by Republicanana » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:32 pm
by Unithonia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:35 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:You're supporting a sense of rationality over rational concerns, which would result in the conclusion that rationality is of no inherent benefit.
by Toaslandia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:36 pm
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:41 pm
Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
B: They want to block everything the president does. Hopefully the voters see this and decide not to vote for the hive-minds on the left.
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:44 pm
Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
by Republicanana » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:45 pm
Vassenor wrote:Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
B: They want to block everything the president does. Hopefully the voters see this and decide not to vote for the hive-minds on the left.
Reminder that there was a bipartisan spending bill that passed both houses and Trump vetoed it.
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:46 pm
Republicanana wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Reminder that there was a bipartisan spending bill that passed both houses and Trump vetoed it.
1. Yes, there was a bill that passed both houses, but it was never sent to the President's desk, as both chambers kept amending the bill so that the other chamber would have to keep up the bill again.
2. Since that happened the President never got the bill, so he could not veto it.
by Toaslandia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:46 pm
Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
B: They want to block everything the president does. Hopefully the voters see this and decide not to vote for the hive-minds on the left.
by Neutraligon » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:48 pm
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:49 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
by Republicanana » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:50 pm
Vassenor wrote:Republicanana wrote:
1. Yes, there was a bill that passed both houses, but it was never sent to the President's desk, as both chambers kept amending the bill so that the other chamber would have to keep up the bill again.
2. Since that happened the President never got the bill, so he could not veto it.
It never went to his desk because he said he would veto anything which didn't pander to him. Not because of the chambers doing amendments.
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:51 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:52 pm
Republicanana wrote:Vassenor wrote:
It never went to his desk because he said he would veto anything which didn't pander to him. Not because of the chambers doing amendments.
The chambers doing amendments made the bill go through the chambers back-and-forth as there were multiple times the House and Senate modified the budget. That is why President Trump never could officially veto the bill.
by Page » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:54 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
by Republicanana » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Vassenor wrote:Republicanana wrote:
The chambers doing amendments made the bill go through the chambers back-and-forth as there were multiple times the House and Senate modified the budget. That is why President Trump never could officially veto the bill.
So because he hasn't officially vetoed it we're not allowed to talk about how he's said it will unless it panders to him completely?
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:56 pm
Republicanana wrote:Vassenor wrote:
So because he hasn't officially vetoed it we're not allowed to talk about how he's said it will unless it panders to him completely?
Yes, you are allowed to talk about that. Your first message stated that Trump did veto the bill, not that he would. Although I disagree that wanting an additional $5 billion to a discretionary spending budget of $1.305 trillion would be called wanting complete pandering.
by Saxe Au Leind » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:56 pm
Page wrote:Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
There is already a vast network of tunnels, and I heard there is this futuristic invention called the ladder.
Even if Trump got a wall of metal spikes like he wants, then he runs into the problem that the entire border is not flat terrain, so a wall from end to end is a geographic impossibility. That is, unless he wants to build the wall further inland, thus ceding American land to Mexico.
We don't need a study to see what a stupid waste of time and money this would be.
by Shofercia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Toaslandia wrote:Trump's wall wouldn't work too well. Most illegal immigrants come in on planes. But the senate should just have about $2.5 billion dollars for border security, with our soldiers down by the border I think we have it covered.
The New California Republic wrote:Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
The US-Mexican border makes up a relatively small part of the total border that needs to be policed, so saying that the Democrats don't think that border security is an issue is completely spurious. It's like saying that someone who doesn't like pepperoni pizza doesn't like pizza at all.
Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
by Vassenor » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Saxe Au Leind wrote:Page wrote:
There is already a vast network of tunnels, and I heard there is this futuristic invention called the ladder.
Even if Trump got a wall of metal spikes like he wants, then he runs into the problem that the entire border is not flat terrain, so a wall from end to end is a geographic impossibility. That is, unless he wants to build the wall further inland, thus ceding American land to Mexico.
We don't need a study to see what a stupid waste of time and money this would be.
It would be cheaper to only take in highly skilled Immigrants of the right ethnicity instead of building a wall.
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:58 pm
Shofercia wrote:The New California Republic wrote:The US-Mexican border makes up a relatively small part of the total border that needs to be policed, so saying that the Democrats don't think that border security is an issue is completely spurious. It's like saying that someone who doesn't like pepperoni pizza doesn't like pizza at all.
The other borders include the US border with Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, with the World's largest navy patrolling them, and there's also the Arctic Ocean, but Polar Bears have yet to manifest a major threat.)
by Shofercia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:00 pm
by Shofercia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:02 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Shofercia wrote:
The other borders include the US border with Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, with the World's largest navy patrolling them, and there's also the Arctic Ocean, but Polar Bears have yet to manifest a major threat.)
You forgot the air border.
by Republicanana » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:02 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Have there been any studies as to whether a wall as Trump proposes is effective?
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:06 pm
Advertisement
Advertisement