Slashdot Mirror


US Geological Survey Unable To Provide Indonesia Tsunami Data Due To Government Shutdown (huffingtonpost.com.au)

An underwater landslide caused by activity from the Anak Krakatau volcano is being blamed for a tsunami that struck Indonesia late Saturday, killing at least 222 people and injuring more than 800 others. Normally, the U.S. Geological Survey would report on such events and provide any necessary data it had to the public. But it can't due to America's partial government shutdown, which began Saturday after President Donald Trump refused to sign legislation that didn't include funding for his southern border wall. From a report: The USGS website is dormant as of Sunday, except for a notice at the top. "Due to a lapse in appropriations, the majority of USGS websites may not be up to date and may not reflect current conditions," the note reads. "Websites displaying real-time data, such as Earthquake and Water and information needed for public health and safety will be updated with limited support." According to the government shutdown contingency plan, the USGS will retain just 75 of its estimated 8,032 employees, or 0.9 percent. "The USGS will suspend the majority of its activities with the exception of those functions to protect life and property," the plan states. The document also claims that 450 employees will be "on call" for natural disasters, but it's unclear if that process has been enacted, as the USGS website says the agency is not "able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted."

370 comments

  1. Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a shame that this far right tantrum us wasting money and will keep government employees from being paid on time. Furloughed workers will get back pay for them not to work during the shutdown. The shutdown will probably extend into January, and employees who are working will have their paycheck delayed. Meanwhile, many very useful but non-essential services aren't being provided at all. Shame on the far right.

    1. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, they didn't agree. And your guy already admitted that he would be proud to shut it all down. He must be proud now! Why aren't you?

      He is throwing a fit because the Republicans didn't give him what he wanted while they were in power. Pulling out of Syria is him hitting back at them for it.

    2. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange in chief is responsible for this mess. But hey keep sucking that orange dick while he fucks us all over.

    3. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were never intending to pay for anything - they skate by on their employees dime

    4. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh too bad. Boo hoo

    5. Re: Far right tantrum by iNaya · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      You're busy calling people "worthless sack[s] of shit", but you don't even care about the atrocities that your country causes in the name of "democracy" and "human rights". Maybe it's because you think that Arabs deserve to die.

      Maybe you should stop calling people sacks of shit, and realise that everyone has a right to live, and that America should stop denying that right just because people have the wrong sort of democracy.

      Or maybe you could live in your fool's paradise where everything is ruled by liberals, and the evil right wingers are all gassed to death. All several hundred million of them.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    6. Re: Far right tantrum by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should stop calling people sacks of shit, and realise that everyone has a right to live, and that America should stop denying that right just because people have the wrong sort of democracy.

      IKR? Shoulda left those poor Nazis alone. They didn't deserve to die for having the wrong sort of democracy.

      Maybe next year you should ask Santa for a new brain.

    7. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SEE YOU IN PRISON TRUMP FAGGOT. Get the fuck out of here before we string you up.

    8. Re: Far right tantrum by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pulling out of Syria is him hitting back at them for it.

      DNC vs. GOP issues aside, people have been saying for decades they wish the US would just GTFO of the affairs of other countries and stop interfering. The world is going to be a much better place as a result - if they're correct. Regardless of the reasons behind the decision, at least with Trump's insular approach we're going to get some idea of how valid that position is over the next few years, right? Well, assuming that the more likely scenario of either the Russians (Syria and the rest of the Middle East) or Chinese (Far East) moving in to fill the vacuum and providing a same shit, different day result.

      Of course, if you're actually on the ground in Syria and on the "wrong side" of those that now hold the advantage in terms of power and equipment, the short term outlook isn't looking too good. Consider what happened when the Viet Cong swept south following the US withdrawal from Viet Nam, for instance - the Kurds need allies *fast* to protect themselves from Turkey, and where do you suppose they might turn for that support?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    9. Re: Far right tantrum by gtall · · Score: 1, Troll

      Pulling out of Syria isn't What's-His-Name hitting back at them. It was done merely because he needed a headline with his name plastered on it that didn't involve criminal behavior. The fact that Erogan (the Whore) smoked him is beside the point, as is screwing over the Kurds (they'll never trust the U.S. again). Giving Iran a Christmas present never entered into his "thought". All the bluster over Iran was because Obama had an agreement with Iran that had Obama's name on it. It goes not further than, if he were any shallower, he'd owe the Earth a layer of topsoil.

      You can see how myopic he is from what Mattis said but also he didn't really get upset at Mattis' letter. He probably needed someone to read it to him. He only got pissy when he saw the Press that was lauding Mattis and pointing to how Mattis was considered the adult in the playpen.

      Similar to that is his pissy mood at the Fed over the Market. It doesn't have anything to do with the Fed, they were just a convenient punching bag to deflect attention to his own incompetence. That and he doesn't appreciate the Market decreasing his alleged wealth. Anyone with his alleged wealth doesn't act like such a grifter. He has an entire family of grifters, one less since his dad went all stiff and incommunicable.

    10. Re: Far right tantrum by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's turn the world over to the loving embrace of the Chinese and the Russians. After all, look at the wonders they are doing for Ukraine and the Uighars. We should ask the Chinese to give Tibet back to the Tibetens, and to stop leaning on Taiwan.

    11. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You post that as if it means something deep and revealing. It simply doesn't.

      The Trumpster on many occasions has made statements like this with no intention of carrying it through. In fact, he initially wasn't going to carry this one through until he got a lot of heat from some of his strongest supporters. What we have here is a politician who wasn't a politician until 2015 who said that border security is so important that he would shut the government down and be proud of it. On the other hand, we have another politician or groups of politicians who are saying border security isn't all that important so lets play political games with this non-politician. We also have mentally challenged people similar to yourself who agree and claim the impasse is all the fault of one person instead of the people refusing to allow a vote on the funding.

      Now here is the big problem that everyone else sees when they aren't rooting for one side or the other based on the politics rather than the underlying issues. No one has said how the border could be better secured for less money than what the president is proposing. Some claim that it can be done but offer less than the same evidence that has brought flying cars and space vacations to the masses. It is even worse than vaporware because there isn't even a stated attempt by the democrats holding up the funding because border security including a border wall (that they supported just a few years ago) was a campaign promise made by Trump. There is just a claim that it could be done differently in some magical way to the same magical effect while yelling it's all Trump's fault because he said he would take the blame while channeling his "The buck stops here" moment.

      In other words, nobody is seeing anyone involved as getting one up over the other and most people who are not cheer-leading one side or the other see the pettiness the democrats own by attempting to make this a political issue.

    12. Re: Far right tantrum by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's turn the world over to the loving embrace of the Chinese and the Russians.

      No the world, but the Middle East in particular. The place richly deserves it.

    13. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very rich coming from an Iranian propagandist. How many millions of people have your puppeteers murdered. Yemen is an Iranian offensive.

    14. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaahhh, he's throwing a tantrum...he's having a shit-fit...waaaaaahhh. JACKASS!

    15. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won the election and one of his promises was to build a wall.

      The people want a wall, so just build it already. What is 5 billion anyway when you print money out of thin air?

    16. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CO2 is a gas.

    17. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh too bad. Boo hoo

      https://www.google.com/search?...

    18. Re: Far right tantrum by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, actually, I am proud that he is prioritizing the safety and security of the American people over vague scientific interest in a problem that happens over and over half a world away.

    19. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP>_ Far right tantrum

      Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

      The USA elected Trump. It's easy to dismiss BS when you recognize it as such. But reading fake or manipulated news (by the Russians, Cuba or whatever) and believing them is an inalienable right. Many chose to believe the BS.

      Long ago, there was that US impetus to make the world a better place by financing the UN, for instance. There were some skewed initiatives like Marshall plans and the like which were good overall -- at least on a balance analysis.

      Some actions -- like e.g. NATO -- were not that beneficial to the world, but again can be said to be productive, given the whole picture.

      But the USA got tired -- tired of paying a lot and the world has yet to learn to love baseball. With all the money thrown into the improvements, the world still likes soccer better. Heck, the world didn't learn to use proper names -- like calling football soccer -- or proper all different units, like inches, feet, miles etc. The world seems fixated at using a single unit, the meter. How preposterous!

      We'd better find another place for the UN, probably reasonably secure -- either on Europe or perhaps even in orbit.

      This is a sarcastic comment, obviously, but the thanks part is authentic. Also the perception that the USA got tired -- as this MAGA campaign attests. And while it's obvious that China and Russia must improve, that is also valid for the USA -- and MAGA is the part of the problem. It's proof that the USA has quit making the world great and turned to a less ambitious plan: make America great. That probably is a consequence of a relative power loss.

      Thanks for all the fish, US.

    20. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am confused how this is a far right tantrum... The proposed amount is less then 0.1% of the annual budget, less then the amount the feds provided to the California high speed rail that's over budget and may be discontinued by the state, and not even half the amount contributed to Boston's big dig... Yet a large portion of the us attended rallies and were energized around strong border security....

      If your worried about the cost & I am then perhaps we should compare it to the 10s to hundreds of billions we spend per year on undocumented immigrants. (Cost highly debated but even most liberal outlets seem to acknowledge 10s)... These numbers do not include things like increased car insurance due to uninsured motorist. My mom was hit by undocumented uninsured motorist 3x in 1 year...

      Then we can go to the actual article... First, USGS warning system is considered essential and running. The other data is not essential and I have no idea how that would help clean up. If it is helpful then perhaps countries like Indonesia could help fund the resources they are using...

      I for one am proud Trump stuck to his guns and it doesn't matter if it's about the wall but rather that he is willing to fight for what he promised. If more positions took real positions and fought for them the US would be better off...

      Now if only our votors and news didn't have the attenions span of 140 characters

    21. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it about modern liberals that causes them to mistake sarcasm for thinking?

    22. Re:Far right tantrum by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton - all supported a wall back in 2006. What's changed since then? Their own political fortunes. Not a whole lot else...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after President Donald Trump refused to sign legislation

      He can't sign anything until it's sent to him. Despite bipartisan passage in the House, the Senate Democrats shut down the funding bill.

    24. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRUMP IS RACist and MURDERING thousands of indonedians, SICKENING

    25. Re: Far right tantrum by Chas · · Score: 1

      Ah, the brave and understanding Left!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    26. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Impeach today.

      -msmash

    27. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 2

      The wall offers no security, and you know that perfectly well.

      What it offers is environmental devastation and financial ruin for America. You proud of that?

      This isn't scientific intetest, this is getting rescuers to the right plave. This is saving lives and improving world stability.

      You prefer Americans to die in wars? And dare to call that security?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    28. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit your are a retard. The only thing he asked for was less than 0.0012 if the Federal budget (5 billion in 4.4 trillion). He was willing to cut that down to a third of his original request, to 1.6 billion, or less than 1/2000 of the Federal budget - that's his only request this cycle). Last cycle he have both sides everything they wanted. He has been MORE than fair. There is a federal law that is 9 years old (10 now?) that requires the law be built, passed by both sides in both changes of Congress. There was a pole just a month and a half ago showing 80% of the US population thought that we needed "more money for border security" (by the way moron, walls are a great component in security, then tend to do things like keep all your stuff from getting stollen when you leave for work, along with doors, windows, locks, cameras, fences, someone keeping an eye on things for you, police, ICE agents, and a whole bunch of other parameters while you are out sucking some donkeys cock at your buddies petting zoo), and 81% of the surveyed US population felt that there is a moderate to serious proplem with *illegal* immigration (I highlight that because apparently only 62% of you dumb-fuck liberals know what illegal means in the context of immigration (fuck, most of you dumb fucks don't seem to know what illegal means in the context of most things, the record of liberals making laws and then not following them is ridiculous, even in my own family, seriously, it's pretty much linear, the more liberal the member of my family is, the more apt they are to try and get around laws). I know you won't/can't understand the wires in about to say but I'll try anyway I'm the hopes that one day it might click in your little brain: most conservatives SUPPORT *LEGAL* IMMIGRATION. Fuck, a large chunk of us support expanding legal immigration and streamlining the process some. I want it even worse: I want to force people who are here on long term work visas to make the choice to become US citizens or go back home. I've known lots of foriegners in my work life who were here for 10 or even 20 years on work visas and didn't opt to become citizens, then later left. That's bullshit, if you are going to come here for that long then by year 3 you need to be enrolled in a program to become acitizen and then by year 6/7 or so you need to be one. So why all that rambling? To show you that it's possible to be very very staunchly AGAINST illegal-immigration but still like immigrants and want legal-immigration. Legal and illegal immigration are vastly different things, so vat that one is quite positive for America, while the other is vastly across the net-zero mark and is very negative for America and her citizens (which includes me, my wife, my children, my family (yes, even the liberal ones, I still love them even though I think my dogs often make better life choices), and a great many friends and coworkers. Just because I know you are a retarded liberal, let me be clear, the negative one of those is the illegal-immigration.

      So, what was all that about? This: The real reason that Congress isn't funding 'the wall' is not because it isn't a good idea, or even because a majority of their continents on BOTH sides don't support it; it's a*little* because a lot of THEM don't like it (yeah, even some of the conservative Reps and Sens even though their constituency polls at better than 94% in favor (for anyone who has been paying attention, yeah, that would imply that the 62% number from above should really be closer to 68% who understand) of some sort of wall/fence/barrier along the border where such structures are possible (yeah, fucking liberals constantly push this pussy-ass-retarded argument that "you can't build a well along the whole southern border because there is a river and, um, 'things!', down there that blocks a wall from being built and toy can't build a wall in a river, so conservatives are so stupid!"; well, liberals are so retarded, and anyone who says the river is a problem needs to be slapped upside the head a couple tim

    29. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 1

      None of the Republicans in the Senate agree with you. The Senate Leader, an avid Republican, has declared this a tantrum by the far right.

      Are you going to accuse the Republicans of being closet Democrats? Or will you accept that the Senate - NOT the Democrats - refused this.

      A REPUBLICAN Senate.

      Trump is not God. A pity, God is fictional.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    30. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Snark for humor...

    31. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 1

      The Democrats didn't cause this. How could they? They control none of the houses nor the presidency.

      Trump said he'd cause a shutdown and stated he would own it.

      If you think him so good, then accept his word. If you reject his word, what worth is he?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    32. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anyone understand retarded traitors like yourself? NO QUARTER, NAZI SCUM WILL HANG.

    33. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a proven fact (with numbers) - no longer debatable, that mass immigration of sick, indigent, and poor are a net drain on any nation providing their welfare.

      I want the men to turn around a overthrow their government for allowing their plight to occur. Their welfare is none of our concern. Only THEY can solve this!

    34. Re: Far right tantrum by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, I am proud that he is prioritizing the safety and security of the American people

      One day when they actually do anything about the safety and security of American people you should be proud. Right now you should be angry at the theater they are putting on in the name of "security" and wasting a metric fuckton of money in the process.

      Mind you if you think this is actually security then I have a wall to sell you.

    35. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lay off the crack pipe, Tucker.

    36. Re:Far right tantrum by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but I don't remember them promising that Mexico would pay for it -- with a net zero cost to American taxpayers.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    37. Re: Far right tantrum by jmoen · · Score: 1

      Depends on the temperature

    38. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's patently false. Currently, the HOUSE is republican and the house has already approved a border wall funding bill. The senate is NOT currently controlled by republicans and that is why we have the shutdown.

      This past election, the senate was set to BECOME controlled by the republicans, while the house will become democrat controlled. These changes don't take affect until after the new year.

      Trump waited until now to shutdown the gov't over border wall funding because now he's got the house's approval from the lame duck republicans and he will likely have senate approval from the incoming new republicans. He just has to let this issue span the divide in time and he's got his border wall!

      The lame duck democrats in the senate are the ones throwing a temper tantrum. They know they can't stop Trump, yet they shutdown the gov't anyway.

    39. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol what ignorance

    40. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 2

      Their lack of welfareis why you've border problems. That makes it your concern.

      And, no, it hasn't been proven.

      What has been proven is that private healthcare and health insurance js a net drain on a nation's economy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    41. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 1

      The house rejected Trump's minimum and went with a smaller amount.

      Trump has now stated he, and he alone, will continue the shutdown until he gets everything he wants.

      That's Trump's choice. Maybe it's his right, toi, but don't go blaming his choice on anyone else.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    42. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that one anonymous poster speaks for over 3.5 billion people - well over, now that Americans consider Reagan a socialist - is impressive.

      Especially as you've no evidence they're even leftwing. A term you are unlikely to be able to define, because it's not actually defined.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    43. Re: Far right tantrum by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      The wall offers no security, and you know that perfectly well.

      What it offers is environmental devastation and financial ruin for America.

      Oh bullshit. It's a component. A locked door doesn't do shit if it's not attached to a wall. The wall has to be a minor component in a multi-layered approach, but it does need to be there. We cannot stop the FLOOD of fuckers pouring in to this country. If estimates are correct, as many as 10% of the people in this country are here illegally.

      But saying the wall has no place because it, alone, won't stop all the illegals is just as retarded as saying the wall will work all by itself.

      Financial ruin.. Yeah, okay.... The F-35 program has cost a trillion dollars. That's financial ruin, you asshole. Healthcare is what is going to ruin us. We either decide we're okay with tax rates up to 90% on the high side and around 50% for the regular joes, or we give up on this "we can take care of everyone" bullshit of a fucking lie.

      As it stands right now, the left wants to bankrupt us with healthcare and the right wants to bankrupt us with military spending. Either way, we will be bankrupt eventually.

    44. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutting down part of the government over a matter of 5 billion dollars is not principles to be valued and admired. This is like refusing to buy toilet paper and toothpaste because you and your spouse had a disagreement over how many stamps to buy last time you went to the grocery store. That is to say, it's bloody stupid and it's not a battle worth fighting.

    45. Re: Far right tantrum by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      Holy shit your are a retard.

      It is considered bad form to call someone a retard and in the very same sentence misspell the word YOU'RE. I shall call you a cunt and spell it properly.

      Cunt

    46. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      51 republicans to 49 is not controlled by the republicans?

    47. Re: Far right tantrum by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      This shit right here.

      People are Dead because the U.S. Democrats are forcing their agenda. Criminal charges of manslaughter need to be filed against these members of the DNC.

      What the actual fuck? We are under no obligation to give information to any other country. We do it when we can, but we DO NOT OWE INDONESIA ANYTHING.

    48. Re: Far right tantrum by jd · · Score: 1

      Trump has issued a fresh statement that he, and not the Democrats, caused the shutdiwn and wull continue the shutdown until he gets his way.

      Are you accusing Trump of being a liar?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    49. Re: Far right tantrum by uncqual · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the filibuster.

      Although since that was eliminated for most nominees by the Democrats when they had the majority and then, predictably, eliminated even for Supreme Court nominees by Republicans, I don't imagine the legislative filibuster is long for this world.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    50. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that the Republicans currently control both the House and Senate, right? How is it the fault of the Democrats if every Republican voting for the wall could bypass any Democrat objections? Please be specific.

    51. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he's forgetting the RINOs. Some of those 51 "republicans" aren't really republican at all, only republican in name. If the republicans really had control of the Senate, there would be no gov't shut down -- the border wall would have passed with ease.

    52. Re: Far right tantrum by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please tell how it is the fault of the Democrats when the Republican controls the majority in both houses of Congress?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    53. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The house rejected Trump's minimum and went with a smaller amount.

      Yet ANOTHER patently false statement. The House passed a $5.7B funding for border wall budget.

    54. Re: Far right tantrum by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      They never supported a 2,000 mile wall that would cost billions to build much less maintain. But keep on with your strawmanning.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    55. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because GOP doesn't have a supermajority in the Senate, duh. Filibusters? Man lefties are dumb. Go back to school and learn some basic civics.

    56. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lefty tantrums are exciting!

    57. Re: Far right tantrum by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Bahahaha. You do realize that the Republicans changed the rules so that a majority (which the Republicans have) can end any filibuster. But please go on with your lies.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    58. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your locked door needs a wall metaphor fails the same way the actual wall would if built. Four walls and no roof means you can get in with a ladder, or an easy to carry rope.

      Shit, at least Bif Tannen could run a casino.

    59. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may notice these anti Dem attacks are mostly drivebys. Foreign trolls stirring up discontent. They do the same, imitating Dem straw men too, to rile up actual citizens.

      In hindsight the Russians may have thought they were helping get Bif Tannen elected. Bif Tannen, the President of the bad 2015 future timeline in Back to the Future, would have been a better President.
      #AtLeastBifTannenCouldRunACasino

    60. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it was a result of the idiot right being unable to figure out if it is bring sarcastic, lying, or merely wrong.

    61. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, incorrect. Many different analysis show that these folks provide economic benefit.

    62. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump had two years to build a wall. He spent 200x as much on tax cuts for the richest 1% instead. During the next election, people voted for Dems (and Repubs) who opposed the wall.

      So no wall.

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

    63. Re:Far right tantrum by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yep, they were willing to pay for it out of their own pockets. I guess now they won't support it because the President wants someone else to pay for it?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    64. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling people dumb while being factually incorrect about the rules of Congress.

      Just what I'd expect from someone calling anyone a "leftie".

    65. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a joke.
      Dedication to our job!
      The best of the best, going above and beyond!
      Government workers test as being more capable and with higher education than the general public!
      Having said all that, they canâ(TM)t update a website because of a shutdown which in reality is a deferred, paid holiday by workers who work less than the general public, have to kill someone to get fired and get better benefits than the general public.
      It seems like it is hard to actually find some sort of drawback to a government shutdown so, we hear about websites not being updated by people who are the best of the best of the best.
      Inspiring work ethic.
      That and, you know there are a bunch of barely functional supervisors who act like robotic button pushers that will ding an employee that actually did try to update the website.
      Even though, when this is all said and done, they will get paid back wages for the time that they were told not to work.

    66. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel has a wall that works.
      But, yeah just let everyone in from those barely functioning cartels - I mean South American countries.

    67. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no not those dirty rotten ONE PERCENT! I hate those guys!

    68. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, stop leaning on Taiwan? It belongs to them, allways did. USA occupied it after WW2 in order to isolate China, because they dared to have a revolution and kick your crony capitalists out.

      But ofc, you won't read that in NYT. :)

    69. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have a problem with Mexican suicide bombers. Why do we need this again?

    70. Re: Far right tantrum by myid · · Score: 1

      They never supported a 2,000 mile wall that would cost billions to build much less maintain. But keep on with your strawmanning.

      According to Wikipedia,

      Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time.

      Why wasn't the fence built? According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

      The U.S. Department of Homeland Security canceled Boeing's border fence program Friday [January 14, 2011], putting an end to a five-year-long project long plagued by delays and technical problems.
      . . .
      It was originally envisioned to stretch the 1,969-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico but initial phases of the $1 billion project took longer than anticipated to complete and covered just a small portion, 53 miles, since the project began.

      This web page lists everyone who voted for the "Secure Fence Act of 2006. Notice that the "Yea" votes include "Biden, Joseph", "Clinton, Hillary", "Obama, Barack", and "Schumer, Chuck".

    71. Re: Far right tantrum by Chas · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that one anonymous poster speaks for over 3.5 billion people.

      Hence my comment about "brave"

      Especially as you've no evidence they're even leftwing.

      Are you serious?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    72. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, wasnâ(TM)t aware of the ongoing Democrat filibuster... Oh, odd, I just checked and there isnâ(TM)t one. Gee, maybe the Republicans just donâ(TM)t have the votes from their own party.

    73. Re: Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-one except sycophants wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a pointless Trump campaign ad. Pretending this is just âoeborder securityâ is just fatuous and, frankly, disingenuous. Money has been approved for border security, including fencing repair and upgrades. Money will continue to be spent on border security. Money wonâ(TM)t be spent on Trumps ridiculous vanity âoewallâ project, no matter how far he moves the goal posts. Clearly, right now, heâ(TM)s trying to move the goalposts to the point where heâ(TM)s redefined the big, beautiful wall, spanning the entire border, to mean the regular fence upgrades and repairs that everyone already agrees on so that he can claim victory. Just like with NAFTA, where he negotiated some tiny changes in terms, and gave it a new name, and thinks he can claim that heâ(TM)s fulfilled his promise to destroy NAFTA and replace it with some spectacular new agreement. Trump is a fool. Donâ(TM)t make yourself a fool by believing him.

    74. Re:Far right tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build the wall you commie scum bag

    75. Re:Far right tantrum by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I really don't think you understand how this works.. We ran out of money.. I don't know how it's "wasting money" to NOT spend money we DO NOT have, but.. okay..

      The shutdown is what happens when there is no agreement on BORROWING more money. So, a giant fuck you to you for not giving a shit that we don't have money and instead insisting that it's some how more moral to spend money we don't have than to not spend money we don't have.

    76. Re: Far right tantrum by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      So, telling the government you aren't going to give them what they don't have (money) because you didn't get your way is less moral than the left demanding they get to spend money they don't have (need to borrow) in a way that Trump disagrees with?

      By the way, asshole, even though Trump "owned" it, it's not really up to him. You lefties love to forget that Congress can override his ass with a 2/3 vote. So really Trump is a speed bump at worst. He can veto a bill, but not if 2/3 of Congress decides they are going to do it anyway. If Congress really wants to spend the money as they see fit, they don't need Trump's concurrence.

  2. Oh dear, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're terrible. Pack it up. We all gonna die.

  3. Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    During Gov shutdowns the departments still get their funding and everyone is salaried anyway. We all took it as an excellent excuse to not go into work and still get paid.

    This happened several times over the last two administrations. New boss is same as the old boss and some extra paid time off has always been welcomed.

    1. Re: Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's worse than paying Federal employees to do a shit job? Paying them to do nothing. Historically, the Republican Party is all too happy to pay for stuff and get nothing for it.

    2. Re: Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically both parties have done this, it isn't new, and the public hasn't given a shit every time.
      The real danger of a shutdown is the public realising that the government normally spends a lot of money doing not much.

    3. Re:Manufactured Alarmism by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      During Gov shutdowns the departments still get their funding

      Actually the shutdown is precisely because departments don't get their funding.

      and everyone is salaried anyway.

      No. In fact a good portion of the government is on an hourly rate. This includes all those poor service people the republicans like to shit on who clean their toilets and serve them food at the cafeteria. The people in most need of money do not get paid at all.

      We all took it as an excellent excuse to not go into work and still get paid.

      By "we" I assume you're a US government employee, well congrats you're a dick. While you're off on your paid vacation people depending on your services had problems, once again disproportionately affecting the poor who didn't get welfare payments or other government services which are relied on.

      This happened several times over the last two administrations.

      We had a world war last century, so we should just have another because it's all cool. Something happened in the past so there's no reason to change or try and prevent it in the future right?

      and some extra paid time off has always been welcomed.

      Fuck you.

    4. Re:Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignorant. Life goes on and services still rendered during government shutdowns. Some department heads asking for a greater budget intentionally impact publicly facing actions to make it appear as if they need more money. It's a way to make useful idiots like you mouth off and put pressure on so we can get more perks and that guy's nephew can be hired as a consultant.

      This is department politics 101 buddy. Get your head in the game.

    5. Re: Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have a counter argument, or even a counter point?

      Your post is wah wah bitch bitch wah wah.

      What are you suggesting the federal workers who Trump's shutdown furloughed do?
      1) Break the law by breaking into their offices and try to work anyway?
      2) Talk about the stupidity of the Trump shutdown

      Of those two choices, seems like wisely GP's picked #2.

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

    6. Re:Manufactured Alarmism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, I love posts like this. You're angry and posting about shit that you literally don't know 1 thing about. I suspect the person you're replying to is a government employee. I speak as a contractor who works with government employees. Last time we had a shutdown, they didn't come in to work during the shutdown, but were still paid. Yes, this includes the hourly ones. Literally everyone was paid for the hours they would have worked had there not been a shutdown. Now, this wasn't a guarantee, but no politician would let the people go unpaid as that would be political suicide. One guy said he felt kind of guilty because he basically got a couple of extra days of paid vacation, but most did not feel that guilt. They said "hey, it wasn't my choice!".

      This shutdown, well, supposedly there are people who aren't going to work, but none of the government employees I work with can actually name them. Seriously, nobody can name anybody who is not working. Like, okay, most of the guys I normally work with aren't here this week, but that's because they're taking vacation hours, as they normally would be.

      I know you're going off on what you believe to be true and what CNN is telling you, but those of us who are actually involved, well, we've got a very different view than what CNN has told you to think. Go ahead, mod me down like the parent, but it doesn't change the reality.

    7. Re:Manufactured Alarmism by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I know a bunch of Gov employees that had to work through the last shutdown. During the shutdown they were paid normally. Afterwards though they were forced to take one unpaid day off per pay period until they had missed the appropriate number of days, and corresponding pay.

      There are literally thousands of government agencies and each has their own quirks of doing business which means they are affected differently during shutdowns.

  4. Trump would gladly sign legislation by melted · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trump would gladly sign legislation if Senate democrats cared one whit about border security. For some inexplicable reason they've done a full 180 on it over the past decade (Obama, Hillary and Biden all voted for a border fence) and now they propose to have no Southern border at all because "who's gonna pick my cotton" reasons. I get why they are doing this. Once legalized, illegals overwhelmingly vote Dem. There are some 15 million of them in the country already, and margins are razor thin in a lot of cases, so legalizing even a substantial fraction of illegals means permanent voting majority. But as a US citizen and taxpayer, I abhor this logic, and will do everything I can so they can't pull it off. This is bullshit, pure and simple. I demand a protected Southern border, now.

    1. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Schumer offered Trump 25 billion dollars for the wall in exchange for DACA. They shook hands and agreed. Then Trump went back on his word and fussed about family reunification and the diversity visa lottery. CBP doesn't even want a wall in most places. This is the work of a few crybabies on the far right who walked away from a good deal and now want to appease the base. Grow up, snowflakes. You turned down money for the wall. This is your fault.

    2. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one Democrat who has actually said they want "open borders." Find me one who has actually used those words, even just one.

    3. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here you go. Nobodies stopping you from paying for it.

    4. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Democrats wanted a wall along the Southern border, they would have built one. They aren't weak and ineffectual like Trump and the Republicans.

    5. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Dude, even the Republicans don't want the wall. It's a waste of monies and has NOTHING to do with security. We have secure borders in war zones... without misslies & guns on a hair pin. They don't have walls.

      Anyway your boy wanted a Trump shutdown for the history books and he got it!

    6. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Trump wanted a nap and a shutdown.

    7. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by tsa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      An explicable reason may be that the illegal immigrants are necessary to keep the US running.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    8. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      If you want a protected southern border, then why would you waste money on a wall?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    9. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by meglon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Unfortunately lying little cunts like you have to make up strawmen arguments, then post articles that, while you think they prove you right, don't actually do that. you're as much of a lying useless cunt as melted is.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Conservatives are nothing more than nationalist fascists now days. Tell me, why is it you cunt fascists are all such lying sacks of shit? Did it start with your parents not teaching you about integrity?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    10. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2, Informative

      FAIL. None of your links point to an actual Democrat saying anything of the sort. Just more Republicunts like you claiming Democrats want an open border without actual quotes. Go kill yourself, you're too fucking stupid to live on this planet.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    11. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a lying sack of feces.
      It was Trump who offered Schumer DACA in exchange for funding for the southern border wall, and HE turned it down.

    12. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by meglon · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      You are a lying sack of shit.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    13. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      t's ridiculous that anyone would even possibly think of blaming Trump for it. There's no way you can blame the shutdown on Trump: this is yet another Schumer Shutdown. That they'd think we'd fall for it multiple times is beyond ridiculous.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv3lI7Qmxzw

      Fox reporter: Who’s getting fired? Who’s going to bear the brunt of the responsibility if indeed there is a shutdown of our government?

      Trump: Well if you say ‘who gets fired’, it always has to be the top. I mean, problems start from the top and have to get solved from the top. And the president’s the leader and he has to get everyone in a room and lead and he doesn’t do that. He doesn’t like doing that — that is not his strength. And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington too. It’s a very, very bad thing and it’s also embarrassing worldwide.

      When they talk about the government shutdown, they’re going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time. They’re not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who’s running things in Washington. So I really think the pressure is on the president.

    14. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As Trump himself has proven by hiring immigrants (legal and illegal) at his properties.

      I bet if INS did some raids on his hotels and clubs they would find more than a few illegals....

      Of course they are "illegals" only because some a couple hundred white guys decided this and put quotas on immigration in the 1960's and earlier. Immigrants are not to be feared...they do the jobs most of Trump's supporters would never even consider. I think it has been show most of the immigrants who are willing to risk the trip are the smarter ones of their nations....risk takers are what built America in the first place. That they don't look or speak like you gives you unfounded fear.

    15. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hang on. You must be kidding. Trump said 25 times he wanted a shutdown and now you are hanging it on the Democrats?

      With logic like that, some aspects of US voter behaviour become closer to some sort of explanation. This will help historians in years to come, for when they look back and try to make sense of the incomprehensible.

    16. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by KixWooder · · Score: 2

      I rock climb/cave and have a few hundred dollars of climbing gear and could scale any wall the government built with only a few minutes planning.

      --
      I hate fat people.
    17. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the philosophical landmark Red Dead Redemption once pointed out, US is slowly starting to move from the age of outlaws and gunslingers to be a land of laws. Trump's wall is really a minimal first step towards a resemblance of a normal border control, particularly when there are apparently no decent reception and processing centers for the recent immigrants, but cages and barbwire. The armed cartel men patrol the border at the other side to protect their business. Maybe US might want to have something to protect the laws and the rights on theirs.

    18. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you special? Lot's of "gear" and "stuff". Very hip and modern. I'm sure you drink the right kind of latte too with lots of soy milk.

    19. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      Do you even care that a wall won't actually be that effective at preventing most illegal immigration? Most illegal immigrants don't jump the Rio Grande, they come on legal visas and just overstay them. How is a wall going to prevent that?

      Aren't you interested in solutions that actually work? I think you like the idea of the Wall more than you actually care about illegal immigrants.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    20. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck in prison, Trump faggot nazi.

    21. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you deserve to have your head chopped right treasonous nazi faggot? We're going to hunt you nazi faggots down and murder your families.

    22. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Cute talking point. Have you tried thinking about it? Here, I'll walk you through it: what's the difference between a person who walks into your house and doesn't want to leave, vs a person who sneaks in while you're away?

    23. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walls are for dumb Trump faggots - in prison.

    24. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If it gets bad enough Trump will be fired. 2nd amendment at it's finest.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    25. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stats show that most of them enter the country legally and then overstay. A wall won't stop that.

    26. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nice of Trump to provide Mexicans with jobs in the local ladder factory.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      25 billion dollars could easily fix the problem. Fix the reasons why people are coming, and put systems in place for them to come legally and to support them and the communities they join. Make them an asset, a boost to the economy.

      25 billion dollars on a wall that isn't even going to work is a complete waste.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, cleaning up after the Great Recession caused by Bush should have taken, what, a few bil?

      Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much. Then the Republicans in Congress, passing the bill while shining their halos, declared that it will pay for itself through increase economic activity. How's that working for ya? Even at over 3% growth, it didn't do that. Now growth back down to 2.5 and likely to go lower. It is almost as though the tax cut never happened, except for those pesky deficits.

    29. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by gtall · · Score: 1

      To add to that, the Social Security Trust Fund is slowly being depleted due to lack of enough people paying into it. Nope, don't want none of those immigrants here.

      BTW: the Trust Fund is not a pile of money in a mattress somewhere. It is IOUs to...the Federal Government, i.e., you and I. Now that the Trust Fund is not really being added to, SS comes calling to the general fund for that dough. So that means yet higher deficits.

      And if you thought you didn't need to rely on SS, that you are being a good little boy or girl and have your own retirement in the stock market, it only takes one really stiff recession to evacuate the bowels of your retirement plan. Think of it as an economic cattle prod turned up to high.

    30. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those smugglers would never think to save their pennies and dig tunnels, or buy wall scaling equipment and install a few pulleys and ropes. Good thing they are stupid, eh?

    31. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you missed the point. Walls dont do shit .

    32. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      25 billion dollars on a wall that isn't even going to work is a complete waste

      ... unless you're in the construction business, in which case it's an opportunity.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

      An opportunity to employ some cheap migrant labour?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably would think of it. In fact, they already are doing it.

      So if the amount of resources or personnel you have is not busy watching for people walking across the border or climbing through existing broken barriers, how many of them can be redeployed to finding the tunnels? Do you see the point here? In case not, I will say it. It is easier to focus on what is in front of you when you do not have to constantly look behind yourself. It gets rid of a distraction and allows resources to be focused on the more organized players who can be more of a serious threat. It's like driving down the freeway, if everyone is in front of you, you do not need to check your mirrors to change lanes. If people are behind and beside you, you do. A lot of people don't bother checking their mirrors and a lot of those people get into accidents.

    35. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ". Tell me, why is it you cunt fascists are all such lying sacks of shit? Did it start with your parents not teaching you about integrity?"

      They taught them, all right. They taught them to say one thing while doing another. They learned it from religion, which despises while calling it love.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Until they become successful, just like everyone else. More importantly, the major farmers who want to keep the illegal insurgency going as their personal end run around the Thirteenth Amendment vote Dem. Call it Big Lettuce if you wish.

    37. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much...

      He's already at 2 trillion and counting.

    38. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Aren't you special? Lot's of "gear" and "stuff". Very hip and modern. I'm sure you drink the right kind of latte too with lots of soy milk.

      You want low tech? Even assuming the Trumps wall will be built coast to coast, 30 feet high with self targeting brown people seeking robot machine guns, the thing will be defeated by a bunch of Mexicans with shovel inside of a couple of months. The damn thing is a massively over expensive publicity stunt. Even the US border guard thinks that Trump's wall will be useless and that you can get better results for a fraction of the money with more guards, more training, better equipment, helicopters, vehicles, sensors drones, and surveillance satellites.

    39. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the illegal immigrants about 70% of them entered the US on a plane.

      The Trump wall is supposed to be somewhere around 30 feet tall if I understood correctly.
      Cruising altitude for a plane is about 35,000 feet.

      How exactly is the wall supposed to work?
      It isn't even supposed to be where the remaining 30% enters.

    40. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Hey, you! I told you to build it from *that* side!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    41. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many warzones you been to faggot? Ive been to several, and there were walls built around anything you need to protect.

    42. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      If they were willing to give Trump 25 billion for the wall in exchange for DACA, why aren't they making the same offer for 1/5 less?

    43. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're both wrong: Schumer offered $25 billion but then rescinded the offer because he caved to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which wouldn't support a wall. It turned out that he had made an offer that he would never be able to deliver, so he had to back out.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/schumer-pulls-back-offer-of-25-billion-for-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

      Trump could force Schumer back to negotiating the wall again by targeting DACA recipients for deportation. Deport, say, a thousand of them a day, and the Democrats will be back at the table quickly. DACA is the tip of the progressive wing's "open borders" spear: let them stay, and then they'll demand their parents and finally all illegals get to stay. Really, DACA recipients should always have been the first to be deported, but now is a chance to use that strategy to achieve negotiating leverage.

      Finally, the wall is helpful but not sufficient: we also need mandatory e-verify for all employment. Any insufficiencies in the rural labor force should be made up from the ever-growing numbers of the urban homeless and impoverished: reclaim the cities for decent people by sending the vagrants and bums into the countryside to pick crops; house them in rural villages and bus them out to the fields. Clean out the slums, the hoods, the section 8 housing, and put all the schizos, the "anything helps" freeloaders, and the drugged up ex-hippie scum to work.

    44. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those aren't the Mexicans like we were promised.

    45. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats (and some RINOs) complain just about every time people on mass are either detained or prevented from entering the US. Then there are the calls to abolish ICE. If ICE is abolished, who goes after people in the country who are there illegally? I haven't heard a Democrat propose an alternative. Democrats may not use the term "open borders", but they effectively support it.

    46. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the other thing... Some of the border is down the middle of rivers and other terrain where you can't build a wall. Obviously Mexico isn't going to have it on their side, so... The US will have to effectively cede that land.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you call the Conservatives "fascists" but you're the one who physically assaults people in the streets and hates Israel.

    48. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You meant to write that Schumer backed off after he got heat from the extreme left wing of his party, right? It wasn't Trump who backed off - it was Schumer. Or is PBS now a conservative mouthpiece of the Trump Administration?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    49. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    50. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A wall alone can't be.... but a wall with a good sized DMZ on one side of it, with absolutely anyone caught inside the DMZ and close enough to the wall shot on sight and left to die there might be. The weaponry to do this could even be automated, although you'd need tunnel access through the DMZ so that vehicles passing through authorized points of entry were not shot, of course.

    51. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Except walls work to control borders. For those overstaying their VISAs, that's what ICE is for. But there's a group who wants to disband ICE because they do exactly what their charter and the law requires of them - identify, arrest, and deport illegal immigrants.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    52. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Then you're all for expanding funding for ICE, right? That's the role of ICE - to identify, arrest, and deport those here illegally. So let's trade wall funding for a 10X increase in ICE budget and activity. Sound good?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    53. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Obama nearly doubled the national debt from $10.626T and $19.947T. Just sayin'.

      Obama for the first 3 years cleaned up Bush's mess and also suffered a huge recession where budget deficits almost doubled in nearly every country of the world. For the remainder of his presidency his spending was actually quite reasonable considering the USA was still actively fighting a war.

      No in comparison the Orangeutang managed managed to get the USA budget deficit to recession emergency levels at a time where the entire world is economically quite well off and most other countries' deficits are decreasing.

      But hey look over there, it's an Obama. *smoke bomb* *disappears*

    54. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by WhiplashII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, "my guy good, your guy bad"

      Perhaps neither one is a good role model? Please for the love of god do not put up Hillary, (any) Obama, or Bernie in 2020! Find a fiscal conservative, social liberal, moderate in both areas and get Trump out of the white house for all our sakes!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    55. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I rock climb/cave and have a few hundred dollars of climbing gear and could scale any wall the government built with only a few minutes planning.

      Yeah, that's totally indicative of the general population.. All of a bunch of rock climbers.. So if one person can defeat the wall.....

      Asshole.

    56. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by jpaine619 · · Score: 0

      They probably would think of it. In fact, they already are doing it.

      So if the amount of resources or personnel you have is not busy watching for people walking across the border or climbing through existing broken barriers, how many of them can be redeployed to finding the tunnels? Do you see the point here? In case not, I will say it. It is easier to focus on what is in front of you when you do not have to constantly look behind yourself. It gets rid of a distraction and allows resources to be focused on the more organized players who can be more of a serious threat. It's like driving down the freeway, if everyone is in front of you, you do not need to check your mirrors to change lanes. If people are behind and beside you, you do. A lot of people don't bother checking their mirrors and a lot of those people get into accidents.

      Well said. But when you argue with liberals, who can't understand the concept of a security system with components or layers, you're just wasting your time. They're far too busy worrying that we're gonna hurt the feelz of a bunch of border hoppers.

    57. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I'll take your word on the 70%, but you are a fucking liar if you claim that huge numbers aren't pouring in from across the border. I live near it.. It's been quiet for a few months, but it's winter.. It will pick back up. It's a steady stream during the warmer months..

      Fuck you for thinking that 30% isn't worth dealing with.

    58. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Do you even care that a wall won't actually be that effective at preventing most illegal immigration? Most illegal immigrants don't jump the Rio Grande, they come on legal visas and just overstay them. How is a wall going to prevent that?

      Aren't you interested in solutions that actually work? I think you like the idea of the Wall more than you actually care about illegal immigrants.

      So? What's most? 51%? Are you one of those assholes that lives nowhere near a border and then is going to tell those of us, with eyes and who happen to live near a border (10 miles) that what we are seeing isn't actually happening?

    59. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by melted · · Score: 2

      Great recession was largely caused by Clinton who forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to lend to subprime borrowers in the first place.

    60. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh all those fucking repub border farmer \ ranchers are going to love it when you steal their land via eminent domain for your DMZ because why the fuck would Mexico create one?

      small government indeed.

    61. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off you god damn transparent Russian paid troll

    62. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off you god damn retarded faggot

    63. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build the wall!

      My cousin's construction business in South Texas will make a mint. Half the quality for twice the price, and you get another payday when you have to fix it because they broke it with a wedge-n-sledge a month later.

      Cha-Ch'ing!

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

    64. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, only the first person has to climb the wall. The rest can climb the five pound rope ladder he lowers.

      Typical Trumpist reality denial thinking. If it didn't occur to him already, no one else could learn it from someone who already did. "I wouldn't help someone else, so no one else would help someone else either". If the wall existed today, the coyotes would just add a grappling hook and some rope to the back of their truck this afternoon. And tomorrow a few of them would be setting pitons into the wall with a power drill run off the genny in the back of the truck.

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

    65. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article discusses freedom of movement across borders, like what the EU has. This makes some sense as part of a free trade agreement. One good argument for free trade is it reduces or eliminates government regulation that leads to inefficient markets. Labor is no different, in which free movement of labor across borders results in a more efficient allocation of resources, and benefits the economy. Restrictive immigration laws impede the free market and cause labor to be allocated inefficiently. This does not mean a totally open border; one can still keep criminals and terrorists out and prevent the flow of contraband across the border, but allow labor to move freely. Shouldn't we be eliminating the big government regulations on immigration and let the free market allocate labor efficiently?

      By the way, this would probably benefit the United States right now. It's hard for businesses to grow with the low unemployment, which will result in slowing economic growth. Increasing the supply of labor might sustain the economic growth longer.

    66. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Keith Ellison is on record - in the link I provided - as stating that borders are "an injustice" and that anyone should be able to "go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages". And wore a shirt that literally proclaimed (in Spanish) "I do not believe in borders." I don't know how you can spin that to a position that he does not believe in open borders - unless you mean he doesn't believe in open borders because he believes there should be NO borders.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    67. Re:Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. Obviously federal employees are not even necessary to keep the US running.

    68. Re: Trump would gladly sign legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not in a war zone you idiot.

  5. Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They don't pay US taxes, fuck off!

    1. Re: Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah well, civilization was nice while it lasted.

    2. Re: Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, another retard who doesn't understand how to "science" works.

    3. Re:Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 96% of the worlds population who are no US citizens would also like to tell the USA to fuck off, you know USA last with that 2.5 Trillion in exports put at risk. Trump is right about ONE thing, no deal is better than a bad deal, we have ZERO interest in a bad deal with the USA.

    4. Re:Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim Indonesian like Obama! (or was he a muslim Kenyan?)

    5. Re:Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exterminate stupid muslims, arabs, sand n1ggers, and so on. Save the planet.

    6. Re: Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science meaning some guy in a room explaining a theory he just made up himself in the spot?

    7. Re: Muslim Indonesian can get their own data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We hear you and are trying to fuck off, but the Democrats, as usual, are throwing fits because we're reducing the number of brown people we bomb daily.

  6. Trump for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lock him up

    1. Re:Trump for prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Lock him up'

      It's treason. You mean: Hang him high.

  7. uhhhh does Indonesia have a shutdown, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't the Indonesian Geological Survey providing tsunami data?

    1. Re:uhhhh does Indonesia have a shutdown, too? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      'Cause Team America: World Police, that's why.

      PS Is the CIA still illegally fighting the House of Saud's war of conquest in Yemen for them during the shutdown or is starving Yemeni children critical to national security?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:uhhhh does Indonesia have a shutdown, too? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, figure out w way to do planetary science that benefits only Americans, and make sure that's a better deal for us than sharing knowledge with the rest of the world would be.

      The US is a global economic and military power. If you think we do this kind of shit out of pure altruism, that's rather naive. Science is a real part of our soft power around the world, and a bargain compared to what we spend on hard power.

      Our global scientific might not only benefits us directly economically, it brings the best minds in the world to us and gives our voice a weight far in excess of the 4% of the world's population we represent. True, we represent about a quarter of world GDP, but that gives the other 96% of the world plenty of incentive to take us down a peg.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Re: TRUMP by orlanz · · Score: 1

    I don't know if people post this in jest, but on a serious note, Trump will win the 2020 election. That's just the way the historic dice rolled.

    Unless he crashes the economy or gets impeached. But both of those are extremely unlikely.

  9. no funding for 'his' southern border wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's -our- southern border wall.

    Border security NOW.

  10. Finally by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

    A "shutdown" pissing contest where one side isn't impotent, this should be good.

  11. Re: TRUMP by tsa · · Score: 1

    It’s too late for that. He may be impeached during his second term though.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  12. Re:Glad we have our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not Trumps job to protect Indonesians from tsunamis, my dude.

  13. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will not survive that long.

  14. Re:Schumer Shutdown 2.0 by meglon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    It's amazing that you're an even more worthless piece of shit than Trump is. I honestly didn't think there were that many around, given that it's so low of a bar.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  15. I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it. by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why aren't the Trump-loving libertarians opposing this on the fact that it will be the US taxpayer paying for the wall when their dear leader promised them the Mexicans would pay for it?

    Could it be libertarians are just a bunch of hypocritical cunts?

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  16. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s all just liberal lies anyway. Trump will tell us all we need to know and so far, he doesnâ(TM)t give a shit. So it doesnâ(TM)t matter at all. Fake news

  17. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this not an automated system?

    1. Re:Why by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC everyone wins by not having it automated.

      A local scientist in some 3rd, 4th world nations wants a better job and some US supported budget. A nice SUV grant and decades of work?
      Roads, a new lab, computers, sites to collect from, networking. Trips to and from remote sties. Payments for the travel.
      Thats jobs and a real income for generations that will be thankful to the USA.
      Thats not going to happen with an automated system from the USA.
      The CIA likes to have US "experts" move around nations like Indonesia under the plausible cover of new support work for US "science".
      The spare parts and upgrades. Thats parts and services to fly into Indonesia and then have work done. Often and with US "tax payers" paying for work for international science.
      The movement of US equipment around Indonesia is more money. Pilots, trucks. Support to get the science done.
      The US embassy likes the interaction with US backed science and to show the USA helping in different parts of Indonesia - Hearts and minds.
      A nice trip out to a different part of Indonesia by US embassy workers. CIA and real diplomats selling US science and tech.

      US scientists get to add "international" work to their list of things they have done. That they can go to another nation and do science with another nations scientists.
      Jobs back in the USA to export all that science and tech equipment. That can lobby for human scientists who need to be doing work with science in a a lot of other nations.
      US tax payers will pay for their exports so its always a lot of 3rd and 4th world nations that need more US equipment.
      Everyone is "winning" by not doing an automated system direct from the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. why should the US pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never voted for Trump, but seriously, why should the US go into debt to China to pay for services that other countries won't pay for at all? Way to point fingers. The OP could run for office.

    1. Re:why should the US pay? by hey! · · Score: 1

      If only science spending actually *was* bankrupting the US economy...

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  19. Re: I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump caved and agreed not to raise tariffs at the last second. There is no extra money. We're going to need to borrow from China to pay for the wall. All that to feed Trump's ego.

  20. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You mean that when US citizens buy Mexican goods they would pay a tax? In which case you really do need to understand something: those people who are paying are not from Mexico. They are what is known as "Americans". For clarity: people from the USA.

    This is NOT anywhere near "Mexico is paying for the wall". It is "Trump wants a tax on US citizens so the US can pay for a wall".

  21. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ken Doll only gives a shit about his own fat dumb ass

  22. USA - your due date has expired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U r to stupid to govern yourself, u should go back to the Queen (or Putin) and ask for help. How dumb u people must be to a) elect an idiot and b) bare with him? Well the answer to both is simple - u r dumb and u can't comprehend that there is a problem.

  23. What gets me by maroberts · · Score: 2

    Regardless of whether you blame Trump or the DNC for the shutdown, what astounds me is that it is permitted to happen at all.

    The solution to this would be to enact some legislation that automatically funds major departments at (say) 95% of the previously agreed budget until a new budget is agreed.

    Even if that is not acceptable, some employees are expected to work without a paycheck - again legislation should be enacted that 'essential' employees (e.g. emergency services) are automatically funded.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:What gets me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Add in that Congress and President don't get paid during the days without a budget, but still have to work, and you have a winner.

    2. Re:What gets me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previous shutdowns have had so few negative consequences that both parties are now comfortable with this tactic.

    3. Re:What gets me by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall hearing the president boast a couple of weeks ago when the matter came up that he himself would take full responsibility for the shutdown:

      "I am proud to shut down the government for border security... I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it."

      Has he now recanted this former position?

      Can't say I'm terribly surprised, however...

    4. Re:What gets me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the House, White House, and GOP (majority) of Senate ALL agree on $5.7 billion for the wall, its kind of hard not to blame a small number of Democrats for the shutdown.

      When 90% of those in power agree to it, that last 10% refusing to compromise are responsible. Best part is Trump was elected mostly on that issue. The DNC is ONCE AGAIN telling the voters that your vote doesn't matter and fuck off they will tell you how to live.

      Vote Tyranny, vote DNC. Fuck Schumer, the #1 asshole of all time in DC.

    5. Re:What gets me by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      The solution to this would be to enact some legislation that automatically funds major departments at (say) 95% of the previously agreed budget until a new budget is agreed.

      That's exactly what is happening. The government shutdown isn't the whole goddamn government shutting down. It's somewhere between 5-12% that is "non essential". Nevertheless, those "funds" you speak of have to be BORROWED yet again! Goddamnit...

    6. Re:What gets me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut downs wouldn't happen if those politicians didn't get paid or their special privileges or health care for the duration.

    7. Re:What gets me by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Sure, except Trump explicitly said a couple of weeks ago that he *wouldn't* blame them.

    8. Re:What gets me by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The solution to this would be to enact some legislation that automatically funds major departments at (say) 95% of the previously agreed budget until a new budget is agreed.

      A very large chunk of that is unconstitutional.

      Article I, Section 8:

      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...

      To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

      There's a two year limit on funding the US military in any single law[1]. There has to be a new law a minimum of every two years.

      The rest of the budget could be handled in the way you suggest.

      ----
      [1] Because of the phrasing, the US Navy may be exempt from the two year limit.

  24. Setting aside the unrelated stuff by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I just wonder why it is the job of the American taxpayer to pay for, provide and manage Indonesia's tsunami warning system. We are thanks to both parties in Washington 22 trillion in debt and that is growing out of control.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Setting aside the unrelated stuff by djinn6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not. Indonesia's disaster is mostly their own making and there's no one to blame but themselves.

      But if we already have the data, then we should try to make that available. It contributes to our political leverage and global economic stability, and our own understanding of tsunamis is improved by gathering data from all across the world.

    2. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the US is already monitoring worldwide for its own protection purposes. The US is rich, and monitoring is a tiny fraction of its GDP. Indonesia is poor, and cannot afford its own worldwide monitoring system.

      Only a complete dick would hold out on passing information to a poor neighbour when it costs them essentially nothing and it could save lives.

    3. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't really monitor over there. We have some quake sensor data but nothing that would warn of a tsunami.

    4. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We have some quake sensor data but nothing that would warn of a tsunami.

      That comment is hilarious in its ignorance of how tsunami warnings work.

    5. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      It sounds like providing that data isn't free to the taxpayers, or else the shutdown would not have affected it. Or are you saying someone is purposefully withholding the data just to make a political statement, rather than because of no money?

    6. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Indonesia is poor

      16th largest GDP on the planet. Member of G-20 with a larger budget than Greece and just completed a 36 billion dollar highway system across Java. Falsely stating they are poor is insult. No tsumani warning system is due to political issues(primarily allowing settlement in dangerous areas), not budgetary limitations.

    7. Re:Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree totally. Doing this type of thing is what gives America so much power. What you are buying is good will and leverage. And I think Americans are getting excellent value for money. This extends to all sorts of things. Spending on NATO gives America power over Europe, who must then mostly do its bidding. If Europe (and the other Western allies) becomes independent of America for defence, then America loses its influence.

      I think the American people need to make a decision about their future role in the world. If you want to isolate yourself from world affairs, then keep your cash. If you want to determine the fate of the world, then cough up the money. Either decision is fine, but you don't get both.

       

    8. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the math again. Here is a quick reference, notice that the annual GDP/person for Indonesia was $3,817 in 2017, while in the US it was $59,792 in 2017.

    9. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain to me how we monitor the Indian ocean for tsunamis? The only thing we can tell you is that there might be a tsunami. And frequent false positives are going to be ignored.

    10. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has no monitor buoys in the Indian ocean. We can't provide information we don't have. There are in fact buoys in the Indian ocean but they fell into disrepair in 2014. But protecting citizens doesn't seem to be priority for that region.

    11. Re: Setting aside the unrelated stuff by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Presumably it takes one person to copy the data out of the database and send it over, but that one person is on leave due to the shutdown.

      And this is a task that would've taken a day or two at most. If it was a week-long effort, then it wouldn't have been sent quickly enough to help even if the government was operational.

  25. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep dreamin, If there were impeachable offenses, they would have already made the light of day. We are going into the 3rd year of his term now and nothing but a bunch of loudly whining dems.

    Quite frankly I was a middle of the road person, but I am heavily leaning more towards repub lately with how childish the dems are being. If there are more like me, it is quite frankly a great possibility Trump will see a 2nd term, especially if the dems try and run Hillary against him again, or cant find any other strong candidate. The dem party is a fucking joke at the moment. The fact that Nancy is going to be speaker of the house AGAIN shows even more that nothing has changed in the party. Get that old bag out of there and let some fresh meat and ideas lead the house.

  26. Re:Glad we have our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have the info, you don't hold out on people. That's fucked up. Trump is only president because of the stinker that the democrats ran against him. If people demanded that they run a decent candidate, we wouldn't be going through this. This is the democrats' fault. They suck! And so do the little snowflake moderators that don't want to know the truth!

  27. Democrats ruin cities, states and our NATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Democrats ruin cities, states and our NATION.

    All the worst economies and crime filled cities are strongly Democrat run.

    All the best and most prosperous cities are REPUBLICAN run areas.

    Maybe its Black IQ, maybe its fiscal responsibility. It could be many factors. But it is a fact : DEMOCRATS ruin society and read the news the least and are the least informed.

    1. Re:Democrats ruin cities, states and our NATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a blatant lie. The republican controlled states borrow more money than they give and are home to the poorest people. It's the reverse for democrat controlled states.

      You guys can't even tell a good lie anymore.

    2. Re: Democrats ruin cities, states and our NATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always like to post lies so that I can then respond to myself and point out that I'm a liar.

    3. Re:Democrats ruin cities, states and our NATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that ridiculous talking point again.

  28. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WHY would you fund something that from the cost/benefit perspective surely must be one of the dumbest ideas any US government has ever had?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  29. It's probably WindBourne. often does that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably WindBourne. often does that.

  30. Hey guess what, nazi Ken Doll faggot? You dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will always be consequences for you nazi traitor faggot Ken Doll and we're going to visit you soon bitch

  31. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey guess what? If it were not for Trump the government would still be fully up (only.a tiny part is really shut down) - at the same time it is ALSO true that if even ten Democrats agreed to fund the wall, the government would be fully up as well.

    Fund the wall? The same wall that he promised that the Mexicans would pay for? That wouldn't cost taxpayers anything? What a nice way to keep your campaign promises. But then again, he has never been much for keeping any kinds of promises has he?

    Why would any sane human being (Democrats, Republicans or whatever) agree to fund one mans lunatic vanity project? Show me a 20-foot wall and I will show you a 21-foot ladder. That wall is not going to help very much, other than be a huge waste of taxpayer money and pocket lining for opportunist (or worse, corrupt) construction companies.

  32. The whole idea of huffpost is racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if brown muslim people can't handle the responsibility for their own citizens and white foreigners must come and save them from themselves.
    American colonial thinking in it's lefty dress.

    1. Re:The whole idea of huffpost is racist by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      It is a political hit piece, nothing more. As for Indonesia, it is just bad timing that things happened while someone was 'on vacation', it should also be a lesson.

  33. Re: Huffington flinging crap for Christmas by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Pretty much the most intelligent comment on here, and some twit still downmodded it to -1.

  34. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Republican educations? Yeah we don't fund that anymore, too many braindead conservative faggots committing treason. Kill em instead.

  35. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking of the unstoppable juggernaut of government, aren't you a bit worried about it trying to piss away billions of your dollars on something known not to work? I mean China built a wall far bigger and better than the one Trump wants, and that wasn't very effective...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  36. Re: TRUMP by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    He doesn't have to be personally impeached, just have members of his immediate family sent to jail with charges pending for him the moment he steps down.

    That the Democrats are keeping quiet doesn't mean they don't have anyone. It just means that they took the advice to never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake, and don't see any value in providing opportunities for the Republicans to start smearing their candidates early.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  37. who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll know the supervolcano eruption has occured when the sky turns black for the next five years.

  38. Mitch McConnell's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Democrats and Republicans had a spending bill ready to go - which included $1.6 billion for border security (including fencing).
    Trump got goaded by Fox News and other right wing multi-millionaire professional political trolls, and is throwing this temper tantrum.

    That spineless lying sack of shit Mitch McConnell stood there and just said that it's between the Democrats and Trump - 100% bullshit.

    If Mitch had and balls he'd stand up to Trump and with the bill that he already agreed to pass with the Democrats, just ram the fucker through.

    But no, McConnell and all the Republicans in Washington are cowardly lying pieces of shit that put party before country.

    The Republican party has lost all honor, credibility and all sense of duty.

    Fuck them forever! Bring back the Federalists!

    1. Re:Mitch McConnell's fault by Chas · · Score: 0

      Fencing isn't going to cut it.
      The kind of fencing they're talking about can be demolished in short order with a pair of small bolt croppers.
      Or you could climb it so long as you had something to give to the razor wire roll at the top.

      The accepted wall design is a 31 foot high structure, anchored in concrete foundations, built of vertical runs of 1/2"-3/4" steel angle, cross-braced with MORE steel angle so you can't deflect individual bars aside. And topped by sheer anti-climb plates.

      And remember, these economic migrants come through this way for two reasons.

      1: Ease
      2: CHEAP

      Now tell them they have to hump a $300-500 30+ foot LADDER, weighing 80-120 lbs, in with them.
      And you know what trying to use narco tunnels would get them? DEAD!

      And you're right about the spine-free GOP.

      Both parties are no longer fit for purpose and need to be demolished.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re: Mitch McConnell's fault by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think you haven't thought about the situation clearly or you'd see how silly your words are

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re: Mitch McConnell's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

      Migrants don't always travel solo.
      One Mexican could buy a used ladder and charge $1 to climb it to each of 300 Hondurans. They can climb down the other side on a deluxe knotted $20 rope line/ladder.

      So your $20-$60 BubububBillion dollar wall fails to stop an immigrant with $1 spending money.

      Or the coyote driving the truck full of illegals brings his own ladder.
      Or they just throw a grappling hook up, let thr little.guys climb it with the rope/emergency fire escape type ladders and the wall slows them.down by about two minutes.

      Thousands of migrants? They can use more than one ladder at a time.

      So they will serves as a way to force people from Mexico coyotes to coordinate with American side coyotes... Which is already a thing. You have to spend $50,000,000,000 in construction costs and they, collectively have to spend... $29.99 on the fire escape ladder and $5 on a rope. And they can refuse the ladder and rope next time.

      They can also drill/hammer pitons into the wall. Because Mexicans do half our construction as it is and are savvy enough to see a business opportunity like that. I'm an American and this wall bullshit makes me say "fuck that". You think Mexicans won't undermine it for a profit?

      Oh yeah, they can just dig a trench under it. Would take a ditch witch and maybe twenty minutes to let a human through. How far down will the concrete and steel barrier go? Not just anchor posts, the continuous 2,000 mile wall. One foot? Three? Ok it will take two hours for thr initial while/tunnel. Thirty? Now it is a $120,000,000,000.00 wall. Plus maintenance and security. And it will take a few days to build the tunnel.

      Meanwhile over half of the illegals are already just overstaying tourist visas after entering legally.

      #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

    4. Re: Mitch McConnell's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get 40 foot fiber glass reinforced ladders weighing 30lbs for $300 with a 300lb carrying limit.

  39. Re: TRUMP by gtall · · Score: 1

    The only way he'll get elected is if the Democrats are stupid enough to run a left-wing loon like Bernie or Warren. My bet is on impeachment though. If Mueller turns up enough naughty things, and Republicans in Congress feel he's too toxic, he's toast.

  40. Re:Huffington flinging crap for Christmas by gtall · · Score: 0

    Since your "evidence" for California spending $23 Billion on illegal immigrants comes from the Washington Examine. The Wash. Ex. is merely a "conservative" mouthpiece. It is owned by Philip Anschutz who is a billionaire, right wingnut religious conservative.

    If this is where you are getting your "facts", I think we can dismiss the rest of your post.

  41. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://cis.org/Can-Border-Wal...

    Maybe you are not skilled or poorly skilled in Google Foo but it is widely accepted that it isn't a complete waste. It is hard to put a cost benefit analysis on security. For instance, every year almost every town in the US spends more on police and fire resources than those expenditures directly generate in revenue savings or increases.Does that seem like one of the dumbest ideas those governments have implemented?

  42. Blame game by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Democrats forced The first and one term Bush to raise taxes to pay for Iraq war. Lost re-election and more importantly the Republican Party headed far right refusing to compromise. Trump swooped in as a change of guard felt worth a risk by many and others apathetic soured they all suck. Careful what you wish for coz unintended consequences. One of numerous speculations. This is Government at work part of the process. For propaganda Congress could offer to match Mexicoâ(TM)s contributions toward a wall ;) though for a win Make it a firewall instead.

  43. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    "Why aren't the Trump-loving libertarians opposing this on the fact that it will be the US taxpayer paying for the wall when their dear leader promised them the Mexicans would pay for it? "

    Libertarianism is a red herring. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Why aren't Trump supporters etc. The answer is that they are stupid. To wit, they have demonstrated a willingness to believe that Trump is somehow getting the money from Mexico. Now they can blame the situation on Congress.

    "Could it be libertarians are just a bunch of hypocritical cunts?"

    They are, because they will claim others are ignoring reality when that is literally their whole thing, specifically pretending that anarchy does not lead naturally to feudalism because none of us are islands. However, it's not clear what that has to do with this. Most Trump supporters are not libertarians, they are boring old Republicans.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    It's also true that if Trump weren't a sociopathic sleazebag there would be no shutdown, and it's also true that a border wall is a stupid idea on all levels since it won't work. If you get near a point, make it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Japan info by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Japan nearby with similar fears of tsunamis having coined the term offers studies as well. This is a well known risk to many but since hard to predict and costly to monitor we take our chances.

  46. red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is Indonesia going to do with the data? Figure out if it was a tsunami or how big it was? At least this point, Indonesia needs aid. I don't know if that part of the US is shut down or not but private organizations should be able to help.

  47. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    But that "tiny part that is shut down" should not include emergency notification of global disasters. Imagine if the 2004 megatsunami had occurred during a US shutdown? The Indian Ocian had no Pacific-style warning system of its own.

  48. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexicans don't pay American taxes on Mexican goods. Americans pay that. And since it's American money, it's up to American politicians (republican and democratic) to decide how it's spent.

  49. Why shutdown a running web site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like in the short term, the workers are not providing the service, the computer is.

    So why shut it down unless you just wish to be missed?

  50. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not quite disagreeing with you on the Dems, but REALLY?!?

    The Dems fell during the Hillary nomination fiasco. They pretty much can only go up from there. They are the MINORITY in all parts of the government. Your complaint is like saying David isn't helping Goliath carry stuff. And remember the Republicans have been bashing Dems since Obama's first term.

    BUT you want to swing Republican? The folks who been whining about Obamacare for 8 years but couldn't even muster a vote when push came to shove. The party that couldn't come up with a SINGLE contender against Trump and Hillary? Keep in mind that before Hillary lost to Trump, the entire Republican Party lost to him. The party who had full control of the government for the last two years and STILL couldn't fund the wall nor address DACA nor keep the government from shutting down 3 times this year!!! It's the Republicans who can't even negotiate and reach consensus with a minority within their own party; let alone across isles.

    But NO, it's all the Dems fault. And next year, even though the Dems will only control the weakest 1/6th of the government, people like you will STILL shamelessly blame them.

    Your swing is like stopping to drink stale dog piss and seriously considering eating fresh dog poo.

  51. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxes don't go to the government. The Grace Commission found that the vast majority of your taxes simply service the debt to the private institution known as the Federal Reserve. You ever read Robin Hood (or seen a movie about him)? The tax collector is ruthless, and the money just goes into the coffers of some elite. You live that reality. And, the tax collector today is no less ruthless than he was in the middle ages. You pay 20-40% of your income to a small, private group of elites for doing practically nothing (the US Mint still actually prints money when it needs to be done), and, if you don't, men with guns will take you to prison. You are a serf to the Fed. Pay up or die. Or, revolt. I hope one day you find the balls to pick the third option. I'm fucking ready.

  52. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    Think of the wall this way, it would give up any excuse and force a comprehensive reform in immigration. This not only restores the rule of law to immigration (itself immeasurable important) it forces the quasi-slave state the US is creating in having non-citizens with rights only given by "hey, we'll look the other way for now" to go into a legal, defined, protected status.

  53. Counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States cannot stop illegal aliens from flooding over the border without building a wall. World help in various areas affected by democrats refusing to secure America.

  54. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Delusional. He lost the popular vote and much of his support has eroded since that time. I'd be surprised if he makes it halfway through 2019.

    "Keep dreamin, If there were impeachable offenses, they would have already made the light of day."

    They have made the light of day. However obstructionists in congress have actively worked to cover for his misdeeds, both before and after the election. He won't have that cover for much longer.

    P.S. Claiming to be a middle of the road person doesn't make your nonsense more objective nor believable.

  55. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, after all Republican-Lite worked out so well in 2016, why not double down on that winning strategy! Luckily the DNC has already picked Beto as the challenger for you, voting in the rigged primaries is just a formality. No need to worry about leftwing loons, Beto supports Wall Street and foreign wars!

  56. Complete BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have staff that works weekends and shutdowns. They do not stop monitoring at all. Whoever posted that on the website is lying. Shameful that bureaucrats would use a crisis to get more funding too. Sickening what the federal government does to people. They deserve to be nuked from orbit.

  57. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was smart when all the previous Democrats proposed it, but dumb now for some reason.

    You people have lost the plot.

  58. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Maybe you are not skilled or poorly skilled in Google Foo but it is widely accepted that it isn't a complete waste.

    I didn't say it was net negative, budget-wise, just that there are surely much better investments for taxpayers. If, for example, avoidance of lost revenue is to be pursued here, as the article seems to suggest, what about stopping gutting the IRS instead? Taking the numbers from that article of yours at face value (which doesn't even seem to suggest any operational cost for the project, or did I misread it?), the wall is peanuts compared to the uncollected taxes.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  59. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What?? The Great Wall of China was TREMENDOUSLY effective, shielding the country from the horsemen of the north for THOUSANDS OF YEARS before it was allowed to crumble to such an extent that the Mongols were able to just ride through the gaps.

  60. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And after all, the USA is the only sovereign nation with the ability to monitor for seismic events. The technology to do it is USA owed and operated, and no one else can possibly replicate it. Lord Tundering Jesus, there are things in the world that have fuck and all to do with your nations politics.

  61. Re: TRUMP by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I don't know if people post this in jest, but on a serious note, Trump will win the 2020 election. That's just the way the historic dice rolled.

    (Emphasis mine)

    How can you allege that using the term "historic" to refer to events that haven't happened yet can possibly result in anybody but people who believe in time travelers ever taking you seriously?

  62. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Walls work, cutting illegal immigration by 99%. Provided it's done right, and you actually extend the length of the border (which the Great Wall in China does not).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  63. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Okay... I'm going to play devil's advocate here... but allow me to present what I think may be a twisted logic reasoning that could show how Mexicans are ultimately paying for the wall.

    The tariffs will increase costs for Americans, true... but this increased cost could, in general, translate to reduced demand for imports, which in turn would force the nations from which the tariffs are being applied to have to lay off workers that produce those goods, thereby indirectly harming that nation's economy.

    That's the best guess I can take at this... and I expect there's problems with it, but I imagine that those problems are probably based on a reality about foreign trade that Trump, for whatever reason, simply doesn't happen to believe in.

  64. Democrats forcing their agenda? by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Republicans control both houses of Congress (until the 3rd), and there is a Republican President. The two houses did come together and put together a bill to continue funding the government into the new year, when there would be a new Congress to take over. Unfortunately, the President (a Republican, note) said loud and clear that he would not sign it.

    Paul Ryan (another Republican) could have sent the bill to the floor anyway for a vote, but decided not to. Note that he easily had the votes to override a Presidential veto (the Democrats were in favor of the bill) but he did not want to challenge the President. This is either easier or harder to understand in light of his impending retirement depending on what you think of his character.

    If you think this is the Democrats flexing their muscles, you have an entirely unrealistic view of that party's competence and skill.

    This is the Legislative branch ceding too much power to the Executive branch and then refusing to stand up to a populist strong-man.

    And "Criminal charges of manslaughter"? Are you serious? You do know that the government shutdown did not cause the tsunami, right?

    1. Re:Democrats forcing their agenda? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      It did not cause the Tsunami, but hindered the alerts for a people that have grown dependent upon them.

      At best it looks like other countries are going to have to develop their own infrastructure. U.S. Cannot be relied upon anymore to do that task.

      Then again, that was never our responsibility. We just stood up and Got shit done.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re: Democrats forcing their agenda? by jd · · Score: 1

      Engine parts, in isolation with no cooperation, are just spare parts on a shelf.

      So it is with countries. A country in isolation has no value and will remain stagnant. There are no exceptions.

      Think of diseases. Diseases don't need passports. You don't have smallpox solely because nobody does. As your measles rates went up, so other nations were affected.

      That's how it works

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Democrats forcing their agenda? by jpaine619 · · Score: 0

      It did not cause the Tsunami, but hindered the alerts for a people that have grown dependent upon them.

      Amazing how, when you give people shit for free, they grow dependent and don't do anything for themselves.... Interesting..

    4. Re:Democrats forcing their agenda? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Astute point.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Democrats forcing their agenda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fucking idiot go learn about the buoy system created 20 years ago that simply was torn apart by the boat crews passing by

  65. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sure, because every Mexican and Central American has $300-500 for a 31 foot ladder and is going to hike it in with them.

    Nobody, save the people like you, tring to strawman your ass off, EVER claimed that a wall would "solve illegal immigration".
    It's about presenting a clear deterrent to overland immigration. Which then allows us to make the most of our manpower and monetary resources combatting other forms of illegal economic migration.

    But we can't really do that when we don't ACTUALLY control our own border.

    But please, go back to pretending you actually understand the situation.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  66. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    True, it worked there, but Trump doesn't seem to be proposing that style of wall. Certainly the budget is only to build it, and the wall in Israel is guarded which is an on-going cost. It's less than 150 miles long, where as the US one will need to be 2000 miles long.

    It's hard to come up with a figure for guarding a 2000 mile long wall on difficult terrain.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  67. Why is everyone blaming trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone blaming trump when it is the senate that failed to pass the bill that came form the house?

    Has fact checking become so hard that even the reporters, looking at you msmash, are unwilling to do their job and perpetuate the fake news target? Or do they think since they can reach millions of viewers, their unverified accusations will make a better click bait and to hell with being labeled as fake news?

    1. Re:Why is everyone blaming trump by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      "Has fact checking become so hard that even the reporters, looking at you msmash, are unwilling to do their job and perpetuate the fake news target? "

      Why yes, yes it has.

  68. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    There is no cut in manpower for CBP in the budget; a wall makes it easier to patrol (a defined barrier with a clear path along it). And whilst our barrier would be ~3 times as long, we have ~40 times the population and spending to allow for it. If it works - it works. It's just a matter of political willpower.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  69. Re: TRUMP by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Historically if the incumbent runs again they tend to win. Also, however, historically a party does not win more than 2 terms in a row. So it is quite likely that, if he does win again, the Democrats will win in 2024.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  70. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the technology for multiple-use ladders exists.

  71. Re: TRUMP by mark-t · · Score: 1

    The only historical thing about it what you are saying is that Trump is *LIKELY* to win... which is a far fry from suggesting that he *will* win as being some kind of historically validated fact.

  72. One of the best comments in the thread by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    I see only two problems with it.

    The first is that I don't really think the wall will stop/significantly impair illegal immigration. People will find a way. When I was a pipe-layer all of our laborers were illegal immigrants. Most of them did not walk across the desert to get here. Some even came by plane.

    The second is that if it did work, it would create tremendous economic disruption as we would have a huge labor shortage at the bottom of the economy. Just how much are you willing to pay for a pound of tomatoes? Of course the market would adjust (over time) but there's a period where production is drastically reduced. That's a problem. As wages get driven up in that adjustment (and THAT ripples through the entire economy) your corporate profits decline. That's another problem.

    As an alternative, why not just DO the comprehensive immigration reform? You still get some market disruption, but it's WAY more limited in both scale and scope.

    1. Re: One of the best comments in the thread by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that a large percentage of illegal immigrants did not cross the Mexican border but people who stayed after their visas expired. The wall will do nothing to keep them out.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re: One of the best comments in the thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, surely if a magical 2,000 mile wall appeared in thr desert, all the illegals working construction would forget how to climb ladders, throw rope, and dig trenches would be unable to get across it.

      In that World, Trump will chant BUILD THAT ROOF, and lambast the Dems for refusing to fund air security.

      If you want to stop illegal voluntary immigration, make hiring an illegal punishable with jail terms and large fines. No more of this bullshit "i didn't know" Juan Caesar Chavez wasn't a citizen, nor "His ID said he was Keith Hernandez" bullshit. Kill the demand for illegal workers and the supply will dry up.

  73. Re: Democrats fault by jd · · Score: 1

    There was a war fought, oh, around 1776. It was about the last person to go tell Americans to bend a knee.

    Americans have no kings, not you, not Alien Boy, none.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  74. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it only stupid because you can't sneak your cousins in? You've proven time and time again to be a partisan shill. Your racist input has no use but to sow discord.

  75. Firemen first by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Approximately 420,000 federal employees continued to work through the shutdown. The handful of employees needed to handle this certainly could have been deemed "essential" as well under the circumstances.

    This is just a cynical political decision to suspend a high-visibility, low-cost service to try to pressure the shutdown to end, exactly like the cynical political decision to barricade national monuments (and even disable the corresponding websites) during the 2013 shutdown.

    1. Re:Firemen first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are completely correct: Trump, playing 4D chess, saw into the future and furloughed exactly the the correct US government workers necessary to force people who aren't US citizens to wait a few weeks to get free data about an event affecting no vital US interests just to create pressure to end a farce of a government shutdown. Truly his intellect is staggering.

  76. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    China's wall didn't work very well because far too many of the gate keepers were corrupt and took bribes to let the barbarians through. Hadrian's wall worked because the men in charge weren't corrupt. It's not a matter of picking the wrong men, either, it's a matter of culture. Chinese officials were expected to feather their own nests, although it was sometimes used as an excuse to bring somebody down who had fallen from favor. Roman officials (especially military officials) were expected to administer the law objectively, without consulting their own interests, and any corruption was swiftly and severely punished.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  77. Crashing economy by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    FWIW, I think the economy is about to crash. The US has entered every new decade for the last 100 years in a recession or depression, within 1 or two years plus or minus. We're one year out and we have shaky market news following a strong bull run.

    Although a lot of the underlying metrics look good, I have my doubts, especially in the employment numbers. A lot of the "employed" today are underemployed at traditional jobs or are working in parts of the gig economy that do not provide high standards of living. I have only very recently started to see signs of competition for labor driving wage growth.

    I hope I'm wrong, though.

  78. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ill vote for him just to see all of the antifa tears... Just Sayin.

  79. Well, since you asked by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Technology has changed. Cameras and sensors got cheap. Drones got cheap.

    Better analytics mean we know that the value of a wall at controlling the border is less than other alternatives. Texas sent the national guard to police the border at a cost of $120k per illegal immigrant caught. Statistically we know those illegals would have caused less trouble than their native counterparts, so we know we didn't save any money on crime prevention. We could have given every American put out of work a full, 4 year ride to college with money to support their families for the cost of keeping those illegals out.

    And while we're on the subject, if you want to keep illegals out there's a much, much better solution: STOP DESTABILIZING THEIR GODDAMNED COUNTRIES FOR CHEAP FRUIT AND OIL.

    Yeah, yeah, I know I shouldn't shout, but come'on. In Brazil our CIA just executed a plan to kick a progressive chief executive out of her position and put a far right one in it's place. This isn't conspiracy, it's pretty well documented we were involved. You don't think that's going to have consequences? Why did we do it? Oil. She would have spend the oil profits on her country, and we can't have that.

    If you want to stop the flow of "migrant caravans" you have to stop screwing with Mexico and South America's economies. Yes, that means the price of oil will go up ever so slightly, and it means you're going to have to vote for left wing candidates who oppose CIA intervention for the sake of American Mega Corps. For some that's maybe too bitter a pill to swallow. But if you actually want your jobs back (or maybe just a "whiter" America, yes, for some people that's the goal and it's naive to pretend it's not) that's how you do it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Well, since you asked by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I would LOVE to pull out from all overseas military "actions". But is seems the Democrats are all up-in-arms over that very move...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Well, since you asked by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      In Brazil our CIA just executed a plan to kick a progressive chief executive out of her position and put a far right one in it's place.

      I like that you use "it's place", instead of "her place" :)
      (although grammatically, it should've been "its").

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
  80. Re: Democrats fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't negotiate with domestic terrorists, sheep.

  81. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wall is for the same suckers who believed in trump university.

  82. Re: Hey guess what, nazi Ken Doll faggot? You dea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love all the aggro lib trolls that are just ruskis trying to make conservatives even more fearful.

    Luckily for them, conservatives are dumb enough to believe it.

  83. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    thereby indirectly harming that nation's economy.

    So if I want you to give me $100, instead I fund the $100 myself, call your boss and get you fired in a way that costs you money, it's somehow the same as you paying me $100?

    That's not playing devils advocate, that is failing primary school level logic.

  84. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I admitted that the logic was twisted...

    Of course it's stupid, but try convincing Trump of that.

  85. Not Quite Accurate... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or in other words, "Fake News"".

    "which began Saturday after President Donald Trump refused to sign legislation that didn't include funding for his southern border wall."

    President Trump cannot sign legislation that hasn't been approved by both houses of Congress, and the "McConnell/Schumer Shutdown" is the result of the SENATE's failure to pass the budget. Schumer is adamant that there will be no border wall, and McConnell is content to let Schemer continue to hold the budget hostage. Americans by and large WANT a border wall; that was Trump's biggest promise, and he was elected on that promise.

    However, the lack of USGS support isn't hampering Indonesia's efforts at all; it's merely the only thing anybody can think of to cite as the "catastrophic effects" of a partial shutdown of 25% of the US Federal government.

    1. Re:Not Quite Accurate... by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Americans by and large WANT a border wall

      54% of American voters oppose a border wall.

    2. Re: Not Quite Accurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except every poll shows that a majority *opposes* the wall, e.g.,
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/235775/americans-oppose-border-walls-favor-dealing-daca.aspx

      Did you bother to even research your position at all before quoting Fox News?

    3. Re:Not Quite Accurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > President Trump cannot sign legislation that hasn't been approved by both houses of Congress, and the "McConnell/Schumer Shutdown" is the result of the SENATE's failure to pass the budget.

      You seem to be seriously misinformed on some of the details. I don't really have an opinion on any of this, but to say that legislation hasn't been passed by both houses is completely false. There are seven budget bills that have all made it through both senate and house that are sitting on Trump's desk that he is refusing to sign. That's what this whole thing is about, and why it's news at all.

      You seem to be very informed of some mild details of the Pelosi/Schumer video that is being discussed, but didn't seem to have actually watched it yourself because there were two when that video was made and they even say so in the video.

    4. Re:Not Quite Accurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Trump cannot sign legislation that hasn't been approved by both houses of Congress, and the "McConnell/Schumer Shutdown" is the result of the SENATE's failure to pass the budget

      Republicans still have the majority in both houses. Republicans can get budget passed if they want it.

      Schumer is not a republican, in case you haven't
      noticed it. He has nothing to do with the fact the Republicans can't make a budget.

    5. Re:Not Quite Accurate... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      For bills of this type, the Dems are threatening a filibuster; so a 60-vote supermajority is needed. McConnell doesn't have it.

      Which is quite aside from the point that McConnell and the RINOs don't WANT to stifle the supply of cheap immigrant labor.

    6. Re:Not Quite Accurate... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      The only poll that mattered was on election day in 2016. As a former president once said, "Elections have consequences. And I won."

  86. Wall... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    ... or shut it the heck down.

    Period. As a legal immigrant that came on O1 visa I hate the lazy asses who crawled into the first world from their shitholes as "fiances" or crawled under the fence.

    From the other hand. Every single foreigner who decided "screw this shit, I am going to America" immediately becomes a spiritual American in many ways more American that people born here. He is courageous, he is enterprising enough to deserve a shot at the pursuit of happiness, to climb to that city on the hill.

    That does not mean of course that we should just grant this shot to every single guy who is willing to move to US.

    That's why we need a balance in the immigration. The selection. Selection means control. Illegal immigration is unchecked and uncontrolled. Mara Salvatrucha is a very real threat to American way of life.

    SO:

    Wall or GTFO.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  87. Re: Democrats fault by jd · · Score: 1

    The Brirish did. The IRA are now in government doing good rather than killing people.

    The Colombian people rejected peace and are now locked in a death struggle. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Don't be an idiot and learn.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  88. tsunami alerts by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I read this it seems like all they are missing from USGS is post incident reporting. I'm not saying that is unimportant, but there wasn't going to be any tsunami warning from USGS anyway. This was a non-tectonic landslide in a confined region. It's much like the September wave, I think: small, fast, and local.

    They actually HAVE a local warning system for exactly this type of event, but it has been poorly managed and funded.

  89. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Great Wall of China was built in the 14th century AD.

  90. Re:Embrace the healing power of AND by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    My point is that because the USGS is able to see all damaging seismic events worldwide, we have a duty to warn other people about something that we can see. It's like being first at a car wreck. It's not your fault and not your problem, but it's human nature to be helpful if you can.

    If we didn't without a valid excuse, you anti-American lefties would be the first to whine about it.

  91. Re: Democrats fault by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    My math skills say the Republicans currently have majorities in both the House and Senate. Or are you using some new math no one knows about.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  92. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that is the problem. In essence, Mexico is paying for the wall by other means, (economic pressure, tariffs, etc). But the situation is way too nuance for even 3/4s of the American public to understand because they have no idea what the fuck is going on, and no idea what the fuck they are talking about. As far as mentioning a government shutdown, we libertarians are happy about that. Anytime the Federal government takes a hike and stops burdening the current funding system, this is awesome. In fact, fuck the federal government until Spring, that would be even better. Oh, and cut congressional salaries during that time period. Even better. Furlough everyone in the alphabet soup agencies. Perfect.

  93. Re: TRUMP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    Quite frankly I was a middle of the road person, but I am heavily leaning more towards repub lately with how childish the dems are being.

    I feel ya.. I didn't use to have an opinion one way or the other on trannies and homosexuals, but after the left kept trying to cram their ideology down my throat with the most extreme examples, I have become decidedly more "right". I couldn't have cared less if two guys (or gals) got married. But when the left started telling me that a human with a penis and tits was a woman... Yeah, I don't think so.

  94. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    You do realize that the only source of ladders isn't the $300-500 ones from the hardware store right? It is one of humanity's oldest inventions. Also ladders are not one-time use items.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  95. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Er what? The word "Khan" means ruler because the Great Wall wasn't effective.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  96. Re: TRUMP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    He doesn't have to be personally impeached, just have members of his immediate family sent to jail with charges pending for him the moment he steps down.

    Why is it you people don't get this: All Trump has to do, legally, is resign 20 minutes before his term ends. Pence would be sworn in as President and then he can pardon Trump for any and all crimes he may or may not have committed. I'm not saying this is "right" or "wrong". I'm saying it's legal, it's constitutional, and I'm saying he's not going to jail. The only place Trump sits in jail is in delusional liberal fantasies. I don't know if 20 minutes would be enough time, that's a bit of exaggeration on my part, but certainly a single day would suffice.

  97. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    What's really sad is that you all (left and right) are a bunch of fucking morons. Not a single person, in this whole discussion, has mentioned what is actually shutting the government down.

    We have run out of fucking money.. ALL OF IT IS GONE.

    Trump is using this to his advantage (or so he thinks), but POLITICIANS have spent every last dime we have, including everything we have borrowed so far. There is none left.

    For the government to continue to operate fully we have to BORROW MORE FUCKING MONEY.

    Every goddamn year, without end, we borrow MORE AND MORE AND MORE.

    No, Clinton didn't have a fucking surplus. He had a situation where more came in than was needed for operations, and some was used to pay DOWN the debt, but the debt was never eliminated. Shady accounting tricks don't equal reality.

    Both sides DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN are bankrupting this country. We either get it under control now or we never ever will.

    Fuck you all

  98. Automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is utter bullshit that the shut down caused this. Any emergency alert system should be semi- or fully autonomous. If their monkeys are manually parsing magnitudes and tsunami warnings than they should be sacked.

  99. Re: TRUMP by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Sure but how does that help the Republicans win the election? All it does is help Trump, and practically guarantees that their next candidate is fucked.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  100. Re: Democrats fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    The Cloumbian cartels have been broken and Columbia is propering

  101. Re: Democrats fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that expression? Once you pay the danegeld he always goes away forever and never comes back? No wait, that isn't it.

    Trump said he would be proud to shut down the government. Dems offered $25,000,000,000 for border security last year and he turned it down. We are not building a stupid brick wall. Mexico is not paying for a stupid brick wall.

    I remember when Republicans at least pretended they were for limited government. You know who the successor to Reagan"s mantle was? "war monger Hilary Clinton". The 80s style Dem was Bernie. Trump is worse than Bif Tannen in the Back to the Future 2 bad timeline.

    At least Bif Tannen could run a casino.

  102. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a rope? How much does that cost? I have a fifty foot coil that weighs under a kilo I carried for two months camping one season. A grappling hook isnt too bad to add in a lunch. You could even cut a bit of fence and throw that on the spikey bits. Frankly, if the wall/steel slat fence was built, I would expect those posts to be cut down and salvaged. I would if some foreigner left a bunch of super useful $1,000 beams in the desert near me. Boom, new house frame.

    If the wall is in the US, they've already entered. If it is in Mexico, it isn't illegal for Mexicans to take it for their own use.

    Or, you know, the thousands/millions you imagine lurking at the wall World War Z style could take turns digging under/chipping away at it. If it is a concrete wall, you can't see them until they are through. So you need sensors and border guards everywhere to respond. At which point.. You don't need the wall.

  103. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #AtLeastBiffTannenCouldRunACasino

  104. Re: Democrats fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened with 'The Mexicans will pay for the wall' ?

  105. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    The wall wasn't effective because it stopped short. It stopped in Jiayuguan, about smack-dab in the original borders of the Mongol Empire. Kublai Kahn simply had to ride around the end of it... And in modern times, we see - as I linked above - walls work. Even for determined illegal aliens.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  106. That's because you were not paying attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump must have said it over a hundred times - that Mexico would pay for it one way or another, by tariffs, by changes in cross-border currency transfers, by renegotiated trade deals, and so forth.

    Given that the wall will, at worst, cost a total of something like $25 billion USD and the gigantic (currently about $180 billion per year) cost of illegal immigration into the USA, and given the massive trade deficits the US has run with Mexico every since NAFTA went into effect and made Ross Perot's predicted "giant sucking sound" a proven reality, Recovering $25 billion USD from Mexico is a complete no-brainer and so easy as to be barely noticable.

    As with any construction project (the sort of thing Trump has done for decades) you get funds lined up initially to fund the build (often as a construction loan) and the actual cash comes in later to repay that upfront construction loan. Trump NEVER said Mexico would write a big check - he always said they'd pay in other ways and even said they'd be happy to do it (tied to the idea that in straightening out the trade relationship, relations between the countries would improve and both economies would ultimately benefit).

    So tell me, Trump hater, where's the $2500.00 per year that I'm supposed to be saving on my health insurance now with Obamacare in effect??? My rates are triple what they used to be and my deductibles are through the roof, all while I had to lose my plan and lose my doctor (all three are things every prominent Democrat lied to me about hundreds of times).

  107. This is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Schumer NEVER offered $25 billion for the wall. NOT EVER. The closest he ever came was when Chuck (in his own words) ""In exchange for strong DACA protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion," - NOTE: he did NOT offer anything other than DISCUSSION. this was the typical Democrat faux-border-secutiry deal just like the one they made with Reagan in 1986. No actual substance and no actual border security were proposed by Schumer.

    Schumer has repeatedly said NO MONEY for the wall - EVER.

    TRUMP OFFERED TO LEGALIZE MORE DACA KIDS THAN THE DEMOCRATS REQUESTED IN EXCHANGE FOR WALL FUNDING, and Pelosi and Schumer walked away. This offer risked angering Trump's own supporters as even the liberals at NBC admitted.

  108. And if the big one hits the west coast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What resources will be available for that? Or for predicting tsunamis on coastal cities after?

    Utter BS childish nonsense you yanks put up with (but as a Canadian I think NRCan can help you out if that happens)

  109. Empirical evidence is why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have decades of absolute proof that without a wall, all the other "smart" technologies faile to stop 20Million+ illegals from simply walking across the border.

    We also have centuries of experience with walls working to stop masses of people crossing them. The Berlin wall was used by an evil regime to keep its own people locked-in under the thum of Marxist governance. The government of Israel has used walls to keep terrorists from easy entry. For centuries, Popes have used the walls to keep people out of the Vatican. The Romans used Hadrian's wall. Rich Democrats use walls and fences to keep people out of their gated communities and off of their private estates. Obama had a wall built around the home he bought in Washington DC after leaving the White House.

    No solution other than a physical barrier is supported by actual evidence.

  110. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    I suppose because the Impact was in Indonesia and the Indonesians were not paying for services to protect their own citizens lives. Live in an earthquake zone and it is up to 'YOUR' government to provide proper detection and warning services. Why the fuck would this be the US governments fault or Trumps fault. In fact Trump could turn around and say see "Indonesia getting a free ride on US taxpayer provided services". I wouldn't normally bother with this but 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is just getting too ludicrous not to take the piss out of.

    Like all the fake left Hollywood peaceniks complaining about Trump removing invading US forces from Syria, they are an actually invading army, not invited, no UN approval and no approval from the US congress or senate, the peaceniks screaming for more war because Trump did not want more want. If Trump wants it not matter what, the Trump Derangement Syndrome freaks oppose it (the fake left actually far right tools of the establishment). US main stream media has become a joke, a parody of itself.

    How to make Mexico pay for the wall, create a fund and to put money in that fund, start charging the Mexican government for all illegal immigrants returned, from the point of arrest on, the cost to secure is a US government choice, cost there in after, the failure of the Mexican government responsibility to secure it's border and control it's citizens. So from the point of arrest on, cost of detaining the illegal immigrant, court costs, medical expenses and cost of return to Mexico, all totalled up and the bill sent to Mexico, when Mexico pays, that money used to pay for the Wall. So the wall will save the US government money and the Mexican government money.

    The Mexican government should not get a free ride for failing to control it's borders, all illegal immigrants costs to the US taxpayer by Mexican citizens, should be paid for by the Mexican government, that is entirely reasonable and entirely doable. This should be a globally applied rule, all illegal immigrants costs should be billed back to the country of origin, they can always bill the individual when they get back and recover the money.

    The citizens of every country in the world, have the right to choose who they will and will not let into their country, and the right to recover costs from kicking out illegal attempts to gain entry and exploit the hard work, services to the community and taxes of citizens, not just current generations but past generations who strove to create a better future for the next generation of citizens in their country. That is entirely fair and reasonable.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  111. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no. it means that reality isn't binary, all of one thing, none of another.

    Please to think harder next time.

  112. Re: Democrats fault by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    My math skills say the Republicans currently have majorities in both the House and Senate. Or are you using some new math no one knows about.

    There's a piece of Senate math you don't know about.

    It takes 60%, not 50%+, to break a filibuster. (Down from 75%, down from "you can't break it until the other side ALL falls asleep at once".)

    There are some issues where a filibuster is not allowed. Appropriation bills are explicitly NOT one of them.

    The Republicans could exercise the "Nuclear Option" and change the rules. But they don't want to do that, because it would be used against them the next time THEY are in the minority.

    Right now they've got 51 senators plus the Vice president's tie-breaker. So if they could get it to a vote it would pass. But they're nowhere near the 60 they'd need to bring it to a vote. They need 9 Democrats.

    They picked up a couple in the midterms, but are still nowhere near 60. Meanwhile the Democrats picked up a bunch in the house and will have a majority there. So waiting for next year is a bad idea.

    Trump promised, when signing last year's appropriation, to not do that again this year. He's sticking to that, at least so far. So 17% of the government gets a paid vacation until 6 senate Democrats vote for wall funding, the clock run out on this congress (which is being held in session by another of the presidential powers), or Trump flinches.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  113. LOL by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Yeah right...blame that on the government shutdown. Let's stop being "the world's police" for flipping everything and let other countries fend for themselves a while!

  114. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The wall wasn't effective because it stopped short. It stopped in Jiayuguan, about smack-dab in the original borders of the Mongol Empire. Kublai Kahn simply had to ride around the end of it... And in modern times, we see - as I linked above - walls work. Even for determined illegal aliens.

    Er what? The Jiayuguan great wall was built AFTER the Mongol led Yuan dynasty ended. The Mongols didn't have to ride around it as they had already conquered China by then. What you say is either a complete and utter lie or you have no sense of history of the great wall.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  115. Re:I thought the Mexicans were going to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try this. The agreement to keep the asylum seekers in Mexico will shift some of the 60K a year support burden for them onto Mexico, who obviously won't be up to coughing up that much and save the US big time in administrative costs, and deportation costs too. After enough time of that Mexico may want to cough up for the wall directly too to dissuade even more Central Americans from leeching off them.

  116. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

    The pass was used by the Mongols, and that is why it didn't work. But you keep wanting to ignore the fact (even Politifact confirms) that a wall works in Israel. You know, modern times, not people on horses... Why do you deny the fact that a wall cuts illegal entry by 99%?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  117. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The pass was used by the Mongols, and that is why it didn't work.

    You know we can research and debunk your lies.

    Genghis Khan (1162 - 1227), the founder of the Mongol Empire, was the only one who breached the Great Wall of China in its 2,700-year-history. In his lifetime, Genghis Khan led his Mongolian army to break through the Great Wall not only once, but several times at Wusha Fortress, Juyongguan, Zijingguan, and Tongguan, etc. These successes were a big help in overthrowing of the Jin Dynasty (1115 - 1234 AD) and founding of the Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368 AD).

    But you keep wanting to ignore the fact (even Politifact confirms) that a wall works in Israel. You know, modern times, not people on horses... Why do you deny the fact that a wall cuts illegal entry by 99%?

    Again, a quick search says you're wrong.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  118. Budget / Debt by markdavis · · Score: 2

    Part of me would like to see the shutdown last exactly as long as it would take to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. What an interesting experiment THAT would be.... Of course, that can't happen (for pretty obvious reasons).

    I really do wish we had a Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget or it just cuts all spending across the board, automatically, until it is balanced. Of course, that does nothing for the $21 *TRILLION* debt (which cost us $310 BILLION to service in 2018 alone, $2.6 TRILLION over the last 10 years), but at least it is a start. In the mean time, raise taxes, stop spending (my preference), or some combination of both!

    1. Re:Budget / Debt by theCoder · · Score: 2

      Part of me would like to see the shutdown last exactly as long as it would take to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. What an interesting experiment THAT would be.... Of course, that can't happen (for pretty obvious reasons).

      The real reason that cannot happen is that when every shutdown is resolved, the government pays all the federal workers for the time they were not working. So shutdowns don't actually save the federal government any money at all. It's all just politics and grandstanding.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    2. Re:Budget / Debt by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"The real reason that cannot happen is that when every shutdown is resolved, the government pays all the federal workers for the time they were not working. So shutdowns don't actually save the federal government any money at all. It's all just politics and grandstanding."

      Exactly. So the entire thing is a farce- the public loses services for no reason and Federal employees get paid to do nothing. It is infuriating. I want it shut down and painful for everyone, while saving money to boot.

  119. coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you say SuperVolcano.

  120. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we know as the Great Wall of China was built in the 14th century. Earlier walls were sometimes in different locations, and different construction methods were used. The idea that there was been a great wall for thousands of years is incorrect as they were not the same wall.

    The wall from around 700AD is what Gengis Khan broke through. The 14th century wall was overcome entirely in the mid 17th century.

    Rather than being a bulwark against invasion lasting thousands of years each wall had a lifetime of around 300 to 400 years, and was backed with significant military force operating on the far side of it for the periods when it was effective.

  121. Re: Democrats fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn what extortion works?

  122. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    I never said the existing wall was the only wall. That's a straw man argument. What was said was that it wasn't effective. Indeed the Mongols were not the only ones that invaded China from the north during that time. One factor in these conquests was the wall itself had been expensive to build and maintain and weaken the Han empire.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  123. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your arguments fall on the deaf ears of sociopaths.

  124. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Israel has a wall across its entire border. It works. China had one across part of its border. It didn't work. Israel is modern times. China's wall was ancient times. Walls work.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  125. The Clinton Democrats are opposed to it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    e.g. the right wing of the Democratic party opposes it. The actual left wing of the Democratic party is in favor of it so long as we use diplomacy to protect the Kurds from a Genocide.

    If you want change you need the actual left. That's the Bernie Bros, the Justice Democrats and the folks running "Our Revolution".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  126. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Chas · · Score: 1

    Yep. I'm sure that you're going to have a mom & her little kids shimmying 30 feet up a rope.

    Again, this is not about deterring every last illegal economic migrant on the planet.

    It's about upping the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk on over..." to "Shit! I have to climb that?"

    And no you do NOT need "guards everywhere".

    The wall prevents you from needing guards putting ye olde Mark 1 Eyeball on every last inch of the border.
    So you have patrol zones, which border patrols pass multiple times a day.

    And yes, you still need the wall. You need a physical deterrent.

    Because a group of 10 or so border guards could, conceivably, be overwhelmed.

    I don't know why the hell this is so hard for some people to grok.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  127. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I donâ(TM)t think you quite understand what a challenge walking through hundreds of miles of rough terrain is compared to climbing a rope ladder, or even a rope over one wall. Seriously, what is with this awe that you people treat the concept of a wall with? Are you completely incapable of looking back at the example of the Great Wall of China? Built in stages. Construction generally ordered by the current group in charge who got to be in charge by easily breaching the wall and conquering the place. I will say that a lot of this argument started when Trump was insisting that this wall would span the entire border and distinctly be a wall and not a fence. Maybe if he was mature enough to admit that he was wrong rather than trying to pretend that his current ask was what he was always after we wouldnâ(TM)t have this argument on our hands.

  128. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Israel's wall was never the point. You brought that in when it was clear that you were utterly wrong about the Great Wall.

    But to address your point about "modern" walls, how many times was the Berlin Wall breached? That was an extremely guarded section of wall that was only a few miles long. Yet people breached it. Now you think that somehow a 2,000 mile will be easier to protect? [sarcasm] If only no one ever invents vehicles that go above or under a wall. Also as long as people can't use water based vehicles to go around the wall then the wall will be extremely effective.[/sarcasm]

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  129. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by Chas · · Score: 1

    And I don't think you quite understand what's involved in actually trying to climb a 30 foot tall structure that's designed to be an impediment to passage.

    You wanna disagree? Fine.

    Likely it's neither as easy as you're saying, nor quite so hard as I'm saying.

    Either way, the effect on immigration will be non-zero.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  130. Of Course You Are Proud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deplorable Pride for empty gestures is a go-to move for Trump supporters. For example:

    - I support the military by voting for a draft dodger!
    - I am proud of a Wall policy that is Too Expensive and Mostly Ineffective!
    - Rhetorical support for a sunsetting coal industry is the Greatest Thing Ever!
    - Tax cuts for the 1% are exactly what the country, and the Trump Base needs! No money for the middle class and no economic boost! Huge deficits for the foreseeable future! Winning!
    - Obamacare, which only suffered by being too cautious, must be repealed!
    - A President who is obviously corrupt and lining his own pockets, is Exactly What the United States Needs!
    - Draining the Swamp and Replace all the Alligators with Crocodiles!
    - All the Best People! So many in fact, they need to keep firing them!

  131. Re: TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way he'll get elected is if the Democrats are stupid enough to run a left-wing loon like Bernie or Warren.

    So, we won't elect a left-wing loon, but are more than happy to elect a right-wing loon? Huh.

  132. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Go check. I started with the Israeli wall...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  133. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Go check [slashdot.org]. I started with the Israeli wall...

    You know we can scroll up right?

    Speaking of the unstoppable juggernaut of government, aren't you a bit worried about it trying to piss away billions of your dollars on something known not to work? I mean China built a wall far bigger and better than the one Trump wants, and that wasn't very effective...

    The other poster started with the Great Wall. You brought in another wall without addressing the first point.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  134. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    A 2000 year old, incomplete wall doesn't quite apply to modern times, does it?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  135. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    But you were absolutely wrong on every point on it. But speaking of modern walls, how effective was the Berlin Wall? I've already linked where the wall in Israel has been less than effective. That's in addition to the tunnels they find all the time.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  136. Re: Embrace the healing power of AND by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The Berlin wall was amazingly effective. VERY few people actually escaped over it, compared to the number who it held back. Likewise, the Israeli wall works 99% of the time. That's quite effective. Or do you demand 100%, and since NOTHING can give that, we might as well just open everything up completely?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  137. Something to do with the actual event : by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Even if the USGS's website isn't updating fully, for reasons I don't give one shit about, you can always get the data from one of
    • EMSC European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, here
    • GeoNet Geological hazard information for New Zealand here
    • CSN Centro SismolÃgico Nacional, Universidad de Chile.here
    • INGV Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia here
    • IGN Instituto GeogrÃfico Nacional here
    • JMA Japan Meteorological Agency here
    • Ineter Institution Nicaraguenese de Estudios Territoriales here
    • SSN Servicio SismolÃgico Nacional here
    • SGC Servicio GeolÃgico Colombiano here
    • RSN Red SismolÃgica Nacional here
    • Funvisis FundaciÃn Venezolana de Investigaciones SismolÃgicas here
    • INPRES INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÃ"N SÃSMICA here

    You can tell I have my own reasons for keeping a list like that, one of which is that the USGS just can't be trusted to be up.

    The data is international anyway. It's part of the international network for monitoring compliance with nuclear test ban treaties. So any one of those sites should be able to get you everything you need.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"