What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Undocumented Immigrant Thread (1 Viewer)

sho nuff said:
This simply is not logical.  There isn’t an actual deal ratified yet...it’s barely different than nAFTA and there is no way to attribute any growth directly to it.

And that savings was supposed to be for the American people not to find the foolish wall .

Its another lie to cover the previous lie and rational people aren’t falling for it.
Click to expand...
A wall is for the American people though, by protecting our borders.  I know you and I fundamentally disagree on that point though.  That's fine.  

 
Bucky86 said:
Oh ok. It sure seems to be working.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what's working and what isn't. Maybe if people didn't rebuke Trumpism in every corner of the internet his approval numbers would be at 60% and things would be much worse than they are now.

I get that sometimes people are annoying and sometimes they troll, but if lots of Americans genuinely believe in the nonsense that these posters are sharing today I don't see much harm in rebuking the nonsense. It won't convince the butcher boys of the world but maybe it'll convince others.

 
butcher boy said:
Terrible analogy.  A better one would be if you and I went out to dinner and you paid the bill and then I said "hey, I really like your jacket, here's $50 for it, even though its only worth $20."  You could say I indirectly paid for the dinner as well.  
Click to expand...
Nah, mine was better. Yours ignores the fact that the new Mexico deal doesn't kick in for another two years and that nobody knows whether how much added benefit the US stands to gain from it, if any.

Although it's telling that even if we do use your analogy someone who said you paid for the dinner would very obviously be lying.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Nah, mine was better. Yours ignores the fact that the new Mexico deal doesn't kick in for another two years and that nobody knows whether how much added benefit the US stands to gain from it, if any.

Although it's telling that even if we do use your analogy someone who said you paid for the dinner would very obviously be lying.
Click to expand...
I am well aware it doesn't kick in for another two years but the wall also won't be completely built in another two years.  

 
JohnnyU said:
Sounds like the nuclear option to get funding is very real.  To be honest, it's only $5B and in the whole scheme of things isn't a whole lot.  The Democrats are only interested in stopping Trump, even at the expense of border security.  I hear all this talk about the ineffectiveness of a wall, but it helps.  It doesn't solve everything, but it helps.  It's just that the Democrats only care about stopping Trump at any cost.  

Mitch may play the nuke card for sure.
Click to expand...
This is a fun new talking point. I think it popped up this week. I keep hearing it over and over again.

Keep this in mind when folks ##### about 1B for something that's actually more beneficial. 

 
Bucky86 said:
To each their own I guess.

Maybe it works in other places, but here at FBG's it seems to be the same 3-4people(plus aliases) repeating the same lies and falsehoods. Once it's pointed out they're incorrect using facts, they just ignore and repeat the same talking points. There's no interest in learning anything, or changing their position. 
Click to expand...
Yeah but there's always people reading who are persuadable. Maybe someone like JohnnyU who is a hard core conservative but not necessarily a Trumper will be more inclined to vote for Kasich or something in 2020 if he sees how much of Trumpism is built on absurd lies. Maybe posters who voted third party in 2016 because "I don't wanna vote for the lesser of two evils, how bad could he really be?" will rethink that it two years if they haven't already.

I'm all for ignoring these people when they're being deliberately obtuse or obnoxious or otherwise troll-y, but I don't see much of that in here.

 
The wall is a political football. Its political manipulation, period. If you've bought into either extreme end of the rhetoric, you have to realize you are being played.

 
Dickies said:
These quotes don't support your premise.
Click to expand...

What GOP and conservatives and Trump is asking for on border security and the why's behind it is what Democrats said for years.

Why wasn't it wrong and offensive when Democrats supported it? It wasn't - its only wrong and offensive now because its Trump - these core problems still exist and still need addressed.

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
The wall is a political football. Its political manipulation, period. If you've bought into either extreme end of the rhetoric, you have to realize you are being played.
Click to expand...
this is true - Democrats have to stop border security to appease their latino voters and the far left liberals

Republicans need to get border security passed and results to appease their conservative voters who saw that as a core 2016 platform promise

again, funny thing is 8-10 years ago back to Clinton there was tough talk from Democrats on border security, illegals, how badly we needed to stop illegals

 
Banger said:
They just had a signed deal that Trump agreed to YESTERDAY and then he backed down when right wing media was really, really mean to him.  then Trump waffled and here we are.  Over the summer they had a deal for a $25 bill wall but it included DACA but the freedom caucus sunk it.  Trump doesn't even know what he wants...he changes from minute to minute.  Why would or should the dems cave anyway?  what do they get?  why should they reward a volatile moron that changes his strategy based on what he saw on TV within the last half hour....
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's difficult because Fox & Friends is only on once a day, so if anything changes during the afternoon he needs to wait until the next morning to find out what he wants.

 
Stealthycat said:
What GOP and conservatives and Trump is asking for on border security and the why's behind it is what Democrats said for years.

Why wasn't it wrong and offensive when Democrats supported it? It wasn't - its only wrong and offensive now because its Trump - these core problems still exist and still need addressed.
Click to expand...
1. Some people did find it wrong and offensive; and

2. Because it wasn't the same thing that's currently being discussed.

Let me explain:

I bought a car this past summer.  It's nice, but it's older - 11 year old BMW that was owned by a family member.  Lots of reasons, but those aren't important.  I told my wife I wanted to get it, and she supported that decision, I paid cash, and it's mine.  No note, no loan, paid less than it's really worth (which isn't a lot because it's 11 years old) and it's really comfortable and nice.

If, instead, I had said to my wife "I'm going to go buy a brand new BMW 525xi and get a car loan" that would have been a very different discussion.  She would not have supported that. Even if I didn't then use it to run over Mexicans and South and Central Americans.

 
butcher boy said:
A wall is for the American people though, by protecting our borders.  I know you and I fundamentally disagree on that point though.  That's fine.  
Click to expand...
ANYONE still in support of this administration is a traitor in my view.  I won't forget it either.

Also, republicans NEVER get to complain about anything ever again!

 
TobiasFunke said:
It's absolutely false. The board was close to 50/50 until Trump, maybe 60/40 left-leaning at most. Anyone who was here and active in political threads back then will tell you.
Click to expand...
What on earth made you think they were talking about percentages in the past?

 
Henry Ford said:
1. Some people did find it wrong and offensive; and

2. Because it wasn't the same thing that's currently being discussed.

Let me explain:

I bought a car this past summer.  It's nice, but it's older - 11 year old BMW that was owned by a family member.  Lots of reasons, but those aren't important.  I told my wife I wanted to get it, and she supported that decision, I paid cash, and it's mine.  No note, no loan, paid less than it's really worth (which isn't a lot because it's 11 years old) and it's really comfortable and nice.

If, instead, I had said to my wife "I'm going to go buy a brand new BMW 525xi and get a car loan" that would have been a very different discussion.  She would not have supported that. Even if I didn't then use it to run over Mexicans and South and Central Americans.
Click to expand...


maybe you're right, maybe Trump eases back on 5 billion from a wall and the Democrats agree to 10 billion on fencing them ... compromise :)

bottom line the problems with drugs, illegals, human trafficking and a porous border has NOT changed since the Democrats campaigned on it ......... what has changed is they now cater to open borders and gave up on border security

 
butcher boy said:
Terrible analogy.  A better one would be if you and I went out to dinner and you paid the bill and then I said "hey, I really like your jacket, here's $50 for it, even though its only worth $20."  You could say I indirectly paid for the dinner as well.  
Click to expand...
The analogy falls apart unless he's a 42 short and you're a 49 long so that the jacket is worthless to you.

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe you're right, maybe Trump eases back on 5 billion from a wall and the Democrats agree to 10 billion on fencing them ... compromise :)

bottom line the problems with drugs, illegals, human trafficking and a porous border has NOT changed since the Democrats campaigned on it ......... what has changed is they now cater to open borders and gave up on border security
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the concept of backing off.

 
timschochet said:
 lol. Either you’re being trolled by somebody you’re reading or listening to, or you’re trolling us. There is no other option. 

You’re also wrong about the motivations of the Democrats. This is not about stopping Trump. It’s about the wall being an awful idea. 
Click to expand...
if not a wall  then how do the Democrats propose we stop hundreds of thousands of people from crossing the southern border, how do we stop the human trafficking and the drug trafficking etc ?

 
JohnnyU said:
Sounds like the nuclear option to get funding is very real.  To be honest, it's only $5B and in the whole scheme of things isn't a whole lot.  The Democrats are only interested in stopping Trump, even at the expense of border security.  I hear all this talk about the ineffectiveness of a wall, but it helps.  It doesn't solve everything, but it helps.  It's just that the Democrats only care about stopping Trump at any cost.  

Mitch may play the nuke card for sure.
Click to expand...




This didn't age well

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe you're right, maybe Trump eases back on 5 billion from a wall and the Democrats agree to 10 billion on fencing them ... compromise :)

bottom line the problems with drugs, illegals, human trafficking and a porous border has NOT changed since the Democrats campaigned on it ......... what has changed is they now cater to open borders and gave up on border security
Click to expand...
You mean the downpayment or the $21B total price tag plus yearly $150M maintenance?  Conservative as those estimates may be.

 
Henry Ford said:
I don't think you understand the concept of backing off.
Click to expand...
maybe you don't understand the concept of making a stand and digging in ?

compromise - Trump and the GOP gives Democrats something, the the Democrats give wall funding,  they pass it, Govt isn't shut down

win win

Democrats could give something else - but I don't think Trump will want anything else. What he has to give ... I'm not sure, but that's for them to haggle about.

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe you don't understand the concept of making a stand and digging in ?

compromise - Trump and the GOP gives Democrats something, the the Democrats give wall funding,  they pass it, Govt isn't shut down

win win

Democrats could give something else - but I don't think Trump will want anything else. What he has to give ... I'm not sure, but that's for them to haggle about.
Click to expand...
I do understand.  Which is why I wouldn't call changing from a $5b ask to a $10b ask "backing off."  Which is what you called it. 

 
Amused to Death said:
You mean the downpayment or the $21B total price tag plus yearly $150M maintenance?  Conservative as those estimates may be.
Click to expand...
sure, that's very possible that more is asking for in the future - that's how Govt works right ?

but in the future they can haggle over that as well - right now what's being asked for is the hold up

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe you don't understand the concept of making a stand and digging in ?

compromise - Trump and the GOP gives Democrats something, the the Democrats give wall funding,  they pass it, Govt isn't shut down

win win

Democrats could give something else - but I don't think Trump will want anything else. What he has to give ... I'm not sure, but that's for them to haggle about.
Click to expand...
Kinda like if the Dems offered full funding in exchange for DACA protections?  That kind of compromise?

 
Henry Ford said:
I do understand.  Which is why I wouldn't call changing from a $5b ask to a $10b ask "backing off."  Which is what you called it. 
Click to expand...
maybe Trump asks for 20B tomorrow and the 5 yesterday is looking pretty good :)

Trump wins, Trump most often gets what Trump wants some way, some how

90% now I think he'll get this funding

 
Stealthycat said:
What GOP and conservatives and Trump is asking for on border security and the why's behind it is what Democrats said for years.

Why wasn't it wrong and offensive when Democrats supported it? It wasn't - its only wrong and offensive now because its Trump - these core problems still exist and still need addressed. 
Click to expand...
Other than the "offensive" part  (few people consider it offensive) this is a good question. Lemme take a crack at it:

1. The Secure Fence Act was in 2006, amended in '07. That's a lifetime ago in terms of social justice. For example the GOP had just run a successful 2004 campaign that centered around activating their base and rallying centrists behind state ballot initiatives declaring that marriage was only between a man and a woman. How do you think that strategy would fly today?

2. Part of what Dems and other reasonable people object to with the wall is that it's just a stupid and impractical idea. The 2006 Act acknowledged and addressed this. From the Wikipedia entry on the '07 Amendment:

The original 2006 act provided for "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" to be built. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) successfully argued to Congress "that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense." An amendment introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, was passed, amending the law to read: "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."
Click to expand...
Now we're talking about a wall, which is even less practical than two layers of reinforced fencing.

3. You can't view "the wall" in isolation. It's being proposed as we roll back asylum admissions and other humane immigration policies, and after we've seen the Trump administration act with cruelty in stuff like the family separation policy. If somehow this thing actually got built, we can't possibly trust the administration to deal with the ensuing crisis of desperate immigrants crowding choke points and trying to breach the wall in a decent and humane way.

I'm sure there's more differences but those are the first three that come to mind for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do You Believe Current Democrats Have A "Messaging" Problem? (4/26/22 23:29 PST)
2
Replies
96
Views
2K
dickey moe
dickey moe
GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
807
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top