Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:38 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Maybe the official Democratic position consists of more that that "a wall is a immorality" phrase you have jerked out of context and sunk your teeth into ...
BTW, I think it's bullshit to call this "jerked out of context". I provided a link to the video, a video published by WaPo and titled "Pelosi: ‘A wall is an immorality’".
  #202  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:39 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Let me ask something else, you say you're opposed to spending $25B+ on a giant wall. Is that because you don't think "walls work"?
  #203  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:45 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He already has (endorsed a plan different than he campaigned on). Did you miss all the "steel slats" discussion?
No, I heard that bullshit too. Even last night Trump brought that up in a bullshit attempt to make it sound as though he was compromising with Democrats. Let's hear Trump endorse your plan. He'll probably get his fucking money then.
(And by the way, did you not see running coach's link to the official Republican party platform??)

Last edited by bobot; 01-09-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #204  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:00 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,991
...which I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were scurrying to change as I type these words.
  #205  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:12 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Let me ask something else, you say you're opposed to spending $25B+ on a giant wall. Is that because you don't think "walls work"?
I apparently didn't do a good enough job of downplaying just how mildly I'm opposed to it. If the Democrats were clamoring at Trump to "build the wall now! we must spend $25B NOW!!!" I wouldn't lift a finger or donate a dime to oppose them. There is ~$3T in federal spending that I'd like to see cut first.

Anyways, to answer your question, no I believe "walls work" (you may recall me offering some cites to that effect earlier in this thread), at least some of the time and in concert with other border security measures. They are probably better in some places and less-effective in other places.
  #206  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:18 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
[Walls work,] at least some of the time and in concert with other border security measures. They are probably better in some places and less-effective in other places.
What would be the purpose of building a wall in those "less-effective" places, the ones that don't work "some of the time," like Trump and the GOP want to do?

Last edited by steronz; 01-09-2019 at 06:18 PM.
  #207  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:18 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
You wouldn't spend a mere $25 billion to PROTECT AMERICA?!?!!


You must be watching that fake news stuff.
  #208  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:21 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
... (And by the way, did you not see running coach's link to the official Republican party platform??)
Yes, I saw it. It wasn't really what I asked for given that the claimed source was "From the Howling Yam himself" but I have come to not expect accuracy or precision from running coach. As I said then, this current discussion and the current shutdown revolves around $5B in funding for some physical barriers along the southern border, not a 2,000-mile wall.
  #209  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:26 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, I saw it. It wasn't really what I asked for given that the claimed source was "From the Howling Yam himself" but I have come to not expect accuracy or precision from running coach. As I said then, this current discussion and the current shutdown revolves around $5B in funding for some physical barriers along the southern border, not a 2,000-mile wall.
You keep using the plural when Trump keeps twitting the singular. He just did it 2 hours ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Howling Yam Himself
are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier?
If that's not what he means, maybe ya better get with him and tell him he's not getting his point across.
  #210  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
What would be the purpose of building a wall in those "less-effective" places, the ones that don't work "some of the time," like Trump and the GOP want to do?
Do you understand why I would think this question is off-topic? I mean, we can keep discussing it if you like, I suppose, but it's got precious-little to do with the current impasse or the $5B in funding.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2019 at 06:26 PM.
  #211  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:32 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
You keep using the plural when Trump keeps twitting the singular. He just did it 2 hours ago:



If that's not what he means, maybe ya better get with him and tell him he's not getting his point across.
It's just maybe possible that Twitter's 100-whatever-it-is character limit calls for some shorthand, summation, and abbreviation. Seriously, have you tried to do any research on the subject of what the President is calling for? Have you even read the links I've provided you?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2019 at 06:32 PM.
  #212  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:36 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you understand why I would think this question is off-topic? I mean, we can keep discussing it if you like, I suppose, but it's got precious-little to do with the current impasse or the $5B in funding.
Do you understand why we don't buy that the $5B is for necessary updates to existing physical barriers? So yes, I'd like to keep discussing it -- please answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's just maybe possible that Twitter's 100-whatever-it-is character limit calls for some shorthand, summation, and abbreviation. Seriously, have you tried to do any research on the subject of what the President is calling for? Have you even read the links I've provided you?
We're talking dozens of tweets. He's had ample opportunity. And it's 280 characters, "walls" is actually one less character than "a wall."

Yes, I read the links you've provided me. His plan is one sentence in a slideshow, and a tweet of a picture. Right?

Last edited by steronz; 01-09-2019 at 06:36 PM.
  #213  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:52 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... Yes, I read the links you've provided me. His plan is one sentence in a slideshow, and a tweet of a picture. Right?
The presentation he gave to Congress was brief. I suppose he was afraid that Nancy's recent penchant for getting lost would work against him if he went into more detail. Here is some more detail for you:

If you follow the link, you'll see that this is only one aspect of a multi-faceted effort including updating inspection technology at ports of entry, hiring more BP and ICE agents, enhanced facilities and supplies to accommodate those taken into custody, and hiring more immigration judges to work through the case backlog.

But it's probably more fun for you to pretend "his plan is one sentence", huh?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2019 at 06:53 PM.
  #214  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:00 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,725
#Buildthatwall

Sincerely,
The Tatars
The Mongols
The Manchus
  #215  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
#Buildthatwall

Sincerely,
The Tatars
The Mongols
The Manchus
Strange that Hamas didn't endorse this message, don't you think?
  #216  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Strange that Hamas didn't endorse this message, don't you think?
Not strange considering how the US is not in a state of war against Latin America and how the US border is only like...5 times longer than the wall in Israel.
  #217  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:07 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
AFAICT, I don't agree with the Democratic position. Pelosi said "a wall is an immorality" (I disagree) and it appears that they are fervently opposed to funding new physical barriers on the southern border (I disagree again). Have I misunderstood "the Democratic position"?
The consensus Democratic position is no money for the wall, but some number of billions for other border security efforts.

Many Dems will have different reasons for supporting that proposal. Some see the wall as immoral. Others see it as stupid. Others don’t want land ripped away from private individuals. Still others may think the wall is environmentally unfriendly.

From what you wrote earlier, you seem to be okay with the policy position, but you get worked up in a lather that your political opponents justify their position in ways you don’t approve. My question is, why the fuck do you care?

If you and I are both going to Chicago, and you take the train and I take a car, what does it matter what route we take to get there?

Second question for you: let’s say you and I agree to volunteer at a soup kitchen. You do it to give glory to Jesus. I do it because Satan came to me at night and commanded me to work a ladle. Are you going to condemn my charitable efforts?
  #218  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:18 PM
not what you'd expect not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,561
So, if we don't call it a wall, Mexico doesn't have to pay for it? Is that how this works?
  #219  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:18 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you follow the link, you'll see that this is only one aspect of a multi-faceted effort including updating inspection technology at ports of entry, hiring more BP and ICE agents, enhanced facilities and supplies to accommodate those taken into custody, and hiring more immigration judges to work through the case backlog.

But it's probably more fun for you to pretend "his plan is one sentence", huh?
Yes but in terms of the $5.7B for physical barrier (singular), what you just linked is literally only one sentence, is it not? Am I pretending that?
  #220  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/polit...ump/index.html

Quote:
Schumer jumped in to stress the importance of opening up the government and then negotiating on border security funding from there.

He at one point asked Trump, "Why won't you open the government and stop hurting people?"

Trump responded bluntly, "Because then you won't give me what I want."
In his own words, Trump is hurting people to get what he wants.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-09-2019 at 07:24 PM.
  #221  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:33 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Yes but in terms of the $5.7B for physical barrier (singular), what you just linked is literally only one sentence, is it not? Am I pretending that?
Well, since you're so obsessed with singular vs plural, we're technically up to two or three sentences (plural) now at least, right? But by "multi-faceted effort" I was referring to the entire ~400 word document, and I somehow suspect that's not all the administration has ever released on the subject.
  #222  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:34 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/polit...ump/index.html



In his own words, Trump is hurting people to get what he wants.
Those were actually Chuck's words, right?
  #223  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:42 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,140
Anyone know why he is now asking for 700 million more for the wall? Did he get a different contractor's estimate?
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #224  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:44 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Well, since you're so obsessed with singular vs plural, we're technically up to two or three sentences (plural) now at least, right? But by "multi-faceted effort" I was referring to the entire ~400 word document, and I somehow suspect that's not all the administration has ever released on the subject.
Sure, 3 repetitive sentences that basically say "5.7B for wall," without specifying where or why or how this differs from the 3 years of prattling on about a big beautiful wall from coast to coast.

Is it safe to say that Democrats have no convincing reason to suspect his plan has actually changed then and that Trump still wants this money to [start] the giant wall that he campaigned on?
  #225  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:47 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The consensus Democratic position is no money for the wall, but some number of billions for other border security efforts. ...
Can you clarify if "234 miles of new physical barrier" is considered "the wall" or "other border security efforts" in the eyes of Dems? Given their position on the funding measures, it would seem to be the former, but given some of the quotes by steronz in this thread, I wonder if it might be the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... From what you wrote earlier, you seem to be okay with the policy position...
That probably hinges on the answer to the above. I'm "with the Dems" in that I don't necessarily demand a 2000-mile-long 30-foot-high all-concrete "wall", but OTOH, I'm "with the GOP" in that I'd prefer to see some improvements made. Something like 243 miles of new physical barrier sounds good to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... but you get worked up in a lather that your political opponents justify their position in ways you don’t approve. My question is, why the fuck do you care? ...
I'm not really "worked up in a lather", I'm pretty mellow actually. My preferred policy position is, as I already stated, "I would like to see border security be more of a priority for the federal government than it has been previously." If the Democrats are fine with "other border security" taking the form of 243 miles of new physical ("steel-slat") barrier, then you're right that the Democrats and I agree, you can go tell Nancy and we'll all go to the soup kitchen together.

But that doesn't seem to be the situation we have here.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2019 at 07:48 PM.
  #226  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:52 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Anyone know why he is now asking for 700 million more for the wall? Did he get a different contractor's estimate?
No fucking way. There ain't a Republican around that's actually gotten that far in designing the fucking thing yet.
  #227  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know about the word "exactly", but I did a pretty good job of answering this already. Just scroll up the page to post #157:
Did you actually think I would just take your word as to what he said? I read that presentation to Congress, and the best I can say about your interpretation is that it is...creatively generous.
  #228  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:22 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Can you clarify if "234 miles of new physical barrier" is considered "the wall" or "other border security efforts" in the eyes of Dems? Given their position on the funding measures, it would seem to be the former, but given some of the quotes by steronz in this thread, I wonder if it might be the latter.

That probably hinges on the answer to the above. I'm "with the Dems" in that I don't necessarily demand a 2000-mile-long 30-foot-high all-concrete "wall", but OTOH, I'm "with the GOP" in that I'd prefer to see some improvements made. Something like 243 miles of new physical barrier sounds good to me.

I'm not really "worked up in a lather", I'm pretty mellow actually. My preferred policy position is, as I already stated, "I would like to see border security be more of a priority for the federal government than it has been previously." If the Democrats are fine with "other border security" taking the form of 243 miles of new physical ("steel-slat") barrier, then you're right that the Democrats and I agree, you can go tell Nancy and we'll all go to the soup kitchen together.

But that doesn't seem to be the situation we have here.
So you prefer a wall - excuse me, a steel slat barrier - over couple hundred miles above all other potential border security improvements.

Ok, I get it now. You don’t support the Dem position. That was my misunderstanding.

I just don’t understand how someone could look at the border situation and sans politics come to the conclusion that the number one priority is a higher barrier. Drones? No. Cameras? No. More agents? No. Helicopters to get agents to remote places? No. Scanners to detect drugs in cars going through ports of entry that don’t have scanners today? No. A slightly taller barrier? At all costs, YES! Just seems like an asinine position.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-09-2019 at 08:23 PM.
  #229  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:40 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
"above all other potential border security improvements" is something you imagined, not something I said. Trump's proposal includes funding for more agents and scanners, in addition to some additional / enhanced physical barriers.
  #230  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:41 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
...Drones? No. Cameras? No. More agents? No. Helicopters to get agents to remote places? No. Scanners to detect drugs in cars going through ports of entry that don’t have scanners today? No. A slightly taller barrier? At all costs, YES! Just seems like an asinine position.
Now that you mention it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
.. There ain't a Republican around that's actually gotten that far in designing the fucking thing yet.
Or even defining the fucking thing yet.
  #231  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:50 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Can you clarify if "234 miles of new physical barrier" is considered "the wall" or "other border security efforts" in the eyes of Dems? Given their position on the funding measures, it would seem to be the former, but given some of the quotes by steronz in this thread, I wonder if it might be the latter.
Are you literally asking if Democrats consider "$5.7 billion for construction of a steel barrier" to be the same thing as "the wall?" Yes, they do. None of the other security improvements you mentioned are going to be paid for with that $5.7B, that is just wall, that's how Trump has been selling it on Twitter and that's the only line item that Democrats have objected to. That's also the only line item that Trump considers to be non-negotiable, he must have $5.7B for wall or no deal.

Therefore, we're currently putting a wall as a higher priority than opening the government and making any other security improvements, many of which the Democrats will agree to, as is evidenced by Nancy Pelosi literally agreeing to them in the famous "immorality" clip you linked to.

For someone who claims to be interested in politics to get your preferred policies passed, you sure are spending a lot of time arguing in favor of policies you don't prefer. It's almost like you have some other motivating factor...

Last edited by steronz; 01-09-2019 at 08:50 PM.
  #232  
Old 01-09-2019, 08:51 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"above all other potential border security improvements" is something you imagined, not something I said. Trump's proposal includes funding for more agents and scanners, in addition to some additional / enhanced physical barriers.
Are you under the impression that Dems object to those parts that don’t involve the wall?

As far as I can tell, if Trump wanted $5.7 billion of technology and whatnot, there wouldn’t be any significant argument.
  #233  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Are you literally asking if Democrats consider "$5.7 billion for construction of a steel barrier" to be the same thing as "the wall?" Yes, they do. ...
Earlier in this thread, just yesterday in fact, you told me this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... Don't move the goal posts by pretending like Democrats are opposed to fences in targeted areas. If a fence can be built, maintained, and monitored in the right place(s), that could certainly work for certain purposes. The wall is a different boondoggle entirely.
Those two statements appear to contradict each other, but I'd like to give you the chance to reconcile them, if you can.
  #234  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:36 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
BTW, I think it's bullshit to call this "jerked out of context". I provided a link to the video, a video published by WaPo and titled "Pelosi: ‘A wall is an immorality’".
So let's see: the Washington Post takes a particular phrase from what Pelosi says, uses it as the title, and it's not out of context?

Guess Pelosi approved the headline, then.
  #235  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:59 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Those two statements appear to contradict each other, but I'd like to give you the chance to reconcile them, if you can.
Sure. Steel slats are not a fence. There's no evidence that Trump has a plan for monitoring or maintaining them, given that they're going to be more expensive to repair and not any harder to defeat than a (cheaper) fence. There's no evidence that the 243 miles, wherever they may be, are "the right place." Given the 700 miles of fencing we already have, in fact, which most likely has already been built in "the right places," odds are that the steel barrier is either going to replace perfectly effective fencing that we've already paid for or go up somewhere it will do no good. Does that help?
  #236  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:45 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... Does that help?
Not really. I think you're digging yourself into a hole that would be the envy of burrowing animals everywhere. Let's take this statement for a moment and examine it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... Steel slats are not a fence. ...
Here's what that liberal rag Vox had to say about it:

Quote:
... plenty of Democrats in Congress, most Republicans in Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security all agree about what kind of barrier to build on the southern border: a bollard barrier made of steel poles, erected close enough together to prevent entry but far enough apart that Border Patrol agents can see what’s happening on the other side. ... Previous administrations referred to bollards as fencing; the Trump administration calls it a wall; and Trump himself started calling them “steel slats” in December because he thought it sounded tougher. ...
And then, in a happy coincidence she wrote a bit almost as if she were speaking directly to you:

Quote:
... But it’s been hard for others to let go of the idea that Trump promised a concrete wall along the entirety of the US-Mexico border — an idea that Trump himself backed off from before the 2016 election...
You, steronz, are one of those "others", unwilling or unable to accept that President Trump's border security proposal, including the $5B "steel slat" barrier, is actually pretty much inline with good consensus policy. He's right for once, and it's driving you crazy to concede the point, so much so that you're arguing silly nonsense like "Steel slats are not a fence." It's doubly-ironic because the Democrats have spent years complaining that Congressional Republicans opposed everything Obama did just because it was him doing it, and yet here we find Congressional Democrats opposing some pretty modest border security improvements that most reasonable people agree make a lot of sense AFAICT solely because it's President Trump proposing it.
  #237  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:58 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not really. I think you're digging yourself into a hole that would be the envy of burrowing animals everywhere. Let's take this statement for a moment and examine it:



Here's what that liberal rag Vox had to say about it:



And then, in a happy coincidence she wrote a bit almost as if she were speaking directly to you:



You, steronz, are one of those "others", unwilling or unable to accept that President Trump's border security proposal, including the $5B "steel slat" barrier, is actually pretty much inline with good consensus policy. He's right for once, and it's driving you crazy to concede the point, so much so that you're arguing silly nonsense like "Steel slats are not a fence." It's doubly-ironic because the Democrats have spent years complaining that Congressional Republicans opposed everything Obama did just because it was him doing it, and yet here we find Congressional Democrats opposing some pretty modest border security improvements that most reasonable people agree make a lot of sense AFAICT solely because it's President Trump proposing it.
Fling around enough shit and eventually you hit a plant that needs fertilizer.
Even if he's right, he didn't come to that decision by rational thought and careful study of the problem.

Do you actually find governing by random chance acceptable?
  #238  
Old 01-09-2019, 10:58 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
HurricaneDitka's put more effort into defending Trump's wall in this thread than Trump's put into planning the wall for the last three years.
  #239  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:06 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Congressional Democrats opposing some pretty modest border security improvements
Congressional Republicans, too, which is why you claiming that the steel slats are somehow in line with "good consensus policy" is laughable. If Trump could build a consensus he'd have had this shit funded years ago.

The steel slats are a bone to his base based on a long-standing campaign promise rooted in racism and xenophobia, a promise which you yourself don't agree with. If you want me to accept that the 1 sentence "plan" (sorry, 3 sentences and a twitterpic) that he's now pretending to support isn't that other thing that he actually supported for years, you're going to have to try harder. I'm not sure how he won you over so easily, you don't seem like the type who is willing to hand over blank checks to the government to spend on pointless projects. And yet now you're arguing that this ill-conceived bullshit is "good consensus policy." What a rube!
  #240  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:20 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... you don't seem like the type who is willing to hand over blank checks to the government to spend on pointless projects. ...
I'm not. He's asking for a check for the rather finite amount of $5.7B, which would amount to something like 0.1-0.2% of total federal outlays for 2019. I don't like government spending any more than the next guy, but it's hard to get worked up over the fed.gov equivalent of loose change.

Here's a hint: the "it's wasting all those precious taxpayer dollars" argument is probably a loser for your side.
  #241  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:22 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,605
As long as it really sticks it to those libs, I suppose.
  #242  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not. He's asking for a check for the rather finite amount of $5.7B, which would amount to something like 0.1-0.2% of total federal outlays for 2019. I don't like government spending any more than the next guy, but it's hard to get worked up over the fed.gov equivalent of loose change.
So you're okay with the NEA, then, and indeed with any federal government expenditure less than $5.7 billion? Cool.
  #243  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:12 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,371
I'd like to review the part where he said 5.7 billion dollars, and then no more, ever again, scouts's honor, that's it, not another dime. Once you pay the Duncegeld, they always come back for more.
  #244  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:53 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
BTW, I think it's bullshit to call this "jerked out of context". I provided a link to the video, a video published by WaPo and titled "Pelosi: ‘A wall is an immorality’".
Yes. Trump's wall is immoral. It will cost between $15billion- 70billion, and wreak a disaster on the environment. All for racist reasons.

Racism- immoral
Wasting Taxpayer money- immoral
Destroying the environment- immoral.
It's tripley immoral.

And law enforcement doesnt want it. (They sure would like a larger budget plus I think they wanted 100 Million? for fixing and improving the fence already there). Both sides already approved a $1.1 Billion dollar border security measure. But now, that is gone.

So, we're getting LESS border security.
  #245  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:28 AM
Spoons Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 15,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
So, if we don't call it a wall, Mexico doesn't have to pay for it? Is that how this works?
Hell, I'm waiting for the President of Mexico to present Mr, Trump with a giant-sized cheque that says, "Pay to the order of the United States of America, the sum of $5 Billion American Dollars." And on the memo line, it will say, "Thank you, Mr. Trump, for the wall."

Except that we all know that that's not going to happen. Dear Lord, where does Mr. Trump get these stupid ideas?
  #246  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:07 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not. He's asking for a check for the rather finite amount of $5.7B, which would amount to something like 0.1-0.2% of total federal outlays for 2019. I don't like government spending any more than the next guy, but it's hard to get worked up over the fed.gov equivalent of loose change.

Here's a hint: the "it's wasting all those precious taxpayer dollars" argument is probably a loser for your side.
So, just to be clear, spending 5.7 billion dollars on a vanity project is perfectly okay with you? Seems like a bit of a ludicrous thing for a republican to say - does your party have a single functional principle left, or did you just abandon the last of 'em?

And, contrary to popular belief, the left is against wasting taxpayer money. Because that statement is an applause light.
This case is remarkable only in that I mistook the applause light for a policy suggestion, with subsequent embarrassment for all. Most applause lights are much more blatant, and can be detected by a simple reversal test. For example, suppose someone says:
We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI.
If you reverse this statement, you get:
We shouldn't balance the risks and opportunities of AI.
Since the reversal sounds abnormal, the unreversed statement is probably normal, implying it does not convey new information. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for uttering a sentence that would be uninformative in isolation. "We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI" can introduce a discussion topic; it can emphasize the importance of a specific proposal for balancing; it can criticize an unbalanced proposal. Linking to a normal assertion can convey new information to a bounded rationalist—the link itself may not be obvious. But if no specifics follow, the sentence is probably an applause light.
Think about it. What's the opposite of "we shouldn't waste all those precious taxpayer dollars"? It's "we should waste all those precious taxpayer dollars". Nobody would say that. It's fucking deranged. So the statement is an applause light, meant not to convey any useful information, but as a truism (with perhaps some hidden meaning it's signaling). The emphasis here needs to be on the word "waste". Because while a concrete (or steel) border wall is indeed a pointless and stupid boondoggle that not even the fucking border patrol wants and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money, there are plenty of perfectly good, perfectly reasonable things we could be spending that money on. Like giving Flint clean water.

Why is it that republicans are so utterly unwilling to fund even the most basic social programs, but when there's a huge, stupid, racist boondoggle that no rational thinker could possibly endorse, they're willing to break out the checkbook?

As has been pointed out numerous times I'm sure, the idea that $5.7B comes anywhere close to building a wall along the border is so stupid as to be beyond laughable. The actual price will be upwards of 10 times that.
  #247  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Historically, shutdowns have failed. They don't work to get the party that initiates the shutdown (i.e. the party trying to do something other than just continuing to fund the government, like killing the ACA or building a stupid wall-shaped shrine to bigotry) what they want. The party that just wants to continue to fund the government wins, historically speaking.

The Democrats would be highly foolish to change this and allow the shutter-downers to win. Especially when polling is on their side. Trump and the Republicans are on the losing side of history on this.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #248  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:17 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Why is it that republicans are so utterly unwilling to fund even the most basic social programs, but when there's a huge, stupid, racist boondoggle that no rational thinker could possibly endorse, they're willing to break out the checkbook?
They have been told to fear Mexicans and to believe that a wall will be an effective barrier to those smallpox-carrying leprous rapists. They have not been told to care about basic services in Michigan. That's why.

Last edited by The Tooth; 01-10-2019 at 06:17 AM.
  #249  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:34 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
They have been told to fear Mexicans and to believe that a wall will be an effective barrier to those smallpox-carrying leprous rapists. They have not been told to care about basic services in Michigan. That's why.
Well, they've also been told that a border wall is liberal kryptonite, or something, and the response is almost Pavlovian.
  #250  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:44 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,418
Trump supporters drool more.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017