Fat hurts wrote:
Just Stop wrote:
No you don't. You look REALLY bad when you make up stuff like this.
I really do. He's teaching English to young children. Came in on a tourist visa, but already had a job lined up. Last I heard, he was trying to get a work visa. But right now he's working illegally.
I'm sure you do. :rolleyes
johnny99 wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Happy to oblige ...
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.
The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.
At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)
Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.
Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border. That was amended later, however, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which got rid of the double-layer requirement.
Currently, 702 miles of fencing separates the United States from Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
So what you're saying is that what Obama, Schumer and Clinton voted for in 2006 was nothing like what Trump wants today? 702 miles of fencing does not equal "a big, beautiful concrete wall from sea to shining sea".
If Trump was reasonable, and a lot smarter than he actually is, he would have proposed fencing or a wall in limited areas, where the people who actually are familiar with the border issues say such a barrier would be useful. Additionally, he would have proposed additional manpower and technology improvements, again deployed where and how the people who actually know about this stuff say it would be useful. This would have been much harder for the Democrats to oppose, and it likely would have passed without the need for the shutdown.
But if Trump did that, he'd have to listen to Ann Coulter call him a wimp, and he's simply to weak to deal with that.
There already is 702 miles of fencing. The border is about 1954 miles. So only an additional 1200 miles of fencing is needed. Many parts of the border has terrain so treacherous that no fencing is needed. So $5 billion might do a lot to fence the parts of the border that are passable by immigrants.
Humpty wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
John Kasich would be a decent President. He's not right about everything, but he's a fair man and respects the law and legal precedent. The rest of them were not good, with Trump being the worst of them all of course...not worst CANDIDATE, because it is clear he was the best candidate due to his illegal conspiring and ways, but he was the worst person and the worst-prepared person to be president and the least intelligent of all of them.
Fools voted for him. Stupid and racist people continue to support him today.
I thought they were all racists. Now they are stupid racists?
You thought wrong. I have been very clear on this, but I will help you out with the truth again...
If you currently support Donald Trump, and you are not an elected official, you are either:
1) Stupid.
2) Racist. All racist people are stupid, but not all stupid people are racist.
Regarding elected officials who support Trump, they are one of these:
1) Stupid.
2) Racist.
3) In it for self-preservation as they believe they need to support Trump in order to get votes from the stupid and racist people who support him.
A preemptive answer to a question you might have. "If an elected official can be in it for self-preservation, why can't a citizen also just support Trump for self-preservation?" Good question. The answer is that a citizen who votes for Trump who believes that Trump will save their job in some way hasn't paid attention to reality (see US auto jobs, Carrier, coal miner jobs, etc.) and is deciding to believe things that Trump says are true. Trump lies ALL THE TIME on issues big and small, so only a stupid person would believe ANYTHING he says. The racist ones don't necessarily believe everything he says; they just side with him because they share the racist bond.
Green Deal wrote:
The Green New Deal will be broken down to workable pieces. Some parts will pass. Some parts will not.
What the USA needs are medicare-for-all, government control over pharmaceutical manufacturing and pricing (no patents allowed, but reimbursement for drug development with a reasonable profit--same as the government does with all government contractors), a long-term phased infrastructure plan, and a long-term "green new deal."
So, the Green New Deal consists of:
- Medicare for all
- Gov't control over pharm manuf + pricing
- Phased infrastructure plan
- Green New Deal
Who GNU? ;-)
Fat hurts wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
The Green New Deal is nothing more than an idea from a freshman Congressman. It won’t get traction without severe revision.
Alan
Alan
That's true. But in general, the idea that we need to take action on climate change is surging in the polls. It's a winning issue.
People are for doing something to stop climate change. However, when they find out what it entails and the cost of it, they become against it.
It's a loser on the campaign because Repubs can provide voters with the actual cost.
Flagpole wrote:
Humpty wrote:
I thought they were all racists. Now they are stupid racists?
You thought wrong. I have been very clear on this, but I will help you out with the truth again...
If you currently support Donald Trump, and you are not an elected official, you are either:
1) Stupid.
2) Racist. All racist people are stupid, but not all stupid people are racist.
Regarding elected officials who support Trump, they are one of these:
1) Stupid.
2) Racist.
3) In it for self-preservation as they believe they need to support Trump in order to get votes from the stupid and racist people who support him.
A preemptive answer to a question you might have. "If an elected official can be in it for self-preservation, why can't a citizen also just support Trump for self-preservation?" Good question. The answer is that a citizen who votes for Trump who believes that Trump will save their job in some way hasn't paid attention to reality (see US auto jobs, Carrier, coal miner jobs, etc.) and is deciding to believe things that Trump says are true. Trump lies ALL THE TIME on issues big and small, so only a stupid person would believe ANYTHING he says. The racist ones don't necessarily believe everything he says; they just side with him because they share the racist bond.
You never said that all Trumper supporters were racists without all these qualifications?? Am I mis-remembering?
Plus a new deal with Russia without the treason part.
Sally Vix wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
So what you're saying is that what Obama, Schumer and Clinton voted for in 2006 was nothing like what Trump wants today? 702 miles of fencing does not equal "a big, beautiful concrete wall from sea to shining sea".
If Trump was reasonable, and a lot smarter than he actually is, he would have proposed fencing or a wall in limited areas, where the people who actually are familiar with the border issues say such a barrier would be useful. Additionally, he would have proposed additional manpower and technology improvements, again deployed where and how the people who actually know about this stuff say it would be useful. This would have been much harder for the Democrats to oppose, and it likely would have passed without the need for the shutdown.
But if Trump did that, he'd have to listen to Ann Coulter call him a wimp, and he's simply to weak to deal with that.
There already is 702 miles of fencing. The border is about 1954 miles. So only an additional 1200 miles of fencing is needed. Many parts of the border has terrain so treacherous that no fencing is needed. So $5 billion might do a lot to fence the parts of the border that are passable by immigrants.
Don't tell me, tell the guy in the White House. He's the guy who shut the government down because he didn't get a downpayment (remember, it'll cost more like $25B, not the $5B he's asking for) on a wall (not a fence) for the entire length of the border (not just where a barrier might be useful).
If Trump's ego wasn't so bloated and if he wasn't beholden to the right wing media, a deal could have easily been reached and the shutdown averted. But he's really proving to be a terrible negotiator, since he won't negotiate.
Please stop with the "but Schumer, Obama and Clinton voted for a wall already". As you were kind enough to point out, they voted for something that is totally different than what Trump is demanding, so their vote in 2006 is irrelevant to what is going on today.
Fortunately trump’s artery walls are hardening at an amazing rate.
Hmmmmmm wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
She has some skeletons though with some past comments/positions.
You've come out against Gillibrand, Warren, and Harris. Misogynist much?
Pfffft.
Gillibrand has some sketchy comments in the past that she has reversed course on, but I'm not for those past comments and have no other reason to support her at this point, and she is my least favorite at this point of the three you mentioned.
I think Elizabeth Warren is great. She's super smart and correct about almost everything. She would be a GREAT President. Her problem though is electability at this point. She will be portrayed as a liar and someone who benefited by lying with regard to the Native American issue. Perhaps unfair, but that's the reality. If I got to pick one person right now to be President, it would be her. I would NOT pick her though to be a candidate because I think she's sunk already.
Kamala Harris's idea of getting rid of private health insurers is a bad idea. Even in countries that have nationalized healthcare, there are still private insurers where you can buy MORE insurance if you want. I am not for this idea of hers. Doesn't mean I wouldn't support her as a candidate.
I know you are just trolling me, but those are my answers...just felt like answering.
Notice the impeachment ads on LR?
WTF^n wrote:
Green Deal wrote:
The Green New Deal will be broken down to workable pieces. Some parts will pass. Some parts will not.
What the USA needs are medicare-for-all, government control over pharmaceutical manufacturing and pricing (no patents allowed, but reimbursement for drug development with a reasonable profit--same as the government does with all government contractors), a long-term phased infrastructure plan, and a long-term "green new deal."
So, the Green New Deal consists of:
- Medicare for all
- Gov't control over pharm manuf + pricing
- Phased infrastructure plan
- Green New Deal
Who GNU? ;-)
Reading comprehension is not one of your skills. Hint: learn what a comma means.
The Real Answer wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
That's true. But in general, the idea that we need to take action on climate change is surging in the polls. It's a winning issue.
People are for doing something to stop climate change. However, when they find out what it entails and the cost of it, they become against it.
It's a loser on the campaign because Repubs can provide voters with the actual cost.
That depends on how you sell it. If the super-rich are funding it, most people will be in favor.
Ditching fossil fuel is an enormous job-creator.
Plus, it will cost us trillions if we do nothing. That comes from Individual-1's own administration projections.
People see how many jobs there are installing solar panels. They see how much you save when you install solar or drive an EV. When they look at the new green economy, they like it a lot.
But most of all, they see the billions of dollars lost every year to climate change. And it will only get worse if we elect Republicans.
Plus the alternative is to give all the money to Big Oil for their strategy of lighting every hydrocarbon molecule on fire. Brilliant!
Flagpole wrote:
Hmmmmmm wrote:
You've come out against Gillibrand, Warren, and Harris. Misogynist much?
Pfffft.
Gillibrand has some sketchy comments in the past that she has reversed course on, but I'm not for those past comments and have no other reason to support her at this point, and she is my least favorite at this point of the three you mentioned.
I think Elizabeth Warren is great. She's super smart and correct about almost everything. She would be a GREAT President. Her problem though is electability at this point. She will be portrayed as a liar and someone who benefited by lying with regard to the Native American issue. Perhaps unfair, but that's the reality. If I got to pick one person right now to be President, it would be her. I would NOT pick her though to be a candidate because I think she's sunk already.
Kamala Harris's idea of getting rid of private health insurers is a bad idea. Even in countries that have nationalized healthcare, there are still private insurers where you can buy MORE insurance if you want. I am not for this idea of hers. Doesn't mean I wouldn't support her as a candidate.
I know you are just trolling me, but those are my answers...just felt like answering.
I agree with you on Warren. I think she will be great in the debates, but so far her campaign looks like it is failing. She would make a good VP candidate if Biden gets the nomination.
I think Kamala Harris's position has been misrepresented. She's saying that with Medicare-for-all, nobody would want to have private insurance any more. But she hasn't said it would be outlawed. I'm sure she would be fine with supplemental plans like you are talking about.
hired by trump wrote:
_its_baddude wrote:
Please provide proof that Trump hired these people.
You cannot possible be so stupid.
Trump owns the company that hired the illegals. Trump paid the illegals. Trump hired the illegals. No questions asked.
In other words, Trump did not hire these people. Managers that worked at these places did. Also, how do you know that the illegals did not forge documents or mislead the hiring managers.
jesseriley wrote:
Plus the alternative is to give all the money to Big Oil for their strategy of lighting every hydrocarbon molecule on fire. Brilliant!
Amen brother. It doesn't hurt to run against Big Oil.
_its_baddude wrote:
hired by trump wrote:
You cannot possible be so stupid.
Trump owns the company that hired the illegals. Trump paid the illegals. Trump hired the illegals. No questions asked.
In other words, Trump did hire these people.
^ Fixed that four you.
_its_baddude wrote:
In other words, Trump did not hire these people. Managers that worked at these places did. Also, how do you know that the illegals did not forge documents or mislead the hiring managers.
The president is responsible for what happens at his company.
There is evidence that the Trump Organization knew the documents were forged and even helped them in that regard. It's just one more way they can go after Individual-1 and send him to prison.
Flagpole wrote:
Hmmmmmm wrote:
You've come out against Gillibrand, Warren, and Harris. Misogynist much?
Pfffft.
Gillibrand has some sketchy comments in the past that she has reversed course on, but I'm not for those past comments and have no other reason to support her at this point, and she is my least favorite at this point of the three you mentioned.
I think Elizabeth Warren is great. She's super smart and correct about almost everything. She would be a GREAT President. Her problem though is electability at this point. She will be portrayed as a liar and someone who benefited by lying with regard to the Native American issue. Perhaps unfair, but that's the reality. If I got to pick one person right now to be President, it would be her. I would NOT pick her though to be a candidate because I think she's sunk already.
Kamala Harris's idea of getting rid of private health insurers is a bad idea. Even in countries that have nationalized healthcare, there are still private insurers where you can buy MORE insurance if you want. I am not for this idea of hers. Doesn't mean I wouldn't support her as a candidate.
I know you are just trolling me, but those are my answers...just felt like answering.
You do have a misogynist track record here.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures