(04-14-2019, 11:25 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 10:34 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Amazing, Trump threatens to send them to San Fran and the 9th circuit judge backs off the original injunction.
Perhaps this is the secret to combating the far left agenda, give them exactly what they ask for.
Wow.
So the very second they sense that all the illegals will be sent to them they panic and say nah screw that send them back to their country. "I thought someone else would deal with those brown people. No thanks! I have enough lawn workers and fruit pickers... I like my neighborhood white, rich, affluent and hypocritical."
The left sees illegals as people that can do nothing else but manual labor. They are such elitist pieces of crap it's disgusting - yet, they have the American people believing they are the party of tolerance.
Anyone can do anything if they work hard. Period.
And vote generators.
(04-14-2019, 09:27 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 08:37 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Please elaborate, I'm curious as to what you mean.
(04-14-2019, 09:06 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, because clearly the powers in DC are basing their policy on the posts they read here.
I believe he's alluding to the "build that wall" chant heard at Trump rallies.
Maybe. That's one possibility. I tend to think that many Democrats would have approved the wall if it was packaged with at least a partial amnesty. But a certain crowd would have howled. A better set of leaders would say, "shut up and trust me" to the howlers.
(04-14-2019, 12:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nancy Pelosi Says Shipping Immigrants Off to Sanctuary Cities is 'Disrespectful' to Challenges
http://time.com/5569605/pelosi-immigrant...I4cljrJDqQ
San Francisco has an acute housing crisis. So does Oakland. Their housing shortage has little to do with illegal immigration.
Meanwhile many cities have a housing surplus and they're getting dilapidated.
In their elitist thinking, Democrats from these prosperous but overcrowded big cities don't just want to cleanse their own bleeding hearts by being nice to immigrants, they want to solve this problem that other more backwater cities have.
Funny how the actual residents of these more backwater places don't tend to favor this for themselves.
(04-14-2019, 12:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nancy Pelosi Says Shipping Immigrants Off to Sanctuary Cities is 'Disrespectful' to Challenges
http://time.com/5569605/pelosi-immigrant...I4cljrJDqQ
What a load of crap. The far left threw down a gauntlet with sanctuary cities. Trump reacted when challenged with new border issues on this matter. IMO for the first time as politically savvy. It took him long enough but he may just be figuring out how Washington works. He may have earned my vote in the process.
This plan was actually kind of genius. They should have done it.
The way I look at it, if you don't have room in your city, then don't declare it a sanctuary. Seems pretty simple.
(04-14-2019, 06:34 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 12:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nancy Pelosi Says Shipping Immigrants Off to Sanctuary Cities is 'Disrespectful' to Challenges
http://time.com/5569605/pelosi-immigrant...I4cljrJDqQ
What a load of crap. The far left threw down a gauntlet with sanctuary cities. Trump reacted when challenged with new border issues on this matter. IMO for the first time as politically savvy. It took him long enough but he may just be figuring out how Washington works. He may have earned my vote in the process.
Odd, he's doing little differently with this move. Maybe it's you that has changed?
(04-14-2019, 08:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 06:34 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]What a load of crap. The far left threw down a gauntlet with sanctuary cities. Trump reacted when challenged with new border issues on this matter. IMO for the first time as politically savvy. It took him long enough but he may just be figuring out how Washington works. He may have earned my vote in the process.
Odd, he's doing little differently with this move. Maybe it's you that has changed?
"Politically Savvy"
This is one of the first good ideas, Trump has had. If these sanctuary cities want illegals so bad, let them have them. I've got no problem with it. Just wait and watch Nancy Pelosi start changing her tune, once she has a major problem with MS-13.
(04-14-2019, 08:28 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 08:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Odd, he's doing little differently with this move. Maybe it's you that has changed?
"Politically Savvy"
Not much different than he's been all along.
Even Cher has come around. Welp, I guess her career is over when the mob turns on her.
(04-13-2019, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2019, 09:54 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that if (some of) you guys didn't respond to everything about immigration the way you do, Trump would have had his immigration reform on day one.
Yep.
Even so, even if Trump and the republicans in Congress had put out a plan on day one, and the Laura Ingrahams of the world had complained about it, all Trump and members of Congress had to do was ignore them! He's president and they're not. The members of Congress could have simply said that they were supporting their president. He doesn't seem to get that, and neither do many of them.
I apoligize for throwing a wrench in this little progressive love fest, but the reality is that if Trump single-handedly came up with a real solution to any problem, be it immigration reform, ending wars in the middle east, curing cancer, or whatever, it wouldn't have made it through a republican or democrat congress because he proposed it. That's just a fact. He's proven this time and again by giving democrats almost everything they want, only to see them turn tail and run in negotiations. Same thing with our RINO friends in the GOP who apparently have it tattooed on their backsides that they are #NeverTrump till death.
You can sit here and say "Oh, they had a deal!" all you want. The only people who made that claim were democrats and spineless RINOs. Any time they would make that claim, the White House was quick to debunk it because the president wasn't going to completely bow to the democrats and agree to nonsense like the first "deal" reportedly made where the democrats and RINOs crafted an immigration reform deal that had no money allocated for the wall. That was never going to happen regardless of what someone like Laura Ingraham said. He did show more flexibility and willingness to work with democrats on a solution than they did in return.
This little twitter fight over the weekend exposed those who have been most vocal about sanctuary cities and open borders by forcing them to say they wouldn't accept all the illegals Trump was suggesting they dump on these cities. It was a classic troll that worked better than even the WH probably expected. When you've got open border advocates like the Mayor of Oakland complaining, you're getting all the confirmation you need that sanctuary cities are a joke. When I saw Trump's tweets on this last week, and the subsequent response from the left, it was "mission accomplished" for Trump. They scrambled right into panic mode and crafted their responses, not realizing they'd been trolled. Some still don't realize it.
(04-15-2019, 01:04 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2019, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yep.
Even so, even if Trump and the republicans in Congress had put out a plan on day one, and the Laura Ingrahams of the world had complained about it, all Trump and members of Congress had to do was ignore them! He's president and they're not. The members of Congress could have simply said that they were supporting their president. He doesn't seem to get that, and neither do many of them.
I apoligize for throwing a wrench in this little progressive love fest, but the reality is that if Trump single-handedly came up with a real solution to any problem, be it immigration reform, ending wars in the middle east, curing cancer, or whatever, it wouldn't have made it through a republican or democrat congress because he proposed it. That's just a fact. He's proven this time and again by giving democrats almost everything they want, only to see them turn tail and run in negotiations. Same thing with our RINO friends in the GOP who apparently have it tattooed on their backsides that they are #NeverTrump till death.
You can sit here and say "Oh, they had a deal!" all you want. The only people who made that claim were democrats and spineless RINOs. Any time they would make that claim, the White House was quick to debunk it because the president wasn't going to completely bow to the democrats and agree to nonsense like the first "deal" reportedly made where the democrats and RINOs crafted an immigration reform deal that had no money allocated for the wall. That was never going to happen regardless of what someone like Laura Ingraham said. He did show more flexibility and willingness to work with democrats on a solution than they did in return.
This little twitter fight over the weekend exposed those who have been most vocal about sanctuary cities and open borders by forcing them to say they wouldn't accept all the illegals Trump was suggesting they dump on these cities. It was a classic troll that worked better than even the WH probably expected. When you've got open border advocates like the Mayor of Oakland complaining, you're getting all the confirmation you need that sanctuary cities are a joke. When I saw Trump's tweets on this last week, and the subsequent response from the left, it was "mission accomplished" for Trump. They scrambled right into panic mode and crafted their responses, not realizing they'd been trolled. Some still don't realize it.
1) Hypothetical scenario that never happened and never will
2) If someone makes a claim we don't like, put them in a category like "Democrat" or "rino" that says we can ignore them. Much easier than dealing with claims on their merits.
3) If the lack of wall money was the real problem, then Trump should have first apologized for saying Mexico would pay for it, then he should have promised to sign the bill once a certain amount of wall money is added.
I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, and I'm not in favor of sanctuary cities, but still, I think doing something like sending illegals to sanctuary cities would be a pretty big mistake. You don't want to start stuff like that, because imagine a situation where the shoe is on the other foot, and it's the liberals who decide to stick it to the conservatives. I think we should try to stick to the high road in our political disputes. Once you take the low road, things can get pretty unpredictable.
(04-15-2019, 02:29 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, and I'm not in favor of sanctuary cities, but still, I think doing something like sending illegals to sanctuary cities would be a pretty big mistake. You don't want to start stuff like that, because imagine a situation where the shoe is on the other foot, and it's the liberals who decide to stick it to the conservatives. I think we should try to stick to the high road in our political disputes. Once you take the low road, things can get pretty unpredictable.
First of all, Trump never meant to actually do it, as FBT said he's just trolling. That's where we are, the POTUS is a troll.
But let's just imagine for a moment he was serious, and let's stretch our imagination even further and accept that he REALLY believes many of these migrants from Central America are hardened criminal gang members bent on preying on innocent Americans. He'd be quite a sociopath to drop them off in cities represented by his political foes as a ploy to increase the local crime rates. That would mean he hopes people are robbed, injured, raped or killed to make his point.
Nah, he'd never do such a thing.
The first part of finding a solution is admitting you have a problem.
Until now the Dems were united in claiming illegal immigration is not a problem
Trump has exposed some cracks in the facade.
(04-15-2019, 01:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019, 01:04 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I apoligize for throwing a wrench in this little progressive love fest, but the reality is that if Trump single-handedly came up with a real solution to any problem, be it immigration reform, ending wars in the middle east, curing cancer, or whatever, it wouldn't have made it through a republican or democrat congress because he proposed it. That's just a fact. He's proven this time and again by giving democrats almost everything they want, only to see them turn tail and run in negotiations. Same thing with our RINO friends in the GOP who apparently have it tattooed on their backsides that they are #NeverTrump till death.
You can sit here and say "Oh, they had a deal!" all you want. The only people who made that claim were democrats and spineless RINOs. Any time they would make that claim, the White House was quick to debunk it because the president wasn't going to completely bow to the democrats and agree to nonsense like the first "deal" reportedly made where the democrats and RINOs crafted an immigration reform deal that had no money allocated for the wall. That was never going to happen regardless of what someone like Laura Ingraham said. He did show more flexibility and willingness to work with democrats on a solution than they did in return.
This little twitter fight over the weekend exposed those who have been most vocal about sanctuary cities and open borders by forcing them to say they wouldn't accept all the illegals Trump was suggesting they dump on these cities. It was a classic troll that worked better than even the WH probably expected. When you've got open border advocates like the Mayor of Oakland complaining, you're getting all the confirmation you need that sanctuary cities are a joke. When I saw Trump's tweets on this last week, and the subsequent response from the left, it was "mission accomplished" for Trump. They scrambled right into panic mode and crafted their responses, not realizing they'd been trolled. Some still don't realize it.
1) Hypothetical scenario that never happened and never will
2) If someone makes a claim we don't like, put them in a category like "Democrat" or "rino" that says we can ignore them. Much easier than dealing with claims on their merits.
3) If the lack of wall money was the real problem, then Trump should have first apologized for saying Mexico would pay for it, then he should have promised to sign the bill once a certain amount of wall money is added.
Not a shocking response. Typical actually.
Trump had nothing to apoloigize for, and Nancy Pelosi made it crystal clear that she wasn't going to give him one red cent for the wall. So, apologizing for something hoping that the democrats would then suddenly have a change of heart is just fantasy on your part.
(04-15-2019, 02:29 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, and I'm not in favor of sanctuary cities, but still, I think doing something like sending illegals to sanctuary cities would be a pretty big mistake. You don't want to start stuff like that, because imagine a situation where the shoe is on the other foot, and it's the liberals who decide to stick it to the conservatives. I think we should try to stick to the high road in our political disputes. Once you take the low road, things can get pretty unpredictable.
Yup.
(04-15-2019, 04:10 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019, 01:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) Hypothetical scenario that never happened and never will
2) If someone makes a claim we don't like, put them in a category like "Democrat" or "rino" that says we can ignore them. Much easier than dealing with claims on their merits.
3) If the lack of wall money was the real problem, then Trump should have first apologized for saying Mexico would pay for it, then he should have promised to sign the bill once a certain amount of wall money is added.
Not a shocking response. Typical actually.
Trump had nothing to apoloigize for, and Nancy Pelosi made it crystal clear that she wasn't going to give him one red cent for the wall. So, apologizing for something hoping that the democrats would then suddenly have a change of heart is just fantasy on your part.
The House had a Republican majority when Trump came into office. Nancy Pelosi's opinion wouldn't have mattered if the Republicans were unified, if Trump gave them a vision that they could unify behind.
President Trump pretty much exposed the hypocrisy of these so-called "sanctuary cities". Liberals want illegals ("asylum seekers") allowed into the country as long as it doesn't affect them. The problem isn't so much the "asylum seekers" arriving at the ports of entry (though that is quickly becoming another problem). The real problem at the border is the drug cartels and the gang members entering the country illegally. It has become well known and documented that those with less-than-desirable histories know that if you have a child with you then you won't get deported IF caught. They don't come right up to ports of entry and declare asylum, they rather sneak across people's property often littering and destroying in the process as well as doing un-thinkable things to the children that they bring in tow.