• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To fund border wall, Trump admin weighs cuts to Coast Guard, airport security

bluesmoke said:
Tell me in what way was Trump publicly humiliated in the way you say? As long as he has the solid 35% to 40% support, no matter what, it's difficult to attach the term "public humiliation" to anything he says or does.
Click to expand...

You don't know how many Trump supporters are in that 40% figure, so until pollsters distinguish between trump supporters and real Americans, you can't trust that number.
 
Conservative said:
I posted a contrary article to it as you can see if you review my post
Click to expand...

A "contrary article" which even the Cato Institute thought was crap. The paper was published in June 2013 as part of an effort to stop the passage of a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate. Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) were two of the more vocal opponents of the bill. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) pointed at some of the problems with the Heritage paper's cost analysis
Jeff Flake: “Here we go again. New Heritage study claims huge cost for Immigration Reform. Ignores economic benefits. No dynamic scoring,”
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
There was no tweaking as the bill was created behind closed doors which is why Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. These proposals aren't in any bill so there is nothing to consider. Amazing how those Obama agitators grew and grew so that he lost the Congress. Wonder how that happened since the economy and ACA were so popular?
Click to expand...

Of course you will deny it, but you're actually making my point for me. And our recent history with the ACA is one shining example, as you have mentioned.

It is much more difficult to walk back an enacted law than it is to head off bad legislation before it is passed Hence, it is much more critical that all aspects up for proposal be exposed to the light of day and made available for examination BEFORE it is passed. Precisely to minimize any damage that may be done. Debating, and countering, bad aspects beforehand is smart and necessary.

This is not an anti-Obama/Obamacare idea. This is not an anti-Trump/Trumpcare idea. This is basic plain old middle-of-the-road non-partisan-because-they-all-do-it common sense.

Anyone who defends secrecy, or who discourages knowledge at any point in the process, has to have a partisan reason why.
 
radcen said:
Of course you will deny it, but you're actually making my point for me. And our recent history with the ACA is one shining example, as you have mentioned.

It is much more difficult to walk back an enacted law than it is to head off bad legislation before it is passed Hence, it is much more critical that all aspects up for proposal be exposed to the light of day and made available for examination BEFORE it is passed. Precisely to minimize any damage that may be done. Debating, and countering, bad aspects beforehand is smart and necessary.

This is not an anti-Obama/Obamacare idea. This is not an anti-Trump/Trumpcare idea. This is basic plain old middle-of-the-road non-partisan-because-they-all-do-it common sense.

Anyone who defends secrecy, or who discourages knowledge at any point in the process, has to have a partisan reason why.
Click to expand...

This really is tough for you to understand but there is NO bill to cut costs from the Coast Guard, there is an unsubstantiated option somewhere on the table. Until that option gets into the bill you don't have an argument other than to demonize Trump in another thread.
 
Somerville said:
A "contrary article" which even the Cato Institute thought was crap. The paper was published in June 2013 as part of an effort to stop the passage of a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate. Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) were two of the more vocal opponents of the bill. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) pointed at some of the problems with the Heritage paper's cost analysis
Click to expand...

You lack basic logic and common sense as you post an article that has no context at all. You actually believe Illegals coming into this country, paying no income taxes but using services don't cost the taxpayers more than they produce? You are part of the problem as indicated by your lean of socialist. There isn't a successful socialist country in the world and with the attitude you show most can understand why.
 
Conservative said:
This really is tough for you to understand but there is NO bill to cut costs from the Coast Guard, there is an unsubstantiated option somewhere on the table. Until that option gets into the bill you don't have an argument other than to demonize Trump in another thread.
Click to expand...
Ok, so now you've walked it back to being in a bill. That's progress.

And you are correct, there is no bill re the CG... right now. But it has been discussed, which means it could end up in a bill if everyone shrugs their shoulders and it meets no resistance. If the very idea meets solid resistance, it never will be in a bill. That would be a good thing.

Why are you so insistent on stifling discussion?
 
ocean515 said:
What other cuts is the Trump Administration looking at, or is the message here that the initial funding to get the project started will only come from TSA and the Coast Guard?
Click to expand...

The message here is Trump is cutting the agencies this country relies on to protect us from the threats Trump keeps hyping. The TSA when it comes to the entry of 'terrorists' from the 'banned' countries. The Coast Guard that helps block the increase in water borne drug running if the wall in fact does go up. hell the CG is being stretched thin as it is now because they also perform rescues of distressed seamen, sailors, and after disaster relief.

He is gutting the protective services to build his monument... :peace
 
So he cuts from things that actually protect us to build something that people have already demonstrated will have no effect.
 
CriticalThought said:
So he cuts from things that actually protect us to build something that people have already demonstrated will have no effect.
Click to expand...

Yep. The Wall appeals to his easily-led, but still sizable, base. It's the one thing they seem to understand and have really latched onto.
 
notquiteright said:
The message here is Trump is cutting the agencies this country relies on to protect us from the threats Trump keeps hyping. The TSA when it comes to the entry of 'terrorists' from the 'banned' countries. The Coast Guard that helps block the increase in water borne drug running if the wall in fact does go up. hell the CG is being stretched thin as it is now because they also perform rescues of distressed seamen, sailors, and after disaster relief.

He is gutting the protective services to build his monument... :peace
Click to expand...

It might serve you well to read the article. President Trump is proposing significant increases in the budgets of agencies who will be tasked with these duties, as opposed to the TSA, who is woefully equipped to perform the duties, and the Coast Guard, who has other duties to perform.

Think about it. One of the memes the alt-left is pushing with it's media partners is the unfairness of the get tough on immigration approach President Trump is moving forward with.

Why would he cut services that would harm that objective?

He wouldn't, but that doesn't stop the frauds in the media from floating the chum for their target audience to consume.

It's really moving out of the three ring circus realm and into total delusional insanity.
 
joG said:
Raise an import tax on Mexican imports to offset their allowing their citizens' crossing the border illegally.
Click to expand...

No offense to your argument, but Mexico doesn't "allow" its citizens to cross the border. Everyone has the right to leave their country. Only tyrannies try to prevent that. Of course, that is trumped, as it were, by the fact that there is no right to enter another country.
 
Nickyjo said:
No offense to your argument, but Mexico doesn't "allow" its citizens to cross the border. Everyone has the right to leave their country. Only tyrannies try to prevent that. Of course, that is trumped, as it were, by the fact that there is no right to enter another country.
Click to expand...

In a principal way of speaking free countries do allow their citizens to roam freely. Nonetheless it is not necessarily the citizens right to break foreign law. And given the numbers involved it has become massive criminal actuvity from which the Mexican government prifits.
 
Conservative said:
Looks like those approval ratings are rising and as results continue to show great improvement in jobs, economic activity, and border security you are in for a long, long four years. Why don't you judge him on performance instead of rhetoric?

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval
Click to expand...


You’re measuring a rise in employment in the first month of a President’s term as being both due to that President and indicative of oncoming health of the US economy. One month. Normally, economist give the following year of a Presidential term as the responsibility of that President. If you want to go just a tad bid granular, go by the fiscal year ending September 30 of the year of inauguration as being the responsibility of the immediate past President. The budget and economic policies have been set by the POTUS in the year prior. In this case, the year, good or bad, is largely, though not completely, of 2017 is owned by the immediate past President. We could get more equation granular, but I trust you get my point.
 
bluesmoke said:
You’re measuring a rise in employment in the first month of a President’s term as being both due to that President and indicative of oncoming health of the US economy. One month. Normally, economist give the following year of a Presidential term as the responsibility of that President. If you want to go just a tad bid granular, go by the fiscal year ending September 30 of the year of inauguration as being the responsibility of the immediate past President. The budget and economic policies have been set by the POTUS in the year prior. In this case, the year, good or bad, is largely, though not completely, of 2017 is owned by the immediate past President. We could get more equation granular, but I trust you get my point.
Click to expand...

You completely miss the point, I get it and did give credit where it was due, to Obama for having the economic results that allowed the GOP to win the Congress and the ensuing business optimism generated by the belief that Trump will indeed promote economic growth/activity, job creation, and national security. Whether you like it or not, Trump will be judged on the results from January 21, 2017 to the end of his term regardless of who you want to give credit to just like Obama was responsible for the results when he took office on January 21, 2009.
 
Cardinal said:
You don't know how many Trump supporters are in that 40% figure, so until pollsters distinguish between trump supporters and real Americans, you can't trust that number.
Click to expand...


Are you saying Trump supporters are not "real" Americans?
 
Conservative said:
You completely miss the point, I get it and did give credit where it was due, to Obama for having the economic results that allowed the GOP to win the Congress and the ensuing business optimism generated by the belief that Trump will indeed promote economic growth/activity, job creation, and national security. Whether you like it or not, Trump will be judged on the results from January 21, 2017 to the end of his term regardless of who you want to give credit to just like Obama was responsible for the results when he took office on January 21, 2009.
Click to expand...


I agree. The populace assign responsibility to day one. Deserved or not.
 
bluesmoke said:
Are you saying Trump supporters are not "real" Americans?
Click to expand...

Trump supporters may be skewing the results of the poll. In order to know the real numbers, Trump supporters would need to be identified and eliminated from the final tally.
 
The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.
Click to expand...

So.. basically the Trump administration is weakening the agencies that actually DO keep us safer in order to keep a campaign promise (the wall) that would do little or nothing to keep us any safer.

In Trump world.. makes total sense.
 
lurchadams said:
So.. basically the Trump administration is weakening the agencies that actually DO keep us safer in order to keep a campaign promise (the wall) that would do little or nothing to keep us any safer.

In Trump world.. makes total sense.
Click to expand...
But but but... he's keeping his campaign promise.

Never mind that it was a dumb campaign promise to begin with. We need to sacrifice the real for the imagined.
 
Cardinal said:
Trump supporters may be skewing the results of the poll. In order to know the real numbers, Trump supporters would need to be identified and eliminated from the final tally.
Click to expand...


So, you are, indeed, saying Trump supporters are not real Americans and should not be counted as valid in this particular measurement. I disagree and believe, based on what I've already said, that Trump has a solid support, "skewed" or not, that won't go away and cannot be overcome until, I'm guessing, "real Americans" get into action and elect people who better reflect their views.
 
bluesmoke said:
So, you are, indeed, saying Trump supporters are not real Americans and should not be counted as valid in this particular measurement. I disagree and believe, based on what I've already said, that Trump has a solid support, "skewed" or not, that won't go away and cannot be overcome until, I'm guessing, "real Americans" get into action and elect people who better reflect their views.
Click to expand...

Of course they can't be counted in such a poll, and I would think the reasons for that are obvious. So next time you want to impress me with this poll or that showing some approval of Trump, show me one without the Trump supporters included. I'll bet you that poll would not sound as impressive to you.
 
Cardinal said:
Of course they can't be counted in such a poll, and I would think the reasons for that are obvious. So next time you want to impress me with this poll or that showing some approval of Trump, show me one without the Trump supporters included. I'll bet you that poll would not sound as impressive to you.
Click to expand...


Any poll that does not include any particular group would not be impressive of that group, obviously. I must be missing your point. The poll would be skewed if you did not include Trump supporters. Unless, of course, for some reason Trump supporters were over represented. But then to not include any would still be an extremely biased poll. BTW, in what way am I showing any favor towards (approval of) Trump, except to have a fair process?
 
bluesmoke said:
Any poll that does not include any particular group would not be impressive of that group, obviously.
Click to expand...

Don't try for a false equivalency here.

bluesmoke said:
I must be missing your point. The poll would be skewed if you did not include Trump supporters. Unless, of course, for some reason Trump supporters were over represented. But then to not include any would still be an extremely biased poll. BTW, in what way am I showing any favor towards (approval of) Trump, except to have a fair process?
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Don't try for a false equivalency here.
Click to expand...


What false equivalency are you implying? That a Trump supporter is equal to or the same as any "American"? Instead of warning me what I should not be trying to say, tell us what it is you are saying, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom