APK, I have a question. When you say that he is a nazi homosexual recruiter, do you mean a recruiter for "the homosexuals" who happens to also be a nazi? Or is a recruiter for the nazis who happens to be a homosexual? Or is there a group of nazi homosexuals, possibly confused self-hating individuals, but this group of nazi homosexuals has some sort of recruitment mechanism and he is a member of that?
Also, what exactly is "pre-debunked propaganda?" Is this propaganda which has been debunked prior to being released? Because, if so, it doesn't seem like it would be very effective for those to debunk their own propaganda prior to release.
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.
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.
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.
No, he doesn't. He wants people to argue about the wall and he wants the news covering the shutdown because if they're doing that then they're not covering the AG and Robert Mueller.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have not claimed either of those. Again, you are clearly confused, it is evident in your assertions. Like that one claiming that I said we never have to make budget choices. Not sure where you think that argument came into play, but I never made it (I DID say we will never have to choose between 10 scientists and 10,000 construction jobs, which is true, because that's a really stupid argument).
I suppose that's not entirely true, I know how you got from point A to point B. You attempted to process my criticism, but instead of understanding what I was saying you decided to push my argument to its extreme, and then set up that strawman as if that was the argument I was making instead of my actual argument. Because it's a lot easier to knock down a strawman. It's a lot easier for you to argue that we have to make budget choices, even though I never argued that we never have to make budget choices.
I realize this is all probably pretty confusing to you, so just go ahead and reply with "yadda yadda yadda" followed by some word salad because, again, that's easier than trying to think. Or, just dismiss me as a moron, which, again, requires as little thinking as possible on your part.
That seems like fairly thin gruel for Slashdot's "U.S. sux" article du jour.
You just have to dig a little deeper for the meat.
"It's almost with religious zeal that these people come, thinking their goodies are in my yard," John told me. "The Apple customers seem to be the worst."
ah HA! You thought was "U.S. sux", but is "Apple sux" instead! Bamboozled again.
Clearly this homeowner is just an Android zealot, because those are the only people who ever criticize Apple users. I've learned this fact right here on Slashdot.
No idea what that means, but you're obviously not interested in standing behind whatever you say. Take care. Best of luck convincing your audience on Facebook, I'm sure they all think you make really good points.
I'm not asserting that the budget is infinite. I am asserting that we are not choosing, and will never have to choose, between funding 10 scientists or 10,000 construction jobs. It's a stupid example, and I called you out for it. That's what I'm calling you out on, your stupid fictional appeal to emotion in a scenario that is not currently happening, and will never happen in the world's largest economy.
I never said the budget is infinite. You're just using an absurd hypothetical in a bad attempt to sway people to your badly-informed political opinion. If your opinion on this matter was so valid and well thought-out, you wouldn't be setting up some sort of hypothetical where we have to choose between funding 10 scientists or 10,000 construction jobs. But you don't have another example because, like I said, your opinion is badly-informed and not well thought-out. So you scoop up logical fallacies like appeal to emotion and hope no one notices. Well, I did.
I shouldn't be surprised that someone coming up with absurd hypotheticals in an appeal to emotion can't understand what other people are talking about. There's a lot of confusion in you. Let me know if you need me to spell anything else out for you. The people who modded my comment up to 5 at least understood the point.
I asked you to show evidence of the companies that apparently everyone knows are doing this, but ARE NOT being busted. You're showing people being busted for financial services around paying illegal workers, which is only evidence that the enforcement system is working, even though that is from 2012. See the link I posted earlier if you want to read about the thousands of people arrested the last 2 years. It sounds like the system is working. If you're aware of major violations going on, instead of complaining about all the pure patriotic jobs being lost, just report it. And maybe our country can move on to something actually important.
You're suggesting we can either fund 10 scientists or 10,000 construction workers, but not both, and I'm the moron for calling you out on that stupid claim? You make stupid claims like that and I'm the one looking for an argument? You're not giving an explanation because there's not one. Because you're the one just trying to argue, and being asked to show any kind of evidence for your claims slows you down.
OK, buddy. Good luck with your false equivalences. I'm sure you make a really compelling argument for your audience on Facebook.
Your logical fallacy is asserting that there is a major problem when you haven't shown that. Sorry, but in order for me to consider your argument, first prove your assertion that it is currently a "major problem." As in, evidence. It's probably best to ignore the unemployment rate when you're trying to come up with things that look like evidence for that.
Also....
If it were getting enforced against the largest offenders, who are easy to find because they are so very large, it would cease to be a major problem.
Who exactly are these largest offenders, that everyone apparently knows about, who aren't getting busted for it? Names, please. And, again, you know, evidence.
QED, it's not getting enforced, or if it is the enforcement is wholly ineffectual
Or your assumptions are not correct. Which is easily the simplest answer to this particular question.
OK, happy to help. You see, it is currently illegal for a business to hire someone who is not allowed to legally work in the US. This is currently a crime. No new legislation needs to be passed in order for this to become illegal or get enforced. Now, I don't know how many drug dealers you've encountered throughout your life, but here's the thing: when your business model is predicated upon doing something illegal, that's something that we like to call "high risk." This business can actually get shut down and the owner fined or jailed just with one little old phone call. And, not only in theory either, it actually happens! (strange, I know, but true!)
So, what do you do if your business is being out-competed by someone committing a crime to run their business with an illegal workforce? You just pick up that little old phone on your desk, and call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE. And - just like that - no more competitor! And now you're sitting in high cotton and it's just little old you and you can charge whatever you want for your fantastic services.
Because it looks to me like it is a real problem.
And you're suggesting that there is currently no solution to this problem, right? And, not only that, but those 3.7% or so of workers who are unemployed (which is the lowest level that's been at since about 1970) are unable to find a job because the companies who hire illegal workers just straight up won't hire Americans also, right? Because, if they did, then your buddies in the unemployment line would be out there waiting to pick lettuce and tomatoes. Right? Therefore, let's spend a couple dozen billion dollars to build a giant wall. Am I following you so far?
Seriously, how exactly do you justify this being a "real problem" that "illegals" are stealing so many jobs when we have an unemployment rate that is lower than about 2/3s of Americans currently alive have ever seen?
Illegals are perfect community for these degenerates that liberal public loves so much.
Sorry, but who exactly do the liberal public love so much? MS-13? Violent gang members? Who is it that you believe a large portion of the US voting public wants to see in the country? And have you ever actually met someone saying they want those people in the country, or do you just think they want them because someone on TV told you they want them? Kind of like the "open borders" line, right? There's not a single person advocating for open borders, but that doesn't stop the True Patriots (tm) from trying to convince idiots that there are people advocating for open borders. And, those idiots believe it because doing your own research takes time and it's just comfortable when someone on TV is telling you something that you kind of feel might be true.
So, who is it that the liberal public loves so much that you're referring to here?
organized crime gets slap on the wrist despite the fact that they kill disproportionately larger amount of people as part of their gang activity, starting from killing absolutely innocent people that have no relation to any of the traditional gang territories as part of gang initiation.
You're suggesting that the US justice system treats murder as a slap on the wrist? And, let me guess. This perceived aspect of the US justice system, which doesn't actually exist, was put in place by Democrats, or whoever your own political opponent is. Is that about right?
Putting a stop to cross-border human trafficking is a good start to reduce this ground.
I think that literally everyone in America agrees with that statement, but I also bet you've allowed yourself to become convinced that "the other" doesn't support stopping human trafficking, for whatever reason.
Seriously, everyone agrees that we need border security and that reducing human trafficking is a good thing. What people disagree about is the best way to make that happen.
So we get yet another race to the bottom as those willing to hire illegals outcompete those not willing to do so.
You know, there's a bit of a flaw in that business plan. If you're really clever, you might be able to spot it and then you'll understand why it's not actually a problem in the country today.
It would have been quicker for you to type "I'm just talking out of my ass."
I'll just note that the country has finite budget for the government and a finite size economy.
And somehow you have gone from that to "we can either have a space budget or construction workers, but never both." Sorry, but it doesn't hold up. You've got multiple logical fallacies at play here. If you don't want to defend them, fine, I wouldn't either. I wouldn't make those statements in the first place, though.
The country is not choosing between minimal science funding and construction jobs. Period. The world's largest economy will never have to make that choice no matter whether you try to artificially inject "illegals" into the discussion or not. I notice you didn't address those questions, though.
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place?
Let me guess, the Big Bad Democrats are forcing these patriotic employers to fire their patriotic employees and are instead being forced to hire illegals who want to destroy America and rape their daughters. That's about the extent of the thought you put into "but illegals!" isn't it?
There were only 2 contenders. Sorry, but that's a fact.
Yes, and you are required to vote for one of them. Don't make any attempt otherwise. Don't tell anyone they should vote for anyone else other than for one of the two parties in control of the system. In fact, tell other people voting for any other candidate that they are wasting their vote. This is the way it is, this is the way it has always been (since the 80s, at least), and this is the way it will always be. You are given two evils, and you must choose.
Remember, we all get the government we deserve. We deserve Trump. We deserve inoperable government. We chose this, it was not chosen for us. Right?
Mexico would have paid for the wall long ago if the Democrats hadn't blocked the efforts.
Haha, because the US Congress passes a law saying "Mexico is paying for this. Signed, Congress" and that's all there is, right? That's how it works?
Yeah, OK buddy. Hey, by reading this post you agree to transfer 100 bitcoins to an address of my choosing. I just wrote it up, even signed my name on the paper and everything.
I've got a better idea: don't hold the country hostage when the lawmakers don't want to make the laws you want them to make. They have a Constitutional duty to be a check on executive power, it's right there in the book. That's what they're doing. Both sides need to work on a budget bill to open the government, and then they can continue arguing about the wall. Holding the country hostage until the president gets what he wants is a really stupid precedent to start. I mean, for decades we've said we don't negotiate with terrorists, so why would anyone want to negotiate with someone holding hostages? It will set an awful precedent for the country, if anyone cares about the actual good of the country. Congress needs to pass a budget that they agree on, and send it to the president. Argue about the wall later. If Congress repeatedly sends budgets to the president and he doesn't sign them, then it will be obvious that he's the only one not doing his job.
Slashdot Mirror
APK, I have a question. When you say that he is a nazi homosexual recruiter, do you mean a recruiter for "the homosexuals" who happens to also be a nazi? Or is a recruiter for the nazis who happens to be a homosexual? Or is there a group of nazi homosexuals, possibly confused self-hating individuals, but this group of nazi homosexuals has some sort of recruitment mechanism and he is a member of that?
Also, what exactly is "pre-debunked propaganda?" Is this propaganda which has been debunked prior to being released? Because, if so, it doesn't seem like it would be very effective for those to debunk their own propaganda prior to release.
Thanks for the clarification APK.
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.
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.
When you say "popular" president, who are you referring to? The current president has an approval rating of 37% and disapproval of 57%.
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.
No, he doesn't. He wants people to argue about the wall and he wants the news covering the shutdown because if they're doing that then they're not covering the AG and Robert Mueller.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have not claimed either of those. Again, you are clearly confused, it is evident in your assertions. Like that one claiming that I said we never have to make budget choices. Not sure where you think that argument came into play, but I never made it (I DID say we will never have to choose between 10 scientists and 10,000 construction jobs, which is true, because that's a really stupid argument).
I suppose that's not entirely true, I know how you got from point A to point B. You attempted to process my criticism, but instead of understanding what I was saying you decided to push my argument to its extreme, and then set up that strawman as if that was the argument I was making instead of my actual argument. Because it's a lot easier to knock down a strawman. It's a lot easier for you to argue that we have to make budget choices, even though I never argued that we never have to make budget choices.
I realize this is all probably pretty confusing to you, so just go ahead and reply with "yadda yadda yadda" followed by some word salad because, again, that's easier than trying to think. Or, just dismiss me as a moron, which, again, requires as little thinking as possible on your part.
That seems like fairly thin gruel for Slashdot's "U.S. sux" article du jour.
You just have to dig a little deeper for the meat.
"It's almost with religious zeal that these people come, thinking their goodies are in my yard," John told me. "The Apple customers seem to be the worst."
ah HA! You thought was "U.S. sux", but is "Apple sux" instead! Bamboozled again.
Clearly this homeowner is just an Android zealot, because those are the only people who ever criticize Apple users. I've learned this fact right here on Slashdot.
No idea what that means, but you're obviously not interested in standing behind whatever you say. Take care. Best of luck convincing your audience on Facebook, I'm sure they all think you make really good points.
I'm not asserting that the budget is infinite. I am asserting that we are not choosing, and will never have to choose, between funding 10 scientists or 10,000 construction jobs. It's a stupid example, and I called you out for it. That's what I'm calling you out on, your stupid fictional appeal to emotion in a scenario that is not currently happening, and will never happen in the world's largest economy.
I never said the budget is infinite. You're just using an absurd hypothetical in a bad attempt to sway people to your badly-informed political opinion. If your opinion on this matter was so valid and well thought-out, you wouldn't be setting up some sort of hypothetical where we have to choose between funding 10 scientists or 10,000 construction jobs. But you don't have another example because, like I said, your opinion is badly-informed and not well thought-out. So you scoop up logical fallacies like appeal to emotion and hope no one notices. Well, I did.
I shouldn't be surprised that someone coming up with absurd hypotheticals in an appeal to emotion can't understand what other people are talking about. There's a lot of confusion in you. Let me know if you need me to spell anything else out for you. The people who modded my comment up to 5 at least understood the point.
I asked you to show evidence of the companies that apparently everyone knows are doing this, but ARE NOT being busted. You're showing people being busted for financial services around paying illegal workers, which is only evidence that the enforcement system is working, even though that is from 2012. See the link I posted earlier if you want to read about the thousands of people arrested the last 2 years. It sounds like the system is working. If you're aware of major violations going on, instead of complaining about all the pure patriotic jobs being lost, just report it. And maybe our country can move on to something actually important.
You're suggesting we can either fund 10 scientists or 10,000 construction workers, but not both, and I'm the moron for calling you out on that stupid claim? You make stupid claims like that and I'm the one looking for an argument? You're not giving an explanation because there's not one. Because you're the one just trying to argue, and being asked to show any kind of evidence for your claims slows you down.
OK, buddy. Good luck with your false equivalences. I'm sure you make a really compelling argument for your audience on Facebook.
Your logical fallacy is asserting that there is a major problem when you haven't shown that. Sorry, but in order for me to consider your argument, first prove your assertion that it is currently a "major problem." As in, evidence. It's probably best to ignore the unemployment rate when you're trying to come up with things that look like evidence for that.
Also....
If it were getting enforced against the largest offenders, who are easy to find because they are so very large, it would cease to be a major problem.
Who exactly are these largest offenders, that everyone apparently knows about, who aren't getting busted for it? Names, please. And, again, you know, evidence.
QED, it's not getting enforced, or if it is the enforcement is wholly ineffectual
Or your assumptions are not correct. Which is easily the simplest answer to this particular question.
OK, happy to help. You see, it is currently illegal for a business to hire someone who is not allowed to legally work in the US. This is currently a crime. No new legislation needs to be passed in order for this to become illegal or get enforced. Now, I don't know how many drug dealers you've encountered throughout your life, but here's the thing: when your business model is predicated upon doing something illegal, that's something that we like to call "high risk." This business can actually get shut down and the owner fined or jailed just with one little old phone call. And, not only in theory either, it actually happens! (strange, I know, but true!)
So, what do you do if your business is being out-competed by someone committing a crime to run their business with an illegal workforce? You just pick up that little old phone on your desk, and call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE. And - just like that - no more competitor! And now you're sitting in high cotton and it's just little old you and you can charge whatever you want for your fantastic services.
Because it looks to me like it is a real problem.
And you're suggesting that there is currently no solution to this problem, right? And, not only that, but those 3.7% or so of workers who are unemployed (which is the lowest level that's been at since about 1970) are unable to find a job because the companies who hire illegal workers just straight up won't hire Americans also, right? Because, if they did, then your buddies in the unemployment line would be out there waiting to pick lettuce and tomatoes. Right? Therefore, let's spend a couple dozen billion dollars to build a giant wall. Am I following you so far?
Seriously, how exactly do you justify this being a "real problem" that "illegals" are stealing so many jobs when we have an unemployment rate that is lower than about 2/3s of Americans currently alive have ever seen?
Illegals are perfect community for these degenerates that liberal public loves so much.
Sorry, but who exactly do the liberal public love so much? MS-13? Violent gang members? Who is it that you believe a large portion of the US voting public wants to see in the country? And have you ever actually met someone saying they want those people in the country, or do you just think they want them because someone on TV told you they want them? Kind of like the "open borders" line, right? There's not a single person advocating for open borders, but that doesn't stop the True Patriots (tm) from trying to convince idiots that there are people advocating for open borders. And, those idiots believe it because doing your own research takes time and it's just comfortable when someone on TV is telling you something that you kind of feel might be true.
So, who is it that the liberal public loves so much that you're referring to here?
organized crime gets slap on the wrist despite the fact that they kill disproportionately larger amount of people as part of their gang activity, starting from killing absolutely innocent people that have no relation to any of the traditional gang territories as part of gang initiation.
You're suggesting that the US justice system treats murder as a slap on the wrist? And, let me guess. This perceived aspect of the US justice system, which doesn't actually exist, was put in place by Democrats, or whoever your own political opponent is. Is that about right?
Putting a stop to cross-border human trafficking is a good start to reduce this ground.
I think that literally everyone in America agrees with that statement, but I also bet you've allowed yourself to become convinced that "the other" doesn't support stopping human trafficking, for whatever reason.
Seriously, everyone agrees that we need border security and that reducing human trafficking is a good thing. What people disagree about is the best way to make that happen.
So we get yet another race to the bottom as those willing to hire illegals outcompete those not willing to do so.
You know, there's a bit of a flaw in that business plan. If you're really clever, you might be able to spot it and then you'll understand why it's not actually a problem in the country today.
It would have been quicker for you to type "I'm just talking out of my ass."
I'll just note that the country has finite budget for the government and a finite size economy.
And somehow you have gone from that to "we can either have a space budget or construction workers, but never both." Sorry, but it doesn't hold up. You've got multiple logical fallacies at play here. If you don't want to defend them, fine, I wouldn't either. I wouldn't make those statements in the first place, though.
The country is not choosing between minimal science funding and construction jobs. Period. The world's largest economy will never have to make that choice no matter whether you try to artificially inject "illegals" into the discussion or not. I notice you didn't address those questions, though.
Moreover, why exactly are the guys losing their jobs to "illegals?" It's already illegal to hire people not allowed to be in the country, so why are their employers firing the US citizens and hiring undocumented workers to take their place?
Let me guess, the Big Bad Democrats are forcing these patriotic employers to fire their patriotic employees and are instead being forced to hire illegals who want to destroy America and rape their daughters. That's about the extent of the thought you put into "but illegals!" isn't it?
There were only 2 contenders. Sorry, but that's a fact.
Yes, and you are required to vote for one of them. Don't make any attempt otherwise. Don't tell anyone they should vote for anyone else other than for one of the two parties in control of the system. In fact, tell other people voting for any other candidate that they are wasting their vote. This is the way it is, this is the way it has always been (since the 80s, at least), and this is the way it will always be. You are given two evils, and you must choose.
Remember, we all get the government we deserve. We deserve Trump. We deserve inoperable government. We chose this, it was not chosen for us. Right?
Mexico would have paid for the wall long ago if the Democrats hadn't blocked the efforts.
Haha, because the US Congress passes a law saying "Mexico is paying for this. Signed, Congress" and that's all there is, right? That's how it works?
Yeah, OK buddy. Hey, by reading this post you agree to transfer 100 bitcoins to an address of my choosing. I just wrote it up, even signed my name on the paper and everything.
I've got a better idea: don't hold the country hostage when the lawmakers don't want to make the laws you want them to make. They have a Constitutional duty to be a check on executive power, it's right there in the book. That's what they're doing. Both sides need to work on a budget bill to open the government, and then they can continue arguing about the wall. Holding the country hostage until the president gets what he wants is a really stupid precedent to start. I mean, for decades we've said we don't negotiate with terrorists, so why would anyone want to negotiate with someone holding hostages? It will set an awful precedent for the country, if anyone cares about the actual good of the country. Congress needs to pass a budget that they agree on, and send it to the president. Argue about the wall later. If Congress repeatedly sends budgets to the president and he doesn't sign them, then it will be obvious that he's the only one not doing his job.