Beto Disqualifies Himself

[mark46]

Beto gave a fine speech in El Paso. However, his idea of tearing down the wall will likely disqualifying him from winning the nomination or the election, should he win the nomination.

"Tear down this wall" just won't work as a political slogan in 2020. The Democrats do and should stand for border security. A couple of hundred miles of wall over the entire border may or may not help the security effort. All agree that physical barriers can be PART of the solution. Democrats voted for barriers in 2006, during the Obama administration and in the recent law (55 miles as designated by Congress). Trump wants 234 miles, perhaps at different locations, perhaps of different construction. Trump has rightly said to stop all this nonsense and just call all physical barriers "the wall".

The Democratic argument is that we have enough physical barriers and only Congress should decide where the 55 miles should be built and of what construction. Their position is that it is immoral to build barriers anywhere else. Some would tear down what is already built. Trump believes that an additional 179 miles are needed, with design and location TBD. This is NOT a winning argument for Democrats.
===========
The BOTTOM LINE is that Trump will not be able to come close to spending all the money already available before the election. The 3.6B or construction money is just a means to keep the issue in the press. New barriers using last year's money is just starting to be completed. Congress allocated over $1B for 55 miles of new wall. Trump can use over $3B of drug interdiction and confiscated monies without he need of any congressional approval. Trump may not have his $5.7B, but it's close.

In September and October of 2020, Trump will have lots of wall to point to, and lots of "victories" to point to also. And there can be real arguments about next steps.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Idk. Trump's plan to build the wall as well as his Muslim ban should have disqualified him from receiving the nomination. I don't really see why a promise to undo Trump's stupid vanity wall is a losing proposition. It seems to be in the best interest of this country to not give-in to Trump's ego.

 

[Speedwell]

Beto gave a fine speech in El Paso. However, his idea of tearing down the wall will likely disqualifying him from winning the nomination or the election, should he win the nomination.

"Tear down this wall" just won't work as a political slogan in 2020. The Democrats do and should stand for border security. A couple of hundred miles of wall over the entire border may or may not help the security effort. All agree that physical barriers can be PART of the solution. Democrats voted for barriers in 2006, during the Obama administration and in the recent law (55 miles as designated by Congress). Trump wants 234 miles, perhaps at different locations, perhaps of different construction. Trump has rightly said to stop all this nonsense and just call all physical barriers "the wall".

Do you really expect us to trust Trump on that one?

The Democratic argument is that we have enough physical barriers and only Congress should decide where the 55 miles should be built and of what construction. Their position is that it is immoral to build barriers anywhere else. Some would tear down what is already built. This is NOT a winning argument for Democrats.

Which is why Democrats won't be using it--or even thinking it, most of them.

Trump believes that an additional 179 miles are needed, with design and location TBD.

LOL!

In September and October of 2020, Trump will have lots of wall to point to, and lots of "victories" to point to also.

I sure hope so. Film of the Army Engineers bulldozing La Lomita Chapel, for instance, or crying elderly people being dragged from their long-time homes by Federal Marshals.

And there can be real arguments about next steps.

The Right are incapable of mounting a real argument for The Wall. All they've got is lurid nativist fantasies.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Maybe he doesnt want an ugly wall to block the views.I've seen people brag about the beautiful views in some areas of the border . The beautiful borders get people interested in seeing the views. That means extra money for cities along the border. Not everyone is terrified of open borders.

 

[mark46]

Trust on what?

1) Trump has more money than can possibly be spent on border security and walls between now and the election.

2) The $3.6B additional military construction money is a method to keep the issue front and center. The military hasn't even designated where they might find this money. I'm sure there are plenty of places to find the money. If anything critical money is moved, the project can be included in the next budge being submitted next month.

3) Yes, Trump is profoundly anti-immigrant. However, he has been able to transform this position to be against illegal immigration, against accepting large numbers of asylum seekers, against gangs, and against traffickers of drugs, women and children. This position includes much more than the wall, and is a winning position for Republicans. Trump will point to his working with Mexico and with China with regard to these issues.

Trump has even lied and said that he favors increasing legal immigration.

Democrats hear the racism and continue to take the bait.

Do you really expect us to trust Trump on that one?

Which is why Democrats won't be using it--or even thinking it, most of them. LOL!


I sure hope so. Film of the Army Engineers bulldozing La Lomita Chapel, for instance, or crying elderly people being dragged from their long-time homes by Federal Marshals. The Right are incapable of mounting a real argument for The Wall. All they've got is lurid nativist fantasies.

 

[jayem]

It's 20 months before the election and anything can happen. But as of now, the election is the Democrats' to lose. According to an NPR/Marist poll last month, during the Trump shutdown, only 30% of respondents said they would definitely vote for DJT again. 57% said they will definitely vote against him. For perspective, in 2010, 36% said they would vote for Pres. Obama again, while 48% said they would not. (1000+ respondents, MoE = 3.8 points.)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down

I don't know anything about Beto's positions. If he's at all reasonable, and likable, he's got a decent chance to win. As does any Democrat. Events don't follow a predictable course, but it seem now like the only way Democrats will lose is if they nominate someone scarier than the Donald Trump horror show.

 

[mark46]

I'm talking about national politics and the presidential campaign.

As far as being a representative of El Paso, Beto is quite reasonable in wanting the wall taken down in El Paso.

Maybe he doesnt want an ugly wall to block the views.I've seen people brag about the beautiful views in some areas of the border . The beautiful borders get people interested in seeing the views. That means extra money for cities along the border. Not everyone is terrified of open borders.

 

[Speedwell]

Trust on what?

1) Trump has more money than can possibly be spent on border security and walls between now and the election.

I meant "Trump has rightly said to stop all this nonsense and just call all physical barriers "the wall"." That is nothing but a well-known trick called "bait-and-switch."

3) Yes, Trump is profoundly anti-immigrant. However, he has been able to transform this position to be against illegal immigration, against accepting large numbers of asylum seekers, against gangs, and against traffickers of drugs, women and children. This position includes much more than the wall, and is a winning position for Republicans. Trump will point to his working with Mexico and with China with regard to these issues.

A transformation known as "sophistry."

 

[mark46]

I agree that if the presidential vote were taken during the shutdown, as an up or down vote on trump, Trump would have lost.

Trump's approval ratings have already swung back. And after a year of fighting, the Democratic primaries will begin. After months of primaries, it is not clear at all the Democratic candidate will have the advantage.

It's 20 months before the election and anything can happen. But as of now, the election is the Democrats' to lose. According to an NPR/Marist poll last month, during the Trump shutdown, only 30% of respondents said they would definitely vote for DJT again. 57% said they will definitely vote against him. For perspective, in 2010, 36% said they would vote for Pres. Obama again, while 48% said they would not. (1000+ respondents, MoE = 3.8 points.)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down

I don't know anything about Beto's positions. If he's at all reasonable, and likable, he's got a decent chance to win. As does any Democrat. Events don't follow a predictable course, but it seem now like the only way Democrats will lose is if they nominate someone scarier than the Donald Trump horror show.

 

[Sparagmos]

Beto gave a fine speech in El Paso. However, his idea of tearing down the wall will likely disqualifying him from winning the nomination or the election, should he win the nomination.

"Tear down this wall" just won't work as a political slogan in 2020. The Democrats do and should stand for border security. A couple of hundred miles of wall over the entire border may or may not help the security effort. All agree that physical barriers can be PART of the solution. Democrats voted for barriers in 2006, during the Obama administration and in the recent law (55 miles as designated by Congress). Trump wants 234 miles, perhaps at different locations, perhaps of different construction. Trump has rightly said to stop all this nonsense and just call all physical barriers "the wall".

The Democratic argument is that we have enough physical barriers and only Congress should decide where the 55 miles should be built and of what construction. Their position is that it is immoral to build barriers anywhere else. Some would tear down what is already built. Trump believes that an additional 179 miles are needed, with design and location TBD. This is NOT a winning argument for Democrats.
===========
The BOTTOM LINE is that Trump will not be able to come close to spending all the money already available before the election. The 3.6B or construction money is just a means to keep the issue in the press. New barriers using last year's money is just starting to be completed. Congress allocated over $1B for 55 miles of new wall. Trump can use over $3B of drug interdiction and confiscated monies without he need of any congressional approval. Trump may not have his $5.7B, but it's close.

In September and October of 2020, Trump will have lots of wall to point to, and lots of "victories" to point to also. And there can be real arguments about next steps.

How does this disqualify Beto?

 

[jayem]

I agree that if the presidential vote were taken during the shutdown, as an up or down vote on trump, Trump would have lost.

Trump's approval ratings have already swung back. And after a year of fighting, the Democratic primaries will begin. After months of primaries, it is not clear at all the Democratic candidate will have the advantage.

You always have to remember that the only approval ratings that may matter are those in each state. Hillary only won 16 states, and DC. But she got 238 EVs. Do you really think Donald Trump can win any New England state? Or CA, WA, or OR? Or CO, or IL? I don't see any likelihood he can flip even one of Hillary's states. So if a Democrat can hold those blue states, s(he) only needs 32 more EVs to win. MI, WI, PA are traditionally blue states that Trump won in 2016, and are ripe for the picking. If a Democrat can win Florida (which Pres. Obama carried twice) that's 29 EVs right there. In the current political climate, Donald Trump has a major uphill climb to reach the 270 magic number.

 

[Hank77]

"Tear down this wall" just won't work as a political slogan in 2020. The Democrats do and should stand for border security. A couple of hundred miles of wall over the entire border may or may not help the security effort. All agree that physical barriers can be PART of the solution.

The Border Patrol has said that in certain places the barriers have been very helpful to them, so I would be against removing them.
It needs to be the people that actually patrol the border who decide where they need more barriers, not politicians in DC.
There are people right now who's homes are on the south side of a barrier fence. They enter their property through a gate that automatically opens when they enter a code, like at a gated community. The emergency services in their area also have the code.
But where a fence is going to cut through a backyard within a few feet of a house, I can see why property owners are objecting. Especially seeing that the Border Patrol wouldn't be able to see someone climbing over or digging under the barrier. What is the point? They actually have more cover to disappear easily.
My point is that barriers make sense in some places but not in others.
Law enforcement and the people who live there need to work together for logical, practical, fair, and financially feasible solutions. There is only so much money to go around and it should be spent on the solutions that produce the desired overcome for the least money.
Personally I see this as more Border Patrol agents and more technical instruments that can inspect more vehicles coming through the ports of entry.

 

[Speedwell]

The Border Patrol has said that in certain places the barriers have been very helpful to them, so I would be against removing them.
It needs to be the people that actually patrol the border who decide where they need more barriers, not politicians in DC.
There are people right now who's homes are on the south side of a barrier fence. They enter their property through a gate that automatically opens when they enter a code, like at a gated community. The emergency services in their area also have the code.
But where a fence is going to cut through a backyard within a few feet of a house, I can see why property owners are objecting. Especially seeing that the Border Patrol wouldn't be able to see someone climbing over or digging under the barrier. What is the point? They actually have more cover to disappear easily.

Presumably there will be a free-fire zone at the base (50 yards? I forget the specs) and arrangements for Border patrol to peek over it if they want. But for engineering reasons the wall must be in some places as much as two miles from the actual border, effectively ceding that land, with its homes and livelihoods, to Mexico. As to the automatic gates, don't count on it. My understanding that there will be no openings in this monolith except for official ports of entry.

 

[Halbhh]

Their position is that it is immoral to build barriers anywhere else.

I was surprised at this claim. How would you know that's the main democratic viewpoint -- that the mere location of wall building is what is moral or immoral!?

It came across to me that the 'immoral' was in reference to Trump's intentional policies against refugees, such as lowering the cap of the number to be admitted to the lowest ever.

 

[mark46]

Before and during the shutdown when Trump insisted on $5.7B for the border wall, several Democrats, including the speaker, indicated that a border wall was "immoral". See below for a sample.

'Immoral': Nancy Pelosi on Trump's border wall – video

I was surprised at this claim. How would you know that's the main democratic viewpoint -- that the mere location of wall building is what is moral or immoral!?

It came across to me that the 'immoral' was in reference to Trump's intentional policies against refugees, such as lowering the cap of the number to be admitted to the lowest ever.

 

[mark46]

There is no reason to believe that a buffer zone on Us territory should be considered to be "territory ceded to Mexico". The territory should have no one living on it. The US border patrol could decide what security should on this segment of US territory.

Presumably there will be a free-fire zone at the base (50 yards? I forget the specs) and arrangements for Border patrol to peek over it if they want. But for engineering reasons the wall must be in some places as much as two miles from the actual border, effectively ceding that land, with its homes and livelihoods, to Mexico. As to the automatic gates, don't count on it. My understanding that there will be no openings in this monolith except for official ports of entry.

 

[Hank77]

Presumably there will be a free-fire zone at the base (50 yards? I forget the specs) and arrangements for Border patrol to peek over it if they want. But for engineering reasons the wall must be in some places as much as two miles from the actual border, effectively ceding that land, with its homes and livelihoods, to Mexico. As to the automatic gates, don't count on it. My understanding that there will be no openings in this monolith except for official ports of entry.

He said himself it's no longer a concrete wall, it's a ballard fence. There are already these types of gates in the existing ballard fencing. We aren't giving up any land to Mexico. There have been people living on the southern side for a few years now. They are still living in the US.

 

[Pommer]

He said himself it's no longer a concrete wall, it's a ballard fence. There are already these types of gates in the existing ballard fencing. We aren't giving up any land to Mexico. There have been people living on the southern side for a few years now. They are still living in the US.

Bollard?

 

[Hank77]

There is no reason to believe that a buffer zone on Us territory should be considered to be "territory ceded to Mexico". The territory should have no one living on it. The US border patrol could decide what security should on this segment of US territory.

There are people living on the south side of the ballard fencing and have been for a few years. Some of them are running cattle on their land just as they were. I don't know where people are getting the idea that everyone is being forced to sell their land.

 

[Hank77]

Bollard?

Yes, thanks.