Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 1:34 PM
209 online now:
Aussie, candle2, Diomedes, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx, Taq, xongsmith (10 members, 199 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,873 Year: 910/19,786 Month: 910/1,731 Week: 267/438 Day: 52/33 Hour: 10/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
35Next
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News (formerly In the News)
JonF
Member
Posts: 4354
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 376 of 511 (845418)
12-15-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:16 PM


Re: The Faith Fact Checker
Four costly investigations into Vince Foster's death. Nine long and costly investigations into Hillary's emails. No evidence of any crimes, not because they got a pass
but because there's no "there" there. (Mishandling classified information is not necessarily a crime, and it's pretty certain Hillary's misdeeds fall under the non-criminal part).

Uranium One? Really? The nothingburgeriest of nothingburgers. https://www.lawfareblog.com/...king-uranium-one-hype-and-law:

quote:
I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation. My reasoning is simple: if there is no "quo" to be given, the question of a "quid" is moot.)

..

It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton personally participated in the transaction. Her assistant secretary says she did not intervene, and given the nature of the transaction and the apparent lack of controversy, that is a plausible scenario. I can see no reason to doubt his account.

The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstep—the vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the sale—but that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.

The inherent bias of the process is to approve transactions, with mitigation if needed. Intervention and blocking are rare and require more than a single agency to be activated. Put another way, no single agency has a veto on the transaction—the transaction goes forward unless a substantial majority of CFIUS is motivated by grave concerns to block it. So the most accurate way to characterize this case is that State, along with all the other agencies, declined to recommend a presidential veto.

Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).
It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.


Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:42 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30427
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 377 of 511 (845419)
12-15-2018 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by JonF
12-15-2018 3:12 PM


Evidence on the dossirr, read the link I posted. What felonies?

I will not read your link. It's your job to make the case.

Obviously your right-wing sources didn't tell YOU. Allegedly Trump instructed Cohen's and Pecker to pay the women off with their own funds for the express purpose of influencing the election which was a few weeks away.

Says who? Cohen to whats his name the other day? Cohen who has turned against Trump hoping he'll get off easier? Lying Cohen talking to a lackey of the Clintons? abe: Stephanopoulos oh yeah /abe Yes Cohen did say that. Why do you believe him? Nobody liked him before, but now that he's a mouthpiece against Trump everybody loves him to pieces. Trump denies it, there is reason to believe Pecker initiated the Enquirer payment, not Trump. Who says it's iillegal to direct agents to make payments for you? It's his own money, he's paying for a personal transaction, there is no evidence whatever that it had anything to do with the campaign.

Those were illegal campaign contributions, far exceeding the limits on Cohen and AMI, and directing them would be illegal.

There is no evidence except Cohen for this and why should anyone believe him? Rush said the offer came from Pecker to Trump, Pecker bought McDougal's story and killed it. Perhaps this occurred in August of 2014 as Rush says, I'm waiting to see. I certainly don't believe one thing I'm hearing from you Leftists. And the "limits" on campaign contributions do not apply to the candidate himself who can spend anything he wants on his own election.

The dossier was not the original reason for the investigation. The FBI's Russia investigation began in the summer of 2016 when investigators learned that a Trump campaign foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been importuned by Russian intelligence operatives in London. They offered him "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and "off-the-record" meetings with Russian officials.

Unfortunately I'm not up on this but Papadopoulos has said he was misled and I don't remember the details. Besides there is nothing illegal about meeting with Russians even to get dirt on an opponent. What makes you think there is?

None of those "Indictments, guilty pleas, and prison sentences" have anything to do with Russia collusion. Except of the Russians themselves. All the others are for personal crimes unrelated to the campaign or to Russia.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by JonF, posted 12-15-2018 3:12 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by JonF, posted 12-15-2018 3:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 381 by JonF, posted 12-15-2018 3:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4354
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 378 of 511 (845422)
12-15-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:27 PM


It's not just Cohen, it's AMI/National Inquirer. But I don't necessarily believe them. There's definitely enough there for an indictment. And there are recordings.

The timing of McDougall's payoff is a matter of public record. August 6, 2016. Limbaugh is lying. Oodles of evidence posted tomorrow if you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:44 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30427
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 379 of 511 (845424)
12-15-2018 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by JonF
12-15-2018 3:24 PM


Re: The Faith Fact Checker
I'll wait and see. As I said I don't trust anything from the Left, or from EvC, too much is political fraud and it's all based on hating Trump both personally and politically. The people I'm listening to are interviewing lawyers about all these things so why should i believe your lawyer? Mark Levin is a lawyer himself, so is Laura Ingraham.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by JonF, posted 12-15-2018 3:24 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30427
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 380 of 511 (845425)
12-15-2018 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by JonF
12-15-2018 3:40 PM


What recordings? Of what? I don't believe a thing you say.

What public record? Google has 2015 not 2016, why should any of that be believed? I'm going witn Limbaugh for the time being.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by JonF, posted 12-15-2018 3:40 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Percy, posted 12-16-2018 1:07 PM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4354
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 381 of 511 (845426)
12-15-2018 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:27 PM


"Except for the Russians themselves. "

quote:
Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October.

Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.


So far...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30427
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 382 of 511 (845428)
12-15-2018 4:05 PM


A Few Books
1. I've heard a few interviews with Jerome Corsi about his experience of being investigated by the Mueller witch hunt which he describes as acting like the Gestapo or the KGB and trying to manipulate him to lie: and he wrote a book about it:

Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller's "Witch Hunt"

2. And another one that sounds interesting I've heard mentioned recently:

Licensed to Lie by Sidney Powell:

...The common thread through it all is a cabal of narcissistic federal prosecutors who broke all the rules and rose to great power. Still in the news today―Robert Mueller s “pitbull" Andrew Weissmann and other members of Obama's inner circle―are wreaking havoc on our Republic. This is the book that began exposing “the Deep State.”

3. Another one I'd like to read if I had another life:

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America by Mark Levin. He's got other books I'd also like to read.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 12-16-2018 1:23 PM Faith has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1783
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 383 of 511 (845429)
12-15-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Faith
12-15-2018 3:11 PM


Re: Just a couple of problems with the Left's witch hunt
the Left "investigates" anything at great cost to the taxpayers

The Mueller probe might actually turn a profit.

https://www.cnbc.com/...rofit-thanks-to-manafort-assets.html

As for cost, I haven't seen you once complain about trump spending a quarter of his time at his golf courses at great expense to the taxpayers.

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/...f-rounds-cost-taxpayers-107139


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 3:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 384 of 511 (845433)
12-15-2018 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Faith
12-13-2018 8:13 PM


Re: Oh one more thing: a Fake News report
Faith writes:

Somebody here said something about Trump being worried about impeachment. I can't find the post now. But anyway that's a perfect example of Fake News. They make up this stuff all the time based on nothing. Headlines galore every day on the internet insinuate something amiss in the White House. It's never true, it's just invented to create a false impression. If you listened to the Right thinkers you'd know that but instead you all fall for it just as they want you to.

If Trump is unconcerned about impeachment, how would you know? Because he denies it publicly? He rarely tells the truth publicly, so that alone makes it a safe bet that he's concerned about impeachment. Let's examine the source of this information.

From CNN: Trump concerned about being impeached, sees it as a 'real possibility,' source says

quote:
President Donald Trump has expressed concern that he could be impeached when Democrats take over the House, a source close to the President told CNN Monday. The source said Trump sees impeachment as a "real possibility."

But Trump isn't certain it will happen, the source added.

A separate source close to the White House told CNN that aides inside the West Wing believe "the only issue that may stick" in the impeachment process is the campaign finance violations tied to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's payouts to Trump's alleged mistresses.
...
Another separate source said Trump remains confident at this point that, while he could be impeached in the House, he doesn't believe he would be convicted in the Senate as the GOP remains in control there.


These sources are people "close to the President" and so forth. They aren't White House officials, who the article describes as believing differently:

quote:
White House officials, at the moment, still don't believe special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion will result in impeachment. Officials are also comforted by their belief that the campaign finance issue is not seen as enough to galvanize bipartisan support for impeachment.

From NBC News: Trump confides to friends he's concerned about impeachment:

quote:
Despite President Donald Trump's public declaration that he isn't concerned about impeachment, he has told people close to him in recent days that he is alarmed by the prospect, according to multiple sources.

Trump's fear about the possibility has escalated as the consequences of federal investigations involving his associates and Democratic control of the House sink in, the sources said, and his allies believe maintaining the support of establishment Republicans he bucked to win election is now critical to saving his presidency.
...
“The entire question about whether the president committed an impeachable offense now hinges on the testimony of two men: David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, both cooperating witnesses in the SDNY investigation," a close Trump ally told NBC News.

Weisselberg is the chief financial officer for Trump organization who was allegedly in the center of the hush money operation. He was reportedly granted immunity for his testimony. Pecker is the chief executive at AMI.

The developments leave Trump as the lone party who argues the payments were not intended to influence the election.


NBC News is reporting the same thing as CNN, that Trump is confiding to friends that he's concerned about impeachment. Both stories also report that Trump is maintaining a confident public face.

You claim to believe that NBC News and CNN are making up sources. Based upon what? You don't believe Trump talks to friends and that reporters know who they are? Even worse, Trump uses his unsecured personal cell phone to talk these friends, and as has been reported, likely the Russians and Chinese are listening in.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 12-13-2018 8:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 5:24 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 385 of 511 (845436)
12-15-2018 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by AZPaul3
12-15-2018 9:58 AM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
AZPaul3 writes:

Whether he's also impeachable is still a question open to opinion ...

Let's assume these are impeachable offenses. To what end?

Impeach Trump and have a heavily Republican Senate exonerate him.

I covered this recently in another post. If Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses a decision must still be made about whether it's worth going ahead with impeachment, especially if the Senate would likely acquit. It depends on the specifics of the Articles of Impeachment, the strength of the evidence behind them, and Democratic estimates of the political cost to politicians on both sides in both houses.

I was no fan of Bill Clinton (I wasn't exactly opposed to him either, but I definitely wasn't a fan) but was opposed to his impeachment because his offenses, though reprehensible, did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The nature of Trump's alleged offenses are of a different nature - if the evidence behind them exists then they are definitely impeachable. Then the House would have a difficult decision before it, whether to bring Articles of Impeachment forward for offenses that are definitely impeachable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by AZPaul3, posted 12-15-2018 9:58 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30427
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 386 of 511 (845437)
12-15-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Percy
12-15-2018 4:32 PM


Re: Oh one more thing: a Fake News report
You claim to believe that NBC News and CNN are making up sources.

Yes or the sources are making it up.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 12-15-2018 4:32 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Percy, posted 12-16-2018 1:34 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 387 of 511 (845451)
12-15-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:21 PM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
Faith writes:

When first begun it wasn't thought that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election would lead to the Trump campaign, but it did. We've now learned that at least 16 people connected to the Trump campaign had contact with Russia.

None of it has ever connected Trump with Russia, ever, and that was supposedly the whole point of the investigation. After two years of this there is still no connection with Russia. Mueller should long ago have said he was unable to fulfill the original aim of showing Russian collusion and shut down the investigation.

What part of "the investigation is still ongoing and Mueller hasn't issued his report yet" don't you understand?

As for people having contacts with Russia why is it never mentioned that this is standard for any political campaign to make contact with foreign nations that would be affected by new policies, or just for whatever reason.

Is that why they lied about the contacts, because it was all aboveboard?

Clinton had deals with Russia and that is completely ignored.

Hillary Clinton had no deals with Russia. No Clinton campaign officials met with Russians like Trump campaign officials did. The Trump Tower meeting and all the other meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russians are potentially problematic. It's against the law for foreign nationals to provide anything of value to a US election campaign. The common expectation is that this would be something of monetary value or the means to obtain something of monetary value, but if information is judged valuable to a campaign then that might satisfy the legal requirement. If any of these meetings were about something like the DNC or Podesta emails then they were of great value to the Trump campaign and would likely qualify.

The Steele dossier doesn't qualify because it was never used by the Clinton campaign and so could not be deemed to have provided any value. Besides, the process that produced the Steele dossier was indirect. The Clinton campaign contracted with Fusion GPS who in turn contracted with numerous sources, including Daniel Steele who used his Russian contacts to obtain alleged information about Trump.

There is nothing suspicious about such contacts except when they want to find something to pin on Trump.

If you don't find it suspicious then you have turned your mind off. Our intelligent agencies found that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign had all these contacts with Russians that they lied about. That's very suspicious.

Which they haven't found either.

Again, what part of "Mueller hasn't released his report yet" don't you understand? This isn't rocket science. It could be that Trump and his campaign are completely innocent, it could be that they're guilty as sin, or it could be somewhere in between.

And there is nothing wrong with business deals either. Especially when Trump didn't even expect to win the election and naturally wanted to keep his businesses alive. Business as usual, nothing about the campaign at all.

There's nothing wrong with business deals that don't involve things like trading penthouses for government permission to build.

And I'll wait and see what happens with this campaign payoff idea. Most of what I've been hearing is that it won't fly. It had nothing to do with the campaign,...

Then you haven't been listening. We already know that Cohen and Pecker say it was done to help the campaign, and likely Weisselberg said the same thing, since Mueller seems to have additional confirming evidence.

...and even if it did there is no limit on how much the nominee himself is allowed to contribute to his own campaign.

Trump didn't record any campaign contribution for these payoffs. Trump is still claiming they were personal to prevent hurt to his family.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by DrJones*, posted 12-15-2018 9:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1783
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 388 of 511 (845452)
12-15-2018 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Percy
12-15-2018 9:10 PM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
Trump is still claiming they were personal to prevent hurt to his family.

I don't think Trump cares about hurting his family, the man is a well known serial adulterer. His current wife was one of his mistresses. I think if Melania was smart she had some sort of anti infidelity clause put into the pre-nup and he's afraid of triggering it.

edit: re-reading your post I think you meant that "Avoid hurting his family" is part of his claim not that he's actually opposed to hurting his family, my post still sort of stands.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Percy, posted 12-15-2018 9:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 389 of 511 (845459)
12-16-2018 7:21 AM


Disagreeing Analysis Pieces in the Mainstream Press
Trump supporters obviously do not like the opinion/analysis pieces that appear in the mainstream media, but I thought I would call attention to a couple recent analysis articles that disagreed with each other about the possibility of charges of collusion with Russia.

NPR reports that The Russia Collusion Case Looks Weaker Amid Focus On Cohen. Noting that a little information always leaks about what Mueller knows every time he goes to court, even though much of it is redacted, they say that no information has leaked about collusion, making the possibility of collusion charges less likely.

But The Guardian asks whether As Mueller's inquiry deepens, is the net closing in on Trump? In particular they call attention to a little noticed part of the Cohen sentencing proceedings about Russian collusion:

quote:
But a less-noticed scene in court that day points to much bigger trouble ahead for Trump. Also present for the Cohen hearing was a member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, the prosecutor Jeannie Rhee, who described how much help Cohen had been to the investigation into alleged collusion between the campaign and Moscow.

So one media outlet reports that the lack of bits and pieces of information about collusion indicates that charges are becoming less and less likely, while another reports on hints that Mueller has information about collusion that is not yet public. My own opinion is that there's no way to know for sure right now which way the collusion investigation will go.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add message subtitle.


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 390 of 511 (845461)
12-16-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
12-15-2018 2:45 PM


Re: Just a couple of problems with the Left's witch hunt
Faith writes:

1. Payoffs, or Nondisclosure Agreements. Rush Limbaugh, yesterday I think, maybe Thursday, said over and over again that the deal Pecker of the Enquirer made to buy off Karen McDougal and kill the story was not in 2015 but August of 2014.

Rush Limbaugh is lying to you. American Media offered to buy the rights to McDougal's story for $150,000 on August 5, 2016 (see Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal from the Wall Street Journal, a conservative outlet).

But if Limbaugh is right...

Limbaugh is not right. He is making it up.

...that means there is no connection between the payoffs and the campaign at all since they occurred before Trump was campaigning for the election, possibly even before he was thinking of running.

Not only did AMI purchase the rights to McDougal's story August of 2016, later that year close to the election Trump decided that it would be more secure if the Trump organization held the rights to the story, and so he had a conversation with Michael Cohen about purchasing the rights from AMI. Cohen recorded the conversation, and I assume we've all heard it. I can dig it out if you haven't.

And all the Right are pointing out that Congress has a special fund for paying off women who accuse Congressmen of sexual misconduct or harassment or whatever. The hypocrisy is damning.

I agree, but who are you trying to criticize? Half of Congress is Republicans.

As for walls working he pointed out that the Berlin Wall certainly worked,...

You mean this wall:

That's a cemetary on the left. Is a wide no-man's land overseen by armed towers with guards who have orders to shoot to kill really what you imagine? You want to do this across our entire southern border? It would certainly be very effective, but the expense over a 2000 mile border would be prohibitive. Fortress America - has a great ring to it, Trump should make it his 2020 reelection slogan.

...and the wall Israel built in 2004 has also worked, cutting down on the terrorist problem by 95%.

Israel has much shorter borders, and the countries that border it are their sworn enemies providing aid and succor to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. We have peaceful neighbors.

It's also been pointed out by many that in 2006 THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR A WALL, including Pelosi, Obama and Hillary!!! But if Trump wants a wall, nope.

False. From Fact-check: Did top Democrats vote for a border wall in 2006?:

quote:
The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.


Guess we have to rate another of your comments false:

Moving on:

3. Oh a new one. The little Guatemalan girl who died after getting across the border, which is being blamed on the Border Patrol, who in fact did their best to save her. She had been deprived of food and water by her parents for days before they reached the US border, and a few hours after their arrival she started having seizures and the Border Patrol helicoptered her to a hospital where she died of dehydration and sepsis. The girl was part of a group of over 150 looking to get into the US illegally, who gave themselves up to the Border Patrol. Possibly her condition was overlooked during the processing of so many people, I don't really know what happened, haven't seen the details described, but it is clear she died because of having been deprived of food and water for days before she arrived in their custody. But they did their best to save her and all you lying Leftists should be sent to Mexico yourselves, such America-haters might as well go live where they won't hate the country they are living in.

The family blames the border patrol, but it is not yet known if they are correct. The Washington Post ran a fairly balanced article: The 7-year-old girl who died in Border Patrol custody was healthy before she arrived, father says

The story is confusing enough to tell us that we don't really know what happened yet, but neglect by border patrol agents seems unlikely. Boiling the story down to bear bones, the father arrived in the US with a healthy child seeking asylum, after eight hours they were picked up by a border patrol bus at which point the child was still healthy and had something to eat and drink, but then she became ill on the bus ride. The bus took them to the nearest medical facility, but by the time of arrival 90 minutes later she had stopped breathing and had a temperature of 105°. She died in the hospital about 15 hours later. I don't see that the border patrol did anything wrong. More information should become available in the weeks ahead.

Another story from the Los Angeles Times has slightly different details but also does not blame the border patrol: The 7-year-old girl who died in Border Patrol custody showed symptoms of dehydration. Experts say they were warning signs. In this story the father and his daughter turned themselves in to border patrol agencies who took them to a bus depot where they waited for a number of hours before his daughter became ill. A bus was sent for but took to long to arrive, so she was flown to a hospital in El Paso where she later died.

Note that these news report comes from the mainstream media and do not blame the border patrol.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 12-15-2018 2:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
2728
...
35Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019