Slashdot Mirror
Government Shutdown: TLS Certificates Not Renewed, Many Websites Are Down (zdnet.com)
More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public. From a report: NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft. The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being furloughed across all government agencies, including staff handling IT support and cybersecurity. As a result, government websites are dropping like flies, with no one being on hand to renew TLS certificates.
Often it seems that one of Trump's top motivations is to piss on the democrats, without concern for what it does to anyone who is not a hard core supporter of his. If we could get someone on Fox & Friends to say that the most dramatic thing he could do to piss off the democrats at this point would be to resign - leaving Pence in charge - he just might do it. Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet). Just tell trump about the sweetheart deal Nixon got when he resigned and Trump might go for it. Hell if he goes out willingly he could still get lifetime secret service protection for him and his family for the rest of all their lives, saving him many millions of dollars.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We need border security for National Security. Obstructionist Democrats can be the one to thank.
This isn't a government shutdown. This is a minority party that gained a slight foothold in one part of the government and immediately used it to shut down the government and is now trying to blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.
The Senate and the President of the United States are ready to reopen the government immediately. It's solely one small part of the government that's refusing to open things. So call it what it is: the Democrat Shutdown.
Democrats took control of the house: Jan 3
Shutdown started: Dec 22
Trump, McConnell, and Senate Republicans own this. Everyone, including you, know this.
One appears to be a test domain, one expired before the shutdown and the third does not resolve publicly and the article says the org was not affected by the shutdown.
Trump already took credit for this one. And let's not forget, Democrats won the popular vote, time and time again, so majority sides with them. They were recently elected to do what they are doing now.
If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.
You're full of shit.
The Republican-controlled Senate passed the bill. Then the Republican-controlled House refused to vote on it. It expired.
The Democrat-controlled house passed the Senate bill. Mitch McConnell (R!) is refusing to let the senate vote on it.
If it went to a vote it would pass. Mitch is refusing to put Trump in a position where he'd have to veto it.
The Democrats are the only ones acting honestly here. They passed the Republican bill. The shutdown is entirely of Trump's making.
There's no reason this isn't automated, run a CRON job every 30 days that refreshes the TLS certs and move on with your day.
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
No sig today...
No, it's her desire to see him not get a key campaign promise through and see him not get reelected in 2020. That's what this is about. They are willing to ensure than 800k federal employees don't get paid for months because they are that Hell-bent on seeing his chances reduced in 2020. That's it.
The Democrats supported every wasteful thing Bush and Obama put out there. They supported Obama's expansion on Bush's militarism.
The fact is that if Trump wanted $10B to bomb a randomly named country, half the Democrats would give him the money. It's only--only--when that money is put toward something that is a core campaign promise and related to what people want (border security) that they lose their minds and channel Ayn Rand.
Pretty much this. I think current events are playing into Trump's hands because the average person sees no effect from the shutdown and thinks "the government spends probably spends $5B on toilet paper ever year - can you please just give the orange one his cookie so I don't have to hear whiny people on TV every night?"
Is it that no one is on hand to renew or that people are on hand and choosing not to do their job?
Most likely the administrators are not essential and thus cannot renew them. If they are furloughed they are nnot allowed to even check email, use a gov't issued phone, or do any work at all.
That's what some at the TSA are doing. Calling in sick to make matters worse. http://fortune.com/2019/01/11/...
Given the choice of working for no pay or doing something else to try to pay rent and buy food, yea I can see calling in sick to work a side job.
Also keep in mind that many in the federal bureaucracy were already "resisting" the moment Trump came into office.
Bullshit. I know a lot of feds, and they just want to do their jobs and carry out whatever policies the administration puts in place, even if they disagree with them. In a number of cases, all the turmoil has resulted in them not even being told what they are to do, what programs to drop, where to refocus efforts, etc.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
America elected Trump in part to fix immigration. 72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
This is not Trump going off the rails. This is him doing exactly what we elected him to do.
The only people upset are globalists who want cheap slave labor and leftists who want cheap votes. If Mexican illegal immigrants voted majority Republican, they'd treat them the same way they treat Cuban refugees (who vote 80% Republican).
You lost. America First. Traitors get the rope.
What he says he would or wouldn't sign is 100% irrelevant, because 1) he's a liar so nothing he says is ever relevant and 2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
This problem is caused by senators who are too pussy to pass a bill that the president doesn't like. Think about that. This is the pussiest president we've had since .. Wilson!?!?! And the Republican dominated senate is too pussy to stand up to him. Those senators need to go. Start with voting McConnell out as majority leader.
The DOJ certificate is good until March, and the NASA certificate is good until January 2020.
No he is just religious. Something this country was founded on. Dumbass.
Actually, one of the problems is that the president is asking for money for border security, but he's already told everyone he's going to waste it on some porky boondoggle instead of spending it on security. He says he's going to divert border security money to some silly useless garbage.
You're handing money to your wife to buy beer and she says "no beer tonight, we're getting magic beans instead!" No wonder you held onto the $20.
No automatic renewals?
No credit card on file? WTF?
So some GS-12 was manually checking expiration dates and manually renewing every few months?
I would say you've got to be kidding me, but it's almost believable. This being government.
So either government IT is massively incompetent, or they are just playing stupid games - similar to how the football team is always the first thing cut in a school district, never diversity czars.
You mean by doing the sensible thing, eg. Postponing the wall until there's money to pay for it?
(There'll be money, right? Trump's economic policies are working...?)
No sig today...
If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.
Ah.. Boo Hoo... Seems the Democrat tactic from the Obama years is being used by the Republicans...
Remember all the "Give me a CLEAN CR!" statements from Obama when the Republican house was trying to get concessions on the ACH and the Budget from him? The house kept passing bills and the Senate kept ignoring them and we shutdown the government then too.
It's how the game is played by both sides, so cry into your beer if you have to but your complaints are falling on deaf ears here.
BTW.. How'd that all turn out? The House republicans caved, passed a clean CR and we moved on. I suspect the House will lose this fight too, but that's just my guess based on history.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Well, maybe in December they did, but now in January the issue is falling squarely on the House...
Is it worth 5.6 billion to ya? No? Then we wait some more.... But truth be told, Trump was right, he is not a dictator, cannot make law by the force of his will alone, Congress must participate, the very thing he told Nancy and Schumer in their first meeting.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
UT is dead.
I only wish it really were.
We are far better off without the oppressing evil hand of Big Government.
Corporatism != Free Market
Clinton, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi all voted for a wall before Trump made actually getting it done a major campaign promise. Millions of people entering illegally, and often getting injured, assaulted, or even killed during the trek, was a "crisis" that needed to be solved, until Trump decided to actually solve it. The funding was "urgently needed", these Democrats said on national TV, until Trump would "get credit" for having done it.
"Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress." Sen. Chuck Schumer
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked." - Barak Obama
Less than a year later, Obama and 25 other Senate Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act, the 2006 legislation that authorized the construction of 700 miles of barriers along the southern border.
"[we must] spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. ... I do think you have to control your borders." - Hillary Clinton
How about the Dems allow the government to do what they themselves have said is "urgently needed" rather than obstructing it because they don't want the orange idiot to get the credit for it?
At least one of the organizations listed in the FA seem to be working fine. I just visited nasa.gov and the site seems functional. (No... I didn't hit all the .gov sites listed looking for broken certs.) Did /. shame them into finding someone to bring the site back?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
What alternate facts?
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives? Where they for it before they decided it was a bad idea it or some such nonsense?
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Sorry, the "pen and a phone" only work when Dems win the presidency.
Because reasons. Or something.
America elected Trump
Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period. Even with a seemingly historic election we still had a rather appallingly low voter turnout in 2016 (less than 2/3 of eligible voters), hence more people who could have voted didn't bother voting than turned out to vote for Trump.
in part to fix immigration
As has been shown before, Trump has held almost every position on almost every issue at one time or another. Consistency is not his strength (one can debate what his strength actually is...).
72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
Do you have a source for that? I found a study that basically said the opposite of that, where 72% said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met. That's a long ways from your claim.
globalists who want cheap slave labor
Considering the millions of dollars that Trump has refused to pay to people working for him over the years, it would seem that Trump himself should be in that camp. Or is it not "cheap slave labor" when it is money that is refused to American skilled workers?
leftists who want cheap votes
Going with that conspiracy again? Just because Trump says it is so doesn't make it the case.
If Mexican illegal immigrants voted majority Republican, they'd treat them the same way they treat Cuban refugees (who vote 80% Republican).
Keep peddling that conspiracy if you want...
You lost.
You do know there was an election in November 2018 as well, right?
America First
Tens of thousands of unpaid workers would like to challenge you on what that means.
Traitors get the rope.
Careful what you wish for there. The number of constitutional amendments that Trump has not openly spoken in opposition to grows shorter every month.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Problem is, it's not a House fight; they passed the exact bill that the Senate passed before the new year. The Senate is now refusing to vote on the bill they already passed once. This is 100% on their shoulders; they are falling on their swords to protect Trump from having to veto it.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
I don't think so. Every time Donald throws a tantrum, his base poll numbers go up, and congressional Republicans tremble in fear.
Likewise for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi was demonized by people like AOC last fall, yet now that she is standing up to Trump, her popularity with the progressive base has soared.
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
US government is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I'm imagining a number of government workers waiting until 5 minutes to the hour, then the Mission Impossible theme kicks in while they log into their CA website to get a new cert issued, and then replace it on the servers exactly at the stroke of midnight! Exciting!
Except, not really. If they let their cert get that old before replacing it, they really need to rethink their policies. There could be any number of reasons why you might not be able to replace the cert in a timely fashion.
"The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign."
Is no less accurate as:
The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by the US Congress' refusal to pass any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall promised to voters.
When you have two stubborn groups refusing to compromise THEY ARE BOTH RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Right now we are a global embarrassment mostly because of partisanship at a time when we have an escalating trade war and need unity. You might point a finger at who put us in that position but I'd point out that isn't productive, it doesn't much matter we have to deal with the situation we are in. The money being requested here is a drop in the bucket relative to the budget and international credibility this costs us, the Americans who want this pay more than enough in taxes to be entitled to it, so my 2 cents is do the stupid thing and move on.
I know that this being /. that people like to bash Trump at every opportunity (even when unwarranted), but isn't this problem one of crappy cert management?
Waiting until the very last minute before renewing a cert isn't a Best Practice. It's not like your wasting money by renewing a cert early.
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
They should pay for the wall and get something back for it. The master negotiator has tied the credibility of the entire republican party to this wall, which means he's not going to just give up. It also means he (and other republicans) are probably willing to give in on other things they otherwise wouldn't. Offer the measly $5 billion and get an increase in minimum wage or something else Trump would never otherwise sign. What he's asking for isn't even nearly what he'll need to actually complete the wall either, so there's plenty of opportunity in the future to bargain for more. This is a huge gift to the democratic agenda.
No, something SOME of the colonies were founded on. Almost everything they came here to be able to do is illegal now because they were psychotic religious cults too extreme at a time when Europe burned people at the stake over religion. Not exactly something we want to bring back.
800,000+ people didn't get paid. If they all get on average $2500 per month, then that's $2bn "saved" right there.
Just another 2 months of this and all of those furloughed workers will have paid for his wall...
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Nobody is better at caving in to demands than the democrats.
Then how is it that Boston and Seattle get boatloads of federal money for downtown highway expansion while midwest cities get zippo?
The Big Dig started in the 90s (with funding from the 80s) and was done over 10 years ago now. How many large projects have the democrats pulled off since then?
How is your health insurance doing?
The democrats wanted single payer. Democratic voters wanted single payer. The GOP wrote the fucking bill based on what the Heritage Foundation wanted, and we ended up with ACA as a direct result of GOP demands. The GOP walked away from the discussions because they didn't want reforms to be signed by a democrat.
How about your social security benefits?
It would be doing fine if the GOP wasn't raiding Social Security every chance they get.
Thank Democrats for having a spine.
If I find one I'll try. I'm not holding my breath, I expect them to cave soon.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Trump was a democrat for most of his life but democrats have moved farther to the left and have become more radical over time.
A shutdown is the only leverage he has as president. Sure, he owns it but it's also congress because they control the purse. Democrats could easily end this just as much as Trump. Who is acting from a position of principle?
When two cars are playing chicken both are at fault when they crash not just the one who accelerated first.
The republican house approved a version that Trump would sign but it never made it to the Senate vote because there were not enough votes from Democrats.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
What about the democrats in the senate that could have avoided all of this?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
HINT: There isn't money to pay for 24% of what the Federal Government does. It brings in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, pensions (Federal and SSI), healthcare, and welfare. No money for anything else - DOEs (both of them), EPA, FBI, OSHA, CBP, DOD, etc.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No star certs?
What you just said:
"No, we aren't in the business of governing anymore."
The election is over. Now it's time to actually govern, which means working together to get the business of the federal government done.
If you don't want to govern, don't run for government office. If you just want to be a political hack, get a fucking AM radio talk show like all the other hacks.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You'll probably start to know pretty soon as those furloughed workers start not getting paychecks. The economic ripples are going to start.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Amazing, you're an idiot.
America ELECTED Trump. That's a fact. B-b-but he didn't get the popular v - STFU! The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college which Trump won in a large majority even after a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him.
It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But hey, I'm sure the rest of your posts are just as accurate.
With increasing public debt and destruction of many small businesses due to the tariffs. The illusory "good" economy is just another liberal pump-and-dump. It's not like the bills won't ever have to be paid.
I know why Democrats would have nominated Trump but I still can't figure out why Republicans tolerate him. There's only one explanation that makes any sense:
The liberals and conservatives have switched sides. Republicans are now the liberals, and Democrats are now the conservatives. And the liberals are up to their usual tricks.
"72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
Do you have a source for that? I found a study that basically said the opposite of that [people-press.org], where 72% said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met. That's a long ways from your claim."
Very far in the way, so far one could call it a tangent since you can both think illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met (something trump proposed and both the D and R leadership shot down) and think illegal immigration is a problem.
Because that's how leverage works. If you cut all the shit that nobody cares about, or everyone except the government employee unions want cut, then you're just doing your job as a fiscally responsible manager of the Citizens' tax dollars. If you want to move the needle, you have to make noise.
Same as it ever was.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote. Any other democracy would consider that an appalling failure - especially if you include the citizens who are uniquely ineligible in this country who would be able to vote in almost every other democracy.
Our country has the distinction of being one of the only "democracies" where politicians can pick their voters as much as the voters can pick their politicians.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts. That seems to pass as dialogue for a certain portion of our country now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I don't read newspapers, I don't watch the news, I'm not American, etc. So this is the first time I hear the reason why the USA government shut down. And just as I thought, it's a stupid-ass reason on top of "government shut down" sounding like something a third-world country would do.
And this only reinforces my point of view that Trump is a grown-up spoiled brat that always do whatever the fuck he wants, screw everyone else.
#DeleteFacebook
Those were not about walls along the whole fucking shebang southern border, but rather small portion, and about sensible policies. You know, like the one republican hate more than dems : fining hugely and financially crushing people hiring illegals. But wait, can't do that, most of those are rich folk voting republican AND donating money. Yet this crack down on the people hiring illegals is what WORK.
And they'll be plenty of opportunity to tie up the Great White Wall in court. The property owners, many are libretards, are willing to go to court to prevent the gummint from taking their land. And once some piece of the Great White Wall is built, thus allowing the Evangelicals to show the love of Jesus Christ to those heathen S. Americans, the next administration can take it back down as a stupid idea.
I read an interview with a Mexican awhile back. He didn't mind the wall reasoning that the U.S. would hire him and his buddies to help build it and then hire him and his buddies to tear it down.
If a Great White Emergency actually winds up paying for the Great White Wall, get ready for Governing by National Great White Emergency.
C'mon, his entire twitter feed is a tantrum feed.
24%? That sounds unreasonably low. I suppose you're not counting the federally-controlled military as something that the federal government does?
There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sundays.
Could have something to do with the fact that the fence they are asking for is $361 PER INCH (generously, including the 150 miles of fence that is already built) and would only cover 11% of the border? Doesn't sound worth shutting down the government to me.
Trump was a Democrat because he doesn't really have a political philosophy. When the opportunity arose to hijack the Republican Party, he took it. The Republican Party is bunch of marks, they'll go down the rat hole with him and not even realize it.
Which is the perfect comment because it has nothing to do with anything written in this thread prior to your non-sequitur.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
The only thing that's funny is the revisionist history I've seen people like you engaging in, given that he did say that Mexico would pay for the wall, he did so numerous times, and he even explicitly said that Mexico would pay for it in a "one-time payment". To his credit, he was walking the rhetoric back even before his inauguration, and I think it's a good thing when people (politicians or otherwise) change their minds after realizing that they were wrong, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the things they said. As such, what I'm not okay with is a politician attempting to gaslight an entire nation by lying about what was said when it's inconvenient for him to be held accountable for those words later. There's no denying—at least among honest people—that he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall and that they'd do so via a lump payment, rather than the tariffs, taxes, or whatever other reimbursements he's now trying to claim he meant all along.
As an aside, I don't have any "favored politicians". The party I'm registered with stopped representing my interests a long time ago, and none of the others do any better by me.
All signs point to this having been Trump's plan all along. He was literally setting up a TV channel of his own (as nobody actually wanted to put him in front of a camera) when he unexpectedly won and suddenly those plans fizzled out.
It's no wonder the republicans put so much effort into suppressing the popular vote, they can't win it on ideas when the majority of their ideas are harmful to the majority of Americans.
Democrats have protested every presidential election they didn't win for decades now.
For certain definitions of win, sure. It's only happened twice in the past 130 years, and both times it was a republican who couldn't win the majority.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
The national vote needs to be calculated, then and now, to select the electoral college. You don't need days - the electoral vote is a full month after the presidential election.
Actually Trump is best at caving in to demands. Daddy says go to Military School or newfree ride for you. Cadet Bone Spurs says "yes daddy." You are a douchebag if you can't figure that out. Trump only" stands tall" when he is stupid enough to think he might win ... And there has been no bigger stupid pussy in the history of the US than Trump, who actually *is* so stupid he thinks there might be a wall in his future.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Instructions from a government security training I had to take as a contractor:
"When you see the certificate error, click OK and continue."
They used self-signed keys.
This was a *security training* website.
When playing Uno do you claim that the person who just got rid of their last card actually lost because you have a full house in your remaining cards? Why don't you try win with the rules of the game being played, rather than rules for some other game that you're only following on your own.
It doesn't matter if Hillary ran up the score in California and New York. 50% + 1 vote wins the state and it's delegation (with few exceptions). And the President is elected by those delegations, not you. It's always been that way, so I don't know why you would think that it's all of a sudden different when your chosen tribe managed to lose an election that basically everyone though was un-loseable through amazing arrogance and disconnection with the voting public.
Maybe next time spend less time shmoozing the coastal elite for money and instagram photos, and actually speak to issues that moderates in the middle of the country want solved. Then you don't historically lose "safe" states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that a Republican hasn't won in three decades. And then, consequently, we wouldn't have a Dorito-tinted proto-facist sitting in the White House.
The "popular vote" isn't anything but an excuse for those who lost the election. It's a safety net for their massive ego, and the sycophants that can't understand that perhaps there are many other people out there that disagree with you. The nation-wide "popular vote" hasn't EVER been considered for the election of a President in the history of the United States Constitution. Stop moving the goalposts and then attempting to validate obstructionism and straight-out denial through the new position of said goalposts. We get it, you're still bitter that your favored tribe didn't win two years ago and you want to make any excuse or equivocation that you can for why. But the fact is, HILLARY LOST ACCORDING TO THE GOD DAMN ELECTION RULES.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Or he realized he would never get elected as a democrat. The fact that the only way he can get his agenda pushed through is by shutting down the government is not the least of the reasons why. If it was this important, a real leader would have made it happen already.
"..websites are dropping like flies."
lol people are really trying to hype this govt shut down. A cert expiring is not going to take a website down.
Also:
All essential personnel are working..are we seriously to believe that IT staff are not working?? B.S.
It's very oddly coincidental that certs expire in the 2 weeks the govt is "shutdown."
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...
For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.
From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.
The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.
But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Did it ever occur to you that Comrade Trump might be lying about who he wants to raises taxes upon, to pay for the wall? Think about everything else he has said. He lies routinely. Lying is normal for him. He cheats on his wife and then pays people to not tell her what happened. He obstructs justice to keep cops from finding out the truth about crimes. Dishonesty is what he's all about.
That the campaign promise was just another lie, is the best explanation. He wants to tax the US for it, not Mexico. Everyone needs to forget about his promises. Why would you believe this president? Stop supporting him.
Good god, he even ran as a "conservative" and then gave the US the one of the biggest tax increases in history. Go buy a washing machine and you'll see your taxes have gone up nearly 50%! And then do you know why he raised all our taxes? Not for revenue; he did it because he wants to centrally manage the economy, "pick winners and losers" in sales, instead of leaving things to the free market. (And interfering with immigration is the same thing, but for labor instead of materials.) And he told voters he would be a conservative.
He's a liar. Face up to it. Stop pretending otherwise by bringing up his campaign promises. He's not going to keep any of them.
Democrats might have unrealistic standards for honesty. They need to think about the kind of scum they're dealing with. I think they should, instead of holding Trump to a promise that he never intended to keep, just let it go. Democrats should stop obsessing over the wall, keep it out of the budget (or at least until we have an adult (a law-abiding adult) president who won't criminally mismanage it or use it in yet another money laundering scheme), and their Senate members should just voice support for the House bill that doesn't divert any money away from border security to a wall at all.
And once you realize that many of Trump's statements about international issues just happen to be exactly the same as what Putin says, you will even get some sense of the motive he has for weakening our border by diverting money away from security, to a wall instead. Trump supporters can't explain why Putin would want anything good for us.
So just let go of the wall promise, Democrats. Join the betrayed conservatives in opposing Trump, instead of working with him like the Republicans do.
There's no reason conservatives shouldn't be happy to go along with Dems on this. (Do we have any conservative voters here, to confirm or deny that? Are any conservatives still members of the Republican party, or did you all leave in 2016?)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Pro-tip :
You need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. That requires DEMOCRATS.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas, the Senate didn't vote on it because they lacked, *GASP* 9 DEMOCRAT votes.
Stop blaming the wrong party here. It's been the same story for 2 years. "But you control the Senate!" they say as they conveniently skip over the Republicans only having 51 seats (now 53 (?) ).
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Trump was a Democrat because he doesn't really have a political philosophy.
I could probably agree with that. It's why Republicans are generally wary of him and get a little nervous.
When the opportunity arose to hijack the Republican Party, he took it.
Now your going off the rails. Many Republicans were very angry at media and the establishment and after the love-affair with Obama it was enough for many to say "Fuck it. Throw in a political grenade and fuck the entire establishment.".
Trump was the hand grenade that shook everything up in politics. That isn't "hijacking" that is people desperate and angry.
Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.
I looked through every comment here and no one writes anything about the sites actually NOT being down. Don't know if hey actually were or if they got someone to fix it.
Slashdot going on the anti-Trump train is just a death of a once great site that actually cared about freedom and censorship with their "your rights online" ... Seem much evidence of that going by the wayside. pretty sad.
But anyway Nasa and DOJ website works. I didn't try the others.
Coz you know. actually goddamn facts matter? like.. or does /. also go with the way of liberals now that facts don't matter?
- Alex
Or he realized he would never get elected as a democrat.
Maybe he understood how deep the loyalty and corruption was for Clinton.
If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.
I think your expectations for employee patriotism are a bit out of whack.
So a test for you. We have a cert, it will expire Jan 10th every year (2+ year isn't permitted)
Ensure that cert is paid for and renewed, except we won't be paying the bill until Jan 4th.
Are you seriously going to pay for that out of pocket? You are expecting some govt IT person to do that it seems, as you are labeling them a poor system admin for nothing more than not paying for it themselves out of pocket.
If you need something on the 10th but won't give me the money for it until the 4th, fuck it, it just isn't getting bought until the 4th then.
It is the governments fault for not providing the money earlier, not my fault for not paying a bill in your name that you won't pay ahead of time. It certainly isn't my fault we got kicked out of the noc Dec 22nd either.
Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.
The House passed the EXACT SAME BILL to reopen the government that the GOP-controlled Senate passed a few weeks ago, but now McConnell say that is a non-starter for GOP Senators.
The GOP owns this. Full stop.
Oh, and while we're at it, if the damn wall was so important how come they didn't get it funded during the 2 years that the GOP controlled both houses?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Unfortunately, with the way that smaller groups have come to recognize that they need to attach themselves to one of the two major parties in order to get enough political power to get any of their goals enacted, the parties have changed from solid constituencies with disagreements about peripheral issues to loose coalitions sharing only a few core goals with sometimes widely divergent agendas -- instead of a majority party forging a coalition government with other parties, as we see in countries with multi-party systems, each of the major parties has to thrash out a shakey concensus within their own ranks. And, as a result, "compromise" has become defined as "give us everything we want, and we may let you have some of what you want, as long as none of it is anything anyone on our side objects to", with the party sticking to the hard line for fear of alienating some faction in their party and losing support, while individual members of a party may want to support a measure the other party backs, either for themselves or their constituents, but the pressure to stay with the party position is strong, because they know that if they break with their party, it handicaps their influence with their party.
I'm sorry you're so scared. Don't worry, you're more likely to die from bad lettuce than someone coming over the border. Maybe knowing this will help you relax.
But a big expensive wall does not equate to border control. Trump doesn't care about border control, he just wants his big wall.
The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.
People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.
It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.
The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Bullshit. If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money, you aren't equally at fault for the consequences if you refuse and they burn your house down.
Trump is using the budget, and the damage this is doing to people's lives and the country, to try and blackmail congress into giving him something he wants. Ignoring politics, this is owned by him because he has decided the thing he wants is worth the consequences. Politically it's even worse. At best he knows the way he is handling this won't get a deal, but is happy with that because his priority isn't a deal because it's all posturing for his base. At worst he really does want a deal but he's so politically inept that he's been making it completely impossible for the Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
If a couple of weeks of shutdown causes some certs to not have been applied, it is because the administrators weren't doing their jobs right. I'm sure they will get "adjusted" once they are back in the office.
No, really. Trump sold the âwallâ(TM) on the whole premise that it would be âfreeâ(TM) for the American people, we wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay a dime. Of course, it was really just a means to rile up his racist base, not an honest attempt at immigration control. It still is.
All of this is because Trump's ego doesn't let him admit he is anywhere near in the wrong.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...
"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-
10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year."
Trump cannot admit that he cannot get Mexico to pay for it.
Trump cannot admit that in reality, we, Americans, will be paying for it.
Trump literally cannot accept the reality that he himself has created.
If you still support Trump in this matter, you are also the problem.
If you still support Trump in this matter, then you are giving a screaming 3 year old exactly what he wants. What do you think will happen when that 3 year old wants something else?
Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent. Considering the majority of illegal immigration is a result of overstayed visas, the majority of the drug traffic happens at legal ports of entry, and the known or suspected terrorists that have attempted to enter the US have been caught at airports, it seems to me the return on investment on building a border wall is nowhere near the $5 billion he's asking for.
This is slashdot, so in programmer terms, this is premature optimization. Sure, there are thousands of people illegally crossing the border, but if you actually run a profiler you'll see that's not the even the hot path, so why are we proposing to spend so much of resources on that instead of elsewhere?
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Sorry, screwed up the video link: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, a wall isn't needed along the whole border. Certain parts? Sure! There are vasts parts of the border that it would be useless because it couldn't be monitored and devastating to communities and the environment.
What's more, a lot of the people coming across the border are seeking asylum and WANT to get caught!
Even worse, the vast majority of immigrants come in through legal ports of entry like airports!
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego and claim he fulfilled a campaign promise (well except the part that Mexico would pay for it)
This brings up an interesting point.
What is the Democrats position? What is their red line? What are they actually negotiating over? What is the compromise they are willing to make?
We all know where Trump is. Yet, democrats do not have a principled position.
Yes. The economy in the past w years has been fabulous compared to the previous 8 or almost any other time ever. Maybe any other time.
â5 billion is a rounding error for the Federal gvt. If your only argument against building a wall which the entire leadership of the DNC is on record as supporting pre-Trump is finding the money then there is no reason left not to build it.
It's not $5B, why do people keep perpetuating that myth -- the full wall is projected to cost anywhere from $25B to $75B. And since it's a large public works project, I would expect it to go much higher before it's done. The $5B is just a down payment.
At some point even a paltry $100B stops being a rounding error and becomes "real money"
Again, boo hoo... And what do you expect they are going to do over in the Senate?
I'm sorry, but the Democratic Senate leadership refused to take up anything Obama would veto too. I didn't like the game then, but I didn't claim it was somehow dirty pool or immoral on the democrats part. I understood why they where doing it and that they had the power to if they wished. I didn't complain then so you don't have to like it, but your complaints will fall on my deaf ears now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's just more "sky is falling" fear mongering.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.
No. Not everything in the world should be compromised on. In fact quite the opposite. Not only should Trump NOT get his way but this stupid issue which allows the government to be shutdown through this legal process should be eliminated like other countries have done for the express purpose of preserving the democratic process.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
You didn't answer the question - you know what Trump said about Mexico paying for the wall, but now Trump wants to use disaster funds meant to help Americans to pay for it. So.... how do you know when to pick and choose which of Trumps words to listen to? Does he publish some guidebook of promises he really meant?
If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money,
This is the bigger bullshit. Doing something that has been done before, is requested by the people doing the work, costs less then the actual shutdown, and was promised is not "threatening to burn your house down". Or did democrats burn down the house by doing the exact same thing?
Ignoring politics,
You are an idiot because this is pure politics. As pure as it gets when you have equal opposition.
he wants is worth the consequences.
And the democrats rejecting anything associated with Trump keeping a promise that they have supported before has consequences. 10 democrats in the Senate in December could have avoided all of this. They don't get any blame because???
Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
What is their position beyond "Never Trump"? What are they actually negotiating and compromising on? What are their principles? They have supported a wall before with more money, willing to cost more then what is requested, ignore the border agents requesting this, and are not acting in good faith. What reasonable terms have the democrats proposed? "End this now and we will "talk about this" politically means "we talk but nothing will happen" is bad faith negotiation.
Democrats own this too just as much as Trump. Maybe more because this could have been avoided if 10 democrats in the Senate were willing to compromise in December.
The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is a means and and end. In a democracy the means matter. People debate and vote on issues and consensus is reached. In a dictatorship the ends matter and you only care about doing what you want.
This isn't just Trump, many presidents have done this, though I would dare say Trump has done it for the stupidest reasons solely stroking his own ego.
Not only should no one give into him, but straight after this mess is done this stupid quirk in an otherwise democratic government should be closed to prevent people being held hostage by the president of the so called free world.
I wouldn't go that far. They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall. It's fair for them to just say "no, we already had a deal". Fair as that stance is, I think they should turn it into a new opportunity.
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
There wasn't enough votes in the house to get a wall even with the republican majority before this last election. Very few people want a wall (especially since the type Trump expressed preference for is easily cut through with common home power tools and so is essentially just throwing money away).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Though Trump often accuses Democrats of supporting "open borders," part of his team's rhetorical gambit during the shutdown battle has been to allude to Democrats' historical support for increased security and physical barriers on the southern border. The argument is that Democrats, once in favor of border barriers, are now only opposing the wall in an attempt to embarrass the president.
"We still don't understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don't understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office," White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves. Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides. But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
No, it is still hilarious that he thought they would and the Mexican President immediately told him to kiss his ass.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So, you're acknowledging that trickle-down economics works. Good first step to recovery.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
What he suggested, that makes a lot more sense, is a "smart wall" basically a series of sensors that can detect all sorts of activity and can allow personnel to go where they are needed, when they are needed. The advantage the fences have is that they sometimes slow people enough that border patrol might be more likely to accidentally stumble upon them.
If instead of building a physical wall, that wouldn't do much, we had a series of monitoring devices (that would work), it would cost many orders of magnitude less, and be way more functional.
A physical wall is little more than a vanity project.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall.
But that isn't what happened. The House in the last Congress gave Trump the 5.7 but it needed 10 democrats in the Senate to avoid this mess. It was a deal that was rejected by Democrats even though they have supported nearly identical policy and are costing the US more than what is being asked by shutting down the government.
This brings up an interesting point.
What is the Democrats position? What is their red line? What are they actually negotiating over? What is the compromise they are willing to make?
We all know where Trump is. Yet, democrats do not have a principled position.
They've offered 1.5billion to improve fencing along the border- which is actually pretty generous considering almost no one wants the wall.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.
I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You Acosta'd your own argument.
"The wall is a failure because people go to where there is no wall!".
Also, the parts that were "busted" are NOT the Steel slats part, they are simple wire fences. CBP's current proposal would change those simple wire fences to the type of fencing you see on McAllen TX, namely, the very thick and solid steel slats. Good luck griding one of those down in a timely fashion.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better.
No, Trump's Wall is exactly what is already installed in many parts of Texas and other bordering states. Large, thick Steel Slats, as that is what CBP's current proposal is. Replace wire fencing with Steel Slats and close the open portions of the current Steel Slat wall.
Because nothing of this has to do with Trump, and it's been a bi-partisan goal that has seen implementation already in many areas. Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
That deal was rejected because they knew they were going to take the house in January. Of course senate democrats aren't going to sign off on a republican bill when they can write their own tomorrow. So they took the house, *completed* a deal with senate republicans and *now* trump is saying he won't sign anything that doesn't have money for a wall. He should have communicated that to his leadership in the senate like 2 months ago.
I've seen the quotes from Obama and Clinton regarding a wall. Neither of them are in office right now.
Even worse, the vast majority of immigrants come in through legal ports of entry like airports!
And almost every illegal immigrant is one who entered on a visa and remained when it expired.
There's no "Crisis" at the border,
Indeed. Migration from Mexico to the US dropped massively around the 2008 financial crash and has remained at those lower levels. Since then the total number of mexicans in the country has been declining, that is while migration still happens net migration is negative. There really is no crisis other than an imagined one conjured up by a demagogue in order to get elected into power.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
Completely false and stupid. Your civics teacher should be fired. The US was formed not as one big land mass ruled by fiat from Philadelphia. It was a bunch of United States. STATES. And far to large to be managed by a single government. The states elect the president, not the mass population centers on the coast.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
Ha! Easy. There were too many results, so you can check out the actual conspiracy yourself.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote.
And yet, you were wrong. But, instead of admitting you were wrong, you double-down with "oh, American is terrible.
Any other democracy
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. See above about your incompetent civics teacher.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts.
I hope he does, although you like to ignore facts that prove your ignorance, so maybe just more silly insults for such a silly person is more appropriate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support. Again supported by Hillary herself in 2015 while campaigning.
A Wall wouldn't solve 100% of the illegal immigration issue, but it does address a part of it. To say otherwise is disingenuous and to say it's Trump's vanity project when it's been in construction for decades is hilariously misinformed on your part.
The data from other countries and from CBP's own studies of walled vs non-walled areas is clear : Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
America ELECTED Trump.
He won because of a quirk in politics. He won the election but it's a laughable stretch to say "America" elected him. Even the majority of people who voted voted against him. The people who didn't vote (the majority of people eligible) are traditionally left-leaning, so his gap of people who didn't want him is even larger.
He has been the President with the consistently lowest approval ratings. "America" doesn't want him and never did.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The people patrolling the border say they need more physical barriers.
Democrats have already supported identical and more costly policy. Why is now different?
The argument is that Democrats, once in favor of border barriers, are now only opposing the wall in an attempt to embarrass the president.
If Trump had the slightest sense of humility his earlier embarrassments - indeed his self-inflicted wounds on the world stage - would have likely driven him to resign. There is no point in trying to embarrass him, and no need to make him look like a total idiot on the world stage. The former has no effect and the latter has been done many many times already.
"We still don't understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don't understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office," White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.
And Mulvaney's statement was rated half-true at politifact . Notably, the bill he is referring to - which George W Bush signed into law - was called The Secure Fence Act of 2006. It was built, and then Trump himself trashed it by calling it "such a little wall, it was such a nothing wall". So if the administration wants to claim that the democrats are opposed to the wall simply because Trump is pushing it so desperately, they need better evidence than a very different bill that produced something that even Trump himself sees as very different from a wall.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree. Sorry if I trust the "boots on the ground" more than I trust a nameless Republican you didn't even bother to name.
Here is Obama's CBP Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, which was asked to step down by Trump, telling you the Wall is important :
https://www.newsweek.com/obama...
When did Slashdot start being more trusting of the managers instead of the techies doing the actual grunt work ? Because ORANGE MAN BAD ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Pence lies frequently. Recent example was pence trying to explain that Trump didn't lie when Trump claimed all living presidents supported him building the wall. Pence is an idiot who calls his wife mother, is afraid to sit in a room with women and lies flagerently. That lie didn't even pass the laugh test.
Pence is caught between a rock and a hard place. It is political suicide to side with Trump and be seen as one of the "crazies" in the party; at the same time, he's not allowed to follow traditional Republican values either because Trump has a stranglehold on the party at the moment.
I imagine Pence would do a lot less lying if he wasn't held hostage by Trump.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Senate democrats refused to end this before it began then House democrats passed a bill that Trump said he didn't' support and now it's only republicans who are responsible?
Chuck Schumer is in office and has supported it as well as other democrats from those times.
Situation reminds last years of fight between Gorbachev and Yeltsin that led to demise of USSR. Is Trump the new Yeltsin ?
I think Trump wants us to be more like China than Russia. Some capitalistic tendencies but with a all-powerful government that can do whatever it wants regardless of "human rights".
Trump is the next Winnie The Pooh.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Then let's listen to the people that actually do the border control stuff. How about someone from the Obama administration?
logic much?
The popular vote has nothing to do with who wins the Presidential election as the popular votes are tallied into electors per state and it's the count of the electors that determine the President. Been that way for 200+ years.
The claim for the largest turnout was in response to the assertion that it was an "appalling low turnout" which has nothing to do with the former assertion as they're two distinct things.
I think you have a lot of brown in your brains, there.
Yes because people literally speak literally all the time and if any detail of what they said literally differs from what they literally said you can literally ignore the substance. Illegal immigrants are a massive drain on the US, blocking them means mexico pays the bill for them, that in turn pays for the wall.
Saying the construction payments is what pays for it is like saying a hammer built your house. The construction funds just get dumped back where they came from, into the US economy, this is infrastructure spending. Hell a huge chunk of it comes directly back as taxes without any account for stimulus at all just turning around and taxing the money we paid people out of tax funds.
Senate democrats had no responsibility to sign a bill they were about to just write themselves anyway. If house democrats passed a bill that the senate wouldn't agree to you might have a point, but since the senate agreed it's now being held up by the president. So yes, Trump (republican) could forget about the objectively stupid wall, or the senate (republican) could have forced a resolution much earlier in the process before it got to this point. Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
Liar. They supported fencing and technology for border security. And the Democrats still do support that. None ever supported a wall.
Semantics and nothing more, childish word play. Wall, fence who cares what you call it, it's a barrier on the border either way, Trump doesn't care, if you want to call it something other than a wall, just cough up the 5.6 billion for a physical barrier on the border and we are good, the government can get restarted and federal workers paid in about an hour. You don't have to call it a wall if that's what's eating you, just call it a border barrier or a solid fence, pick something.
How can you refuse... Oh yea, because you don't want Trump to be able to make the claim he built the wall.... How childish are we getting here?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree.
You link doesn't mention anything about the smart wall- so how can you use that as a way to "disagree"?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They all deny ever supporting a wall- and even Pence had to backtrack and say that "they implied it, and that's what Trump was getting at".
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats had some stupid ideas- they've had many stupid ideas over the years- that doesn't make building a wall right.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet).
Actually, he does exactly this every time he defends Trump on TV. Pence is no better; he's just there waiting for his #MeToo moment for when he expects to becomes President.
But Trump actually has a better hand.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Now you are inventing or cherry picking your facts. Obama did make the claim that undocumented border crossers are a danger to this country as well as a danger to themselves. Trump isn't disagreeing with any of that and Obama was right. Illegals represent a danger to themselves and to the people of the USA and a barrier to their entry into the USA needs to be in place or we will be over run. Trump called this barrier a "wall" and he wants to build it.
On the asylum claims, this has got to stop. 99.9% of those claims are bogus and without merit. Why? Because Mexico would offer most of these folks from south of their border asylum in Mexico, removing the reason for continuing to the USA. I'm told our laws clearly deny asylum in that case. But... IF you are on US soil, your case MUST be heard by a court, so the goal is to get into the USA, get caught and THEN make your asylum claim. Because the courts are backed up for months, you either stay in jail until your hearing or, more likely, ICE let's you lose with an order to return for your court date. You tell me what happens...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
> The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it
So what you're saying is, they a) go aroundnit, to places where there is no wall, the go around the walled part, right? And b) where there is a shorter fence they can hop over, they do?
So based on your observations, the obvious solutions would be a) make it so you can't go around the wall - don't have huge gaps and b) make it very hard to climb over - at least 8' tall with barbed wire in top.
Thanks for the suggestions!
No it's not. I have it installed on my computer. UT2003 & UT2004.
But a big expensive wall does not equate to border control. Trump doesn't care about border control, he just wants his big wall.
Indeed, it's a vanity project. He might as well be spending government money to build a statue of himself alongside Lady Liberty.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support.
If it was already funded twice, problem solved. No need to fund it again, we already have a wall apparently.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
By that logic it's also entirely reasonable for Trump to continue to veto any bills that don't include a border wall. He promised it on his campaign after all.
I think the real stupidity here is how the government budget isn't just defaulting to what they approved last year. Maybe another few years of shutdown and people will get a clue.
You may have noticed my post, which you replied to, consists mostly of direct quotes from Obama, Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. If you think what was said is stupid, take it up with the people who said those things. I didn't say those things, the Democrat leadership said those things. If you think Obama's comments are dumb, okay - I won't argue with you. If you think Clinton is a dumbass, okay. No argument from me.
You don't even know what I have proposed regarding border security. What you replied to is what Clinton, Schumer, and Obama said about it.
The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.
Oh, so you want us to attack the invading country?
Dang, you Dems are so violent!!
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall.
What are you talking about? A recent poll showed that 67% of Americans support the wall. A very small minority, around 15%, oppose it. The rest don't care. The Wall is incredibly popular.
Which poll was that?
Quinnipiac, December 18, 2018: "U.S. Voters Say No Wall And Don't Shut Down Government. ... American voters oppose building a wall on the Mexican border 54 - 43 percent and say 54 - 44 percent the wall is not necessary to improve border security, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. This is the highest level of support for the wall since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University National Poll first asked the question in November 2016."
"ABC 30 News, St Louis" (undated): "CBS Poll: 51% Of Americans Support Border Wall"
Fortune magazine, December 12, 2018: "69% of Americans Don’t Think Trump's Border Wall Is a Priority, Poll Says. ... More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a new poll by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. Only 28% of those polled answered that the border wall should be an immediate priority, while 19% replied it shouldn’t be an immediate priority, and 50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all."
Huffington Post, January 3, 2019 (politically liberal): "Trump Says Country Wants Border Wall, But That’s Not What Polls Say"
"The Hill", December 28, 2018: "... a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill. The survey found that 56 percent of respondents do not support the president’s proposal to construct a wall along the southern border, compared to 44 percent who do."
But Trump actually has a better hand.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Well that was my point. Both sides are obstinately refusing to compromise at this point, and Trump said he would take the blame even before it happened, so that's irrelevant. Trump's entire budget that was submitted to Congress was completely thrown out, and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security, something like 0.1% of the budget. Pelosi and Shumer are arguing that it's too expensive (not persuasive), that walls are immoral (no traction on that), that he said Mexico would pay for it (why does it matter who pays for it if it's immoral?), and pretending it's not strictly a symbolic political stance. Trump's supporters already know it's a political stance, that he needs it or be seen as failing, so that doesn't detract from his argument.
So Trump has the more persuasive argument, and less to lose by not giving in. I'm not saying he's right, only that his argument is more persuasive, and that only Pelosi and Shumer stand to lose support as the shutdown continues.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
> I'm not sure where the talking points for came from that a wall would protect the people trying to migrate and seek refuge here but it's just not true.
Those quotes are from Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer - all of the leading Democrats. Obama said the same things, though I didn't quote him.
Perhaps you disagree with the Democrats. That's cool. I often disagree with them too.
Good lord. Is it just me or does this seem like admins not following best practices? Who waits until weeks/days before expiration to renew a cert? Pretty irresponsible, no?
An interesting twist at this point would be Mexico lending Trump $5B......
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period.
Which is completely irrelevant. Every US president has been elected under the electoral college system, which dates back to the country's founding.
It was designed to work this way, so that the president would be the president of the united states, not just of the big population centers.
Some of the states would probably have not even joined the union without it.
So yes, America elected Trump. The big population centers wouldn't have, if they were the only ones who decide, but they aren't, by design.
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands.
Sorry, but this is such a common statistical error that I feel compelled to point it out. The conclusion might be correct, but it doesn't follow from the evidence. What they know is that 90% of the people caught crossing the border illegally are in areas not covered by fencing. That doesn't say anything about how many people cross the border without being caught.
Again: the conclusion might be correct, and there might be evidence for it, but the 90% number is half a statistic.
> Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent.
Agreed. Right now spending is not sustainable.
> ... so in programmer's terms this is ...
a memory leak. Sooner or later you are going to have to do a hard reboot.
Some of the Founding Fathers were religious, none were overtly so, and believed pretty profoundly in religious liberty. Of course, there are the likes of Jefferson, whose views on organized religion were hardly complimentary. Benjamin Franklin was a proper Enlightenment Deist who found the notion of a Personal God that went around intervening in worldly affairs ridiculous.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown ...." And maybe on people who didn't plan ahead and renew their certificates before they expired?
And what is the economic good being done? The new version of NAFTA is little more than a reorganized version of the pre-existing one. The trade war with China really started under Obama, it's just that Trump is by nature more strident. As to those tax cuts, those are debt funded, so the taxpayer will end up paying for those anyways through debt servicing and cuts to other services.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I forgot to say, thanks for "technology, where you actually are usually well informed and come off as intelligent."
I'm sure sure how noticing what Clinton, Obama, Senate Minority leader Schumer, and Speaker of the House Pelosi (basically all of the Democrat leadership) says is "phenomenally stupid", but to each their own. I suppose one should only pay attention to what they say today, and try really, really hard to forget that they all said the exact opposite just a few years ago? That's cool, if you want to do that.
Republicans and Trump have to compromise with "the objectively stupid wall" but Democrats don't have to sign on to something they have signed on before?
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
Same here. I'm a privately employed worker who qualifies for no government assistance so I haven't noticed a thing.
For me the shutdown is just pointing out all of the functions of government that should be done by private companies. TSA employees walking off the job and FDA not performing food inspections? That wouldn't be happening if those organizations were privately held.
As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget
That is completely and utterly irrelevant. A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress. Trump even said he would sign it. Then all of a sudden he decided that he would not sign anything that did not have wall funding in it. He sunk the whole process on his own. It doesn't matter whether he was asking for $5, $5,000, $5M, $5B, or $5T. If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it. Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year
Those numbers aren't referring to illegal immigrants, they are referring to ALL immigrants. Illegal immigrants are a small subset of the total and are not eligible for most of the government assistance that is available for legal immigrants.
Enigma
Most saints carried swords and weren't afraid to use them whats your point?
Are you implying that the republicans shouldn't compromise on "the objectively stupid wall" because a few democrats said they liked the idea years ago?
The vast majority of unauthorized immigration is not illegal. It's only a misdemeanor the first time you're caught, and you can get a temporary stay while you apply for residency. Nearly every "illegal" immigrant is involved with drugs, weapons, or is otherwise violent. Almost everyone else is legal, even if they get in trouble.
Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.
Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.
Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
no it's not hard to ignore that, but it's not all Trump. most of those were going in the positive direction under Obama, and in fact have slowed slightly the past 2 years. (expand the graph from past 2 years that fox news hows to the past 10 and look at the data). Data doesn't just exist for the past 2 years. So, claiming Trumps success over Obama's policies, is kinda well.. short sighted. Also, since when is taxing the rich (something that was done up until Reagan, 1980 had a 70% tax bracket... so... that's excessive yes, but compared to the 40% of today, with more loopholes for the rich to dodge paying that).
Look at history, don't just echo Fox news. Also, what leftist rag? do you know what news source I use? of course you don't everything besides brietbart and fox is "Left" I'm not even left, I'm actually conservative, but I hate the bias most news sources have today. Conservative tax views should be looking at the true historical tax rates. the rich used to pay a shit ton more than they do now. instead they get to pocket it, and keep a 154 Billion warchest while paying their employees minimum wage of $7 per hr...
Used to be employers cared about employees. That's not a left/right thing, that's just common human decency.
Okay, you sound like a Leftist, so I'll assume that the reason you believe the "majority of Americans" don't support the wall is because you only see things through politics and elections and "Hillary won the popular vote." Unfortunately for you with your asinine "walls don't work" virtue signaling, Americans who live near the border support the wall because they understand the actual negative impact of lax border security; and, border patrol (*actual* border experts) support the wall.
I, as an independent, support the wall. Why? Because for decades of my life, ever since I can remember, immigration has been a game of political "kick the can." Now, the disingenuous "Orange Man Bad" Democrats-- who previously supported stronger border security, including a "barrier"-- have completely flipped their position. Why? The problems associated with illegal immigration still exist. What has changed? My best guess is "Orange Man Bad."
It is hardly "acting like Children" to expect the elected executive to follow through on a promise he was elected on-- that is, the people wanted "a wall" or "better border security" or however you want to frame it. It is also quite *mature* of our president to follow through with trying to resolve the decades-old problem of illegal immigration despite all of the coordinated political smears he continues to face daily from the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.
And BTW, other than federal workers, nobody *really* cares about the shutdown. It is completely undetectable for average citizens. Do you frequent the websites affected by the shutdown? Other than the anti-Trump hyperbole pushed by the Corporate Media, do you have any genuine circumstantial relationship to the government shutdown?
If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it.
That already happened. Trump signed the omnibus bill in March after threatening to veto it because of its lack of border-wall funding. At the signing ceremony, the president warned that it would be the last major funding bill without it that he would sign. He didn't like it, and he promised not to sign one like it again. “But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again."
So they had all year to work something out, but, like usual, they wanted to just keep kicking the can down the road.
A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress.
Incorrect. There was no budget bill written. The only thing they and was a CR, which is congresscritterspeak for "just keep spending like you have been for another few weeks (February 8th, in this case).
Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
The compromise that McConnell and Ryan proposed was the CR with a $1.6 billion for border security. Democrats rejected it.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
> The vast majority of unauthorized immigration is not illegal. > It's only a misdemeanor the first time you're caught
Are you saying it's not illegal because it's a misdemeanor, or it's not illegal if you don't get caught?
Misdemeanors include crimes such as:
Assault resulting in bodily injury
DUI/DWI (the first time)
Conspiracy
Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
Burglary of a store or other non-residence
Resisting arrest
Obscenity
Perjury
Possession of a controlled substance
Property theft
Harboring a runaway child
Deadly conduct
Making a false report
Unlawful possession of a weapon
Violating a restraining order
You're saying misdemeanors are perfectly legal?
Maybe you haven't quite thought this through all the way?
The price was like 13 USD per American right?
Our Swedish immigration likely cost more like beyond 1300 per year.
The 5 billion is nothing.
Our public spending is closer to 200 yearly.
Use a browser that lets you accept expired, self-signed, or otherwise "bad" certs, at your discretion.
caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign.
Congress can override his veto. We have checks and balances. Use them. Congress would have to work together and do their job?? THE HORROR!! Instead, a bunch of people didn't get paid today.
Meanwhile almost no one is talking about the much bigger issue - Trump may soon get to appoint a third supreme court justice.
Isn't the payment by tariffs and hence kinda unfair competition increasing production and profits in US a bit and taxing those or so. Though of course higher prices also remove money from spending upon other things. But yeah. Moving economy worth 5 billion so to say.
Being as they are not principally against the idea there isn't much of a good reason to reject it that they have said. Trump being stubborn on a promise is a better reason to not compromise than Never Trump policy.
It's even worse than how you described it. They just used their hands and feet, no ropes. 15 seconds from standing on the ground to going over the top. With huge "backpacks" (more like blocks) on their backs. Good grief. 77 billion dollars to slow people down for 15 seconds.
Republicans didn't support the wall either. Why do you think Trump waited until Democrats had control of the House to push hard on this? With a Republican majority house and senate it would have just been an embarrassment to him. With a Democrat house, he can use it to score a few points with his base, but I'm not sure his judgement on when to call it quits is going to help him in the long run, as the tougher things get for government employees, the more support he's going to lose.
Trickle down assumes the largess of one rich wanker is a perfect replacement for the daily spending of thousands of normal folks, and covers its ears and sings loudly whenever anyone points out how much rich people money goes into arcane financial instruments that don't even pretend to trickle down.
It's not necessarily just Never Trump policy. There's no real evidence that it will do any good and only a few democrats have been recorded saying it was a good idea. Chuck Schumer is not the democratic party.
Aside from that, even if the democrats could get on board with a wall, right now when the government is shut down is not the time to negotiate it. Trump picked this moment (to the surprise of McConnell even) because he thought it would give him leverage and the democrats are understandably disgusted by this tactic.
Trump isn't going anywhere until January 21st. At that point, he's served more than half of his term, and Pence could run for re-election twice.
January 21st and later? Who knows what he'd do.
Who renews certs? I've only ever generated new ones. People don't pin certs, they just blindly trust the CA that signs them, so what does it matter if it changes?
It is never Trump policy. It was more than just Schumer.
Picking this moment highlights the democratic platform being "I stand for everything he doesn't stand for.". It highlights the childish position the democrats have taken since Trumps election.
Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
The massive hole in your analysis is the claim that the wall would be effective. It wouldn't.
That ebil, terrsit-infested caravan Trump was talking about before the election? They're asylum seekers, and went straight to a legal port of entry. (Btw, federal law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while investigating their claims.)
Which means a wall would be completely ineffective at stopping them. And stopping drugs (they're smuggled in through ports, airports and ports of entry). And stopping damn near everything else Trump claims it would stop.
Your cost also does not include the eminent domain seizure of a few million acres of land. Nor does it include the cost of ceding that land to Mexico, 'cause the Rio Grande floods and you can't build a wall right next to it.
So, with an ROI of at best almost zero, why do it?
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
Simple fix. Turn the border access points into Tolls per person. You simply pay an entry / exit tax every time you cross it.
Mexican citizens pay a higher toll than American citizens do. Thus, does Mexico pay for said wall.
You expect a politician to keep a campaign promise?
In order to have some sort of toll, you'd need a barrier in the first place to force people to use it.
Or if you're only applying the toll to vehicles on roads, legit trade, etc., then it's no different from Trump's claim that Mexico is already paying for it indirectly via the new trade agreements. But if that were ever the plan, why didn't those trade agreements just earmark money for the wall? (Because there was no plan at all.)
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.
The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority
Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.
Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.
But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.
The President's funding request included $1.6B in Border Security which both houses of the Congress voted for and approved after the President agreed that he'd sign the budget deal.
THEN, Coulter and Limbaugh called him out on not pushing for the wall. And even worse compared him to Obama. At that point, POTUS lost his collective shit and threw this temper tantrum.
He got what he asked for and then decided he wanted more.
Am I the only person that finds it oddly predictable that, in response to a story about TLS, almost every single comment is a biased (one way or the other) comment about "the Wall" or the Donald or the Problem with America Today.
Cert expiration is a problem mostly because certificates cannot be renewed. They must be replaced, and as close to expiration as possible. If only there were a way to push the expiration out.. maybe by having a replacement cert, or a see-next-instance logic.
This way, certs could be renewed before they expire, just as Domain names are. And yes, I understand the technical limitations making this a necessary evil today. But it is a problem for government users now, and is a problem in many other like cases. For instance, when a cert expires over a weekend. Who hasn't got the call at 5 am when this happened?
As for the wall... I'll comment when its relevent.
Are you off your rocker? I'm nearly as opposed to Trump as I am to Hillary.
2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
The Senate voted on a bill for the FY2019 budget before Christmas. It passed 93-6. No wall funding, and Trump said he'd sign it.
Then Trump started his tantrum, so Paul Ryan refused to put the bill up for a vote in the House (Senate had amended the House bill).
Certificate renewals cost money. These parts of the government are shutdown because they are not allowed to spend any money.
Your inability to understand this may be an example of the poor civics education we receive in this country.
Are you seriously going to pay for that out of pocket?
Actually, it would be against federal law for someone to pay for that out of pocket.
Pro-tip 1: The budget bill that passed the Senate before Christmas passed 93-6. 93 is a little bit more than 60.
Pro-tip 2: Budget bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority via Reconciliation.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas
The House passed a bill without a wall. The Senate amended that bill, and passed it 93-6. Trump said he would sign this bill. It needed to go back to the House because of the amendments.
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and others started attacking Trump for agreeing to sign the bill. Trump suddenly decided the wall must be in the bill.
Pelosi passed the same bill that passed the Senate 93-6. She has also passed bills for individual parts of the government, taken verbatim from that 93-6 bill.
Also, in 2017, Pelosi and Shumer offered to pay for the entire wall ($27B). In return, they wanted visas and a path to citizenship for the DACA kids. If Republicans really wanted that wall, wouldn't that have been a very good deal to take? Especially since Trump was forbidden by the courts from deporting the DACA kids anyway.
This is entirely on the Republicans and their utter inability to govern. And Trump's fear of Ann Coulter.
Interesting idea.
Though I don't understand why you think Trump is dishonest. He told Congresscritters ahead of time to either pass funding for the wall or he'd refuse to sign. They choose to ignore his warning. If anything, he's being too truthful.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way."
Good. He should. And it will force either a constitutional crisis or Congress will just capitulate.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Not in the last 90 years as near as I can tell.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Good fences make good neighbors. But of course, you think that good neighbors are stupid, and need to be killed, making you a bad neighbor. No wonder you don't like walls.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives?
What gives is a wall only makes sense on part of our Southern border. Geography, geology and land ownership mean the other parts would be better covered by sensors, cameras, roads for CBP vehicles, funding for helicopters, and so on. There's already walls on the border where they make sense.
There's things like a very large river running along the border. You can't build a wall in the middle of it. At least if you want the wall to last. The river also floods regularly so you can't build the wall right next to the river, unless you want to rebuild that wall all the time. So now you have to build the wall a ways away from the river. We'd kinda like to not seize millions of acres from Americans and effectively give them to Mexico.
That ebil caravan full of brown people? They're seeking asylum. They go directly to ports of entry and present themselves....and they did just that. US law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while we investigate their claims....and the vast majority of the time their claims hold up to that investigation. It turns out people don't just abandon everything and walk 2000 miles on a lark. But since they're coming to ports-of-entry, a wall doesn't do shit.
Drugs? Those are being smuggled through ports of entry, tunnels, boats and aircraft according to the DEA and CBP. Again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Terrorists? CBP says those arrive via airports or our Northern border. So again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Y'all used to think the government spending money on things that don't do shit was a bad thing.
Better yet, I would be for corporate execution- all assets of the business seized and all trademarks and branding listed as public domain, for illegal hiring.
I bet the auction of the assets would pay for the wall.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I wonder if we used the current holes in the wall to smuggle nukes to sell to the drug cartels if Mexico would build the wall.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Thanks for proving, once again that I'm right. If it were just a popular vote then the electoral college COULD NOT CHOOSE A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT. Which was why there was, indeed, a massive push by the Democrats and some Republicans to get the electors to vote somebody else into office in 2016.
They're called faithless electors... google it.
And you still have no concept as to why the electoral college exists because of all that brown in your brains. You're not smart, you're an idiot. (Or were you even aware that all states have different laws as to what constitutes a valid voter and a valid election process? No? Didn't get that from Jimmy Kimmel's daily talking points? Naahh, of course you didn't. That's ALSO why we have the electoral college - because a few states could change their laws to swing popularity counts and take the federal government through a simple majority.)
And no, numbnuts, I support and honor the outcome EVERY TIME because I believe and support the constitution of the United States of America because the people always vote stupidly every election - regardless of which side you're on.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes. This creates a second-class citizen situation: yes, we get cheaper products, but we do so because we're supporting a type of slave labor where illegal immigrants are forced to earn significantly below the cost of living for their region, which is why you see them having to group up several families in a one-family house. They don't complain about any abuse or safety violations at their work place because they fear deportation is found out.
Random ID checks, not so much. It's unconstitutional to perform a warrant-less search, and this is what it amounts to. If you have cause to perform a check on someone's resident / citizenship status, then you perform it, such as when hiring a new employee.
That said, I'm not a Democrat. So gauging my opinion on the above isn't a representative sample of that if it's what you're looking for.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year [politifact.com]. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%. So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.
The $5 billion isn't for a complete border wall. It's what he's asking to build a section of it right now. The estimates are at $25 billion. And it's not a sunk cost. It's not like you build the wall then don't do anything for 20 years. You have maintenance, you have patrolling. Smugglers build tunnels to get past existing patrols. People vandalize existing barriers to get through right now.
Most importantly, even if you're right, and it would save us money, as I've stated, it's not the hot path for illegal immigration. If you apply those funds elsewhere, you can save more money. Trump talked about the cost of drug trafficking, but the majority of that cost would go away for free if we ended the drug war and just legalized all drugs. That would do away with enforcement costs, leaving only the societal costs. Taxation of those sales can be used to offset those societal costs.
Basically, it's not just a question of whether there are positive gains from investing the money on a border wall. Even if we have the money, there's an opportunity cost to not investing it someplace else with a higher return on investment. You'd think a businessman like Trump would understand that concept.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Nope. That would require a functional strong central government. And thanks to the massive piles of cash we send to the drug cartels, Mexico doesn't have that.
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
There's plenty of precedent for saying no to him. The US government has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists who have hostages and are making ransom demands. Why? Because it will encourage others to do the same. Trump is holding US government workers hostage. Of course capitulating to him would encourage him to do the same thing again, not to mention setting a future precedent for other presidents with unpopular ideas.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Right. Like funding the government while the debate about the wall continues. That would be the adult thing to do.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants.
You believe that the total cost of the wall will be a 1-time $5 billion payment? Are you on drugs? It's going to cost dozens of billions of dollars to do all of the environmental studies, seizure of the private land (95% of border land in Texas is privately owned), planning, designing, building, and maintaining. And that maintenance is ongoing, your estimated lifetime of 20 years is not a cost-free period. The wall will be eroded, blown up, undermined, whatever, for as long as it's there. $5 billion sounds close to the yearly maintenance, so please don't act like we're talking about a 1-time $5 billion payment for a 20-year investment.
I'd love to give you more details or a better maintenance estimate, but the wall has not even been designed by engineers yet. He's had some contractors talk about it, though. But that's why I included planning and designing in the list of things that need to be done - because they have not been done. We have no idea what the cost is going to be. As far as we know, it's going to take $5 billion just to design the entire thing across the entire terrain. It's a long way, and the terrain changes all over the place.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
They sure as hell could if they came up with a decent plan. There's no reason we need to have government that only does the bare minimum, only the bare minimum number of votes it needs because everyone else hates it. Come up with a plan that will get some Democrats on board and they'll have no problem. But they can't, or haven't, come up with a plan like that.
Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
Then once again we have a front-row seat to the wisdom of the Constitutional framers and their need for checks and balances. It's a very good thing that the president, or Congress, can't just do whatever they want. There's a really good reason why that's the case. He needs to work with the other branches of government or go back to private sector.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
Right, and like we saw with Obama's SC nominee, McConnell only changes the rules as long as they suit him, and then he'll try to make it so that no one else can do that. This might be why he is the most unpopular Senator among his own constituents. Why they keep electing him, though, is beyond explanation.
As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget.
It's a matter of principle. It's not the amount he's asking for at this point, it's the way he's asking for it. Or, more specifically, demanding it, without offering any concessions anywhere else. He's holding hostages and demanding ransom. It doesn't matter if he's holding a royal flush, he's being a child about it. No one wants to play with him.
Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
It's their job to pass a budget, so if they're passing budgets then they're doing their jobs. Sorry if the budget doesn't fund the president's pet project and he's willing to shut the country down over it, but if they're passing a budget they're doing their jobs.
This poll showing that Americans thought Trump should compromise 57 percent to 36 percent was before the shutdown - do you really think the public is going to blame anyone but Trump? He keeps saying, over and over, that he will not compromise. The public wanted him to compromise before the shutdown. Now that it's the longest shutdown in US history, you're trying to suggest that his support is somehow growing? Do you have any source for that? Because I'm seeing recent polls which say things like less than 40% of Americans even want a wall, so what exactly are you seeing which suggests that a standoff over a project that the majority does not want, which is being pushed by a president whose job the majority does not approve of, is going to end up hurting his opponents?
Face it, he's only making a big deal over the wall because he finally got people to stop talking about Mueller. Don't worry though, that hammer is still going to drop.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
We want border control.
Right, increased border security is favored by something like 70% of Americans. It should really be a non-issue. But for some reason he's laser-focused on only a wall, which is only supported by 40%. Not sure why he can't come up with a decent idea favored by the majority and easily passed, but I suspect it's because his buddies on Fox keep telling him what they think he should do, and he obeys.
Anyway, don't let any of this theater fool you. Trump doesn't give two fucks about a border wall. What he cares about is that people aren't talking about Mueller any more. For now, anyway.
Remember a few weeks ago when he really dialed up the rhetoric about the wall? What was going on then. I seem to remember his lawyer had just been sentenced and he was sad that people didn't like his pick for acting AG. I don't give him a lot of credit with being overly clever, but if you think he gives a shit about the wall more than he does about him and his family staying out of jail, you're wrong. He'll let everyone scramble over the wall while he's busy working on the AG.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
How about the Dems allow the government to do what they themselves have said is "urgently needed" rather than obstructing it because they don't want the orange idiot to get the credit for it?
Yeah, it's weird that now that someone is holding the government hostage, no one wants to work with him. That's really weird.
I mean, border security is obviously important, more than 70% of the public wants better security (even though only 40% want a wall), but yeah, wow it's really strange that now that we have a president who refuses to cooperate and is willing to hold the government and its workers hostage to get lawmakers to do what he wants (something the founding fathers would have been totally OK with), no one wants to work with him. That's so weird. Really insightful of you to point that out.
Don't forget what's important though: he got everyone to stop talking about Mueller. If you think he has any other goal, you're fooling yourself. He doesn't give a shit about security or a wall. The only security he cares about is keeping himself out of jail, so let's all keep arguing about a wall while he rubs the AG's back.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Democrats were in favor of a wall - Accepted
Democrats built a partial wall - Accepted
Republicans are in favor of a wall - Accepted
Democrats are NOW opposed to a wall - Accepted
Democrats are doing it just to be assholes - "You can't prove why we're being assholes, just that we are assholes... so take that"
That is quite the argument.
"Shit analogy. Everyone in that raid died because of Leroy. Your last sentence was what you think should have been done, but IN REALITY it didn't fucking happen. They wiped."
Exactly, do you want the trade war to go down the same way or do you want to let Leroy cause us to wipe without a fight? Who cares what a shit tank Leroy is we are going to die? If we get our shit together we'll drown in epics which sounds much better than getting wiped.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help. Politifact confirms that walls work, and they're hardly a pro-Trump site. Walls can work when combined with everything else; not using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration. The border patrol agents want it, Politifact confirms they can work - but some lawyers in DC want to play politics and claim they know better...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The whole point of Let's Encrypt. It authenticates via several methods that the holder of the certificate also controls the domain. It is better that what other certifiers do.
You do not need any certificate to just encrypt.
The big issue is that any professionally managed websites should be renewing there certificates a good 90 days before expiry to ensure it stays live if issues arise. So a site going down after just 20 days of inattention shows incompetence.
I am surprised that on Slash Dot people are so consumed with Anti-Trump feelings that they did not see that straight away.
How about some specific links to these websites that have expired certificates. Just visited NASA website seems fine.
You bring up an interesting point.
On the other hand, to reverse a popular phrase in logic, ante hoc, ergo ne propter hoc.
The Democrat leadership turned 180 on border security *before* Trump was elected. Shortly after he made a major campaign promise of finishing the barrier that Obama had bragged "is now basically complete" under Obama's watch, the same Democrats who voted for it starting voicing opposition to it - months BEFORE the election.
That which comes last cannot cause something that comes before. Therefore Trump's conduct of his presidency, silly as it may be, could not cause Democrat politicians to do a 180 in 2016. Simply not possible.
It's logically pissut that their politically motivated reversal in 2016 could affect how Trump interacts with them in 2019.
Of course this doesn't excuse the un-presidential behavior, it is however quite clear that Trump in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi in 2015 and 2016.
Smart enough to post here ?? Thatâ(TM)s a very low bar. Slashdot is infested with morons and worse, web developers.
would those jobs even exist if they were privately held? Are those actions profit generators?
Prior to 9/11, airport security was run by private businesses.
After the TSA took over, the cost doubled, and delays tripled, Penetration testing showed no improvement.
$18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.
Medicaid is not what the figure you quoted represents. I read the Forbes article from which your source drew its data and the majority of the cited costs are not Medicaid. You're misrepresenting the data. The article includes all kinds of indirect costs like forgone tax revenue and tax advantaged bond financing from non-profit hospitals, tax breaks for insurance provided as employee benefits or unpaid emergency room visits causing higher costs for all patients. It even includes $1.5 billion in charity care voluntarily given by physicians as a "cost". It doesn't show any evidence that illegal immigrants are using that healthcare, it just takes the total costs from a number of areas then assumes illegals use the same amount as legal residents and ascribes that cost to them. Even the author recognizes the shakiness of his figures:
Whatever the case, your assertion of "18.5 billion in Medicaid" is wrong and not even supported by your own source.
Enigma
Yeah, the parties blame each other as often as they can because that is what politics is. Congrats you have learned politics 101. Be more sympathetic and less repulsive than the other guy while convincing as many people as possible that you are more sympathetic and less repulsive. A shutdown, which isn't a good thing, should be blamed on 'the other guy' because 'they' keep screwing up and if voters vote for 'me' and 'my party' then I will save the day.
Funny thing about the ACA and wall comparison. The ACA directly affected many citizens that were unhappy with that affect is why they were passionate to end it. Just like, many people being negatively affected by illegal immigration in one way or another and are very passionate about it and the wall.
Go figure that people that are hurt by policy are passionate about ending that policy that hurts them. I wonder if people during the great leap forward would be passionate about ending it if they weren't too busy starving to death and not able to vote for a new government.
I find it funny "always blame the Dems". when the dems are not acting on principle and I am less sympathetic to their position because of their lack of principle. I am not a partisan. You sound like one though.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help..
All of them? Amazing to think there's not even a single one that doesn't think the wall might be a little bit ineffective. Maybe one whose family business sells ladders?
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of. Maybe you're thinking of people to man the wall. Yes, that costs money, but it's a cost we already pay for, through the existing border patrols. A wall is not going to make that more expensive, if anything, it'll let even fewer people patrol a much longer stretch of it.
And iOS users...
Trump is the only one to blame. Period.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Not their problem. They don't get any salary as long as the government is shut down, right? So why should they make it easier for the government to function in their absence?
I agree with you that a wall is not the ideal choice, but it's the only one that has any political backing. Employers do need those workers, but nobody's looking at revamping the temporary work visa program.
Another way is to simply deny all government-funded services to illegal immigrants. But that's also a political non-starter. Once they've crossed the border, a lot of sympathetic people demand that they be given the same treatment as Americans, including the right to work, subsidized health care and free education.
As for legalizing hard drugs, that won't happen because the costs are simply too high. Many of those drugs will quickly ruin a person and the costs of rehab are in the thousands if not tens of thousands. To tax it sufficiently to pay for treatment would add several hundred dollars to each dose. Not many people can afford that and they'll turn to illegal sources again.
As Joce got murdered by MS-13 members, all he/she could think was....Well Mexico never paid for this so it is ok.
And yes, we could very easily make Mexico indirectly pay for it by heavily taxing imports/exports. This would have the added benefit of punishing companies that ran to Mexico for cheap labor. But, surprise, Democrats did not want us to do that anyway.
Trump made some very specific statements about who would pay for the wall.
No sig today...
If Trump promised anything at all in 2016, he clearly promised he'd build a wall.
He was also very clear about who was going to pay for it.
(and it wasn't the American taxpayer)
No sig today...
And liberal fucktards.
If you can't get 60 senators to pass your bill then you need to get a better bill - not force people to vote for shit they don't want to vote for.
The people of the USA voted for Trump which the wall was one of his key issues that got him voted in. We don't live in a country where the heckler's veto rules.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Expired certs are still certs, it doesn't impact security unless the keys are compromised.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
More like its not who he is willing to admit.
"His name was James Damore."
Though I don't understand why you think Trump is dishonest.
Aside from the fact that pretty much every important "fact" of his existence is a lie ...
He told Congresscritters ahead of time to either pass funding for the wall or he'd refuse to sign.
Except that before he opted to shut down the government he had said that they could put the border wall funding in a separate bill and that he would sign this budget to keep the government open while they prepare a bill for the border wall. I know he does flop around a lot (as mentally ill people sometimes do) but this is not what he promised just a month or two ago.
If anything, he's being too truthful.
I know he doesn't like to use words the way that intelligent people use them, but this is a blatant attack on the idea of "truthful" here. He is such a pathological liar that he makes career politicians look honest.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Democrats were in favor of a wall - Accepted
Wrong. The democrats voted in favor of a fence. Trump himself does not consider that to be a wall, he has attacked it repeatedly as being not a wall. It was also part of a bill that had other measures for border security.
Democrats built a partial wall - Accepted
Wrong. A fence was built. It was explicitly called a fence and it continues to be a fence. Very different from a wall, even Trump acknowledges that fact.
Republicans are in favor of a wall - Accepted
Congrats, you found a fact. Was that intentional or just a happy accident?
Democrats are NOW opposed to a wall - Accepted
They never previously voted in support of a wall. Furthermore the secure fence act was over 10 years ago, and there has been significant turnover in elected democrats since then - which makes it at best dubious to claim that they are the "democrats" who opposed or supported something before.
Democrats are doing it just to be assholes - "You can't prove why we're being assholes, just that we are assholes... so take that"
Obviously, clearly, not a fact. You are entitled to your own opinions - and clearly you won't be bothered with supporting them with facts or even small shreds of reality if such things impede their creation - but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Well, it looks like the swamp water just got a whole lot deeper and a whole lot muddier. This is what happens when you elect a wealthy person with Anti-social Personality Disorder with Narcissism. The blame solely falls on Donald Trump and his egoism. All he has to do is simply admit failure and move on but he instead intends to play with the livelihood of 800,000 government employees that depend on their paychecks. And with the security certificates not being renewed, Trump is playing with the security of US Government computer systems. This is not a good thing at all!
I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes.
That may be the case in some places, but not all. I'm in the upper-midwest, farm country. The rural towns around here are dying. Fast. There's plenty of farmland, but there isn't a labor force to sustain the farms.
For the locals, "home" is a shitty little town in the middle of nowhere, with no way to ever pay for more than a run-down old house or a double-wide trailer. There's no real advancement, no way to strike it rich. So there's no reason to be invested in working and living there, other than because it's been home to the family for a few generations. There's a lot of migration out of the rural towns, and they are dying.
This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal. However, with this mix of legal and illegal, it seems the pay is largely the same across the board. Why? If you are absolutely desperate for workers, the last thing you want to do is piss them off, because they don't live here, and will happily drive 50 miles down the road to work for someone who's not a racist asshole. After all, they already have traveled a thousand plus miles for work.
But what's really, really surprised me is the attitude of the farmers hiring these Mexicans. A couple were interviewed in the papers in the last year or two and both said that they'd rather hire Mexicans than the locals. Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option. If you treat them right, they settle down and get shit done. Why? They're sending most of their money back to their family, which is using it to build a better life. When they have their dream home, the kids are well educated, they've got some new cars, and a nice nest egg tucked away, they're planning to go back and live the good life. And the harder they work now, the faster they get there.
Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard. It's keeping these farms alive, that's making more money for the local area, the state, and potentially the US if any of those agriculture products get exported, and it's improving the lives of the families back home in Mexico. Yes, we'd rather have americans doing these jobs, but when they're not, even for what's regionally OK pay, what's the alternative? Active farms make money, fallow lands don't. And no other industry is going to replace tens of thousands of acres of farmland out in the middle of nowhere with minimal infrastructure around for miles.
Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer." We'd all like to see a functional immigration system, but I don't see that happening in the near future. If we go nuclear on illegal immigration, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We'd like to think we're not, but that's just wishful thinking. What's more likely than a political solution is that automation will steadily reduce these jobs, until they're more trouble to find than they're worth.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Couple of things:
Seattle's tunnel is still on-going, and we're still building high-speed, 100 MPH rail between Modesto and Bakersfield in CA (for $100 billion).
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. It was lock, stock, and barrel exactly what the Democrats wanted - they didn't need ANY Republican support or votes at all. Zero. If there's something in there that strikes you as "Republican" it's because Barack, Nancy, and Chuck wanted it.
Social Security was set up to fail, by not pegging retirement age to average life expectancy. It is a structural fail from the start.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It will certainly help. Why do you think a wall will not help in border control? Does a locked front door help protect what is inside your home?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
are you SERIOUS? you are comparing the arab/israeli conflict to the mexico/america red-state race-hatred?
come on, now. don't sit there and tell me you see no difference between the 2 situations.
for those tuning in late, there is *actual war-like conflict* going on between the arab states and israel. the arabs have said, many many times, they want to see israel entirely eliminated. exterminated. wiped out. their god says that they either convert or deserve to die.
who, here, thinks that the mexico/america relationship shares *ANY* characteristics of the arab/israeli situation?
boggles the mind that anyone would even think to compare the two.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The federal employees have known when sites were going to expire for several years. They could have renewed a month before shutdown and this wouldn't have happened.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall, which is not in any way related to border security. You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The fence works, where it exists. Why do you close and lock your doors when you leave your home?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We have now entered the age of fck Republicans. Fck Republicans. And Fck Republicans.
When one side of the political spectrum (Republicans) begins openly ignoring the constitution (preventing a sitting President from appointing Supreme Court justices) and it's leadership is filled with racist white supremacists (Bannon, Steve Miller), then it's time to just fck the other side.
Republicans threw away the rules, and now it's time to just fck them.
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA
And not because it didn't have what they demanded. They voted against it because they didn't want a Democratic president to sign his name to the bill that finally attempted to reform a badly broken health care system.
It was lock, stock, and barrel exactly what the Democrats wanted
No, it was not. Numerous candidates - including Presidential candidate Barack Obama - asked for a single payer option. It was dropped entirely because GOP congressmen stated they would support reform that dropped single payer. The mandate came directly from what was written by The Heritage Foundation and was supported by numerous GOP representatives right up until they realized it had a chance of going to a vote.
If there's something in there that strikes you as "Republican" it's because Barack, Nancy, and Chuck wanted it.
Read what the Heritage Foundation asked for. Compare it to what was in the ACA. Then read all the "Obamacare replacement" proposals that the GOP has attempted to push through, and compare them to the ACA as well. The only reason the GOP had to oppose the ACA was the fact that it was going to be signed by a Democrat. If any republican president since 1900 had been in office that day - including Trump - they would have happily signed it into law and we would know it by their name. Hell this was more profit-centric and market-based than anything that Reagan and his administration ever would have dreamed of proposing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
Yet that's how the Republican party thinks.
It started with Newt Gingrich, but really exploded under Obama, where they entrenched themselves as the anti-democrat resistance party. The Tea Party has really helped fuel this too.
"That's now how congress works." is exactly why we've got something like a 16% approval rating for congress as a whole right now. Because that's not working, and congress is not working.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
No, it's a masterful manipulation of the conversation. In the day and age of soundbite communication and journalism, giving a quick, trollish soundbite tweet gets the media/society to focus where he wants for a few days. And then he goes and gets things done - like rolling back thousands of regulations, seating hundreds of judges, and massively changing the tax landscape.
Since society and the media put so much focus on Twitter and posts, use them to distract from what you want. Brilliant.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Just a tip: President Trump won about 56% of the vote; the only vote that matters is the Electoral college. The "popular vote" is neither popular nor a vote. There is only ONE vote for the President, and President Trump cleaned up convincingly.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
He is wrong. It's more, about 80%. At least that's the latest numbers I can find.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Democrats position is that the President shouldn't be able to throw temper tantrums and shut down the government. The President should work within the rules to get his funding priorities set.
But no, Trump is a senile imbecilic racist dip shit who acts like a Dictator. And the Republican party is sham organization with no morals or integrity, filled with cowards who openly piss on the Constitution.
From CNN December 22nd, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/politics/l...
"Any bill to re-open the government will need 60 votes to pass the Senate because of procedural rules, meaning Republicans will need some Democratic votes."
Democrats own this shut down. Republicans do not have the votes on their own to get a bill passed.
Work Safe Porn
One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.
Bingo.
Also, something that's been getting lost in the debate is that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, right? Trump has managed to shift the goalpost so far that it's now out in the parking lot.
In an April 2016 memo, Trump’s campaign outlined the steps he could take to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year," the memo said.
So yeah, I don't want to hear another word about U.S. taxpayers paying for his wall. Make Mexico pay for it, like he promised.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Democrats have already supported identical and more costly policy. Why is now different?
It's different this time because Mexico was supposed to pay for it.
It was Trump's signature campaign promise, remember?
And don't give me that bullshit about how "we'll make it back in trade" or some other excuse. We won't; that's not how it works and we both know it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats had some stupid ideas- they've had many stupid ideas over the years- that doesn't make building a wall right.
Exactly.
Just because a few people from the Democratic side once liked the idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Besides, Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, so Trump can go talk to them if he wants billions of dollars for his symbolic penis.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The reason to do it isn't because he is having a tantrum, he is using leverage to win a negotiation
That's NOT a reason to declare a National Emergency. "I want this, you won't give it to me, so I'll declare a National Emergency!"
Fine. Then the next Democratic president can just start declaring National Emergencies to get whatever he or she wants. That'll be fine with you, right?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
but somebody pulled a switcheroo on us so they wouldn't have to pay their taxes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
with the money we'd save by giving everybody healthcare
If we're going to pay that debt down we need to start being more efficient in how we spend money. Our healthcare system is the Whole Foods of medicine: overpriced crap sold to folks who aren't paying attention.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're assuming the other side (the GOP) is working in good faith. They're not. Their goal isn't to govern or help America. Their goal is to serve their donors, who are in turn the real ruling class of America.
You can't compromise with someone when you don't acknowledge their actual goals. Otherwise they just run rings around you during negotiations.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
this is a cold hearted calculation meant to make the Democrats look bad and likely to succeed because the GOP controls the media. The Dems have been complaining about this for years
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
none of them mean much. This is a political tactic to make the Dems look bad, see here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
he had the House and Senate for 2 years and did nothing on the wall. It's pretty obvious this is just a political stunt to make the Dems look bad and to keep them from working on meaningful legislation in the house (like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, etc).
The sick part is the GOP is ready to wreck the entire US economy (and make no mistake, if this goes on we'll have a depression on our hands, folks don't realize how much the government does) to score some political victories and maybe keep Single Payer healthcare & infrastructure spending from happening.
Eventually it'll hurt their base enough for them to notice, but I'm not convinced they won't just blame the Democrats.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The "democratic process" involves Presidential assent to laws passed by legislature. Congress can override the veto if it can.
That isn't the problem here. The problem here is the President not signing laws having the power to completely shutdown a government due to a completely irrelevant issue.
The answer is not to remove the presidential veto, the answer is to pass laws that prevent bills of appropriation having anything at all to do with anything other than keeping the existing government departments running. Many other countries have this in their legal process precisely because the idea of a democratic leader holding a government to ransom for any reason is batshit stupid.
And the end of a year is probably the best time. It puts the efforts to renew them right after your end of year tech freezes tend to life but before new development happens. It also puts the costs involved on next year's budget and gets them out of the way for the year.
And renewing certs is routine maintenance. I had my oil changed today because it was due today. Should have have gotten it changed 2 months sooner to avoid waiting until the last minute?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That isn't the problem. The problem is this batshit stupid idea that a bill of appropriation should have anything at all to do with any topic other than to finance the government. Many other countries have systems in place to prevent government shutdowns for precisely this stupid reason. Children throwing temper tantrums (on both sides) should never lead to functioning government departments going without pay. Children with power should never be in a position to be able to hold these departments to ransom.
These problems can be fixed without changing any part of the process you just described.
So this argument about things being outside the democratic process or holding the government hostage ring hollow.
Just because there is a process in the USA doesn't mean this stupidity isn't outside the democratic process. Quite the opposite. Democracy is not whatever the USA says it is, and the process in the USA has some significant refinement to go in order to be truly democratic. No perfect democracy would allow financial hostages to be taken due to the belief of one person.
so why would the sys admins expect there to be one?
I suppose you could argue they shouldn't trust the President to be stable enough to keep his word, but then shouldn't we be talking about the 25th amendment right about now?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Electoral College was set up as a buffer between the regular voter and political office. The Founders were afraid The People would elect some clueless idiot (hah) as President. So rather than give The People direct power to choose the President, they added an in-between group of Electors - politically savvy people who presumably would be more knowledgeable about the qualifications of office, and thus be able to select a more competent person in lieu of a poor choice by The People.
Ironically, it's the more populous states which are responsible for the current "winner take all" situation in the Electoral college. The original assumption was each state would be divided into a number of districts of equal population, and each district would choose its own elector. Pennsylvania and Maryland (the #2 and #6 most populated states of the 13 at the time) began the winner-takes-all system in their state as an attempt to gain more influence in Presidential elections. That forced the other states to follow suit to maintain equal influence.
Numerically, a winner-takes-all system of a state-wide vote actually favors more populous states. A winner-takes-all system in a less-populated state works pretty closely to the original district idea (a winner only gets 3 electoral votes). In a state with a larger population, a winner-takes-all vote results in a huge bounty of electoral votes (whoever wins California currently gets 55 electoral votes). So it has the effect of giving a more populated state more influence in the Presidential elections, since it becomes much more important for candidates to campaign in the more populated states.
What's changed is the demographics of the country has shifted over time, from the majority of people living in rural areas to the majority living in urban areas. And voters in urban areas are skewed substantially towards the left compared to the average for the country. This has the effect of lessening the benefit of winner-takes-all in urban states, since its biggest advantage comes from the a candidate just barely winning a state (a candidate who wins a state 51% to 49% gains a net bounty of an additional 49% of electors). The more your state's vote deviates from 50%, the less power it has in the Electoral College (if a candidate wins a state by 65%, s/he only gets a net bounty of an additional 35% electors). And the demographics of urban voters makes this scenario much more likely in states with heavy urban populations than in more competitive rural states.
So the more populous states have been hoisted by their own petard. Their shenanigans to leverage the Electoral College to their advantage hundreds of years ago have now become their undoing, and is giving disproportionate power to the less-populated rural states.
Anyhow it's a moot point. The majority of popular votes in the 2016 election were cast for conservative candidates. 50.06% for conservative candidates vs 49.38% for liberal candidates (the remainder of votes were for "other" candidates). So if you take the "elections would be fairer if they reflected how the population voted" philosophy to the extreme in the 2016 election, then Trump was the correct winner. Awarding it to Clinton just because she got the biggest plurality would be less than fair because it discards the votes of people who didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. (IMHO, the plurali
Federally legalize marijuana, with a wall tax added to it.
The gibson has been hacked and its anything but righteous, man
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
do you really think the public is going to blame anyone but Trump? He keeps saying, over and over, that he will not compromise.
His plan is to take the blame (he has already said that multiple times), and then be perceived as winning. I'm not a political expert, but if he gets the wall, it will probably work.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Also, something that's been getting lost in the debate is that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, right?
Dems should be pounding on this point much, much harder than they are now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Step 1: Trump should let all Mexicans who want to work in US to enter and make sure they get jobs (preferably well payed jobs - see step 2). Step 2: He then taxes their income and uses the money to build the wall. Step 3: Success! He has a wall and Mexico payed for it! Four more years!
Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.
Where's the video?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
At least weâ(TM)re protected from the aliens with space force.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
It's factually accurate.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall,
Yes, a wall, barrier, whatever. He's actually preferring the steel slat fencing at this point. Congress could actually specify that as part of the funding. And, yes, a barrier is indeed part of border security, a part that the Border Patrol folks say is needed.
which is not in any way related to border security.
I don't see any way to you can justify saying that. It's part of securing a border in every country throughout all of history.
You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
Well they certainly make that claim. But they are not proposing anything other than some vague hand-waving about "technology." There's no explanation of that, or any proposals of what they would be willing to fund for "technology," or anything. In fact, many Democrats have expressed support for more open borders, abolishing ICE (no immigration enforcement at all), etc.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
They're against Trump, period. That's all it's about, really, because they've supported greater funding for actual physical barriers in the past. This is just not a persuasive argument. If it's ineffective or "immoral" as some have claimed, what difference does it make who pays for it?
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument. I would prefer some negotiation about doing something more comprehensive, to include border security, but also DACA, other folks here, enforcing labor laws against employers breaking it, and other issues. That debate could have happened this year, as Trump was clear he was not going to sign another Omnibus or CR back in March. But nothing at all happened.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
We have a cert at my employer that expires on Christmas day. Every two years our websites go down for a day or two until the guy who is in charge of it gets back in.
When you have a culture of "that's not my problem" to such an extent, it's pretty normal for things like this to happen.
What I've been searching for and failing to find is any consideration of whether these expired domains might be subject to re-registration in the form of hijacking. Obviously Putin wouldn't do it in his own name, but he has plenty of cut-outs and sock puppets to work with. (Perhaps some of the same folks who help conceal his vast personal wealth.)
The other thing I'm looking for is any consideration of what happens if a REAL national emergency comes along. America actually has some serious enemies, NOT to be confused with some desperate asylum seekers, and such REAL enemies have a golden opportunity now that #PresidentTweety has broken the government.
Time for a little poem:
Trumpty Dumpty sat on his wall.
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall.
And this little Donnie went wee, wee, wee all the way home to Queens.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's not $5B, why do people keep perpetuating that myth -- the full wall is projected to cost anywhere from $25B to $75B. And since it's a large public works project, I would expect it to go much higher before it's done. The $5B is just a down payment.
Exactly. Only a few weeks ago he was asking for $25B. Having run the numbers myself $70B is far more realistic figure. But that's just the initial build cost, it completely ignores the cost of maintaining the wall over its lifetime, patrolling its entire length, searching for tunnels, and repairing vandalism. All of which has to be done on the existing sections. That could cost additional billions every year.
And it does almost nothing to tackle illegal immigration. Most enter the country legally on a visa through official crossing points and remain when the visa expires. Also migration dropped significantly after the 2008 financial crash, net migration is not significant (in many years has actually been negative).
If governments spend less than they receive, the "real" economy is reduced as money is taken out of circulation. But a government can run a stable deficit, so long as their total debt only grows at the same rate as the real economy.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Actually, I think that's pretty doubtful. Government shutdowns are always risky for popularity of the person in charge when one happens. Fact is, there are probably roughly as many Republicans as Democrats not getting paid for work they're doing as govt. contractors or employees whenever things shut down. When the money starts running out, a lot of people aren't so happy to keep supporting whatever agenda is keeping them from getting paid -- even if it was initially their stance.
I'm not a Trump supporter (voted for Gary Johnson, actually). But one thing I have to give the man some credit for is that he's been pretty consistent about focusing on the same issues he campaigned on before his election. I don't think he could have made it much more clear that one of his big issues was getting a border wall built between the USA and Mexico? So unlike many Presidents, he's actually sticking true to his word on it. I think everyone with a clue knew, all along, that "making Mexico pay for it" was just over-the-top (typical Trump) bragging. If we really make Mexico fund it, it'll have to be in some indirect/creative way, such as grabbing a big percentage of every wire transfer an immigrant does in America that has a destination in Mexico. And I doubt THAT would be enforceable or go over well?
Realistically, I think the border wall is probably a waste of money. BUT, like most things? The truth is probably in the middle, between what the supporters claim it will accomplish, and how terrible the detractors claim it will be. Even if the wall really does zilch to prevent illegal border crossings -- it does have the side effect of creating a lot of jobs for engineers, construction people, and suppliers of materials needed to build it. (A lot of Democrats thought such big public works projects were AMAZING when FDR did them....)
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument.
Given that pretty much 100% of your statements are inaccurate, you're either a) totally defending Trump or b) too ignorant to making a comment about the argument at hand. Try reading all the other comments here, go look up some facts to see if those are true or not, and educate yourself.
Or just keep defending Trump and admit that. There really isn't a middle ground.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
See, now that's something a lot of people could accept. That's the sort of thinking we need in congress. Get your ass in there!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
He had 2017 and 2018 to get the wall through the Congress elected in '16. He did not do that. In '18 there was another election, and as a consequence of that he has to get his program through a Democratic House. He could probably do that if he was willing to deficit-fund the wall, and come to some sort of comprehensive immigration deal.
That's the consequence of losing the House in November of 2018. He either has to adopt an immigration policy that's on the leftish side of moderate, he can burn up his beautiful wall plans, or he can go batshit. He has chosen batshit.
You don't reward batshit.
Trump won about 56% of the vote;
I'm really, really, curious to know where you got that number from. 56% of what vote? He won more than 56% of the electoral college but a lot less than 56% of the votes cast and far far less than 56% of the eligible voting public.
There is only ONE vote for the President,
Yes, and it is neither a reflection of the will of the people nor a good reflection of how a democracy should work. He was able to take advantage of both to win the office as a result.
Trump cleaned up convincingly
Only when you view the electoral college results. By any metric that would be used in a modern democracy he lost.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It was one of those why I bitched about HTTPS Only ... and seemed to be the only person who complained about it:
https://github.com/GSA/https/i... ... but I'm actually surprised that these websites are up at all. In 2013, we were told to take down all servers that weren't necessary for the protection of government property or human life, because we wouldn't be able to monitor them if someone were to hack them. I had a couple that were serving space weather data, and had to deal with being 'essential on-call' or whatever that horrible designation was.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with crap like this any more ... unfortunately, the group that I get paid through now gets most of their money through NSF, so I can work on my grant, but won't be able to get my invoices paid after mid-February.
Oh ... and the certs in question use the Department of Commerce CA, but most browsers (all except MSIE?) don't trust them.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
isn't much more than minimum wage was in 1978. And I'm using government stats on inflation though which in my experience under report inflation for workers (e.g. the consumer price index has a nasty habit of swapping in and out items that aren't really equivalents to make the numbers look better), so the picture's probably less rosy.
What I'm saying is that those farm owners are in the throws of a massive labor shortage but still can't keep workers. What's supposed to happen is pay is supposed to go up until they have workers. There's plenty of folks who'd work a farm for enough money to have a decent life. $12 bucks in 2018 ain't that. $15's a start, but I'm guessing that's few, far between.
Doesn't help that farming is often seasonal work. If I make $15/hr for even 60/week but only get to work 6 months out of the year that's not gonna fly. You can't build a stable life around that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it talks more about Tijuana becoming a viable city than about the fence keeping immigrants from crossing. More than anything that's what kept the illegals out: they had jobs in Tijuana as industry grew there.
Also, is it just me or is Politico getting really hacky, even by Politico standards. I mean, they've always been the propaganda arm of the Clinton wing of the Democratic party. But lately they've gotten unpleasantly click-baity...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'd be interested in a citation for:
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA, but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that, even after Trump's national address specifically suggesting both sides compromise to make a deal.
For a last time around example as well,
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
and that's what this is. It's got nothing to do with Trump getting reelected. If the Dems bend on this they might as well just change parties because they'll be voting 100% GOP party platform from then on. That's what this is about.
At some point you have to draw a line in the sand if you're going to stand for anything. America does not negotiate with Terrorists, and hopefully in 2020 we'll stop voting for them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they'd never get replaced. Every org I've ever worked for would just kick that can down the road.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It must be tough reading the minds of all those GOP folks all the time to determine that what they really think is the exact opposite of what they all said before, at the time and afterwards.
And no, not even the Heritage Foundation supported the contents of the ACA. 20 years before, one person at the Heritage foundation agreed with (didn't invent) an insurance requirement being necessary for a similar plan Clinton was proposing. That and a bunch of Democratic politician and media lies later is the entire basis of the myth you're citing. Certainly the ACA doesn't contain anything like a "GOP plan".
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet).
He's a good liar. You should watch the interview he did when he first became VP, and still wasn't sure what his opinions should be. He had to squirm a bit more.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, we're either going to import the labor here, or the work is going over there. Not really a way around that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Congress has delegated way too much to the executive branch over time.
For example, the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act requires the President to submit a proposed annual budget for the federal government to Congress.
Still, while the Constitution requires appropriations to originate in the House, it also requires a vote by the Senate and a signature or veto (and then 2/3 override) from the President before actually becoming law. So they're supposed to be involved in the process as well, otherwise those extra steps would be meaningless.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Exactly. If Congress can get a bipartisan 2/3 to agree on something, then they can just ignore the President. If not, then I guess whatever is being proposed isn't universally supported enough to get passed.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Don't forget what's important though: he got everyone to stop talking about Mueller.
I'm not sure if that's the motivation. It seems plausible, but Trump himself mentioned Mueller today Also, I'm not sure too many people were talking about Mueller particularly more before, but that's harder to get good data about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course this doesn't excuse the un-presidential behavior, it is however quite clear that Trump in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi in 2015 and 2016.
Do yoyu have evidence of this (specifically Pelosi)? I've looked but can't find anything.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A lot of sites are registered with Let's Encrypt, which only has a 90 day renewal period. It's kind of annoying. I'm not contradicting your point, just adding some background.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because the overall popular vote doesn't matter, people don't base their vote on it and they don't campaign as if it matters.
A significant percentage of people either don't bother to vote in States like CA where they know it won't matter, or vote for a third party candidate in states where they know it won't matter as a form of protest. Those votes would change if the overall popular vote mattered.
The total votes actually case for Trump/Hillary pledged electors in the 2016 election do not reflect what the vote totals would be for a national popular vote decided election. You're trying to take votes case for one thing and magically make them mean something totally different. Sorry, but they don't mean what you'd like to pretend them to.
In the only votes in 2016 actually cast for President, Trump won a big majority, 304 to 227, or 56.5% of the vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 42.3%. 7 votes were case for others in the election.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Various colonies were founded on religion, but this nation certainly wasn't.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago
Do you have a link to the Pelosi one? I couldn't find it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I agree you should replace the Cert but you need to declare what your cert is and do it in a sensible open mannor otherwise people might pin your cert and freak out...
the Solution to this is to use DNSSEC and DANE to declare your cert and provider you even declare a rollover rules...
the USA gov have been pushing DNSSEC they just need to get the DANE declared since they no longer have a Gov mandated TLS cert provider
john
He won 56% of the only vote that matters: the Electoral College. You should read the Constitution, it tells you how a President is elected, and it is NOT by popular vote. Only one vote matters: the Electoral College.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It talks about both - it cuts down on illegal immigration, AND it makes Mexico better. Why do you hate Brown People and want to leave them at the mercies of coyotes and drug runners?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not a single GOP vote. Rammed through without GOP support. It was a 100% Democrat bill. You want to rationalize and revise - but the facts are they got exactly what they wanted, because they did not need - nor did they receive - any GOP support. The Democrats made it, they own it 100%.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
All told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year
That's from the Forbes article. Now, Forbes states that "only" $11.2 Billion is direct Federal payment; Watchdog.org points out that the balance was from States, who mingled that spending in with legal spending and accounted for the balance that Forbes reported. A total of $18.5 billion. But hey, if you want to say it was only $11.2 billion - that is $11.2 billion in Federal spending on illegal immigrants. And is actually against the law.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're asking if I have evidence that Trump's actions in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi's actions in 2015?
I'm pretty sure you're smarter than that, so I must be misunderstanding your question.
It appears you hit reply without reading the comment you were replying to
So I have provided a link back to it so you can easily try reading it. I highly encourage you to do so. Feel free to ask questions afterwards.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nah, that Pelosi favored the wall in 2015. Quote is good, video is better.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It must be tough reading the minds of all those GOP folks all the time to determine that what they really think is the exact opposite of what they all said before, at the time and afterwards.
Feel free to turn down the hyperbole if you'd like to have a discussion here.
No mind reading is required, when we can look at what has been written by the Heritage Foundation and what has been written in various "ACA Replacement" bills that have been proposed by elected members of the GOP.
No democrat ever campaigned on writing a mandate into health care reform. Many democrats campaigned on making a single payer option a part of it, but the GOP members were very loud and clear about their opposition to anything resembling single payer. The Heritage Foundation showed they wanted a mandate, and many GOP members supported them. The mandate was written in to give the GOP something that it wanted out of the bill; if the GOP doesn't want the mandate then why haven't they dropped it from any of the proposed replacements they have suggested (and no, simply striking the bill down completely does not count as replacing it if nothing is offered in replacement)?
And if you look at any replacement plan that was proposed by an elected official, you will find they are well over 90% identical to the ACA. They might drop some of the least profitable parts (such as coverage for pre-existing conditions) but they retain the vast majority of the bill.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You don't need Trump to sign the spending bill to end the government shutdown. They have this thing called a presidential veto proof super majority, where if enough (congress/senate) people vote for it the president can't stop the law going through.
If you LET illegals pay taxes there is no burden on the state (taxpayers).
That may be the case in some places, but not all...This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal.
When the demand for labor is outpacing the supply of labor, that's a good argument for increasing the number of visas we grant. I still think we have the same problem with hiring illegal immigrants. Even if they're earning the same hourly rate as legal workers, these employers will still prefer them for the lack of payroll taxes and other employment costs. The employees are still not paying into social security and have incentives to avoid reporting workplace abuse for fear of deportation.
But you're right in that I didn't touch upon the case where illegal immigrant labor is *not* competing against full benefit job position because the demand for it as high. Congress should certainly consider whether our current immigration limits might be too low and whether we need to raise them.
Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option.
You don't see this is a problem? Have you asked yourself why someone wouldn't leave for a better opportunity when one presents itself (statistically speaking, that is. Of course individuals may be satisfied with what they have and lack ambition, but when you talk about an entire group of people as having that trait, you should look closer). Once you answer that question, you might ask yourself what those employers mean by hard working.
When I was an undergraduate at university, there was a group of graduate students under a South American professor known to work nights weekends, and basically not having a life outside of school. It was later found out he had a penchant for hiring people on student visas, and threaten them with revoking that visa if they didn't work hard enough. Could he do that? Of course not. They didn't know that. For the longest time no one reported him, because hey feared repercussions. They couldn't easily change advisors, like a US or permanent resident could. And their apparently hard-working nature wasn't a case of better work ethic than Americans, as it was a case of them thinking they didn't have the same labor protection as Americans.
Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard
I welcome hard working immigrants with open arms, and I see the benefits of even illegal immigration to our society just as you do. I agree with everything you've said. My problem is that I also see the danger of looking the other way to reap those benefits by allowing a labor black market. But sure, if we think we need to increase current immigration limits, let's do it.
Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer."
Well, I think if a business is not profitable because there's no market for it, it should die (or really, we should direct a pivot into a different field: I don't want the people owning those business to go bankrupt and for people to lose jobs, I want the market to shift into something different that works, and we can structure a system to help them do that). If a business is not profitable because the supply of labor is too low and current government regulations are keeping us from importing labor, that's a problem with the current regulations. We can fix that cheaply and easily.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I had to wake up two hours early today, so I'm headed to bed rather than spending much time on this, but here's the first hit on Google. Pelosi in 2013 voted for the following bill:
"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish .â.â. the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) .â.â. should be deployed along the Southern border. ... .â.â. [the Secretary submits] a written certification that .â.â. there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."
The Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status until 6 months after
Pelosi stated at the time "every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support".
Here's video of her saying that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/h...
That's just the first link that came up in my quick Google search. I'm sure there's much "juicier" quotes, but I'm headed to bed. Have a great night.
They can fight this once (now) and prove to Trump that government shutdowns don't work, or fight this every single time Trump wants something and throws a temper tantrum.
We're just coming to the point where the Republican Base loses their food stamps. Socialism looks a lot better when you can't feed your kids.
Listing Right Wing politicians who support your viewpoint doesn't prove your point. Judging by voting records, Clinton, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi are all Republicans (in everything but name).
Ps here is Obama's border chief talking for about four minutes about the change in rhetoric from the Democrat leadership. He points out that in 2014 the Democrat leadership was calling it a border crisis and saying we needed a wall. As you know, years later they did a 180.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either position. What I personally think wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, or in a tweet. I do think it's worthwhile to know their positions.
https://insider.foxnews.com/20...
Sorry about medium - it just so happens that Obama's border chief made those comments on that particular channel. We can just listen to him and ignore Cavuto.
How about telling the Navy to cancel a new ship? A single Ford class ship is $12 Billion (plus $2 Billion in repairs), more than enough for the first installment on the ($70 billion) wall.
Illegals pay (some) taxes but can't collect (most) benefits. They do jobs that would otherwise get offshored to Mexico or China. I don't see the drain. The evidence suggests illegals are a net benefit to America.
Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
If Trump really wanted to actually do anything, why in the world didn't he when R's controlled everything?
And I keep thinking of the easy problems to solve. Legalize drugs, and you kill the Cartels, generate tax revenue, everyone is happy. Every state or country that does it turns out fine and saves tons of money.
I included a link to the Heritage foundation refuting your statements. In contrast, all you've provided is your own bare assertions.
Dr. Rand Paul (elected official), has proposed a specific alternative bill or two (which won the support of Trump and most GOP members of Congress) which was not "over 90% identical to the ACA". Just the provision of using State-level block grants alone instead of Federal mandates removed the vast majority of the rules, regulations and restrictions within the ACA, not to mention the rest of the replacement. In the meantime, after McCain's betrayal, they've done what they can via the portions determined by executive order, which alone make up more than 10% of the ACA's original effect under Obama.
Once you're ready to start citing some facts (how about a link to the Heritage Foundation "plan" you say the ACA was based on?), then maybe come back.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Of course capitulating to him would encourage him to do the same thing again, not to mention setting a future precedent for other presidents with unpopular ideas.
This is the point. It's nothing to do with Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about setting precedents.
Of course Trump will use this as an excuse to divide the nation even more. That's his only real talent.
"You didn't get paid last month? Blame the Democrats!"
No sig today...
NVM, I was going to respond but TDS is a thing and sound like you need to see a therapist.
You don't get it - the "will of the people" doesn't matter for the Presidential election! That's the way the system was set up! It's the will of the regions that matter. Thus the reason there are two Senators per State, independent of population. Serious - drop the "will of the people" and "popular vote" thing because it's irrelevant. It's like talking about which team racked up more yards, when in the end all that matters is the score. Seriously, do you not respect the system? Will you not accept the results of the election?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You miss the point - again. It was a 100% Democrat bill. The GOP was ignored and excluded, even to the point of locking them out of conferences. The ACA had zero GOP content - because that was what the Democrats wanted. IF something was in there, it was solely at the whim of the Democrats, because they had a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House, and the Presidency.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We should shut down the government over a minuscule amount of money (compared to federal budget) that democrats have supported because he said a stupid lie?
We should shut down the government over a minuscule amount of money (compared to federal budget) that democrats have supported because he said a stupid lie?
He had two full years with a Republican controlled congress to get the money- why didn't he get it then? The Democrats offer him 25 billion and he refused to accept it, so yeah, that ship has sailed.
Now he wants to bamboozle fucktard sycophants like you into giving him the money. Feel free to donate all you want.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
When you say "popular" president, who are you referring to? The current president has an approval rating of 37% and disapproval of 57%.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
There ARE no better ones, because the wall has not been designed. The environment impact studies have not been done. Landowners have not been talked to about their property, other than vague statements that they might lose their land which have caused several to retain attorneys. We're at a very, very early stage in the process. We have no idea what the final cost is going to be but it's fair to say that a government building project covering thousands of miles - which still needs to be designed - and is going to force a lot of people to move, is not going to cap out at $5 billion. And there's nothing ironic about that.
This doesn't sound like a serious project, we're talking about funding the entire thing when it hasn't even been designed. This is a distraction. The NY Times finally started talking about Mueller again on Friday, but until that story broke this had replaced the coverage of Mueller. That's the purpose of the wall - to separate the American public from things that Trump doesn't want people talking about. Before he started rage-tweeting about the wall, what were we talking about? His lawyer being sentenced, the jail time and plea bargains other people were making, the new acting AG, etc.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of.
I live in the desert, how do you know maintenance will be nothing? It hasn't been designed yet.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The NY Times broke a story on Friday about how the FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation with Trump as the subject in May 2017, so now focus is returning to where it should be. If you look back at when Trump started rage-tweeting about the wall, the news was saturated with stories about Cohen being sentenced and his role, other plea bargains, the new acting AG, etc. All accounts at that time had Trump "furious" over news coverage. I think he manufactured this outrage campaign over the wall and the shutdown to change the focus, which he did, but I think that's starting to crumble and we're back to stories that matter for the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Canada has been a rotten neighbor ever since it became the goto country for fugitives to hide out in.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So we should sell the nukes to the cartels to get the money back to build the wall?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Getting his funding in a separate bill achieves exactly what he wants, so why not? All they'd need to do is put the funding in a separate bill first.
That's still being truthful. I think you no longer understand the difference between a truth and a lie.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The democratic agenda is "Orange man bad". They have run on nothing else for 2 years now.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Getting his funding in a separate bill achieves exactly what he wants, so why not? All they'd need to do is put the funding in a separate bill first.
Except he has very plainly indicated that he will not sign the current bill unless it has the border wall money in it. Even if they promised it for a latter bill he would under his current threats and promises not sign the current budgetary proposal. Congress could potentially scrap or table the current budget and write up a new bill that is the border wall (and nothing but the border wall) but then he'd be going against what he has been saying for the past 4 weeks.
That's still being truthful.
For the reasons state above, it would not be.
I think you no longer understand the difference between a truth and a lie.
I understand just fine that the vast majority of what comes out of Trump's mouth and Trump's organizations is a lie.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Will you not accept the results of the election?
Why are you jumping to that conclusion? I never once said I don't accept the results. I will say that I think the electoral college is obsolete and should go away for future elections, however there is no choice but to accept the results of the 2016 election. It is interesting though how only one party prefers the system that subverts the way our nation actually votes.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So you still haven't read my comment, then. Why are you hitting reply? The individual mandate was never something that any democrat ever expressed interest in including in reform. It came from the GOP and the Heritage Foundation; it was included because republicans said they could get behind a bill if it had that and it had no single payer option. Both of those requirements from the GOP were met and then they turned against it.
You can continue to attempt revisionist history if you want, but these are the simple facts. Why would the democrats have poisoned their own bill and provided something that was so much less than what they had campaigned to do?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>why didn't he do it then?
I could give a couple guesses but it doesn't really matter because it would have needed the support of democrats to pass during that 2 years just like now.
>offered 25 billion
With other conditions that are not being discussed now so is irrelevant.
> that ship has sailed
Then we keep the government shutdown.
>bamboozle fucktard sychopants like you
I am still uncertain why the Democrats are shutting down the government and what principle they are upholding. All I can gather from them and you is that "fuck trump and fuck anyone that remotely defends him." Democrats are acting like children and you are acting like a deranged child.
>feel free to donate
Funny, there was a crowdsource to fund the wall. It got a lot of money in a very short order of time but short of the 1 billion goal. Yet, you and the democrats are willing to shutdown everything from an unprincipled position for a small amount of money because.... Orange man bad.
What do you think the second order effect of giving citizenship to the DACA kids would be? Isn't the path to citizenship for H-1B a better solution?
These questions are quite pointless, because the DACA kids are already here. Discussion of some ideal set-up while ignoring what exists today is really dumb.
As for your questions themselves, H-1B visas should be eliminated. If a company needs to import workers, there are permanent work visas that already exist. Might need to increase the cut-off for those visas to make up for the loss of H-1B visas. This, btw, makes the "path to citizenship" moot.
As for what effects the DACA kids getting citizenship: not much. They're already here. They're already working.
What do you think the effect of not actively discussing border security would be?
Congratulations on coming out of that coma. Border security has been under active discussion since the W administration, when a bipartisan bill passed to build walls where they actually make sense on the border. Please try to catch up.
Multiple migrant caravan waves, scheduling simultaneous mass crossing attempts across multiple states in order to overwhelm Border Patrol?
Guess what? Asylum seekers don't do this. Because federal law and treaty obligations require that we let them into the country while their claim is being investigated. Those caravans don't need to rush the border, so they don't actually do that. But it's great for fearmongering towards people like you who haven't been paying attention.
At what point do you think we need to enforce immigration laws?
My personal belief is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Someone who abandons everything to walk 2000 miles isn't going to spend the rest of their life on the couch. They're going to be massively productive members of society, and statistics bear this out - immigrants are massively successful in the US. Legal or not.
But my personal belief is not the law.
The law says those caravans get to come in. When attempting to claim we need to follow immigration laws, it's probably a good idea to not demand breaking immigration laws.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help.
No, Trump says all the Border patrol agents say that. But Trump has a very tenuous relationship with reality.
What CBP agents actually want depends on where they are stationed. Because each part of the border has its own problems. Some want more helicopters. Some need a road along the border. Almost all want more sensors and cameras.
And absolutely none want a massive concrete wall. Because that would mean they could not see through it to prepare for border crossings.
ot using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration
"Illegal Immigration" has not been this low since the 1970s. Without a wall. It's almost like someone is shoveling bullshit at you to get you scared so you vote for them.
Hillary won and Brexit didn't happen, right?
Both were within the margin of error. And I assume you know what a "margin of error" is...at least better than all the pundits who preemptively declared those victories.
I'd be interested in a citation for:
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
The analysis in the article is shit, but the offer it covers was made.
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA [thehill.com], but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that
Elections have consequences. Even the elections Republicans lose.
Since the 2018 election happened, deals that were on the table in 2017 are no longer on the table. That's why people who are actually good at negotiation take such deals before events overtake them.
Graham was referring to a White House offer last January
That offer was not made by Trump, and immediately condemned by Trump. Turns out the Trump White House is a tad inconsistent.
Yeah. We get it. Republicans are shit and Democrats offer a sane way for America to be governed...
Except for all the bad things the Democrats did.
So let's all vote Republican. Well, they are doing demonstrably bad things.
How about trying not to make this into a Democrats vs Republicans thing? Both parties are acting shitty right now. Both parties have acted like shit in the past. Both parties will act like shit in the future.
Your words contribute nothing positive to this discussion. It does not matter who is the worst when none of the choices are even neutral, much less good. Nobody, in good conscience, can vote either Democrat or Republican, even if the Republicans are 10 times worse than the Democrats.
It is like saying that being burned alive is 10 times worse than having your head cut off, so let's all vote for having our heads cut off!
Ummm... Duh?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Except it is. Obama threatened to shut down the govt no fewer than 3 times (one of which actually took place) to get "whatever the hell" he wanted.
The first time was in 2011 when he pretty much wouldn't reduce spending: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
The second time was in 2013 on ACA: https://www.politifact.com/fac...
The third time was in 2015 on spending again: http://www.freedomworks.org/co...
So it is how Congress works, in these days of no-compromise.
As I said in another thread, Obama literally issued the same threat 3 distinct times (2011, 2013, 2015) when he wasn't getting what he wanted, one of which actually resulted in a shutdown. I don't see the difference, other than the fact you likely believe the wall isn't something worthy of drawing a line in the sand over (vs what Obama was fighting for): https://slashdot.org/comments....
I think Democrats have just come to the realization that any govt shutdown will always do more political harm to Republicans, so they refuse to compromise at all as a result.
The first time was in 2011
He wasn't waiting for the republicans to give in on something. He didn't want to sign a short-term measure because he wanted to pressure congress to come up with an actual spending bill instead of a long series of temporary ones that take the pressure off. It's called leadership.
The second time was in 2013 on ACA
This was over the republicans wanting to delay/defund obamacare (again). They tried to do this about a thousand times in various ways. Of course obama wasn't going to sign that.
The third time was in 2015 on spending again
Let's quote some less biased sources. This impasse was over the more conservative wing trying to defund planned parenthood.
Obama never refused to sign a spending bill because he wanted some wild pet project.
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money. The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it. "Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO. Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people. And I might add the country was basically 50-50 on whether or not to include ACA mods in the 2011 budget (so it's not like Obama had overwhelming public support on his side either): http://www.people-press.org/20...
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money.
It's not just a difference of opinion, it's an objective difference in strategy. One undermines the traditional process and one doesn't. The ACA was a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Trump is shutting down the government to get something new as opposed to keep what was existing. That's really the crux of it. If he wants the wall he should get it passed in congress as part of a border security bill (the ACA was its own bill entirely). Republicans had control of the house, senate, and president just like democrats when they passed the ACA. Are you saying every law should be up for debate and re-passed every year when the funding is due? If you thought congress couldn't get anything done now...
The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it.
I'll assume you meant 2013 since in 2011 they just wanted short term spending bills. In 2013 they wanted to repeal the ACA entirely on principle. The CBO at the time was predicting deficit reductions from the ACA. Regardless, republicans never actually care about the deficit unless it happens to help their current argument. See the recent tax breaks and military spending increases.
"Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO.
Source? I think you're off by a trillion or so.
Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people.
You can't compare obama defending the ACA to trump asking for a wall. It's objectively unreasonable to expect obama to just let the law die after such a hard win. Trump only won an election. Getting what you want is actually harder than that.
According to that article, as well as others, Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B (if you believe the White House budget director on the record about the meeting), in which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B [...] n which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
That's a detail of how funding a large project such as this would work. You can't build it in a year, so you appropriate it over several years. If you'd like another example, take a gander at the F-35's funding.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
Already covered that. Elections have consequences. Even the ones Republicans lose.
The Democrats are in a much stronger position in 2019 than they were in 2017. Especially since all appropriations bills must originate in the House. So things they don't like but had to offer in a 2017 negotiation no longer have to be offered.
With Trump's favorability dropping over the shutdown and Pelosi's climbing, there is even less incentive for the Democrats to fold.
IOW, the Republicans and Trump invented a fake crisis, want billions to "fix" it, and aren't currently in the political position to actually get those billions, and their "YOU GOTTA DO WHAT I SAY!!" strategy isn't working with the electorate. There's a few ways Trump could save face here, but there's no reason for the Democrats to save Trump's image and even less reason for the Republicans in Congress to save Trump's image.
Why do you feel this is "different"? To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones. For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit. Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it? I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party? What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
No, I meant 2011. I even remember the back and forth debates over how much taxes should be hiked vs how much spending cuts should be present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2011#proposed_resolutions). The gist of it is that Obama flat out refused to pass a budget that didn't include new revenue, insisting that the deficit must be tackled be a "balanced" approach. This was at least mildly insulting to Republicans after just watching the Democrats skyrocket federal outlays 700 billion between 2009 and 2011 (primarily via TARP and the stimulus program...and that's ignoring ACA, most of which didn't have significant spending measures kick in until nearly 5 years later, by design). Obama also refused to accept a short-term deal. Though in that instance, it was holding a US debt default hostage, rather than a govt shutdown. Same basic premise though: the two sides couldn't come to a compromise agreement and Obama dug his heels in on those two key issues (the Republicans caved on the other hand, since their original sticking point was "all spending cuts with no new revenue").
Is Time acceptable? http://time.com/money/4271224/... You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks. Similarly with ACA, we're still spending a shit ton of money every year. We just don't see it in the annual federal budget numbers. The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
With other conditions that are not being discussed now so is irrelevant.
> that ship has sailed
Then we keep the government shutdown.
>bamboozle fucktard sychopants like you
I am still uncertain why the Democrats are shutting down the government
LOL, first you say "we" keep the government shutdown, then you pivot and blame it on the Democrats. Cute, but face it- Trump owns this shutdown all the way- he even said so in the Oval Office. So yeah, it's his (and apparently yours, too).
Orange man bad.
I agree, thank you for confirming it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yes he can, but those bills are not "must pass" if he vetos those bills basically nothing happens. In other words they don't offer an leverage. Supposes the president veto's some farm bill or some trade agreement: Do think Democrats are going to trade the political capital they have amassed grand standing over the wall to get that done? -No. A small group of people who needed that legislation will be abandon to suffer by both sides calculating they are not a large enough number of votes to move the needles next election cycle.
On the other hand the shutdown effects a lot of people in a lot of ways. Voters WILL want a budget enacted. Whose base its "hurts" more is a good question. Arguable the GOP suffers more monetarily but I suspect the human suffering is greater for Nancy's constituency. Voters are not dump they can see that either side is positioned to end this quickly. Trump's theory is the public wanting their housing subsidies, snap payments, will eventually tell Pelosi just give him the damn money and build the darn wall. Nancy is betting Trumps public will say just give up, and keep the airports open.
We will see who is right; but I am not ignorant of civics or recent American political history dear A/C, although you appear to be.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It takes two to make a fight. Both are to blame for a car crash if they play a game of chicken even if one pushes the gas first.
I don't understand why the democrats are fighting so hard over something so small.
To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones.
What? I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling now. These "grandfathered" policies are otherwise known as "laws". You did take civics class in high school right?
For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit.
That's not hypothetical. It happens every time they control 3 branches of government.
Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it?
Democrats would be in the wrong to shut down the government over that. It's why they didn't when it literally happened.
I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I assume by "pretty much threaten" you mean they didn't actually do anything, but if they did shut down the government after the Bush tax cuts were already law then yes I'd agree they were wrong.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum.
That answers my first question.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party?
Voters. Voters decide who's majority or minority.
What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
If they're out of power for eternity then yes, but ideally they would wait and pass a new law that repeals the old one when they get power again.
You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks.
I see your point here. I think I'm just conditioned to hearing conservatives blame the national debt on democrats. As much as conservatives scream about tax and spend democrats at least they do the taxing as well as the spending. The republicans are fine with running up the deficit. That's kind of off topic though.
The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
Not going to argue with that. My original post pointed out that democrats should trade the wall for other "fixed but low cost" programs.
Obama's win was more a mandate against the former administration moreso than for his own. A large chunk of voters were voting against the former republican neocons who also added to the deficit rather than for Obama's policies. The assumption of a "mandate" in support of his policies was misplaced. Both ACA (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/newt-gingrich/obamacare-has-never-been-favored-majority-american/) and single payer (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/) did not have broad support from Americans. But Obama forced through the unpopular bill anyway because he wanted the political
The job recovery began long before Trump was even a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It takes two to make a fight.
You've never been married, have you?
I don't understand why the democrats are fighting so hard over something so small.
And I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath.
Famous Trump Quotes:
"I know more than all the generals." WRONG.
"Healthcare is so easy to fix." WRONG.
"I know more than the greatest CPA." WRONG.
“No one respects women more than me.” OH PLEASE
“No one reads the Bible more than me.” WRONG’
“Nobody knows politicians better than me.”
“I have studied the Iran deal in great detail, greater by far than anyone else.” WRONG
"If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." EWWWWWW."
“Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me.” WRONG.
"I will release my taxes after the election.” WRONG.
"We had the largest inauguration crowd in history." WRONG.
“Everyone will have better healthcare at fraction of the cost.” WRONG.
“Global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese.” WRONG.
“I am the least racist person you’ve ever met.” WRONG.
“I can be more presidential than anybody.” LOL NO.
"The tax cuts will affect me and the wealthy tremendously.” WRONG.
"If I would have been there I would have run inside the school and stop the shooter.” WRONG.
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” EWWWWWW.
“I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.” DRAFT DODGER SAYS WHAT?
“There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have.” WRONG.
“Nobody has been tougher on Russia than I have.” WRONG.
“Nobody loves the Bible more than I do.” WRONG.
“With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.” WRONG.
March 2018 “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”
April 2018: “We’ve already lost the trade war.”
“I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things." OH FFS
“Nobody does self-deprecating humor better than I do.” WHAT? WRONG WRONG
"I know tech better than anyone" NO YOU DON'T
"I know more about drones than anybody." NOPE.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You've never been married, have you?
When your wife starts in on you, do you escalate, hold firm, and make her more angry by stubborn opposition? That doesn't sound like a good idea for anyone married. I think your example highlights my point. Even if your spouse starts the fight (starts the game of chicken), sometimes its better to bite the tongue and move along (not accelerating toward a car crash). Then there isn't a big fight that blows out of proportion and then complaints from 10 years ago are brought up, your sleeping on the couch, angry unable to sleep and exhausted for work the next day (the car crash) wondering how a few dirty dishes caused all this. It takes two to fight.
I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath
That's his personality and has always been that way? That isn't hard to explain especially if you look at him before he entered politics. Not sure what isn't to understand.
When your wife starts in on you,
You're either missing the point or are being disingenuous. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time trying to un-brainwash you.
It takes two to fight.
No, it doesn't.
So it looks like I was right- you've never been married. Call me back after your first couple of marriages go south and I'll be glad to accept your admission that I was, in fact, correct.
That's his personality and has always been that way?
Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president? Really? SMH.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
lol, yes i am just a brainwashed incel. What does that make you? A big brain IQ alpha that's married to the queen of england. posh posh posh.
>>Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president?
It doesn't matter what I want. He was duly elected.
lol, yes i am just a brainwashed incel. What does that make you? A big brain IQ alpha that's married to the queen of england. posh posh
I'm a happily-married guy who knows a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. I don't claim to have a big brain, but it's done pretty well for me so far. For example, it helps me spot the kind of numbnuts who blindly support authoritarian assholes and wanna-be dictators. Yes, I'm referring to Trump. I don't mean to be condescending*, but I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview. .
Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president?
It doesn't matter what I want. He was duly elected.
See, and that's where you run off the rails. First of all even if he was duly elected, that is not a reason to support him (or anybody, for that matter). Not to Godwin the discussion, but Hitler was duly elected. So was Nixon. Neither of them deserved support.
Second, it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected". Personally I have some strong doubts that he was elected legitimately and without outside interference. But even if he was, so what? If a leader is an ignorant dick and an idiot, why support him or her? That's the blind sheeplike follower mentality that allows dictators and tyrants to flourish. And they love people like you.
Finally, saying "It doesn't matter what I want" is a mind-bendingly foolish thing to say. Of course it matters, that's what this is all about. Only a fool thinks it doesn't matter what they want. From deciding on dinner to picking a world leader, it definitely matters. You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
.
* That means "talking down to someone".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
>> I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
Projecting much. I think it's funny you say this when this conversation started with asking simple questions and stating simple facts. Can't have that now can we. How dare someone question the hive mind!
>> it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected"
Yes it is. I suspect your partisan narrative is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
>You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
Other people can get what they want. I'll wait for the one time it actually matters instead of buying into lies like the recent Buzzfeed "bombshell" that they refuse to retract despite Mueller saying it's bullshit.
"If it's what you say it is, I love it."
What's amazing is that the same people who saw a conspiracy in everything the Clintons and Obama did refuse to connect far more evidence-based dots in Trump's case. No matter what happens, it's always "fake news" or "nothing to see" or "But Hillary and Obama..."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I seem to recall a "we want to talk about the shutdown, but stop the shutdown first and we're not giving you any wall money" speech, so neither side is particularly interested in talking.
They both need to go.
And yet, I'm having problems renewing my passport...
There really isn't a middle ground.
That's what gets us into these messes. In your world, either you actively despise everything Trump touches, or you completely love him.
That's a nice strawman. Was that intentional, or did you just not read this thread at all?
The GGP posted a list of factually incorrect statements, all right wing talking points, then said he "wasn't taking sides". My "not a middle ground" was between "not knowing enough to speak on the topic" and "taking the side of Trump". I was being somewhat generous there, because when all your statements are factually wrong talking points from one side, it's pretty clear that you have indeed taken a side. On the off chance that he really hadn't picked that side, I offered an out of ignorance.
Facts are facts. There isn't a middle ground on them. If you think there is, you're part of the problem.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor