"Let’s upgrade the technology, let’s look at the fact that the folks who are working on border security on the ground know that they need upgraded infrastructure around things like drones, and they need cameras... So yes, I’m all for increased border security where we need it. I’m not for a wall."What if the experts came up with a plan for an "upgraded infrastructure" that included, in some places, something that is a wall, perhaps something clearly high-tech and that wasn't at all medieval? I'm picturing something that is genuinely well-engineered to work and doesn't seem to be about just expressing the idea of controlling the border. Is Harris saying in advance that she would not vote for that? Because that's what "under any circumstances" would mean.
I haven't been a believer in the wall, but I would look at a specific plan, designed by experts, and try to make an informed decision. Why is Harris flaunting her uninformed prejudgment? I know the answer. She's doing political expression (even as she — rightly! — implies all the "Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy). Show me that you would do serious policy and that you are not a political hack. My standards are low: I want a competent, earnest President. Despite my low standards, I never get what I want.
Howard??
ADDED: Harris's idea of "upgraded infrastructure" is "around things like drones, and they need cameras." It sounds at though the idea is to look at illegal immigration, not to do anything about it. Is that really what "the folks" "on the ground" are saying, and can you explain to me how they "know" this is what they need? Do they also say this is all they need? And you can't know what is needed apart from having a goal, so is it even established that these "folks" Harris has heard from want to stop illegal immigration? What expertise do these "folks" have? I'm wary of folk remedies.
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade said:
"I'm wary of folk remedies."
The Folk Art of the Deal
পোস্টগুলি
২৫১টি মন্তব্য:
251 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Harris is using the word "wall" the way Trump does. It's a synecdoche for a broad, amorphous policy philosophy.
I call BS.
So she’s trying to evoke the Obama “let me be clear.” Now it’s “let me be very clear.”
She comes off like Obama and Hillary’s love child.
The dichotomy on the wall is quite interesting. On the one hand, they're pointless and won't work and on the other it's all hands on deck, this must be opposed at every cost. Seems if the wall was an ineffectual as everyone keeps assuring us, then wouldn't the smart thing politically be to let Trump have the wall, thus giving him a victory while (from their perspective) doing nothing to stop illegal immigration.
The walls-don't-work argument is obviously bullshit. The wall is being opposed with such ferocity precisely because people are terrified that it will work.
" know that they need upgraded infrastructure around things like drones, and they need cameras..."
The only thing that kind of "security" will do is give us a more accurate count of how many illegals are crossing the border.
Her stance is utter bullshit, and she knows it.
Un-breachable barriers are the ONLY answer.
She's really saying "I'm not going to vote for a wall philosophy"
Just as Trump says "I'm totally supporting a wall philosophy"
When Trump and Congress fight over wall funding -- funding that could just as easily be directed toward Kamala's drones -- it isn't really a fight over quantity. Trump is saying "I want you to support my wall philosophy by throwing some money at it." and Congress is saying "We aren't giving you that wall philosophy money unless you modify your philosophy."
So Kamala Harris is for the people AND for border security.
Kamala Harris is not for a wall.
Is Kamala Harris for minefields?
Is Kamala Harris for concentrated artillery strikes?
Is Kamala Harris for sharks-with-laser-beams?
Time will tell.
Howard is the only candidate directly addressing the increxible debt of the United States. That alone is worth a listen. And, as you said, the bar is low.
something that is a wall, perhaps something clearly high-tech and that wasn't at all medieval?
So, that's a big nugatory on using Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch against the illegal immigrants?
A 20 mile-wide moat would be better.
The US is too tolerant of the corruption of the Mexican government. And the cartels are a military problem not a law enforcement problem.
Show me that you would do serious policy and that you are not a politic hack.
Serious policy by the other guys is always called out as political hackery by their opponents.
To wit, trump is serious, earnest and very likely competent at wall building. He has never said "wall only", just that a wall must be part of any serious border security plan.
Yet his efforts are derided by his opponents as a "stunt" and "fake crisis". They turn his multi-layered proposal to reform the immigration laws and address the humanitarian crisis on the border into "an immoral wall".
Is Kamala Harris for moats?
Is Kamala Harris for Vauban?
Is Kamala Harris for "interlocking fields of fire"?
Time will tell.
Ok, so you have the best cameras and drones that can be had - all very high tech. You get great photos of people illegally crossing the border. Now what? How is this border security?
"Let me be very clear: I'm not going to vote for a wall under any circumstances... And I do support border security, and if we want to talk about that, let's do that."
Trump's been talking about it for at least two years.
The government was shut down for 35 days.
The nation is waiting. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from talking about it.
Is Kamala Harris for razor-wire?
Is Kamala Harris for constantly occupied sentry-posts every 100 meters?
Is Kamala Harris for the Maginot Line?
Time will tell.
"Let me be very clear: I'm not going to vote for a wall under any circumstances... And I do support border security,.."
She supports border security?
Really?!?!
Yes, we believe you Kammy!
The Left understands that lax border enforcement + lax election enforcement + harvesting of ballots = lotta more votes for Dems.
The Left has already turned California blue with this ploy. If they do to Texas what they did to California, well, get ready for a lot more Democrat Presidents in the future.
Lotta Republican choir-boys don't seem to understand this. Or, they think the benefits of cheap labor outweigh this. Sad!
The wall is simply border control that can't be removed without political consequences. Concrete and steel, tangible.
Does a wall sound silly? Sure. Having to twist the arms of your leaders to enforce our borders is silly, too.
The sight of border barriers being torn down by Democrats would be horrible optics. So tangible barriers cannot go up under any circumstance.
Dear Kamala,
We could talk for hours - HOURS - about things that ARE NOT a wall. Some (actually many) of these things I think we could find common ground on. Please contact me at the white house regarding your official position on things that ARE NOT a wall.
Yours Respectfully,
D Trump
""Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy"
Oh?
"Villareal explained that his team needs a “border enforcement system” that includes a border wall, among other resources.
“There is no singular solution. What we need is a combination of factors: a border infrastructure, roads that provide access to the border, technology, ground sensors, night vision cameras, drones. And then, of course, wall or fencing to secure the border,” Villareal explained, adding, “It’s a comprehensive system.”
Villareal, who has served in the border patrol for 30 years, explained that the wall may be politically controversial, but he believes that it would work.
“I can attest to the fact that walls, border fences do work,” Villareal explained, pointing to his work in previous cities with fencing."
""Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy"
Oh?
“The construction of this new substantial wall will improve overall border security, the safety and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents, the safety of the public, and will enhance the atmosphere for business and commerce in the area,” said Rodney Scott, Chief Patrol Agent for the San Diego Sector."
The beauty of 2020 is the Dems can either pass a border security bill or spend the election cycle describing what they'd do about it.
It will be fascinating listen to them describe building a wall but not building a wall. Putting up technological barriers that might work but not building physical barriers that have been proven to work. Abolishing ICE, while making sure the American people are secure.
I believe border security for the Dems is their version of the Republicans on Obamacare.
All talk about how the other side is all wrong, no workable plan they'll ever take forward.
""Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy"
Oh?
“The construction of this new substantial wall will improve overall border security, the safety and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents, the safety of the public, and will enhance the atmosphere for business and commerce in the area,” said Rodney Scott, Chief Patrol Agent for the San Diego Sector."
The beauty of not building a wall is that as soon as the Dems elect a president, it’s a simple phone call to turn border security off.
She's for "border security".
She's just not telling us which border.
Kamala Harris--drones with stinger missiles. AI rather than human agency. Can't get much less medieval than that.
"tim in vermont said...
The beauty of not building a wall is that as soon as the Dems elect a president, it’s a simple phone call to turn border security off."
That's what me said too.
Paul Ryan was a Chamber of Commerce Republican who wanted to keep the cheap labor flowing.
"Un-breachable barriers are the ONLY answer."
No such thing, and by saying so you fall into the Democrats' trap where they can screech BUT WHAT ABOUT LADDERS AND TUNNELS AND HOT AIR BALLOONS AND SUBMARINES????
The point of a wall or fencing is not to be "ub-breachable." The argument is that a physical barrier will (1) obstruct or hinder border crossings by slowing them down and giving Border Patrol a greater opportunity to respond and apprehend illegal aliens and (2) deter would-be crossers. It raises the costs for crossers and increases the chances of capture. That's it.
"Walls are immoral" means "I'm okay with 11 million more illegal immigrants living in our United States as long as I can't detect that MY lifestyle and aspirations, as a member of the professional class, is adversely affected."
""Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy"
Hmm:
"JOHN BURNETT, BYLINE: Morning, David.
GREENE: So you rode along with some Border Patrol agents along the fence line in the mountains south of San Diego yesterday. This is the area where President Trump is talking about the need for a wall. What are you...
BURNETT: Right.
GREENE: ...Seeing and hearing?
BURNETT: Well, I rode with two Border Patrol public affairs officers for seven hours. And a lot of what we saw and talked about relates exactly to what the president's asking for in border security. The San Diego sector out here is small, only 60 miles of land border, but it's just across from a major Mexican city, Tijuana. And the area used to be the nation's illegal crossing hot spot back in the '80s.
Today, this western-most border's a sort of poster child for bigger, taller, longer fences. And you can see the construction of a new, formidable 18-foot-tall barrier made of steel bollards with rebar and cement inside of them, a big steel anti-climb plate welded on top. And this replaces the flimsy, old sheet metal fence.
It's safe to say what they showed me was a sales job for the construction of the Great Wall of Trump. And the chief patrol agent says where they have two layers of fence, he gets 90 percent operational control of the border.
GREENE: OK. So the Great Wall of Trump, as you're calling it. But there already is some fencing there. So what - if President Trump, you know, gets what he wants, what would this mean in the San Diego sector? How much new fencing would actually be there?
BURNETT: Right. So if you check with Homeland Security, they'll tell you they want 5 additional miles of new fencing. They already have 46 miles of fencing. It would be five more. And where would it go? The existing fence stretches all the way from the Pacific Ocean to Otay Mountain. And at one point yesterday, we were standing at the eastern end of the border fence, where it currently ends. You can see the international border rising steeply up the slope of Otay Mountain.
And I was here three years ago on an earlier ride-along, and I remember the agent at the time telling me that that mountain is our deterrent - that they have agents on ATVs, in jeeps, who catch illegal crossers out in those rugged ravines. And yesterday, I asked Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Michael Scappechio, why do you now need a new fence to continue all the way up the mountain?
MICHAEL SCAPPECHIO: And it all comes down to resources. If the resources are available, it'll help us do our job better. If they're not available, we have to utilize terrain, such as Otay Mountain, as a deterrent, and we have to shift our resources, like our surveillance, like our manpower. If we can put a border barrier, we can utilize our manpower elsewhere."
On immigration, Kamala Harris is a liar.
She likely has California primary votes in the bag, but needs to expand into more moderate states. Hence, the double-talk on border security.
On this issue, just ignore her.
Harris is lying- it is that simple, and I think everyone knows it.
You want to cut down illegal immigration- here is how you do it:
(1) Hefty fines for employing anyone not legally in the country- you have to use E-verify for even your privately hired landscapers. You get caught, you get ruined financially.
(2) No catch and release. You are detained until your asylum status is determined one way or the other. If denied, you are immediately deported.
(3) You enter illegally or overstay a Visa, you are blacklisted from ever becoming legalized- no exceptions.
(4) You don't need a wall with the other three, but one can't hurt, can it?
Drones and cameras do not keep people from crossing the border illegally; therefore Anybody who wants drones and cameras to keep people from crossing the border is advocating automatic guns and drones killing civilians.
There, I said it. Democrats want to kill civilians.
"(even as she — rightly! — implies all the "Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy)."
I can't parse this without applying a Marie Antoinette filter.
I am Laslo.
"Build the Wall" means "We have hit the wall. No additional individuals of illegal status. Period."
The wall will serve several purposes. One, reduce inflow and direct migrants to check points, thereby controlling human trafficking. Two, it will force a quarantine on invasive species and undiagnosed diseases and carriers. Three, it is a layered defense of American civil rights. Four, it is a step and incentive to normalize emigration reform, in the midst of immigration reform by adventure and invitation.
Only after we "Build the Wall" will we begin to discuss a policy for the 11 million in the country without legal status.
Walls work, but sometimes you need teargas too.
even as she — rightly! — implies all the "Build the wall" talk is political expression and not serious policy
Says who?
Personally, I think a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, or something even approaching that, is a dumb idea and likely prohibitively expensive. Just build and fortify barriers where necessary, and that certainly would include new construction. There's not much of a need to build in much of the inhospitable mountainous desert areas of the Southwest. Crossing the border in those areas is already extraordinarily hazardous.
I'm all for more fencing, etc., to make Border Patrol more effective at their job. I'm also for more drones and sensors and faster helicopters and whatever else makes sense to reduce illegal border crossings to near zero.
Problem with some Trumpers is they have an emotional attachment to A WALL THAT MEXICO WILL PAY FOR. Problem with many (most) Democrats is they have an emotional attachment to NO WALL ANYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S A SYMBOL OF HATRED AND WHITE SUPREMACY.
"I'm wary of folk remedies."
The Folk Art of the Deal
@Yancy Ward:
Very good list. I concur with all but would add that before we can do #3, we will need a system of tracking entry and exit for visas. And yes, cracking down hard on those who employ illegals is essential.
But most important of all, and the part that most often gets lost in the debate, is that timing is everything. The enforcement mechanisms have to be in place before any kind of amnesty or legalizing. Otherwise, what you end up with is the amnesty passing (which can't be undone), a huge magnet for more illegals, and then the enforcement mechanisms never get implement or get abandoned after some court challenge somewhere.
Two duffel bags filled with 17 rifles, shotguns, handguns, and ammunition were found on a private Texas ranch and confiscated by border officials. The weapons were taken from a ranch near the Border Patrol´s Carrizo Springs Station in Del Rio, Texas. An unnamed citizen called the agency after seeing a group of suspected illegal immigrants carrying large bags on nearby land Friday.. - Washington Examiner
This story will never make it to the mainstream news.
Walls are evil because they make people feel bad.
"Problem with some Trumpers is they have an emotional attachment to A WALL THAT MEXICO WILL PAY FOR. Problem with many (most) Democrats is they have an emotional attachment to NO WALL ANYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S A SYMBOL OF HATRED AND WHITE SUPREMACY."
Make you a deal: Our side will gives up Mexico Pays For It. Your side gives up all your racism bullshit.
@bleh:
I do not agree that a fraction of federal spending is "prohibitively expensive." But also do not discount the psychological effects of a wall. A physical barrier clearly communicates that a border exists and consequences exist for crossing it.
Problem with some Trumpers is they have an emotional attachment to A WALL THAT MEXICO WILL PAY FOR
Could you name check one for us?
For those that are not aware, the border is already heavily propagated with listening and seismic devices. Homeland and CBP buy them from the same companies that make the exact same thing to sell to the military.
Their placement and density is a heavily-guarded secret I'm sure, but the issue is that what she is proposing in terms of "surveillance" would not be anymore effective than what is there now because it has nothing to do with detecting them and everything to do with catching them in time and in sufficient quantity to be worthwhile before they scatter.
CBP - just like any police - have a response time. The well established mechanisms for penetrating the border work like anything else - once you're across 100 people going 100 different directions makes getting all of them (probably not even 1/4) impossible. Then there are the safe houses, tunnels, and frickin' cities right along the border (populated in some cases with their relatives) where they can simply melt away.
The wall, moat, minefield...any PASSIVE security apparatus provides time as well as upping the risk and an abundance of caution. It is not perfect, but like all passive fortifications it takes quite a bit to turn it off 100%.
"Show me that you would do serious policy and that you are not a political hack. My standards are low: I want a competent, earnest President. Despite my low standards, I never get what I want. Howard??"
Sure, after '08 we all knew your standards are low. It is still interesting to see further proof of the non-political rationalizations of a political choice: someone must propose "serious" policy, be "not a hack," "competent," "earnest." Nothing about what the person is supposed to do, how s/he will promote a particular direction for the country, favor one party agenda more than another. Voting as the expression of a certain self-image. It is useful information for politicians, of course, to know that a portion of the electorate rationalizes things this way. O knew.
I already predicted Althouse would find a way to rationalize voting for Howard, so this is a start. Next up: he's so "pragmatic." Then: he does serious policy, which shows that he takes me, the serious female voter, seriously. Add in: I'm not like the crazy Dem voters and I'm not like the deplorable Trumpist GOP voters, and voila.
okay, no wall
first a small fence, with signs on it saying WARNING! DO NOT CROSS!
then ten yards in, another small fence, with signs (visible from the 1st fence) that say
DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED
Then, flying overhead; you have Kamela's drones... Armed Drones
works for me! and Kamela told us too!
I doubt you'd have to drop more people the first year, then normally die in the desert crossing
After that, i don't think you'd have to drop hardy any at all
And she thinks the wall is immoral
The Dems support technology that can be shut off, or nullified at will, and that's is their will. A wall works no matter who is elected. How would drones or any other of these "technologies" stop a caravan of thousands who are not trying to sneak in, but will just walk in openly?
Answer: That's why we will never vote for a wall.
Drones are fine provided you arm them with missles and take out the border crossers. Otherwise they just cross and wind up home free in the US justice system.
That a leading Dem candidate traded sex (w/ Willie Brown) for career advancement in the #metoo era just boggles the mind.
Harris et al don't have the honesty or the guts to say that they want open boarders and unlimited immigration.
Make you a deal: Our side will gives up Mexico Pays For It. Your side gives up all your racism bullshit.
Heh. The open border and racism bullshit is the one-two punch that turns Red states Blue. You might as well ask Dems to give up campaign yard signs.
Her stated position is internally inconsistent on the face of it, but it hits enough of the rhetorical notes that the various leftist subgroups care about, while not going explicitly against the instincts of mainstream middle-class voters, who still comprise the largest voting bloc in the country.
Leftists aren't much into intellectual consistency, either, so it's probably an effective strategy. Sort of a contemporary version of the old Bubba Clinton "triangulation" technique.
You don't think Trump is "earnest", Professor? If anything, he's a what you see is what you get type of politician. I think we can assume that Harris will be a surprise package of some kind--like Obama--with the mystery mainly about exactly what kind of bad surprise it will turn out to be, this time.
Tank is for machine guns and land mines, but is willing to compromise on a wall + a variety of other techniques.
Harris is simply a liar, she is not for border security.
I'm a fan of the "high fence, wide gate" school of immigration. But the fence is metaphorical. I don't want a real wall and I don't agree that it's necessary. But if we don't address the incentives that lead to mass illegal immigration, then we will need a wall.
Harris's idea of "upgraded infrastructure" is "around things like drones, and they need cameras." It sounds at though the idea is to look at illegal immigration, not to do anything about it.
She's open to providing every American with a Benny Hillifier to turn the new illegal immigrant footage into a fun Yakety Sax romp.
https://bennyhillifier.com/
Hey, guess what? Kamala Harris is lying to us about what her plans are. She is like the guy at your front door who says he wants to come in and use your phone because his car broke down. But what he really plans to do is to pull a gun and tie you to a chair so you can watch him rape your daughter before he kills you.
Harris's idea of "upgraded infrastructure" is "around things like drones, and they need cameras."
Once the drones identify the immigrants, they can guide them to places where it's safer and easier to cross.
"Let me be clear"
That reminds me of Obama talking. He said that more than once. He was rarely telling the truth when he said it.
A wall would be unnecessary if we enforced immigration law. Reform is merely amnesty. It didn't work 33 years ago and it won't work now.
how does Kamela feel about increasing e-verify? Just kidding, i know how she feels
A long continuous National Emergency infra-structure constructd by by the Army Corps of enginers is not a wall wall. It's a military breastwork/fortification.
Trump remembers that structure was the first thing Colonel Jackson had constructed to defeat the British Empire's Invasion of the Mississippi River Valley. And it worked to near perfection.
Doers she support Sanctuary Cities?
Yes.
That means she doesn't support border security.
Or the Law.
Only after we "Build the Wall" will we begin to discuss a policy for the 11 million in the country without legal status.
Nah. Only after the Dems control the Presidency and both houses of Congress will we begin to discuss it.
That will give the Judicial System the sign they can stand down.
The wall that was built at the California/Tijuana border was extremely effective in reducing crossers that used to just run through traffic. You will never see that in a Media report, especially in California.
Blogger Tank said...
Tank is for machine guns and land mines, but is willing to compromise on a wall + a variety of other techniques.
Claymores have been mentioned. Thousands of them.
obviously, a wall wouldn't be practical for the whole length of the border; Rio Grande for instance
However, the Rio Grande Would BE optimal for SHARKS WITH LASERS ON THEIR HEADS!!
or even Mutated Sea Bass
It sounds at though the idea is to look at illegal immigration, not to do anything about it.
Exactly so. This is the complaint from the Border Patrol, who unanimously want increased barriers in addition to increased staffing.
Another fallacy: "Most drugs come across at border crossing stations." While it's true that most drugs that are seized by officials come through this way, no one even knows how many that are not seized come through the miles and miles of desert not patrolled.
I have a degree in computer security and various certs. Computer security involves (among other things) protection of the physical equipment, which usually requires erecting barriers of some sort to keep unauthorized individuals from accessing the areas where the equipment is housed. These barriers are often walls and fences. Obviously walls and fences are not going to be effective in and of themselves. Physical barriers have to be monitored in order to respond to attempts to breach them, but are certainly going to be a part of a layered defense strategy. If, as the senator says, walls are so ineffective, then why do so many prisons utilize them?
There's a group of Democrats who affirmatively want illegal immigration. They like getting the Democrat votes, they like expanding the state with government programs for the poor ones. And, the rich liberals in LA, like Bill Maher, like having Jose clean his pool on the cheap.
There's a group of Republicans who affirmatively want illegal immigration, too. They like how such cheap labor depresses wages (increase the supply of labor), and therefore helps the bottom line of businesses.
Myself, I focus on good citizenship and assimilation into culture. ILLEGAL immigrants often fall short of this standard, while LEGAL immigrants often meet it.
Any questions?
"I want a competent, earnest President. Despite my low standards, I never get what I want."
You don't think Trump is competent and earnest?
"Meade said...
Only after we "Build the Wall" will we begin to discuss a policy for the 11 million in the country without legal status."
11 million? Or 22 million. Or 30. That's the thing, no wall allows no one to know just how many illegals are here. And that's exactly what they want.
Kamala Harris has indicated that she is for the jabberwocky for border security. This is good she thinks because it's fictional. But Trump will agree. He knows she doesn't know about Darpa's JAB-IRW-ACCE (Joint Advanced Border - Immigration Reducing Wall - Advanced Customs & Control Enforcement).
She's screwed.
There are 40 million illegal aliens living in the US now.
Prove I'm wrong.
tim in vermont: The beauty of not building a wall is that as soon as the Dems elect a president, it’s a simple phone call to turn border security off.
And that, my friend, is why walls are "immoral", and drones, etc. are not.
In case you were naïvely scratching your head about why effectively keeping people out with walls was immoral but effectively keeping people out by other means wasn't.
(The phone call will also come when and if the GOPe ever manages to elect a a proper GOPer to the presidency again.)
I look forward to hearing all the republican/conservative/center righties in a couple of weeks reiterating that an actual wall is unnecessary when the next migrant caravan is storming the border. Because the last one, I thought, pretty much proved that supposition to be a fallacy. I guess you think all we need is e-verify, drones, and teargas.
Yancey, re: #2, this is not possible. There are no facilities large enough to detain that many people nor the resources to support them during the average two years until hearing. Yes, 'catch and release' sucks. It should be 'catch and deport'. And no flying them back to Guatemala [which they have done at our expense!]. Drop them just across the border and let them find their way back the way they found their way here.
Kamala Harris 2019= Hillary Clinton 2008. Only more socialist.
Near San Diego - walls and borders HAVE worked.
I guess where we see WALLS and FENCE working -we just ignore it.
Like JIm Acosta.
@ J. Farmer
I do not agree that a fraction of federal spending is "prohibitively expensive." But also do not discount the psychological effects of a wall. A physical barrier clearly communicates that a border exists and consequences exist for crossing it.
Do you really believe the $5 billion figure will pay for the wall and also adequately compensate landowners for the use of their land? And when was the last time the government built anything without enormous cost overruns and so on? We give California grief for its rail project, rightly so, but we expect a massive wall project to be a bargain?
Lucid asserts: Kamala Harris has indicated that she is for the jabberwocky for border security.
Jabberwocky security might be adequate, with all those vorpal blades going 'snicker-snack'.
Clintonian triangle
Ann Althouse says "My standards are low."
Nay, nay, nay. Better than nothing is a high standard.
Uh...
Israel is the world leader in tech and IQ.
The Israelis built a very long and very effective wall. Physical and tech based.
Ann... you're wrong.
Categorizing a wall as "medieval" is sort of interesting. It's sort of a variation on the wall being "immoral". The word "medieval" has the sound "evil" in it, so subconciously it could be associated as something evil I guess. Medieval also implies backward thinking or anachronistic, which of course is often thought of as "bad".
Of course with a simple application of logic, one could determine that just because something was invented and/or used successfully during medieval times does not automatically mean that it no longer works or is no longer an effective solution. If your argument is that walls don't work, why are there so many damn walls everywhere? Most people spend most of there lives surrounded by walls.
You guys do realize that a passive wall, unguarded, is pretty much useless.
Walls have gates.
People have ladders.
As for folk remedies:
Obama was president and he had a wall, and drones, and ICE, and hundreds of thousands apprehensions.
Trump is president and he had a wall, and drones, and ICE, and hundreds of thousands of apprehensions.
If Kamala Harris becomes president she will have a wall, and drones, and ICE, and hundreds of thousands of apprehensions.
This entire debate is about two things, and yards of concrete isn't one of them.
It's about the law -- to what degree will it be applied.
It's about talk -- what does the President say.
The first is a continuum. No one -- not Obama, not Trump, not future President Harris -- is radically moving the law, not until there's a massive change in public attitude. Trump was about as massive a change as one can imagine and his administration is simply mirroring the Obama administration in its fits and starts of severity.
The second is spin.
If only we could find these "experts". Maybe Border Patrol can find where they're hiding...
There are 40 million illegal aliens living in the US now.
I've seen serious estimates over 50 million. Some come and go, though.
Kamala is an ignorant twit--with a nasty disposition and a tendency to bullshit.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
The dichotomy on the wall is quite interesting. On the one hand, they're pointless and won't work and on the other it's all hands on deck, this must be opposed at every cost. Seems if the wall was an ineffectual as everyone keeps assuring us, then wouldn't the smart thing politically be to let Trump have the wall, thus giving him a victory while (from their perspective) doing nothing to stop illegal immigration.
The walls-don't-work argument is obviously bullshit. The wall is being opposed with such ferocity precisely because people are terrified that it will work.
This is exactly correct. If the wall DOESN’T work, and we are only asking an amount for the wall that we could find by raiding the couch cushions of every government office—why not just fund it?
Perhaps the democrats are suddenly fiscally conservative? Or lying?
@Henry,
Your remarks about the potential deficiencies of a wall are probably correct, but those deficiencies really reflect lack of unified political will, which is our problem in the U.S.
The Israelis are pretty united on their wall, and unified on military enforcement of that wall.
A similar U.S. wall can't work, at least not as efficiently, minus substantial popular political support for enforcement.
MadisonMan said...
"Let me be clear"
That reminds me of Obama talking. He said that more than once. He was rarely telling the truth when he said it.
No, let ME be clear...
If your argument is that walls don't work, why are there so many damn walls everywhere? Most people spend most of there lives surrounded by walls.
Because they don't actually want any security. The nice thing about "high-tech border security" is that cameras can be turned off, drones can be grounded, etc. A wall has to be torn down, which would be politically unpopular.
Even if a wall doesn't work, building one is a sign of actual concern about security. They don't want the momentum in that direction. Once you've committed to building a wall, you might commit to actually turning on the cameras, flying the drones, and arresting border-jumpers.
I want to minimize the chance of a melee at the border and a wall does that. It's not about the money, it's about human suffering and lives.
"Make no mistake..." - W
Let me continue re ignorant twit Ms. Harris. I lived in San Diego for twenty years from the mid 50s to the mid 70s. Illegal (or legal under the bracero program) immigration across the border was a continuing problem. I commend Joseph Wambaugh's late 1970s book "Lines and Shadows" to your attention. The border between Baja and Southern California is fairly rough country--lots of canyons, gullies and ravines. And there's not much water. Men women and children crossing the border were preyed on by criminals. The San Diego Police Department created a Border Task Force to take out the criminals--and protect the migrants. Wambaugh's book details their efforts.
The border is 2,400 miles long. There are already some 750 miles of fence, including along the entire California Baja California border. The fence is not a stand alone solution. But what it has done is drastically cut illegal immigration along the California border. To that extent, while not perfect, it works.
But it has had a knock on effect. Now rather than crossing the border in California, much of the immigration stream has shifted into the Arizona desert. And the desert is a killer. No water--intense heat--a long way to the highway--and not much traffic when you get there. My friends who live in Southern Arizona say the situation is worse than it's ever been. I could argue that building a wall along the entire Arizona border, backed up by adequate personnel and equipment would be a humanitarian act. Force people who might qualify for asylum through the legal points of entry--and keep all others out.
The drones help the Democrats locate the foreigners crossing the border faster.
The faster the foreigners can be located, the faster they can be placed into housing and their children can be enrolled in schools.
The longer the foreigners wander around in the desert, the more school days their children will miss. The drones help reduce that wandering time.
You guys do realize that a passive wall, unguarded, is pretty much useless.
I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing a "passive unguarded wall". From what I can gather the whole wall thing was always part of a broader border security package that included more border agents, ICE personnel, and drones and the like.
Sure, Trumps big beautiful wall was a campaign promise, but it was always pitched along with "fixing our broken immigration system" and such.
And sure, a wall can be circumvented in multiple ways. So can the lock on your house or apartment. Just because something doesn't offer perfect security doesn't mean it's not useful. As they say, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Shouting Thomas said...
Your remarks about the potential deficiencies of a wall are probably correct, but those deficiencies really reflect lack of unified political will, which is our problem in the U.S.
That's pretty much my point.
As for walls working, I refer you back to the Sheriff Mark Napier interview that Althouse posted not long ago:
9:34: The problem is, if you erect a wall and walk away from it, it's a nuisance. It will always have to be maintained, it will always have to be monitored because people will always try to defeat it. And we have seen this with existing fencing.... There are places in my county you will never build a wall.... This constant argument over what constitutes a wall...is not moving the ball forward.... Physical barriers will always be part of the equation, but the term 'the wall' has become a lightening rod.
Nonapod -- I was referring to the comments about passive barriers, upstream.
"designed by experts"
Ann: If you had stayed in private practice longer, you'd know that you can find an expert to say whatever you want.
I note that KKH wants high tech "solutions." That means more money for her donors in CA. Concrete and steel comes from Texas and Ohio.
The thing that totally shocked me was that KKH was proud of the disgraceful performance she gave during the Kavanaugh hearings. I thought it was one of the low moments of our democracy. And, of course, the insane Iowa Dems cheered wildly. Don't they know that one of the women KKH asked Kavanaugh about has totally recanted? She admitted she made every thing up.
And note well that CNN ran over about 6 minutes. Got to get in all those pre-screened questions. Yeah, the winner has been selected by Matt Damon and CNN. The primaries are just a formality.
KKH said in the Des Moines paper that she is going to be spending plenty of time in Iowa. I'm looking forward to seeing her in person and then reporting over at Power Line.
Mr. Whipple, for example. I didn't even have to backtrack that far.
Even if a wall doesn't work, building one is a sign of actual concern about security.
That sounds even more effective than drones! A sign of actual concern will turn away millions.
El Chapo is a Mexican. After the United States seizes his assets, El Chapo will pay for the Wall. So will all the other drug criminals.
What would a President Kamala Harris do about all the Ku Klux Klan members in the border-control forces?
Napier is a political entity.
Maybe "expert" weighting should be adjusted accordingly.
https://tucson.com/news/local/sheriff-napier-removes-federal-immigration-agents-from-pima-county-jail/article_2665f64e-2217-50e9-af6c-1578a820025c.html
I don’t believe there is a Democrat running for President, or considering a run, who isn’t against any and all methods for actually stopping illegal immigration. Drones and cameras enabling border agents to see who just crossed the border and where so they can be picked up, taken to a facility for food, shelter and medical care. Then released into the country to await a court date that they will never attend. Off to a sanctuary city and a good chance for amnesty. Of course Harris, wouldn’t vote for a wall on the border, she’s not interested in anything that would be effective.
bleh at 12:37 PM
Do you really believe the $5 billion figure will pay for the wall and also adequately compensate landowners for the use of their land?
The border wall would cost about a million dollars a mile. That was roughly the cost of the wall that already has been built.
Building a mile of border wall is roughly the cost of building a wall of interstate highway.
So, the wall along the Mexico border would cost about $5 billion.
"Meade said...
Only after we "Build the Wall" will we begin to discuss a policy for the 11 million in the country without legal status."
Isn't it interesting that no one really knows the answer to how many illegal immigrants we have in this country? I was watching an old Lou Grant episode from 1986 and I think they used "9 million" as their target for how many illegals were in the country according to their sappy story involving coyotes and illegals. The democrats and their operatives are feverishly trying to ensure we never know when you look at the energy they put into making sure its not asked on the census. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/citizenship-question-census.html
The great advantage of drones is that you can use them to drop voter registration forms and EBT cards.
You know when walls work very well?
Anytime Trump doesn't suggest them.
I just hope Trump never makes the mistake of telling Pelosi to "keep your shirt on."
If you'll never approve a wall under any circumstance, then you aren't serious about border security. There's no point in talking. There's no way to be reasonable with people who refuse to be reasonable. Summary, Democrats WANT the illegals in the country.
It is precisely this sort of point that Trump must bring out. Ds insist on illegal immigration. Then, he should ask the public at large, "What do you want?"
Let me be perfectly clear, I will not vote for Kamala Harris under any circumstances, particularly after the fiasco of the Kavanaugh hearings.
Isn't it interesting that no one really knows the answer to how many illegal immigrants we have in this country?
MIT-Yale Study Doubles Estimates of U.S. Undocumented Immigrants
“Our results lead us to the conclusion that the widely accepted estimate of 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States is too small,” wrote MIT’s Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi and Jonathan Feinstein and Edward Kaplan of Yale.”
the border is MASSIVE. No matter how many actual cameras, IR cameras, motion detection-whatever, it doesn't matter if you don't have an actual means of stopping the people you detect crossing. There aren't enough personnel to be in all those places at those times. In the long run, a wall will actually be cheaper than continual maintenance and upgrades to high-tech systems (which, they already have, and use to great effect in high-traffic areas).
"We want all the benefits of a wall without actually having to have an icky wall"
At the SOTU, the tradition, of course, is to refer to people out in the chamber and have them just stand up for recognition. Is there some reason Trump couldn't allow others to speak for relevant portions?
I thought his interaction with that BP agent at the border was very good.
Trump just allowed him to explain things while the cameras were there. The more he employs that, the less about Trump! it will seem to those remotely persuadable.
Seems like it would be a lot smaller job than building interstate highway by the mile.
Let me add that I am unaware of any country with a single payer plan that does not ration health care by age. As a septuagenarian I regard Harris supporters as plotting to kill me by withholding needed health care.
@Big Mike:
As a septuagenarian I regard Harris supporters as plotting to kill me by withholding needed health care.
As a septuagenarian, you're already in a single-payer plan. It's called Medicare.
Made somewhat workable via cost shifting..which the "Medicare for All" lemmings either don't understand or feel there will be, you know, certain means to an end that Big Mike refers to.
@walter:
Made somewhat workable via cost shifting..which the "Medicare for All" lemmings either don't understand or feel there will be, you know, certain means to an end that Big Mike refers to.
Care is already being rationed. It's being rationed in the form of private insurers refusing to pay for certain procedures/treatments under certain circumstances. Do you honestly believe that private insurers pay for everything people want or do you think the bottom line figures into the calculus?
Most of the people I know on Medicare, forced medicare, are not happy with it.
It's very restrictive as they wait for this or that approval. Waiting.
I have friends who buy specialty private plans with doctors who offer such plans (and yes, they are a bit pricey) BUT the plans offer lightening fast service and one-on-one contact with all the A+ docs and the specialists. Concierge'.
I've toyed with joining myself. It should be my choice to do so, as a free person living in a free county. right?
KKKamala, and lefty democratics in general, want to limit our choices, and force us all through the government sieve.
KKKamala is simply frightening. ooo but she's got that nice smile and she's fairly attractive. So - she's the perfect vehicle to push us down the road to more socialism.
"I've toyed with joining myself. It should be my choice to do so, as a free person living in a free county. right?"
Think again.
Of course, Farmer. Depends on the plan too.
But the mentality behind the MFA crowd seems to think they can put the system in a blender and get magic.
If they were honest, it would be called Medicaid for All..with attendant either avoidance by providers or their exit from the field ASAP.
Kameltoe Harris has the same policy with the border that she had with her legs. They are open and spread wide.
When you talk about #Metoo people often ask about the women who gave in and fucked someone to advance their careers. They wonder how that worked out for them.
It's simple.
They get to run for President.
Shorter J Farmer: Health Care already sucks, so lets give in and really go full suck.
There are docs around the country who specialize in catering to Canadians who need new knees and other replacement joints. Canada Health says NO or put them on a ludicrous wait list. So - some of them opt to come to the US.
Also - the insurance I have is pretty good. Obamacare forced me into a really high deductible, and that stinks. However, as of now, I still have choices and I can opt to pay for the care I need. Lately, it's been a lot because all sorts of crap hit the fan this year with my health.
I like having choices. The left want to take away those choices.
The frightening part of left's bogus idealism towards single payer is that they sell it as if what we have now needs fixing. All they ever do is make it worse.
They really are snake-oil salesmen.
EP I saw and read that study and almost linked to it but that only underscores my point. We have to use aggregate statistics and modeling techniques to try to figure out the number because the legal hurdles the democrats thrown up make it impossible to know because they favor illegal immigration. But yeah, if the conjectured number in 1986 was 9 million imagine what they number is today after decades of non enforcement?
Very clearly a wall/fence on significant sections of the border is necessary to actually control the illegal immigration. Also very clearly, there are other steps that are necessary. But the Democrats obviously have two goals in mind:
1) Don't do anything Trump wants, no matter how common sense it is
2) Don't cut back on illegal immigration significantly, because those immigrants will vote Democrat, some illegally right away, some when they eventually become citizens.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Most of the people I know on Medicare, forced medicare, are not happy with it.
It's very restrictive as they wait for this or that approval. Waiting.
Medicare typically has 75%+ approval rating by the people on it. Other than Social Security, there is nothing the US government does that is as popular.
@walter:
Of course, Farmer. Depends on the plan too.
But the mentality behind the MFA crowd seems to think they can put the system in a blender and get magic.
If they were honest, it would be called Medicaid for All..with attendant either avoidance by providers or their exit from the field ASAP.
How do you explain the widespread supermajority support for Medicare among its recipients?
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Shorter J Farmer: Health Care already sucks, so lets give in and really go full suck.
The overwhelming majority of Medicare recipients support it. You're going to have to come to terms with that fact, however inconvenient it may be to your ideological position.
I don't know anyone who likes it, J. Farmer.
All I hear are complaints.
It scares the hell out of me.
"Medicare for all" is shorthand for "no choices"
All sorts of polls do show that respondents to polls about medicare for all want medicare for all - but if you read down the polling data, you will discover that when told that they might have to pay for it with higher taxes, the interest in medicare for all - drops significantly - into the teens.
If you believe the claim that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, you have to be a dunce to be against the wall.
If you think the fact that illegal immigrant caravans [OT that is what Australians call trailer parks] and current chaotic asylum system is costly as hell and disorganized and stupid, then you need to be a dunce to be against the wall.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
I don't know anyone who likes it, J. Farmer.
All I hear are complaints.
That is akin to the story of Pauline Kael saying she couldn't believe Nixon won since no one she knew voted for him.
Donald Trump: If you think border walls don't work, "Ask Israel."
Answer per Wiki: Suicide bombings are down in sections where the Israeli barrier is completed. How many suicide bombings have we had on the Mexican border?
Medicare beneficiaries like it because it covers almost everything and only people who continue to work and make a above middle class income really pay much for the monthly premiums. I.E I'm still work, am not making millions yet I pay over $500 per month for mine.
BUT and you knew there was a but, Medicare is mostly cost-free to the beneficiaries because they've been paying into it all their working lives.
So Medicare for all will be Yugely expensive and corrupt and wasteful.
When polled - people always want something for free.
When reminded that they might need to chip in, it all goes to crap.
Kameltoe Harris has the same policy with the border that she had with her legs. They are open and spread wide.
When you talk about #Metoo people often ask about the women who gave in and fucked someone to advance their careers. They wonder how that worked out for them.
It's simple.
They get to run for President.
"How many suicide bombings have we had on the Mexican border?"
Wow. Can you spell non sequitur?
No J Farmer.
It's not a poll. It's about real people with real lives dealing with Medicare.
Medicare is not a panacea. It's not perfect, it's very restrictive and it isn't always fast.
Many docs - good docs - hate it. The docs that hate might be docs I want to see.
@AJ Lynch:
I.E I'm still work, am not making millions yet I pay over $500 per month for mine.
$500??!? And you are over the age of 65? I am a 36-year-old male. Would you like to know what I pay per month for health insurance?
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
No J Farmer.
It's not a poll. It's about real people with real lives dealing with Medicare.
It's not a poll, but we're supposed to take what "the people" you know (how many ever that may be) as a representative sample? Psst...maybe whoever you are referring to (if they exist) are a small minority. How do you know they're not?
Medicare is not a panacea. It's not perfect, it's very restrictive and it isn't always fast.
I don't know anyone who believes it is a "panacea" or is "perfect." That was never the original point of anything I said.
If you will recall, this whole discussion began with me pushing back against Walter who said, "As a septuagenarian I regard Harris supporters as plotting to kill me by withholding needed health care."
Now if you know anyone who is 65+ who feels that Medicare was "plotting to kill" them "by withholding needed health care," please point me in their direction. Otherwise, have a seat.
KKH used the word "smart" about ten times last night. Also frequent use of the word "fight" and "working families." That "vanity project" reference to the Wall was also focus grouped and poll tested.
KKH is just a younger and much better looking version of HRC.
I agree With Walter.
The left want to hurt us by forcing us into a healthcare system without choices.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
The left want to hurt us by forcing us into a healthcare system without choices.
Do you honestly believe that? I mean, however misguided the left's policies may be, do you actually believe they are motivated by a desire to cause you physical or psychological harm? That is astounding to me.
Yeah. KKKamala just said so.
This drivel from the same state that considered taking over energy delivery if PG&E went bankrupt. Tantamount to the DMV providing your gas and electricity. At the moment, PG&E has been de-blamed for starting the first bad wildfire. Exhale.
On Tuesday, Starbucks CEO and potential 2020 candidate Howard Schultz slammed Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for her plan to abolish private health insurance. He vehemently opposed the idea of abolishing any industry.
"You just played Senator Harris as saying she wants to abolish the insurance industry. That’s not correct. That’s not American," Schultz said on CBS' "This Morning." Harris called for the abolition of private health insurance at a CNN town hall on Monday night.
Removing choices and forcing people into a government run system. That's Cuba.
Never go full Cuba. (and for good measure - fuck Michael Moore)
KKKamala went full Cuba.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Yeah. KKKamala just said so.
With all due respect, and you know there are probably more issues on which you and I agree than disagree, I think that point of view is absolutely histrionic. People that consider themselves "on the left" or at least sympathetic with Harris' point of view are a large plurality of the United States. They number in the tens of millions. You actually believe they are psychologically motivated by a puerile desire for sadism?
Memo to all you fine folks who don't live in California:
1. Up until 1992, California was a slightly red state.
2. Nixon and Reagan -- both from California -- won 4 presidential terms (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984). In 1988, Bush won California in the Presidential election.
3. From 1982 - 1998, there were 4 consecutive terms of GOP governors (Deukmejian twice, Pete Wilson twice).
4. Basically, Northern Cal was blue, while Southern Cal (particularly Orange County, San Diego & Riverside) was red. If you can believe it, the City of LA was pretty red (Mayor Sam Yorty, AG Evelle Younger, Police Chiefs Parker, Davis and Gates)
5. Over the past 15 or so years, the Left adopted a plan to open the southern border, which had the effect of transforming Southern Cal from red to blue.
6. Now, the whole state is Blue. 55 Electoral votes always in the bag for the Dems. Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Adam Schiff and a whole slate of leftwing toadies.
Friends across the country - don't turn your state into California.
Friends in Arizona and Texas - guard your southern border as if your political life depends on it.
Sadism - you betcha.
;-)
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Removing choices and forcing people nto a government run system. That's Cuba.
R"emoving choices and forcing people into a government run system" in the US far predates Castro's Cuba. Please explain to me how you opt out of Social Security.
So based on KKKamala's own words - She is promising to abolish The Immigration and Customs Agency. (ICE) AND we are going to abolish THE entire private health care industry in favor of a 100% government run scheme.
She. is. frightening.
well watch your west approach as well, the seed pods land there, cue Kirsten synema,
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
You said that already. It may prove that she is or isn't frightening, but it has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing.
And for what it's worth, there is about a 0.0000001% that I would ever vote for Harris. Farrakhan or Ta-nehisi Coates would probably have to be the opposition.
Opt out of social security?
God forbid a Repub would propose such a radical thing [sarc]. Yet the Dems propose radical shit every damn day and the media refers to every piddling half-step plan proposed by Repubs as "controversial".
Has anyone in the media referred to Kamara's proposal as "controversial"?
J Farmer-
OK - blogger just ate a perfectly good comment and I had to start all over.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Social Security is not the same as Medicare.
SS is frail and often does not pay out enough to live on in retirement. If I could opt out of it, I probably would. I'm a saver. Most Americans are not savers.
I'd also prefer a national savings scheme to be more like the one used in Singapore. I'm not perfectly tuned into it, but from what I do know about it everyone from the janitor to the doctor can end up with a nice amount for retirement.
Still, I cannot fathom a nation of free people where we are all forced into a government run health system. It's obnoxious and I agree 100% with Schultz.
Go Schultz!
tip toe tru the typos.
I gotta go to the paint store now.
"Now if you know anyone who is 65+ who feels that Medicare was "plotting to kill" them "by withholding needed health care," please point me in their direction. Otherwise, have a seat."
Ooh, ooh. That would be me. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But with enough power, yeah I'll be killed. J. Farmer you sound like someone who could not believe that civilized societies could conduct organized genocide.
Now "plotting" may overstate the level of intent, but I have little doubt whose wishes will ultimately prevail between those shouldering the costs, and an enfeebled oldster. See Liverpool Pathway. It was slathered with "die with dignity" bromides, but dignified or not, the patient's death was the objective. Humans can rationalize nearly any barbarity as mercy.
With the drug bills I've got coming down the pike, I'm another one Medicare will seek to kill.
Which color of Obama's pills was it? Red or blue?
Once illegals get in the USA, its almost impossible to deport them. That's why a Wall is important.
The Democrats want Amnesty for illegals, which will encourage future illegals.
The Democrats don't want to change the immigration laws.
The Democrats don't want a wall and only TALK border security because they have to.
They have LIED constantly about immigration and illegal immigration ever since Ted Kennedy promised border security in 1986 in exchange for Amnesty.
As a septuagenarian, you're already in a single-payer plan. It's called Medicare.
My Medicare is siupplemented by BCBS medical coverage. There are plenty of things Medicare doesn’t cover, so you either pay out of pocket or use a medigap plan. Also many doctors won’t take Medicare patients because the reimbursements for the procedures they normally perform are too low. Welcome to the real world, Farmer. Let me know how you like living in it. P
@CWJ:
J. Farmer you sound like someone who could not believe that civilized societies could conduct organized genocide.
I routinely say that "America is doomed," and I am driven by pessimism in the human condition. So I don't consider that a fair criticism. But I do think the discussion over universal healthcare has become histrionic and overwrought. Thank you for proving my point.
Everything I say about the Democrats applied to the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business Republicans like Mitt Romney.
But hey, if you WANT to believe them, when they lie, go ahead. Nothing stopping you.
Hey, can we talk about Venezuela?
Or what about Iran?
Sorry, the capital P was somehow accidentally appended when I posted. It is not meant as a tongue sticking out emoji.
@rcocean:
Hey, can we talk about Venezuela?
Or what about Iran?
Assuming you're not being a huge smart ass, what would you like to talk about?
@Big Mike:
Welcome to the real world, Farmer. Let me know how you like living in it.
I live in the real world. My small business employs more than two dozen people, and the reality of these decisions stare me in the face every two weeks. That does not obviate the fact that Medicare enjoys supermajority support among its recipients, and Trump was voted in specifically on the premise that he would protect and conserve Medicare in its current form.
As a presidential candidate, try running on a platform of ending Medicare and see how far you get.
Can you communicate why you are NOT in favor of a wall?
It can't be that it will not work. It will.
So it must be some other non border related reason.
J. Farmer says and he is correct..
"The walls-don't-work argument is obviously bullshit. The wall is being opposed with such ferocity precisely because people are terrified that it will work. "
the 1940 constitution, that was convened by a panel with strong left wing influences, promised free health care, free education, free housing, of course no one could come up with a way to implement it, this was one fidel's promises
The point is make sure that NOTHING is funded that will permit Trump to claim victory. That is all. Nothing more.
Bay Area Guy urges: Friends in Arizona and Texas - guard your southern border as if your political life depends on it.
We're trying but we need a little help from people who don't live on the border and don't have any idea how bad the situation is. They will, though...
J Farmer - Nobody is saying bust up Medicare.
"Medicare FOR ALL" is code. It's code for - destroy all the choices. Destroy all the freedoms. Kamala said so, plain as day. She wants to dismantle all forms of private health care and health insurance. FORCE everyone onto a government run system.
How about we stick with Obama's bogus promise "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor."
It was a lie - but at least it was a well intentioned lie.
Bay Area Guy - listen to him.
The leftwing power march - spreads like a cancer.
Obama also loved the word "folks." I have a sneaking suspicion that progressive, coastal Democrats use that word because it sounds like such a hokey, conservative, fly-over word.
I also have a suspicion that Harris, Obama, and other 'folks' loving politicians never, ever used the word 'folks' when they were at college. Not even once.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
J Farmer - Nobody is saying bust up Medicare.
I am not necessarily for "medicare for all." But I am not ipso facto against the idea, and I have expressed support for lowering the eligibility for Medicare to 55. Mickey Kaus, someone with whom I have a lot of ideological overlap, and who is not a reflexive progressive has supported for Medicare for all in his book The End of Equality. I think it is an argument worth having.
I stand solidly opposed to any politician's bogus promises that a government run system, without any other choices, (or choices so restricted they become useless), will EVER be a good idea.
Government FORCE is something to fear, not embrace.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Look at the places that have the highest standard of living in the world and also have very broad civil rights. They have universal healthcare. I don't necessarily believe that the US can simply copy those systems, but they are instructive for universalist pronouncements.
Up next: All sorts of polls that purport to prove everyone is in love with the Medicare for ALL idea.
Sure - just don't ask everyone to pitch in.
J Farmer.
NHS in Britain is a nightmare for the sick. The Canadian health system if rife with problems and often only people with money can afford to get treatment elsewhere. And do so.
The world "universal" is one of the creepiest Hillary-esque words used by progressives.
It makes me cringe. I took a poll.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Every criticism you level against Medicare could be leveled against the income tax, which is arguably much more intrusive than Medicare. Do you think the average American has more or less civil rights now than they had in 1913? Recall that the Sedition Act of 1918 made "abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" a crime.
When our health care system goes to shit, where will we go?
After KKKamala bans the use of high tech medical equipment like state of the art MRI machines and such (I just had a scan- btw - thank GOD for state of the art medical equipment, so awesome) - because "not fair!" - where will people escape?
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
I took a poll.
Polls should be dismissed but we should take as gospel what you say your friends tell you about Medicare. Got it.
You change the subject a lot to prove a point that has nothing to do with the original subject, J Farmer.
I don't want MEDICARE FOR ALL. Since it's entrenched, and we can never say goodbye, I'm fine with leaving it as an option.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
Our current immigration system benefits the well off at the expense of the less well off. Is that an argument for keeping it? If not, why are you applying the same logic to healthcare?
I read the medicare polls Drudge linked the other day. Everyone wants free _________ (fill in the blank) until they are asked to chip in. That is what the poll stated.
Sorry is that offends you.
@Dickin'Bimbos@Home:
You change the subject a lot to prove a point that has nothing to do with the original subject, J Farmer.
My first mention of the topic: "As a septuagenarian, you're already in a single-payer plan. It's called Medicare." Now please tell me who changed the subject.
J Farmer- I'm not applying any argument to any other subject. You are.
J. Farmer @ 4:03,
Thank you for proving mine in return.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন