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.
Those were actually Chuck’s words, right?
Anyone know why he is now asking for 700 million more for the wall? Did he get a different contractor’s estimate?
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?
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.
No fucking way. There ain’t a Republican around that’s actually gotten that far in designing the fucking thing yet.
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.
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.
“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.
Now that you mention it…
Or even defining the fucking thing yet.
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…
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.
Earlier in this thread, just yesterday in fact, you told me this:
Those two statements appear to contradict each other, but I’d like to give you the chance to reconcile them, if you can.
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. :dubious:
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.