And the naysayers here said he would not do it

[Opti]

Jan 25, 2017 21:12:00 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Ok, riddle solved. From the party that got us into two wars without putting the cost on the books, here is how we are going to pay for The Wall (it's called creative accounting):

Philadelphia (CNN)Congress may pay for the border wall through a special spending bill being hashed out over the next two months, footing the cost of President Donald Trump's priority before seeking any refund from Mexico, Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

House Speaker Paul Ryan told lawmakers, gathered in Philadelphia for a private retreat this week, that they could pay for the wall through a supplemental appropriations bill -- a spending measure that would be dedicated just to the wall, according to Republicans in the room and a GOP lawmaker.
"(Ryan) talked about the supplemental budget coming this spring to push that along. The President said he's going to get reimbursed one way or the other and we accept that. Meanwhile, we do have to pay our bills," Rep. Chris Collins, a New York Republican and Trump ally, said Wednesday.

www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/republicans-trump-retreat-border-wall/index.html

Get reimbursed they say. From a country who already says they will not pay. This is like bad family trainwreck drama except Trump, the US, and Mexico are involved.

  <-  for Trump possibly raising taxes to pay for the Wall just until his 0% financing CC is approved by Mexico.

[tallguy]

Jan 25, 2017 22:01:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is a bandaid to cover a severed limb.  it is utterly useless, for show only.  much like his entire campaign.

oh, and BTW, an EO won't fund this project.  how is this going to be funded?

Simplistic and stupid.  Right up Trump's alley.    

[NastyWoman]

Jan 25, 2017 21:40:51 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

If you want to cure the undocumented alien problem, you have to actually understand the problem.

In the right wing pundit world, the whole problem boils down to criminals streaming over the US/Mexican border. That's it. So the cure is to throw up a wall which will stop all the drug dealers and rapists and murderers. 

Of course, that viewpoint ignores the thousands of undocumented aliens who have overstayed their visas.

But building a wall is just a matter of throwing it up, right?

Is there even an environmental impact statement required? That's got to disrupt a heck of a lot of animal migrations.

And then there's the matter of who owns that land you want to build on. Are you going to acquire it all through eminent domain? You're going to have to pay fair market value for it. I envision court cases there. 

How high will the wall be? How deep will it go down? Do you even realize how deep folks can dig tunnels?

And there's the logistics of moving all that material to where the wall will be built. Where will the construction crew live while working on the wall?

Part of the executive order also addresses removing undocumented aliens. Simple in principal, but it can get expensive. That's one reason why Obama stressed removing actual felons (being an undocumented alien is not a felony).

These are just some of the things off the top of my head. I wonder if Trump has considered any of them. Nah. It would require actual analysis and that's not Trump's forte. He goes for the simple answers. However, this is a complex problem.

Some "creative" thinking is needed here 
1. Throwing up a wall IS good enough. There is not a rapist, drug dealer, or rapist in the world who would dare scale a wall
2. Who needs a friggin' environmental impact report; we are doing away with the EPA anyway
3. Why buy the land for the wall or even use eminent domain to obtain it? We'll put the wall just across that little line on the map. You know where it says Mexico. That's only right since they'll pay for it and it is to keep their people out and the wall will make both countries safer
4. It will be the yugest, biggliest wall ever. So high and so deep... well see 1. for how it will work
5. Logistics, schmosistics. It's THEIR wall let them take care of it. We can't do everything can we now.
6. You mentioned Obsma that good for nothing muslim Kenyan, so that is a point we won't even talk about.

There now, wasn't that easy? I should become a politician. I'd be YUGELY, YUGELY good at it I tell you. BIGLY good, there has NEVER been a politician who was better, YUGELY, BIGLY, or otherwise 

[zibazinski]

He's making a bigger deal out of this than he needs to. Take away the benefits and they'll leave on their own. If you can't work, can't go to school, can't get medical care, what's the point? But since some have anchor babies, you'd have to extend the schooling and welfare to if your parents aren't here legally, you're not entitled to benefits either. Plus, pay people to turn them in, same as people who turn in tax evaders. 

[zibazinski]

Also, anyone who hires someone illegal is more than fined. Mandatory jail time then community service.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jan 25, 2017 21:56:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is also the geographic fact of the Rio Grande, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean.  fence THAT.

not to mention deserts and mountain ranges.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 9:27:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Also, anyone who hires someone illegal is more than fined. Mandatory jail time then community service.

this is another thing we agree on.

[OldCoyote]

That's got to disrupt a heck of a lot of animal migrations.  

The animals will now have to have VISA, Those that are undocumented will be deported!!!!

There be an entire new agency to track down the birds alone!

All undocumented birds will be deported!!!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 11:00:19 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

That's got to disrupt a heck of a lot of animal migrations.  

The animals will now have to have VISA, Those that are undocumented will be deported!!!!

There be an entire new agency to track down the birds alone!

All undocumented birds will be deported!!!

you are copping my style, bro.

[OldCoyote]

This wall thing is just a symbol,  It means nothing as far stopping drugs or immigrants.

It only means the drug people pay someone to turn their backs when the shipment goes thru!!!

[OldCoyote]

This reminds me of a friend that had a trailer he needed to move to Rocky Point, the import tax  was too much,
He was talking to his insurance agent about it,
The agent said you have $300 cash on you?  he said yea, agent said give it to me.
The next day the agent call,  " On Wednesday, exactly at Midnight, "  You go through "X" port,
Do Not Stop Do Not Slow Down!!!
So he did, The port agent had his back turned staring off in to the distance!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 11:08:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

This wall thing is just a symbol,  It means nothing as far stopping drugs or immigrants.

It only means the drug people pay someone to turn their backs when the shipment goes thru!!!

it also means that sales of acetylene torches near the border will explode. 

[billisonboard]

Jan 26, 2017 11:08:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

This wall thing is just a symbol,  ...

Maybe just erect a few of these along the border instead of a fence.


Although not sure which way they should be facing.

[justme]

So can someone explain the EO thing? I thought Obama did a lot...but if you look at the numbers he did less than Clinton and the second Bush. (Actually less than any 8 year president until you get back to Grant.)

So is it that the media talks about it more? That his cover more than others?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 12:23:46 GMT -5 justme said:

So can someone explain the EO thing? I thought Obama did a lot...but if you look at the numbers he did less than Clinton and the second Bush. (Actually less than any 8 year president until you get back to Grant.)

So is it that the media talks about it more? That his cover more than others?

you thought he did it a lot because the right wing spin alternative truth machine said so.  but yes, he actually did it less than anyone since Grant.

[justme]

Jan 26, 2017 12:25:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2017 12:23:46 GMT -5 justme said:

So can someone explain the EO thing? I thought Obama did a lot...but if you look at the numbers he did less than Clinton and the second Bush. (Actually less than any 8 year president until you get back to Grant.)

So is it that the media talks about it more? That his cover more than others?

you thought he did it a lot because the right wing spin alternative truth machine said so.  but yes, he actually did it less than anyone since Grant.

Well, yea, I definitely agree the media helped with the idea.

Do you mean on a per year basis? Cuz the first Bush did less than 200.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 12:27:58 GMT -5 justme said:

Jan 26, 2017 12:25:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you thought he did it a lot because the right wing spin alternative truth machine said so.  but yes, he actually did it less than anyone since Grant.

Well, yea, I definitely agree the media helped with the idea.

Do you mean on a per year basis? Cuz the first Bush did less than 200.

per annum.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/

and i guess it is Grover Cleveland, not Grant.

[dondub]

Because Obama was 'the different' his EO's carried wayyyyy more weight and were worth screaming about at the highest mountain top.

The same screamers will support ALL of Trump's EO's guaranteed. It's how they roll.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 12:51:44 GMT -5 dondub said:

Because Obama was 'the different' his EO's carried wayyyyy more weight and were worth screaming about at the highest mountain top.

The same screamers will support ALL of Trump's EO's guaranteed. It's how they roll.

it is always moving the goalposts, isn't it?

first they hollered about the EO's.  next they hollered about how sweeping they were. 

CARTER had far more sweeping EO's, and FAR MORE OF THEM than Obama.  do we consider him to be an authoritarian thug?

no, we consider him to be a WEAK president. 

there is absolutely no coherence in this argument, there never has been, and there probably never will be.

it is a sleight of hand designed to discredit the president.  nothing more or less.

[tallguy]

Jan 26, 2017 12:58:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2017 12:51:44 GMT -5 dondub said:

Because Obama was 'the different' his EO's carried wayyyyy more weight and were worth screaming about at the highest mountain top.

The same screamers will support ALL of Trump's EO's guaranteed. It's how they roll.

it is always moving the goalposts, isn't it?

first they hollered about the EO's.  next they hollered about how sweeping they were. 

CARTER had far more sweeping EO's, and FAR MORE OF THEM than Obama.  do we consider him to be an authoritarian thug?

no, we consider him to be a WEAK president. 

there is absolutely no coherence in this argument, there never has been, and there probably never will be.

it is a sleight of hand designed to discredit the president.  nothing more or less.

How disappointing that this is the best they can come up with.
And how much more so that people actually fall for it.   

[Deleted]

Since Planned Parenthood 'funding' is in th form of Medicaid and Title X  reimbursements for services rendered ... the only way they save money is if those services are not rendered elsewhere... which I've been told WONT happen... so which the fuck is it? 

[NastyWoman]

Jan 26, 2017 11:19:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2017 11:08:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

This wall thing is just a symbol,  It means nothing as far stopping drugs or immigrants.

It only means the drug people pay someone to turn their backs when the shipment goes thru!!!

it also means that sales of acetylene torches near the border will explode. 

Too bad that will be on the other side of the wall, or dt could count that in his job creation program

[NastyWoman]

Jan 25, 2017 21:56:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is also the geographic fact of the Rio Grande, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean.  fence THAT.

Under the Dome

[Tennesseer]

Jan 26, 2017 13:11:29 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2017 12:04:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Maybe just erect a few of these along the border instead of a fence.


Although not sure which way they should be facing.

my guess is there was some discord between neighbors here.  probably the viewer was trying to get his neighbor to do something with his property instead of focusing on his own property.

A friend of mine once told me of a friend of hers who did not get along with her neighbor. So to spite the neighbor, she erected a fence that was well within per property line along side her neighbor's property line. The friend painted the side facing the neighbor's home a bright pink. And because the fence was well within her property, the neighbor could not paint his side of the fence.

[billisonboard]

Jan 26, 2017 13:11:29 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2017 12:04:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Maybe just erect a few of these along the border instead of a fence.


Although not sure which way they should be facing.

my guess is there was some discord between neighbors here.  probably the viewer was trying to get his neighbor to do something with his property instead of focusing on his own property.

He bought the place next door to his ex and added this.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2017 13:58:15 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2017 9:27:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Also, anyone who hires someone illegal is more than fined. Mandatory jail time then community service.

start with public tazings of employers, then work your way up to prison. tazing is cheap and effective

nah.  they are doing it for money.  let's be clear about that.  they don't do it because they like immigrants. 

so, hit them where it hurts: $50k for the first offense.  i think that might even be within the limits of existing law.

if not, we can insist on E-Verify as a standard for employment.  $50k fine for not using it, first offense.  second offense, jail or we liquidate your assets and take whatever money we can get for it.  period. 

NOTE: Paul has objected to this on the basis that.....actually i can't figure out his objection.  we should get his input on that.

[billisonboard]

[tallguy]

Jan 26, 2017 13:31:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 26, 2017 13:11:29 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

my guess is there was some discord between neighbors here.  probably the viewer was trying to get his neighbor to do something with his property instead of focusing on his own property.

A friend of mine once told me of a friend of hers who did not get along with her neighbor. So to spite the neighbor, she erected a fence that was well within per property line along side her neighbor's property line. The friend painted the side facing the neighbor's home a bright pink. And because the fence was well within her property, the neighbor could not paint his side of the fence.

I'm not sure how smart that is.  The neighbor may possibly be able to just plant something next to the fence to block it, take care of the plants, and then in however many years be able to bring an adverse possession claim for the land outside the fence if she did nothing in the meantime.  I think that's how it works, but someone who actually knows the subject can correct me.  

[Tennesseer]

Jan 26, 2017 14:13:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 26, 2017 13:31:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A friend of mine once told me of a friend of hers who did not get along with her neighbor. So to spite the neighbor, she erected a fence that was well within per property line along side her neighbor's property line. The friend painted the side facing the neighbor's home a bright pink. And because the fence was well within her property, the neighbor could not paint his side of the fence.

I'm not sure how smart that is.  The neighbor may possibly be able to just plant something next to the fence to block it, take care of the plants, and then in however many years be able to bring an adverse possession claim for the land outside the fence if she did nothing in the meantime.  I think that's how it works, but someone who actually knows the subject can correct me.  

I don't think it was painted to last forever. If the neighbor planted shrubbery on his property, the pink fence would still be visible for a while. Just a temporary 'F-you' for a while.

[billisonboard]

Jan 26, 2017 14:13:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 26, 2017 13:31:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A friend of mine once told me of a friend of hers who did not get along with her neighbor. So to spite the neighbor, she erected a fence that was well within per property line along side her neighbor's property line. The friend painted the side facing the neighbor's home a bright pink. And because the fence was well within her property, the neighbor could not paint his side of the fence.

I'm not sure how smart that is.  The neighbor may possibly be able to just plant something next to the fence to block it, take care of the plants, and then in however many years be able to bring an adverse possession claim for the land outside the fence if she did nothing in the meantime.  I think that's how it works, but someone who actually knows the subject can correct me.  

Mom insisted the house be painted purple. Dad did so and also re-landscaped the front yard. I pointed out you could hardly see the house from the road. He just looked at me and said, "Yeah."