(01-26-2019 02:28 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Border security can be talking about two different things. Border security for keeping out terrorists, Democrats are for. They don't want to be seen as soft on terrorism.
Border security to keep out illegal immigrants, they don't really care about. Even though some guy keeps telling everyone that they're crossing the border to rape and kill us all, Democrats aren't nearly as afraid of them as Republicans.

First, you can't really separate them like that. Upgrading security to deal with one cannot happen without simultaneously upgrading security to deal with the other.

Second, democrats don't want the second. As long as they see a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters, they don't want it to stop. And as noted above, you can't let one in without letting the other in. We don't have signs at the border saying, "Terrorists line up to the left, illegals line up to the right." And we wouldn't be able to enforce it if we did.

Third, democrats like to make the same hyperbolic claim, "Oh, he says they're all coming here just to rob and rape and kill us." They're not all coming for those purposes, and "he" has never said they were. But some are, and are we better off if we can keep them out? You betcha.

Let me ask you a question. You say democrats don't want to let terrorists in? What have they proposed to accomplish that? Democrats have been quick to point out that most of our illegals came legally but overstayed their visas. Fine, so ow do you propose to deal with that problem? This is on big problem I ave with the wall, that it won't address this.

Democrats' words may say they support border security. Their actions say they don't.

(01-26-2019 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:28 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Border security can be talking about two different things. Border security for keeping out terrorists, Democrats are for. They don't want to be seen as soft on terrorism.
Border security to keep out illegal immigrants, they don't really care about. Even though some guy keeps telling everyone that they're crossing the border to rape and kill us all, Democrats aren't nearly as afraid of them as Republicans.

First, you can't really separate them like that. Upgrading security to deal with one cannot happen without simultaneously upgrading security to deal with the other.

The things you mentioned:

(01-26-2019 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, but their support for catch-and-release and sanctuary cities, and for eliminating ICE,

are more targeted at Mexicans than terrorists. You can separate increasing border security funding with less enforcement and punishment for illegal Mexicans that made it in.

(01-26-2019 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Second, democrats don't want the second.

(01-26-2019 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Third, democrats like to make the same hyperbolic claim, "Oh, he says they're all coming here just to rob and rape and kill us." They're not all coming for those purposes, and "he" has never said they were. But some are, and are we better off if we can keep them out? You betcha.

Let me ask you a question. You say democrats don't want to let terrorists in? What have they proposed to accomplish that? Democrats have been quick to point out that most of our illegals came legally but overstayed their visas. Fine, so ow do you propose to deal with that problem? This is on big problem I ave with the wall, that it won't address this.

Democrats' words may say they support border security. Their actions say they don't.

Wanting to avoid be seen as against something is different than wanting something.

(01-26-2019 02:32 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 01:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 12:44 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  But what Democrats want way more than border security is to expose Trump. Show that Trump is weak, stupid, and only propped up by a fluke election and you can get whatever you want in 2020, goes the thinking.

Early returns on their plan look good for them, but that doesn't mean they're opposed to border security. They'll just support it when it's convenient to expose Trump.

And this is what you've been defending tooth and nail on this forum since the fall. You should be proud of yourself for supporting a party that thinks fighting against national security is a tool to gain political points.

Yeah, the Republicans really saved us all by not paying the FBI and DHS in a quixotic quest to get the final $5 billion that would have saved us from terrorists.

Also, I'm an independent, not a Democrat.

Your perception of the world tells a different story.

(01-26-2019 02:51 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  are more targeted at Mexicans than terrorists. You can separate increasing border security funding with less enforcement and punishment for illegal Mexicans that made it in.

We need to reduce or eliminate both. The left keeps parroting this crap "racist" allegation and arguing that the focus needs to be elsewhere. OK, fine, what do you propose to do to handle elsewhere? Because you don't have much credibility arguing that the problem is B, not A, when you support no plan to address B.

Quote:

(01-26-2019 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me ask you a question. You say democrats don't want to let terrorists in. What have they proposed to accomplish that? Democrats have been quick to point out that most of our illegals came legally but overstayed their visas. Fine, so how do you propose to deal with that problem? This is on big problem I have with the wall, that it won't address this.

Wanting to avoid be seen as against something is different than wanting something.

Exactly. Democrats want to avoid being seen as against border security, but they don't want border security. Their words don't match their actions.

So, would you mind answering my questions?

(01-26-2019 02:32 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Also, I'm an independent, not a Democrat.

I'm actually a registered democrat. It means I basically have no vote in local politics, which are so dominated by republicans that democrats often don't field candidates for many offices. I think we have more libertarians than democrats on the ballot most times. But it lets me vote against the worst possible democrat in the presidential primaries, which is how and why I voted for Hillary against Obama in 2008 and against Bernie in 2016.

1980s Mexicans=coming for our jobs
2014-2019=other people from other Central American countries fleeing for their lives

There is a differences between the 2.

Trump are using scare tactics to scare people.

1.The gang members he claimed was founded in the USA by legal US citizens.
2.Mostly a Opiod related deaths in recent years are from legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors.
3,Drugs coming into the country come through legal port of entry at check points, by boats, by subs, by planes and by tunnels.
4.Most illegals came by legal entry into the USA by over staying their Visas.

Trump's wall will not fixed the issues.

What we need are these.

Fencing with security cameras.
Some type of technology that can penetrate the ground to detect tunnels.
We need more Border Patrol Agents.
We need roads to patrol the border.
Costs less to buy small amount of land build fences and roads instead of taken land away from citizens which could be tied up in courts. The Keystone pipeline is still tied up in courts since the people behind the pipeline lost in the courts when Native Americans, ranchers, farmers and others took them to court and won. Obama did not blocked the project, the court system did.
We need drones.
We need new technologies at the border entry points to scans the cars and trucks.
Need to crack down companies like Tysons Food who sends semi trucks to Mexico and bring Illegals into this country for cheap labor that take jobs away.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39287.html
Democrats ARE for open borders.

"....The actual measure put forth by Schumer’s office in February 2018 offered the wall money in exchange for the aforementioned amnesty, but then the senator’s staff inserted a hand-written provision that would have restricted immigration enforcement. This exclusively protected violent criminals and terrorists while also – and this is an enormous “also” – instituted an official enforcement holiday – amnesty – at the border and in the interior of the nation for any and everyone who would arrive in the U.S. in the following five months, through June 2018.

Had the president agreed to this, it would have created an amnesty loophole large enough to drive a bus through and would have triggered a caravan from Central America that would have dwarfed anything we can imagine. Of course the president, or anyone who cares about immigration enforcement or public safety in this country, rejected the sneaky offer. And Schumer’s staff knew they would. ..."

(01-26-2019 04:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39287.html
Democrats ARE for open borders.

"....The actual measure put forth by Schumer’s office in February 2018 offered the wall money in exchange for the aforementioned amnesty, but then the senator’s staff inserted a hand-written provision that would have restricted immigration enforcement. This exclusively protected violent criminals and terrorists while also – and this is an enormous “also” – instituted an official enforcement holiday – amnesty – at the border and in the interior of the nation for any and everyone who would arrive in the U.S. in the following five months, through June 2018.

Had the president agreed to this, it would have created an amnesty loophole large enough to drive a bus through and would have triggered a caravan from Central America that would have dwarfed anything we can imagine. Of course the president, or anyone who cares about immigration enforcement or public safety in this country, rejected the sneaky offer. And Schumer’s staff knew they would. ..."

Something people dont seem to understand is robotics, AI, and automation is coming in a big big way. Experts estimate it will replace somewhere between 20% and 40% of all repetitive low skill jobs as well as some higher skilled positions. The last thing we need to be doing right now is importing gobs and gobs of low skill labor. All your doing is importing future poverty and undermining the wage growth for a generation of future American workers. Its an incredibly reckless policy.

(01-26-2019 02:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:32 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Also, I'm an independent, not a Democrat.

Your perception of the world tells a different story.

Please, kind sir, what would I have to do to be considered an independent? How do you define an independent?

(01-26-2019 04:59 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:32 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Also, I'm an independent, not a Democrat.

Your perception of the world tells a different story.

Please, kind sir, what would I have to do to be considered an independent? How do you define an independent?

Its been my experience that most "independents" are actually Democrats or Republicans (some are fairly stridently in one camp or the other once you actually start talking with them)--they just dont like to acknowledge it. Of the tiny percentage that are not--- most of those so called "independents" are actually Libertarians---they just dont know it.

(01-26-2019 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its been my experience that most "independents" are actually Democrats or Republicans (some are fairly stridently in one camp or the other once you actually start talking with them)--they just dont like to acknowledge it. Of the tiny percentage that are not--- most of those so called "independents" are actually Libertarians---they just dont know it.

So your argument is that I can't be an independent because independents don't exist?

(01-26-2019 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need to reduce or eliminate both. The left keeps parroting this crap "racist" allegation and arguing that the focus needs to be elsewhere. OK, fine, what do you propose to do to handle elsewhere? Because you don't have much credibility arguing that the problem is B, not A, when you support no plan to address B.

Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand "what do you propose to do to handle elsewhere?"

(01-26-2019 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly. Democrats want to avoid being seen as against border security, but they don't want border security. Their words don't match their actions.

I agree.

(01-26-2019 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, would you mind answering my questions?

I can't tell you what they should be doing because they don't see the current situation as a crisis. Stopping Trump from harming the FBI/DHS is probably priority #1.

(01-26-2019 05:50 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need to reduce or eliminate both. The left keeps parroting this crap "racist" allegation and arguing that the focus needs to be elsewhere. OK, fine, what do you propose to do to handle elsewhere? Because you don't have much credibility arguing that the problem is B, not A, when you support no plan to address B.

Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand "what do you propose to do to handle elsewhere?"

I think you answered this with your other responses, but the point I was getting at is this. Democrats say they oppose the wall because the bigger problem is people coming here legally and overstaying their visas. I say, OK, fine, what do you propose to do to deal with that? Uhh, nothing.

That's the point. You can't say, "I oppose doing A because A is not the problem, B is," unless you are prepared to discuss what to do about B.

(01-26-2019 05:44 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its been my experience that most "independents" are actually Democrats or Republicans (some are fairly stridently in one camp or the other once you actually start talking with them)--they just dont like to acknowledge it. Of the tiny percentage that are not--- most of those so called "independents" are actually Libertarians---they just dont know it.

So your argument is that I can't be an independent because independents don't exist?

No. My argument is that you are an example of a democrat who likes to classify himself as a independent. Its just an observation. It is what it is. There are "Republican" senators that are more like Democrats than many Southern democrats. I mean---just becasue I sometimes think democrats make a good point here or there---that doesnt make me an independent.

The thread is not about whether atsKnight is or is not an independent. Thread derailed. Thread closed.