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.

 

Trump prevents Pelosis overseas trip to Europe by restricting using US assets to fly hour before lea

page: 17
113
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Wayfarer
On the plus side at least the president has been impotently and entirely reduced in effectiveness to 'sick burns'. I'll take it.


Yup, at the cost of government worker pay. Go you guys!


Go who? You mean the Trump Shutdown that Trump said he would own proudly, and in fact, owns proudly, and wouldn't blame on anybody else?

Or maybe you need to hear the soundbite again, eh?




posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

We've all heard the soundbite. Get him a bill to sign and he will own it.

Until then, there is no possible way he can stop the shutdown, so he can't own it. The President does not pass legislation, even if people who have apparently never read the Constitution want him to.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

We've all heard the soundbite. Get him a bill to sign and he will own it.

Until then, there is no possible way he can stop the shutdown, so he can't own it. The President does not pass legislation, even if people who have apparently never read the Constitution want him to.

TheRedneck


C'mon dude, we've done this same back and forth dozens of times now. You're not going to convince me of anything different, nor am I going to convince you of anything different. Trump had a CR on his desk (passed through congress) ready for his signature that would have kept 800,000 government workers paid while he tried for his wall funding. He threw it away in lieu of holding 800,000 people hostage (precisely because having already failed to get his wall funding when he and his controlled every part of government, he had no other ammo in his pocket to use except for the 800,000 hostages).
edit on 03pm19fpmSun, 20 Jan 2019 15:09:57 -0600America/ChicagoSun, 20 Jan 2019 15:09:57 -0600 by Wayfarer because: spelling



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

We live in a causative universe. That bill was vetoed before the shutdown was imminent. Since Trump's assertion that he was willing to force a shutdown to get border security, not a single bill has crossed his desk.

If any one individual 'owns' the shutdown, it would have to be McConnell. He has the ability to bring bills before the senate floor. If he does allow a vote on the bills and they fail, the party in the Senate that opposes the bill will own the shutdown. It a bill passes and trump refuses to sign it, then Trump will own the shutdown.

And regardless of that, there will be someone in the opposition that 'owns' it as well. Only two people at this time have the power to simply shut off all funding for the government: Pelosi and McConnell. I don't think anyone is wanting to just keep the shutdown going for giggles... so there has to be two sides to a disagreement. Either side capitulating will end the shutdown.

That's how the process works, whether you like it or not.

Then we get to discuss whether the shutdown is appropriate... if it is, whoever 'owns' it is actually the good guy.

I really don't care if I change your mind or not. I care about putting out the truth to counter your position. Far be it from me to let ridiculousness and ignorance run amok without opposition.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer


If any one individual 'owns' the shutdown, it would have to be McConnell.

TheRedneck


Perhaps, but McConnell is merely echoing Trump in this regard, so in effect acting like a proxy for Trump.


There is no amount of bloviating that changes the fact that Trump failed to secure his wall funding when he had all the odds stacked in his favor. There is nothing he's doing now he couldn't of done then, and far more likely he could have accomplished his prerogative when he had greater leverage then than now, so any argument to the contrary smacks in the face of the facts: He's holding 800,000 people hostage because he stupidly backed himself into a corner and has no other leverage except holding 800,000 people hostage.

ART OF THE DEAL BABY!!!
edit on 03pm19fpmSun, 20 Jan 2019 15:56:55 -0600America/ChicagoSun, 20 Jan 2019 15:56:55 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.

What's more, not only can the gov't be opened by funding just part of the wall, something the Democrats have already said previously they wanted, thus getting 800k govt workers back to work, but Trump is offering another benefit to over 1m illegal immigrants AND addressing border security that will help millions more. The Democrats said no. So who is it hurting the people, again?




edit on 20/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.


The facts don't support your supposition, ergo what you've said above is emotional hyperbole.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.


The facts don't support your supposition, ergo what you've said above is emotional hyperbole.


That's no an argument. It's well, emotional.
The democrats - and you by supporting their position - are hurting millions of people. That's a fact. Whether it is the loss of jobs or the impact of drugs and crime.

edit on 20/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.


The facts don't support your supposition, ergo what you've said above is emotional hyperbole.


That's no an argument. It's well, emotional.


Can you explain which part of my previous response was emotional exactly?



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.


The facts don't support your supposition, ergo what you've said above is emotional hyperbole.


That's no an argument. It's well, emotional.


Can you explain which part of my previous response was emotional exactly?


Yes, it was a prissy little response, the kind of which you'd expect from a child who is upset someone doesn't agree with them.. throwing out conclusions about facts without explaining themselves.

The actual facts are that illegal aliens commit crimes, hundreds of thousands of them a year across the country, that affect the lives of millions of Americans. From the impacts of murdered family members, injured family members, to coping with drug addiction of a loved one, to less serious crimes that cost people money. You don't seem to care about these people at all, but you sure do like to pull at the heart strings about the 800,000 federal workers, don't you... it seems your emotions are selective.


edit on 20/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well if Trump is holding 800,000 people hostage, that is better than hurting 10's of millions by continuing the flood of illegal immigration. So choose your poison. It's the Democrats who don't seem to care one iota about the people affected by illegal immigration and, like I said, it numbers more than 800,000.


The facts don't support your supposition, ergo what you've said above is emotional hyperbole.


That's no an argument. It's well, emotional.


Can you explain which part of my previous response was emotional exactly?


Yes, it was a prissy little response, the kind of which you'd expect from a child who is upset someone doesn't agree with them.. throwing out conclusions about facts without explaining themselves.



Wow, well I'm sorry you got so upset by my response. I am and tried to be as clinical and dispassionate with my response as possible, and I'm actually surprised you have inferred so much from it.

In response to your assertion that I don't care, that couldn't be farther from the (UK)truth


Rather, you and I just have differing ideas of how to solve those problems. As it should be painfully clear aside from a couple minor elements I believe are factually wrong, I think many of the aforementioned problems you list can be solved in a far more efficient/cost-effective/and efficacious manner than with a wall.
edit on 03pm19fpmSun, 20 Jan 2019 16:28:18 -0600America/ChicagoSun, 20 Jan 2019 16:28:18 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
Yet Melania flew to Florida the same day, on military transport? Yeah, sounds like a punitive shutdown, not exactly even handed, just head games.



Yeah, and Lindsey Graham and company flew to Turkey on military transport the same day he grounded Pelosi.
edit on 20-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
Yet Melania flew to Florida the same day, on military transport? Yeah, sounds like a punitive shutdown, not exactly even handed, just head games.



Yeah, and Lindsey Graham and company flew to Turkey on military transport the same day he grounded Pelosi.


He used a commercial airline not military 😎



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

The solution should be left to the experts. Not Pelosi or any other politician sitting in The Capitol - I mean Washington - and not you either.

The experts, those actually trying to protect the border, have advised the President on the best approach.

That should be enough, except it isn't, for those that only care about politics and couldn't give a damn about millions of Americans impacted by illegal immigration. They only 'care' about 800000 federal workers because they are using them to emotionally blackmail the country. They don't really care about those people either.

Stop lying to yourself and others about your motivations.
edit on 21/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: AtlasHawk

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Why was Pelosi going to any of those places?

LOL. If the government is shut down, it's shut down. No oversees junkets until the shutdown ends, Madame Speaker.


were the American Liberals trying to go to Europe to save their European Liberals?

The one that stumps me is Egypt. Afghanistan is pretty obviously to meet the opium lords who pay them off the military commanders, and Belgium is probably to pow-wow with their liberal buddies in the EU. But WTF were they going to do in Egypt?


The uaual blood moon sacrifices ?



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Excellent



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

The solution should be left to the experts. Not Pelosi or any other politician sitting in The Capitol - I mean Washington - and not you either.

The experts, those actually trying to protect the border, have advised the President on the best approach.

That should be enough, except it isn't, for those that only care about politics and couldn't give a damn about millions of Americans impacted by illegal immigration. They only 'care' about 800000 federal workers because they are using them to emotionally blackmail the country. They don't really care about those people either.

Stop lying to yourself and others about your motivations.


There's no lying going on. There are just as many 'experts' who are arguing against a wall as for it, and is it any surprise that Trump only entertains advice for the wall (rather than for alternatives)? Given the amount of hurdles to actually getting the wall built, and the likely long timescale, we can affect solid border security through a variety of alternative methodologies now with the same level of efficaciousness and also without claiming eminent domain and getting the whole boondoggle snarled in the courts for the next 2 decades.

Essentially the wall is a Trump PR piece that is more about appearances than effectiveness (for the aforementioned reasons). The fact that it is a 'hard stop' condition for negotiations is equally as egregious as claiming its the Democrats fault for not capitulating to rescue 800,000 workers from this hostage style situation.
edit on 04am19famMon, 21 Jan 2019 09:12:24 -0600America/ChicagoMon, 21 Jan 2019 09:12:24 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

The people who have advised on the proposal are the people who have to actually do the job of protecting the border. I am sure there are dissenting voices even amongst that group, but their overall view is in line with Trumps. I suggest listening to them.
edit on 21/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

The people who have advised on the proposal are the people who have to actually do the job of protecting the border. I am sure there are dissenting voices even amongst that group, but their overall view is in line with Trumps. I suggest listening to them.


I think you've misunderstood my message above. I have listened to them (at least the ones in major outlet pieces and interviews). I don't believe the overall view is in line with Trumps, but rather merely Trump has sought the opinions specifically of those that already agree with his opinions on the wall (in essence like a form of confirmation bias).

Unfortunately I've had little luck in finding any firm statistical data to affirm/deny that assertion conclusively (and I'm not sure there's even been enough time to run a study/survey therein). I'd be open to any data you've collected if you're willing to share.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


There are just as many 'experts' who are arguing against a wall as for it, and is it any surprise that Trump only entertains advice for the wall (rather than for alternatives)?

A computer could poll 'experts' and arrive at a majority position. We don't use a computer to run the government; we use a person. There's a reason for that. Trump believes a wall is necessary, and based on my limited familiarity with the border, so do I.


Given the amount of hurdles to actually getting the wall built, and the likely long timescale, we can affect solid border security through a variety of alternative methodologies now with the same level of efficaciousness and also without claiming eminent domain and getting the whole boondoggle snarled in the courts for the next 2 decades.

I have never in my life seen a system such as you describe, wherein technology and patrols over a wide area are more efficient without a wall than with... and I work in technology. I understand what is possible and what is a pipe dream that denies the reality of physics. There is no technology I have ever heard of that will do what a wall will, and certainly no technology that will lose effectiveness if a wall is included as an extra layer of protection. There must be something to at least slow down the illegal immigrants as they run across the border, otherwise there is simply not sufficient time to get border patrol on the scene. All the sensors can do is watch... they can't apprehend anyone.

And, as has been explained numerous times, the bogging down in the courts is not over the right of the government to take the land, but over the price paid. That doesn't slow down anything.

TheRedneck







 
113
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join