Neelix causes another government shutdown because he wants a bigger border wall

[Yukaphile]

Well, Sanders did help contribute to the negative reputation of Clinton after he PROMISED to run a clean campaign. He broke many promises on the campaign trail in his final days because he was just so blistering furious that he was rejected by voters and losing the spotlight he'd always craved, the podium he felt he was entitled, and of course, all the money he was raking in that made him part of the 1% he's always claimed to hate.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, Sanders did help contribute to the negative reputation of Clinton after he PROMISED to run a clean campaign. He broke many promises on the campaign trail in his final days because he was just so blistering furious that he was rejected by voters and losing the spotlight he'd always craved, the podium he felt he was entitled, and of course, all the money he was raking in that made him part of the 1% he's always claimed to hate.

Yeah but that was all nonprofit money.

What I find weird about Sanders is this pocket of detractors from the African American community. On a broad scale, people seem to think of him as prominent on civil rights issues, but there's people that say he's a straight up fraud for lying and letting down the AAC.

[Yukaphile]

Well, it's not the first time. He slammed Hillary for Bill's 1994 criminal bill that she had no control over being the First Lady which he voted for. Hypocrisy much?

And yeah, he's been pretty much absent from civil rights since the 1960s, and even back then, that was just a cover to recruit people to socialism and his dreams of a white workers' revolution. What I find most offensive about him is his old-school misogyny and views on women. Like shoving his wife to the side numerous times during the campaign, his twisted sexual articles, and so on and so forth. He strikes me as a pervert, and not a "chivalrous pervert" like some people are with weird kinks, in a creepy stalker kind of way. Like, his fixation upon helping college students. It's like he wants to be surrounded by younger kids who adore him... why? It reminds me of Gene Roddenberry and his sexual perversions and how he surrounded himself with young activists who would unleash hell on his orders simply out of egocentrism and possibly a twisted kind of pedophilia. And some stupid young college level girls and boys honestly think he was more of a Feminist than Clinton? The woman who made a career out of campaigning for women and children while Sanders, by contrast, only tried to help white workers? And voted against Amber Alerts because he wants to protect the rights of rapists? He offends me as a Feminist. And I find more than a little convenient he spoils a race when it's a surefire winner with our only female candidate, and mucks it all up, destroys her reputation so badly the left cannibalized itself in a crucial election. Perhaps it's his own misogyny and he felt he couldn't let a woman run unless she personally had his seal of approval? Either way, hope he doesn't run. He's not a Democrat, and he helped give us Trump. If he runs, it will only divide the base more and ensure he's not properly vetted with so many candidates. If the DNC tries to let him slither his way into the party he doesn't belong to and has said he hates many times over the years again, there will be hell to pay.

[G-Man]

Did you miss the part where the wall Won't Work, doesn't make policy sense, and is in fact a collosal vanity project for the Tangerine Idi Amin?

I don't believe claims that the wall won't work. Walls are very good at preventing border crossings wherever they are tried. Ladders and tunnels are simply harder to use than crossing an area without a border.

Especially seeing as most undocumented immigrants come in through the ocean, and the Pineapple Pinochet slashed coast guard funding.

The term "undocumented immigrants" is a euphemism to act as if it's just a paperwork issue. ILLEGAL ALIENS are here WITHOUT PERMISSION. And I am pretty certain that people who illegally cross by the ocean are a small percentage of illegal aliens. You probably are referring to people who come legally then overstay their visas - the coast guard would not be involved in that.

And the argument that most illegal aliens are visa overstayers who won't be affected is a misdirection. There are still plenty of illegal border crossers. You don't argue against clean needle programs on the grounds that they do not stop people from getting HIV through sex. (And besides, the previous president Archer slashed internal enforcement, which is the only way to deal with visa overstayers).

As for the argument that illegal border crossings are down, that is largely based on fiscal year 2017. They have surged in the last year, and in recent months have hit a ten-year high.
http://thehill.com/latino/278785-migran ... can-border
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/1 ... -election/

The fact of the matter is, the opposition to a wall is not that Democrats think it won't work, but that they think it will and they are opposed to stopping illegal border crossings (because they want to import more poor voters who will vote for the party offering the most welfare). Five billion is a rounding error in the federal budget, and no one is going to go to all this trouble to avoid funding a wall because they want to penny-pinch.

Let's remember on thing every time the Democrats claim that they are all for border security, but not for a wall. Every type of "border security" they favor involves monitoring the border more, not actually keeping people out. Given that our current policies prevent us from turning people away if they come from countries other than Mexico, and that we can't detain everyone that we catch (either because of limited detention space, which the Democrats insisted on putting into the previous continuing resolution, or because of restrictions on detaining children and a desire to keep the adults with the children, meaning releasing them as well, or other reason relating to the loopholes in our immigration laws), that means that we are back to catch-and-release, i.e. our border patrol arresting someone does not mean that they do not get released into the country. Also, our current asylum system encourages people to slow up the deportation process by making frivolous asylum claims. (56% of people claiming credible fear wind up not applying for asylum after getting released, and 75-80% of asylum claims from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are rejected).

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... immigrants

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/

Now one may argue that if we really wanted to stop illegal immigration, we would go after employers, e.g. with mandatory E-Verify.

Well, 193 Republicans and zero Democrats voted for the Goodlatte bill in July, which contained E-Verify. Now you can argue that there were other things in the bill that Democrats objected to, but it does show that Republicans agree to having mandatory E-Verify as part of immigration enforcement. I have yet to see Democrats push for mandatory E-Verify without using it as a bargaining chip for a massive amnesty (as in the Gang of Eight bill), and even then it was designed so as to undermine E-Verify (rather than expanding the current system, i would scrap it and then rebuild it over five years, after the amnesty and legal immigration surge were well underway - I get the suspicion that there would be a lot of delays).

If the Democrats really oppose the wall because they feel it is wasteful, why do they not propose something more effective? I have yet to hear any proposals from Democrats on how to keep people out who do not have permission to be here. They say they are against a wall because it would not keep people out, but every policy they propose seems based on the idea that we have no right to keep anyone out, and the Democrats certainly have not given any proposals that I know about that would make it easier to keep people out who have been denied permission to come. Note that all Democratic proposals for "more security" amount to "be better able to monitor and track who is here illegally as you release them into the country." Actually, Democrats' true passion is to give legal status to people who have come here illegally.

[G-Man]

Post deleted by poster.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Did you really quote your long post just to emphasize?

[G-Man]

Did you really quote your long post just to emphasize?

No, I was trying to edit the original post (the "The Hill" link wasn't working) and I pushed the wrong button.

If you push the "quote" button, the screen you come to looks exactly like the screen for editing the post. I submitted, and then I had to go to work, so I didn't see this thread again for 10 hours.

[Karha of Honor]

Well, it's not the first time. He slammed Hillary for Bill's 1994 criminal bill that she had no control over being the First Lady which he voted for. Hypocrisy much?

And yeah, he's been pretty much absent from civil rights since the 1960s, and even back then, that was just a cover to recruit people to socialism and his dreams of a white workers' revolution. What I find most offensive about him is his old-school misogyny and views on women. Like shoving his wife to the side numerous times during the campaign, his twisted sexual articles, and so on and so forth. He strikes me as a pervert, and not a "chivalrous pervert" like some people are with weird kinks, in a creepy stalker kind of way. Like, his fixation upon helping college students. It's like he wants to be surrounded by younger kids who adore him... why? It reminds me of Gene Roddenberry and his sexual perversions and how he surrounded himself with young activists who would unleash hell on his orders simply out of egocentrism and possibly a twisted kind of pedophilia. And some stupid young college level girls and boys honestly think he was more of a Feminist than Clinton? The woman who made a career out of campaigning for women and children while Sanders, by contrast, only tried to help white workers? And voted against Amber Alerts because he wants to protect the rights of rapists? He offends me as a Feminist. And I find more than a little convenient he spoils a race when it's a surefire winner with our only female candidate, and mucks it all up, destroys her reputation so badly the left cannibalized itself in a crucial election. Perhaps it's his own misogyny and he felt he couldn't let a woman run unless she personally had his seal of approval? Either way, hope he doesn't run. He's not a Democrat, and he helped give us Trump. If he runs, it will only divide the base more and ensure he's not properly vetted with so many candidates. If the DNC tries to let him slither his way into the party he doesn't belong to and has said he hates many times over the years again, there will be hell to pay.

Hillary gave you Trump. Sorry.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, it's not the first time. He slammed Hillary for Bill's 1994 criminal bill that she had no control over being the First Lady which he voted for. Hypocrisy much?

And yeah, he's been pretty much absent from civil rights since the 1960s, and even back then, that was just a cover to recruit people to socialism and his dreams of a white workers' revolution. What I find most offensive about him is his old-school misogyny and views on women. Like shoving his wife to the side numerous times during the campaign, his twisted sexual articles, and so on and so forth. He strikes me as a pervert, and not a "chivalrous pervert" like some people are with weird kinks, in a creepy stalker kind of way. Like, his fixation upon helping college students. It's like he wants to be surrounded by younger kids who adore him... why? It reminds me of Gene Roddenberry and his sexual perversions and how he surrounded himself with young activists who would unleash hell on his orders simply out of egocentrism and possibly a twisted kind of pedophilia. And some stupid young college level girls and boys honestly think he was more of a Feminist than Clinton? The woman who made a career out of campaigning for women and children while Sanders, by contrast, only tried to help white workers? And voted against Amber Alerts because he wants to protect the rights of rapists? He offends me as a Feminist. And I find more than a little convenient he spoils a race when it's a surefire winner with our only female candidate, and mucks it all up, destroys her reputation so badly the left cannibalized itself in a crucial election. Perhaps it's his own misogyny and he felt he couldn't let a woman run unless she personally had his seal of approval? Either way, hope he doesn't run. He's not a Democrat, and he helped give us Trump. If he runs, it will only divide the base more and ensure he's not properly vetted with so many candidates. If the DNC tries to let him slither his way into the party he doesn't belong to and has said he hates many times over the years again, there will be hell to pay.

Hillary gave you Trump. Sorry.

DNC reformists fanned the flames for swing-voters.

[Karha of Honor]

Well, it's not the first time. He slammed Hillary for Bill's 1994 criminal bill that she had no control over being the First Lady which he voted for. Hypocrisy much?

And yeah, he's been pretty much absent from civil rights since the 1960s, and even back then, that was just a cover to recruit people to socialism and his dreams of a white workers' revolution. What I find most offensive about him is his old-school misogyny and views on women. Like shoving his wife to the side numerous times during the campaign, his twisted sexual articles, and so on and so forth. He strikes me as a pervert, and not a "chivalrous pervert" like some people are with weird kinks, in a creepy stalker kind of way. Like, his fixation upon helping college students. It's like he wants to be surrounded by younger kids who adore him... why? It reminds me of Gene Roddenberry and his sexual perversions and how he surrounded himself with young activists who would unleash hell on his orders simply out of egocentrism and possibly a twisted kind of pedophilia. And some stupid young college level girls and boys honestly think he was more of a Feminist than Clinton? The woman who made a career out of campaigning for women and children while Sanders, by contrast, only tried to help white workers? And voted against Amber Alerts because he wants to protect the rights of rapists? He offends me as a Feminist. And I find more than a little convenient he spoils a race when it's a surefire winner with our only female candidate, and mucks it all up, destroys her reputation so badly the left cannibalized itself in a crucial election. Perhaps it's his own misogyny and he felt he couldn't let a woman run unless she personally had his seal of approval? Either way, hope he doesn't run. He's not a Democrat, and he helped give us Trump. If he runs, it will only divide the base more and ensure he's not properly vetted with so many candidates. If the DNC tries to let him slither his way into the party he doesn't belong to and has said he hates many times over the years again, there will be hell to pay.

Hillary gave you Trump. Sorry.

DNC reformists fanned the flames for swing-voters.

Put Bill there and he wins even with the Democrat backyard trouble.