9pm ET - Trump will address the nation about the immigration crisis

How much popcorn should I make?
«134

Comments


  • There are two ages in porn. 18 & MILF.

    She aged past MILF a long time ago.

  • Jokes aside, I believe this is an inflection point.

    If we get a civil war in about 15-20 years, as I suspect we will, we’ll look back at this speech and know that it was the Rubicon.
  • Meh.  The speech was nothing new or additional, so I'm waiting for another shoe to drop.

    The topic probably won't get a lot of attention...what with lefties complaining that the Sup Ct can't properly function with only eight justices.  They aren't complaining at all, you say?  Right you are.
  • dgm said:

    Why

    About 40 years ago the Democrat party leadership figured out that they can use immigration, legal and otherwise, to replace the US electorate with voters who are accustomed to Marxist governance. I won't rehash the voter fraud they've been committing for even longer than that because you're already well acquainted with it.

    That plan is pretty close to succeeding at this point. Florida and Texas are on the verge of being flipped Blue. If we lose Florida it will be difficult to elect a constitutional conservative to the Presidency. If we lose Texas, it's Game Over.

    Building a border wall is not sufficient to secure the southern border, but it is necessary.


    Trump is in all likelihood going to be the last President we're going to get who isn't a Globalist, a Marxist or both. If he doesn't get the wall built it's not GOING to be built, at least not in our lifetimes.

    If the wall doesn't get built, the Democrat plan to assure a permanent governance through the replacement of American voters with imported ones will succeed and the Federal government will be on a pathway of power consolidation and control over our lives that will inevitably cross a line and result in civil and political violence of the sort experienced by parts of eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR.

    Not that may not happen ANYWAY, but if our course isn't changed NOW, which is essentially the last opportunity we will have, then civil war will be unavoidable.
  • You don't think the globalist/marxist crew can see the danger? 

    I don't think we will have a civil war over mere infringements of our rights. Americans are largely too fat and lazy to bother with any real pushback against the government. It will take an economic or infrastructure collapse of enough magnitude that people get legitimately hungry. Like Venezuela hungry.
  • It's hard to overthrow the government when you have to spend all day, every day trying to find a way to keep your family from starving. That's how Castro lasted as long as he did. Most tyrants, really.
  • And by the time we're in the "oh shit things are really fucked up let's revolt" phase, it's probably too late.
  • dgm said:

    You don't think the globalist/marxist crew can see the danger? 

    Some will, mainly the leadership. Most won't.


    I also see a very different situation than either Venezuela or Cuba.
  • MC Escher said:

    ...I won't rehash the voter fraud they've been committing for even longer than that because you're already well acquainted with it....




    This sort of writing illustrates why the "open door" you offer here isn't as open as you imagine it to be, Zuk. It is physically open, and that's an act of generosity for which I believe I have thanked you for in the past, and thank you for now. But if participation here requires acceptance of dogma like this, then...

    Well, this is a riddle that lies solved at your keyboard, already. People aren't here participating not because they aren't "smart enough," or any of the other excuses (forums are dying) that you use to explain away the lack of traffic; They're not here because it's less a forum and more a club, with it's own insider-knowledge and nudge-nudge, wink-wink insider humor.

    And this is not a "fact" that can be discussed, it's a tenet of a faith that keeps non-believers away.
  • edited January 10
    vwtool said:


    This sort of writing illustrates why the "open door" you offer here isn't as open as you imagine it to be, Zuk. It is physically open, and that's an act of generosity for which I believe I have thanked you for in the past, and thank you for now. But if participation here requires acceptance of dogma like this, then...




    How weak does a person need to be to think that reading something requires that he accept it is dogma?

    You spend a lot of your keystrokes here complaining about a forum in which you are shown lavish tolerance. If you need more than the freedom to write. whining is a poor strategy.

    You have a question pending from Slap.

    "Tool, what the best thing you've ever written here, or at the Vortex?  Your single best post?  Define best however you like, funniest, most informative, whatever kind of excellence you'd aspire to embody."
  • MC Escher said:

    ...I won't rehash the voter fraud they've been committing for even longer than that because you're already well acquainted with it....


     this is not a "fact" that can be discussed, it's a tenet of a faith that keeps non-believers away.


  • edited January 14
    Had a very interesting conversation this morning with a coworker of Hispanic (mostly likely Mexican) decent. He's fully American and I don't know what generation. In Texas it could be 2nd or 102nd. Hispanic people and culture have always been a part of the local landscape. It's worth noting that this guy has an American flag on his desk and one stitched on his backpack. I don't think he's the type to refer to himself as Mexican-American.

    This coworker (Robert) took a few days off last week to visit a prospective retirement property in the Rio Grande Valley near McAllen. He said the land he's looking at goes right down to the river. He was dreading the trip because it was going to correspond with Trump's visit and he didn't want to get caught up in the probable mess with protestors, media, etc...

    Robert said that it was surprisingly quiet. He said his conversations with others down there were also surprising and reassuring. Supposedly most of the folks down there (and remember, many or most are also of Hispanic decent) were supportive of Trump and his push for a wall. Apparently Robert agrees and he's frustrated that the media isn't relaying the actual mood down there very well. I didn't see it, but supposedly Jim Acosta (CNN) got called out for reporting from an existing section of wall in McAllen and stating that it was quiet and there was no refugee crisis, implying that a wall isn't needed. Someone pointed out, "Yeah, there's no crisis right here *because* there's a wall."

    Now, I'll note here that I still think that a single continuous physical wall/fence/barrier along the entire border is knob-headed. Barriers and walls in urban areas make sense, but more monitoring and Border Patrol agents in rural and wilderness areas makes more sense. And that's something Trump said he do a while back, but he keeps shifting his message.

    Anyway, I just think it's worth reminding folks that there's no monolithic set of attitudes by race or region. The Valley area is primarily blue, politically speaking. Yet apparently the folks down there are feeling threatened by what's coming across the border and they want more protection, and to their minds, Trump is the only one paying attention.
  • A couple of my co-workers went to McAllen recently, to go across the border and visit a manufacturer right on the other side.

    Our company insisted on hiring private security for their trip into MX.
  • dgm said:

    Our company insisted on hiring private security for their trip into MX.

    Sound policy.
  • And there's no F'in way I'd buy property on the US/MX border. Especially not with the fedgov rattling about eminent domain.
  • Seabird said:

    Now, I'll note here that I still think that a single continuous physical wall/fence/barrier along the entire border is knob-headed.



    It's worth noting that no one has proposed that, not even DJT in the campaign.
    Seabird said:

    Anyway, I just think it's worth reminding folks that there's no monolithic set of attitudes by race or region.



    One of the local mothers has a family transplanted from Texas. She's lovely with perfect southern manners. She has a Spanish surname, and her husband, a nice guy, looks like a bit of a "beaner".

    In watching these border interviews, I too have noted that someone can have a very obvious accent and still refer to "us", americans", and "them", Mexicans and central americans. I think the northern equivalent would be someone like Richard Trumka who doesn't speak with a newscaster's accent but also doesn't have any notion that he is Italian or polish.


    The Acosta thing was funny. He cultivates two different audiences. One audience sees him as fighting the evil Trump at every turn; the other sees him as a straight man in a sort of comedy routine.
  • dgm said:

    Our company insisted on hiring private security for their trip into MX.

    Sound policy.
    Worth noting that while I didn't get private security for my trip to Brazil, we did get a pre-arranged private driver.
  • zuk - The issue for me is the ever-changing message from Trump (at first it was going to be concrete and rebar, now he's saying steel) and the general lack of clarity. I honestly can't tell what he's proposing. All I could ever find w/re to specifications are that it's supposed be 30' high, and take an hour to cut though with standard portable tools. Maybe it's part of Trump's "genius" that he lets the opposition assume he's talking about a continuous wall, but that also means *everyone* has to interpret his intentions through their own bias, whether for or against him.

    dgm - I asked Robert if he was worried about the eminent domain thing and he said he felt reassured after the trip. I didn't have time to question him further, but yeah, I share your skepticism.
  • I'm not sure why the specific material to be used in the construction of the barrier is a major issue in the "debate" about it.

    Both will be very costly, and both will be eyesores. And as long as there is an economic incentive to violate our border, people will find ways to do it, whether it's overstaying their tourist visa, or climbing/tunneling around a barrier.

    IMO, The only real policy change that matters is the elimination of financial benefits for people who violate our borders. That is the root of the problem.

    Maybe it's part of Trump's "genius" that he lets the opposition assume he's talking about a continuous wall, but that also means *everyone* has to interpret his intentions through their own bias, whether for or against him.

    That is absolutely a big part of it.
  • Seabird said:

    zuk - The issue for me is the ever-changing message from Trump (at first it was going to be concrete and rebar, now he's saying steel) and the general lack of clarity. I honestly can't tell what he's proposing.



    I don't mind picking on DJT, but advocates who follow this issue can't genuinely think that he has proposed a continuous wall.  He has referenced geographic features that make a continuous wall unnecessary.

    The idea that the proposal was for a continuous wall is something like the Idea that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.  Tina Fey said that, but you'll encounter people who think Palin did.

    He dropped the line about a wall being made of concrete when someone observed that you can't see through concrete, which makes it a poor choice for the southern border.
  • To clarify...

    I don’t think that anybody who has even a little bit of a clue is thinking that the wall by itself is going to fix the problem.

    I hate using the term “comprehensive immigration reform“ because that’s really just a Democrat dog whistle for amnesty.

    Having said that, we do need a comprehensive solution because we need both low-tech and high-tech security on the border, reform of our laws to eliminate the problems that those laws are causing and a better approach to dealing with the need for seasonal Labor.

    On that last item a solution would actually be fairly easy; work permits that do not include permanent resident status or citizenship would actually better fit the needs of both the US and the seasonal laborers who in many cases don’t actually want to leave their homes they just want to make some money during harvest season.

    Overuse of H1B visas and the like are a different issue and have nothing to do with a wall, though they should be part of the solution.
  • dgm said:

    And as long as there is an economic incentive to violate our border, people will find ways to do it, whether it's overstaying their tourist visa, or climbing/tunneling around a barrier.




    I had this argument with Bay Buchanon. As long as they have a labor surplus and we have a labor shortage, people will find a way here. If east german border guards with two walls, 300m of minefield, towers and machine guns can't keep people from crossing, a wall won't either.
  • The labor shortage here is an economic incentive to migration.

    People with dumb populist ideas about "furriners tekkin ur jerbs" are an obstruction to solving that problem.

  • dgm said:

    The labor shortage here is an economic incentive to migration.


    People with dumb populist ideas about "furriners tekkin ur jerbs" are an obstruction to solving that problem.

    You work in technology. It is simply not credible to me that you are not aware that we have that exact problem.

    Therefore I have to assume that you did a poor job of articulating what it was you were trying to say.

    Care to take another run at it?
  • dgm said:

    The labor shortage here is an economic incentive to migration.


    People with dumb populist ideas about "furriners tekkin ur jerbs" are an obstruction to solving that problem.

    We might not have had a labor shortage if we hadn't removed so many americans from the labor supply.  The problem isn't solvable with internal US policy.  Fixing mismanagement in nearby countries means going in and fixing it, but that's not really on our menu of political possibilities
  • MC Escher said:

    Overuse of H1B visas and the like are a different issue and have nothing to do with a wall, though they should be part of the solution.

    I don't think the folks flooding over the southern border to hang drywall and pick lettuce are H-1B candidates. 
  • MC Escher said:

    dgm said:

    The labor shortage here is an economic incentive to migration.


    People with dumb populist ideas about "furriners tekkin ur jerbs" are an obstruction to solving that problem.

    You work in technology. It is simply not credible to me that you are not aware that we have that exact problem.

    Therefore I have to assume that you did a poor job of articulating what it was you were trying to say.

    Care to take another run at it?

    Because I do work in technology, I am VERY familiar with the populist idea that H-1Bs are "taking American jobs".

    It is false. Qualified Americans are doing fine in the tech sector. Unqualified people will need to do better to compete. I have a lot of problems locating qualified applicants, so I can directly attest to the actual labor shortage.
  • dgm said:

    MC Escher said:

    Overuse of H1B visas and the like are a different issue and have nothing to do with a wall, though they should be part of the solution.

    I don't think the folks flooding over the southern border to hang drywall and pick lettuce are H-1B candidates. 
    I represented an old woman from Texas a couple of decades ago.  In the part of our conversation in which she told me how poor she once was, she said that right after she had her first child, it was cotton picking time, so she wrapped her child and took it into the field with her to pick cotton.  Apparently the money was pretty good and that's what one did if he wasn't otherwise occupied, or if he was and needed the money.  This woman from Texas was white and had an English surname.

    At some point, people sociologically like her decided that not working would be better than difficult, dirty, and dangerous work.  A "social safety net" that saves them from having to take that sort of work also creates a labor shortage that leaves undone too much that must be done from picking food to roofing houses.  Enforce a "living wage" for legal employees and you guaranty a need for things that must be done for less.

    We built the problem, but we don't seem very interesting in solving the underlying causes.
Sign In or Register to comment.