Supreme Court rules for Trump in border wall funding dispute

[Cyber Liberty]

There is something in that - Theoretically, NM and CA will be getting firehose-mode if the rest of the border can be effectively enforced... That will likely begin to change minds in NM and CA.
 

That's been my opinion.  If a town or village wants to make itself the only hole in the fence for a couple hundred miles, they'll deserve what comes its way.  That's why I'm not having a cow over border communities that don't want it.  They'll reap what they sow.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately it has carried over into an entrenched negativity that no matter what he does it isn't enough.

If we look at the actual results Trump has been pretty darn good, especially considering the lack of real support among the establishment politicians and courts.

@bilo

WHAT has he done? WHAT DO WE GET TO KEEP?

Friggin nonsense. 

[libertybele]

That's been my opinion.  If a town or village wants to make itself the only hole in the fence for a couple hundred miles, they'll deserve what comes its way.  That's why I'm not having a cow over border communities that don't want it.  They'll reap what they sow.

Border communities that don't want a fence is one things, but the ILLEGALS can then travel beyond those borders into other communities that aren't border towns. 

[roamer_1]

That's been my opinion.  If a town or village wants to make itself the only hole in the fence for a couple hundred miles, they'll deserve what comes its way.  That's why I'm not having a cow over border communities that don't want it.  They'll reap what they sow.

That's right... I mean I see that being predictable. But it also means that the wall will be doing nothing. The coyotes and the drug runners will just relocate and rejigger.

That puts effective control a long way down the line, if ever.
Jussayin.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's right... I mean I see that being predictable. But it also means that the wall will be doing nothing. The coyotes and the drug runners will just relocate and rejigger.

That puts effective control a long way down the line, if ever.
Jussayin.

The wall is a bit of a band-aid, really.  The real problem has always been on the incentive side.  Stop giving away free shit for breaking the law, and arrest/deport them instead.  The problem is half the government and corporations want that horde of invaders.  Seems pointless to go to the source of the problem for a fix, expecting them to just stop benefiting on purpose.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Border communities that don't want a fence is one things, but the ILLEGALS can then travel beyond those borders into other communities that aren't border towns.

They're not going to fund/build the whole thing.  There are going to be holes.  Gotta put em somewhere.

[DCPatriot]

Me too... Though 'applaud' is rather too much - Golf clap. Carry on.

Your act has gotten very tired, @roamer_1

Very tired.

[roamer_1]

The wall is a bit of a band-aid, really.  The real problem has always been on the incentive side.  Stop giving away free shit for breaking the law, and arrest/deport them instead.  The problem is half the government and corporations want that horde of invaders.  Seems pointless to go to the source of the problem for a fix, expecting them to just stop benefiting on purpose.

That's right.
And always_every_time_never_changing_enforcement_with_prejudice. Deterrence comes when they can expect the same thing every time, and that thing has to be badass enough that it ain't worth the risk. A good fence is part of that, but only part.

[mrclose]

Excuse me also for not calling victory.  This funding won't build a complete wall.  No amount ever will because Trump signed swiss cheese option for local border governments to opt out.  I am sure that some of the most crossed area's will be no go zones for the wall and Trump approved it.  All it does is give Trump something to excite a crowd of MAGA people on the campaign trail.  Probably people who have no idea what Trump signs into law.  All I see him doing is shooting himself in the foot.  And signing that huge spending bill too.


Anyway great, great post @Smokin Joe !

Macallum: "...the way this bill is structured there are alot of outs where even local mayors can say 'you can't build it here on this property'"....

Scalise: "This was one of those last contention points....in this bill over 100 miles is opened now...ultimately what it said in the bill is that local officials would consult with DHS but in the end after getting public input, they (DHS) can still move forward including building new wall.
 
Democrats tried to sneak that in the bill at the last minute (the fact that local mayors can veto portions of wall)."

[roamer_1]

Your act has gotten very tired, @roamer_1

Very tired.

You seem to require very little to get you excited @DCPatriot ...
the soft requirement of low expectations, perhaps?

[corbe]

[roamer_1]

@DCPatriot

[Cyber Liberty]

That's right.
And always_every_time_never_changing_enforcement_with_prejudice. Deterrence comes when they can expect the same thing every time, and that thing has to be badass enough that it ain't worth the risk. A good fence is part of that, but only part.

I think you will find most people who want a barricade of some kind also want the changes we're talking about too.  It's not an either/or but "all the above."  Since a wall is part of it, I can celebrate the building of the wall (when it happens) as a step on the journey.  I'm not going to criticize people for being happy about a positive step in the right direction because other steps have yet to be taken.

[roamer_1]

I think you will find most people who want a barricade of some kind also want the changes we're talking about too.  It's not an either/or but "all the above."  Since a wall is part of it, I can celebrate the building of the wall (when it happens) as a step on the journey.  I'm not going to criticize people for being happy about a positive step in the right direction because other steps have yet to be taken.

That's alright - But the reflexive orgasmic joy requirement is all a bit too much. Credit where its due, of course, and all that.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's alright - But the reflexive orgasmic joy requirement is all a bit too much. Credit where its due, of course, and all that.

I don't practice that brand of "joy."  It could make me go blind.

The best I can muster is "happy."  And I'm still not there on this story.  Not going to begrudge others, and all that.  I like happy people, most times.

(BTW, my little "surgery" on my laptop fixed the new box up lickity split.  It runs great now.)

[roamer_1]

I don't practice that brand of "joy."  It could make me go blind.

The best I can muster is "happy."  And I'm still not there on this story.  Not going to begrudge others, and all that.  I like happy people, most times.

That's about right. It's good, and credit is due, except in that a new precedent has been set - A way to end-run congressional allocation, which in the end I fear, may be a worse thing than the aliens. That offends me greatly.

(BTW, my little "surgery" on my laptop fixed the new box up lickity split.  It runs great now.)

Excellent!
 

[Chosen Daughter]

Oh they did get it in there and Trump signed it.  Also signed to allow illegal immigrants to sponsor children who come without parents.

[DCPatriot]

@DCPatriot

@roamer_1

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Oh they did get it in there and Trump signed it.  Also signed to allow illegal immigrants to sponsor children who come without parents.

Do you have any evidence that is true?  A link, or...something?  Everything I've read said that the House passed a bill that was more restrictive, but it didn't match the Senate bill and Trump wouldn't sign it, so they had to cave.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-democrats-push-new-version-of-border-spending-bill-that-administration-calls-unacceptable/2019/06/27/63f9074e-98dd-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.a97215d5674e