Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Seattle Husker said:
Not sure what this has to do with the wall but this is a good thing. Even with the recovery since 2010 wages had been stagnant. I expected the $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus bill that just passed to have a moderate impact on wage growth. This is much more important to the long term economic situation than the sugar high of $1k bonuses which don't come close to matching the lobbying money these same companies spent to achieve the tax reductions.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. How much lobbying money was spent on the tax reductions? What is the total amount of bonus money given so far?
 
The acting head of ICE has called out the 9th Cir directly for an uptick in illegal immigration

"I think the uptick right now is on the family units, especially the family units and the UACs. And that uptick is because of the loopholes in the system and some of the decisions by the 9th Circuit."

"When you get a recent court decision saying you can only detain a family for so many days, when there’s constant repeals and temporary restraining orders, people seeing the administration getting their hands tied, they see it as an opportunity. I think that’s more of a driving factor in the recent populations."​

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...r-rise-in-illegal-immigration/article/2647775
 
Written by a liberal alright:

After agreeing to work with Democratic congressional leaders on a bill extending DACA, he reneged by attaching conditions, including funding for a border wall, that he knew Democrats would reject.
Click to expand...

So, in his world, "agreeing to work with" means totally caving into Dem demands. Anything less than that means "he reneged". This guy must work for CNN.
 
What was described as "wall" during the campaign has devolved into a more strategic combination of physical barriers and border crossing deterrents. I'm all for a secure border strategy that sensibly applies resources. The proposals are no nearly so nutty and wasteful as I had envisioned in 2016.

As far as work Americans are unwilling to do ... yeah, it's hard to get roofers and framers who will work for $8.50 an hour. Pay a living wage... then the native born Americans will do the work.
 
Last edited:
Phil Elliott said:
Written by a liberal alright:



So, in his world, "agreeing to work with" means totally caving into Dem demands. Anything less than that means "he reneged". This guy must work for CNN.
Click to expand...

He has the obligatory Trump bashing, but if you get past those first few paragraphs, the rest of the article is pretty sensible.
 
DVDvy1eUQAAx_rD.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
Sadly, the cross-aisle collaboration that was displayed in the Gang of Eight would have eliminated this program. Schumer was part of that group. Does anyone think that collaboration can exist in todays political climate?

Schumer championed what was a bi-partisan bill with bi-partisan support in 1990.

Now both sides will simply walk back to their respective corners and hurl verbal epithets at each other.
Click to expand...
The same bipartisanship would have built a double layered fence and added thousands of new border guards. The whole program was expected to cost $33 billion, but was estimated to reduce the deficit by $700billion by 2033.
 
An NFL player was killed by someone the national media is describing as a "drunk driver"
There is more to the story, of course

 
Joe Fan said:
Japan refugee intake --

2015: 27
2016: 28
Click to expand...

That's probably where the Christian Syrian refugees ended up going.

For whatever reason, the Allies didn't really beat guilt into the Japanese the way they beat it into the Germans, even though they were every bit as guilty and every bit as rotten. They also didn't have the "citizen of the world" crap pushed on them to anywhere near the same extent. So they likely still think it's common sense not to take chances on letting a large number of Muslims into their country. They'd rather be unfair to some deserving refugees than to risk a terror attack and therefore death on even a small number of their own people. And since they aren't thought of as "white," the global community largely doesn't give them flack about it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
...For whatever reason, the Allies didn't really beat guilt into the Japanese the way they beat it into the Germans, even though they were every bit as guilty and every bit as rotten. ....
Click to expand...

There were many differences in their post-war treatment. For starters, the rest of the world seemed to care more about what happened with the Germans plus many countries and other groups had input. They did not care near as much about what happened in Japan and we had pretty much 100% control there. Plus the individual Americans responsible for each were very different people (Marshall vs. McArthur). It does make for an interesting story. Both were post-war successes (well, half of Germany, lol) but both emerged with vastly different worldviews and self-views.
 
Joe Fan said:
There were many differences in their post-war treatment. For starters, the rest of the world seemed to care more about what happened with the Germans plus many countries and other groups had input. They did not care near as much about what happened in Japan and we had pretty much 100% control there. Plus the individual Americans responsible for each were very different people (Marshall vs. McArthur). It does make for an interesting story. Both were post-war successes (well, half of Germany, lol) but both emerged with vastly different worldviews and self-views.
Click to expand...

This is true. Obviously, the Soviet Union wanted to stomp out the anti-communist elements of Germany, and the Brits and French would have been especially interested in keeping Germany from threatening them and their overseas assets, which would have meant stomping out their nationalism. And of course, because those countries had huge numbers of troops in Germany, they would have had a seat at the table in dictating the occupation policies. That wouldn't have been the case in Japan, and they likely wouldn't have cared as much anyway, since Japan wasn't much of a threat to Europe or the Soviet Union.

I do wonder what would have happened in Germany had the US defeated Germany on its own. We would have beaten them down some. We definitely would have hanged the surviving Nazi leadership and would have declared the Party, the SS, the SA, etc. to be criminal organizations. However, I don't think we would have stomped out their national pride to the same extent, and I don't think we would have taken away as much of their eastern territories. (Of course, if the Soviet Union had defeated Germany alone, they would have gone all the way to the Atlantic Ocean and would still be there.)
 
I'm a conservative, but it's clear to me that the right has lost the battle on immigration.

40 years ago it could have been different, but Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986 that ensured that Latinos would achieve sufficient voting power to hamstring any real immigration control efforts.
 
Mr. Deez said:
...I do wonder what would have happened in Germany had the US defeated Germany on its own. We would have beaten them down some. We definitely would have hanged the surviving Nazi leadership and would have declared the Party, the SS, the SA, etc. to be criminal organizations. However, I don't think we would have stomped out their national pride to the same extent, and I don't think we would have taken away as much of their eastern territories. (Of course, if the Soviet Union had defeated Germany alone, they would have gone all the way to the Atlantic Ocean and would still be there.)
Click to expand...

It's a good question but I dont have the background to give a good answer. How about this one -- in hindsight, should we have just kept delaying the Western Front to give the Nazis and Commies more time to wipe each other out?

Or, how about -- given what happened to the citizens of the Eastern Bloc countries post war, can we say with any certainty they would have been any worse off under the Germans than they ended up being under the Soviets? Tough to say their side 'won the war.'
 
Last edited:
AustinHorn24 said:
I'm a conservative, but it's clear to me that the right has lost the battle on immigration.

40 years ago it could have been different, but Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986 that ensured that Latinos would achieve sufficient voting power to hamstring any real immigration control efforts.
Click to expand...
That is clearly a possibility but I don't think we are there yet. Although I do think that we need a president that is more politically capable than the one we have now. Many of the establishment GOP believe the same as you and have given up the issue.

We need a leader that has enough fire in his belly to say what needs to be said but also enough political acumen to know when to shut up and keep his powder dry for a fight that actually matters. Trump might have the first element but he certainly doesn't have the second.
 
Joe Fan said:
It's a good question but I dont have the background to give a good answer. How about this one -- in hindsight, should we have just kept delaying the Western Front to give the Nazis and Commies more time to wipe each other out?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would have helped. They wiped each other out pretty heavily. Eastern Front casualties on both sides were pretty horrific. My grandfather, who was a Naval officer during WWII, used to say that we should have gone further than waiting. He thinks we should have rolled over Churchill by dropping the unconditional surrender requirement and making a deal with Germany's military leadership in which they would get rid of Hitler and end the Western Front in exchange for the United States aiding, and if necessary, joining the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Basically his hope was that Hitler and Stalin would both be gone, France and the Low Countries would be liberated voluntarily, and the US and a German regime governed by monarchists and military leaders would occupy Eastern Europe and the western portion of the Soviet Union. Strange theory.

Joe Fan said:
Or, how about -- given what happened to the citizens of the Eastern Bloc countries post war, can we say with any certainty they would have been any worse off under the Germans than they ended up being under the Soviets? Tough to say their side 'won the war.'
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "the Germans." If you mean a Germany governed by non-Nazis (as my granddad suggested), then they likely would have been better off than under Soviet rule. However, if you mean Nazi Germany, then, as rotten as the Soviets were, the Germans would have been worse. Keep in mind that Hitler's ambition wasn't just to occupy the area but to fulfill his "Lebensraum" agenda of basically stealing the land of Eastern Europe, enslaving and starving its people to death by the millions, and then essentially colonizing the land with ethnic Germans. As oppressive as the Soviets were, they didn't go quite that far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top