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.

 

What the Shut down is really about

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: SailorJerry
a reply to: Wayfarer




No, just Triggered. Its not that complicated of a concept.


You literally just accused another poster of being involved in sex trafficking, I hope other posters see this so they can understand the kind of though process you employ, and understand to take everything you say with a grain of very very skeptical salt.


Sailor Jerry with the salt quip! Top Notch


and if we're being accurate here I merely shoveled his own horsecrap back into his own mouth, tit-for-tat and whatnot.



I never said or accused anyone specifically.


To quote you:

"Anyone against the wall is pro slavery for corporate profits and pro human and sex trafficking.

End of story.

They enjoy the steady flow of poor brown people to be slaves and sex abuse victims. Your average leftist in a nutshell. "

Yeah, I guess its ok if you call out ALL leftists as rapists, as long as you don't call out just one person. /rolleyes


I did say that yes. But it wasn't directed at any one person and I didnt single any specific person out.

You did.

Why do you assume it's just leftists?


Lol, can you even hear yourself? Again, you can refute yourself far better than I can, "Your average leftist in a nutshell."



And no I can't "hear" myself. I'm typing on a phone not speaking out loud.


Ah, this all makes sense now.

I'll have to explain this really simply I see: Its an expression of speech, you see. I'm not actually inquiring if you can auditorily detect your own voice......

But thanks for clearing up why you are unable to grasp your own idiocy.


Are you ever going to address the point I made about slaves for corporate profits?


Its kind of a wackadoo nonsensical point, but if you really want me to have a go at it I'd wager those corporations using slave labor are disproportionately Conservative leaning, or invest heavily in lobbying efforts primarily supported by conservative lawmakers.




posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I am a leftist, and he said, "Anyone against the wall is pro slavery for corporate profits and pro human and sex trafficking.


The side effects is human trafficking for slave labor, sex-trade, drug running etc...Undocumented people in our country is NOT GOOD anyway you look at it, BUT the message from the left is...come...we want you...open borders for all, and they come and cost us well over 100 billion a year in taxes, overwhelm state social systems, contribute to many crimes and make it easy for people to take advantage of a class of people that have zero defenses.

We need to change that message and no matter how unsuccessful a wall might be it would be a physical message not to come, we do not want undocumented aliens etc...If the wall was just 50% successful it would cut 10s of billions off our cost and so pay for itself in just one year. If we had a work visa program to fill all the needed positions that would also pay for the wall very quickly. If we were able to cut down the 28% of inmates that are illegal aliens in our jails for committing bad stuff that would pay for the wall, if we actually fined companies for using illegals that would pay for the wall too, and maybe border states would not be going broke as the cost of social programs sky rocket and even maybe not having something like 50 to 1 student to teacher ratio in our border states due to undocumented kids would be a win for all...

I can go on and on so we need a new message, a change, something no other politician has been willing to touch in 80 years. Saying liberals are pro this or that is wrong, but they sure want to keep a blind eye to the term human trafficking and make it sound pretty by using undocumented immigrants, but it is not pretty...it is an ugly environment you all seem to be quite happy with...lol






edit on 3-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Well, if $5-Billion is "peanuts" (you might think differently if it were your tax dollars; ratio to total tax revenue is irrelevant), then shouldn't the Dems be approving this no problem and avoiding the shutdown on their end?

See, it's cute that someone who doesn't even live here has a massive hard-on for American politics, but the reality of the situation is that it's easy to opine on something when you have no dog in the fight.

$5-billion is a LOT of money, regardless of your trivialization of it.

But, border control is a big problem at the southern border, so as I've already stated in other threads, the need for strategic sections of more wall/fence/surveillance/whatever has absolute merit. Yet, the only reason that Dems say that they're against the wall is because of a subjective assertion that it's unnecessary and will do nothing to curb illegal immigration/drugs/human trafficking/etc.

Well, I call bullsh*t on their assertions--they are simply being obstructionists and flexing their newly found congressional muscle and nothing more. The vast majority of these Dems have never lived in a border state nor toured the border and know what it's like in the busiest sections of illegal activity, so they're simply talking out of their collective ass and ignoring reality when they say that strategic walling/fencing/whatevering is unnecessary.

I agree that this is mostly a political stunt, but most of the stunting falls on the party left of center--but like I've noted before, a compromise is what's needed, so we'll see what happens.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I am a leftist, and he said, "Anyone against the wall is pro slavery for corporate profits and pro human and sex trafficking.


...the message from the left is...come...we want you...open borders for all...


Not really. This is the message the right has fabricated about the left. The overwhelming majority of lefists also want border security, they just don't want money wasted on some stupid wall (that Mexico was supposed to pay for no less). Most are fine with money spent in aspects of border security like increased personnel, technology, checkpoints, etc.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ
I hope it becomes permanent. If we get a better fence/wall it will be easier for volunteers to defend once the federal govement can't afford to pay essential federal border security employees.


Volunteers, ouch, what started as Mexico paying to build it and taxpayer money to maintain it, to now US civilians defending it for free, this before a brick has been laid, it would seem it is more about support for Trump now than it being actually cost effective, if the wall/fence is built how effective does it have to be for the cost to be justified?

Can it reduce illigal migration by 50% and still be finacially better or does it need to be closer to 100%

I hope whatever is better for the average US taxayer is the option chosen



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Not really. This is the message the right has fabricated about the left. The overwhelming majority of lefists also want border security, they just don't want money wasted on some stupid wall (that Mexico was supposed to pay for no less). Most are fine with money spent in aspects of border security like increased personnel, technology, checkpoints, etc.


Lol, you still need some physical barrier, or do you have check points with nothing around them... Plus that is total BS that the left have not pushed this message. Why do you think they call anyone for border security racist? Where do you think the term undocumented alien came from? Why does the left feel border security ends one foot inland and now they are all undocumented aliens we should care for...

I could go on and on with a 1000 examples of the left having open arms for those south of the border to come here, and they have no issues with the 15 million here already...

So just what the hell do you want or not want..I agree that along with a physical barrier we also need " increased personnel, technology, checkpoints etc too" just as the president has said, but we also need some kind of physical barrier to support all that and nothing or a 6 foot fines is not enough.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do we still need a physical barrier exactly? Aside from some 'fencing' in areas we haven't had any Trump style wall and illegal immigration has steadily declined since before Obama was elected. All this fear-mongering that we're being assailed by 100 trillion immigrants is just blatant pandering by Conservatives to the basest instincts of people.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
So nobody noticed the Syria pullout got the Deep State all riled up!




You $ee how much Haliburton™ has $iphoned out of Iraq? Look at just the years 2014-2017 just for giggles.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

.....this is why you should read more than the first few lines



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Maybe Nancy Pelosi will be true to her beliefs and introduce a bill to remove the fences walls and barriers that exist on our Southern border now.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The OP's premise is a crock. The wall was only ONE of Donald's grandiose promises. What about his iron-clad, non equivocation promise to get everyone awesome Health Care cheaper than they were currently paying. What about that? What about the infrastructure promises? And helping the middle class? And lowering drug prices?

The only reason he's happy to shutdown the government is because he wants his personal monument. The Wall is his big Mt. Rushmore. Picking and choosing his 'Big Campaign Promise' is ingenuine. Despite whet he (and his adoring fans) believe, he has done nothing positive. He's kicked a huge economic problem down the road, rapidly inflated the debt, and screwed the middle class. Yea, he's helped the rich and big business but that's business as usual. The other stuff people are crowing about is just smoke and mirrors. You'll see.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do we still need a physical barrier exactly? Aside from some 'fencing' in areas we haven't had any Trump style wall and illegal immigration has steadily declined since before Obama was elected. All this fear-mongering that we're being assailed by 100 trillion immigrants is just blatant pandering by Conservatives to the basest instincts of people.


They caught 51,000 in Nov...How many was the total that crossed by just hoping a 6 foot wall? No one knows... The wall would mean that many of them would not be able to get over...we can talk about 40 foot ladders...catapults...tunnels etc, but in the end most will not have any of this and so it will be a physical barrier for them. If we cut the crossings by 50% it would save 10s of billions per year...just 50%..My expectations is it would be much higher than 50% would be deterred by a wall.

The wall would represent a "no, do not pass" message that they would need to spend a good amount of energy/time to over come. An open border says nothing, or "we do not care if you come" message. Once they are on our soil they say the magic words that border lawyers tell them to say and they enter the system that takes a good amount of time to process them. The key is to keep those numbers down from ever coming across to not overwhelm the systems that has limits to what they can handle.

The reality that you call fear mongering is we have 15 million in our country right now, 51,000 were caught in one month so it is not like anyone is stopping anytime soon, or the message they get is that we think it is OK to do what they do, 28% of our prisons are illegals doing really bad things, being a drug mule is a big business, as is coyote runs are. Bringing kids into the country reduces limited funds that we have for our own kids as it lowers the quality education we want to provide. They create about 18 billion in taxes, but they cost us 120 billion in taxes per year, it is human trafficking of a class of people that are defenseless.

No need for fear mongering...lol geez

So we can either have them trip movement sensors and have border patrol monitor them from the wall, or we can have them trip movement sensors and pick them up a few miles inland, which do you prefer and why?






edit on 3-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   

"I think we should pass a continuing resolution to get the government back open. The Senate has done it last Congress, we should do it again today," Gardner said Thursday, referring to the stopgap spending measure the Senate passed before Christmas, which would have funded federal agencies through Feb. 8.


I love Colorado!



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: SlapMonkey

.....this is why you should read more than the first few lines


What are you even talking about? I read your whole OP...it was rather uninteresting, but I felt a need to respond to it anyhow.

What makes you think that I didn't read the whole thing? Preconceived notions? Laziness in not wanting to craft an intelligent response? An inability to realize anything otherwise?

I'm wondering if you even read past my first few lines, because I agreed with some of your points.

Communicating with you is getting really amusing, in an unfortunate way.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

How wonderfully biased of you. I expected no less.

Trump made a promise during his campaign and you are flaming him for trying to keep it. The same way you would flame him if he didn't.

TDS.

Its not that he can't handle failing, its that he won't stop trying to fulfill a promise the American people want him to keep. Not because he made the promise but because we need it. A wall on the US/Mexico border will help stop illegal aliens and all the problems they bring with them from entering the country.

The real issue here is not that the government can't afford it, its that (the democrats) will do anything to prevent Trump from winning.

TDS.

This is the same government that created a perimeter nearly 100 miles long around Area 51 to keep their top secret projects top secret. Nothing can move near that border without being detected. And if you cross that perimeter without permission they have the right to kill you. No Bill of Rights, no nothing. The use of lethal force is authorized - period.

If our government can secure a perimeter that long with sensors, cameras, seismic monitors, and personnel so tightly a jackrabbit can't get through they can sure as hell protect our nation and its people. But they choose not to. They all got elected by promising at one time or another to build that same wall. But they never did. So along comes Trump who says he will do it and the democrats go insane because he will be the one to score that win and THEY can't handle it.

TDS.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Some days I wish someone would hit me in the head with a sledge hammer so I become as dumb as the average rwnj. Life would be so much...... simpler. a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do we still need a physical barrier exactly? Aside from some 'fencing' in areas we haven't had any Trump style wall and illegal immigration has steadily declined since before Obama was elected. All this fear-mongering that we're being assailed by 100 trillion immigrants is just blatant pandering by Conservatives to the basest instincts of people.


They caught 51,000 in Nov...How many was the total that crossed by just hoping a 6 foot wall? No one knows... The wall would mean that many of them would not be able to get over...we can talk about 40 foot ladders...catapults...tunnels etc, but in the end most will not have any of this and so it will be a physical barrier for them. If we cut the crossings by 50% it would save 10s of billions per year...just 50%..My expectations is it would be much higher than 50% would be deterred by a wall.

The wall would represent a "no, do not pass" message that they would need to spend a good amount of energy/time to over come. An open border says nothing, or "we do not care if you come" message. Once they are on our soil they say the magic words that border lawyers tell them to say and they enter the system that takes a good amount of time to process them. The key is to keep those numbers down from ever coming across to not overwhelm the systems that has limits to what they can handle.

The reality that you call fear mongering is we have 15 million in our country right now, 51,000 were caught in one month so it is not like anyone is stopping anytime soon, or the message they get is that we think it is OK to do what they do, 28% of our prisons are illegals doing really bad things, being a drug mule is a big business, as is coyote runs are. Bringing kids into the country reduces limited funds that we have for our own kids as it lowers the quality education we want to provide. They create about 18 billion in taxes, but they cost us 120 billion in taxes per year, it is human trafficking of a class of people that are defenseless.

No need for fear mongering...lol geez

So we can either have them trip movement sensors and have border patrol monitor them from the wall, or we can have them trip movement sensors and pick them up a few miles inland, which do you prefer and why?







But it is indeed fear mongering. Even your number you quote is evidence that you've been influenced by it. Your rebuttal which includes almost exclusively 'criminal/drug mules' as reference to them is a capitol example of the fear based mindset you conceptualize illegal immigrants by. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are not as you categorize.

Furthermore, Illegal Immigrants do indeed generate more economic value than they extract. PBS explanation

On top of that, illegal immigration has been steadily declining over the last decade without some massive concrete great wall of Trump, so its clearly evident that all of the alternatives I've mentioned are effective.

As for you last point, I absolutely would prefer not to eminent domain grab peoples land from them to build a wall which in reality is less about effect and more about symbolism (and I don't need to mention the specific symbolism its meant to impart, but suffice to say its of the ugliest caliber). Let CBP use technology and nab them in the desert like they've been doing successfully, and lets more intelligently optimize the money we spend on this endeavor in the most optimal fashion so that other areas (such as healthcare for example) that I think we can both agree on that could most certainly use the money have the opportunity to do so.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


The real issue here is not that the government can't afford it, its that (the democrats) will do anything to prevent Trump from winning.



Could you explain how when Trump proclaimed Mexico would pay for it he actually meant the US would pay for it?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


The real issue here is not that the government can't afford it, its that (the democrats) will do anything to prevent Trump from winning.



Could you explain how when Trump proclaimed Mexico would pay for it he actually meant the US would pay for it?


The meaning of his statement was that the $5 Billion would come from the $155 Billion spent annually on illegal immigrants. Stop the influx of illegals and remove the ones already here and the $5 Billion is a drop in the bucket compared to how much we save. A great portion of that $155 Billion gets wired to Mexico, and other countries, every day. If that money isn't given to illegals in the first place it won't be wired anywhere else. Its no secret that many people who collect government aid, for example food stamps, sell the benefit at a reduced price in exchange for cash. This cash rarely goes where it was meant to go.


Of course I always wanted to put a tax or surcharge on wire transfers to Mexico of which there are thousands every day. A great portion of them consist of taxpayer money and some are from paychecks. For a percentage of each transfer at the rate these transfers take place I wouldn't think it would take too long to pay for. I believe Trump mentioned this possibility as well.

Trump never meant Mexico would write us a check.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


The real issue here is not that the government can't afford it, its that (the democrats) will do anything to prevent Trump from winning.



Could you explain how when Trump proclaimed Mexico would pay for it he actually meant the US would pay for it?


the $155 Billion spent annually on illegal immigrants...


I suspect we're both operating from two perspectives on the data. In my case, the data I've seen points to illegal immigrants actually being a cash positive, whereas it sounds like you've seen data that indicates the opposite.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join