One guy talked about border security.

The two other guys talked about a shutdown and denying people were murdered by illegals. Terrible night for dems.

If someone told you that we need to ban alcohol now because their mom was killed by a drunk, you would say hey wait a second people get killed by people that are not drunk all the time, what is the prevalence? Or you would say, that doesn't matter people have a right to drink if they want to. You're a rational person.  A handful of stories is not going to change your mind. Even if those stories are really sad. 

But statistics might change your mind, right?

That's the best example of a false equivalency of all time. Congrats.

---

---

Something has to be done at the Southern border. What has been going on for the last 30 years simply is not working to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. At least Trump is trying.

Incorrect.  Illegal immigration was going down for 10 years straight. There was a small uptick last year, mostly due to crises in central Central America, but it's still much less than it used to be.

I don't consider " Going down" from the unacceptable numbers of too damn many to slightly less than too damn many as working to stem the flow.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Nancy and Chuck really embarrassed themselves tonight and looked terrible physically.

Yeah man, so did Trump look bad.  Why do politicians gotta be like grandpa's and grandma's.   The country needs some young blood like a Sean Mcvay to get offensive and aggressive score lots of points.  Being run by too many conservative run run pass Tom Coughlins.

---

I don't see exactly how your examples are related to the crisis at the border. It is actually a FACT that 6 men have been caught that were on the terror watch list at the border.

Also, the people doing these things you mention SHOULDN'T BE IN OUR COUNTRY. The entire point of this issue is being lost in the mix.

My main issue is, why do regular civilians feel they are more qualified to say what we need or don't need at the border? Are people under the belief that Donald Trump programmed these border agents to say what he wants? You are right, I am a rational person. If the border patrol said, hey, you know what? A wall won't be really effective, I would actually take them at their word.

Also, not helping the democrats "argument", former Obama Administration Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan who was FIRED by Trump just said a border wall will work.

Democrats aren't going to win this battle and are looking very foolish trying to defend their position.

I find your reasoning circular. If you're going to ignore statistical or utilitarian arguments because THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN OUR COUNTRY, where does it stop? If you get your wall, and it really magically cuts down on illegal immigration by 99%, but capturing that last 1% of them would cost $20 billion more, are we obligated to spend that money too?  Why or why not?

---

Something has to be done at the Southern border. What has been going on for the last 30 years simply is not working to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. At least Trump is trying.

Incorrect.  Illegal immigration was going down for 10 years straight. There was a small uptick last year, mostly due to crises in central Central America, but it's still much less than it used to be.

You do get that stopping them at the border is not the same as sending out the Round Up Gang to toss them out of the country, yes? You seem to be the type of guy who would use a bucket to bail water off of the Titanic.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If someone told you that we need to ban alcohol now because their mom was killed by a drunk, you would say hey wait a second people get killed by people that are not drunk all the time, what is the prevalence? Or you would say, that doesn't matter people have a right to drink if they want to. You're a rational person.  A handful of stories is not going to change your mind. Even if those stories are really sad. 

But statistics might change your mind, right?

That's the best example of a false equivalency of all time. Congrats.

You mean false analogy. I mean, I think it's a decent analogy, but you don't.  So, ball is in your court: What would be a better analogy for the situation at the border?

---

I find your reasoning circular. If you're going to ignore statistical or utilitarian arguments because THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN OUR COUNTRY, where does it stop? If you get your wall, and it really magically cuts down on illegal immigration by 99%, but capturing that last 1% of them would cost $20 billion more, are we obligated to spend that money too?  Why or why not?

---

Incorrect.  Illegal immigration was going down for 10 years straight. There was a small uptick last year, mostly due to crises in central Central America, but it's still much less than it used to be.

You do get that stopping them at the border is not the same as sending out the Round Up Gang to toss them out of the country, yes? You seem to be the type of guy who would use a bucket to bail water off of the Titanic.

I get that stopping people and rounding people up are two different things.
When we round up illegal immigrants and send them away, that's called deportation.  A judge has to rule that they are beyond a reasonable doubt here illegally before they get deported.  Even so, do you think the number of deportations has gone up or down during the last decade? Think about how many deportations you think there should be, and compare that to the number that actually occur.

---

---

Incorrect.  Illegal immigration was going down for 10 years straight. There was a small uptick last year, mostly due to crises in central Central America, but it's still much less than it used to be.

I don't consider " Going down" from the unacceptable numbers of too damn many to slightly less than too damn many as working to stem the flow.

I'm not sure we are looking at the same numbers.  Everything I've seen says it has gone down a lot.  What are you looking at?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

Speaking of sad same old, same old...here you are.

Every modern President has had a writer and utilized teleprompters. He also toned it down to facts and not try to politicize this thing anymore than it already has been. If you had paid attention he even publically offered "compromise" in asking for exactly what the Dems have been leaning on... $800 million for humanitarian aid, $675 million for various technology, etc. Also, if you could remember that originally Trump was offered over $25 Billion in January in exchange for DACA reform. Trump caved, they pulled back the money, and now that promise to negotiate at a later date has also been reneged. So now here we are with a shutdown and another lie that the Dems will negotiate at a later date as long as Government is re-opened first. This is classic Dems pushing emotion with zero regard for facts and simply want to provide smoke and mirrors through symantics. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sc...-continuse

---

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

TDS is real

---

That's the best example of a false equivalency of all time. Congrats.

You mean false analogy. I mean, I think it's a decent analogy, but you don't.  So, ball is in your court: What would be a better analogy for the situation at the border?

---

You do get that stopping them at the border is not the same as sending out the Round Up Gang to toss them out of the country, yes? You seem to be the type of guy who would use a bucket to bail water off of the Titanic.

I get that stopping people and rounding people up are two different things.
When we round up illegal immigrants and send them away, that's called deportation.  A judge has to rule that they are beyond a reasonable doubt here illegally before they get deported.  Even so, do you think the number of deportations has gone up or down during the last decade? Think about how many deportations you think there should be, and compare that to the number that actually occur.

---

I don't consider " Going down" from the unacceptable numbers of too damn many to slightly less than too damn many as working to stem the flow.

I'm not sure we are looking at the same numbers.  Everything I've seen says it has gone down a lot.  What are you looking at?

In order to accurately form a good picture of what is going on with border security, you have to get away from the media published basic numbers and go straight to the DHS/CBP Metrics Reports. Here you can see the big picture. The 2018 has not been published yet, but the 2017 report shows how certain characteristics are shifting (land, air, sea), trends are changing, costs are skyrocketing, and quite frankly the migrants are getting smarter to the system in place.  Apprehensions has been in the media headlines but the numbers we care about are the impactable ones that include undetected unlawful entries and got aways. But then again, it has become more favorable to be apprehended because they typically don't get turned back and get released into the U.S. system where they disappear.

---

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

TDS is real

So is stupidity. Especially among those who simply want to look the other way.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

You mean false analogy. I mean, I think it's a decent analogy, but you don't.  So, ball is in your court: What would be a better analogy for the situation at the border?

---

I get that stopping people and rounding people up are two different things.
When we round up illegal immigrants and send them away, that's called deportation.  A judge has to rule that they are beyond a reasonable doubt here illegally before they get deported.  Even so, do you think the number of deportations has gone up or down during the last decade? Think about how many deportations you think there should be, and compare that to the number that actually occur.

---

I'm not sure we are looking at the same numbers.  Everything I've seen says it has gone down a lot.  What are you looking at?

In order to accurately form a good picture of what is going on with border security, you have to get away from the media published basic numbers and go straight to the DHS/CBP Metrics Reports. Here you can see the big picture. The 2018 has not been published yet, but the 2017 report shows how certain characteristics are shifting (land, air, sea), trends are changing, costs are skyrocketing, and quite frankly the migrants are getting smarter to the system in place.  Apprehensions has been in the media headlines but the numbers we care about are the impactable ones that include undetected unlawful entries and got aways. But then again, it has become more favorable to be apprehended because they typically don't get turned back and get released into the U.S. system where they disappear.

Are undetected unlawful entry or got aways listed in this report, and if so what is the trend?
Not just the trend for this year but the trends going back 10 or 20 years?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again. And neither side loses in this scenario.

---

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.  

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again.   And neither side loses in this scenario.

Neither "side" loses, perhaps, but the overall civic engagement and faith in fair government would take another body blow.
If, as is likely, the courts block the emergency declaration for the wall, the Trump supporters would just hate the courts all the more and get more radical calling for Trump and the military to ignore the courts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.  

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again.   And neither side loses in this scenario.

this will stop the dems from cracking eggs and frying them on the concrete also 
because we would have the wall and the reps would be handing out frying pans to the sorry dems

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.  

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again.   And neither side loses in this scenario.

That's worst case scenario and like everything else will be met with some form of resisting. There is a trend of compromising with a promise to address later, only to be met with more resisting or completely reneging. So here we are.
No more kicking the can down the road. Fund DHS with money earmarked for manning, technology, humanitarian aid, infrastructure, and border barrier upkeep/improvements. There is no logical arguement against it...

1.) It's too expensive - Reduce foreign aid appropriated for other countries security efforts and bring it back to the U.S. What about the savings from reduced immigrant support costs? 
2.) It's a waste of money and doesn't work - But you keep claiming various stats show reductions in illegal activity (perhaps because of previous funding for additional manning, technology, barrier improvement, etc.) FYI, it's trending upwards again.
3.) It will not stop the flow of drugs - Probably not, but it would certainly help with all the other supportive pieces working in concert.
4.) It's immoral - How so? File for asylum and you are welcome to cross at one of the many legal ports of entry. Illegally trying to cross an established border while putting you and your kids in danger is certainly against what I would consider standards of moraility.
5.) It's wasteful and will not stop illegal immigration - It isn't meant to stop. It is a deterrent and when appropriately integrated into "Border Security", it is effective. Think of it as a funnel to legal ports of entry. 
6.) This is not a crisis - It certainly was when every major news outlet reported on the children and families. And that is such a minute portion of the overall issue.

What's really crazy, is during all this the Dems are introducing more gun control legislation and you bet it tows the line, "if it saves just one more life". Talk about both sides of the mouth! Lastly, there is this sick irony that a bunch of old, rich white people are so against a system the works counter to the demographic they claim to support. Illegal immigration is most strongly felt in the lower and lower middle classes, not the upper class that these politicians belong to. Absurd! FYI, neither political side is losing. It's the people and some can't see the forest for the trees. #becausetrump

---

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.  

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again.   And neither side loses in this scenario.

Neither "side" loses, perhaps, but the overall civic engagement and faith in fair government would take another body blow.
If, as is likely, the courts block the emergency declaration for the wall, the Trump supporters would just hate the courts all the more and get more radical calling for Trump and the military to ignore the courts.

I don't think the military would ignore the courts.   The military pledges allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President.   The military will follow the Constitution, so they would obey a court order.  

If the courts ruled against Trump, and he ignored the courts, after ignoring Congress, that would set up a major Constitutional crisis and Trump would get impeached, and most Republicans in the Senate would vote to convict him.  

I'm just searching for some scenario where everyone can climb down off their high horse and start negotiating rationally.

---

I read an interesting article that put forth the theory that the most face-saving way out of this impasse (for all sides) is for Trump to declare a national emergency, try to fund the wall from the Pentagon budget, declare victory, and re-open the government.  

Of course, the whole idea will wind up in the courts, but at least we'd get the government open again.   And neither side loses in this scenario.

Neither "side" loses, perhaps, but the overall civic engagement and faith in fair government would take another body blow.
If, as is likely, the courts block the emergency declaration for the wall, the Trump supporters would just hate the courts all the more and get more radical calling for Trump and the military to ignore the courts.

Contrary to what most believe, Commander-in-Chief is just a big fancy title most days. Very, very few scenarios where there is a direct President-to-military connection involving action. Down to brass tacks, most military folks are serving their country (constitutional defense), not a party or office.

---

Neither "side" loses, perhaps, but the overall civic engagement and faith in fair government would take another body blow.
If, as is likely, the courts block the emergency declaration for the wall, the Trump supporters would just hate the courts all the more and get more radical calling for Trump and the military to ignore the courts.

I don't think the military would ignore the courts.   The military pledges allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President.   The military will follow the Constitution, so they would obey a court order.  

If the courts ruled against Trump, and he ignored the courts, after ignoring Congress, that would set up a major Constitutional crisis and Trump would get impeached, and most Republicans in the Senate would vote to convict him.  

I'm just searching for some scenario where everyone can climb down off their high horse and start negotiating rationally.

I think you're search is going to last a while.

---

Damn, Trump is willing to keep the government shutdown going because his ego is brused about not getting “his” wall fully funded. People are going to lose their home, cars, be in debt all because he is being selfish.

---

Another question. Would the military jump for joy when Trump dips into their budget to fund “his” wall?

---

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

 
Any bets on him calling out 6 GOP memebers for wanting to end the shutdown?

That will be popcorn I have hot and ready to eat.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Damn, Trump is willing to keep the government shutdown going because his ego is brused about not getting “his” wall fully funded. People are going to lose their home, cars, be in debt all because he is being selfish.

---

Another question. Would the military jump for joy when Trump dips into their budget to fund “his” wall?

---

I always enjoy watching Donald attempt to appear "Presidential" by reading off a teleprompter and using his inside voice. It always looks and sounds as if he just took a couple of Quaaludes.

How much did he pay Ann Coulter for those remarks? It sounded like the last 150 columns Coulter has written. He needed network time to simply repeat a shortened version of his campaign screed? It apparently was a campaign fundraising effort and nothing more. Bait and switch. Nothing new offered, no attempt at compromise, just same old same old.

Sad.

 
Any bets on him calling out 6 GOP memebers for wanting to end the shutdown?

That will be popcorn I have hot and ready to eat.

Lose their homes and be in debt after missing one paycheck? That is very extreme KFC. You sound like the fake news media.

---