The Border Wall or Fence

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment. His administration has acted in a fashion consistent with siding with business, at the expense of the environment, as evidenced by a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk. 

Factual enough for you? I think that's an objectively true statement. Phi was just a little pithy in his expression.

Such arguments are just distractions which shift focus from the tangible to the ideological. Trump's views on the environment vs Democrat views of morality don't change the facts of the matter. Every reason Trump has used in explaining the necessity for his wall has been rooted objectively false information. Despite this Congress has attempted to satiate Trump's demands with different compromises which have all been rejected. Rather than addressing Trump refusal to enter real negotiations or what steps could be taken by Congress J.C. is content complaining about the lack of parity they preceive in Phi's post. 

Facts do not matter when one chooses to focus on style at the exclusion of all else. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment. His administration has acted in a fashion consistent with siding with business, at the expense of the environment, as evidenced by a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk. 

Factual enough for you? I think that's an objectively true statement. Phi was just a little pithy in his expression.

I would agree with the sentiment. Not that my opinion makes it any more factual.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Can we get past rhetoric and opinion (talking points) nonsense and acknowledge the facts of what the various sides have done in an effort to compromise or not? The Senate unanimously (Democrats and Republicans) passed a spending bill. A unanimous Senate vote is nearly bipartisan as it gets. 

 Trump  told McConnell he'd veto it and McConnell held another vote blocking the spending bill, McConnell's own bill, and we entered a shutdown. Democrats have already given Trump 100% of the spending increases he asked for to hire more Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agents and increase fund for DHS overall. Rather than starting from a position of $0 for Trump's wall they have offered from 1.3 to 2.5 billion for the wall and various bipartisan proposals spearheaded by fellow Republicans like Graham and Pence have been totally rejected by Trump who will not budge from his full demand. Actions speak louder than words. In action Democrats have been working with Republicans on compromises, ones Republicans in the senate have supported, but it is Trump who is walking out of meetings. 

I think you are letting your displeasure for certain language coming from various outlets blind you from the facts of what;'s actually happening here. 

What was the nature of the 2.5 billion offered? (as you said earlier ...almost half of the 5.7, but was it toward new Wall?)

I thought the 1.3 was not toward the wall but other border related. Is that incorrect?

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would agree with the sentiment. Not that my opinion makes it any more factual.

Just want to be clear. Do you have doubts that Trump is responsible for "a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk"? 

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What was the nature of the 2.5 billion offered? (as you said earlier ...almost half of the 5.7, but was it toward new Wall?)

I thought the 1.3 was not toward the wall but other border related. Is that incorrect?

The 2.5 billion was spearheaded by Trump's Vice President. Trump throw Pence under the bus and contradicted the proposal publicly. So it is unknown how that money would have been spent specifically. Trump refuse to come to the table and discuss it. 

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Really CharonY, you 'thought better of me' ?
I thought the purpose of discussions was to examine both sides of an argument.
Silly me, I forgot I was in the echo chamber of the Politics forum.

Not in terms of your position. In terms of your ability to read whole posts. You could have criticized as you did now that Phi was emphasizing the wrong aspects by focusing on Trump. Yet you characterized the argument as solely as an anti-Trump position, which is simply not accurate. I am not criticizing you for the assumption that investing in the wall could be a good idea. However, on that aspect you have not shown any good arguments that have addressed the points made by me and others, i.e. that there is no data out there showing that it would yield any benefits. While Phi has merely done is that the highlighting the lack of reasoning for building a wall amidst a drop in illegal crossings. Whether the arguments were useful or not, characterizing the opposition to the wall the way you did is simply disingenuous. And that part is what disappoints me. I thought better of you not because I expected you to agree. I thought better of you because I though you would bring arguments to the table why it could bring benefits or anything else other than mischaracterizing someone's position to make a point. 

I will say that you mentioned a lack of opposition of the original segments, while there is a lot more to it, I will add that I also have addressed some of the issues with the outcomes of the initial sections (not to mention that the new parts are being built in even more inaccessible and therefore more expensive areas according to reports).

On a broader note, I think it is worth re-iterating that it is not even a partisan issue. After all, the GOP was unwilling to fund a Republican bill to fund the wall. Moreover the GOP had agreed on a budget proposal but Trump refused to sign it because it did not include a line for the wall. Thus, it is not entirely wrong to put Trump front and center in this mess.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Rather than starting from a position of $0 for Trump's wall they have offered from 1.3 to 2.5 billion for the wall

No, they haven't.

They have started from a position of $0 for Trump's wall.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The 2.5 billion was spearheaded by Trump's Vice President. Trump throw Pence under the bus and contradicted the proposal publicly. So it is unknown how that money would have been spent specifically. Trump refuse to come to the table and discuss it. 

1

So why are you repeatedly claiming they've offered money for the wall?

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I thought the 1.3 was not toward the wall but other border related. Is that incorrect?

No, that is correct.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So why are you repeatedly claiming they've offered money for the wall?

They have, last year, as I already laid out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/20/schumer-offered-trump-something-democrats-hate-to-get-something-republicans-broadly-like

Quote

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered President Trump funding for his wall in exchange for protecting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children? The most powerful Democrat in the Senate was willing to support one of his party’s most-hated proposals, just like that? The Times wrote simply that Schumer “discussed the possibility of fully funding the president’s wall on the southern border with Mexico” — which leaves some wiggle room.

On the floor of the Senate on Saturday, though, Schumer explained that it was almost exactly that: A deal on those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that would also potentially fund the wall.

“On the thorniest issue, of immigration,” Schumer said, “the president said many times he would take a deal that had included DACA in exchange for the wall. I put that deal on the table in the Oval Office in a sincere effort at compromise. I put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections. … It was a generous offer.”

That it was. Schumer offered to give Trump something that Schumer’s own base would hate; in return, Republicans would agree to something that their base is fine with.

 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think giving Trump 100% of the increases in DHS spending he has requested and offering nearly half of what he has demanded for the wall is a lot of compromise. Especially when Democrats are willing to give all of that just to get the govt open and then continue these discussions. 

It is worth noting that Trump had a Republican House and Senate last year. Logic dictates getting what he wants from Republicans would be far easier than getting what he wants from Democrats. Yet Trump didn't make this demand last year and instead waited till Democrats had the house. This is a fight Trump has chosen to have and one Democrats have attempted to meet Trump half way on. I do not see what more Democrats can do. Compromised is required and Trump is refusing to compromise. Trump is rejected the plans his own people are bring to him:

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

On a broader note, I think it is worth re-iterating that it is not even a partisan issue. After all, the GOP was unwilling to fund a Republican bill to fund the wall. Moreover the GOP had agreed on a budget proposal but Trump refused to sign it because it did not include a line for the wall. Thus, it is not entirely wrong to put Trump front and center in this mess.

I think this is being overlooked/ignored. The current shutdown isn't a tradition Republican vs Democrat standoff. Republicans wouldn't fund Trump's wall either.This is Trump purposefully picking a fight with the new Democratic controlled Congress to please his strongest supporters. 

[iNow]

Just now, Ten oz said:

he current shutdown isn't a tradition Republican vs Democrat standoff. Republicans wouldn't fund Trump's wall either.This is Trump purposefully picking a fight with the new Democratic controlled Congress to please his strongest supporters. 

And to distract from his legal pressures and tariffs and allowing dictators to run rough shod over the world and pulling troops from Syria and afghan and fighting with allies and...

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The current shutdown isn't a tradition Republican vs Democrat standoff. Republicans wouldn't fund Trump's wall either.This is Trump purposefully picking a fight with the new Democratic controlled Congress to please his strongest supporters. 

OK, so, in this dispute between Trump and almost everybody else in America, which side are the republicans backing?

 

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

 They have, last year, as I already laid out:

 

Yes. Last year. We're talking about now. Where, in fact, Democrats are holding the position of $0 for the wall, because they control the house.

To clarify my position, I was referring directly to this round of negotiations when I said that.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Democrats are holding the position of $0 for the wall, because they control the house.

Elections have consequences

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would agree with the sentiment. Not that my opinion makes it any more factual.

The administration's actions on regulation are factual. The impact on the environment is factual. 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So why are you repeatedly claiming they've offered money for the wall?

The money Trump is asking for is a separate appropriation from DHS's budget. DHS's budget has already been increased. Depending on the day of the week and time of the day Trump himself claims the wall is actually nearly complete already, will be concrete, will be a steel fence, some areas might just get more agents, and etc. It is unclear what Trump specifically even wants the money for. The federal govt doesn't even own the land it would need for a fence or wall yet. Ultimately Democrats, working with Republicans, have offered Trump up to nearly half of the money he is demanding but Trump refuses to sit down at the table and iron out a deal. Until a deal is singed it is impossible to say specifically where each dollar will go but as an overall appropriation bill we know both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to make Trump different bipartisan offers and Trump has refused all of them. 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Last year. We're talking about now. Where, in fact, Democrats are holding the position of $0 for the wall, because they control the house.

To clarify my position, I was referring directly to this round of negotiations when I said that.

But you don't negotiate with terrorists, and this is why. Because if the tactic works, the terrorists will use it again, and again. If shutting down the government gets something that congress would not otherwise approve, what keeps him from shutting down the government the next time he wants something?

 

Congress is a co-equal branch of the government. They are allowed to say no. And funding stems from the house, They are allowed to choose to not fund something. Congress could override a presidential veto, but the GOP won't even allow a vote (McConnell now and Ryan a few weeks ago) on bills to re-open the government with no wall funding.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you don't negotiate with terrorists, and this is why. Because if the tactic works, the terrorists will use it again, and again. If shutting down the government gets something that congress would not otherwise approve, what keeps him from shutting down the government the next time he wants something?

1

He can't do it forever. It's a democracy. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Congress is a co-equal branch of the government. They are allowed to say no. And funding stems from the house, They are allowed to choose to not fund something. Congress could override a presidential veto, but the GOP won't even allow a vote (McConnell now and Ryan a few weeks ago) on bills to re-open the government with no wall funding.

They're allowed to say no. So is Trump.

Additionally, the fact that they can't get enough votes to allow a vote on a veto indicates to me that even if they did allow a vote, it wouldn't work.

So what's the point?

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, so, in this dispute between Trump and almost everybody else in America, which side are the republicans backing?

 

Yes, Republicans are enabling Trump at the moment to avoid dividing their base. However Democrats and Republicans in Congress mutual support the budget as initially passed and have held meeting looking for compromise. It is a partisan battle but in the traditional sense where Republican and Democratic representatives and at each others throats. Rather it is Democrats vs POTUS with Republicans Representatives trying to play peacemaker.  

Quote

 

President Donald Trump will not sign a Senate-passed spending bill, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown.

The Senate unanimously approved the legislation Wednesday night to keep the government funded through Feb. 8. With Trump's support, it appeared set to breeze through the House before the midnight Friday deadline to fund seven agencies that make up about a quarter of the government.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/ryan-says-trump-will-not-sign-senate-passed-bill-to-avoid-government-shutdown.html

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

The administration's actions on regulation are factual. The impact on the environment is factual. 

...and "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"...is your opinion based on those facts.

Again...an opinion that I would not dispute...but still not a fact.

...and quite different from "not caring at all" if I may paraphrase Phi.

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just want to be clear. Do you have doubts that Trump is responsible for "a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk"? 

None.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"...is your opinion based on those facts.

Again...an opinion that I would not dispute...but still not a fact.

Can you even provide an example of what you'd consider a fact as it relates to "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"? Other than Denying science, deregulating, and championing industries which cause environmental damage I cannot think of any other way for a President to act which would more pointedly reflect them not caring about the environment. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Can you even provide an example of what you'd consider a fact as it relates to "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"? Other than Denying science, deregulating, and championing industries which cause environmental damage I cannot think of any other way for a President to act which would more pointedly reflect them not caring about the environment. 

 

See Swansont's post. Facts I agreed with that not only related to, but supported, this opinion. 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

See Swansont's post. Facts I agreed with that not only related to, but supported, this opinion. 

I was hoping for something in your words. 

[CharonY]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

think this is being overlooked/ignored. The current shutdown isn't a tradition Republican vs Democrat standoff. Republicans wouldn't fund Trump's wall either.This is Trump purposefully picking a fight with the new Democratic controlled Congress to please his strongest supporters. 

It should also be noted that the various stages of closing off the border were originally connected to immigration reform. In essence it was a bipartisan thought that once the border was closed off somewhat, folks already in the US should get a path to citizenship. And idea that seems to have died with the current GOP.

Also I wanted to comment on that:

23 hours ago, MigL said:

Leaving aside the fact that there is already 400-500 mi of 'wall' across the Southern US border ( mostly fencing on unoccupied federal lands ), the 5.7 $Bill is for an additional 200 mi.

The argument seems to be based on the fact that a much larger segment was already build and thus the additional 200 miles are inconsequential. Here I should add that the fencing (not wall, as you mentioned) came with an initial budget of ~1.4 billions but it was already criticized at that time point that the upkeep would be substantial. It should also be noted that the 200 miles would include segments that already are fenced with ca. 100 miles of additional "wall". Ironically in the original fence bill, it was acknowledged that there is no one-size fits all solution and actually discouraged language for a particular type of barrier. Thus, if border security was really the point, generally funding for border security could be spent far more flexible and effectively. Instead it is difficult not to see it as more of a symbolic than factual relevance.

But moving away from the minutiae of the various issues, the basic point is still that there currently is no overall rationale to adding a border wall. Some of the reasoning more than a decade ago have gone out of the window and what is left does not seem to be substantial in any way. Aside from the symbolism, what does it actually achieve?

[John Cuthber]

57 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

We're talking about now. Where, in fact, Democrats are holding the position of $0 for the wall, because they control the house.

That's the position they were elected to hold.
Trump was elected on the basis of getting the Mexicans to pay.

 

Is the US a democracy?

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Is the US a democracy?

 

No, I mis-spoke. We're a Representative Republic.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

should also be noted that the various stages of closing off the border were originally connected to immigration reform. In essence it was a bipartisan thought that once the border was closed off somewhat, folks already in the US should get a path to citizenship. And idea that seems to have died with the current GOP.

Also, also....when Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress they successful pushed through everything they actually wanted. Democratic obstruction couldn't stop the Tax cut, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and etc. Only when Republicans themselves haven't been supportive was Democratic obstruction success. 

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I mis-spoke. We're a Representative Republic.

The amount isn't $0. Democrats are currently offering 1.3 billion is special appropriations in trade for getting the govt open for a month so talks can continue. If talks fail Trump could keep the 1.3 billion and shutdown the govt again. And before you argue that the 1.3 billion isn't specific earmarked for a wall can you specifically outline what Trump plans to do with the 5.7 billion he is demanding?