The Next President is...

[Sim]

Message delivered to hypocrites as they were heading to the airport. 

[Duck]

If all illegals were to suddenly disappear, the immediate impact would be a loss of $11.6B in tax revenues, roughly 8 million jobs that are dependent on the economic activity of that population would be lost, and low skilled labor costs would rise which in turn would cause in increase in the costs of goods and services to consumers.

So we replace them with legal documented workers through the immigration system.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sim]

1 minute ago, Duck said:

So we replace them with legal documented workers through the immigration system.

Didn't you know, according to the regressive left following laws is racist. 

[Blue]

25 minutes ago, Sim said:

Message delivered to hypocrites as they were heading to the airport. 

What on God’s Green Earth would Nancy Pelosi hope to accomplish by going to Afghanistan?

[ThreeHoler]

So we replace them with legal documented workers through the immigration system.

 

Except that the immigration system is horribly broken.

 

I know a former exchange pilot who couldn’t apply for citizenship because he wasn’t “really” part of the US while he was in exchange for 10+ years in multiple airframes. He had two masters degrees, was independently wealthy, and was denied the ability to become a US citizen through the process because he was “ineligible.” Total crap.

 

My sister was adopted from overseas...my parents had to get our Senator involved in her naturalization because the immigration process was (and is) so broken. She was a few years old and had lived in the US since she was 7 months. They would. It process her paperwork for many stupid bureaucratic reasons.

 

Fix the process!

[Prozac]

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

5.7 billion for a wall that directly protects the security and sovereignty of ‘Merica vs 15 billion for what exactly in continuing the Syrian mission? 45 billion per year for Afghanistan? X billions per year deterring aggression for Germany with the 4th largest economy in the world?
Spending a modest amount to keep out illegal aliens (some from hostile nations and/or members of TNCOs) is well worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as is the President. It would appear however that the current congressional climate is not conducive to making a wall deal (nor was it when republicans held both houses).  Here’s the part that really has me scratching my head—Trump had a deal (last year I think) where Schumer agreed to wall money in exchange for a dreamer deal but the hardliners in the admin weren’t having any of that. He had agreed to a deal keeping the government open in December as well but Ann Coulter called him a pussy and now here we are. I can only imagine the outcry from the right if the tables were turned and it was a Democrat throwing temper tantrums, constantly tweeting incoherently, apologizing for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. The man took an oath to represent all Americans yet he seems to have convinced himself that his base is all that matters and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. And people wonder where the “not my president” attitude comes from?  How wonderful for America. 

[Duck]

So fix the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, Vertigo said:

$5B isn't the total cost of the wall, that's what he's requesting to get started on the wall. Most estimates place the entire cost upwards of $50B-$100B.

Source?

There are many out there so I will counter with another that is closer to reality IMHO:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

BLUF this guy estimates 25 billion in construction, I'm sure MX and patrol costs would come up to a billion or two a year.  Worth it IMO again as it asserts sovereignty, security and could be instrumental in lowering the temperature in the cultural war in America.

Nationalist (like me) have many grievances against the status quo and the willful maleficence of the unholy alliance of globalists, leftists, ethno chauvinists, and the like.  There are one set of laws, codes and policies for some people and apparently another for other groups, even ones who are not citizens of this country when they illegally enter or overstay their legally sanctioned visit.  The rage is not against people of certain skin tones, ethnicities or non-maleficient reasons for entering, it is the hypocrisy of those who excuse the violation of our laws and sovereignty, careless disregard for our cultural tradition of rule of law and ambivalence to the deleterious effects unchecked illegal immigration has to our most vulnerable citizens. 

By tolerating that which is wrong, you ironically destroy what is worth saving:  a country whose culture is for the greater part is ruled by laws not by men or the whims of the mob, where the government attempts fair and equal treatment under the law and where the interests of its citizens come first but with consideration and reasonable generosity to foreigners whom we interact with.  There is nothing inherently magical or different about the land north of the Rio Grande except the culture, customs and principles to which it attempts to live by.  By disregarding them to do what feels good in the short term, you destroy the truly best part of it in the long term.

You and I have argued this issue before and I think you come to the debate in good faith, I see this not as just another phase in our history that will be looked back on nostalgically as the immigration surge of the early 20th century is but as that which leads to a decline and potentially painful end to our Union over time if not resolved in someway at least minimally acceptable to opposing sides.  

Why would you want to remain in union under a federal government led by a hypocritical caste of decadent, greedy, corrupt elites that pervert a legal and economic system while lecturing you about your moral failings to not accept your displacement in the nation of YOUR birth?

I do not want to see violence, instability or even worse but civil wars are the result of accumulating grievances, let's stop this one from getting worse while being merciful and reasonable.  

Secure the border, enforce immigration laws and return to the melting pot of assimilation.  Understand the plight of others and walk a mile in their shoes as we implement laws and policy.

Both can be done but I feel that those who tolerate, excuse, minimize and thru willful ignorance are the aggressors, you go first and Nationalists will see that as a legitimate cease fire in the culture war, peace can be negotiated then.  Otherwise we are on the road to somewhere we don't want to go.

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

That $5.7B, or whatever the media throws out, isn’t the total combined. It’s the start of the process to build the wall.

https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/

Probably but not all of it needs a wall.  Walls, sensors, vehicle barriers, patrol roads and air support as part of a comprehensive system.  Walls are only necessary in highest traffic, highest population density areas with LOCs or adjoining urban areas.

Physical barriers in conjunction with other technology in adjoining urban areas (vehicle barriers, sensors, lighting, drones, etc...) patroled and enforced by CBP.

Rural areas would become military enforced sovereignty and law enforcement areas, National Guard permanently posted to patrol and secure.  Legal, historically normal and necessary in today's world.  Deterrence would be the first objective, arrest and detention next but if force is required, then it would be applied appropriately.  

Barriers deter and funnel determined illegal crossers into rural areas either preventing their entry or hampering their efforts.  If I were designing this system, every effort would be made and directed to assist those in distress in harsh terrain when located also. I don't want them to die or suffer but I don't won't them to illegally cross either, assert your sovereignty but try your best to be merciful and humane while doing it.

Interior enforcement and securing the northern border is just as important but first the SWB.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as is the President. It would appear however that the current congressional climate is not conducive to making a wall deal (nor was it when republicans held both houses).  Here’s the part that really has me scratching my head—Trump had a deal (last year I think) where Schumer agreed to wall money in exchange for a dreamer deal but the hardliners in the admin weren’t having any of that. He had agreed to a deal keeping the government open in December as well but Ann Coulter called him a pussy and now here we are. I can only imagine the outcry from the right if the tables were turned and it was a Democrat throwing temper tantrums, constantly tweeting incoherently, apologizing for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. The man took an oath to represent all Americans yet he seems to have convinced himself that his base is all that matters and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. And people wonder where the “not my president” attitude comes from?  How wonderful for America. 

Understood and legitimate point(s).

I will partially defend the hardliner position on Dreamers and other Illegal Aliens as to amnesty and eventual citizenship but I could support short to medium term visas in exchange for increments of funding for construction and maintenance of an enhanced border security system / policy.  

Three year visas for X billions in security construction, patrol and maintenance along with immediate return policies for those caught crossing.  There are deals to be had, both sides have enough to give to make the other less angry and receive enough to satiate their constituents.

[Vertigo]

On 1/17/2019 at 4:41 PM, Duck said:

So we replace them with legal documented workers through the immigration system.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Which is what my stance has been all along. Reform our current, shitty immigration policy with one that allows for greater allowances for guest workers. Then you won't need a wall. 

[Duck]

Which is what my stance has been all along. Reform our current, shitty immigration policy with one that allows for greater allowances for guest workers. Then you won't need a wall. 

Or you do both. It’s not just people coming across the south border.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Vertigo]

On 1/17/2019 at 7:34 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Source?

There are many out there so I will counter with another that is closer to reality IMHO:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

BLUF this guy estimates 25 billion in construction, I'm sure MX and patrol costs would come up to a billion or two a year.  Worth it IMO again as it asserts sovereignty, security and could be instrumental in lowering the temperature in the cultural war in America.

 

Are we going to steal the land from private property owners this wall will need to be built on or are we going to offer them just compensation for their property?

 

Cause if we are, that $25B goes up quite a bit. Materials and labor aren't the only costs.

[Clark Griswold]

27 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Are we going to steal the land from private property owners this wall will need to be built on or are we going to offer them just compensation for their property?

Cause if we are, that $25B goes up quite a bit. Materials and labor aren't the only costs.

Buy land if not owned by the Federal Gov.  Cost is important but it is affordable.

It is not theft if the land is needed for the national security of the USA and appropriated with just compensation.  

Curious as you have no comment to the subject of the majority of my post, the wall is necessary for its own purpose to stop illegal activity and also necessary for millions of deplorables to see that their government responds to their wants, needs and concerns particularly after a very unexpected political victory/shock to the system.

Condescending to them or just blowing them off is a recipe for disaster.  

Edited January 20, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[matmacwc]

[kaputt]

If I stop wearing my rape shoes, will Gillette stop charging me $40 for a replacement pack of razors? 

[DirkDiggler]

4 hours ago, kaputt said:

If I stop wearing my rape shoes, will Gillette stop charging me $40 for a replacement pack of razors? 

Switch to Harry’s Razors, one of the better decisions I’ve made in the last few

[17D_guy]

TIme for my boy to start shaving so I'm getting him one of these - 

https://www.amazon.com/MERKUR-Classic-MK-33C-3-Piece-Double/dp/B002A8JO48?th=1 

And a pack of these to pick a double edge razor he likes.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0038KA5RC

Taking time to learn how to wet shave, and the ritual involved, seems like a forgotten thing.  I know I've let it slip and am currently using a Schick 5-blade cartridge.  But when I was divorced and out of money, it came in handy paying 10 cents a week to shave.

[WTFAF]

 

 

 

 

TIme for my boy to start shaving so I'm getting him one of these -  

But when I was divorced and out of money, it came in handy paying 10 cents a week to shave.

 

 

Good for you to give him a different perspective than the marketing he's bombarded with. Plus it's just a better shave, WAY less expensive, and doesn't take too much additional time.

 

 

 

[GoodSplash9]

2 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Switch to Harry’s Razors, one of the better decisions I’ve made in the last few

Harry's represents me, you, and what real masculinity is all about by giving 1% of our money to fine organizations helping shape a better generation of American youth (https://www.harrys.com/en/us/social-mission). I actually think they partnered with Gillette a few months ago when I saw their home page plastered with the LGBTQ-NGB+++ Rainbow Pride Honor Limited Edition razor. In all honestly, I've heard Harry's razors are great....I vote with my money, time, and feet when it comes to razors and sports.

 

"The Representation Project": Harry’s helps support an Annual Youth Summit that brings together 100 14-to-21-year-olds to expand the narrative around traditional gender roles.

"A Call To Men": A CALL TO MEN works to promote a healthy and respectful manhood and shift attitudes and behaviors that devalue marginalized groups.

 

[Majestik Møøse]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:06 PM, Blue said:

What on God’s Green Earth would Nancy Pelosi hope to accomplish by going to Afghanistan?

Do congressional delegations get tax free when they visit a combat zone?

[Lawman]

Do congressional delegations get tax free when they visit a combat zone?

Up to a sum on income, same as other non mil. It’s like first 180k or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vertigo]

On 1/20/2019 at 12:25 AM, Clark Griswold said:

 

Curious as you have no comment to the subject of the majority of my post, the wall is necessary for its own purpose to stop illegal activity and also necessary for millions of deplorables to see that their government responds to their wants, needs and concerns particularly after a very unexpected political victory/shock to the system.

Condescending to them or just blowing them off is a recipe for disaster.  

Sorry I'm on vacation and don't want to waste it debating.

 

But basically the wall will not stop illegal activity. To think so is very naive.

 

Polls show the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of the wall. Yes I know polls can be wrong. But the last election was a swing away from Trump and his policies. Those millions also want to see the government responds to their wants, needs, and concerns... and they exceed those "deplorables" in number.

 

The GOP had 2 years to fund a wall. Nada. Why? 

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Sorry I'm on vacation and don't want to waste it debating.

 

But basically the wall will not stop illegal activity. To think so is very naive.

 

Polls show the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of the wall. Yes I know polls can be wrong. But the last election was a swing away from Trump and his policies. Those millions also want to see the government responds to their wants, needs, and concerns... and they exceed those "deplorables" in number.

 

The GOP had 2 years to fund a wall. Nada. Why? 

I’ll answer your last question: because the GOP is not united.  Some GOP senators / reps prefer to look cool by obstructing the President as opposed to working with him to move the agenda forward (I.e Flake, McCain, Collins).   We call them RINOs, republican in name only.  Oh and don’t forget the failure Mitt Romney and his desperate yet fact-less swing at the President.

Political beliefs aside, establishment politicians on both sides are terrified of Trump because he is challenging the status quo.  These establishment politicians have remained in power for so long that any changes in the status quo threaten their power and job security.

Trump’s personal style/tweets/gaffes aside, at least he is an honest pragmatist. 

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by dream big

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

But basically the wall will not stop illegal activity. To think so is very naive.

 

Go with your thoughts on gun control.

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

GOP had 2 years to fund a wall. Nada. Why? 

Self loathing.