(01-28-2019, 04:00 PM)jradMITEX Wrote:

(01-27-2019, 03:45 PM)TJBender Wrote: No. Walls do work in urban areas where someone is literally a 20-foot walk across the street from being a shadow. Ever been to Otay Mesa, CA? It's right on the border at the southern end of San Diego, and it's a massive warehouse and industrial center. If someone gets across there, they're gone. That's why the wall is so heavily fortified there, and in that situation it's absolutely doing what it needs to do to be a good investment. That's why every metropolitan area along the border has some form of physical barrier, and I'm in favor of using federal dollars to upgrade what's already in place.

What doesn't make sense is putting a wall up in the desert, where someone is a 10-mile hike from the nearest main road, when FLIR cameras, drones with thermal imaging and a heavier Border Patrol presence with better equipment for the terrain (including horses, I am dead serious about horses--cowboys used them for a reason) would be every bit as effective. Probably more so if the funds going to that wall would otherwise go towards those things.

I think this is the good point where walls are needed they have been built i.e. urban areas.  This isn't what is being debated, this is about putting walls up in sparsely populated private land for the most part.  Trump started off saying he wanted a 30 ft concrete wall from sea to shining sea, now its 250 miles of steel slats he'll eventually be down to tens of miles of fencing and sell it as a promised fulfilled.  Be prepared for a National Emergency declaration, I highly doubt there will be another shutdown but hey if they want shoot themselves in the foot again have at it, the wall issue will be tied up in the court for years and nothing will get built.  This lays bare how cynical and political this was for Trump, if he came in on day 1 and put forth maximum effort he mostly likely could have broke the filibuster in the Senate by pressuring vulnerable candidates up for reelection in 2018 and built the wall.  The fact that he waited until another election and the house changed hands shows he is easily distracted and a terrible planner/strategist and/or never cared about the wall.

(01-28-2019, 04:36 PM)B2hibry Wrote:

(01-28-2019, 04:07 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: Well for not being "all there" she just punked Trump, quite easily too.  It won't be the last time either.  She came out stronger than ever, he's limping back to the sidelines.  In 3 weeks she'll finish him off or make him kiss the ring.

This is what is scary in America...people like you see it as simple as what politician won or lost. The general public and federal workers got punked thinking Pelosi is for "the people". Right. Also, to not even step foot on the field of play and take what would have been DHS funding of $5.7B for mixed methods of border security and trade that for $50 billion in shutdown costs (lower estimate). Ridiculous. What about the SOTU? What's the plan in 2 1/2 weeks? Both sides failed to do their job.

All Pelosi and the Dems did was reinforce the President ability and/or necessity to claim a National Emergency to get border security taken care of. In other words, there was always going to be some form of obstruction and no doubt lawsuits when he put forth the order. This is why he did not go straight to playing the National Emergency card. Now he can offer the most liberal of courts several solid reasons and show step by step in the process where Congress failed in their role for enabling said security. Justification if you will. Pelosi is now pigeonholed and must negotiate from a lower standing. So who really got played, punked, outwitted, or whatever term you want to use?