*2018 State of the Union*

[UCFWayne]

Will it make a difference? Probably not. You're not going to suddenly come to the realization that Trump is a lying asshole. Plus you could have just Googled if you were truly interested, but here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-the-union-address/?utm_term=.283dead92ac6

what exactly makes trump so different in that regard to any other politician in the history of politics? people liked obama because he was well spoken but lied all the same. here is a hint, the next president will lie too.

what i find crazy is that the democrats didnt even acknowledge some of the things that they typically get behind. isis being almost completely defeated in less than a year. who in there right mind cant cheer for that? hes making infrastructure projects a big thing this year. that is something democrats normally like and republicans normally dont. democrats want to change immigration. he literally doubled or close to tripled the daca recipients. how can they not be happy about that? booming economy, who can be made about that? extremely low unemployment, who can be mad at that?

i honestly dont know what the democrats are thinking. they looked extremely petty during that speech. especially on things that both sides should be happy with. i dont think it will help any of them get re-elected. they might not get replaced but republicans, but i could see them being replaced by newer democrats.

 

[sk8knight]

Will it make a difference? Probably not. You're not going to suddenly come to the realization that Trump is a lying asshole. Plus you could have just Googled if you were truly interested, but here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-the-union-address/?utm_term=.283dead92ac6

You made a specific claim of a rate of lying every 4 or so minutes. You made the claim so it’s not up to me to google to figure out where the hell you got it from. On the first glance at what you posted, I didn’t see that in the article but maybe I missed it. What I did see were some things that are generally in consensus with other evaluations on both the truthful side and not. I also saw a number of places where they are stretching to make it negative or simply ignoring the present and saying, yeah but it might change in the future so it’s negative. In other words, you found one of the more negatively biased accounts.

I guess it doesn’t matter. I was simply seeing where your frame of mind was to say that he outright lied every 4 minutes

 

[surfer98]

Politicians and PAC's are corrupt! PAC's buy the votes and influence politicians with large donations. Republicans and Democrats are all the same and are pandering to the extremes on both sides for the money. When Obama did a state of the Union a Republican (Superior Court Judge) yelled, "Liar" at him during the speech, correct??? And now, Democrats can't stand and be respectful. Most are in it for fame or money or both, not for the good of the country. That's why I like sports!

 

[UCFWayne]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/live-january-jobs-report-131330948.html

more bad news for trump. wages are going up. thanks obama

 

[Ace of Knights]

what exactly makes trump so different in that regard to any other politician in the history of politics? people liked obama because he was well spoken but lied all the same. here is a hint, the next president will lie too.

what i find crazy is that the democrats didnt even acknowledge some of the things that they typically get behind. isis being almost completely defeated in less than a year. who in there right mind cant cheer for that? hes making infrastructure projects a big thing this year. that is something democrats normally like and republicans normally dont. democrats want to change immigration. he literally doubled or close to tripled the daca recipients. how can they not be happy about that? booming economy, who can be made about that? extremely low unemployment, who can be mad at that?

i honestly dont know what the democrats are thinking. they looked extremely petty during that speech. especially on things that both sides should be happy with. i dont think it will help any of them get re-elected. they might not get replaced but republicans, but i could see them being replaced by newer democrats.

C’mon Wayne, the whole thing is just a dog and pony show. Trump can say he wants to do all these things, but very few are actually going to be done. Infrastructure will not be done, at least not to the scale Trump wants. Because conservative spending hawks aren’t going to give the funding for it. He’s offered a deal for the DACA recipients that is dead on arrival to the Dems and moderates because it changes the entire system in favor of a hard-line right process while using DACA as a bargaining chip hostage process.

I agree, the Dems looked petty but it wasn’t any different than the Republicans when Obama spoke. And as for new Dems... you’re not going to want that. New younger democrats are MORE liberal and less willing to compromise with Trump or any republicans than some of their current counterparts.

I fear for our country going forward. When all there is is hard line right or left... we are all screwed.

 

[UCFKnight85]

C’mon Wayne, the whole thing is just a dog and pony show. Trump can say he wants to do all these things, but very few are actually going to be done. Infrastructure will not be done, at least not to the scale Trump wants. Because conservative spending hawks aren’t going to give the funding for it. He’s offered a deal for the DACA recipients that is dead on arrival to the Dems and moderates because it changes the entire system in favor of a hard-line right process while using DACA as a bargaining chip hostage process.

I agree, the Dems looked petty but it wasn’t any different than the Republicans when Obama spoke. And as for new Dems... you’re not going to want that. New younger democrats are MORE liberal and less willing to compromise with Trump or any republicans than some of their current counterparts.

I fear for our country going forward. When all there is is hard line right or left... we are all screwed.

Yes, that "hard line process" that is used in such ultra conservative nations such as Canada and Australia.

Give me a break.

 

[UCFWayne]

C’mon Wayne, the whole thing is just a dog and pony show. Trump can say he wants to do all these things, but very few are actually going to be done. Infrastructure will not be done, at least not to the scale Trump wants. Because conservative spending hawks aren’t going to give the funding for it. He’s offered a deal for the DACA recipients that is dead on arrival to the Dems and moderates because it changes the entire system in favor of a hard-line right process while using DACA as a bargaining chip hostage process.

I agree, the Dems looked petty but it wasn’t any different than the Republicans when Obama spoke. And as for new Dems... you’re not going to want that. New younger democrats are MORE liberal and less willing to compromise with Trump or any republicans than some of their current counterparts.

I fear for our country going forward. When all there is is hard line right or left... we are all screwed.

these politicians need to learn to compromise. everyone cant be happy.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Yes, that "hard line process" that is used in such ultra conservative nations such as Canada and Australia.

Give me a break.

Yawn. Canada may not be an ultra conservative country, but it is well understood their immigration policy is conservative.

I’m not saying a merit based system doesn’t have merit in its own right, but using DACA recipients who have been here as kids as a bargaining chip to receive billions in funding for a wall, a strict change to a merit-based immigration system, and more reductions to refugee numbers is shitty.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Yawn. Canada may not be an ultra conservative country, but it is well understood their immigration policy is conservative.

I’m not saying a merit based system doesn’t have merit in its own right, but using DACA recipients who have been here as kids as a bargaining chip to receive billions in funding for a wall, a strict change to a merit-based immigration system, and more reductions to refugee numbers is shitty.

Lol, that is what happens with all legislation. Both sides get something they want.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Lol, that is what happens with all legislation. Both sides get something they want.

All legislation doesn’t end with the possibility for 1 million people to be at risk for deportation to countries they know nothing about if a deal isn’t reached.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

All legislation doesn’t end with the possibility for 1 million people to be at risk for deportation to countries they know nothing about if a deal isn’t reached.

Stop fear mongering. That's never going to happen.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yawn. Canada may not be an ultra conservative country, but it is well understood their immigration policy is conservative.

I’m not saying a merit based system doesn’t have merit in its own right, but using DACA recipients who have been here as kids as a bargaining chip to receive billions in funding for a wall, a strict change to a merit-based immigration system, and more reductions to refugee numbers is shitty.

LOL. Why is a policy of taking people with skills that match the needs of your economy, vs. taking branched family members, deemed "conservative"? It's just common sense.

As to your last point- yawn. We've had at least 3 examples in the past when major legislation granted amnesty for illegal aliens (all of whom had a sad story to lean on!), in exchange for "border security" that NEVER got implemented. We have granted amnesty after amnesty without EVER taking the real steps to secure our border and shut down the flow of illegal aliens into the country.

So yes, Trump and the GOP should stake a hardline. Want to grant amnesty for 1.8M more people? Fine, but the Democrats are going to have to swallow REAL border security this time. Not some bullshit faux promise to do so in the future.

Some of these DACA eligible "kids" came here as 17 year olds. Those aren't poor little helpless kids and they chose to enter illegally.

 

[Ace of Knights]

LOL. Why is a policy of taking people with skills that match the needs of your economy, vs. taking branched family members, deemed "conservative"? It's just common sense.

As to your last point- yawn. We've had at least 3 examples in the past when major legislation granted amnesty for illegal aliens (all of whom had a sad story to lean on!), in exchange for "border security" that NEVER got implemented. We have granted amnesty after amnesty without EVER taking the real steps to secure our border and shut down the flow of illegal aliens into the country.

So yes, Trump and the GOP should stake a hardline. Want to grant amnesty for 1.8M more people? Fine, but the Democrats are going to have to swallow REAL border security this time. Not some bullshit faux promise to do so in the future.

Some of these DACA eligible "kids" came here as 17 year olds. Those aren't poor little helpless kids and they chose to enter illegally.

Does this border security include billions for a wall?

 

[sk8knight]

Does this border security include billions for a wall?

The funding isn't all for a physical wall. There is some of that, but also monitoring and surveillance where a physical wall doesn't make sense, more personnel, an upgrade of border checkpoints, etc. Simply calling it a wall is disingenuous.

 

[Ace of Knights]

The funding isn't all for a physical wall. There is some of that, but also monitoring and surveillance where a physical wall doesn't make sense, more personnel, an upgrade of border checkpoints, etc. Simply calling it a wall is disingenuous.

See funding for stricter border security, technological upgrades, and more fencing is one thing. And it’s something most moderates and middle leaning Dems would agree to for amnesty for the DACA recipients. I’m 100% fine with it.

But the longer this goes on the more I start to question whether Trump truly wants a concrete Berlin style wall. He’s shown time and time again he will bend over backwards to support his “fanboi” base and that’s what they want. That’s what he promised on the campaign trail and a part of me thinks he’s going to attempt to deliver. I used to agree with you, but more and more I think Trump truly wants a “wall.”

I also think Trump is extremely malleable when it comes to these things and can essentially agree to things with the last person he hears from. Which is why lawmakers in the bipartisan group were frustrated because it seemed to be going well and then Stephen Miller got in his ear. In the end that’s who I think is really calling the shots on this subject because he’s always in the room.

I don’t think a deal is getting done. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[UCFWayne]

people think the wall and added security are just about people crossing the border. it would have an effect on the drug trade. we in the middle of an opioid crisis. i know its not going to stop the trade, but it can at least slow it down. i think that is an important part that is left out of the discussions.

 

[bqknight]

people think the wall and added security are just about people crossing the border. it would have an effect on the drug trade. we in the middle of an opioid crisis. i know its not going to stop the trade, but it can at least slow it down. i think that is an important part that is left out of the discussions.

You honestly think it would slow down the drug trade?

I am 100% against a wall but I will admit that it would at least deter SOME illegal crossings but it would not effect the drug trade. They got that shiiiii down, no wall stopping them.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Does this border security include billions for a wall?

CBP has said, in no uncertain terms, that a physical wall is needed in many key areas. In addition to various other enforcement techniques. I also know this because in 2009, Democrats also voted for a physical barrier (A WALL!!!!!!!!)

Unless you know better than CBP, I'll defer to the experts in this case.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

See funding for stricter border security, technological upgrades, and more fencing is one thing. And it’s something most moderates and middle leaning Dems would agree to for amnesty for the DACA recipients. I’m 100% fine with it.

But the longer this goes on the more I start to question whether Trump truly wants a concrete Berlin style wall. He’s shown time and time again he will bend over backwards to support his “fanboi” base and that’s what they want. That’s what he promised on the campaign trail and a part of me thinks he’s going to attempt to deliver. I used to agree with you, but more and more I think Trump truly wants a “wall.”

I also think Trump is extremely malleable when it comes to these things and can essentially agree to things with the last person he hears from. Which is why lawmakers in the bipartisan group were frustrated because it seemed to be going well and then Stephen Miller got in his ear. In the end that’s who I think is really calling the shots on this subject because he’s always in the room.

I don’t think a deal is getting done. But that’s just my opinion.

Why do you always make up stuff? The "wall" was never a 6400 mile concrete wall.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Why do you always make up stuff? The "wall" was never a 6400 mile concrete wall.

I’m not making anything up. It was obvious that an “actual Berlin style” wall is what Trump was arguing for on the campaign trail to all the dodos that ate that shit up.

 

[Ace of Knights]

CBP has said, in no uncertain terms, that a physical wall is needed in many key areas. In addition to various other enforcement techniques. I also know this because in 2009, Democrats also voted for a physical barrier (A WALL!!!!!!!!)

Unless you know better than CBP, I'll defer to the experts in this case.

Did I not just say fencing, meaning some kind of physical barrier, in one of my last posts? Similar to steel rods style fence that is already out there. I can’t think of how to describe it. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that along some parts along the border, if nothing is there, people are going to walk through it.

And no where did I argue against what the CBP recommends. You know the “wall” I was referring to was Trump’s campaign promise wall. You’re just choosing to ignore it.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Did I not just say fencing, meaning some kind of physical barrier, in one of my last posts? Similar to steel rods style fence that is already out there. I can’t think of how to describe it. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that along some parts along the border, if nothing is there, people are going to walk through it.

And no where did I argue against what the CBP recommends. You know the “wall” I was referring to was Trump’s campaign promise wall. You’re just choosing to ignore it.

No you're simply trying to split hairs to wiggle out of this one.

It doesn't matter if it's a "fence" or a wall. Trying to make it about that definition difference is irrelevant.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Did I not just say fencing, meaning some kind of physical barrier, in one of my last posts? Similar to steel rods style fence that is already out there. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that along some parts along the border, if nothing is there, people are going to walk through it.

And no where did I argue against what the CBP recommends.

No you're simply trying to split hairs to wiggle out of this one.

It doesn't matter if it's a "fence" or a wall. Trying to make it about that definition difference is irrelevant.

What exactly am I trying to wiggle out of? I’m not arguing to have a completely open border and to let anyone and everyone just walk on in. And sorry, but there is a difference between physical barriers and a grandiose wall. You know the biggest and best rah rah rah.

 

[UCFWayne]

You honestly think it would slow down the drug trade?

I am 100% against a wall but I will admit that it would at least deter SOME illegal crossings but it would not effect the drug trade. They got that shiiiii down, no wall stopping them.

no doubt they will find a way to get drugs into the us; over, under, or around. however, that will no doubt make it much harder and more expensive to do.

 

[Ace of Knights]

no doubt they will find a way to get drugs into the us; over, under, or around. however, that will no doubt make it much harder and more expensive to do.

I’m at work now, so I can’t do it. But there are YouTube videos of Drones, and trebuchets launching drugs over the Wall/Fence we have our there now. There so simple but effective.

 

[sk8knight]

I’m at work now, so I can’t do it. But there are YouTube videos of Drones, and trebuchets launching drugs over the Wall/Fence we have our there now. There so simple but effective.

There have also been a number of arrests of people using drones to smuggle over the border. But really, it’s the MASINT systems and the increase in manpower that are going to have the most effect. Coupled with a physical barrier in places where you can just walk across the river, these should make a big dent in the crossings.

It’s not just people illegally migrating, it’s also the drug smugglers, human trafficking, weapons (of a great many types), and even terrorists as the government bolsters visa monitoring. Anything that could slow down even some of these illegal actions long enough for the response to arrive is well worth it.

 

[ucflee]

All legislation doesn’t end with the possibility for 1 million people to be at risk for deportation to countries they know nothing about if a deal isn’t reached.

Why wouldn’t those receiving countries be thrilled to have these “new” citizens? You would think that they would be setting up massive taxpayer funded programs to help welcome home and integrate these U.S. educated and trained, industrious, economic contributors. The red carpet should be rolled out for them and all of their citizens should be thrilled as these newcomers Americanize their “new” home countries. It’s not like those countries are sh!tholes or something.*

 

[goodknightfl]

. now the 5 different left wing rebuttals just make this pathetic. I don’t care what side is in office.

1Trump>5Democrats..