The First 100 days

[ProdigalHorn]

What's really disturbing is that he lumps the very commendable "Western civilization" with the indefensible "white nationalism" and even more indefensible "white supremacy." He's basically accepting the far Left's narrative, which is that the three are synonymous.

That's what made no sense about those comments. I'm not convinced that this isn't more about King being grotesquely stupid/ignorant about terminology than him being a white supremacist. Of course, if in this day and age you don't get what white nationalism and white supremacy mean by any definition, I'm not sure you should be holding public office to begin with.

 

[Garmel]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Just a reminder of who Trump claimed is responsible for government shutdowns since it's now popular to disregard early statements like Mexico paying for the wall.

 

[LongestHorn]

Just a reminder of who Trump claimed is responsible for government shutdowns since it's now popular to disregard early statements like Mexico paying for the wall.

If you’re too simple minded to comprehend Trump was talking about the Kenyan, then you and your kind should never be permitted to vote ever again. #FreedomWall

 

[Garmel]

Trump lied about the wall! *squawk* Trump is a racist! *squawk* Trump is Hitler! *squawk* Hitler colluded with the Russians! *squawk* /MSM Parrot

 

[Joe Fan]

Ted and the EL Chapo Act

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump lied about the wall! *squawk* Trump is a racist! *squawk* Trump is Hitler! *squawk* Hitler colluded with the Russians! *squawk* /MSM Parrot

Hearing Trump's own words contradict Trump's actions must be painful for supporters. There's a Trump tweet for EVERY occasion.

 

[Garmel]

Hearing Trump's own words contradict Trump's actions must be painful for supporters. There's a Trump tweet for EVERY occasion.

He mentioned the payment to Mexico possibly having to be an indirect payment in an interview a couple of years ago even before the election.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He mentioned the payment to Mexico possibly having to be an indirect payment in an interview a couple of years ago even before the election.

No. He did not spin that until later. His campaign actually put out talking points spanning the ways Trump could make Mexico pay for the wall and a trade agreement which Mexico makes no payments to the US was not mentioned. In fact, the campaign directly said Mexico would make a 5-10b$ pament to the US.

Why the talking points? Because the claim was as laughable then as it is now. Taking money from US taxpayers and claiming its "from Mexico" makes one a liar. There is no spin that can wash that away.

 

[Garmel]

No. He did not spin that until later.

I found this from April 2016. This isn't the one I heard before but listen to this . Hannity told him Mexico won't write a check. Trump says clearly they will pay in one form or another. Then says maybe I can get get them to write a check anyway. LOL! Starts around 17:10.

Like I said this isn't the one I heard it from. I'll try to find it. That's two different times before the election that he is very open to how they will pay for it.

 

[Monahorns]

The government needs to agree on some amount of money for a wall, even if it is less than what Trump wants. Give him a little and get a little in return. Because there is something more important at stake than a wall.

The federal workers who are living paycheck to paycheck. Can't afford this squabble! Do what you have to do to save face and quit ruining peoples' lives!

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Maybe people should quit working for the federal government and get a real job instead.

 

[horninchicago]

What's really disturbing is that he lumps the very commendable "Western civilization" with the indefensible "white nationalism" and even more indefensible "white supremacy." He's basically accepting the far Left's narrative, which is that the three are synonymous.

That's what made no sense about those comments. I'm not convinced that this isn't more about King being grotesquely stupid/ignorant about terminology than him being a white supremacist. Of course, if in this day and age you don't get what white nationalism and white supremacy mean by any definition, I'm not sure you should be holding public office to begin with.

Not defending the comments here (notice how I feel I have to preface this that way?), but Farrakhan continues unfettered with his black nationalism and hatred of white people.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not defending the comments here (notice how I feel I have to preface this that way?), but Farrakhan continues unfettered with his black nationalism and hatred of white people.

You're right. He does, but if we want to have any credibility or most authority when criticizing Farrakhan, we have to criticize ethnic nationalism wherever we see it. We either support racial healing, assimilation, and reconciliation, or we support racial division, fighting, and to the logical extension, genocide.

And what this should tell people is that the white supremacist and the hard Left radical aren't opposites like they're portrayed to be. They actually have a lot in common. For example, a guy like Farrakhan is much closer to Richard Spencer or Adolf Hitler than he is to Martin Luther King. Ditto for Steve King. They agree that race is a fundamental and inherent part of one's identity, so they would find a lot of agreement on things like racial purity and separation.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That's what made no sense about those comments. I'm not convinced that this isn't more about King being grotesquely stupid/ignorant about terminology than him being a white supremacist. Of course, if in this day and age you don't get what white nationalism and white supremacy mean by any definition, I'm not sure you should be holding public office to begin with.

He's not ignorant. He has hung around with ethnic nationalist types in Europe. They have a very different approach to nationalism than Americans do. His comments are consistent with their approach, not ours.

 

[bystander]

They agree that race is a fundamental and inherent part of one's identity

Seems like it is. But I like to call it culturalism. It's fairly easy to define when you look an innocuous things such as musical or culinary preferences. It's when you start to make value or superiority judgments that we get into trouble.

And what is superiority anyway? Tall buildings? Kindness? Landing on the moon? Love? Plays and symphony's? Humility?

An interesting quote from Benjamin Disraeli:

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seems like it is. But I like to call it culturalism.

But culture and race are very different. They don't go together, and if they truly did have to go together, then the ethnic nationalists of all kinds would be right.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A New York Times article advocates that the TSA go on strike. Link. It is illegal for the TSA to go on strike. I understand that the point is to make the shutdown more painful to pressure Trump. However, it's a dangerous and politically risky move.

First, it will show that Democrats (who will support the strike) care more about politics than safety. The public may blame Trump for the shutdown, but there are limits with how far they're willing to go. Jeopardizing the safety of our travelers needlessly is outside those limits.

Second, the intended outcome won't be accomplished. The TSA isn't a sympathetic agency. Most people aren't fans and won't cheer them on while dangerous people are allowed to get on planes.

Finally, Trump will decisively win this battle if it's waged. He'd be dealing with lawbreakers and a true national emergency (unlike the wall). He will shitcan the workers and turn air security over to the military like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. It would end the TSA as they know it and bust their union. The media will trash him like they always do, but the law and the public will be on his side. Frankly, this would be the best thing that could happen to Trump. He'd look like a hero, and the Democrats would look like dangerous jackasses.

 

[BevoJoe]

I do not like walls. They too easy to penetrate. Oh yeah they work for awhile, but eventually they do not stop folks from getting in.

A better barrier would be a high voltage fence which extends below ground, backed up by a second fence and then sensors which detect intruders and have armed drones flying overhead. May not be acceptable to Mexico, but who cares what they think. I don't see many folks illegally sneaking into Mexico or Mexicans being detained or arrested at the border for having truck full of americans.

We have a process to immigrate and become an american citizen, and that process should be used. As for those that "snuck in" send them back. And no more "anchor babies". Those go back too. Also, fully fund ICE and let them do their jobs. Last time I looked, there were a lot of immigration courts with no judge assigned as well.

 

[Horn6721]

I think you make many good points.
But I wonder why you say a barrier properly maintained stops working. Why would it?
It won't stop all illegals but IMO it will stop enough to warrant the barrier.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But I wonder why you say a barrier properly maintained stops working. Why would it?

Because ladders are cheap and easy to find? Where's the disconnect here?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Because ladders are cheap and easy to find?

This is a stupid argument against the wall. Anything that makes it harder is going to have a deterrent effect. Nobody ever said it would stop ALL illegal immigration.

If illegal immigration is not a problem, and the wall has no effect, why not just give Trump his wall so you can show how stupid and ineffective it is? They won't give him the wall because they know damn good and well it works.

 

[Monahorns]

The walls' best deployment would be to add super difficult structures to penetrate near population centers but have none in more remote areas.

Walls just increase the investment needed to cross the border. Many will calculate that the effort isn't worth it. Many will think it still is. But it reduces those trying and it helps you identify where people are going to try to cross. Then you focus Border Patrol agents in those few areas.

Then you punish businesses who hire those are successful getting through, reducing incentive.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is a stupid argument against the wall. Anything that makes it harder is going to have a deterrent effect.

You're making the same argument that gun control advocates make. Somebody willing to commit murder will hesitate to break some goofy gun law? A bunch of people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on a coyote and walk hundreds of miles to get into the US will balk at the prospect of buying a $40 ladder? Not likely.

And of course, I think you know that it won't do anything to stop visa overstays, which are an enormous part of the problem.

and the wall has no effect, why not just give Trump his wall so you can show how stupid and ineffective it is?

I don't mind giving him the wall. I'm indifferent about it. It won't hurt matters, even if it won't do much to help them. My issue is with making it the centerpiece of the border security and immigration enforcement agenda when there are other infinitely more important considerations that are getting glossed over. Something real like e-verify is being pushed aside for a stupid-*** wall.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The walls' best deployment would be to add super difficult structures to penetrate near population centers but have none in more remote areas.

This!

Then you punish businesses who hire those are successful getting through, reducing incentive.

This x 100!

 

[iatrogenic]

The walls' best deployment would be to add super difficult structures to penetrate near population centers but have none in more remote areas.

Walls just increase the investment needed to cross the border. Many will calculate that the effort isn't worth it. Many will think it still is. But it reduces those trying and it helps you identify where people are going to try to cross. Then you focus Border Patrol agents in those few areas.

Then you punish businesses who hire those are successful getting through, reducing incentive.

Until the government(s)quit helping illegals stay in the U.S. with healthcare, sanctuary cities, and birthright citizenship you can stick the employer punishment where the sun don’t shine.

 

[Horn6721]

"Because ladders are cheap and easy to find? Where's the disconnect here?"

I guess I need to look at fences in places where they have been proven to work. Israel says their wall /barriers work nearly 100%. Are Palestinians too stupid or too cheap to buy ladders?
BTW NO ONE who supports the barrier even said it and it alone is needed.

 

[Garmel]

"Because ladders are cheap and easy to find? Where's the disconnect here?"

I guess I need to look at fences in places where they have been proven to work. Israel says their wall /barriers work nearly 100%. Are Palestinians too stupid or too cheap to buy ladders?
BTW NO ONE who supports the barrier even said it and it alone is needed.

Yep. As good as E-verify is it won't affect the criminal element. We need the high tech and the primitive(the wall) to create layers of protection. Ladders are only marginally effective. By the time you set the ladder and start climbing one by one, human eyes or a drone will usually spot you. As I've discussed before ladders are also inconvenient and heavy, especially after carrying for long periods of time. If you've ever worked day labor before you'll quickly understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess I need to look at fences in places where they have been proven to work. Israel says their wall /barriers work nearly 100%. Are Palestinians too stupid or too cheap to buy ladders?

Neither. They don't want to get shot - same reason the East Berliners didn't often try to cross the Berlin Wall. (And of course, the Palestinians did dig tunnels.)

People who bring up the Israeli fences and sometimes the Berlin Wall as examples of walls that work often leave out two big factors. First, those walls/fences had armed guards who were authorized to blow away trespassers. Nobody's talking about doing that here.

Second, those walls are a miniscule fraction of the size of the US-Mexico border. Even if we were going to put armed guards on the border with shoot to kill orders (which we'd never do), it would require a colossal force of personnel. Who's paying for that? How much would it cost? And of course, even if we did all that, it would do nothing to stop visa overstays, which are half of the problem.

BTW NO ONE who supports the barrier even said it and it alone is needed.

No, but they rarely want to talk about the rest of the equation. All by itself, one Mexican dude and a makeshift ladder are enough to overcome a wall.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yep. As good as E-verify is it won't affect the criminal element.

As good as a wall arguably is, it won't affect visa overstays (whether they're part of the criminal element or not), who are half of illegal immigrants.

By the time you set the ladder and start climbing one by one, human eyes or a drone will usually spot you.

You do know the border is over 1,900 miles long, right? It would take a massive number of human eyes or drones (which are also useless unless they're backed up by human beings).

As I've discussed before ladders are also inconvenient and heavy, especially after carrying for long periods of time. If you've ever worked day labor before you'll quickly understand what I'm talking about.

It doesn't have to be that kind of ladder. This one or something like it would do the trick and would actually be overkill. It wouldn't be fun to carry it, but could a few guys who are used to doing farm and construction work in 110 degree heat do it? Yes. Very easily.