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.

 

Watch Trump's 4 PM Saturday "Major Announcement" Speech Here:

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: dawnstar




I've heard that there is still plenty of money being held for fencing and stuff that hasn't been touched. is this true??? and if so, why hasn't it been? is it because the construction of the wall, fence, or heck, let's just call it peaches..is it being held up because of the legal aspect of land seizure.


Imminent domain cases can take 10 years in the courts. trump knows this, his wall is just symbolic to keep his base riled up. Brilliant politics actually.
And the "Mexicans will pay for it" was classic.


I'm pretty sure I'm that if it is for "National Security Issues " they can do it immediately even if there is a court case. Prove me wrong.

But let's be honest, your opposition to the Wall isn't built on claims of eminent domain, is it?




posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I used the words "I believe" Unless you can quote me calling myself an expert.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: face23785

So they want to reopen the government and then negotiate on the wall , but you just don't believe them.



No, the problem is I do believe them. They've said time and time again they absolutely refuse to fund the wall. Nancy Pelosi said not one dollar. She absolutely refuses to negotiate or compromise. Let go of the bias. Those are her words.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I have always said that so long as chain migration is ended. I would trade Dreamers for the Wall. Let them have the Dreamers if we get increased border security and real action on the overall problem.

But because of past behavior, I need to trust bit verify. I get what I want first.
edit on 19-1-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Guyfriday

1898, during the Spanish-American War, with full blessing of Congress. And Teddy was a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy. So close, but not the same as Trump calling up the III% or the Oath Keepers.


Not the same, but similar. That was my point. TR left his post to take control of the 1st.

In this modern world Trump wouldn't have to ask for a volunteer force to be crated, all he would have to do is just EO one of the already formed groups to do it.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What is the great offer supposed to be? Three years extended protection for DACA recipients? Trump is bluffing, he doesn't actually want to deport those people. He is offering something that he has to give anyway. It's no good deal.


DACA has to be a part of an overhaul of our immigration reform/policy. If DACA is done before we stem the flow of Illegal entry to our Country, all it does is set up DACA II. We've been to that rodeo before....



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Well he can say he made an offer, that's the most important benefit I guess. His core supporters will have an extra reason to be upset with the Dems, even though it's not a good reason. I think it was a politically sensible thing to do. And a lot of people are poorly informed about politics, I'm sure some moderates will think the Dems should have accepted to "save the DACA's".

When it comes to looking like a fool, he's got worse problems, tbh. I don't think it was foolish anyway, I don't think he expected them to accept.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Sorry if I'm skeptical of people professing to know what the opossing side wants. They have vested interests in their conclusions.

Still waiting for someone to show me the evolution of Pelosi's offer to reach a compromise.

Please show me that.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Cutepants




the DACA kids are not getting deported in any case. It would be a PR disaster for the right.


If that's true why would anyone be upset with the dems for not accepting a meaningless offer?

Wouldn't trump look like a fool for offering something to the dems that everyone knows they already have?


Yeah I'm sure the immigrants that confronted Pelosi last year are so relieved by the predictions of some goon on AboveTopSecret.com.

They just got offered a legally binding solution and it was rejected by Nancy Pelosi. End of story.


Well technically Pelosi only rejected whatever proposal Trump had to offer, without actually hearing it in full. Trump could have said that he would set down as President as part of his Proposal, and by default Pelosi would have said it was a nonstarter. That is what she stated, that Trump proposal was a nonstarter, so Trump could have offered her anything and it would have been tossed out the window.

I'm sure when all is said and done, that Pelosi is going to state that she was all for whatever solution is reached (as long as it's a popular solution)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: dawnstar




I've heard that there is still plenty of money being held for fencing and stuff that hasn't been touched. is this true??? and if so, why hasn't it been? is it because the construction of the wall, fence, or heck, let's just call it peaches..is it being held up because of the legal aspect of land seizure.


Imminent domain cases can take 10 years in the courts. trump knows this, his wall is just symbolic to keep his base riled up. Brilliant politics actually.
And the "Mexicans will pay for it" was classic.


I'm pretty sure I'm that if it is for "National Security Issues " they can do it immediately even if there is a court case. Prove me wrong.

But let's be honest, your opposition to the Wall isn't built on claims of eminent domain, is it?


trump talks national security and has been threatening to call it many many times. What's the hold up?
He's bluffing...

Build the wall I say...institute more security, hire more Government employees to guard the gates, and build more high tech surveillance gadgets, and raise taxes to pay for it or will the Mexicans pay for it...lol


The Mexicans will be coming in anyway to work for the Corporations that hire them. Notice trump didn't even touch that....
edit on 19-1-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
trump said mexico will pay for his wall, so why should the American taxpayer fund it?.....this has nothing to do with democrats.....where's McConnell of the senate?...apparently just another wussy for trump, who won't take responsibility.

hey here's an idea for republicans...why don't you elect someone that's smart, has critical thinking skills, and wants to help EVERY American get ahead....nah....republican voters don't like those types of leaders.

just think...if pence gets into office we'll have our first opus dei, mr. clean as the POTUS



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So now you are for funding a border barrier with all the tech and manpower as well?

It's a Snowstorm Miracle I tell ya!

Just then, Olaru realized that he loved Big Orange Man and cried.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




Details please on how each Bill presented by the House is an evolution in their offer towards reaching a compromise.


I didn't say that. I said this.



The big thing that the house is offering to do is pass bills that pay the workers and families and then continue to negotiate the wall.


www.congress.gov...

www.congress.gov...

This is more about what you thought I said. It shows all current funding bills and where they are at.
www.congress.gov...

edit on 19-1-2019 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Why did Schumer offer 25 Billion in funding then?



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Sorry if I'm skeptical of people professing to know what the opossing side wants.


Funny you should say that. There's a link in my sig to a thread about a study purporting to show that fear and anxiety drive conservative views. The study actually shows the opposite and the author of the blog that made this claim completely misrepresented the research. Anyone, in one of the studies he cited, a professor did an experiment where he challenged his liberal students to articulate their conservative classmates' views, and then posed the opposite challenge to the conservative students. Interestingly, the conservative students were able to articulate the liberal students' views more accurately. The liberal students' characterization of the conservative students' views was less accurate.

I attribute that to conservatives being constantly misrepresented in the media and by liberals/progressives in general. But I'm sure there's many factors to it.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

well this would be my compromise...
first, we open up the danged gov't!!! preferably before the lawsuits that have been filed by groups of federal employees get to the point where some judge decides that these employees should be paid twice their wages for working this long without being paid like one did before.

then look and see how much land they have ready to build on that isn't involved in a lawsuit, along with how much land they think might be out of the court system, and give him what he needs to do what they foresee as being possible for this year along with the cost of maintaining that which we have....less the amount that has already been set aside for this but hasn't been used. and reserve any other funding to the other areas of border security that they feel would be worthy of investment..

I don't really get into this tit for tat, you rub my back, I'll rub yours bit that congress likes so much so it would be a stand alone bill, the only thing I would expect in exchange would be that each and every representative would take each item that comes before congress in the same manner, rationally, logically, and not part of a grand deal with half of congress getting their tits for the tat because all that leads to is a bunch of poorly written, non cohesive bills that aren't supported by most but viewed as a way to get the one small item they wanted.
but, I know, I would be sorely disappointed here, which is why I am not a politician. I wouldn't play the game their way.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: jimmyx

Why did Schumer offer 25 Billion in funding then?


He didn't. He offered to promise to provide $25B in funding over the next 10 years.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
trump said mexico will pay for his wall, so why should the American taxpayer fund it?.....this has nothing to do with democrats.....where's McConnell of the senate?...apparently just another wussy for trump, who won't take responsibility.

hey here's an idea for republicans...why don't you elect someone that's smart, has critical thinking skills, and wants to help EVERY American get ahead....nah....republican voters don't like those types of leaders.

just think...if pence gets into office we'll have our first opus dei, mr. clean as the POTUS


Trump has said all along that "Mexico will pay for the wall" would likely take the form of renegotiated trade deals, which is precisely what happened. You've just been misled to believe he was claiming Mexico was gonna hand him a check for it. I know this is part of the "See! Trump lied to you! Vote for our guy in 2020!" strategy, but very few Trump voters thought Mexico was actually going to directly pay for the wall.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I won't listen to a incoherent traitor, but I'm sure there will be Hannity and coulter telling trump and his voters how and what to think next.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil




But let's be honest, your opposition to the Wall isn't built on claims of eminent domain, is it?


A big part of mine is.
I will NEVER give the government the right to just take my land.

Are you really for this?
Even if it's your land?







 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join