ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Because bankrupting the country makes sense in any context.

I mean sure - the context is different but it went unstated, so my bad. here's said context: my "how many [X] people are you personally willing to shoot?" question comes from the common, deeply-held red fundamentalist belief that all welfare systems, all support systems, all immigration systems in this case, all everything systems of this sort, are deeply corrupt and should be immediately suspended, dismantled, and terminated without replacement.

NO welfare. NO support. NO immigration. It's all bad so we should get rid of all of it, and people can just Stop Being Lazy(TM), get up and find a job in the ten easy minutes it takes for someone who honestly wants one to find a job in this country and earn their own money.

Because finding worthwhile employment is the easiest thing in the world, and nobody ever fell on hard times through no fault of their own.

So I ask these people, who want to abolish every single possible support structure in the country and then specifically, explicitly not replace any of them with better, more efficient, less bloated and corrupted systems how many poor/sick/old/unlucky/gay/foreign people they're personally willing to shoot. Because pulling the rug out from under them and then saying "tough tits" is mostly the same thing.

Saying "we'll give you a DACA solution if you hurl many billions of utterly wasted taxpayer dollars at the Wall" is not negotiation, it is literal hostage-holding. Repubs are holding DACA beneficiaries hostage because their party is struggling badly, they know their party is struggling badly, and they want a decisive Win they can trumpet from the rooftops to combat the fact that their incumbent president is more disgusting every day.

If they block DACA solutions? They can trumpet to their base "LOOKIT ALL THESE ILLEGALS WE GOT RIDDA! MORE JEHRBS FOR YOU, GO GIT 'EM!" while blaming Dems for 'not being willing to negotiate'. If the Dems crack and the Repubs get their wall funding?

"LOOKIT, WE'RE KEEPING OUR PROMISE ABOUT BUILDING A WALL TO KEEP ALL THE DAMN DURTY FURRINERS(TM) OUT! MEXICANS CAN'T COME AND STEAL YOUR JEHRBS NOW!" of course nobody can afford to hire shit because the country would be absolutely drowning in debt due to every last tasty penny we've got being channeled into Trump's pet vanity project, but hey - you could get a job for six bucks an hour slathering spackle on the Wall! Move in with twenty of your siblings and cousins and live like the Mexican immigrants you're so viciously fighting for The American Soul(C) with, and you can have a jehrb! The same one that these illegals y'all hate so much keep outbidding you for!

If it sounds like I'm bitter, furious, and perhaps lashing out as much as debating...well, hey. I'm certain you can relate to a fierce desire to throttle people who can't see what you consider to be blind-idiot obvious, ne? For my part, I honestly figure we could do with a second Constitutional Convention. Get the prime thinkers of today involved, bar any/every individual who has ever served in public office, and rewrite the entire Constitution. Modernize it, clean it up, fix shit. Then evict every single asshole in public office and run a new sweep of elections. Make them compulsory - you vote or you pay an "I didn't bother doing the most fundamental of my civic duties" fine.

Buuuut...well, we could wait on that for a few more months, now that even red fundamentalist Repubs are starting to have a hard time keeping a straight face when they tell people Trump's totally not trying to obstruct the Russia investigation. I mean it was blind-idiot obvious to the rest of us months and months ago, but okay, fine, make allowances for him simply sucking at his job rather than actively trying to obstruct.

Quick question, though: how many chances does he get before "making allowances" is allowed to add up to obstruction?

"

1453R wrote:

Quick question, though: how many chances does he get before "making allowances" is allowed to add up to obstruction?

How many more years is the Russia investigation going to go on, turning up nothing, and just waiting for Trump to fall into a perjury or obstruction (of zero underlying crime) trap?

It would be nice to have a time-bound on the investigation, if only to give some kind of finality. Or do people think it's going to continue until 2020 or beyond?

"

pneuma wrote:

It would be nice to have a time-bound on the investigation, if only to give some kind of finality. Or do people think it's going to continue until 2020 or beyond?

In 2016, birtherism was Alex Jones tier tinfoil. So in 2024 CNN will still be covering Russian collusion, providing they're not bankrupt.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Quick question, though: how many chances does he get before "making allowances" is allowed to add up to obstruction?

How many more years is the Russia investigation going to go on, turning up nothing, and just waiting for Trump to fall into a perjury or obstruction (of zero underlying crime) trap?

It would be nice to have a time-bound on the investigation, if only to give some kind of finality. Or do people think it's going to continue until 2020 or beyond?

They should really stop doing the same thing Republicans did./s

"

SnowCrash wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Quick question, though: how many chances does he get before "making allowances" is allowed to add up to obstruction?

How many more years is the Russia investigation going to go on, turning up nothing, and just waiting for Trump to fall into a perjury or obstruction (of zero underlying crime) trap?

It would be nice to have a time-bound on the investigation, if only to give some kind of finality. Or do people think it's going to continue until 2020 or beyond?

They should really stop doing the same thing Republicans did./s

It is honestly very similar to what happened to Bill Clinton -- a special prosecutor that digs and digs and eventually ends up making perjury out of nothing. It was distasteful then, it's even more distasteful now given how self-assured everyone is that the ends justify the means.

"

1453R wrote:

Because bankrupting the country makes sense in any context.

20 billion + for a wall wont bankrupt the country, don't be ridiculous. If you haven't noticed, we have been printing 0.5-1 trillion dollars a year of imaginary currency since the Bush era.

You may have noticed that whichever party is not controlling the white house complains constantly about the deficit, right? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

The USA cannot go bankrupt unless all the people in 3rd world countries all of a sudden decide they will no longer make cheap stuff to sell to Americans for our printed imaginary currency.

It is pretty hilarious to be complaining about a less-than-$100-per-American wall budget immediately after tax cuts that put hundreds if not thousands back in the hands of each American taxpayer.

Trump is playing the Democraps for fools. Trump and the Republicans are willing to compromise, DACA for The Wall™ funds, and the Democraps won't have it.

The Wall™ + increased border security will save us money long term. That's less illegal immigrants we'll have to pay for the schooling, healthcare, and incarceration of. A wall by itself won't do it. We need more border patrol agents, as well as better technology. Trump could order more National Guard assets be deployed to the border as well. These are assets that we're currently in possession of, which could be deployed in more useful ways.

Armed thugs from another country invading us are enemy combatants, IMO. If a drone picks up 5 or 10 guys with backpacks + rifles approaching the border, the National Guard should be sent to intercept them, not law enforcement/border patrol. They should be asked once to immediately drop their weapons and surrender. And only once.

Spot on liberals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9L9mdl-cX0

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

The Wall™ + increased border security will save us money long term. That's less illegal immigrants we'll have to pay for the schooling, healthcare, and incarceration of. A wall by itself won't do it. We need more border patrol agents, as well as better technology. Trump could order more National Guard assets be deployed to the border as well. These are assets that we're currently in possession of, which could be deployed in more useful ways.

No, it won't be substantially less illegal immigrants, because illegal immigrants usually enter the country legally. They get a passport, pass through a checkpoint with the knowing consent of US officials, shop at the same Walmart I shop at, then — instead of going back like they're supposed to — they don't. It's as if you Wall™ people never heard about this thing called tourism.

The Wall™ stops illegal entry, not illegal immigration. That means it's great at keeping contraband as well as wanted criminals from getting into the US, but not great at keeping out normies. So let's be clear who wants the Wall™: Jeff Sessions, who is waging his War on Drugs® against cartels, MS-13, and Colorado.

If you also are annoyed by other people smoking demon weed, or you'd like to pay to have Mexico liberated from its current ruling class of drug-running murderous psychopaths, then yeah, sure, build that wall. But if your focus is immigration, you've got bigger priorities, like E-verify, benefit programs, and the 14th Amendment.