Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones at the General Forum; Originally Posted by ShivaTD https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ll/2591279002/ The source is U.S. Customs and Border Protection and yes, it's an estimate based upon ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:00 AM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Thanks: 65
Thanked 1,072 Times in 557 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ll/2591279002/

The source is U.S. Customs and Border Protection and yes, it's an estimate based upon the intercepted drugs coming across the border and it could be off but it's the best method possible for estimating how much is entering the United States, from where, and how it enters.

As I said, maybe it's just considerably easier to cease drugs at ports of entry. Your source offers no evidence that it's an accurate reflection of how drugs enter the country except to say that "experts" say it is without saying who these supposed "experts" are.

Quote:
We can always play hypotheticals. What if all of the drugs being smuggled into the United States are being intercepted by authorities. Then we have zero illegal drugs being successfully smuggled into the United States from Mexico right now and a problem doesn't exist at all.
Your hypothetical is ridiculous and you know it. It's s straw-man argument that doesn't work. I'm stating there is no way to know that 90% of the drugs coming into the country are coming through the ports of entry. The best you can say is that is that 90% of the drugs seized are seized at the ports of entry.

For what you are claiming to be true it would mean that although 90% of the drugs captured are captured at the ports of entry, they have no better success discovering and capturing drugs coming through the ports of entry than they do anywhere else. If that's true, they should be fired and we should replace them with people who are better at their jobs.

Quote:
I go by the government's estimates and others like Trump can just pull "S**t" out of their A$$,
So what did I pull out of my posterior regions? Please enlighten me?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zenock For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:18 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,076
Thanks: 11,341
Thanked 15,674 Times in 8,415 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
More die from prescription opioids than from heroin and we know that because the autopsy reveals the type of drug that resulted in death.
Maybe you should stand on your toes. My point, which had nothing to do with the drug type and everything to do with the invalid information derived, was aimed low but apparently,,, you still missed it?

As for opioids, the black market is huge. Are you suggesting the Mexican cartels are unaware?
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:00 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,980
Thanks: 16,018
Thanked 5,593 Times in 3,576 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Not being a Democrat...
No, most Democrats--with a few exceptions (such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, of New York)--are not quite so far to the left--even though they seem to be trending in that direction.

Would you describe yourself, perhaps, as a democratic socialist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
7. Trump Proposal: three years of legislative relief for 700,000 DACA recipients brought here unlawfully by their parents at a young age many years ago. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
8. Trump Proposal: a three-year extension of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
9. NEW: Permanent residency status for up to 400,000 people per year for individuals (or households) that have resided in the United States for more than five years, that have committed no crimes against persons or property, and that is a member of a working household paying local, state, and/or federal taxes.
Some of my fellow conservatives have--erroneously, I believe--described those proposals of President Trump (outlined in #8 and #9) as "amnesty." That, I believe, is entirely wrong.

But what you are proposing is amnesty--however glowingly it might be framed.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:13 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,980
Thanks: 16,018
Thanked 5,593 Times in 3,576 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
More die from prescription opioids than from heroin and we know that because the autopsy reveals the type of drug that resulted in death.
No argument there.

But prescription drugs are legal, because they do some good--in many cases, much good--when used properly.

When abused, they can do considerable harm.

Heroin, on the other hand, is never a force for good.

So why would you imagine that heroin should be legalized?

Or, alternatively, that prescription opioids should be entirely banned?
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:37 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,980
Thanks: 16,018
Thanked 5,593 Times in 3,576 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
My proposal was not a "Democratic" proposal but instead is based upon what I believe Democrats would support based upon their historical bipartisan support for improving border security and our immigration laws.
To proclaim, innocently, that Democrats would "support" a border wall (or fence), is to assume (quite naively) that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not just playing brass-knuckle politics here.

They will do nothing--nothing at all!--that might give President Trump a win. And helping him fulfill a campaign pledge would definitely be a big win for him.

Part of that is a strong desire to see him defeated in 2020. And it is not altogether unreasonable for members of the opposition party to desire that. But the desire, in this case, seems almost phobic.

Yet another part is purely visceral: It is a strong desire to stick a finger in Donald Trump's eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
End the shutdown and then a bipartisan solution on border security and immigration can be achieved based upon the will of the American people.
(1) To "[e]nd the shutdown "immediately--and only thereafter talk about the wall--is a recipe for never getting the wall. And you are certainly bright enough to know it.

In fact, Nancy Pelosi has already declared that if the government were re-opened immediately, she would still not consider giving President Trump the wall.

We would be left only with the Democrats' definition on "border security."

(2) When did "the will of the American people" (presumably, as indicated by some public poll)--which is dominated by large, left-leaning cities (such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago)--become the standard?

Donald Trump was elected president, in 2016, as a result of many things. But one of the chief things he campaigned upon was building a wall along the US-Mexico border.

As others have noted, elections have consequences.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:45 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock View Post
As I said, maybe it's just considerably easier to cease drugs at ports of entry. Your source offers no evidence that it's an accurate reflection of how drugs enter the country except to say that "experts" say it is without saying who these supposed "experts" are.

Your hypothetical is ridiculous and you know it. It's s straw-man argument that doesn't work. I'm stating there is no way to know that 90% of the drugs coming into the country are coming through the ports of entry. The best you can say is that is that 90% of the drugs seized are seized at the ports of entry.

For what you are claiming to be true it would mean that although 90% of the drugs captured are captured at the ports of entry, they have no better success discovering and capturing drugs coming through the ports of entry than they do anywhere else. If that's true, they should be fired and we should replace them with people who are better at their jobs.

So what did I pull out of my posterior regions? Please enlighten me?
Yes, my hypothetical example was absurd and was meant to be absurd but apply a little common sense to the arguments.

According to the Border Patrol about 80% of those that are apprehended for unlawful entry are adults with children that turn themselves in to the Border Patrol and request asylum. These are not drug smugglers and, in fact, they wouldn't be crossing the border unlawfully to begin with if they were allowed to apply for asylum and lawful entry into the United States at a US port of entry in compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980 and our current immigration laws.

So we have about 20% of those apprehended that could be drug smugglers but history establishes that most of that 20% are unlawful entries to secure employment or to join with family members already in the United States. A small percentage are drug smugglers or criminals that can't just walk through a US port of entry so they illegally cross the border.

They're on foot and if they're a drug smuggler the amount of drugs then can carry across the border is very limited by weight alone. They might be able to smuggle 10 or 20 pounds along with the water and food that they need to make the trek across the border.

One person driving a car across the border can easily hide 100 or 200 pounds of drugs in their car. If the drugs are concealed in a Semi it could be 1000 lbs or more.

There's a daily average of 70,000 vehicles (about 25 million vehicles per year) that cross the border at the San Ysidro border crossing alone so the odds against even being stopped are extremely high. On the other hand being one of probably less than hundred thousand non-refugees unlawfully crossing the border yearly comes with a very high risk of being caught.

Individual crossing border - High risk / small amount
Vehicle - Low risk / large amount

Now become the drug cartel. Do you want to smuggle a lot of drugs into the US at low risk or a small amount of drugs into the US at high risk?

Common sense - low risk/large amount is the way to go.

I didn't imply you pulled anything out of your posterior but the Trump administration does it all of the time. Remember the "almost 4000 terrorists" trying to enter the US from Mexico claim? That was really like 3,700 people that were stopped and questioned because they (or their name) appeared on the State Department's watch list. Almost all of those stops are at airports and almost all are questioned and released. Only a few are ever arrested for possible terrorist related crimes. There are some stopped at US ports of entry but none have been stopped trying to unlawfully cross into the United States. Of those stopped they're overwhelmingly stopped at the US-Canada border and released after questioning with one exception where terrorist charges were filed against two people (as I recall) trying to enter Washington state from British Columbia. There were only six people questioned and released at the US-Mexico port of entry in the first half of 2018 and no terrorists have ever been apprehended attempting to enter the US from Mexico.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 01-22-2019 at 01:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 02:13 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
To proclaim, innocently, that Democrats would "support" a border wall (or fence), is to assume (quite naively) that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not just playing brass-knuckle politics here.

They will do nothing--nothing at all!--that might give President Trump a win. And helping him fulfill a campaign pledge would definitely be a big win for him.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are definitely playing brass-knuckle politics with Trump. No doubt about it. They're not going to give in to Trump's demand for $5.7 billion for a wall as a condition of ending the shutdown. Trump has already proven his disregard for the security of the United States by refusing to reopen government without the funding for his wall. The FBI, DOJ, DHS, and US Coast Guard are all operating without any funding. All of those services are vital for the national security and Trump doesn't care.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer demand that the government be opened first and they will not budge on this issue. They're right, Trump is wrong, and the American people know that.

Once the government shutdown is over then and only then will Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer address improvements to US border security and they want to do so in a bipartisan manner so that the legislation can actually pass in both the House and the Senate and be sent to Trump's desk to sign.

I know that the Border Patrol does believe that a limit amount of strategically located fencing will enhance their law enforcement efforts and both Pelosi and Schumer will listen and be willing to adopt Border Patrol proposals for a limited amount of strategically located fencing. They're never going to buy-in for a campaign promise of "Build the Wall" that isn't based upon expert recommendations for a limited amount of defined strategically located additional fencing.

So you're right. Trump will not fulfill his campaign promise of "Build the Wall" but additional fencing in a few limited number of strategic locations based upon Border Patrol recommendations won't have any problem with the Democrats.

Schumer and Pelosi are concerned with border security. Donald Trump is only concerned with his campaign promise to Build The Wall.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 02:30 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
(1) To "[e]nd the shutdown "immediately--and only thereafter talk about the wall--is a recipe for never getting the wall. And you are certainly bright enough to know it.

In fact, Nancy Pelosi has already declared that if the government were re-opened immediately, she would still not consider giving President Trump the wall..
Trump is never going to be allowed to fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall between the US and Mexico because it's a stupid idea and a huge waste of limited funding.

On the other hand Pelosi and Schumer are focused in improving border security and to do that they're open to funding the Border Patrol's request for additional fencing in a few defined strategic locations along the US-Mexico border. Schumer and Pelosi have never stated that they're opposed to funding projects that experts, like those in the Border Patrol, agree will increase border security.

So it is correct that Pelosi and Schumer won't fund "Trump's Wall" because it's not backed up by experts, including the Border Patrol, that see Trump's "Wall" as a waste of money that can be used for real border security. (Yes, I can provide a quote from the head of the Border Patrol union that backs this up if you want but if you go back in this thread you'll find it).

Additional security provided by a "wall" (additional fencing) will be the "Border Patrol's Wall" in those limited strategic locations where it can actually improve border security for the United States. Pelosi and Schumer will both back the recommendations by the Border Patrol.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 04:42 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,220 Times in 8,281 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

On the wall fight, libs are hypocrites. They voted for pretty much the same thing when Obama was in office. Now they're against it because Trump is in favor of it.

Obstructionists. That's all libs are.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2019, 12:06 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,980
Thanks: 16,018
Thanked 5,593 Times in 3,576 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are definitely playing brass-knuckle politics with Trump. No doubt about it. They're not going to give in to Trump's demand for $5.7 billion for a wall as a condition of ending the shutdown.
Since you agree on this point, there is really no need to pursue the matter.

Still, I will do so--a little, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer demand that the government be opened first and they will not budge on this issue.
Why open the government when there is no chance--zero!--that the wall (or fence) might then be funded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Once the government shutdown is over then and only then will Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer address improvements to US border security and they want to do so in a bipartisan manner so that the legislation can actually pass in both the House and the Senate and be sent to Trump's desk to sign.
Translation: "Once the government shutdown is over," Nancy Pelosi can give us the Democrats' version of "border security"--without giving even the slightest consideration to a wall (or fence).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Schumer and Pelosi are concerned with border security.]
More accurately, Schumer and Pelosi are concerned with playing to their (hard left, Trump-hating) base...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
are, cynical, democrats, fight, ones, the, ‘wall’

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0