How do Trump supporters feel about taxpayers paying $200 million for 15,000 troops now to defend against two 4,000 unarmed legal asylum seekers who won’t arrive for three weeks?
It’s so easy to throw around big scary number to frighten the low-information voters.How easy it is to ignore that those soldiers, the vast majority of them, were already being paid and incurring almost the same expenses wherever they were and whatever they were doing before being deployed to the border.Any additional expense, which will be a small percentage of that $200 million, can be written off as benefit for the training the soldiers will get in deployment exercise, crowd control and bivouac experience.And unarmed or not, how exactly would those invaders be stopped at the border by a civilian force that even now cannot stop the daily influx of illegal entries?The fact of the matter is that these caravans are intentionally created, financed and encouraged for the sole reason of forcing a mass illegal crossing into America and setting a precedent for future incursions. And mixed in with the women and children will be MS-13, drug mules, criminals already deported one or more times and anxious to get back to their “homies”, child sex traffickers pretending to be the parents of their sex slaves, and possibly some dark-skinned terrorists with deep pockets.Those in the caravans “just looking for a better life for their children” are only cover for the scum traveling with them and financing their journey.Mexico offered them sanctuary and refugee status. They refused. Why? Most likely because they have been paid to make the trek to the border and act as shields while the bad guys push their way across with the mob. Those people who have financed this caravan, and the next three if this one works, are not going to let their hired camouflage simply walk away in mid-Mexico.
Did any of the Trump supporters believe Mexico would pay for the wall? How do you feel now?
I was never concerned about it but I never for a moment thought MX would just hand over a check.Nations don't do things like that. What they DO is make trade deals and one country gets a bit better of a shake when it's all hammered out.We got way more than the value of "the wall" from bringing NAFTA down and renegotiating that deal. As far as I'm concerned, the wall is paid for.Other ways it might work are to cut funding to MX for certain programs. We "save" the money and build the wall with Mexico's money that we didn't give them.Its all smoke and mirrors anyway. The cost of the ENTIRE wall is only a fraction of what illegal immigration costs us per year in general. $50B one time for the wall compared to $138B per year for illegals.Think about it this way. When President Obama first came into office there was an economic crisis going on. He spent $980,000,000,000 and didn't create ANY sustainable jobs or economic growth worth mentioning. I think we can handle $5 or $50B for a wall.I will address the argument (the only one Liberals have for NOT building a wall) that "Walls Don't Work." That's both blind & stupid. The "bring a bigger latter" argument is rediculous. There are most certainly latter and grappler proof walls. Any 1st year engineering student can design that. Even without the extra tech that will be employed, it is a formidable obstacle.If you still doubt, ask Nikita Khrushchev, China, or the Pope if their walls work.One final point to be made here. WHY don't Democrats in DC want the border secured? They have said they are all for it, over and over again. Do you know that Nancy and Chuck turned down a deal with President Trump in 2017 that would have provided a "path to Citizenship" for 8 Million DACA residents in exchange for the wall? That's all you really need to know about their real motives.
Why do we kowtow to Muslims here in America?
Well, the Liberals and their PC Brigades have already ditched the Muslims in USA, and that's now happening with the Liberals and their PC Brigades everywhere else, ever since they realized that the Muslims were going to be a dead weight that would drag them down with themselves. Barack Hussein Obama has recently been busy touting his "Irish Roots" to woo the Roman Catholic Electorate, and dropped his old touting of his "Islamic Roots". God knows if he might want to change his name to Barry Soetoro or something like that now. Anyways, he is now busy claiming to have been the man who spent billions of the Tax Payers' dollars on getting Osama bin Laden killed and disposed off quickly before it could be verified that it was, in fact, bin Laden, and on getting Mummer al Qaddafi killed, too. And, lest we forget, he also vouched for support to Israel. Of course, this is the same man who went on record and officially endorsed to Islam, many times before, and even said "Muslims are our friends" and is known to have given Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf 16,000 $ of the Tax Payers' money to go make a trip around the UAE, Bahrain etc on an alleged outreach program just when the Imam needed the money for his Project which had run into trouble. However, what is concerning is the fact that it is estimated, according to your quote, that 25% of almost 3 million Muslims living in USA and being Citizens of USA have responded their willingness to die for Islam. That means they have 750,000 candidates for the explosive vest ready and waiting right in USA alone, as it is, at minimum. Let's take the mosque collections from the others, who regularly give money for International Terrorism in the name of Islam, to be as low as 1$ per head per week, which they all easily afford. In less than a year, they will have 150 million $ to buy 200$ worth of explosive jackets per suicide bomber and I need not tell you the kind of damage that can do. And, if we leave it our Liberals and their PC Brigades, I guess they will say - "Sure, go ahead!" to the Muslims and sell all the rest of us down the river for their narrow political gain. Thing is, what are we going to do about these unscrupulous politicians? Very soon, we will all have the chance to show them what we feel. .
Why's America's government keep getting involved with foreign affairs?
Excellent answers & the bravery of American and allied soldiers is beyond reproach! However the latent chemical attack in Syria alleged to B by the Govt against the Rebels gives serious concern to all . . . . . . . . . I ask . . . . . if the attack is the work of Islamic Lunatic clerics !! ?? They have no regard for human life whatsoever . . . . . their own Muslims included & such an incident like this . . . . . has their vile creed written all over it !!?? Did they in fact attack the Rebel cause deliberately !! ?? As the free democratic world to a large extent supports the rebel cause . . . . . what better opportunity . . . than to throw in a weapon of mass destruction and provoke world reaction . . . . There is more to this than what is currently known . . . . and Western leaders should be careful . . . and not under any circumstances get militarily or otherwise involved . . let the Arab Islamic scum dog - eat dog !! ??.
Has anybody read the Herbert Meyer, retired CIA, "Four Major Transformations." Commentary?
Yes I have read over it and think Meyer is way off base from reality.
If you had to give the Bush Administration Report Card Grades, what grades would you give them?
1) Economy D- (paid for the bail out, created huge federal deficit) 2) Education C- (did not fund no child left behind, spends millions on abstinence only education after reports found it to be useless) 3) Environment B+ 4) Military or Defense B- (no new terrorist attacks on american soil, huge mistake of the Iraq war) 5) Helping America's Poor and Minorities A (why should the government give money to only minorities?) 6) Tax Cuts B 7) Foreign Policy D- 8) Healthcare - unknown 9) Overall Grade C
Liberals (and Conservatives), why do lefties hate Bush so intensely?
This was by a poster on the History Channel message board - and this guy made a lot of sense - so I thought I would show you his post: Why do Liberals hate President Bush so much? By John Hawkins Why do they hate him so much? They'll give you every reason in the book for it, but in my opinion, most of it is really all about four things: #1) A lot of Democrats felt cheated after Gore lost in Florida. Were they cheated? Absolutely not. But, they FELT cheated and they got angry at Bush because of it. #2) Many Republicans absolutely despised Bill Clinton and part of the animus towards Bush is just payback. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is really the primary driving factor behind the impeachment talk. They're desperate to try to impeach Bush, for anything and everything they can come up with, because the Republicans impeached Clinton. #3) During the Vietnam war, the libs protested incessantly, they spit on soldiers, and they became radicalized. It's the same dynamic this time around, except back then, it was Lyndon Johnson who was really responsible for getting the war into full swing. So, there was more bi-partisan blame for them to spread around. The war in Iraq is Bush's war all the way and so most of the venom is getting aimed at him. #4) The Democrats are out of power and that's making them more bitter, more willing to accept conspiracy theories, and more angry at the guy who has beaten them, George Bush. Bonus Answer: The left has actually been nasty, angry, and vicious for a long time now. For example, they absolutely hated Ronald Reagan's guts and had few qualms about saying so. So, why didn't people notice it more back then? Because there wasn't a new media out there to report it and the old media, as they do today, protects "their side." A kooky or vicious comment by a liberal is much, much, more likely to be buried, minimized, or completely ignored by the MSM than a similar comment by a conservative. The difference is that now there's an alternative media that reports things that would have been swept under the rug 10 or 20 years.