LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For years now, both houses of Congress have been more than willing to cede powers to the executive branch because of political expediency.

Congress is weak and getting weaker. It's easier to get re-elected when you haven't taken a firm stand.

This has occurred on both sides of the aisle.

---

Historically, it's waxed and waned. And not just on two poles, but four.

I will sit back and let you guess what are those four poles.

"(A) catch is political. The emergency powers Trump has proclaimed allow him to reshuffle money between military-construction envelopes. Every additional dollar he devotes to the border is a dollar taken from another project already approved by Congress. Every one of those projects has patrons and sponsors. And because most military contracting goes to red states, most of the reshuffled dollars will be removed from red states." David Fum
The wall.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

So what if he's been to every county. Last I saw Beto, he lost an election and was unemployed. And when he ran for senate, he didn't have the cojones to campaign on removing border protections.

---

Technically, what you said is 100% true.

You're right. Republicans in Texas should just completely ignore him. Your logic is completely sound. No reason to worry AT ALL.

---

I never said ignore. Thats your comment. If he'd have stated that 6 months ago when he was running, he'd have never gotten within 5 points of Cruz. By aligning himself with the far left, no borders crowd, he's taken Texas out of play for 2020 IMO.

---

What the **** are you even talking about? You have no idea what Beto's platform even was, it's obvious.

He wrote/co-sponsored multiple bills that would INCREASE border security and funding where it is ACTUALLY needed: in the Ports.

You are breath-takingly wrong.

---

And you are breathtakingly ignorant like your boy Beto. A link from the post above not only demonstrates his policy shift but also demonstrates his ignorance. Please find where during his recent senate campaign loss where he verbally campaigned on and stated that he'd tear down existing border walls. He couldn't because he'd have lost conservative democrat and independent votes. Like illegals, drug and sex traffickers slip through PoEs? I'm sure they do, but not like where there's no wall or barrier. Hahahaha!!!!

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43517/watch-beto-calls-tearing-down-border-walls-ends-james-barrett

---

Did you even read that article?

I'm just trying to gauge whether you're intentionally ignorant, or just lazy.

---

I did. I wouldn't have referenced it if I hadn't.

beto's own words prove that walls work, "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

You should look in your mirror for ignorance and laziness.

---

I love mirrors.

If you'd actually read the article (and seen Dan Crenshaw's embedded tweet) you would notice that the steep decline of crossing the wall supposedly caused, started BEFORE they built the Wall.

If a wall through town has helped, the numbers don't support it. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Prior to the wall (and increased border laws), immigration was cyclical. Workers would cross, work for a season, and go home.

Now that it's difficult, they come, but then they bring their families and stay.

Walls don't work. At least not like you want them to.

---

If walls don't work, then why does the graph demonstrate the wall's consistency in the reduction? Using the data you now reference, proves the point. Walls work. Always have, always will.

---

First off, the drop started BEFORE the wall. Not after. It merely continued to drop (almost as if the wall wasn't there at all).

Walls. Do. Not. Work. Not on the scale of the 2,000 miles needed to complete this. Don't ask me. The super liberal Cato Institute [sarcasm] has weighed in on this they're pretty unequivocal that the wall is a bad idea.

No one on the border wants it (Will Hurd, anyone?).

---

My Hispanic family in Harlingen wants it and the other part of my family in El Paso wants it.

---

My family in El Paso thinks it's stupid.

So I guess we cancel each other out? It's almost like anecdotal evidence doesn't have a lot of use.

---

Really ?

What part of El Paso does your family live in ?

---

He!! he lies like all the rest of em

He has no fam in El Paso

---

If the grad student says he has family in El Paso....I believe him.

Just curious where. Maybe we are neighbors.

---

They used to live in a giant house with a view of the mountains with the writing in stones? My uncle was a season ticket holder for Utep (poor guy). I know my cousins went to Coronado? Any time I tell people that they get all "oh, they're rich."

They were. After my uncle died last year, my aunt moved to a smaller house right next to a High School that's like 4-5 miles from the airport. Like, it's a straight shot due west, I think? And then you turn left when you see a newish center for the arts.

I can ask, if you really care. 90% of my family is from rural Illinois or Chicago. They were the only Texans I knew before I went to Baylor.

---

OK your late Uncle lived in the Coronado ( West Side ) area.

Probably the 'best' area of El Paso ...at least has fewer incidents of burglary and gang activity .

The wedding I'm attending this Saturday is the daughter of a long time friend of mine who was the Ag teacher at Coronado High School for over 25 years .

Wedding will be at Cattleman's Steak House 30 miles east of El Paso out in the middle of the desert. But the best steaks I've ever had outside of Las Vegas .

Did your family say why they are against the wall ?

---

My aunt lives in Cielo Vista, but the old house was in the Upper Valley. (I just asked her).

They're Shi-Ite Catholics (most of my family is) and just felt it was wrong-headed way to approach things. Walls only make you "feel" better. My uncle could be a little racist (especially against Vietnamese -but that was the War) but he had a big heart and was really generous.

One of my Aunts (a different one) would work a contract job and save every dime she had for 2 years (she was a literal genius) and then take every dime and go into Mexico and work with Mexican widows teaching them how to sew until she'd spent every bit of money she had, and then we'd go get her and 3 animals she'd rescued in a van and come back. She was certifiable.

But she lived what she preached, I guess.

My El Paso aunt finally retired a couple years ago.

Oh! I'm also friends with the son and daughter of the O'Neill's who just retired from Ysleta ISD. The daughter went to Baylor and I dated one of her friends for a bit.

Tiny world.

---

What is a Shi-lte Catholic ? Honestly have no idea.

My wife taught at Riverside High School and Austin High School before our children were born . Was the research entomologist at the A&M Ag Station on the east side of town . Then bought a farm off of North Loop...one mile from the Zaragoza International Bridge .

Left for Colorado when the air pollution got so bad 2 of my 3 kids were developing respiratory problems . One was very serious .

---

It's -now that I think about it- a culturally insensitive way of saying they where hard-core Catholics. Picture of JohnPaul2 in most rooms of the house. My father became a deacon in the church after the 4th heart attack made him retire from the State of Illinois. He hated working for the state. Best years of his life were when he was a deacon. He and mom would go around the council doing cooking demonstrations for Boy Scout Troops (we were -and are- a Scouting Family). He did it literally until the day he died.

It's funny. One of the last conversations we had was about me getting my PhD. He was like "so... you're going to be a doctor after all?"

I was like "that's the hope."

Him: "that's great. A doctor. But, yknow, not the kind that helps people..."

He was a funny dude, my dad.

Sorry for the overshare. It was nice to talk about him. I miss him everyday.

Now. I have a paper on the 1st Amendment on College Campuses to write!

I'm really sorry to hear about the health issues. Hopefully Colorado cleated that up. I LOVE Colorado. Going on vacation there this summer.

---

Resting at the ranch house of Jim and Barbara after a 10 hour drive to La Luz, New Mexico. Barbara is 85 now....has lost a tremendous amount of weight ...only 100lbs soaking wet . Jim and Barbara have been married for over 68 years and we have been good friends for 40.

She still calls me her adopted son ( I'm 63 ) ...glad I stopped for the night .

Wife and I are practicing Catholics as is our daughter . Not the case with either of our sons . To each their own . We appreciate our Church and especially our two priests.

My father in law was the smartest/ most self sacrificing man I ever knew. He'd do anything for his family . Only had a 10th grade education but he was far more intelligent than any professor on my graduate school advisory committee.

Colorado did clear up my kids respiratory problems . In my eldest sons case...the recovery was little short of a miracle .

Which part of Colorado are you vacationing in this summer?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

For years now, both houses of Congress have been more than willing to cede powers to the executive branch because of political expediency.

Congress is weak and getting weaker. It's easier to get re-elected when you haven't taken a firm stand.

This has occurred on both sides of the aisle.

---

Been saying this for years. The increase in executive power does not come from the Constitution, it comes from Congress.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156225605344077&id=26668999076

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

This. Right. Here.

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

So what if he's been to every county. Last I saw Beto, he lost an election and was unemployed. And when he ran for senate, he didn't have the cojones to campaign on removing border protections.

---

Technically, what you said is 100% true.

You're right. Republicans in Texas should just completely ignore him. Your logic is completely sound. No reason to worry AT ALL.

---

I never said ignore. Thats your comment. If he'd have stated that 6 months ago when he was running, he'd have never gotten within 5 points of Cruz. By aligning himself with the far left, no borders crowd, he's taken Texas out of play for 2020 IMO.

---

What the **** are you even talking about? You have no idea what Beto's platform even was, it's obvious.

He wrote/co-sponsored multiple bills that would INCREASE border security and funding where it is ACTUALLY needed: in the Ports.

You are breath-takingly wrong.

---

And you are breathtakingly ignorant like your boy Beto. A link from the post above not only demonstrates his policy shift but also demonstrates his ignorance. Please find where during his recent senate campaign loss where he verbally campaigned on and stated that he'd tear down existing border walls. He couldn't because he'd have lost conservative democrat and independent votes. Like illegals, drug and sex traffickers slip through PoEs? I'm sure they do, but not like where there's no wall or barrier. Hahahaha!!!!

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43517/watch-beto-calls-tearing-down-border-walls-ends-james-barrett

---

Did you even read that article?

I'm just trying to gauge whether you're intentionally ignorant, or just lazy.

---

I did. I wouldn't have referenced it if I hadn't.

beto's own words prove that walls work, "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

You should look in your mirror for ignorance and laziness.

---

I love mirrors.

If you'd actually read the article (and seen Dan Crenshaw's embedded tweet) you would notice that the steep decline of crossing the wall supposedly caused, started BEFORE they built the Wall.

If a wall through town has helped, the numbers don't support it. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Prior to the wall (and increased border laws), immigration was cyclical. Workers would cross, work for a season, and go home.

Now that it's difficult, they come, but then they bring their families and stay.

Walls don't work. At least not like you want them to.

---

If walls don't work, then why does the graph demonstrate the wall's consistency in the reduction? Using the data you now reference, proves the point. Walls work. Always have, always will.

---

First off, the drop started BEFORE the wall. Not after. It merely continued to drop (almost as if the wall wasn't there at all).

Walls. Do. Not. Work. Not on the scale of the 2,000 miles needed to complete this. Don't ask me. The super liberal Cato Institute [sarcasm] has weighed in on this they're pretty unequivocal that the wall is a bad idea.

No one on the border wants it (Will Hurd, anyone?).

---

My Hispanic family in Harlingen wants it and the other part of my family in El Paso wants it.

---

My family in El Paso thinks it's stupid.

So I guess we cancel each other out? It's almost like anecdotal evidence doesn't have a lot of use.

---

Really ?

What part of El Paso does your family live in ?

---

He!! he lies like all the rest of em

He has no fam in El Paso

---

If the grad student says he has family in El Paso....I believe him.

Just curious where. Maybe we are neighbors.

---

They used to live in a giant house with a view of the mountains with the writing in stones? My uncle was a season ticket holder for Utep (poor guy). I know my cousins went to Coronado? Any time I tell people that they get all "oh, they're rich."

They were. After my uncle died last year, my aunt moved to a smaller house right next to a High School that's like 4-5 miles from the airport. Like, it's a straight shot due west, I think? And then you turn left when you see a newish center for the arts.

I can ask, if you really care. 90% of my family is from rural Illinois or Chicago. They were the only Texans I knew before I went to Baylor.

---

OK your late Uncle lived in the Coronado ( West Side ) area.

Probably the 'best' area of El Paso ...at least has fewer incidents of burglary and gang activity .

The wedding I'm attending this Saturday is the daughter of a long time friend of mine who was the Ag teacher at Coronado High School for over 25 years .

Wedding will be at Cattleman's Steak House 30 miles east of El Paso out in the middle of the desert. But the best steaks I've ever had outside of Las Vegas .

Did your family say why they are against the wall ?

---

My aunt lives in Cielo Vista, but the old house was in the Upper Valley. (I just asked her).

They're Shi-Ite Catholics (most of my family is) and just felt it was wrong-headed way to approach things. Walls only make you "feel" better. My uncle could be a little racist (especially against Vietnamese -but that was the War) but he had a big heart and was really generous.

One of my Aunts (a different one) would work a contract job and save every dime she had for 2 years (she was a literal genius) and then take every dime and go into Mexico and work with Mexican widows teaching them how to sew until she'd spent every bit of money she had, and then we'd go get her and 3 animals she'd rescued in a van and come back. She was certifiable.

But she lived what she preached, I guess.

My El Paso aunt finally retired a couple years ago.

Oh! I'm also friends with the son and daughter of the O'Neill's who just retired from Ysleta ISD. The daughter went to Baylor and I dated one of her friends for a bit.

Tiny world.

---

What is a Shi-lte Catholic ? Honestly have no idea.

My wife taught at Riverside High School and Austin High School before our children were born . Was the research entomologist at the A&M Ag Station on the east side of town . Then bought a farm off of North Loop...one mile from the Zaragoza International Bridge .

Left for Colorado when the air pollution got so bad 2 of my 3 kids were developing respiratory problems . One was very serious .

---

It's -now that I think about it- a culturally insensitive way of saying they where hard-core Catholics. Picture of JohnPaul2 in most rooms of the house. My father became a deacon in the church after the 4th heart attack made him retire from the State of Illinois. He hated working for the state. Best years of his life were when he was a deacon. He and mom would go around the council doing cooking demonstrations for Boy Scout Troops (we were -and are- a Scouting Family). He did it literally until the day he died.

It's funny. One of the last conversations we had was about me getting my PhD. He was like "so... you're going to be a doctor after all?"

I was like "that's the hope."

Him: "that's great. A doctor. But, yknow, not the kind that helps people..."

He was a funny dude, my dad.

Sorry for the overshare. It was nice to talk about him. I miss him everyday.

Now. I have a paper on the 1st Amendment on College Campuses to write!

I'm really sorry to hear about the health issues. Hopefully Colorado cleated that up. I LOVE Colorado. Going on vacation there this summer.

---

Resting at the ranch house of Jim and Barbara after a 10 hour drive to La Luz, New Mexico. Barbara is 85 now....has lost a tremendous amount of weight ...only 100lbs soaking wet . Jim and Barbara have been married for over 68 years and we have been good friends for 40.

She still calls me her adopted son ( I'm 63 ) ...glad I stopped for the night .

Wife and I are practicing Catholics as is our daughter . Not the case with either of our sons . To each their own . We appreciate our Church and especially our two priests.

My father in law was the smartest/ most self sacrificing man I ever knew. He'd do anything for his family . Only had a 10th grade education but he was far more intelligent than any professor on my graduate school advisory committee.

Colorado did clear up my kids respiratory problems . In my eldest sons case...the recovery was little short of a miracle .

Which part of Colorado are you vacationing in this summer?

---

I love my Catholic Faith. I'll quote my dad "I'm a catholic, but I'm not a dick about it."

We worship episcopal (wife is Lutheran, so we split the difference) but I still take reconciliation when I can and take communion when I'm around my mom. I love the priest back home.

We went to Snow Mountain and did the YMCA family cam there a couple years ago and LOVED it. I have 5 and 3 year old daughters, so the ymca really hits the sweet spot for them. I have a dear friend in Denver (I actually fired him a couple years ago) that we're making plans to see after we fly in. I'm getting really excited for it!

Any recommendations?

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

Yes, you've twisted that quote before. Dead people means it doesn't work.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

Yes, you've twisted that quote before. Dead people means it doesn't work.

---

Dead people mean that they made stupid decisions...such as not to enter a country legally. It works.

"Works" means we all get the benefit of our bargains. Current immigration policy, including the wall but other policies as well, deny people that freedom. We need reform in the worst way. It is a political crisis, not a drug or crime crisis, and it needs a political, ie. legislative, solution. Braceros.

quash said:

---

"Works" means we all get the benefit of our bargains. Current immigration policy, including the wall but other policies as well, deny people that freedom. We need reform in the worst way. It is a political crisis, not a drug or crime crisis, and it needs a political, ie. legislative, solution. Braceros.

---

Works means it prevents people from coming here illegally. Full stop. Right there. There is no freedom to enter any country either illegally or without that country's permission.

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Part of my family is from La Feria. I've been going down there for decades. There's a lot of folks who don't know shlt about it because they've never been.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

Yes, you've twisted that quote before. Dead people means it doesn't work.

---

You really don't like facts when they work against you, quash.

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Your family is a tiny, tiny, tiny, sample.

The Drug War is a failure. Tying it to the border wall doesn't change that. We incarcerate an insane amount of people.

Drug traffic has decreased, not because of walls but because of two main things: a legal drug market in most states, and the application of technology at the border. See the big bust just this week.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

I'm not denying him the power but only questioning whether it's wise for him to use it. Certainly Congress bears much of the blame for putting him to the choice. He's made a good decision to proceed under Obama's non-emergency legislation for the time being.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Your family is a tiny, tiny, tiny, sample.

---

Let me marginalize your family's personal experience

I know better than they do because I read the internet

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

I'm not denying him the power but only questioning whether it's wise for him to use it. Certainly Congress bears much of the blame for putting him to the choice. He's made a good decision to proceed under Obama's non-emergency legislation for the time being.

---

'Wise' will be proven out by the results. The recent rash of 'caravans' alone creates exigency, and the cost of illegals is well documented.

I suspect that Democrats have not thought this issue through nearly far enough to understand its implications.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Your family is a tiny, tiny, tiny, sample.

The Drug War is a failure. Tying it to the border wall doesn't change that. We incarcerate an insane amount of people.

Drug traffic has decreased, not because of walls but because of two main things: a legal drug market in most states, and the application of technology at the border. See the big bust just this week.

---

Yes it is a tiny sample, but there IS a problem with drugs coming across...and I'm not talking marijuana. I would agree that the drug war is a failure and that we have too many people in jail. However, border security in general is weak and since walls have been proven to work, it should be a part of our border defense.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

I'm not denying him the power but only questioning whether it's wise for him to use it. Certainly Congress bears much of the blame for putting him to the choice. He's made a good decision to proceed under Obama's non-emergency legislation for the time being.

---

'Wise' will be proven out by the results. The recent rash of 'caravans' alone creates exigency, and the cost of illegals is well documented.

I suspect that Democrats have not thought this issue through nearly far enough to understand its implications.

---

I strongly suspect they have. Forcing Trump to declare an emergency plays well to their base, opens the way for the next Democrat to push a radical agenda by executive fiat, and costs them nothing but a few dollars for a wall to which they have no principled objection anyway.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not denying him the power but only questioning whether it's wise for him to use it. Certainly Congress bears much of the blame for putting him to the choice. He's made a good decision to proceed under Obama's non-emergency legislation for the time being.

---

'Wise' will be proven out by the results. The recent rash of 'caravans' alone creates exigency, and the cost of illegals is well documented.

I suspect that Democrats have not thought this issue through nearly far enough to understand its implications.

---

I strongly suspect they have. Forcing Trump to declare an emergency plays well to their base, opens the way for the next Democrat to push a radical agenda by executive fiat, and costs them nothing but a few dollars for a wall to which they have no principled objection anyway.

---

If they are focusing just on their base, then the Democrats have indeed played short.

The 2020 election, both for the White House and Congress, does not come down to what straight-ticket Democrats or Republicans like, but what swings independents.

Trump has the economy backing him, assuming his tariff stand does not lead to serious damage, no serious foreign policy gaffes, and a common-sense position on border security. The Democrats got a few weeks of MSM coverage that won't last, at the cost of staking positions well outside the boundaries of what thinking adults outside the major parties will consider reasonable.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Your family is a tiny, tiny, tiny, sample.

The Drug War is a failure. Tying it to the border wall doesn't change that. We incarcerate an insane amount of people.

Drug traffic has decreased, not because of walls but because of two main things: a legal drug market in most states, and the application of technology at the border. See the big bust just this week.

---

There's a big diffference between weed legalization and sentencing for weed related convictions and the really nasty shlt like fentanyl coming across.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

actually it does work. Risk/reward is not just a business thing.

You're a guns guy. Would you get rid of all your weapons and let it be known you had no weapons then, expect risk of a burglar to be the same?

Tighten up the gaps and make the gaps hard to get to and easier to observe. It will be a deterrent. Increasing the risk without increasing the reward deters the behavior. You know that but just don't like it in this circumstance.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

actually it does work. Risk/reward is not just a business thing.

You're a guns guy. Would you get rid of all your weapons and let it be known you had no weapons then, expect risk of a burglar to be the same?

Tighten up the gaps and make the gaps hard to get to and easier to observe. It will be a deterrent. Increasing the risk without increasing the reward deters the behavior. You know that but just don't like it in this circumstance.

---

I'm not a guns guy. and actually, I said it works so I am not sure what you mean...

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

actually it does work. Risk/reward is not just a business thing.

You're a guns guy. Would you get rid of all your weapons and let it be known you had no weapons then, expect risk of a burglar to be the same?

Tighten up the gaps and make the gaps hard to get to and easier to observe. It will be a deterrent. Increasing the risk without increasing the reward deters the behavior. You know that but just don't like it in this circumstance.

---

I'm not a guns guy. and actually, I said it works so I am not sure what you mean...

---

My bad. I hit "quote" on the wrong post. This was directed towards Quash and his response.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

---

Bud admits that it works...

---

In your mind, sure. Go with that.

---

Here's his quote:

"And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."

i.e. it works

---

actually it does work. Risk/reward is not just a business thing.

You're a guns guy. Would you get rid of all your weapons and let it be known you had no weapons then, expect risk of a burglar to be the same?

Tighten up the gaps and make the gaps hard to get to and easier to observe. It will be a deterrent. Increasing the risk without increasing the reward deters the behavior. You know that but just don't like it in this circumstance.

---

I'm not a guns guy. and actually, I said it works so I am not sure what you mean...

---

My bad. I hit "quote" on the wrong post. This was directed towards Quash and his response.

---

No problem. You had me going for a minute.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

I'm not denying him the power but only questioning whether it's wise for him to use it. Certainly Congress bears much of the blame for putting him to the choice. He's made a good decision to proceed under Obama's non-emergency legislation for the time being.

---

'Wise' will be proven out by the results. The recent rash of 'caravans' alone creates exigency, and the cost of illegals is well documented.

I suspect that Democrats have not thought this issue through nearly far enough to understand its implications.

---

I strongly suspect they have. Forcing Trump to declare an emergency plays well to their base, opens the way for the next Democrat to push a radical agenda by executive fiat, and costs them nothing but a few dollars for a wall to which they have no principled objection anyway.

---

Bingo.

So you're not a gun guy?

Waco1947 said:

---

So you're not a gun guy?

---

I do not own a gun.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So you're not a gun guy?

---

I do not own a gun.

---

Me neither but they are fun at the range or hunting.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So you're not a gun guy?

---

I do not own a gun.

---

Me neither but they are fun at the range or hunting.

---

Pellet guns don't count, Waco, but thanks for playing.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

and feel free to ask my family in Harlingen if it is not a drug issue...

---

Your family is a tiny, tiny, tiny, sample.

The Drug War is a failure. Tying it to the border wall doesn't change that. We incarcerate an insane amount of people.

Drug traffic has decreased, not because of walls but because of two main things: a legal drug market in most states, and the application of technology at the border. See the big bust just this week.

---

We've never been willing, as a free republic, to implement and take the drastic action necessary to stop the inflow of drugs into the country. In the face of that unwillingness, the only resonable option is to legalize, regulate and tax the use of drugs. That will take the profit away from the criminal element, and give us the ability to better manage drug use, and eliminate the cost of unecessary incarceration.

While I understand your answer and want to support it, I just can't and don't want to legalize drugs.