Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Filthy Fernadez

Nancy blinked: 5.7 for Wall............developing.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

We all know that the wall was secondary in this bill.  Maybe tertiary.  The Dems want to severely limit ICE and pave the way for more "Dreamers".  If the Dems lose those 2 things, then $50 for a wall is a victory for the right.  

Sanctuary cities are bastions for illegal immigrants. They are protected from ICE and in return Dems get all the votes they can count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

We all know that the wall was secondary in this bill.  Maybe tertiary.  The Dems want to severely limit ICE and pave the way for more "Dreamers".  If the Dems lose those 2 things, then $50 for a wall is a victory for the right.  

I agree. This was the best the Republicans were ever going to do, so that makes it a win for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

I don't understand why Democrats want so many illegal aliens in our country. Can one of our board Liberals explain why it's okay to ignore our laws?

We don't it's not HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

Why do you vote for politicians who support sanctuary policies?

 

10 hours ago, cbfalcon said:

Who?

I can answer that as it's something I struggle with more frequently than not. One reason to support the Sanctuary City candidate might be that the other candidate, the one who doesn't like Sanctuary Cities also supports X, Y, and Z. Unfortunately, you happen to hate X, Y, and Z too. As a matter of fact, you hate X, Y, and Z worse than you hate Sanctuary Cities so then you come back around and take a second look at the Sanctuary City candidate and saay.... hmmm.... maybe this one is less awful after all.

The Sanctuary City candidate may well come out on top in a "whichever turd smells less bad" contest.

Happily, I don't think that'll be the case in 2020. I'm likely to vote FOR Trump because I actually like Trump rather than hold my nose for Candidate A because I dislike Candidate B worse  as happens too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voltaire said:

 

I can answer that as it's something I struggle with more frequently than not. One reason to support the Sanctuary City candidate might be that the other candidate, the one who doesn't like Sanctuary Cities also supports X, Y, and Z. Unfortunately, you happen to hate X, Y, and Z too. As a matter of fact, you hate X, Y, and Z worse than you hate Sanctuary Cities so then you come back around and take a second look at the Sanctuary City candidate and saay.... hmmm.... maybe this one is less awful after all.

The Sanctuary City candidate may well come out on top in a "whichever turd smells less bad" contest.

Happily, I don't think that'll be the case in 2020. I'm likely to vote FOR Trump because I actually like Trump rather than hold my nose for Candidate A because I dislike Candidate B worse  as happens too often.

I'll give fishlick a quick answer, in response to your solid answer.

I have never voted for or against any politician based on their stance on sanctuary policies. I am not saying immigration doesn't matter at all, but it has never been a driving issue.... until the current President identified probably the only particular type of voter he could build a base of, and then was savvy enough to identify it as an issue he could use to court that base.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cbfalcon said:

I have never voted for or against any politician based on their stance on sanctuary policies. I am not saying immigration doesn't matter at all, but it has never been a driving issue.... until the current President identified probably the only particular type of voter he could build a base of, and then was savvy enough to identify it as an issue he could use to court that base.

Meh, "sanctuary cities" became a political football under Obama and the Democrats.  For obvious reasons.  Only understandable that the other side would counter, when given the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

I'll give fishlick a quick answer, in response to your solid answer.

I have never voted for or against any politician based on their stance on sanctuary policies. I am not saying immigration doesn't matter at all, but it has never been a driving issue.... until the current President identified probably the only particular type of voter he could build a base of, and then was savvy enough to identify it as an issue he could use to court that base.

 

"Savvy"....... So how about SMART enough to LISTEN to what the majority wants.  Build that wall Mr. Trump!    MAGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Trump is going to sign off on the latest spending bill, which includes about half a billion less for border security than the bill he passed on in December.

Heckuva job Donald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MDC said:

Sounds like Trump is going to sign off on the latest spending bill, which includes about half a billion less for border security than the bill he passed on in December.

Heckuva job Donald.

Pelosi was saying 'No Wall'   :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Pelosi was saying 'No Wall'   :wall:

This bill includes $1.3b for border fencing of some kind. Less than the $1.8b Donald declined back in December before his shutdown tantrum. Art of the deal. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDC said:

This bill includes $1.3b for border fencing of some kind. Less than the $1.8b Donald declined back in December before his shutdown tantrum. Art of the deal. Lol.

The 1.8b included money for Wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The 1.8b included money for Wall?

I heard it was $1.6b back in December. 

BTW - this new bill supposedly says it can’t be a concrete wall. Steel slats or fencing is ok, but not the big concrete wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I heard it was $1.6b back in December. 

BTW - this new bill supposedly says it can’t be a concrete wall. Steel slats or fencing is ok, but not the big concrete wall.

You drive a hard bargain Donald.

”We will give you $1.6b.”

”NOT GOOD ENOUGH! We need $5.7b!”

”Okay how about $1.3b?”

”It will have to do.”

Lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was offered a hell of a lot more money than he took this time. art of the deal my hiney. Maybe stop listening to Hannity for political advice you moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me laugh. I actually kind of enjoy Trump in these moments....

 

 

Quote

President Trump, speaking at a law enforcement conference Wednesday, briefly touched on border security negotiations with Congress, pledging that he “will never waver” from his “sacred duty” to protect the US.

“As we review the new proposal from Congress, I can promise you this. I will never waver from my sacred duty to defend this nation and its people. We will get the job done,” Trump said.

“The wall is very, very— on its way. It’s happening, as we speak. We’re building as we speak,” he added.

“It’s a big wall. It’s a strong wall,” Trump continued. “They’re going to have to be in extremely good shape to get over this one. They would be able to climb Mount Everest a lot easier, I think.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

This made me laugh. I actually kind of enjoy Trump in these moments....

 

 

 

OMFG...he is like a friggin cartoon character.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

OMFG...he is like a friggin cartoon character.

 

In this case, there is nothing like retaliating with the same methods that one has had to endure. Trump has single-handedly exposed the left to the public. That's why he got elected. I say 6 more years!! Then when ultimately the democrats eat each other alive, we can move on as a country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that the provisions in the bill do NOT apply to funds outside this bill. DOD $$, National Emergency $$, etc...

So the wall (whatever the DHS had wanted) will be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Trump to sign bill and simultaneously declare National Emergency for rest of funding.

I hear the democrats warning Trump not to do this because a democratic president would be able to declare national emergencies acts for their policies. What is stopping those democrats from doing so even if Trump doesn’t do it with the wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

I hear the democrats warning Trump not to do this because a democratic president would be able to declare national emergencies acts for their policies. What is stopping those democrats from doing so even if Trump doesn’t do it with the wall?

These are the same Democrats that were OK with Obama creating Executive Orders willy nilly to get what he wanted?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

I hear the democrats warning Trump not to do this because a democratic president would be able to declare national emergencies acts for their policies. What is stopping those democrats from doing so even if Trump doesn’t do it with the wall?

It's cool. They'll just employ illegals - - oops, voters - - to tear down the wall when it's their turn. Hopefully they can spare them from their jobs tending the Brawndo fed crops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Kinda funny, if people are into funny things 

There's been plenty of examples of "I was for that before I was against that" throughout the years. This is nothing new regardless of D or R. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DonS said:

There's been plenty of examples of "I was for that before I was against that" throughout the years. This is nothing new regardless of D or R. 

Still kinda funny, if you are into funny things 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Kinda funny, if people are into funny things 

It is. What an absurd world we live in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Kinda funny, if people are into funny things 

Why is it funny?  People argue and debate over a new policy.  But if, in the end, the public decide that the new policy is OK, then former opponents of that policy often change tactic and change their platform to use the new policy to their advantage. 

Here's an example.  Right up until Pearl Harbor, most prominent American politicians stood firmly against getting involved in WW2.  After Pearl Harbor, people changed their stance. 

Here's another example.  Right up until shortly before the Civil War, most prominent American politicians stood opposed to war and believed in compromise.  Once Fort Sumter happened and the overwhelmingly majority of nation was ready for war, the politicians shifted.

Sure, Trump might have tried to oppose Obama and his use of executive orders.  But the public has accepted Obama using them.  So its only natural to change course and for the GOP to start using them as well.  If people are not comfortable with Trump wielding executive orders to set major policy goals, perhaps they should have stood against Obama using them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, riversco said:

Why is it funny?  People argue and debate over a new policy.  But if, in the end, the public decide that the new policy is OK, then former opponents of that policy often change tactic and change their platform to use the new policy to their advantage. 

Here's an example.  Right up until Pearl Harbor, most prominent American politicians stood firmly against getting involved in WW2.  After Pearl Harbor, people changed their stance. 

Here's another example.  Right up until shortly before the Civil War, most prominent American politicians stood opposed to war and believed in compromise.  Once Fort Sumter happened and the overwhelmingly majority of nation was ready for war, the politicians shifted.

Sure, Trump might have tried to oppose Obama and his use of executive orders.  But the public has accepted Obama using them.  So its only natural to change course and for the GOP to start using them as well.  If people are not comfortable with Trump wielding executive orders to set major policy goals, perhaps they should have stood against Obama using them.

Everyone knows you aren’t into funny things. My post was for those that are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

Everyone knows you aren’t into funny things. My post was for those that are. 

Hey, while you're on this comedy trip, can you get some quotes from a few years ago from democrats on illegal immigration?  That should be good for a few laughs. Unless it's only funny when Trump does it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hey, while you're on this comedy trip, can you get some quotes from a few years ago from democrats on illegal immigration?  That should be good for a few laughs. Unless it's only funny when Trump does it. 

I think we can all agree Trump is a lot funnier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The POTUS' job is to protect Americans. Make a valid argument for keeping the border open.

POTUS first job is to uphold the Constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MDC said:

POTUS first job is to uphold the Constitution. 

Obama didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your view on the wall, this whole "declaring a national emergency" to get what you want is a really bad precedent to set.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kanil said:

Regardless of your view on the wall, this whole "declaring a national emergency" to get what you want is a really bad precedent to set.

While I agree with you, I'm all for it for these reasons:  I got sick of Obama pulling similar shenanigans with executive orders. I also am sick of the left when they don't get their way, they cry and find the liberalist judge to stop their dislikes. MAGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, joneo said:

While I agree with you, I'm all for it for these reasons:  I got sick of Obama pulling similar shenanigans with executive orders. I also am sick of the left when they don't get their way, they cry and find the liberalist judge to stop their dislikes. MAGA

So you were sick of it when one side did it, but applaud it when the other side does.  That makes you a hypocrite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kanil said:

Regardless of your view on the wall, this whole "declaring a national emergency" to get what you want is a really bad precedent to set.

As a guy who moved out of Cali largely due to.issues created by illegal.immigration 13 years ago I've considered this issue a national emergency for a long focking time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×