It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Well it looks like Harvey just ended Trump's wall

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have talked with most of the people I know about trumps wall(I live in Illinois) I have not heard one person speak against his plans for the wall. We are still wanting to see it built.


It's the dumbest thing in the world.

How about verified employment and military survellience? Or are you interested in playing make believe with an impenetrable chain link fence.




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have talked with most of the people I know about trumps wall(I live in Illinois) I have not heard one person speak against his plans for the wall. We are still wanting to see it built.

So? Wishes and unicorn farts aren't going to pay for the wall. Trump has no negotiating power for the wall and we need funds for far more important things than a partisan waste of tax money.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Leaving aside the political predictions, people do realize that government shutdowns don't mean everything the government does, stops, right?

Funding a disaster recovery effort, where the money appropriated would be largely administered by the states anyway, doesn't really have much to do with a shut-down. Moreover, there are many 'national security' and protection of life and property exceptions.

In terms of holding any emergency relief hostage to some unrelated political aim, that would be radio active for either side.

Texas will get their money...and Trump will still try to get his wall. The way I see it, the Dems remain in the weaker position.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

A government shutdown would totally stop FEMA in its tracks, because FEMA is a federal organization. And don't pretend like FEMA isn't important. Remember how Bush dropped the ball with Katrina? That was all because of FEMA's terrible mismanagement. Things would be MUCH worse if FEMA wasn't doing anything altogether because of a shutdown.
edit on 28-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

Trump doesn't even have the Republicans to back his wall.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have talked with most of the people I know about trumps wall(I live in Illinois) I have not heard one person speak against his plans for the wall. We are still wanting to see it built.


It's the dumbest thing in the world.

How about verified employment and military survellience? Or are you interested in playing make believe with an impenetrable chain link fence.


I guess I was the only one who thought that when "the wall" was funded, it would mean more surveillance and more hires for border security.

"The wall" isn't just a brick and mortar construct. "The Wall" is our border security which includes increased manpower, increased surveillance, increased infrastructure for border security.

At least, that was my understanding.


*shrugs*

Who knows. . .




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Um, the Antideficiency Act provides for the exception where “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” is required.

FEMA activities would not stop in this context.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Really? Because Trump was very specific that the wall would be over 6 feet high, concrete, and uh... have solar panels that powered it. Sounds to me you are projecting your own wants onto Trump in lieu of his actual words.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Maybe. But I wouldn't count on that just quite yet.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

That's cool. Trump just won't accomplish anything, because the government requires cooperation to get things through it. Being a renegade may be good to appeal to his base, but it is proving to be a rather ineffective governing method. It certainly won't help clean up the Harvey mess.


Y'all don't get it...
We will do this ourselves...


-Chris


If you can pull billions of dollars in cleanup costs out of your rear by "doing it yourself," you really ought to use the same strategy to build your wall. Save us all a lot of money.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Really? Because Trump was very specific that the wall would be over 6 feet high, concrete, and uh... have solar panels that powered it. Sounds to me you are projecting your own wants onto Trump in lieu of his actual words.


So you're going literal.

Okay.

Have fun with that.




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's got a point, we know Trump doesn't really want to build the wall. But he's stuck with it and has to keep wrangling about it with Congress, instead of something more productive. So in the long run I think he'd welcome a way out from that, where he won't look like he broke his promise. But I guess the Harvey won't cut it since Mexico was supposed to pay in any case.

a reply to: Christosterone

Damn that millennial Shakespeare, he's ruining the English language.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have talked with most of the people I know about trumps wall(I live in Illinois) I have not heard one person speak against his plans for the wall. We are still wanting to see it built.

So? Wishes and unicorn farts aren't going to pay for the wall. Trump has no negotiating power for the wall and we need funds for far more important things than a partisan waste of tax money.


For a man who campaigned on his ability to "make great deals" he certainly has proven himself to be incapable of negotiating anything with anyone.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Um, the Antideficiency Act provides for the exception where “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” is required.

FEMA activities would not stop in this context.

Maybe not completely, but the lack of a fluid budget would certainly hinder their efforts. A shutdown would seriously complicate relief efforts no matter how you slice the pie. Here's some tid bits from the OP source:

Hoagland noted that dealing with Harvey could actually force lawmakers to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling more quickly than they might have otherwise, as the Treasury Department might need more flexibility to extend emergency cash to areas affected by the storm. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said the debt ceiling must be raised by Sept. 29 or the government will have a hard time paying all of its bills.

The federal government had only $50.6 billion in cash reserves as of Thursday, down from more than $350 billion in January. It has drawn down this account because Congress has not been able to reach an agreement on how to deal with the debt ceiling.


If the humanitarian crisis worsens in Texas in the coming days, Republicans could be forced to rethink the timing of their push for corporate tax cuts that they had hoped would dominate the fall political calendar.

That is in part because several other federal programs that are often overlooked could draw much more attention.

The federal Disaster Relief Fund administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency had a balance of $3.8 billion at the end of July, of which $1.6 billion is already obligated, according to the most recent federal report. Trump declared Harvey a major disaster Friday, making Texas victims eligible for relief from that fund. But with damage estimates already rising into the tens of billions of dollars, the fund’s balance is almost certainly inadequate.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



TRUMP: Build that wall. Now the obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it. But believe me, if we have to close down our government, we're building that wall.

Let me be very clear to Democrats in Congress who oppose a border wall and stand in the way of border security: You are putting all of America's safety at risk. You're doing that. You're doing that.

Again, the Border Patrol today, I said, how important is the wall to some of the folks? I met with a lot of them. And they looked at me, they said, it's vital. It's vital. It's so vital. And you know, we have walls. I don't know if you know, we're already starting to fix a lot of the walls we already have, because we don't have to rebuild them. And we want walls that you can see through in a sense. You want to see what's on the other side. But we're starting to fix a lot of the walls. We've done a lot of work.

Link.


edit on 28-8-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You are not alone in your "wall" expectations.
I am not expecting as much a physical wall in unoccupied areas of the border.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

He could just admit he bit off more than he intended...



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have talked with most of the people I know about trumps wall(I live in Illinois) I have not heard one person speak against his plans for the wall. We are still wanting to see it built.


It's the dumbest thing in the world.

How about verified employment and military survellience? Or are you interested in playing make believe with an impenetrable chain link fence.


I guess I was the only one who thought that when "the wall" was funded, it would mean more surveillance and more hires for border security.

"The wall" isn't just a brick and mortar construct. "The Wall" is our border security which includes increased manpower, increased surveillance, increased infrastructure for border security.

At least, that was my understanding.


*shrugs*

Who knows. . .



Well you were duped. You probably didn't grow up or live in say Texas. Where everybody always knew what was going on.

Like I keep saying if he was serious you would have seen the irs raiding all those illegal employers which would have started a mass exodus.

But alas. The wealthy donors and necessity of labor voids in boom towns is the reality.

Why a fence though? It doesn't work in places already using them. Why not make it almost impossible to get hired and target the know industries and use more border agents and increase immigration courts? That alone will be a massive cost. No need for a wall at all.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

And? What's your point? Trump says a lot of garbage, but that doesn't describe what the wall is supposed to look like.

“We’re talking about the southern border, lots of sun, lots of heat. We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall so it creates energy and pays for itself,” the president told supporters at a rally in Iowa on Wednesday night. “And this way, Mexico will have to pay much less money. And that’s good, right?”

source
I'm sorry. I said 6 feet. I was wrong. It was 30 feet.

The Trump administration wants to build a 30-foot-high border wall that looks good from the north side and is difficult to climb or cut through, according to a pair of contract notices posted to a government website further detailing President Donald Trump's promise to build a "big, beautiful wall" at the Mexican border.

source



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said, opposition to any appropriations bill for Harvey relief would be politically toxic to either side. The debt ceiling negotiations will run independently from those appropriations. Your source's argument is weak. One does not imperil the other.

edit on 28-8-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)







 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join