. Additionally, if the wall isn't built, and the$5.6 billion isn't given for the wall, the money isn't going to A,B, and C. It's going nowhere. Because we don't have the money in the first place.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Exactly.

What's best for America? Giving $5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions? Additionally, not addressed to you specifically Zapatos, but the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere doesn't convince me. There is a crap ton of money that is wasted on projects and corruption by both sides, and if they really want to tell me that they could be spending the money on A,B, and C instead of X, then they should be doing it already. Not waiting until X is being talked about to consider spending more money on A,B, and C. Additionally, if the wall isn't built, and the$5.6 billion isn't given for the wall, the money isn't going to A,B, and C. It's going nowhere. Because we don't have the money in the first place.

3

so why waste it? it's a wall ffs you've heard of ladders?

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What's best for America? Giving $5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions? The shutdown costs billions per week, so nobody should ever implement one. So, why are the Republicans not telling Trump to stop wasting tax dollars on both the pointless wall (Mexicans have ladders) and on the shutdown? Why are Republicans not doing the best for the USA? If you were in congress, what would you do? Would you support Trump's white elephant, or would you seek to oust him? #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said: Exactly. What's best for America? Giving$5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions?

Additionally, not addressed to you specifically Zapatos, but the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere doesn't convince me. There is a crap ton of money that is wasted on projects and corruption by both sides, and if they really want to tell me that they could be spending the money on A,B, and C instead of X, then they should be doing it already. Not waiting until X is being talked about to consider spending more money on A,B, and C.

Additionally, if the wall isn't built, and the $5.6 billion isn't given for the wall, the money isn't going to A,B, and C. It's going nowhere. Because we don't have the money in the first place. DHS spending is already up 7.3 billion a year under Trump. Increases have already been provided. Then Trump demanded another 5.7 billion and Democrats then worked on offers of 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion (in bipartisanship with Republicans) and Trump rejected both. Now Democrats are offering to give the 1.3 billion up now to get the govt open for a month to allow time for further discussion without is hurting federal workers and Trump is saying no. The 2.5 billion Pence had worked out with Democrats basically met Trump halfway and Trump rejected it. Democrats have attempted to compromise. What is best for America (USA) is for our leaders is to work toward bipartisan compromises. Just giving in to partisan demands to reopen the govt runs to risk of encouraging further shutdowns. If I was POTUS and knew shutting down the govt would result is me getting 100% of what I want I would shutdown the govt every time Congress told me no. This sort of thing is why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Giving in to bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 4 minutes ago, Ten oz said: DHS spending is already up 7.3 billion a year under Trump. Increases have already been provided. Then Trump demanded another 5.7 billion and Democrats then worked on offers of 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion (in bipartisanship with Republicans) and Trump rejected both. Now Democrats are offering to give the 1.3 billion up now to get the govt open for a month to allow time for further discussion without is hurting federal workers and Trump is saying no. The 2.5 billion Pence had worked out with Democrats basically met Trump halfway and Trump rejected it. Democrats have attempted to compromise. What is best for America (USA) is for our leaders is to work toward bipartisan compromises. Just giving in to partisan demands to reopen the govt runs to risk of encouraging further shutdowns. If I was POTUS and knew shutting down the govt would result is me getting 100% of what I want I would shutdown the govt every time Congress told me no. This sort of thing is why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Giving in to bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. I guess neither side should give in then... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: so why waste it? it's a wall ffs you've heard of ladders? *Warning sarcasm ahead* .....yeah but the govt wastes so much money anyway. If Democrats cared about federal workers they would just give Trump 100% of what he wants and end the shutdown. This is no time for compromise or bipartisanship. Trump has hostages. Democrats need to save those hostages or else the blood is on their hands. 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I guess neither side should give in then... Democrats offered 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion. The 2.5 billion is nearly half (the middle) of what Trump has demanded and was negotiated by Trump's Vice President. How can you imply Democrats aren't doing their part? #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 16 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Democrats offered 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion. The 2.5 billion is nearly half (the middle) of what Trump has demanded and was negotiated by Trump's Vice President. How can you imply Democrats aren't doing their part? You mean how can I say their behaviour is bad? They can do their part by making a case that they can convince Trump that there are better solutions to the problem available than building a wall, and stop calling the idea of one immoral. What is the value of the 5.7 billion dollars of Wall. 2 Billion? Zero? negative amount? Edited by J.C.MacSwell #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 8 minutes ago, Ten oz said: *Warning sarcasm ahead* ...﻿.﻿.yeah but the govt wastes so much money anyway. If Democrats cared about federal workers they would just give Trump 100% of what he wants and end the shutdown. This is no time for compromise or bipartisanship. Trump has hostages. Democrats need to save those hostages or else the blood is on their hands. so glad you Warned me... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I guess neither side should give in then... A false equivalency. Where's the Republican compromise in all this? Nowhere, mon frère. My way or the highway is not negotiating in good faith, neither is deferring the cost on the backs of taxpayers when Trump so adamantly and often declared Mexico will be paying for it. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Just now, rangerx said: A false equivalency. Where's the Republican compromise in all this? Nowhere, mon frère. My way or the highway is not negotiating in good faith, neither is deferring the cost on the backs of taxpayers when Trump so adamantly and often declared Mexico will be paying for it. Who is suggesting it is? Bad behaviour is bad behaviour...it's not good behaviour if you can point to worse. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: They can do their part by making a case that they can convince Trump that there are better solutions to the problem available than building a wall, and stop calling the idea of one immoral. 1 of course it's immoral. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: of course it's immoral. Then put it in the Constitution... ...Border Walls are Immoral. We find this truth to be self evident... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Then put it in the Constitution... ...Border Walls are Immoral. We find this truth to be self evident... Quote No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Come on, folks... This is getting silly now. JCM - I think you're trying to help. You've suggested Democrats need to convince Trump there are better ideas than his wall. I think they've been trying to do that for years. What else specifically do you recommend they say? At some point, we need to acknowledge that good faith is required to achieve what we want and not everyone involved is showing it. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: They﻿ can ﻿do their part by making a case that they can convince Trump that there are better ﻿solutions to the problem available than building a wall, ﻿and stop calling the idea of one immoral. We (USA) currently don't have an Attorney General, Sec. of Defense, Chief of Staff, and etc because Trump refuses to listen to his own appointees and fires them. Yet you think it's the Democrats who need to do a better job convincing Trump. 13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: What﻿ is the ﻿value of the 5.7 billion dollars of Wall. 2 Billion? Zero? negative amount?﻿ How would compromise look to you. Congress has already athorized a 14% increase is Dept of Homeland Security spending under Trump. Now Trump wants 5.7 billion more for his wall. Democrats didn't say no. They said how about 1.3 to harden existing structures. Trump said no. Then Democrats working with Republicans said how about 2.5 billion and Trump said no. The inflexibility here is exclusively with Trump's and Trump alone. Half (the middle) of what Trump wants would be 2.85 billion. So the 2.5 billion offer was very close. Trump rejected out of hand with no counter offer. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Who is suggesting it is? I am because it is true. Unless it comes from Fox and Friends while he's on the toilet, there's no convincing Trump of anything. By your suggestion and all things being equal, Trump must convince Mexico to pay for it, like he said. But you and I know that will never happen. Edited by rangerx #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 minute ago, rangerx said: I am because it is true. Unless it come from Fox and Friends while he's on the toilet, there's no convincing Trump of anything. By your suggestion and all things being equal, Trump must convince that Mexico to pay for it. But you and I know that will never happen. I don't think you are saying both sides have equivalently bad behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I don't think you are saying both sides have equivalently bad behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong. Are you able to concede that Democrats have attempted to compromise and Trump has refused to? #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 3 minutes ago, Ten oz said: How would compromise look to you. I really don't know. What I see is more political posturing, some of it very bad rhetoric, with little apparent attempts to break the stalemate without having the other side look bad. 1 minute ago, Ten oz said: Are you able to concede that Democrats have attempted to compromise and Trump has refused to? No. I think Trump indicated he would make concessions elsewhere if he got his wall money. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Much of it was anti Trump rhetoric, that while it may be true, had nothing to do with the wall. While certainly possible, it is hard to glean much good information from bad in what at least superficially looks like a rant. And by not actually addressing it point-by-point, that narrative can be preserved. Quote At best, it is good at convincing those already convinced, and to that degree the echo chamber comment is not far off the mark. And by not actually addressing it point-by-point, that narrative can be preserved, and there is no issue of whether or not any of it was factual. (Narrator voiceover: the points were factual) All you've done is a slightly more polished version of saying it's fake news. It's lazy rhetoric, and more so when couple with an accusation of not having a discussion/refusing to participate. Is Trump's position based on his knowledge of key foreign policies and immigration's effect on societies? I don't see how the evidence supports that. We know "the wall" was a rhetorical device meant to ensure he brought up immigration at his rallies. We know he refused a deal that would have addressed DACA, and given him more money than he is now demanding. We know that for 2 years, the GOP could have passed funding into law. It wasn't a priority until the democrats won the house and we got close to them being sworn in. Now it's an alleged "crisis" Do we know if he's being investigated for corruption and/or treason? Yes we do. He has distracted from this before. And certain lawsuits against him (e.g. emoluments) are on hold while the DoJ is furloughed. So is the suggestion that this is a sideshow just a rant for the echo chamber? You have convincing evidence to the contrary? Has the Trump administration showed any concern for environmental issues? Do we need to look any further than the actions of the EPA? (if you do, then Interior is another place to look) Are we not having an issue with private prison contractors mistreating detainees? (Not to mention the whole issue of the policy that is in place that leads to this mistreatment) You can either address these points, or trot out your version of saying "fake news" and take your place with the rest of the empty-headed defenses of this administration. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I really don't know. What I see is more political posturing, some of it very bad rhetoric, with little apparent attempts to break the stalemate without having the other side look bad. I think giving Trump 100% of the increases in DHS spending he has requested and offering nearly half of what he has demanded for the wall is a lot of compromise. Especially when Democrats are willing to give all of that just to get the govt open and then continue these discussions. It is worth noting that Trump had a Republican House and Senate last year. Logic dictates getting what he wants from Republicans would be far easier than getting what he wants from Democrats. Yet Trump didn't make this demand last year and instead waited till Democrats had the house. This is a fight Trump has chosen to have and one Democrats have attempted to meet Trump half way on. I do not see what more Democrats can do. Compromised is required and Trump is refusing to compromise. Trump is rejected the plans his own people are bring to him: Quote On the 20th day of the shutdown, the GOP group tried to jump start bipartisan talks before Trump declares a national emergency to get his wall. But the president rejected their idea to allow congressional committees to sort out his border wall request while the government reopened, deeming the idea likely to leave him with nothing to show for the shutdown. Vice President Mike Pence and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had been consulting with senators about the matter on Thursday. Pence and Mulvaney took the idea to the president, who shot it down, according to multiple people directly involved in the talks. While the congressional committees could still take up Trump's border wall plan, the president opposes the idea of opening the government before serious wall negotiations have begun, the people said. He told Senate Republicans he believes he is winning the fight and will not sign any stopgap bills at this point. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, Raider5678 said: Exactly. What's best for America? Giving$5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions?

There are a large number of options in between this, but it's clear that Trump wants to hold these government workers hostage. We know this because he said so. It's only between these two choices because that's how the GOP has decided to proceed. They inherently have little to do with each other. Funding e.g. the FDA to do food inspections is not an issue of border security.

It's a known tactic that hostage takers will threaten harm to their captives and blame the person from whom they are trying to extract the ransom — "You made me cut off their finger!" or whatever. But I hope you recognize that's all BS. Trump could have had money for a wall, but wasn't willing to make any deal. The GOP has done this for years — their idea of compromise is to give them what they want, period. It's happened again and again.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Additionally, not addressed to you specifically Zapatos, but the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere doesn't convince me. There is a crap ton of money that is wasted on projects and corruption by both sides, and if they really want to tell me that they could be spending the money on A,B, and C instead of X, then they should be doing it already. Not waiting until X is being talked about to consider spending more money on A,B, and C.

Indeed. This administration committed only about 60% of the money available to them for border security over the past two years, and has spent (i.e. cut a check) for only about a tenth of that. And they controlled the WH and congress, so they could have appropriated more. Not really what one might expect for a "crisis"

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, swansont said:

(Narrator voiceover: the points were factual)

Some were. Some were clearly opinion. The fact that you would strongly agree with them doesn't change that.

Trump may in fact care "fuck-all" about the environment. I doubt this is the case, but I would not dispute it, as I don't think he has the amount of concern for the environment that I think he should.

But it's hardly a fact. It's rhetoric, and opinion.

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some were. Some were clearly opinion. The fact that you would strongly agree with them doesn't change that.

Trump may in fact care "fuck-all" about the environment. I doubt this is the case, but I would not dispute it, as I don't think he has the amount of concern for the environment that I think he should.

But it's hardly a fact. It's rhetoric, and opinion.

Can we get past rhetoric and opinion (talking points) nonsense and acknowledge the facts of what the various sides have done in an effort to compromise or not? The Senate unanimously (Democrats and Republicans) passed a spending bill. A unanimous Senate vote is nearly bipartisan as it gets.

Quote

President Donald Trump will not sign a Senate-passed spending bill, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown.

The Senate unanimously approved the legislation Wednesday night to keep the government funded through Feb. 8. With Trump's support, it appeared set to breeze through the House before the midnight Friday deadline to fund seven agencies that make up about a quarter of the government.

Trump  told McConnell he'd veto it and McConnell held another vote blocking the spending bill, McConnell's own bill, and we entered a shutdown. Democrats have already given Trump 100% of the spending increases he asked for to hire more Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agents and increase fund for DHS overall. Rather than starting from a position of \$0 for Trump's wall they have offered from 1.3 to 2.5 billion for the wall and various bipartisan proposals spearheaded by fellow Republicans like Graham and Pence have been totally rejected by Trump who will not budge from his full demand. Actions speak louder than words. In action Democrats have been working with Republicans on compromises, ones Republicans in the senate have supported, but it is Trump who is walking out of meetings.

I think you are letting your displeasure for certain language coming from various outlets blind you from the facts of what;'s actually happening here.

Edited by Ten oz

##### Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some were. Some were clearly opinion. The fact that you would strongly agree with them doesn't change that.

Trump may in fact care "fuck-all" about the environment. I doubt this is the case, but I would not dispute it, as I don't think he has the amount of concern for the environment that I think he should.

But it's hardly a fact. It's rhetoric, and opinion.

Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment. His administration has acted in a fashion consistent with siding with business, at the expense of the environment, as evidenced by a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk.

Factual enough for you? I think that's an objectively true statement. Phi was just a little pithy in his expression.