Trump Government Shutdown
in Politics

Nathaniel_B · December 2018

Image: https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/donald-trump-this-week-02-ap-jc-181110_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg

I don't hate or oppose him myself, neither do I support him. Trump had decided to shut the government down until he gets his funding for the border wall. So my main question to those who see this and are highly interested in this topic, what are your thoughts on the government shutdown? Are you against it? Do you support it?

CYDdharta · December 2018

Trump hasn't decided to shut down the government until he gets his funding for the border wall, the Dems have decided to shut down the government to keep Trump from getting funding for the border wall. Trump is still in DC working on the problem, Pelosi is vacationing in Hawaii in a $10,000 a night hotel room.

TTKDB · December 2018

A barrier of sorts should have been physically present along the border way before now.

A barrier of sorts should have been there before the 1990's arrived.

This way, the current border wall situation wouldn't have become the situation that it has grown into with a government shutdown in tow, and the current POTUS mentioning it at the same time?

Originally, former President Reagan legalized the 2.7 million illegal immigrants that came here illegally, and they were given amnesty for coming to the United States illegally.

Is the above past action, from a former President, what the current 11-22 million illegal immigrants are maybe hoping for now, hypothetically speaking after 2020, or 2024 election cycles?

They to, are looking to get that same amnesty being given to them?

Maybe the idea behind a (sanctuary city, or cities) is a bad one?

In a country of laws, how does this or that city get to create a sanctuary city in any state in the country, and it's done in the face of the laws in the United States?

Illegal immigrants are being given sanctuary, in a city where law abiding citizens live in those same cities at the same time?

Isn't that maybe, a blatant conflict of interest?

AlofRI · December 2018

The Democrats aren't shutting down the government, Trump is. HE promised that "Mexico will pay for the wall!" He can't get them to … broken promise! Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies). Drugs can now be sent over the wall with "Amazon type drones" and picked up on this side …. what good is a wall? Why waste $Billions that could be used to feed, educate and save lives from diseases on an outdated wall?? Trump doesn't give a DAMN about anything but getting his way. DUMB!

TTKDB · December 2018

@AlofRI

Where is the evidence to support your below claims?

"Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies).

FYI, there are GoFundMe pages that are raising money/ funds from the US citizens themselves, to help with the border wall.

Those 200 GoFundMe pages, they were mentioned in the news recently.

TTKDB · December 2018

Here's an argument based on the current climate in regards to the border wall.

The illegal immigrants, and they coming into the United States illegally and continuesly, since the late 1980's, couldn't they be viewed as the reason for the current government shutdown?

CYDdharta · December 2018

AlofRI said:

The Democrats aren't shutting down the government, Trump is. HE promised that "Mexico will pay for the wall!" He can't get them to … broken promise! Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies). Drugs can now be sent over the wall with "Amazon type drones" and picked up on this side …. what good is a wall? Why waste $Billions that could be used to feed, educate and save lives from diseases on an outdated wall?? Trump doesn't give a DAMN about anything but getting his way. DUMB!

Not true at all. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall one way or another. He NEVER said they would pay for it upfront. This is hardly a broken promise, this is Trump following through with a promise.

Nathaniel_B · December 2018

Look what I did! I can't wait to see how this debate turns out!

Image: https://media.giphy.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif

Zombieguy1987 · December 2018

AlofRI said:

The Democrats aren't shutting down the government, Trump is. HE promised that "Mexico will pay for the wall!" He can't get them to … broken promise! Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies). Drugs can now be sent over the wall with "Amazon type drones" and picked up on this side …. what good is a wall? Why waste $Billions that could be used to feed, educate and save lives from diseases on an outdated wall?? Trump doesn't give a DAMN about anything but getting his way. DUMB!

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.!

CYDdharta · December 2018

Zombieguy1987 said:

E.X.A.C.T.Y.!

E.X.A.C.T.Y.? WTF does exacty mean?

Zombieguy1987 · December 2018

CYDdharta said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

E.X.A.C.T.Y.!

E.X.A.C.T.Y.? WTF does exacty mean?

Exactly, but i had to leave, but i messed up the word

CYDdharta · December 2018

Zombieguy1987 said:

Exactly, but i had to leave, but i messed up the word

That's about as accurate as the post you were replying to.

Zombieguy1987 · December 2018

CYDdharta said:

AlofRI said:

The Democrats aren't shutting down the government, Trump is. HE promised that "Mexico will pay for the wall!" He can't get them to … broken promise! Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies). Drugs can now be sent over the wall with "Amazon type drones" and picked up on this side …. what good is a wall? Why waste $Billions that could be used to feed, educate and save lives from diseases on an outdated wall?? Trump doesn't give a DAMN about anything but getting his way. DUMB!

Not true at all. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall one way or another. He NEVER said they would pay for it upfront. This is hardly a broken promise, this is Trump following through with a promise.

But what if his 4 (maybe 8) years are done and Mexico doesn't pay a single penny, then he lied to his supporters, that's the main issue here. He said "Mexico will pay for it" Yet it's AMERICAN tax dollar being payed to something useless

George_Horse · December 2018

Though I am a supporter of Trump myself, I would disagree with him on the government shutdown. On the border wall, I am for it. I always say how we need a better border with Mexico other than a flimsy wood fence, and also fencing that does not completely go across the border. I am upset at Mexico in that they do not try and help stop the illegals that come over our border, they're essentially giving us problems rather than helping us stop the problem. I believe they should help fund the border wall, not pay for it themselves, I am not sure that Trump may get his funding through the shutdown, but maybe if the Democrats get so fed up with the shutdown, they may give up and conclude to getting him the funding, that is my theory, though I am not sure they would give up due to the shutdown. I hope things get better for our president! And also for our border!

George_Horse · December 2018

Nathaniel_B said:

Look what I did! I can't wait to see how this debate turns out!

Ahhhhh you've really set out for a big bang for the end of the year didn't you?

CYDdharta · December 2018

Zombieguy1987 said:

But what if his 4 (maybe 8) years are done and Mexico doesn't pay a single penny, then he lied to his supporters, that's the main issue here. He said "Mexico will pay for it" Yet it's AMERICAN tax dollar being payed to something useless

No, that means you don't understand the meaning of "one way or another". If he renegotiates better terms for NAFTA, even if he just builds the wall and keeps more Mexicans in Mexico, the wall will pay for itself.

TTKDB · December 2018

@Nathaniel_B

Here's an argument based on the current climate in regards to the border wall.

The illegal immigrants, and they coming into the United States illegally and continuesly, since the late 1980's, couldn't they be viewed as the reason for the current government shutdown?

CYDdharta · December 2018

TTKDB said:

@Nathaniel_B

Here's an argument based on the current climate in regards to the border wall.

The illegal immigrants, and they coming into the United States illegally and continuesly, since the late 1980's, couldn't they be viewed as the reason for the current government shutdown?

That much is obvious to anyone who understands the situation.

Andrej · December 2018

Good evening to all,

In an effective political climate, it would be presumed that we would be seeing a lack of government shutdowns. Both Democrats and Republicans could be considered to share the blame. You'll find both parties playing the blame game and such should simply not be the case, regardless of specifics (https://globalnews.ca/news/4801381/trump-democrats-partial-government-shutdown/). It is a politician's duty to make compromise for the greater good of their country. I do not see one man, ideology, or party responsible for this but a collective failure of all ends of the US government, opposition and incumbent alike who can simply not deviate from a "My Way or the Highway" approach. This should not be a matter of determining who caused it, but finding how to avert the current shutdown for the greater good of the American people.

Thank you.

John_C_87 · December 2018

Let’s try some truth, there is no government shut down, Congressional and Senatorial representatives are of state united state government, sent to the Federal Government. This doesn’t change when the Federal Congressional Hall is closed for any reason they work from there state office. The obligation by Oath shared by President and State Representatives is to the United States Constitution. Attention, attention, and attention.

Basic Principle question. How many states in the union have walls around them? If Mexicans citizens were to vote to become a Constitutional United State, or three, where does this leave the Wall?

John_C_87 · December 2018

And yes I wrote “there” state office not “their” state office. Think about it.

AlofRI · December 2018

@George_Horse said: I don't hate or oppose him, neither do I support him." ….in the beginning. Here he says: "Though I am a supporter of Trump....." Which is it, Mr. Horse??

George_Horse · December 2018

AlofRI said:

@George_Horse said: I don't hate or oppose him, neither do I support him." ….in the beginning. Here he says: "Though I am a supporter of Trump....." Which is it, Mr. Horse??

Are you retarded? Here let me help you out since you lack clear vision, In quote by @Nathaniel_B:

Nathaniel_B said: I don't hate or oppose him myself, neither do I support him. Trump had decided to shut the government down until he gets his funding for the border wall. So my main question to those who see this and are highly interested in this topic, what are your thoughts on the government shutdown? Are you against it? Do you support it?

Do you see it? Did I say all of this? Either your computer is having problems, you're under the influence, or your eyes are playing tricks on you.

WordsMatter · January 2019

I think most of you know I don't like Trump. However I greatly support him declaring a national emergency to get his wall funding and then reopen the government. Why? The funding in a national emergency will come from money previously given in the defense budget. The taxpayer money has essentially already been spent just by being put into a liquid fund for the military. I think we already give way more money to the military than is needed, so I have no issue with taking money out of it that is already locked out of being spent any other way, to reach the ends of reopening the government.

whiteflame · January 2019

I think the issue of fault is pretty clear. Part of the reason why Republicans were so easily able to blame the January 2018 shutdown on Democrats was because they were the ones demanding something in exchange for funding the government, namely DACA. Democrats had something they wanted, they decided it was worth holding up an extension of funding to get it. It was their policy, the one that they wanted, that was responsible for the gridlock. When it comes to this shutdown, the issue is even more blatant: the wall. It's pretty obvious that the Democrats have not supported the wall - they simply want to keep the government funded. Many Republicans have agreed. That's the reason why the Senate passed a continuing resolution before the shutdown, and that's why the House has since passed a similar continuing resolution. McConnell has made clear that the only way he would bring such a resolution to the Senate floor again is if Trump supported it, so the sole factor that appears to be preventing agreement between the House and Senate is the promise of a veto from Trump. And all of this ignores a statement made by Trump at a meeting (held on live TV, Trump's decision), in which he was very clear that this was his shutdown:

"I am proud to shut down the government for border security ... I will be the one to shut [the government] down. I'm not going to blame you for it ... I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down."

Of course, he has since done everything he can to foist this on the Democrats. Doubtless, Trump does not want the blame for ensuring that so many people are either furloughed or working for no pay, and now that it's a reality and he's the one in charge, it doesn't make him look too good. That's why he keeps claiming that federal workers are willing to sacrifice for the wall, a claim he's never supported with any evidence.

So, we can sit here and argue about the wall and its potential harms/benefits, but it doesn't erase the fact that Trump is the main figure standing in the way of returning funding to 800,000 federal employees. Even if you see the wall as a benefit eclipsing that harm, I see no way to argue that anyone else is more responsible than him for this shutdown. He said it himself. Give him the mantle.

WordsMatter · January 2019

Here is what I really don't understand about Trump here. He has claimed he can declare a state of emergency to get his funding and doesn't need Congress at all. So why hasn't he done that yet? Every hour he doesn't just declare the state of emergency and end the shutdown is another hour federal employees lose their pay. Or maybe it was all just a distraction technique for his base.

CYDdharta · January 2019

WordsMatter said:

Here is what I really don't understand about Trump here. He has claimed he can declare a state of emergency to get his funding and doesn't need Congress at all. So why hasn't he done that yet? Every hour he doesn't just declare the state of emergency and end the shutdown is another hour federal employees lose their pay. Or maybe it was all just a distraction technique for his base.

Trump is likely hoping the Dems will come to their senses and end their little temper tantrum. They appear to be on the losing side of the argument ... by a wide margin.

Just 7 percent of Americans say illegal immigration 'not a problem' at all: Poll

WordsMatter · January 2019

@CYDdharta that's very pretty and irresponsible to try and prove a point. Trump says he has the power to put everyone back to work, not only saving their income, but the income of the utilities companies, banks, and landlords that they owe money to.

Why is he keeping them out of a job even he can fix this easily? All just to make the Democrats look bad or to show they are unreasonable?

It's like being a parent with kids that are dying from poisoning and it's standard that your partner goes out and brings you the cure to give to the kids. Except you can just call 911 to bring it to you instead but you want to let your kids suffer because your partner is refusing to go get the antidote

Plus believing illegal immigration is a problem, and believing a wall is a sound and effective investment are miles apart so that poll really means nothing here

Like I think the border wall is a waste of money and no new money should be allotted to it, but if Trump can just end the shutdown tonight by using funds already in the military to build in then I say build the wall.

CYDdharta · January 2019

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta that's very pretty and irresponsible to try and prove a point. Trump says he has the power to put everyone back to work, not only saving their income, but the income of the utilities companies, banks, and landlords that they owe money to.

Why is he keeping them out of a job even he can fix this easily? All just to make the Democrats look bad or to show they are unreasonable?

It's like being a parent with kids that are dying from poisoning and it's standard that your partner goes out and brings you the cure to give to the kids. Except you can just call 911 to bring it to you instead but you want to let your kids suffer because your partner is refusing to go get the antidote

Plus believing illegal immigration is a problem, and believing a wall is a sound and effective investment are miles apart so that poll really means nothing here

Like I think the border wall is a waste of money and no new money should be allotted to it, but if Trump can just end the shutdown tonight by using funds already in the military to build in then I say build the wall.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a political problem, it deserves a political solution. Shutdowns are a known part of life for federal workers, they have been for a long time. This would be more like being the parent of a smoker who's addiction causes him to be ill for a short time.

WordsMatter · January 2019

@CYDdharta this is currently the third longest shutdown. Tomorrow it will be tied for second, and if it goes until Saturday it will be tied for the longest. Since 77 there have been 17 shutdowns, 7 of those where workers were furloughed. Isn't exactly a known part of life like it's something common or acceptable, but sure I can accept it as a risk of the job. A risk that I think should be avoided it at all possible, which Trump said it or. Wouldn't putting them back to work be putting America first?

The most ironic part of this whole thing is now you have ICE, border patrol, TSA, and DHS employees all working without pay. TSA agents are calling off. How long until ICE and border patrol agents quit going to work? The immigration courts are stalled by this so illegal immigrants that were detained and released to await their trial are getting to stay even longer now. The shutdown is in the name of border security but it's actively weakening the departments responsible for securing our borders. They could be funded as well as a wall tonight but I guess to you a moment of decreased security is worth it to make a political point?

CYDdharta · January 2019

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta this is currently the third longest shutdown. Tomorrow it will be tied for second, and if it goes until Saturday it will be tied for the longest. Since 77 there have been 17 shutdowns, 7 of those where workers were furloughed. Isn't exactly a known part of life like it's something common or acceptable, but sure I can accept it as a risk of the job. A risk that I think should be avoided it at all possible, which Trump said it or. Wouldn't putting them back to work be putting America first?

The most ironic part of this whole thing is now you have ICE, border patrol, TSA, and DHS employees all working without pay. TSA agents are calling off. How long until ICE and border patrol agents quit going to work? The immigration courts are stalled by this so illegal immigrants that were detained and released to await their trial are getting to stay even longer now. The shutdown is in the name of border security but it's actively weakening the departments responsible for securing our borders. They could be funded as well as a wall tonight but I guess to you a moment of decreased security is worth it to make a political point?

They knew to expect a shutdown. There is no way of knowing how long the shutdown would be, however they knew the left is used to getting their way in such cases and Trump doesn't cave like all the other Republicans, so they knew there would likely be a lengthy shutdown during the next 2 years, maybe longer. This is what the American people voted for.

And sure, this could all be ended tonight. All the Dems have to do is fund the border wall that Trump promised while he was campaigning and the immigration courts can open back up tomorrow but I guess to you a moment of increased immigration delay and expense is worth it to make a political point?

WordsMatter · January 2019

@CYDdharta it's easier for one man to just say a few words and get the wall than it is to get enough Democratic congressmen to support the wall, especially since a couple Republican senators support passing funding without the wall. Plus not a single congressmen on the border wants the wall and they aren't all Democrats either.

So you are telling me you wouldn't support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall?

CYDdharta · January 2019

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta it's easier for one man to just say a few words and get the wall than it is to get enough Democratic congressmen to support the wall, especially since a couple Republican senators support passing funding without the wall. Plus not a single congressmen on the border wants the wall and they aren't all Democrats either.

So you are telling me you wouldn't support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall?

That's one of the problems. Hispanics, usually illegal, come across the border and settle just on the other side. Illegals and their descendants gain an outsized political voice in these areas. So it's not a surprise that the only "Republican" that can get elected along the border is a Never-Trump RINO.

Of course I'd support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall, but only as a last resort. We're still in the negotiation stage.

TTKDB · January 2019

@CYDdharta

"Of course I'd support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall, but only as a last resort. We're still in the negotiation stage."

The illegaI immigrants have been coming illegally into the country, since and before 1987, a year after then POTUS Reagen signed into law the IRCA act.

"The Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. Wikipedia"

Granting the original 2.7 illegaI immigrants, who were in the United States, then amnesty.

So the negotiating was and has already been done.

So it would appear now, that current 11-22 million illegal immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, and are maybe lounging about, in one 300 sanctuary cities, throughout the country, and I guess, maybe hoping for another Amnesty bill to be written up for them as well?

While the list, for some of the liberals who are planning to make a run at becoming the next POTUS of the United States in 2020 is slowly picking up, at the same time?

Their efforts are fresh in the news, free medical care: 100 million dollars worth, that I'm guessing that the tax payers are paying for?

And I wonder, how many us citizens, have a wall or a fence, around the dwelling that they live in, as we speak?

But some of those citizens, seem to disagree with a wall or fence being used to protect the southern border of the country, but at the same time, they have a wall or a fence being utilized to provide protection for their individual properties?

So how are some supposed to view the above?

As a conflict of interest?

A wall or a fence, around their properties, makes sense to them when it comes to their properties?

But a fence along the southern border, is a no, no?

whiteflame · January 2019

@TTKDB

Setting aside the questions on amnesty and medical care, are you really justifying the wall on the basis that many houses have walls/fences around them? People individually choosing to pay for a structure to be built on their property is a little different than a country deciding to build a several hundred mile long wall at taxpayer expense. Beyond that, I don't see how your argument justifies a wall. Walls or fences around dwellings serve a number of purposes, including security, yes, but also privacy, aesthetics, and restricting movement of small children or animals, among others. Much as Trump keeps calling it a "big beautiful wall," by far the greatest purpose of a wall on our southern border would be security. So I disagree that there is a "conflict of interest" (I think you mean hypocrisy - not sure where the conflict of interest would be) because these walls/fences have substantially different functionality. Also, while we're on the subject of personal property, it's rather clear that the wall/fence would have to go through some of that down near the border. I can see how property owners would find that problematic.

But all of this aside, I don't see how any amount of hypocrisy on the part of people who have walls/fences around their property justifies the building of more barriers at our southern border. If you want to justify it, bring forth evidence that shows that a wall would be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration, and that no other border security measure would be as or more effective. Your post assumes its effectiveness, so why not support that view?

TTKDB · January 2019

@whiteflame

It's curious, an immigrant has a few choices in how they mindfully pick to come into the United States, either legally, or illegally?

Why can't they mindfully utilize their own thinking capacities, that are residing in their own selves?

The wall wont work, just like how some offenders and criminals, ignore a families property, and commits a crime via breaking and entering, and stealing whatever they want, and maybe even hurting or killing innocent people in the process?

An illegaI immigrant, breaking the laws of the country, isn't much different, from an offender or criminal breaking and entering into a families home, and taking what they want, or hurting or killing innocent people in the process, is there?

I guess a wall or a fence, being viewed as being ineffective, is about as apparently ineffective as some the laws, making breaking and entering, stealing, and assualt and battery illegal as well, apparently?

So, apparently, some of those individuals who are maybe, pro illegal immigrant oriented, don't see those same illegal immigrants, as having done nothing wrong, by having come to the country illegally?

They come here illegally, because some sanctuary, has been created for them?

They come here, and their medical care is going to be paid for the by the very citizens who live in the United States?

I wonder, if there have been any conducted polls, studies, or surveys done in those 300 sanctuary cities, asking the legal citizens in those same cities, how they feel about, those illegal immigrants being given sanctuary, in a country that is based on laws?

CYDdharta · January 2019

whiteflame said:

@TTKDB

But all of this aside, I don't see how any amount of hypocrisy on the part of people who have walls/fences around their property justifies the building of more barriers at our southern border. If you want to justify it, bring forth evidence that shows that a wall would be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration, and that no other border security measure would be as or more effective. Your post assumes its effectiveness, so why not support that view?

Then listen to the experts;

My name is Brandon Judd. I’m the president of the National Border Patrol Council. I’ve been a Border Patrol agent for 21 years. I can personally tell you, from the work that I have done on the southwest border, that physical barriers, that walls actually work. You hear a lot of talk from the expert that — you hear a lot of talk that there are experts that say that walls don’t work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work.
I worked in Naco, Arizona for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling was absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border.

We need those physical barriers, and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts in getting us those physical barriers. There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-border-security/

Additionally, there is one thing the wall offers that cannot be provided by any other security measure; persistence. You can lay off Border Patrolmen and ground drones, but the wall will still be there.

whiteflame · January 2019

@TTKDB

Interesting that you never once justify how or why a wall/fence is effective. I know it's kind of your thing to just ask questions as though it's some probing evaluation of my argument, but the vast majority of what you've posted here has no relation to my argument whatsoever. I set aside issues of amnesty and medical care, basically granting you those points for the sake of narrowing down the discussion to one key issue, but you can't seem to stop bringing them up.

In fact, this is your only point that applies at all to what I've said:

"I guess a wall or a fence, being viewed as being ineffective, is about as apparently ineffective as some the laws, making breaking and entering, stealing, and assualt and battery illegal as well, apparently?"

And, sadly, what this argument basically amounts to is "whether it's effective or not, we should do it to curb bad behavior." I should note two things. One, there's a reason why illegal immigration is... illegal. I'm not arguing that we remove the status of illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants, just as I wouldn't argue that assault and battery shouldn't be illegal simply because it still happens. I'm arguing that this specific policy aimed at curbing their entry into the country is largely ineffective, particularly as the cost is so high to both build and maintain a wall. To use your comparison, going against the wall is like going against stop and frisk laws: both are ineffective and generally do more harm than good in their implementation.

Two, I can be against a wall solely for the reason that I don't believe it's as effective of a deterrent as other border security measures we could take. There are alternatives that could be explored for far less cost and with a potentially greater effectiveness. As long as any of those is a reasonable alternative, I don't see how your argument applies. The wall has to be both an effective deterrent and more effective than alternatives that do not incur similar harms. I've provided an example of such alternatives below.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html

whiteflame · January 2019

CYDdharta said:

Then listen to the experts;

My name is Brandon Judd. I’m the president of the National Border Patrol Council. I’ve been a Border Patrol agent for 21 years. I can personally tell you, from the work that I have done on the southwest border, that physical barriers, that walls actually work. You hear a lot of talk from the expert that — you hear a lot of talk that there are experts that say that walls don’t work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work.
I worked in Naco, Arizona for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling was absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border.

We need those physical barriers, and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts in getting us those physical barriers. There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-border-security/

Additionally, there is one thing the wall offers that cannot be provided by any other security measure; persistence. You can lay off Border Patrolmen and ground drones, but the wall will still be there.

I see one expert, and apparently, one who is relying on personal experience as a means of assessing the effectiveness of a wall rather than looking at the broader picture of how effective a wall is. And even that assumes that he's unbiased, looking solely at the effect and providing real data to support his conclusions. I don't see data, and I don't see someone who is inclined to address the issue without bias. He's a frequent Fox News contributor and an outspoken advocate for Trump and the wall. He also appears to have some divisive views, even within the border patrol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/us/politics/border-patrol-trump-brandon-judd-fox.html

What I'm looking for in an expert opinion is clear data and facts, not just an opinion based on personal experience. And there's plenty of that. It's quite clear, even from reports delivered by Republicans, that a wall is not a catch-all solution. It doesn't resolve problems in many parts of the border, including several hundred mile stretches, including the Big Bend border section in Texas. And, much as you say that persistence is a major benefit, that ignores the costs of basic maintenance of the wall. It's permanent, but that doesn't mean it's permanently effective.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-says-walls-work-its-much-more-complicated

TTKDB · January 2019

Whiteflame

Applesauce

Zombieguy

All three of the above names, seem to have an issue with questions being asked, when people ask questions about any topic?

I ask questions, that I feel that any member of the public, who may arrive at this forum, or other forums, should be able to be educated on both sides of any forum, regardless of what any of the forum topics are.

My view is this, if the author of any forum, can't be fair and equal to the other participants who show up to educate themselves on the theme of any forum, because the author of a forum, decides to be one sided, or only argues from their own narratives or points of view, then why take the time to create a forum, if not to be fair and equal with and to the theme of any forum then?

How does any member of the public, to gain an education, and if the forum, that they may go about participating in, and the author goes about displaying a bias towards others, who may not jump on the bandwagon to any forum, and take up a side with the author, rather than to debate both sides of the theme to any forum?

If any forum was created to be educational, why be one sided with the debate, if a forum was really created to platform an individuals point of view, rather than to have an inpartial, fair, and equal debate in regards to the theme of any forum, then what's the point to authoring a debate theme, when the hidden intent was to create a platform to push a narrative to begin with?

That's why I ask questions, I believe in being educated.

To the other participants of the other forums, don't you like being educated on the theme of any forum?

Or maybe, being educated on the various forums authored by whomever, isn't the point of creating, any of the forums?

And maybe, the actual hidden point, is to create a forum, to platform a narrative, and then to promote said narratives, with the individuals own talking points?

CYDdharta · January 2019

whiteflame said:

I see one expert, and apparently, one who is relying on personal experience as a means of assessing the effectiveness of a wall rather than looking at the broader picture of how effective a wall is. And even that assumes that he's unbiased, looking solely at the effect and providing real data to support his conclusions. I don't see data, and I don't see someone who is inclined to address the issue without bias. He's a frequent Fox News contributor and an outspoken advocate for Trump and the wall. He also appears to have some divisive views, even within the border patrol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/us/politics/border-patrol-trump-brandon-judd-fox.html

What I'm looking for in an expert opinion is clear data and facts, not just an opinion based on personal experience. And there's plenty of that. It's quite clear, even from reports delivered by Republicans, that a wall is not a catch-all solution. It doesn't resolve problems in many parts of the border, including several hundred mile stretches, including the Big Bend border section in Texas. And, much as you say that persistence is a major benefit, that ignores the costs of basic maintenance of the wall. It's permanent, but that doesn't mean it's permanently effective.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-says-walls-work-its-much-more-complicated

Mr. Judd is hardly alone, and NTY and PBS are hardly objective. 0bama's Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan says the very same thing;

I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multi-layered border security issue.
...
Why aren't we listening to the experts and the people who do it every day? I don't understand that.

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/07/obama-era-border-patrol-chief-mark-morgan-says-border-walls-work

And in fact, the organization overwhelmingly supports the president on this issue.

The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/

Everyone from Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Barrack 0bama and Hillary Clinton have previously supported construction of a border wall, probably because they've been proven to be effective. As for who you consider experts on the matter, if the people in charge of the organizations protecting our borders are, in your opinion, experts, then who is? Certainly not the NTY and PBS reporters who's articles you posted.

whiteflame · January 2019

@TTKDB

You ask questions that are more than a little biased, largely based on your perceptions of illegal immigrants, their effects on the economy, and how the political machine aims to deal with them. Even if I set aside the fact that you clearly have a narrative you’re baking into these questions (I wouldn’t say that’s particularly fair and equal), I would argue that debate isn’t supposed to be an exercise in equity. Equity of voice, perhaps, but not equity of points. Some points will be stronger, some sides will be better supported. I don’t see how approaching an issue logically by answering outstanding questions that are essential to our perception of the issue is at all negative or harmful to public understanding. I don’t see how providing data, support for arguments, or building a clear case is harmful to education. If you’re saying it creates some kind of barrier to entry, I don’t see why. If anything, I would argue that points that invite debate by providing clear stances and obliging others to respond with their own is the essence of a good discussion.

On top of that, I would disagree that education is somehow garnered by simply asking questions. Asking questions is an entry point. It doesn’t continue the conversation meaningfully, it just opens it up on certain issues. It utterly fails in addressing specific concerns (if anything, it only adds to them), and it often leads to red herrings where you’re addressing issues not specific to the topic at hand. Take, for example, this forum. The issue is whether the government shutdown is good or bad, given the circumstances. Making it an issue of immigration in general and it’s effects on the US, as you have been attempting to do, seems largely tangential. I’m not arguing that illegal immigration is good, but your argument largely assumes that the issue of whether or not we should have a wall is entirely based in illegal immigration being a bad thing.

It’s a complex question: does a wall substantially affect illegal immigration negatively, and is it net beneficial? @CYDdharta may not be lending his side the best support, but at least he’s trying to justify the wall, specifically. All you’ve done is argue that a wall is fine because we place it around our houses, which says nothing of it’s solvency nor does it respond to negative effects of building it. You’re ignoring the issue by posing a series of questions that do nothing but distract from it. If you’re just going to assume the solvency of the wall, then why bother having this discussion? All that’s left is to argue about whether it’s worth having a shutdown over, and if you’re solving for all of illegal immigration, it probably is. Hell, Democrats and Republicans mostly agree that illegal immigration is bad, so I don’t even get why you’re doubling down on that. “How bad is illegal immigration” may be an important question, but it has little to nothing to do with this impasse.

Perhaps most importantly, though, what I find problematic in your posts is not that you ask questions. Everyone does it and should. It’s that asking questions is all you do. You don’t address points, you don’t care to engage with the debate at hand, you just keep putting the ball back into other people’s courts, refusing to uphold your side in any meaningful way. You say you want to be fair and equal, but you refuse to play any role in the debate beyond what you assume is stimulating discussion. I’ll tell you now: most of your questions do nothing of the sort.

whiteflame · January 2019

CYDdharta said:

Mr. Judd is hardly alone, and NTY and PBS are hardly objective. 0bama's Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan says the very same thing;

I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multi-layered border security issue.
...
Why aren't we listening to the experts and the people who do it every day? I don't understand that.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/07/obama-era-border-patrol-chief-mark-morgan-says-border-walls-work

And in fact, the organization overwhelmingly supports the president on this issue.

The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/

Everyone from Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Barrack 0bama and Hillary Clinton have previously supported construction of a border wall, probably because they've been proven to be effective. As for who you consider experts on the matter, if the people in charge of the organizations protecting our borders are, in your opinion, experts, then who is? Certainly not the NTY and PBS reporters who's articles you posted.

I'll start by saying this: I'm not dismissing Mr. Judd solely on the basis that he's not an objective source, though he certainly has skin in the game that affects his judgement. The same may well be true of my sources. The major problem I have with him is that he's taking his limited perspective, stating that it applies broadly, and providing no data to support his assumption. That is not true of my sources, as they contain a great deal of actual data, including a study coming from a House Republican, that questions basic assumptions Trump is making about how to build a wall, over what parts of the border, and how effective it will be. Even your cited source, Mark Morgan, says that this is "a multi-layered border security issue", yet Trump functions under the impression that there is only one layer, and that any other border security efforts are pointless.

But the sources you're providing really don't support the use of a wall as well as you seem to think they do. Mr. Morgan does not cite any data, again, simply referring to his experience and knowledge pool without any validation. Similarly, simply appealing to the popularity of a given view among Border Patrol line agents doesn't accomplish anything in terms of showing that such a wall would be effective. It's similar to me arguing that the vast majority of residents and lawmakers on the border oppose the wall on the basis, except that they have data regarding the economic and political effects of the wall to support their views.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump’s-wall-proposal/ar-BBS44f5

Even if I assume that the wall would have some meaningful effect on illegal immigration, there is still the question of whether that gain is worth the losses.

You also refer to former presidents who supported various stages of a wall at various times in their careers. First off, again, you're committing the same ad populum fallacy. Just because many people have supported building a wall over various stretches of the border doesn't mean that there's valid support for doing so. Second, you're oversimplifying their support. That support was for a much more limited and tactical scope of a wall when Democrats were using these policies as a means to compromise with a Republican plan.

Clinton responded, “There are some limited places where that was appropriate. There also is necessarily going to be new technology and how best to deploy that. But it is clear when you look at what Donald has been proposing. He started his campaign bashing immigrants, calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and drug dealers, that he has a very different view about what we should do to deal with immigrants.”

A spokesman in Schumer’s office pointed out similar contrasts between the two plans. Trump during the campaign called for a 30-foot tall concrete wall for the length of the border. But the Secure Fence Act was “a bipartisan plan to strategically place clear-view, secure fencing that works hand in glove with surveillance technology. Democrats and Republicans have supported such policies in the 2006 Secure Fence Act and the 2013 bipartisan immigration reform law,” Schumer’s spokesman said.

“The contexts, I think, were different,” Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told us via email. “Today’s discussion involves fencing off the entire 2,000-mile border while the earlier debate focused on adding significant (700 miles) but still limited miles of fencing at locations designated by DHS as necessary.”
...
Mittelstadt noted that the political context is also vastly different, as some Democrats ceded to the Secure Fence Act as a political compromise to a Republican plan to criminalize all unauthorized immigrants, and to make it a crime to assist unauthorized immigrants.
“It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison,” agreed Edward Alden, an expert on immigration policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.“The Secure Fence Act was written in a way to get support from both sides,” Alden told us via email. “The Democrats, by and large, supported the use of ‘tactical’ fencing in high-traffic areas, something that the Border Patrol had long favored. Trump’s wall proposal seems to call for fencing the entire border, which Democrats have never supported.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/democrats-support-border-wall/

As for your New York Post article (which, by the way, is the only thing you've included in here that provides any evidence in support of your claim), it's correlation, not causation. More importantly, it's not supported by any broad studies of immigration over time. Note that everything in that article covers the effects in El Paso, not the broader effects on illegal immigration. What's worse, there appears to be no implemented way to actually assess that effectiveness because the issue is so complex.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/gao-border-wall/

It's made all the more difficult by the fact that the border walls that we do have are so often circumvented. They find ways over, under and around the wall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/02/shocking-video-shows-suspected-drug-smugglers-easily-crossing-u-s-mexico-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.128bbb463121

http://shapleigh.org/news/2676-border-fence-project-hits-a-snag

These problems are further complicated by additional violence caused by disrupting the drug trade and sparking conflicts at the border.

http://www.benjamin-laughlin.com/border_wall.pdf

In terms of who I consider to be an expert, it's anyone who can present data sufficient to examine the total effect of a border wall. It can be a Border Patrol agent, so long as they're not just speaking of their personal experience. Studies have more weight than anecdotes.

TTKDB · January 2019

@whiteflame

"I would argue that debate isn’t supposed to be an exercise in equity. Equity of voice, perhaps, but not equity of points.

If any of the participants hypothetically speaking, were making an attempt to run and campaign to run for a public office, and be responsible for the public living within the confines of their individual localities, one would be hoping that when they are reiterating their talking points before the public at large, that their individual arguments are as fair and equal as possible, when it comes to a voter, voting for that particular representative, running for a public office, or by stating a similar position in a forum?

The public deserves to be educated in a fair and equal way, via the content found, in any debate forum.

Like presenting an article, along with some excerpts from the article.

TTKDB · January 2019

@Zombieguy1987

So Mexico, funding the border wall, and it not happening, pretty much isn't an issue, if there are US citizens who have gone out of their way to create GoFundMe pages, to generate funds to pay for the border wall itself, so, in a sense, addresses the border wall not being funded by Mexico, almost single handedly by itself.

And some of the various political representatives who are apparently anti border wall oriented, apparently like to lament before the news media cameras, about Trump's words being expressed about Mexico paying for the border wall, kind of shows the public, how some are apparently, playing their political card games, by what they choose to verbally lament on, in comparison to what they quietly choose to not lament on?

For example, when certain political representatives, express certain dialogues, in regards to the "border wall" funding, "security funding," and or the words "illegal immigrant, or illegal immigration," or anything about the IRCA law signed by former POTUS Ronald Reagan, the public is listening, to what the various political representatives are politically willing to lament over, verses what they are quietly not lamenting over?

So the above public observation, over the individual political dialogue choice's, educates the public, just as much as the political messages, that they choose to lament over, the spotlight of the news media outlet cameras.

CYDdharta · January 2019

whiteflame said:

I'll start by saying this: I'm not dismissing Mr. Judd solely on the basis that he's not an objective source, though he certainly has skin in the game that affects his judgement. The same may well be true of my sources. The major problem I have with him is that he's taking his limited perspective, stating that it applies broadly, and providing no data to support his assumption. That is not true of my sources, as they contain a great deal of actual data, including a study coming from a House Republican, that questions basic assumptions Trump is making about how to build a wall, over what parts of the border, and how effective it will be. Even your cited source, Mark Morgan, says that this is "a multi-layered border security issue", yet Trump functions under the impression that there is only one layer, and that any other border security efforts are pointless.

You've been paying too much attention to the president's many detractors and not enough to what he actually says. The border wall is but one of many steps he's trying to take to secure the border. It's an important step, but far from the only one.

    My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem. Our proposal was developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents at the Department of Homeland Security. These are the resources they have requested to properly perform their mission and keep America safe. In fact, safer than ever before.

    The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

    Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home.

    Finally, as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier. At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need. This is just common sense.

http://time.com/5497569/donald-trump-oval-office-address-transcript/

But the sources you're providing really don't support the use of a wall as well as you seem to think they do. Mr. Morgan does not cite any data, again, simply referring to his experience and knowledge pool without any validation. Similarly, simply appealing to the popularity of a given view among Border Patrol line agents doesn't accomplish anything in terms of showing that such a wall would be effective. It's similar to me arguing that the vast majority of residents and lawmakers on the border oppose the wall on the basis, except that they have data regarding the economic and political effects of the wall to support their views.

This is just false and absurd. The public isn't responsible for observing, much less enforcing, the laws along the border. And since illegals tend to settle along the border, the results of any poll of residents of border areas will be skewed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss

Personal accounts, no verifiable data

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump’s-wall-proposal/ar-BBS44f5

Personal accounts, no verifiable data; in addition, I've posted elsewhere that elected officials have a vested interest in open borders to keep their voters happy and voting for them. Illegals tend to settle close to the border, which is another problem;

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/49/f73oddqsworx.png

Even if I assume that the wall would have some meaningful effect on illegal immigration, there is still the question of whether that gain is worth the losses.

You also refer to former presidents who supported various stages of a wall at various times in their careers. First off, again, you're committing the same ad populum fallacy. Just because many people have supported building a wall over various stretches of the border doesn't mean that there's valid support for doing so. Second, you're oversimplifying their support. That support was for a much more limited and tactical scope of a wall when Democrats were using these policies as a means to compromise with a Republican plan.
Clinton responded, “There are some limited places where that was appropriate. There also is necessarily going to be new technology and how best to deploy that. But it is clear when you look at what Donald has been proposing. He started his campaign bashing immigrants, calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and drug dealers, that he has a very different view about what we should do to deal with immigrants.”

A spokesman in Schumer’s office pointed out similar contrasts between the two plans. Trump during the campaign called for a 30-foot tall concrete wall for the length of the border. But the Secure Fence Act was “a bipartisan plan to strategically place clear-view, secure fencing that works hand in glove with surveillance technology. Democrats and Republicans have supported such policies in the 2006 Secure Fence Act and the 2013 bipartisan immigration reform law,” Schumer’s spokesman said.

“The contexts, I think, were different,” Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told us via email. “Today’s discussion involves fencing off the entire 2,000-mile border while the earlier debate focused on adding significant (700 miles) but still limited miles of fencing at locations designated by DHS as necessary.”
...
Mittelstadt noted that the political context is also vastly different, as some Democrats ceded to the Secure Fence Act as a political compromise to a Republican plan to criminalize all unauthorized immigrants, and to make it a crime to assist unauthorized immigrants.
“It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison,” agreed Edward Alden, an expert on immigration policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.“The Secure Fence Act was written in a way to get support from both sides,” Alden told us via email. “The Democrats, by and large, supported the use of ‘tactical’ fencing in high-traffic areas, something that the Border Patrol had long favored. Trump’s wall proposal seems to call for fencing the entire border, which Democrats have never supported.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/democrats-support-border-wall/

So the objections to funding the wall are almost entirely politicians trying to score political points. Noted, and thanx for the assist.

As for your New York Post article (which, by the way, is the only thing you've included in here that provides any evidence in support of your claim), it's correlation, not causation. More importantly, it's not supported by any broad studies of immigration over time. Note that everything in that article covers the effects in El Paso, not the broader effects on illegal immigration. What's worse, there appears to be no implemented way to actually assess that effectiveness because the issue is so complex.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/gao-border-wall/

The GAO report is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The purpose of the report was to identify "Additional Actions [that are] Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps". It doesn't assess the effectiveness of a border wall at all.

It's made all the more difficult by the fact that the border walls that we do have are so often circumvented. They find ways over, under and around the wall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/02/shocking-video-shows-suspected-drug-smugglers-easily-crossing-u-s-mexico-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.128bbb463121
http://shapleigh.org/news/2676-border-fence-project-hits-a-snag

Which illustrates why border fencing is inadequate and proves the need for a border wall. Once again, and thanx for the assist.

These problems are further complicated by additional violence caused by disrupting the drug trade and sparking conflicts at the border.
http://www.benjamin-laughlin.com/border_wall.pdf

Which is yet another reason to build the wall. You're getting good at proving the president's position.

In terms of who I consider to be an expert, it's anyone who can present data sufficient to examine the total effect of a border wall. It can be a Border Patrol agent, so long as they're not just speaking of their personal experience. Studies have more weight than anecdotes.

This isn't a physics problem, this is a law enforcement problem. Most people understand that the observations of law enforcement officers in charge of carrying out the mission have a direct bearing on the discussion. As far as studies of the effectiveness of an actual wall, there aren't very many. This is about the only one available;

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration

TTKDB · January 2019

@CYDdharta

The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

"In the 80's the border started changing. 300 illegal immigrants a month, coming across the border illegally, and then in the 90's it became 300 illegal immigrants a day, stole stuff, broke stuff, trucks stolen, cars stolen, saddles, horses stolen."

"Since the 2000's, the cartels took over the human trade, as well as the drug trade. that's what the border is about now, money, it's not about, immigration, but smuggling."

And in the video, they mention, that the smugglers, aren't someone that should be messed with.

And apparently on this ranchers property, 6 people have been killed.

And there is a tree on the property as well, that has a nickname attached to it, and the nickname is sad and sickening.

So, if some who are anti border wall, check out this video, because some of the us citizens who live along the border because of their properties, have seen and experienced some ugly things because of what's been happening along the border, since the 1980's.

And because of the conversations, and the history about the border, being experienced by the ranchers, it makes you wonder, where some of the anti border individuals, go about developing talking points, that fail to include the ranchers perspectives, from what they have seen, and experienced at the border for years now?

This video has been around for a while now, yet when the anti border wall individuals expess themselves, they seem to be lacking in the narratives of the us citizens living along the border?

And instead, reiterate only their individual anti border wall narratives?

I'm waiting to see if anyone mentions creating a (Department, of the Border Wall and Border Security Office)?

Create a Department like that together, and the border wall, has the proper manpower to provide the proper security along the wall?

There should have been a wall, or a steel fence of some type, and a security detail provided for, and along the border, years ago.

Something like the (DHS)?

whiteflame · January 2019

TTKDB said:

You're making less and less sense as we go. If I was running a campaign for public office, my goal would not be to make sure that everyone knows both sides of every issue equally. My goal would be to convince them that the views I'm bringing to the table are the most correct, explain why, and explain how I plan to execute on them. It's not a politician's role to educate the public, it's a politician's role to get elected and pass legislation.

However, I don't see what this has to do with your initial point at all. If your argument is that we need to educate people, there are plenty of news-based resources available that are supposed to fulfill that purpose. And yes, they should present all of the facts without a clear bias. They should be fair and equal, in a sense. I say "in a sense" because if one side does have more support, I do not think it's the duty of news media to present both sides with the same amount of support. The evidence should speak for itself, however much there is on either side. I don't think it can ever be fully fair and equal, as you keep proclaiming.

But all of this is besides the point. My issue is with how you, specifically, respond to arguments posted in here and with how you perceive the effectiveness of a post based on the number of question marks included. I agree, presenting an article (particularly one with evidence) can be very helpful. I haven't seen you doing that. I haven't seen you doing more than providing abbreviated, perfunctory questions that hardly address the points I'm making and actively seek to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. If you call that education, then we are clearly not on the same page.

TTKDB · January 2019

@whiteflame

"If I was running a campaign for public office, my goal would not be to make sure that everyone knows both sides of every issue equally. My goal would be to convince them that the views I'm bringing to the table are the most correct, explain why, and explain how I plan to execute on them. It's not a politician's role to educate the public, it's a politician's role to get elected and pass legislation."

So you think that it's a politician's role, is to campaign to the public on half truths, and one sided story telling talking points, to get the public in general to vote for you?

So you via your campaign style, you'd have to have a platoon of journalists, to do some fact checking on the one sided talking points that you'd be using to give a platform to your campaign bid then right?

Maybe because, basically those votes would be viewed, as more important, than taking care of the constituent's who voted for you post election day then right?

Is that how your hypothetical campaign strategy might work?

Maybe the above is why some of the citizens in the United States, who have pondered running for a public office, but the notion gets outweighed by how some manage, their political mud and dirt, and instead of campaigning to work for the public, maybe some just run for a public office, to work in a sense basically for themselves?

whiteflame · January 2019

@TTKDB

See, you're doing a really great job explaining just why posing questions doesn't always provide anyone with additional information or further the conversation, mainly because you're using those same questions to massively mischaracterize my points and further distance yourself from the topic and issues with your own posts.

I didn't say that a politician's role is to lie or skew the truth in their favor. I said it's a politician's role to get elected and pass legislation. Delivering information to the public, providing the means to know what's going on with an issue many don't necessarily understand, may be part of that. It could be fair and impartial, but this is politics we're talking about. This is a world of political parties, particularly in the US, and messaging often leads to the use of bias or hyperbole. It happens all the time. If you want to proclaim that they should hold themselves to a higher standard, that's up to you, but that's not the role nor can it be their role. Unless we take campaigning entirely out of the picture, we have to contend with the fact that these things will continue to exist and be broadly employed. That's the nature of politics, just as it should be the nature of news to deliver information without those biases or hyperbolic language.

If I was running for political office, you can bet I would be fact checking my opponent and trying to dismiss similar problems with my platform. I am not a politician, nor do I want to be, but if I did and wanted to be successful, I'd have little choice but to bend to the system that lies before me. This isn't how a hypothetical campaign strategy works - this is how pretty much every single campaign strategy actually works.

However, I think your biggest mischaracterization is that, by engaging in this kind of behavior, I would fundamentally function against my constituents. The way this system is supposed to function (and I'll fully admit, it doesn't do this as well as it should) is that the politicians that win are representing positions people generally agree with. They can, and often do, present those positions with a heap of bias and hyperbole, but that usually solidifies views. It doesn't often alter perceptions on a given problem. If a politician is using these to actively frighten people into voting for them, I'd agree, that's bad. However, if a politician is presenting viewpoints that represent their constituents, I see no harm in that at all. Hell, if a politician represents viewpoints that cause their constituents to shift their stance on a number of issues, I don't see that as bad either, so long as the case they're presenting is not a fabrication.

TTKDB · January 2019

@whiteflame

I've been looking for some of the liberal political representatives to mention anything in regards to the below story, or stories similar to ones like them, when they are expressing their individual dialogues about the border?

So to a certain degree, information wise, here's what I have been hearing: Trump can get funds for border security, but no funding for the border wall, and that the government shutdown is his fault?

Am I correct, or incorrect in that observation?

Trump's dialogue, has been about funding for both the border wall, and border security?

So given the information in the below video, wouldn't funding for both the border wall, along with the funding for border security, both be fair and equal ideas, for security along the southern border by enhancing both?

When some watch the below via video about the border, they may start to ponder on a particular question: (Why hasn't, with the given and continuous issues, with the border wall, why haven't those issues, been remedied way before now?)

Here you go:
A story on the Border, told by the United States citizens, who live on, or near the border because of their properties.

"The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

"In the 80's the border started changing. 300 illegal immigrants a month, coming across the border illegally, and then in the 90's it became 300 illegal immigrants a day, stole stuff, broke stuff, trucks stolen, cars stolen, saddles, horses stolen."

"Since the 2000's, the cartels took over the human trade, as well as the drug trade. that's what the border is about now, money, it's not about, immigration, but smuggling."

And in the video, they mention, that the smugglers, aren't someone that should be messed with.

And apparently on this ranchers property, 6 people have been killed.

And there is a tree on the property as well, that has a nickname attached to it, and the nickname is sad and sickening.

So, if some who are anti border wall, check out this video, because some of the us citizens who live along the border because of their properties, have seen and experienced some ugly things because of what's been happening along the border, since the 1980's.

And because of the conversations, and the history about the border, being experienced by the ranchers, it makes you wonder, where some of the anti border individuals, go about developing talking points, that fail to include the ranchers perspectives, from what they have seen, and experienced at the border for years now?

This video has been around for a while now, yet when the anti border wall individuals expess themselves, they seem to be lacking in the narratives of the us citizens living along the border?

And instead, reiterate only their individual anti border wall narratives?

I'm waiting to see if anyone mentions creating a (Department, of the Border Wall and Border Security Office)?

Create a Department like that together, and the border wall, has the proper manpower to provide the proper security along the wall?

There should have been a wall, or a steel fence of some type, and a security detail provided for, and along the border, years ago.

Something like the (DHS)?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Co-worker: Gilgo murders suspect unnerved her by tracking her down on a cruise

In this Debate

Trump Government Shutdown
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

"The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Co-worker: Gilgo murders suspect unnerved her by tracking her down on a cruise

In this Debate

Trump Government Shutdownin Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

"The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Trump Government Shutdown
in Politics