Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

1/8/2019 Presidents speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1/8/2019 Presidents speech

    Tonight the president is speaking about Americas border security.

    Trump, Democrats taking border wall fight to prime-time TV

    Ready to make his case on prime-time TV, President Donald Trump is stressing humanitarian as well as security concerns at the U.S.-Mexico border as he tries to convince America he must get funding for his long-promised border wall before ending a partial government shutdown that has hundreds of thousands of federal workers facing missed paychecks.

    Trump is delivering his first Oval Office address Tuesday night, and then visiting the southern border on Thursday, as he tries to put pressure on resistant Democrats. Trumps evening remarks will be followed by a televised rebuttal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who strongly oppose the wall and have repeatedly called on Trump to reopen the rest of government while border negotiations continue
    .....

    https://apnews.com/cb9df4c458e647db9866ffa4c0db1fa2

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After we hear what he has to say, thoughts, opinions . .

    ​Of course Schumer and Pelosi will be offering their thoughts on it afterwards ...

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Networks to Air Pelosi, Schumer Rebuttal to Trump

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer say they will make the case themselves. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox broadcasting, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and MSNBC all said they would air the rebuttal.

    ....

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/pel.../08/id/897321/

  • #2
    Radio talk shows and Fox TV hosts have been playing clips over and over from 2006 - 2014 where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hilary Clinton have all advocated for a wall or 'barrier' along our southern border. They have all at one time emphasized how damaging illegal immigration is to our nation. Audio and video clips of democrat hypocrites quite deliberately laying out the case for how people flowing in from Mexico is lowering wages, burdening our schools, and expanding human trafficking and violent crime.

    Now, those who do not seek any other news sources outside of the 'mainstream' media would probably never know these democrats have all flip-flopped on this issue. In fact, I have even looked at a couple 'fact check' websites and they somehow conclude democrats are not being hypocritical on the border wall. In each case the supposed fact checkers nitpick at specific terms like 'fence' or 'barrier' to give cover to these dems. The fact checkers point out how moneys once voted for included not just a barrier but other security measures as well. Nice try. Nothing is more telling than the actual video clips of Chuck and Nancy advocating increased border security.

    So what will Trump say tonight? I think he may force the media into doing their job. His words will change shutdown discussions in a way that requires network round tables to play clips of Schumer and others demanding a stop to the flow of illegals over our southern border. Political analysts will squirm in their seats while trying to thread the same needle as the fact check websites in attempt to define such democrats as anything else but two-faced partisan hacks.

    I do not expect a brilliant inspirational speech out of Trump. He will be mocked and laughed at and called a liar as always. But he does not need to convince anyone about the border wall as the majority of the country is already on his side. I expect there to be things within his speech that shift the conversation in a way that exposes the truth. This will not happen instantly but over the next few days. By the Sunday morning news shows the shifting and obviously partisan position of democrat leaders will be open discussion rather than swept under the rug. At least -- what I have observed over the past two years -- this would be typical Trump fashion. He has a way of driving the national discussion in the direction he choses despite all media resistance.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
      Radio talk shows and Fox TV hosts have been playing clips over and over from 2006 - 2014 where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hilary Clinton have all advocated for a wall or 'barrier' along our southern border. They have all at one time emphasized how damaging illegal immigration is to our nation. Audio and video clips of democrat hypocrites quite deliberately laying out the case for how people flowing in from Mexico is lowering wages, burdening our schools, and expanding human trafficking and violent crime.

      Now, those who do not seek any other news sources outside of the 'mainstream' media would probably never know these democrats have all flip-flopped on this issue. In fact, I have even looked at a couple 'fact check' websites and they somehow conclude democrats are not being hypocritical on the border wall. In each case the supposed fact checkers nitpick at specific terms like 'fence' or 'barrier' to give cover to these dems. The fact checkers point out how moneys once voted for included not just a barrier but other security measures as well. Nice try. Nothing is more telling than the actual video clips of Chuck and Nancy advocating increased border security.
      Simple.

      They've all changed their position because hilary isn't the president, otherwise this would be;

      "something great for America. Thanks president Clinton #2"

      Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
      So what will Trump say tonight? I think he may force the media into doing their job. His words will change shutdown discussions in a way that requires network round tables to play clips of Schumer and others demanding a stop to the flow of illegals over our southern border. Political analysts will squirm in their seats while trying to thread the same needle as the fact check websites in attempt to define such democrats as anything else but two-faced partisan hacks.

      I do not expect a brilliant inspirational speech out of Trump. He will be mocked and laughed at and called a liar as always. But he does not need to convince anyone about the border wall as the majority of the country is already on his side. I expect there to be things within his speech that shift the conversation in a way that exposes the truth. This will not happen instantly but over the next few days. By the Sunday morning news shows the shifting and obviously partisan position of democrat leaders will be open discussion rather than swept under the rug. At least -- what I have observed over the past two years -- this would be typical Trump fashion. He has a way of driving the national discussion in the direction he choses despite all media resistance.
      Let us hope.

      This issue of our border with Mexico has gone on for far too long, and it's an issue with only one group of people at fault.

      Those in D.C. who have decided our laws are flexible.

      ?


      • #4
        Watched the presidents speech and chuck and nancies answering speech

        The ignorance and hypocrisy of nancy and chuckie is truly amazing.

        As is pointed out above;

        "...Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hilary Clinton have all advocated for a wall or 'barrier' along our southern border...."

        and

        "They've all changed their position because hilary isn't the president, otherwise this would be;

        "something great for America. Thanks president Clinton #2""

        https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...765#post559765

        ...

        Chuckie really went crazy with his statement about "our democracy..."

        Doesn't this man, this important man, working in the government of America know that we are not a democracy ?

        He certainly should.

        Given his statement, it looks like he doesn't. Maybe he needs to take civics again ?

        Nancy and chuck showed their hate for the current president with their arrogant demeanor and roundabout false accusations aimed at him.

        They showed how little they think of the American people by not moving forward to repair the problem that they, and about 10 'administrations' before them, have allowed to carry on.

        Two democrats showing how true their representative from the animal kingdom really is. Stubborn & foolish bucking asses.

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.

        People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens,

        When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.


        Chuck Schumer 2009

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        And when you lie and obstruct efforts to fix a problem, you look like fools

        Fools ruled over by an irrational hate for the current president !

        Which is the only reason they're obstructing.

        ...


        The president urged Americans to call Democrats, who have supported such measures in the past.

        They changed their minds only after I was elected president, he said.

        ...

        Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/trump-it...F3qIAYPXk5Y.99

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
          Watched the presidents speech and chuck and nancies answering speech

          The ignorance and hypocrisy of nancy and chuckie is truly amazing.

          As is pointed out above;

          "...Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hilary Clinton have all advocated for a wall or 'barrier' along our southern border...."

          and

          "They've all changed their position because hilary isn't the president, otherwise this would be;

          "something great for America. Thanks president Clinton #2""

          https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...765#post559765

          ...

          Chuckie really went crazy with his statement about "our democracy..."

          Doesn't this man, this important man, working in the government of America know that we are not a democracy ?

          He certainly should.

          Given his statement, it looks like he doesn't. Maybe he needs to take civics again ?

          Nancy and chuck showed their hate for the current president with their arrogant demeanor and roundabout false accusations aimed at him.

          They showed how little they think of the American people by not moving forward to repair the problem that they, and about 10 'administrations' before them, have allowed to carry on.

          Two democrats showing how true their representative from the animal kingdom really is. Stubborn & foolish bucking asses.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.

          People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens,

          When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.


          Chuck Schumer 2009

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          And when you lie and obstruct efforts to fix a problem, you look like fools

          Fools ruled over by an irrational hate for the current president !

          Which is the only reason they're obstructing.

          ...


          The president urged Americans to call Democrats, who have supported such measures in the past.

          They changed their minds only after I was elected president, he said.

          ...

          Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/trump-it...F3qIAYPXk5Y.99
          From what I understand most of the illegals come in by plane. I hope the president's wall is going to be high enough to interdict airplanes. A fake national emergency is the justification Hitler used to invade Poland. All these dictators use the same playbook.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by redrover View Post

            From what I understand most of the illegals come in by plane. I hope the president's wall is going to be high enough to interdict airplanes. A fake national emergency is the justification Hitler used to invade Poland. All these dictators use the same playbook.
            Babbling idiocy

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              Babbling idiocy
              What is idiocy is building a stupid wall when the vast majority of illegal aliens come in through airports and legal ports of entry. The imagine of the barbarians storming the barricades is more romantic but if you want to contribute to Trump's fantasy go right ahead the operators are waiting to take your donation. For your $100.contribution you also get a diploma from Trump University.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by redrover View Post
                What is idiocy is building a stupid wall when the vast majority of illegal aliens come in through airports and legal ports of entry. The imagine of the barbarians storming the barricades is more romantic but if you want to contribute to Trump's fantasy go right ahead the operators are waiting to take your donation. For your $100.contribution you also get a diploma from Trump University.
                You would have a good point were the numbers of these people coming across our southern border illegally insignificant.

                They aren't insignificant numbers, and ignoring them isn't an option given the problems they bring along.

                Just a few of these problems have recently made headline news, murders, rapes & diseases. There's also the drugs that continually come across that border.

                Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                In 2017 304,000 people entering illegally were CAUGHT. Another source gives 303,916 in 2017 and 396,579 in 2018

                These are how many WERE CAUGHT.

                These are not small, or insignificant numbers.

                How many weren't caught ?

                We'll never know, but they're going to keep coming if we keep pretending we don't have immigration laws and don't create a barrier preventing easy entry.

                Lately we have massive "caravans," actually gigantic crowds of people, forming in south American countries assembling and publicly stating their intentions.

                Nancy and Chuckie are making similar idiotic arguments about this and are going to lose this debate. Hate for the man who is the current president is NOT a reason to do an about face 180o turn - which they have both done.

                It is foolishness to believe we don't need a barrier to put a stop to this.

                Americans are sick of it and they're sick of a few rich, sheltered elitists like nancy and chuck telling them that there's no problem when anyone can see that there IS.

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                ...recent DHS reports include data limited to foreign visitors who arrived by air and sea crossings, but not by land.

                "They do not tell you anything about the full population of overstays," she wrote.

                ..a 2017 study by the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, is more helpful.

                That report estimated visa overstays in 2014 accounted for 42 percent of the total undocumented population, or about 4.5 million people. It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year.

                McCarthys claim of "half" is not far from the 42 percent figure.

                Asked to support the congressmans statement, McCarthys spokesman pointed to a recent article by The Washington Post that cited the Center for Migration Studies report.

                The centers report said its figures "are based primarily on detailed estimates of the undocumented population in 2014 compiled by (the Center for Migration Studies) and estimates of overstays for 2015 derived by DHS."

                Given the past decades dramatic and well-documented decline in illegal Southern border crossings, theres a strong case that visa overstayers now account for a larger share of the overall total of unauthorized immigrants.

                In April, we rated True, Gov. Jerry Browns claim in a letter to the Trump administration that "immigrant apprehensions on the border last year were as low as theyve been in nearly 50 years."

                Browns office cited U.S. Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                More recent Department of Homeland Security reports dont offer the full picture of foreign visitors who arrived on visas.

                A 2017 report by the Center for Migration Studies, however, gives a more current look at visa overstays. It shows McCarthys claim, while it should have been couched as an estimate rather than a statement of fact, is on the right track.

                It projects overstayers were 42 percent, or nearly half, of the countrys undocumented population in 2014.


                ...

                https://www.politifact.com/californi...lf-all-people/


                How many people are crossing the border illegally?

                It's impossible to say for certain but apprehensions made by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents provide one measure.

                CBP made a total of 396,579 apprehensions on the south-western border in fiscal year 2018, and 303,916 in 2017.

                The number had fallen dramatically in President Trump's first year but rose again last year.


                ....

                https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  You would have a good point were the numbers of these people coming across our southern border illegally insignificant.

                  They aren't insignificant numbers, and ignoring them isn't an option given the problems they bring along.

                  Just a few of these problems have recently made headline news, murders, rapes & diseases. There's also the drugs that continually come across that border.

                  Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                  In 2017 304,000 people entering illegally were CAUGHT. Another source gives 303,916 in 2017 and 396,579 in 2018

                  These are how many WERE CAUGHT.

                  These are not small, or insignificant numbers.

                  How many weren't caught ?

                  We'll never know, but they're going to keep coming if we keep pretending we don't have immigration laws and don't create a barrier preventing easy entry.

                  Lately we have massive "caravans," actually gigantic crowds of people, forming in south American countries assembling and publicly stating their intentions.

                  Nancy and Chuckie are making similar idiotic arguments about this and are going to lose this debate. Hate for the man who is the current president is NOT a reason to do an about face 180o turn - which they have both done.

                  It is foolishness to believe we don't need a barrier to put a stop to this.

                  Americans are sick of it and they're sick of a few rich, sheltered elitists like nancy and chuck telling them that there's no problem when anyone can see that there IS.

                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  ...recent DHS reports include data limited to foreign visitors who arrived by air and sea crossings, but not by land.

                  "They do not tell you anything about the full population of overstays," she wrote.

                  ..a 2017 study by the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, is more helpful.

                  That report estimated visa overstays in 2014 accounted for 42 percent of the total undocumented population, or about 4.5 million people. It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year.

                  McCarthys claim of "half" is not far from the 42 percent figure.

                  Asked to support the congressmans statement, McCarthys spokesman pointed to a recent article by The Washington Post that cited the Center for Migration Studies report.

                  The centers report said its figures "are based primarily on detailed estimates of the undocumented population in 2014 compiled by (the Center for Migration Studies) and estimates of overstays for 2015 derived by DHS."

                  Given the past decades dramatic and well-documented decline in illegal Southern border crossings, theres a strong case that visa overstayers now account for a larger share of the overall total of unauthorized immigrants.

                  In April, we rated True, Gov. Jerry Browns claim in a letter to the Trump administration that "immigrant apprehensions on the border last year were as low as theyve been in nearly 50 years."

                  Browns office cited U.S. Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                  More recent Department of Homeland Security reports dont offer the full picture of foreign visitors who arrived on visas.

                  A 2017 report by the Center for Migration Studies, however, gives a more current look at visa overstays. It shows McCarthys claim, while it should have been couched as an estimate rather than a statement of fact, is on the right track.

                  It projects overstayers were 42 percent, or nearly half, of the countrys undocumented population in 2014.


                  ...

                  https://www.politifact.com/californi...lf-all-people/


                  How many people are crossing the border illegally?

                  It's impossible to say for certain but apprehensions made by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents provide one measure.

                  CBP made a total of 396,579 apprehensions on the south-western border in fiscal year 2018, and 303,916 in 2017.

                  The number had fallen dramatically in President Trump's first year but rose again last year.


                  ....

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094
                  You've been had again. The speech was preceded by a pitch for donation to the secure the border fund, but actually you were making a donation to Trump's reelection campaign. I hope you are not counting on your income tax refund.The only question is how long it will take for Trump to cave and declare victory.He's holding a losing hand and can't bluff his way out of it.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    Rovers pointless garbage here, fill in anything dumb that comes to mind
                    Try again

                    You would have a good point were the numbers of these people coming across our southern border illegally insignificant.

                    They aren't insignificant numbers, and ignoring them isn't an option given the problems they bring along.

                    Just a few of these problems have recently made headline news, murders, rapes & diseases. There's also the drugs that continually come across that border.

                    Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                    In 2017 304,000 people entering illegally were CAUGHT. Another source gives 303,916 in 2017 and 396,579 in 2018

                    These are how many WERE CAUGHT.

                    These are not small, or insignificant numbers.

                    How many weren't caught ?

                    We'll never know, but they're going to keep coming if we keep pretending we don't have immigration laws and don't create a barrier preventing easy entry.

                    Lately we have massive "caravans," actually gigantic crowds of people, forming in south American countries assembling and publicly stating their intentions.

                    Nancy and Chuckie are making similar idiotic arguments about this and are going to lose this debate. Hate for the man who is the current president is NOT a reason to do an about face 180o turn - which they have both done.

                    It is foolishness to believe we don't need a barrier to put a stop to this.

                    Americans are sick of it and they're sick of a few rich, sheltered elitists like nancy and chuck telling them that there's no problem when anyone can see that there IS.

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    ...recent DHS reports include data limited to foreign visitors who arrived by air and sea crossings, but not by land.

                    "They do not tell you anything about the full population of overstays," she wrote.

                    ..a 2017 study by the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, is more helpful.

                    That report estimated visa overstays in 2014 accounted for 42 percent of the total undocumented population, or about 4.5 million people. It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year.

                    McCarthys claim of "half" is not far from the 42 percent figure.

                    Asked to support the congressmans statement, McCarthys spokesman pointed to a recent article by The Washington Post that cited the Center for Migration Studies report.

                    The centers report said its figures "are based primarily on detailed estimates of the undocumented population in 2014 compiled by (the Center for Migration Studies) and estimates of overstays for 2015 derived by DHS."

                    Given the past decades dramatic and well-documented decline in illegal Southern border crossings, theres a strong case that visa overstayers now account for a larger share of the overall total of unauthorized immigrants.

                    In April, we rated True, Gov. Jerry Browns claim in a letter to the Trump administration that "immigrant apprehensions on the border last year were as low as theyve been in nearly 50 years."

                    Browns office cited U.S. Border Patrol figures showing nearly 304,000 arrests in 2017 across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The previous low was just under 264,000 in 1971.

                    More recent Department of Homeland Security reports dont offer the full picture of foreign visitors who arrived on visas.

                    A 2017 report by the Center for Migration Studies, however, gives a more current look at visa overstays. It shows McCarthys claim, while it should have been couched as an estimate rather than a statement of fact, is on the right track.

                    It projects overstayers were 42 percent, or nearly half, of the countrys undocumented population in 2014.


                    ...

                    https://www.politifact.com/californi...lf-all-people/


                    How many people are crossing the border illegally?

                    It's impossible to say for certain but apprehensions made by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents provide one measure.

                    CBP made a total of 396,579 apprehensions on the south-western border in fiscal year 2018, and 303,916 in 2017.

                    The number had fallen dramatically in President Trump's first year but rose again last year.


                    ....

                    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                      But he does not need to convince anyone about the border wall as the majority of the country is already on his side.
                      Is that really true ? Is really a majority of the US citizens in favor of such a wall ?

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Denis View Post
                        Is that really true ? Is really a majority of the US citizens in favor of such a wall ?
                        MSNBC keeps saying that 25%favor shutting down the government to get the wall. This poll suggests the majority of people don't want the wall. The guy who wrote the book on the art of the deal seems to have only negotiating tactic.Give me my way or I'll make many Americans https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...ion=viewsuffer.https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2905607533 Perhaps we should send our thoughts and prayers for a wall to spring up out of the desert. https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...34&action=view
                        Last edited by redrover; 01-10-2019, 11:24 AM.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Denis View Post
                          Is that really true ? Is really a majority of the US citizens in favor of such a wall ?
                          There are polls to cite that make it look as if two-thirds of the American people are against a border wall -- but I find these polls quite suspicious.

                          For example, the Pew poll question used over the years has been, "
                          All in all, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the entire border with Mexico?"

                          The 'entire' border? Nobody has even suggested such a thing. Trump has consistently stated that nearly 1,000 miles of the border has a natural barrier therefore no wall is required along those areas. So by adding this language the poll results are skewed.

                          In most recent polls the question has been, "Is funding for a border wall worth a government shutdown?" For this question the American people are heavily against. But what if the question were worded like this, "Is it worth shutting the government down to stop the building of a border wall?" I think you would get quite different results.

                          Through the years have been polls comparing the importance of border security with other political issues and it always ranks near or on top. This country is overwhelmingly in favor of increased border security -- which includes democrat politicians like Schumer and Pelosi -- who (claim) to be in favor of increased border security. The idea that suddenly security cannot include any type of wall is a new revelation born out of irrational Trump hatred.

                          My proof would be Trump's 2016 presidential victory when building the wall was the most obvious issue on his platform. The 49% of voting Americans who supported him are still waiting impatiently for the damn wall to be built. Despite how hard the media has tried they cannot discard the views of half this nation.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Watch this short video clip: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses...11819354558467

                            I found some steel slats down on the border. But I dont see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today. - Jim Acosta while walking next to the border wall in Texas
                            Are 'journalists' really this f#[email protected]&% stupid!! Jim, the reason there is nobody trying to cross is because there is a WALL. You see, if one has the choice to cross where there IS a wall vs where there is NOT a wall -- people will choose the 'no wall' area every time.

                            How can one compromise with people demonstrating this level of stupidity?!
                            Last edited by SupPackFan; 01-10-2019, 12:15 PM.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                              Watch this short video clip: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses...11819354558467

                              Are 'journalists' really this f#[email protected]&% stupid!! Jim, the reason there is nobody trying to cross is because there is a WALL. You see, if one has the choice to cross where there IS a wall vs where there is NOT a wall -- people will choose the 'no wall' area every time.

                              How can one compromise with people demonstrating this level of stupidity?!
                              Hate make fools of people, look at how dumb the people of the KKK looked - STILL look.

                              These democrats, nancy and chuck - did you see them last night give their 'speech' ? - have managed to make themselves look as stupid as the cloak & hood wearing KKK guys !

                              And they are.

                              You cannot compromise or negotiate with these types of dangerous fools.

                              You can't !

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X