wonder What A Slave Might Think About This Asinine Statement

[dbldwn711]

No, it's not. They are literally going against what they themselves have called for just to hurt Trump. That is not doing what's best for the country.

It's one thing to oppose him on things they disagree with. That is doing their job. That's why the Founding Fathers set things up the way they did. There should be disagreement, debate and compromise. When that happens, they're doing their jobs.

But when they won't even try to compromise on something they actually are on record as agreeing with...they're not doing their jobs.

You keep saying the dems won’t compromise but they passed a bipartisan bill that kept the government open AND had 1.3B for border security. Trump rejected that. Again, this bill WAS the compromise. I’m not following what you’re saying.

 

[dbldwn711]

Agree. I used to be very into politics, etc. But over the years, I've become disgusted with the whole lot of them.

While I don't think the system is "broken". It's long overdue for some serious maintenance. I love the idea of Trump and I love that he's an outsider who is shaking things up.

The problem is, he has no diplomacy and very little decorum. A "Trump type" who isn't always looking to pick a fight with everyone would be a great thing for the country, imo.

I agree with a lot of this. IMO the number one thing is we gotta get rid of career politicians. We need term limits. 2 terms as a rep, 2 terms as a senator and 2 terms as president is long time to serve in public office. Then it’s time to move on.

 

[trojanfan12]

You keep saying the dems won’t compromise but they passed a bipartisan bill that kept the government open AND had 1.3B for border security. Trump rejected that. Again, this bill WAS the compromise. I’m not following what you’re saying.

It actually wasn't a compromise. Trump asked for 5 billion, the Dems included 1.3 billion. Neither side has moved off of those numbers. A compromise would be meeting in the middle (3.5 billion or so) or the Dems getting something else in the funding bill that they want.

 

[dbldwn711]

It actually wasn't a compromise. Trump asked for 5 billion, the Dems included 1.3 billion. Neither side has moved off of those numbers. A compromise would be meeting in the middle (3.5 billion or so) or the Dems getting something else in the funding bill that they want.

The GOP AND the DEMS agreed to the 1.3B. That WAS a compromise. That’s why they both signed off on it and passed it. Now Trump is trying to rewrite the agreement.

The GOP should have never agreed to this deal unless they knew the president would sign it.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree with a lot of this. IMO the number one thing is we gotta get rid of career politicians. We need term limits. 2 terms as a rep, 2 terms as a senator and 2 terms as president is long time to serve in public office. Then it’s time to move on.

Agree. The original idea was that a person would leave their regular job for 4-8 years to serve in the government, then return to their regular jobs. Politics was never supposed to be a career.

 

[trojanfan12]

The GOP AND the DEMS agreed to the 1.3B. That WAS a compromise. That’s why they both signed off on it and passed it. Now Trump is trying to rewrite the agreement.

The GOP should have never agreed to this deal unless they knew the president would sign it.

The compromise that matters is between the Dems and Trump. Not between the Dems and the Reps in congress.

So, as of now, there is no compromise. If there were, the government wouldn't be shut down.

I heard this morning that Trump has invited the Dem leaders to meet and tweeted "Let's make a deal?"

Hopefully this will mark the beginning of an attempt to reach a compromise.

 

[dbldwn711]

The compromise that matters is between the Dems and Trump. Not between the Dems and the Reps in congress.

So, as of now, there is no compromise. If there were, the government wouldn't be shut down.

I heard this morning that Trump has invited the Dem leaders to meet and tweeted "Let's make a deal?"

Hopefully this will mark the beginning of an attempt to reach a compromise.

We just see it differently. The GOP speaks for trump. If they signed that deal without his OK (which I can’t believe they would - McConnell is not an idiot. He knows the game) then it’s still not the dems fault bc they certainly believed the president was on board.

The 1.3B was part of a comprehensive BIPARTISAN bill that passed both the house and senate. Trump is now attempting to change the terms. That’s why he said publicly that he would “own” the shutdown. Of course he’s now attempting to change the narrative

 

[trojanfan12]

We just see it differently. The GOP speaks for trump. If they signed that deal without his OK (which I can’t believe they would - McConnell is not an idiot. He knows the game) then it’s still not the dems fault bc they certainly believed the president was on board.

The 1.3B was part of a comprehensive BIPARTISAN bill that passed both the house and senate. Trump is now attempting to change the terms. That’s why he said publicly that he would “own” the shutdown. Of course he’s now attempting to change the narrative

That's not quite accurate. The GOP can negotiate any bill they want and compromise all they want. It doesn't mean that they have Trumps backing on it.

Trump has never moved off of the 5 billion number, so he hasn't changed anything.

It's basically political gamesmanship. Congress agrees on a bill that they know the President won't sign and sends it to him anyway.

Then, the President refuses to sign and each side blames the other for the bill not being passed/signed.

GOP congressmen agreeing to it really doesn't mean much. Often times, the opposing side will agree, knowing that the President won't sign just to get something in front of him to at least get some movement/debate going.

 

[dbldwn711]

That's not quite accurate. The GOP can negotiate any bill they want and compromise all they want. It doesn't mean that they have Trumps backing on it.

Trump has never moved off of the 5 billion number, so he hasn't changed anything.

It's basically political gamesmanship. Congress agrees on a bill that they know the President won't sign and sends it to him anyway.

Then, the President refuses to sign and each side blames the other for the bill not being passed/signed.

GOP congressmen agreeing to it really doesn't mean much. Often times, the opposing side will agree, knowing that the President won't sign just to get something in front of him to at least get some movement/debate going.

You are forgetting that the GOP controlled BOTH houses. They were the party in power. They agreed to bill and signed it. Everyone then left Washington assuming the president would sign it. He didn’t. No way McConnell or Ryan bring that bill for a vote in both the house and senate without believing Trump would sign it.

Clearly, they had at least some indication that he would sign it otherwise it 1) never comes up for a vote and 2) you woukdnt have everyone leaving Washington.

Want more proof? Ok... The house is now controlled by the Dems. They have already said that on Thursday when they convene they are going to pass a bill to end the shutdown. They will then send it to the senate for a vote but McConnell has said he won’t bring a bill to even a vote that he knows the president won’t authorize.

 

[dbldwn711]

That's not quite accurate. The GOP can negotiate any bill they want and compromise all they want. It doesn't mean that they have Trumps backing on it.

Trump has never moved off of the 5 billion number, so he hasn't changed anything.

It's basically political gamesmanship. Congress agrees on a bill that they know the President won't sign and sends it to him anyway.

Then, the President refuses to sign and each side blames the other for the bill not being passed/signed.

GOP congressmen agreeing to it really doesn't mean much. Often times, the opposing side will agree, knowing that the President won't sign just to get something in front of him to at least get some movement/debate going.

Also trump has backed off his 5B. He asked for 2.5B after the shutdown and was told no.

He’s not going to win.

 

[trojanfan12]

You are forgetting that the GOP controlled BOTH houses. They were the party in power. They agreed to bill and signed it. Everyone then left Washington assuming the president would sign it. He didn’t. No way McConnell or Ryan bring that bill for a vote in both the house and senate without believing Trump would sign it.

I disagree. They left knowing he wouldn't sign it. He has never moved off of his 5 billion. 1.3 billion was non-starter. He's maintained that all along.

 

[trojanfan12]

Also trump has backed off his 5B. He asked for 2.5B after the shutdown and was told no.

He’s not going to win.

That's been the only attempt at a compromise.

 

[dbldwn711]

I disagree. They left knowing he wouldn't sign it. He has never moved off of his 5 billion. 1.3 billion was non-starter. He's maintained that all along.

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree. I will say though that McConnell said he was going to have to “recall people to Washington” when the president said he wouldn’t sign it. To me, that doesn’t sound like “they knew he wouldn’t sign it”.

On another note, I don’t see the comparison to a wall and locking the doors to your house that you made. Can you explain that one to me?

 

[trojanfan12]

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree. I will say though that McConnell said he was going to have to “recall people to Washington” when the president said he wouldn’t sign it. To me, that doesn’t sound like “they knew he wouldn’t sign it”.

Yeah, we'll just need to agree to disagree.

I will say though, the conversation that you and I have had and the one from over the past couple of days with @Mecca @msgkings322 and @The Q on this subject are why I don't shut down political discussions on this board. Everyone keeps it civil and can agree to disagree. Shit gets ugly in the PF.

On another note, I don’t see the comparison to a wall and locking the doors to your house that you made. Can you explain that one to me?

It's kind of a simple analogy that is also intended to make a point with a little humor.

We have gates/walls around our properties and locks on our doors because we want to have some control over who can come in and out of our homes and when.

If I decide that I like my neighbors house better than my house, I can't just go break into their house and then claim I have a right to stay because I'm an "undocumented family member". Instead, I'll be arrested for being a burglar.

So, why should someone who decides they like America better than their own country be allowed to "break into" our country and claim they have a right to stay because they are just "undocumented immigrants"?

Especially when we have legal ways for them to enter the country.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Yeah, we'll just need to agree to disagree.

I will say though, the conversation that you and I have had and the one from over the past couple of days with @Mecca @msgkings322 and @The Q on this subject are why I don't shut down political discussions on this board. Everyone keeps it civil and can agree to disagree. Shit gets ugly in the PF.



It's kind of a simple analogy that is also intended to make a point with a little humor.

We have gates/walls around our properties and locks on our doors because we want to have some control over who can come in and out of our homes and when.

If I decide that I like my neighbors house better than my house, I can't just go break into their house and then claim I have a right to stay because I'm an "undocumented family member". Instead, I'll be arrested for being a burglar.

So, why should someone who decides they like America better than their own country be allowed to "break into" our country and claim they have a right to stay because they are just "undocumented immigrants"?

Especially when we have legal ways for them to enter the country.

Because since dating back to 1980's, the federal government allowed it, never prosecuted, pretended to send a few back and then every few years gave them amnesty. The over-haul was long over-due and should have started after 9-11 - Some one should have had brains to raise the question as to how terrorists could come into the country illegally. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK BUT....

That being said - I don't argue making them come legally and having some kind of a review process - That's a good thing. I do believe, however that better patrol and a consistent and better presence of the boarder is a better process and more effective. Truthfully, I think some outposts along the boarder with cameras and a presence of security patrol would be more effective then a wall with less patrol. They have getting in for the last 40 years because no has been watching or trying stop them effectively. It's been pretty bad when the state of California has had to have signs along the freeway to watch for illegals crossing the freeway and no one has ever raised the question as to why no one is trying to correct the problem.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Actually for all of the money Washington spends on everything else - 5 billion dollars seems like a small thing for wall and doesn't seem all that bad. In fact I think they have under-estimated the cost

 

[LUNCHBOX]

LeBron says NFL owners have 'slave mentality'

What a tool. Where do I sign up for this "slavery"?

In fairness Lebrun is an imbecile that never went to college.

 

[trojanfan12]

Truthfully, I think some outposts along the boarder with cameras and a presence of security patrol would be more effective then a wall with less patrol.

The "wall" isn't simply a wall that stretches along the US/Mexico border ala The Great Wall of China.

It actually entails 3 things:

1.) Barriers where appropriate: there are parts of the border that are much harder to patrol than others. That's where walls would go.

2.) Technology: the use of drones, cameras, etc. to pinpoint where people are trying to come in.

3.) More personnel: obvious.

That was what was requested by the Border Patrol when Trump met with them in the early days of his Presidency.

I think a lot of folks think he wants to build The Great Wall of Trump (which he probably does, painted with his likeness, but that's not what this current proposal is). lol

 

[Mecca]

In fairness Lebrun is an imbecile that never went to college.

He may be.

But, the College thing is a complete Shit argument.

College should prepare you for your future and give you the tools to make you successful in your chosen profession.

He seems like he managed to be pretty decent in his career path.

Bill Gates, Ingvar Kampard, Paul Allen, Leonardo Del Vecchio all say hello while sitting atop their multibillion dollar Empires.

If LeBron is a idiot for the things he says, so be it.

Using the lack of College is weak and makes it look like you have nothing else to use against him.

Yet, his words and deeds have given you plenty.

This stupid ass slave comment is simply the latest entry.

 

[dbldwn711]

The "wall" isn't simply a wall that stretches along the US/Mexico border ala The Great Wall of China.

It actually entails 3 things:

1.) Barriers where appropriate: there are parts of the border that are much harder to patrol than others. That's where walls would go.

2.) Technology: the use of drones, cameras, etc. to pinpoint where people are trying to come in.

3.) More personnel: obvious.

That was what was requested by the Border Patrol when Trump met with them in the early days of his Presidency.

I think a lot of folks think he wants to build The Great Wall of Trump (which he probably does, painted with his likeness, but that's not what this current proposal is). lol

First, thanks for the kind words in your other post. I enjoy a lively debate and “offensive” wording doesn’t particularly bother me but I agree that such wording is best suited for the PF not here.

Second, I’d like to address the above comment and your analogy about the house being locked. As for the quote above, that is actually from John Kelly not Trump. Kelly, in addition to strong border security, was also trying to sell the public on the CONCEPT of a wall. I’m sure I don’t have to pull up the endless references trump made to a “big beautiful wall”. When trump says wall he means an actual wall.

Also, a big part of his base is calling for an actual wall. Many have even said if they don’t get the wall they won’t support him in two years. I suspect that’s why he’s pushing for it.

As for the house analogy I’m sure it was done somewhat tongue in cheek but there is a lot to that analogy that I think hits at the core of the problem. A house is PRIVATE land that an individual OWNS. It’s reasonable to think that one would take steps to secure it. The US is PUBLIC land that no US citizens “owns”. Sure we inhabit this land but unlike PRIVATE land when someone is standing on US soil they have certain rights that they wouldn’t have standing on your property. As inhabitants we must honor those individuals rights. ANYONE in the world has the RIGHT to try and come to the US and seek asylum. Once they are standing on US soil that RIGHT attaches. Not respecting those rights strikes at the core of who we are as people. Now, is the process by which a person seeks asylum antiquated and in need of major overhaul? You bet. But I think a lot of people who support a wall (I mean an actual wall... I’ve yet to hear ANYONE say we don’t need any border security and it should be open borders) ascribe to what your analogy believes that we as US citizens “own” the land. We don’t and it clouds the immigration issue if people think that way.

Again, let me be clear: I’m all for border security but a 25M “wall” is stupid. Here’s why. First, illegal crossing arrests are way down. They went down under Obama. They continue to fall. The “caravan” had about 6,000 people in it. Mostly woman and children. Were there some “bad” people mixed in? I have no doubt but a 25M wall to stop a few thousand people? That makes zero sense.

Also, there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Estimates range from 11M-15M or more. Do you know how most of them got here? It WASN’T illegal border crossings. It was visa overstays. That means people entered this country LEGALLY and just stayed. No wall will prevent that and again, that’s how the majority of illegals entered this country. If that’s the case, do you also support “checkpoints” within the US to verify people’s “papers”? I can’t imagine that you do but if people support a wall how do they not support checkpoints? Personally, I don’t wanna live in a country with checkpoints.

To me, Trump and those who support an actual wall just demonstrate that they don’t understand the immigration problem. It’s a complex problem not a linear problem. It’s a multidimensional problem not a single dimensional problem. If all it took to solve the immigration problem was a wall don’t you think we would have done it already? Trump acts like he’s the first smart person in the history of the US to look at this problem.

The most effective way to solve the immigration problem is thru laws. Btw... that’s also the cheapest. Stricter laws regarding overstays, a better, quicker process to verify asylum requests, etc is a good start. Even now it’s becoming harder to live in the shadows here in the US. A lot of states have stopped issuing drivers licenses to illegals (we can debate if that’s good or not later). Soon, you won’t be able to get on an airplane unless you can verify that you are here legally. Overhauling the system is the key to rooting out illegal immigration not expensive fixed objects that don’t address the real problem.

This is what this issue comes down to: if I say “look... there’s an illegal immigrant” what vision pops into your head? Be honest... what does that individual look like? If you see a menacing Hispanic male that is a criminal then of course you want a wall. If you see a teenager who was brought here as a child, grew up here, was educated here and only knows here then you think a wall is stupid. The truth is there are many many more of the latter than the former. Also, there are many many more ordinary people who just want to live here in happiness. That’s another reason why I think your house analogy fails. Your analogy presupposes that whoever is standing there on your property is a criminal. They are at a minimum trespassing and given the wording of your analogy they are something a lot worse. What if the person standing in your living room is a child who wanted to get in out of the cold or someone who was picking fruit of your tree because they were hungry. How would you treat that person in your analogy?

One more point: I have a good friend who works in drug law enforcement here in Vegas. He’s the head of a major task force with Metro that teams up with the DEA often times. Their job is to hunt down and prosecute MAJOR drug dealers. To do that they often have to flip lower level criminals. It should come as no surprise that often times the people they flip are illegals. These are the VERY people that Trump and wall supporters want to keep out. In order to flip these illegals engaged in very bad activity the police have to offer them something. The one thing they all want is a visa. The government has special visas for informants. They are called S Visas (ironically they have become known as snitch visas). The problem is that in order to be eligible for an S visa you MUST have entered the country legally. Illegal entrants aren’t eligible. In order to get around this problem do you know what the police do? They take this illegal immigrant who is engaging in criminal activity and they drive him to the border. Once there he “voluntarily leaves” the the US only to be allowed immediately to re-enter the country on a tourist visa so he can then start working with police and later obtain an S visa. In essence, they “turnstile” this individual at the border. If we can do all that for an illegal immigrant who is engaged in criminal activity we should be able to do more for individuals who were simply brought here as children and who grew up here.