U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

[vla1ne]

Get cucked

Not necessary.

 

Still, it's good news that job growth isn't slowing down because of this spectacle. America's still doing well enough, even while the government's not.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not necessary.

 

Still, it's good news that job growth isn't slowing down because of this spectacle. America's still doing well enough, even while the government's not.

The government is almost unneeded. You could run a skeleton crew and be fine

[Phantom Roxas]

The article suggests that some of the consequences of the shutdown have yet to take their full effect, and that the factors for economic growth were likely already in place prior to the shutdown.

"Gimbel adds that 'this can be bad news for federal agencies who are looking to replace them in a tight market' and says that while January’s jobs report does provide a little bit of comfort, it 'should not distract from a very real hurt that many workers suffered during the shutdown.'"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The article suggests that some of the consequences of the shutdown have yet to take their full effect, and that the factors for economic growth were likely already in place prior to the shutdown.

 

"Gimbel adds that 'this can be bad news for federal agencies who are looking to replace them in a tight market' and says that while January’s jobs report does provide a little bit of comfort, it 'should not distract from a very real hurt that many workers suffered during the shutdown.'"

That's different. Sure not getting a paycheck might hurt you, but we could can all those people (who mostly vote democrat anyway) and the economy would be fine

[Phantom Roxas]

There is nothing about this shutdown that proves that anarchy has any merit, nor that it would preserve the economy as it is.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/trump-national-emergency-declaration-border-wall-spending-bill.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/donald-trump-wall-funding-bill/index.html

 

Looks like another Shutdown has been averted, but let the legal battles begin.

[vla1ne]

It won't avert any of the petty fighting that goes on in and between congress and the executive branch, but it'll keep the government from ruining the workers pay cycles again. the lawsuits likely won't amount to much. He has multiple precedents he can pull from prior presidents on the topic.

[Phantom Roxas]

He's already openly stated that he doesn't need to do this, and is only doing this to get the money faster. It's less that he's working off of precedent, and more that he's just being entirely impatient. I don't think he has much of a legal case if his main argument comes down to "I want my money and I want it NOW!"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If it wasn't an emergency why would he need to do it faster? He doesn't need to do it this way cuz ideally the democrats wouldn't be traitors

[Phantom Roxas]

If it wasn't an emergency why would he need to do it faster? He doesn't need to do it this way cuz ideally the democrats wouldn't be traitors

 

That's exactly my point. If he doesn't need to do it faster, it doesn't sound like there's much of an emergency. This comes down his own personal preference.

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

That's exactly my point. If he doesn't need to do it faster, it doesn't sound like there's much of an emergency. This comes down his own personal preference.

 

No no, he has to do it faster since it IS an emergency

 

He shouldn't need to do it, but the democrats are willing to let their country be invaded for cynical politics

 

His hands are tied

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/factchecking-trumps-national-emergency-remarks/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/there-no-national-emergency-border-and-trumps-declaration-illegal

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-asked-wall-he-s-forcing-constitutional-crisis-n971911

 

There is no emergency, certainly not at the border. The Democrats are not at fault here, because Trump has either outright lied about where the most vulnerable parts are (Assuming he even knows what they are; it's entirely possible he's just wrong and doesn't realize that), or has ignored the data that contradicts him. The deals rejecting Trump were bipartisan, then either the Republicans owe just as much blame as the Democrats, or if both parties are rejecting Trump, maybe the issue isn't that both parties are willing to let the country be invaded, but that Trump himself is the problem here. Trump's hands are only tied because the wall was his biggest campaign promise, and he's over halfway through his first (And possibly only) term. This isn't him taking a last resort to prevent an imaginary invasion, this is him panicking to deliver on his campaign promise.

 

Let me put it this way: When your entire campaign hinged on a wall, and people were eager to believe it, it would be completely humiliating to concede that the general consensus from most sources of data prove that the "causes of invasion" come from areas that would not be targeted by the wall. He made his bed, and now he has to lie in it. He also has a history of largely sticking to the same script. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where it felt like it didn't matter what you would say, because the other person seemed to be prefer responding in only one specific way? That's Trump. It doesn't matter what the facts are, he's going to stick to his script.

 

Democrats and Republicans do both care about border security, but Trump seems to believe that his wall is the only way to achieve ideal border security. While the wall and border security are not one and the same, Trump is treating them as though they are. Opposing the wall doesn't mean that either party opposes border security, and it doesn't mean that they're willing to let the country be invaded. They just don't think the wall that Trump staked his entire campaign on is the ideal way of maximizing border security.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Democrats don't care about illegal immigration cuz it's more votes for them

 

Most old fashion republicans don't care cuz it's cheap labor

 

Yeah man, I'll take the ACLUs word over what any non partisan can see with his own eyes

 

The GOP folded on every bill cuz 1) they're spineless, and 2) they don't really care about illegal immigration 

 

The democrats all supported a border wall/fence as recent as this decade, but merely oppose it cuz Trump now. 

 

You never really argue in good faith roxas, but this should be mental gymnastics even for you. I also noticed how you tried to spin Trump's words, and when confronted with that you just started talking about something else. Cute

[Phantom Roxas]

Democrats don't care about illegal immigration cuz it's more votes for them

 

Most old fashion republicans don't care cuz it's cheap labor

 

Yeah man, I'll take the ACLUs word over what any non partisan can see with his own eyes

 

The GOP folded on every bill cuz 1) they're spineless, and 2) they don't really care about illegal immigration 

 

The democrats all supported a border wall/fence as recent as this decade, but merely oppose it cuz Trump now. 

 

You never really argue in good faith roxas, but this should be mental gymnastics even for you. I also noticed how you tried to spin Trump's words, and when confronted with that you just started talking about something else. Cute

 

You're really going to accuse me of arguing in bad faith immediately after you dismiss ACLU without any reason?

 

Where did I start talking about something else? I've been consistent in discussing the topic, and provided multiple sources beyond the ACLU to back up my argument.

 

The idea that Democrats only oppose the wall because Trump is the one behind it is something I already talked with vla1ne about here, and I've already argued against that point, with Democrats offering other reasons, such as Trump either not providing a coherent plan, they're supporting the fence that's already in place, or they believe that the amount of asking for is far too excessive. I brought up the quote because he is openly attempting to violate the Revenue Clause of the Constitution because he failed to get the money that he wanted.

 

There are plenty of other reasons for both parties to refuse funding the wall, and it's not as simple as "They just don't like Trump." Consider those other possibilities before you continue passing off shallow attacks and deflection as coherent arguments.

[vla1ne]

We've seen that trump has attempted, multiple times, to get funding for the wall through the proper channels, After 2 shutdowns, and as many months of waiting and compromise attempts, democrats are unwilling to budge for funding. Trump has already placed troops at the border to assist with the problem. He's got reasonable grounds to argue for a national emergency at this point. It is a fact that democrats will fight anything at all that trump does, one look at the state of the union, the shutdown deal, or the supreme court nomination, should tell you everything you need to know about the democrats supporting trump related topics. At this point, a national emergency is required, because a compromise cannot be reached.  Anything short of pretty much not building the wall, and the democrats would veto the hell out of it in house. This is a fact.

 

Using past actions taken as a precedent, trump could be literally be talking about the cure for cancer, and they would not even agree with him there. Thy could be calling the caravans coming over a crisis one day, and the second that trump says "I agree, we need to work on it" they would revoke their statements and fight tooth and nail to deny that anything at all is wrong on the border regarding people trying to break across.

[Phantom Roxas]

Again, both of you are disregarding that Republicans are just as divided over Trump's actions. You cannot keep blaming Democrats forever, and frankly your posts are becoming less about rational arguments, and instead just complaining about Democrats for the sake of it. Trump himself has also completely changed his motto from "Build that wall" to "Finish that wall." The spending bill passed 83-16, and yet Trump is calling a national emergency to ask for money in direct violation of the Constitution.

 

This isn't about Democrats hating what Trump's doing just because Trump's the one doing it. This is because his actions are an actual abuse of power, and they're against that abuse of power. They are opposing him because of what his actions cause, not because Trump is the person behind those actions. I can  say that Republicans will only ever support Trump because it's Trump, but does that sound the least bit logical to you? It's about as logical as what you two are saying. I tend to think that Republicans are sycophants, but if Republicans are divided over Trump declaring a national emergency, at least I can take a step back and recognize that instead of making sweeping generalizations against the party.

[vla1ne]

Again, both of you are disregarding that Republicans are just as divided over Trump's actions. You cannot keep blaming Democrats forever, and frankly your posts are becoming less about rational arguments, and instead just complaining about Democrats for the sake of it. Trump himself has also completely changed his motto from "Build that wall" to "Finish that wall." The spending bill passed 83-16, and yet Trump is calling a national emergency to ask for money in direct violation of the Constitution.

 

This isn't about Democrats hating what Trump's doing just because Trump's the one doing it. This is because his actions are an actual abuse of power, and they're against that abuse of power. They are opposing him because of what his actions cause, not because Trump is the person behind those actions. I can  say that Republicans will only ever support Trump because it's Trump, but does that sound the least bit logical to you? It's about as logical as what you two are saying. I tend to think that Republicans are sycophants, but if Republicans are divided over Trump declaring a national emergency, at least I can take a step back and recognize that instead of making sweeping generalizations against the party.

republicans are willing to budge fr 5 billion though. they aqren't willing to toss in the whole pile of money, but they are indeed willing, for the most part, to budge for 5 billion instead of the full budget. in addition, there isn't as large a republican force against him in congress as there are democrats. there are individuals against him, but it isn't a party wide thing. Yeah, we can talk about the republicans too, i've got my gripes with them, but they aren't the largest thorn, and they are more willing to negotiate than democrats. The spending bill has pretty much nothing for the wall though. we've been over this. 1.3 billion is useless for anything notable. It was more to get the government open than from him being happy with it.

 

Pretty sure no other president has been hated to the level where their opponents refused to stand and clap for anything positive they said unless it was about them. seriously. you can say it's not about trump, but the people against him refused to so much as clap for cancer treatment, holocaust survivors, peace negotiations, and veterans, Tell me what that hatred of a person looks like, if not refusal to acknowledge what they say, no matter how positive? Every president prior for the past 3 administrations has declared national emergency multiple times, and they have all been contested by the opposing party. this Is party politics as usual. and like the past ones, this one will make it through same as always. You yourself, have already admitted that republicans have contested him as well as supported him within this same statement. your statement sounds wrong, because the actions of the people mentioned disprove it. the statement that democrats hate trump, is backed by their own actions towards him. democrats have been wholly against all of his attempts at concessions. republicans have been for and against him at varying intervals. to claim they are on the same level is to ignore every action democrats and republicans have taken since trump made it into office.

[Phantom Roxas]

The issue is that you have offered absolutely no reason for why the Democrats would hate him, other than just saying that they hate him. And I've seen this type of argument before, that someone just hates an individual, but can't offer a reason for it. Is the issue that you cannot understand why Democrats hate Trump, or do you think they have no reason for it?

 

Among the 59 national emergencies, how many of them were declared after the President

 

If oncologists and cancer patients are unhappy with Trump's plans for cancer treatment, then why should I expect Democrats to applaud Trump? He also deserves no credit for peace negotiations when he had threatened to destroy North Korea. He banned Jim Acosta from the White House for asking a question, then used a doctored video from InfoWars to slander him.

 

Trump has tried to circumvent the separation of powers, and has gone out of his way to try and repeal Obamacare. Mitch McConnell was singled out for his hypocrisy in moaning about the opposition to Kavanaugh's nomination, because McConnell personally opposed Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court for absolutely no other reason than Obama nominated him. Republicans viciously hated Obama, as well as Trump.

 

Trump has also overseen attempts to ban transgender people from the military, and his Muslim ban was nothing short of discrimination. The hatred towards Trump is based entirely on him ruling more from his own irrational hatred than out of anything purely logical. Democrats detest him because he represents a regression in values. At the Munich Security Conference, Pence made a statement expecting an applause, and none of the world leaders present clapped. The United Nations laughed at Trump when he claimed that his administration has accomplish more than any other in history.

 

When the world is hating Trump, they're judging him for his reactions. I'm not saying that this isn't about Trump. You seem to believe that Democrats hate Trump as if his only crime was existing. My issue is that Trump has consistently operated in bad faith as president. The Russian probe against him is being led by Republicans because of the specific circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. All the hate against him is a reaction to what he has said and done.

 

If you truly believe that Trump has done nothing to earn the level of scorn he gets, take a step back and try to assess where he has gone wrong. Thankfully, Trump isn't the only president who's been hated this much. He's hated as much as Nixon was before Nixon resigned. Maybe screaming about a witch hunt in an investigation where several of the suspects have been found guilty could have something to do with that.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

CNN: 16 states file lawsuit to stop Trump's national emergency declaration.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/18/politics/xavier-becerra-lawsuit-national-emergency/index.html

 

The legal battles have begun. I expect this to be expedited through the courts so that an answer is given swiftly.

[Phantom Roxas]

"At the core of each lawsuit is the argument that Trump is circumventing Congress to fund the wall along the US-Mexico border by declaring an emergency."

Huh, weird how this is consistently the main reason people have cited for why they oppose this fake national emergency. It's almost as if Trump has legitimately done something wrong here, so the argument that Democrats are opposing Trump merely because it's Trump willfully ignores the faults in Trump's own actions.

[vla1ne]

He has the authority to circumvent congress using this method. and he's spent about 3-4 months trying to get them to work with him instead of doing this. The entire argument of the moment being "Is there a national emergency or not?" One side claims it is, the other side stopped claiming it is the second trump said it is. Looking back about 4-5 months will show you that most people on the democrat side were calling this a crisis well before trump did, and while caravans are still coming, and troops are still stationed there, democrats hae decided that it is no longer an emergency. The grounds for the national emergency claim exist. They don't wish to acknowledge them in any aspect though. Considering we've called national emergencies, and consequently spent billions of dollars for events that happened in other countries across the ocean, i'd say he has strong grounds to call one for an event occurring right at our own border.

[Phantom Roxas]

Again, statistics from the DHS suggest that there is no crisis, and the numbers Trump used to support his claim were false numbers provided by Steve King. Again, every other source confirms that most drugs use legal ports of entry, which you rejected not by providing any facts, reports, or any other source, but by your own personal guesses.
 
Here's what it comes down. You believe that Democrats oppose Trump simply because he's Trump, and support him circumventing Congress because he spent months trying to negotiate for money. I criticized him for taking that specific course of action because it's completely hypocritical when he accused Obama of doing the same. I also believe that Democrats have offered more than enough reasons to oppose Trump, such as border lawmakers explicitly telling Trump to focus on the legal ports instead of the border. The drugs that are seized at legal ports also tend to be thrice as valuable as the drugs seized at the border. You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough, so I have to ask, where is your preponderance of evidence that the smugglers who don't get caught are more likely to come through the border?

 

The difference between our arguments is that I can cite data that shows the merits of Democrats opposing a border wall, because it's been established that there are better places to spend the money. You have nowhere near as much factual data that supports why Trump is right to target the border. Democrats also could have shifted their positions upon seeing the data and simply agreeing with what that data suggested, and decided to change their focus towards what has now been shown to be more vulnerable. That would mean the Democrats deferred to proper sources, rather than using data that a white supremacist cherrypicked in bad faith.

 

I'm willing to consider multiple possibilities, but you want to keep repeating "Democrats oppose Trump because it's Trump" ad infinitum, and simply don't want to consider anything else.

[vla1ne]

Your citation does nothing but attempt to skew the points.id does not deny that at least 28% percent of all prisoners are to illegal immigrants, it does not deny that people are dying due to illegal immigration, though it attempts to skew the numbers, in which case you could easily cut them in half and still have enough people killed per year to support building a wall. It attempts to discredit drug deaths as a part of the statistic, when drugs coming across the border are directly related to the lack of security. It attempts to discredit diseases and anchor babies as a drain on the system, when we have ample evidence of people desperately trying to make it over the border just to pop out a baby to take advantage of the anchor baby rules. and the cost required to treat illegal immigrants is exemplified by the sheer amount of times the media tries to blame people dying from sickness on the administration instead of on the abusable programs that make people so desperate to get here. in their attempt to discredit parents being separated from their children, they conveniently forget about child traffickers, AKA the reason we separate them in the first place. The entire article is a swing and a miss. they try to claim there's no crisis, but they ignore mexico preparing to break apart the caravan sanctuaries, many of whom are liable to rush the border once again once mexico stops cradling them. it also ignores the confirmations of additional ms-13 members attempting to get in through the border, the fact that women and children are practically used as shields by people attempting to pass the wall, the monetary drain on the system supporting entitlement programs for illegal immigrants (mostly in california) the increase in criminals coming across, ect. No crisis at all? They barely even looked into it.

You are once again conflating amount of drugs caught, with number of drugs making it across. 90% of drugs caught are caught at points of entry, we know for a fact that more drugs than that are coming across, we know for a fact that drugs are transported across the unprotected points across the border. Again, what criminal, in their right mind, sends 90% of their drugs through the easiest place to catch? that's a false point that's being touted as if it were true. literally nothing backs the claim that most drugs come across through points of entry. The only stat we know that places points of entry as a majority, is drugs caught. tell me what intelligent drug dealer is going to send the majority of their drugs through one of the best protected parts of the border (aka the point of entry).

 

border lawmakers are using some of the most asinine arguments i've ever seen. Trump points out that there's 2k+ miles shared between points of entry, yet somehow those lawmakers are attempting to cite the numbers of drugs caught to argue against him. at points of entry, drugs are far easier to catch, you have a slowed pace, you have more security, you have actual barriers, and you have respectable surveillance. you have all 3 prongs required for effective security. trumps argument is that he wants to extend those 3 prongs across the border, lawmakers are arguing that there is no need because drugs only come in across the most well guarded, well watched, hardest to pass areas. Why i the literal hell would i take their argument over trump? Even 5 seconds of thinking like a criminal will tell you that you do not go across the path where it's easiest to get caught. and' that th's the thing about the drugs that make it across, They don't get caught. the drugs that don't get caught, cannot be classified, because we don't see what is used to transport them. that said, we do know that recently a couple cars were busted, miles away from any feasible checkpoint, with ample drugs stored within. That is all i need to say on the topic. Drugs coming through points of entry are, from the data we currently have now, at least 9 times more likely to get caught. of course the higher number f drugs we know about come frome vehicles, because they catch more vehicles at points of entry, but why act like we haven't seen vehicles offroad between checkpoints? We know people and vehicles come across between checkpoints, and we know that there is far more ground between checkpoints that can be exploited as opposed to limiting themselves to checkpoints. Drugs coming between points of entry, have the advantage of weaker security, zero camera surveillance, and no notable barriers preventing passage.Were you a drug dealer, where would you send the majority of your product? Through the hardest part of the border to pass? Or through the rougher terrain that guarantees an easier, if bumpier transport?

 

I use basic logic to disprove narratives, and point out where your numbers skew the story. I have facts where i need them and logic everywhere else. I don't just believe they oppose him because he's trump, but fact is, trump being trump, is a massive part of why they oppose him. He's embarrassed the entire democratic party, and has continued to do so to this day. Russia is on track to come up empty, they fall for the slightest insult, He shakes off bad press like water on oiled leather, and he's getting more results both for peace talks, trade and the economy, than they ever thought he would. He's a walking insult to the democrats. and the worst part about it is that his policies are pretty much those of a 90's democrat.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime
 
The increase of illegal immigration has not increased the rate of violent crime, and in fact more American citizens commit murder than illegal immigrants do. My citation from Des Moines Register was literally a critique of how King and Trump skew the numbers themselves to twist the narrative in their favori. You claim that DMR were the ones trying to skew the numbers, which would still be more than enough to support a wall, except their point was that nobody actually keeps track of the number of people murdered by immigrants, and they said that only half of the immigrants (Legal and illegal, since they were referring to immigrants as a whole) were being charged with being here illegally. Claiming that you could cut the number in half and still have enough people killed per year is completely ignoring that their entire point is that the worse crimes illegal immigrants commit is literally just being here illegally.
 
"You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough…" Did you miss this part? I took special care to not conflate the number of drugs caught with the number of drugs making it across, and yet you're claiming that I was still doing that. My question to you was to provide actual evidence of the people who are not caught, and how that warrants the border wall. Given that you failed to comprehend the data that I discussed in the previous paragraph, I'm going to say that you failed to accomplish that.

 

The analysis that most drugs come across the legal points of entry was explicitly provided from southern Border Patrol. The people explicitly designed to oversee the area that the wall would be designed over are outright telling us that most drugs coming through legal points of entry. I find it utterly baffling that you will claim that nothing backs it up when the people whose job is to know this stuff are outright telling you otherwise. You're not using logic or facts, you're outright dismissing actual the evidence and data because it completely contradicts your positions and you don't want to believe it.

 

So you have no actual data of how many people illegal immigrants bring drugs across the border and contribute to the death toll of Americans, but it just… makes sense to you that it's totally happening to such a degree that it warrants a wall? You still haven't provided any actual evidence or sources to back up your point. Your arguments are reasonable, but they aren't backed up by any credible evidence, and when all the data completely disagrees with you, I'm going to believe that data. Until you can actually provide specific numbers from credible sources to back up your argument, why should I believe the wall is necessary? I agree with your point that it's more logical to go through points with weaker security, but you need to show proper statistics that show that this is happening. I understand that it would be difficult because I'm asking for data about people who don't get caught, but for as much as you claim that you have facts on your side, I can't help but notice how you haven't actually shown any.

 

The Mueller investigations has resulted in 199 criminal charges and 37 indictments. Again, this seems to be an issue where you claim that nothing backs something up, except the results prove that Mueller has found far more than nothing. If you want people to believe that you have facts on your side, maybe you need to actually look at data instead of just blindly repeating that nothing is backing me up.

 

Trump has attacked media not because it's bad press (Except Fox News, which threw a fit about fairness as if children being taught basic human decency is some nefarious liberal agenda), but because they challenge him to actually back up his arguments, and much like yourself, Trump refuses actual facts and instead just repeats the same exaggerated talking points, and had to use a doctored video to justify throwing out Jim Acosta for no reason other than he was from CNN. Trump all but threatened Venezuela two days ago, he's trying to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia without any kind of deal, and he was comparing sizes with Kim Jong-Un about nuclear buttons. Trump's strategy is basically to claim that he's preventing a war with North Korea that Obama would have caused, even though Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea himself. The deficit has also hit $22T for the first time ever. We're always going to have a debt, but I would rather see Trump take more strides to minimize it than allow it reach a new record.

 

While his policies are like those of a 90's Democrat. The key point there being 90's, and I would be more than happy for more sitting Democrats to leave. Frankly, both parties have their fair members who only seem to still be in power because they've been there for so long, and I would like them to be held to term limits. But I feel like talking about why Democrats hate Trump is just going to be a pointless back and forth if we don't stick to how that relates to the shutdown over the border wall.

[vla1ne]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime

 

The increase of illegal immigration has not increased the rate of violent crime, and in fact more American citizens commit murder than illegal immigrants do. My citation from Des Moines Register was literally a critique of how King and Trump skew the numbers themselves to twist the narrative in their favori. You claim that DMR were the ones trying to skew the numbers, which would still be more than enough to support a wall, except their point was that nobody actually keeps track of the number of people murdered by immigrants, and they said that only half of the immigrants (Legal and illegal, since they were referring to immigrants as a whole) were being charged with being here illegally. Claiming that you could cut the number in half and still have enough people killed per year is completely ignoring that their entire point is that the worse crimes illegal immigrants commit is literally just being here illegally.

 

"You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough…" Did you miss this part? I took special care to not conflate the number of drugs caught with the number of drugs making it across, and yet you're claiming that I was still doing that. My question to you was to provide actual evidence of the people who are not caught, and how that warrants the border wall. Given that you failed to comprehend the data that I discussed in the previous paragraph, I'm going to say that you failed to accomplish that.

 

The analysis that most drugs come across the legal points of entry was explicitly provided from southern Border Patrol. The people explicitly designed to oversee the area that the wall would be designed over are outright telling us that most drugs coming through legal points of entry. I find it utterly baffling that you will claim that nothing backs it up when the people whose job is to know this stuff are outright telling you otherwise. You're not using logic or facts, you're outright dismissing actual the evidence and data because it completely contradicts your positions and you don't want to believe it.

 

So you have no actual data of how many people illegal immigrants bring drugs across the border and contribute to the death toll of Americans, but it just… makes sense to you that it's totally happening to such a degree that it warrants a wall? You still haven't provided any actual evidence or sources to back up your point. Your arguments are reasonable, but they aren't backed up by any credible evidence, and when all the data completely disagrees with you, I'm going to believe that data. Until you can actually provide specific numbers from credible sources to back up your argument, why should I believe the wall is necessary? I agree with your point that it's more logical to go through points with weaker security, but you need to show proper statistics that show that this is happening. I understand that it would be difficult because I'm asking for data about people who don't get caught, but for as much as you claim that you have facts on your side, I can't help but notice how you haven't actually shown any.

 

The Mueller investigations has resulted in 199 criminal charges and 37 indictments. Again, this seems to be an issue where you claim that nothing backs something up, except the results prove that Mueller has found far more than nothing. If you want people to believe that you have facts on your side, maybe you need to actually look at data instead of just blindly repeating that nothing is backing me up.

 

Trump has attacked media not because it's bad press (Except Fox News, which threw a fit about fairness as if children being taught basic human decency is some nefarious liberal agenda), but because they challenge him to actually back up his arguments, and much like yourself, Trump refuses actual facts and instead just repeats the same exaggerated talking points, and had to use a doctored video to justify throwing out Jim Acosta for no reason other than he was from CNN. Trump all but threatened Venezuela two days ago, he's trying to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia without any kind of deal, and he was comparing sizes with Kim Jong-Un about nuclear buttons. Trump's strategy is basically to claim that he's preventing a war with North Korea that Obama would have caused, even though Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea himself. The deficit has also hit $22T for the first time ever. We're always going to have a debt, but I would rather see Trump take more strides to minimize it than allow it reach a new record.

 

While his policies are like those of a 90's Democrat. The key point there being 90's, and I would be more than happy for more sitting Democrats to leave. Frankly, both parties have their fair members who only seem to still be in power because they've been there for so long, and I would like them to be held to term limits. But I feel like talking about why Democrats hate Trump is just going to be a pointless back and forth if we don't stick to how that relates to the shutdown over the border wall.

 

The argument that more citizens commit violent crimes than illegal immigrants is a pointless statement. First and foremost, this is the united states of america. More citizens committing crime here is to be expected. The difference is, One is supposed to be here, the other is not. We are discussing people who have no business being here in the first place, Not people who were born and raised here. We are talking about the illegally imported problems, not the home grown ones. It does not matter how many Americans commit violent crimes (in the context of this discussion) unlike Americans, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. No matter what the crime ratio is, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. Americans belong in america, illegal immigrants do not. 100% of illegal immigrants broke the law. Violent or not. They are not supposed to be here. There is nothing more to discuss in comparison. If you want the numbers, then at the lowest estimate, just over 5k people are killed yearly by illegal immigrants ( https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/crime-illegal-immigration/ yes, people do keep track of the numbers.) and far more go down for other violent/otherwise illegal offenses, like drug dealing, DUI, rape, assault, ect.

 

 

The cost of anchor babies from people who plop over and pop one out (K-12 school funding for illegal immigrants is a thing, especially in sanctuary cities), the cost of healthcare and prison cells, the cost of Californias' sanctuary programs in total, The damage done from illegal wages on the working class, the number of people killed per year by illegal immigrants, or border related crime (MS-13 happens to be one of those related problems), the drug problem in and of itself, human trafficking, ect. These are all separate topics that can be used to point out the need of a border wall. Logic and math could even be used if you look at the cost of the wall (building AND maintenance) vs the yearly budget to compare how it measures up to other programs and helps/harms job creation. By the way, one of the articles you linked had lawmakers using the exact same argument that you just agreed was pretty much worthless, which is the entire reason i posted what i did. The lawmakers you claim are against trump, use the exact same arguments that you, not moments later, agreed were garbage. You missed where my comment was pointed.

 

 

The links you use say most drugs caught by border patrol, are caught at legal points. Where exactly do you expect to find the data on the drugs we don't catch, but clearly see the effects of on the streets? Like the times border patrol finds traces of drug gang violence across unprotected parts of the border? Like the vehicles recently caught trying to make it across the less guarded terrain with hefty loads of drugs? Or the people on foot that we catch miles away from checkpoints with packs full of drugs on their backs? Or the tunnels that we discover from time to time that attempt to circumvent border patrols? Yeah we catch more drugs at the most heavily guarded points, aka checkpoints but Thinking like a criminal and/or pondering the evidence will tell you the majority of what we don't catch is coming across at the lesser guarded points of entry, like the large stretches of unfenced, unsurveyed, and unguarded land between checkpoints.

 

 

Step back for a bit, and look at the rest of the factors, it's not just drugs, it's gang violence, it's human trafficking, it's the drain on the system from an influx of people using entitlement programs, ect. drugs is one of the aspects, and border patrol interview after border patrol interview confirms as much. Border security is, in my opinion, a combination of physical barrier, camera surveillance, and personnel deployment. At many areas along the border, we have none of those 3, and all 3 are required for any of them to work at their best. You can ask for data all day, and sure, i'll give you some since i have the time right now:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/ This one addresses quite a few of your arguments.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigration-leads-to-2-200-deaths-118-000-rapes-138-000-assaults This one lays out a large number of problems that will be faced by illegal immigrants just on the way here, from other illegal immigrants. al arge portion of said problems being rape, murder, abduction, assault, and robery. (the largest slice problem being getting caught, but hilariously enough, they don't list that as a large problem when they point out the troubling ones.) personally, i don't like how it attempts to quietly conflate arrest by border patrol with rape and robbery, but besides that shot in the dark, it's rather on point. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/the-media-never-cares-when-americans-are-killed-by-illegal-immigrants/ more conservative than i'd like, but google seems to enjoy placing the most anti trump news on the first page, and has the rest pages behind it. it basically points out the media bias in reporting deaths from illegal immigration and lays out an argument that many of the illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are among the same pool of people that sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for other types of less violent crimes, such as DUI, drug related offenses, and nonlethal assaults.

 

The argument remains the same though. I'm using standard logic and basic facts to point out and make my arguments, all the while reading through your rebuttals and citations and explaining why they are either flawed, or do not apply to the discussion at hand. Even giving some ground for points i agree with. I don't have the time that i used to, so the posts where i make an entire page worth of text on my own, with fully searched citations, is diminishing as well. On the next topic though, 200K+ arrests and detentions of illegal immigrants ( https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/crime-illegal-immigration/ paragraph 3 ) per year is a hell of a lot of taxpayer money to spend on people who should not even be here, no matter how you slice it. This is an unnecessary drain on taxes, for people who should not exist in america in the first place. that is why the border wall is a strong argument. A proper border with surveillance tech, can cover for lacks in personnel, delaying long enough for border patrol to notice and more often than not catch the perpetrators far sooner than we do now. My own argument is to remove incentives in the first place, as that's a large part of the magnet dragging illegal immigrants over, but drugs and human traffickers don't care about laws, and as such, a barrier is the best possible way to block, deter, or at least delay such problems till the border patrol can get there. It's a much needed stop gap for the overall problem, and both the creation and maintenance would create proper jobs along the border for at least decades to come.

 

 

Like i said, nothing. So far, not a single one of the things anybody has perused (as far as tying something to trump) has been shown to be anything even remotely connected to trump on a criminal level ( http://archive.is/HJJoz ). The most he has that we know of at the moment is a couple past events that everybody knew of, or some mixups that got blown out of proportion in the effort to nail trump. Don't forget, the investigations had one main goal, to find a concrete connection between trump and russia related to the 2016 election. They have not done so, unless you have some info I don't relating to the cases. At the moment, they have nothing. Will they have something new after the muller probe? Maybe, but we have seen nothing yet, and i expect nothing different from the probe. Trump has been a businessman for a long time. making company connections all across the globe. We have yet to see anything relating to anything but business, and i don't expect that to change.

 

 

Do you know what's going on in Venezuela right now? How things are for the people living there? Why wouldn't he threaten them? The country is being destroyed from the inside out, the citizens are legit refugee status at this point, and the entire area is arguably being dragged down from the problems Venezuela is suffering. Somebody stepping in has been long overdue. Hopefully not us, we have our hands full here and can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them of natural resources after the fact. There is an actual humanitarian crisis. The alleged nuclear secrets deal is just breaking, and the allegation is that the department head is selling secrets, not trump himself. He is indeed responsible if it happens by proxy, but the correct allegation till more details come in, is that a department under him is attempting to do so. Till we get more info, I won't comment fully, but i will say that saudi arabia already knows how to make nukes, the problem is attaining the materials to do so. We'll see the details on that in a few days most likely, so you can bring it back up then if you'd like, as I too disagree with it. HIs "comparing sizes" has lead to the first peace talks between north and south korea in decades, and is still going well by all accounts. The threat was essentially "cut out the nuclear threat bullshit or america will make you." and as ridiculed as it has been, it worked like a charm, it only counts as an argument in favor of him as a result. As for the deficit, it has increased and reached record highs under every president for the past 30-40 years at least

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401

It's not an argument unless you want to aim it at literally every president for the past 30+ years. I agree that trump should be working harder at decreasing it, but considering many of his plans have been blocked far harder than he expected (I blame him for underestimating congress) that particular promise is liable to not kick in till year 8, or never at all, if they all keep fighting like this.

 

I agree with you there. Thing is, like i've said before, many of the democrats opposed to the wall were all in for a border wall of some sort just a decade or so prior, and were up in arms claiming bushs' wall was too weak of a wall. many republicans and southern democrats even campaigned on it for a time, and have flopped had on it now. the cost of it in total would be no higher than 30-40 billion if it goes above professional estimate. The total budget for the year is 4.4 trillion dollars. At 30-40 billion (an overestimate), It is still less than 5% of the yearly budget, that amount could be recouped just by removing the incentive programs for illegal immigrants coming over, and much of the money would be going to companies in the united states, ensuring that more jobs would be available. the damage to the farming sector isn't something to be overlooked, as they do rely heavily on illegal immigrants, but fact is, cutting money from entitlement programs for illegal immigrants would free up money to aid farms in hiring actual citizens, reform deals could even be made to grant those jobs to former criminals rehabilitating for the first time, ensuring the people have a proper way to reintegrate into society, while ensuring farms have a source of work and ex-convicts have a source of honest income. combine that with research into better handling of crops and you could potentially revolutionize farming, take another step towards prison reform, and knock out a portion of illegal revenue leaving america. not saying it'd be that easy, but the possibilities are there. this is just me spit-balling ideas for a bit, and i've got this much, imagine what congress as a whole could get done or introduced if they actually wanted to tackle the problem properly.