• 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!

Now we will see if Pelosi lied

Ah, well I see you havent got anything on me in the financial arena.

I'm not trusting anyone. *MY career* pays me to use words properly and effectively.

Believing someone will do something and trusting are not the same. The words arent synonyms.

Discussion is aided by the correct use of words. Intentionally misusing words is often avoidance....
You don't trust anyone....except nancy pelosi. Got it.
 
You don't trust anyone....except nancy pelosi. Got it.

See...now I dont even believe you re: your employment, after this ^^^ clear demonstration that you cannot comprehend the written word.

Carry on!
 
See...now I dont even believe you re: your employment, after this ^^^ clear demonstration that you cannot comprehend the written word.

Carry on!

Lol you don't know my employment. Again, the women proves she doesn't know how to read. Men gave you the right to be literate, and you fail at that even.
 
Lol you don't know my employment. Again, the women proves she doesn't know how to read. Men gave you the right to be literate, and you fail at that even.

I dont. Correct. You made a claim regarding your employment and based on your posting in general, I declined to believe that claim.

I love the comment on men 'giving us the right to be literate.' It's awesome and displays a great deal, none of it good, about its writer. I guess it's hard being surpassed by women on any skills, eh? :lamo (and not even written correctly LOLOLOLOLOL)

I also find it interesting that all of a sudden, you've made this about me and not the discussion....:mrgreen: Talk about triggering someone's self-esteem issues!
 
Last edited:
Thats way better than spending our governments efforts on actually doing whats best for the country as opposed to whats best for the sky criers who were never taught how to accept losing.

if laws were broken they should be investigated. this isn't Chicago.
 
The President called Pelosi's bluff. Pelosi said if the government was opened she would have the State of the Union address, and would compromise on the border wall. Lets see if that happens.
Red:
No, she did not say "if the government was opened she would have the State of the Union address." AFAIK, her most recent official statement regarding Trump's delivery of the SOTU address is:

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.
-- Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Letter to President Donald Trump, January 23, 2019

What that sentence offers to do is "consider a concurrent resolution authorizing" Trump to deliver his SOTU in the House chamber. I don't know about you, but when I and everyone I know say we'll consider something, that's what we mean, not more and not less. At the end of considering a matter, we may or may not accord it our approbation/imprimatur. "Consider" means, roughly, "I'll think about it." It does not mean "I'll do it" or "I'll make it happen" or "I will approve of it."
 
The President called Pelosi's bluff.

You can put it that way if it assuages your pique. So sure, he called her bluff only to discover Mrs. Pelosi's "full house" bested his lone "knave."
 
You can put it that way if it assuages your pique. So sure, he called her bluff only to discover Mrs. Pelosi's "full house" bested his lone "knave."

I would like to have something cute and interesting to post in support of your post. But I got nothing. Laughing too hard!
 
I dont. Correct. You made a claim regarding your employment and based on your posting in general, I declined to believe that claim.

I love the comment on men 'giving us the right to be literate.' It's awesome and displays a great deal, none of it good, about its writer. I guess it's hard being surpassed by women on any skills, eh? :lamo (and not even written correctly LOLOLOLOLOL)

I also find it interesting that all of a sudden, you've made this about me and not the discussion....:mrgreen: Talk about triggering someone's self-esteem issues!
I never made a claim about my employment.

Well, you made the discussion about me. Why shouldn't I make it about you too? You can call me a financial analyst, and then attack my skills, I can't attack you? Again, only a woman would come to that insane conclusion. Sorry babe, you punch below my belt, you're going to get back in line.
 
Why are Trump supporters always looking for someone else to save Trump from Trump

Nancy Pelosi does not owe Donald Trump anything.

No! She owes the American people something!
 
Keep this in mind, negotiating in good faith does not equal giving the right everything it wants. I know that's what those on the right think but with an equal branch of government doing their part in keeping the president in check, I expect to hear all the horror stories under the sun of how nancy is the cause of...everything.

Democrats won’t always have the house! What you will hear is tremendous wailing when a Republican speaker denies a democrat president entrance to the house! Mark that down.
 
Democrats won’t always have the house!

They'll have the House until at least 2020.

What is that saying? Oh yeah, elections have consequences.
 
They'll have the House until at least 2020.

What is that saying? Oh yeah, elections have consequences.


Yes! They do. And so do actions! Remember Harry Reid and the nuclear option? Well I do.
 
So! As long as Pelosi denies him the house he should deny her an airplane ride!
 
Lol. And no, Trumps SOTU will not be tomorrow.

I think we can manage without it. We all know we are so much better off under his presidency. That’s what she fears!
 
Pelosi will not grant Trump the SOTU, saying that he can't until the threat of a shutdown is gone.

With regard to the threat of another shutdown? I agree...she should NOT.
Any compromise the Democrats make must include a written guarantee that we will not be subjected to two years of rotating government shutdowns. That goes for Trump AND Mitch McConnell both.
No guarantee, then no compromise.
We will not reward hostage takers. EVER.

And you are going to learn this lesson no matter what it takes. The days of taking hostages is over, or else the rest of you will get to feel the pain that the hostages are feeling. The choice is up to you.
You WILL learn to stop taking hostages.

Never again.
 
:doh We have walls in most of those places...and they are somewhat effective.
Do we? Not according to the San Diego Area Border Patrol commander.
The incursions here occur in the eastern parts of the count where there are no walls. Most illegals go around the walls rather than over or under them and there are miles and miles of empty space along the eastern California, Arizona and New Mexico borders with no physical barrier or at best a single-strand barbed wire fence.

I used to do a lot of hiking in border regions of SD county, but as I encountered more signs of illegals using the trails to the point it was miles of trash and human excrement, I decided things might not go well for a blond, blue-eyed gringo meeting a group of coyotes and "clients" going north.


Lursa said:
wall planned is mostly or all in the least populated, low traffic areas. Again...how many would it stop verses $5.7 billion?
the empty stretches ARE the most traveled spaces. Forget, if you can that this is Trump's project and explain what in 2013 Schumer voted for $8 billion in physical border barriers.
 
It still doesnt mean that the wall is the best, most efficient use of that $. It actually indicates otherwise. The cost/benefit analysis is for 'not that many people crossing in the middle of nowhere' to 'fewer of those not many people crossing in the middle of nowhere.' And as you wrote, it doesnt mean 'no people crossing in the middle of nowhere.' So what makes $5.7 billion worth that?
Bottom line is NOTHING can ever be 100% effective. And the money - about half a day's worth of our total.

Lursa said:
Take just $1 billion and spend it on focused identification, tracking, and fining US employers hiring illegals.

And reduce the need FOR the wall in the middle of nowhere.
We already DO THAT, but as I recall Nancy and her gaggle pitch the usual fit over making eVerify mandatory.
Lursa said:
(And per the Border Patrol, the drugs and human trafficking take place at the main border portals, in vehicles/boats...not 'in the middle of nowhere. They cant carry enough to make it worth it. So the wall would only be for the desperate coming looking for work.)
Not according the Border Patrol here in San Diego. And actually I believe the Border Patrol says SOME of the drug and human smuggling occurs at ports of entry AND some occurs in the middle of nowhere.

Fact is thousands of illegals are making the dangerous and sometimes deadly treks through the wilderness to get here.


PS: you do know that Trump is also planning tech upgrades and more staff to strengthen Ports of Entry too? Right?
 
Democrats won’t always have the house! What you will hear is tremendous wailing when a Republican speaker denies a democrat president entrance to the house! Mark that down.

Except that Democratic President will not be Trump, and will be a legitimately elected head of state. So if a Republican Speaker denies the President the ability to make a SotU address on the House floor, he or she will be doing so purely out of pettiness.
 
I never made a claim about my employment.

*sigh* Words have meaning. Your claim:

Oh and the career you're looking for is 'financial analyst', average salaray 86,000 a year, if you're good at it.

Well, you made the discussion about me. Why shouldn't I make it about you too? You can call me a financial analyst, and then attack my skills, I can't attack you? Again, only a woman would come to that insane conclusion. Sorry babe, you punch below my belt, you're going to get back in line.

I didnt attack anything, I pointed out your dishonest posting. If you dont want to own dishonest, then you can go back to 'unable to comprehend the written word.'

Up to you. Oh, and I'm laughing once again at the male blustering "'you're going to get back in line" :mrgreen: Unless you mean there's a long line of people waiting to punch you below the belt! I wish that would fit in my signature too :lamo

Again, your use of words is not remotely indicative of any higher career aspirations.
 
Last edited:
Do we? Not according to the San Diego Area Border Patrol commander.

Well ok then...if they dont work there, then they're not going to be cost effective in less populated areas.

The incursions here occur in the eastern parts of the count where there are no walls. Most illegals go around the walls rather than over or under them and there are miles and miles of empty space along the eastern California, Arizona and New Mexico borders with no physical barrier or at best a single-strand barbed wire fence.

How many? Now how about some analysis of how many would be stopped? Now how about the cost/benefit analysis that includes other technologies or even good ol' BP patrolling? That's jobs. Paychecks, $$ into the economy on a longer term basis than construction.

I used to do a lot of hiking in border regions of SD county, but as I encountered more signs of illegals using the trails to the point it was miles of trash and human excrement, I decided things might not go well for a blond, blue-eyed gringo meeting a group of coyotes and "clients" going north.
the empty stretches ARE the most traveled spaces. Forget, if you can that this is Trump's project and explain what in 2013 Schumer voted for $8 billion in physical border barriers.

Sorry. *I* used to spend most of my time on the border also in very low density areas, as I was a park ranger and looking for wildlife, rare cactus, and birds.

And my experience and observations were very different from yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom