Construction of the Mexico-US Boarder Wall. What is the Building Schedule?

[Justified112]

actually, as I pointed out, he said it more then once, he said it in 2012 and he said it again in 2018.
tulc(is glad to clear that up)

80% of the US population live in the urban areas, while only 19.3% live in the rural areas From what I can see empty land mass is the deciding factor in electing the President of the US these days.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

There are 145 counties in the US and without an Electoral college, those counties would decide the election. That is not how we do it. We don't give some people a voice and other get no voice simply because they live in low population areas .

 

[Justified112]

actually, as I pointed out, he said it more then once, he said it in 2012 and he said it again in 2018.
tulc(is glad to clear that up)

No, that is not what he said 2018. The video simply has Trump saying that he would have preferred winning popular vote. But he did not say that the EC was a mess in the 2018 interview. He did not criticize the EC. Your statement misrepresents what he actually said.

 

[twin1954]

Relax. It's mostly here now. Social Security; welfare, (both personal and corporate), Medicaid, etc. The question is how much we need/can tolerate.

Not really. Socialism takes over business and doles out what it wants to. That hasn’t happened yet. Oh I am relaxed when the fighting comes to my neighborhood I am prepared. And it will come because their are still many Americans who will not allow socialism. Many of them are Armed Service members who took an oath to defend the Constitution and all enemies foreign and domestic.

Not a good generalization. On both the left and the right, there are/have been politicians who cared mostly for America and Americans. We just don't have many of them in office right now. But a reckoning is coming. Not a civil war, the institutionalized rebellion of voting. Why do you think politicians are trying to Gerrymander and trying to keep legal voters from voting?

Even Senator Rand Paul, one I happen to agree with often, has an agenda. He wants to be President one day. The fact is, and I know this by the word of a good friend who became a State Senator, that there can be no such thing as an honest politician, if you are honest when you start the rest of the bunch fear you. They will first try to corrupt you and if they can’t then they will pull every dirty trick in the book to get you out. I have seen it happen in two different states. Once they get power they do not give it up.

And yes, democrats have Gerrymandered as well. And it wouldn't surprise me if they cited 75% of the illegal voting in the 2016 election, to restrict absentee voting. (which is favored by more conservative people)

Of course they do. That is what politicians do to keep themselves in power.

If the 2018 elections are any indicator, they will. You'll see more ethical conservatives, as well as liberals this time.

I honestly doubt it. Politicians, especially in the House and Senate, will lie to your face to get your vote. They do not care about you they care about power. They don’t want money, except in order to get them re-elected, because they control the money. There are no poor politicians.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, Trump has accomplished a stunning number of things in just the first couple of years. In fact, he has done more in terms of keeping campaign promises than any prior president. He even did things that we told could not be done. Here is a list of his accomplishments >>> Complete List of President Trump’s Historic Accomplishments

Trump has fixed problems in less than two years that the political establishment couldn't fix in 30 years, because they really don't care about the prosperity of the country.



When the Democrats get back in office we will get open borders, high unemployment, higher taxes, socialism, poverty, less freedom, no national sovereignty, a shredded Constitution, activist judges in the SCOTUS who will make law from the bench...


LOL, that is not true at all. The people don't control anything. The federal government is not beholden to us at all. They see us as their subjects. They are the ruling elite in their eyes.


He will get re-elected and after he is out of office, if a Dem gets in, the US will go the way of Venezuela.

Things are no where near that dire. The Democrats are likely to win the White House and Senate, then there will be two years ofhard left policies. Medicare will explode, Obamacare was never more the a tax and it will be expanded. I'm still waiting dor Social Security, Medicaise and healthcare under one unbrella. Venezuela nationalized their oil fields bach in the seventies, national socialusm never works and Venezuela is definitive proof of that.

 

[Justified112]

Things are no where near that dire. The Democrats are likely to win the White House and Senate, then there will be two years ofhard left policies. Medicare will explode, Obamacare was never more the a tax and it will be expanded. I'm still waiting dor Social Security, Medicaise and healthcare under one unbrella. Venezuela nationalized their oil fields bach in the seventies, national socialusm never works and Venezuela is definitive proof of that.

As long as Dems shield anti-Semites, promote the crazy green new deal, promote socialism, continue trying to kill private health insurance and demand gun confiscation, higher taxes, destroy jobs and continue with these silly investigations because Mueller disappointed them, they are headed for huge losses in the next election and they will not win the presidency. The Democrat party of today is a disaster.

 

[Albion]

So it would seem, Justified 112; but keep in mind that they are working tirelessly to change most of the election laws across the country in order to insure that the Republican Party never again has much of a chance of winning control of any of the three branches of government.

In other words, if that approach succeeds (and just notice, for one example, how gullible many ordinary people are when the idea of eliminating the Electoral College is put to them), it really will not matter much what the platform of the party happens to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not really. Socialism takes over business and doles out what it wants to.

You don't think Sweden is socialist? I think we've found the problem...

Oh I am relaxed when the fighting comes to my neighborhood I am prepared.

So are all those police and national guard people who swore to defend the Constitution. An attempt to overthrow a Constitutional government would be crushed pretty quickly, I think.

And it will come because their are still many Americans who will not allow socialism.

As I pointed out, they already have. It's just a level of socialism you're comfortable with.

Many of them are Armed Service members who took an oath to defend the Constitution and all enemies foreign and domestic.

I, for example, did. We had our own Trump in those days, and there were fools who expected us to help overthrow the United States to save Nixon. Guess how that turned out.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is mob rule.

That's what every wannabee dictator says. Politicians should fear the people, and they do. That is why they rig various ways to keep the people from controlling the government.

The problem is that over half of the US lives in just 145 counties in the US in cities like New York and down the eastern seaboard, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc.

And the vote of each of them should count just as much as the vote of every other American voter. That's what the founders intended.

It would mean that the urban centers would control who becomes president

You mean, the government would be subject to the will of the governed? Isn't that a communistic idea? (Barbarian checks) No, actually it's what the founders intended.

and the rest of the country would have no say at all

Which is what the Senate is for; each state gets two of them, so states with very few people have a much greater representation per person than states with large populations. That's how the founders intended it to be. As Washington said, it was to cool the heat of the moment, and to put a brake on unrestricted democracy. It seems to have been intended to copy the Roman Republic, with its Tribunes, Senate, and Princeps.

so everyone's vote wouldn't actually count.

Actually, everyone's vote would count the same. Except in Senate elections, of course.

Benjamin Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

What you're suggesting is a coyote telling ten chickens what will be for lunch.

The Electoral College prevents those with larger populations from having more say than the smaller states in the Midwest.

That's what the founders intended, when they set up the electoral college.

It means that presidential candidates would only campaign in urban centers and those urban centers and candidates would be beholden those cities in terms of the policies they run their campaigns on.

No. It would mean that they would campaign everywhere they thought they might get some votes. Now, they merely campaign in swing states and ignore the others.

(Barbarian notes that it's the Constitution that grants rights to aliens in the United States)

but not the rights and privileges that only belong to citizens.

It doesn't grant rights and privileges that don't belong to you, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

So it would seem, Justified 112; but keep in mind that they are working tirelessly to change most of the election laws across the country in order to insure that the Republican Party never again has much of a chance of winning control of any of the three branches of government.

The republican party has boxed itself in. They count most of their support in terms of older people, the uneducated, and the white nationalists.

All declining demographics. That's not the fault of our representative democracy; it's their fault. And I suspect, as things go on, they will either go the way of the whigs, or change. I'm betting on change.

it really will not matter much what the platform of the party happens to be.

For the republicans, I think it's going to matter a lot, even if there is not electoral reform. You can only Gerrymander and suppress voting so far.

 

[The Barbarian]

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

The Bible does not say the Edomites could practice their own pagan religion in the verses you quoted.

Rather it says what I told you it says. Israelites were required by God to not oppress or exploit strangers in their land, specifically mentioning Edomites and Egyptians.

It says nothing about their religion, one way or another. That is something you are adding to the text.

 

[tulc]

No, that is not what he said 2018. The video simply has Trump saying that he would have preferred winning popular vote. But he did not say that the EC was a mess in the 2018 interview. He did not criticize the EC. Your statement misrepresents what he actually said.

Didn't listen to the whole interview huh? I don't blame you, it is pretty painful listening to him.
tulc(particularly enjoyed President Trumps prediction about how well Republicans were going to do in the mid-terms)

 

[Justified112]

Didn't listen to the whole interview huh? I don't blame you, it is pretty painful listening to him.
tulc(particularly enjoyed President Trumps prediction about how well Republicans were going to do in the mid-terms)

I listened to it all. The Republicans didn't do bad at all. They kept the Senate and the House didn't win as much as was expected.

Again, you over-sold what was on the video and it really didn't live up to your claims.

 

[Justified112]

You don't think Sweden is socialist? I think we've found the problem...



.

Sweden isn't socialist. Sweden's government doesn't own the means of production.

They do pay higher taxes in Sweden than in the US, but they are also a major free market country. They have a larger welfare program, but it is paid for by the free market. At one point their taxes paid their pension (social security), 18-month parental leave, government paid child care for working families, but they found that when the government ran all of these monopolies, they didn’t get the innovation that comes with competition. Particularly true with education. So, they switched to a school voucher system that lets parents pick the schools and forces schools to compete. Not only did the private schools improve, but the public schools started to improve, as well.

Sweden’s Social Security was going broke so they privatized Social Security (pensions) and it is based on contributions and when things are going well for Sweden, pensions are increasing and if things are not going well, pensions are lowered. It takes away from politicians the ability to buy votes by promising higher pensions.

As for taxes, low income earners in Sweden pay much higher taxes than low income earners in the US. So while it may appear that Sweden taxes the rich with exorbitantly tax rates, it isn’t the case. Those who pay below average income pay 60% in taxes. Sweden does not take from the rich to give to the poor. They squeeze taxes out of the poor.

 

[Justified112]

That's what every wannabee dictator says. Politicians should fear the people, and they do. That is why they rig various ways to keep the people from controlling the government.

Dictators would prefer a popular vote, actually. The Electoral college prevents our leaders from being dictators.

And the vote of each of them should count just as much as the vote of every other American voter. That's what the founders intended.

And that's why the founders put the Electoral College in the US Constitution.

You mean, the government would be subject to the will of the governed?

No, I mean that only some communities' votes would matter in a popular vote. 145 counties in the US would be able to subject their will on the rest of the nation in every single election. And candidates would pander only to those counties. No one else in the country would have a say. That is not what the founders wanted.

Which is what the Senate is for; each state gets two of them, so states with very few people have a much greater representation per person than states with large populations. That's how the founders intended it to be. As Washington said, it was to cool the heat of the moment, and to put a brake on unrestricted democracy. It seems to have been intended to copy the Roman Republic, with its Tribunes, Senate, and Princeps.

But that doesn't apply to the general election for president. The Electoral College prevents smaller states from being shut out of election process by states with larger populations. It prevents majority rule of the nation.

Actually, everyone's vote would count the same. Except in Senate elections, of course.

No, it would not. Only some population centers would have a say. Many states would be subject to the will of a few cities or counties.

What you're suggesting is a coyote telling ten chickens what will be for lunch.

No, what I am suggesting is that the lamb should have the ability to offset the will of the wolves.

That's what the founders intended, when they set up the electoral college.

Yes, that is what I have been saying.

No. It would mean that they would campaign everywhere they thought they might get some votes.

Right. Only in the urban centers that determine who gets elected.

(Barbarian notes that it's the Constitution that grants rights to aliens in the United States)



It doesn't grant rights and privileges that don't belong to you, either.

Voting is a right not granted to non-citizens. But Democrats are attempting to create an unbeatable majority by giving illegals the right to vote (in violation of our laws). It's what you do when you dont' have any good ideas for America. They are not interested in anything but ruling the country and bringing their socialist/communistic agenda.

 

[Justified112]

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)



Rather it says what I told you it says. Israelites were required by God to not oppress or exploit strangers in their land, specifically mentioning Edomites and Egyptians.

It says nothing about their religion, one way or another. That is something you are adding to the text.

I am not adding anything to the text. There is no provision in Scripture for pagans to come into Israel and set up altars to Baal and live among the Israelites with their pagan religions.

 

[Justified112]

So it would seem, Justified 112; but keep in mind that they are working tirelessly to change most of the election laws across the country in order to insure that the Republican Party never again has much of a chance of winning control of any of the three branches of government.

In other words, if that approach succeeds (and just notice, for one example, how gullible many ordinary people are when the idea of eliminating the Electoral College is put to them), it really will not matter much what the platform of the party happens to be.

Totally agree. It is all about changing the rules to give them a permanent advantage. It is about totalitarian rule. That's what comes from socialism. Socialism will make us like North Korea or Venezuela. Even the Nazis were Democratic Socialists.

The Democrats in DC are not interested in governing; they are interested in rule and control. They know that many of the population centers are far more heavily weighted in their favor and would easily outnumber the Midwestern US where people vote more conservatively, but have far, far fewer numbers. They get it. And this push to repeal the Electoral College is an attempt to exploit that advantage because, apparently, that's easier than actually having a decent, well thought out political platform to run on.

They can't run on ideas, because their ideas and policies are all about taking things away from people. To date, the Dems support taking away cars, airplanes, guns, plastic straws, private health insurance, the Electoral College, jobs, and books like Huckleberry Finn. They want to permanently stack the Supreme Court (while simultaneously creating an unbeatable majority) with liberal activist judges that will legislate from the bench (in violation of the Constitution). We would be a nation ruled by judges and not governed by the Constitution. Our Constitution would be biggest casualty of a Democratic Socialist rule of America.

And we are just ONE election away from that being a reality.

 

[twin1954]

You don't think Sweden is socialist? I think we've found the problem...

Sweden is a Democratic Socialist country. They began as socialists back in the 70’s but found out that it didn’t work. They freed up the manufacturing and business to independent owners and the economy flourished. Now they impose a high tax rate which the government then uses to control all the social welfare. It is no longer a strictly socialist country because of it.

So are all those police and national guard people who swore to defend the Constitution. An attempt to overthrow a Constitutional government would be crushed pretty quickly, I think.

But socialism is not a Constitutional government. In order for socialism to be the government the Constitution has to be abandoned and destroyed. That is not going to happen without much bloodshed.

As I pointed out, they already have. It's just a level of socialism you're comfortable with.

It is true that socialism has been the end in view since the 1930’s. Gradually, like a frog being boiled to death, it is growing ever more quickly. That is why we need to put a stop to it now. If we keep letting it grow before we can blink we will be under the bondage of socialist government.

I know a lot of the young airheads are for it now because it sounds good to an idealist. But once they get what they want they will wish they had never been for it.

I, for example, did. We had our own Trump in those days, and there were fools who expected us to help overthrow the United States to save Nixon. Guess how that turned out.

I was around then. I was actually married and close to having our first child by then. Nixon wasn’t as bad as he was made out to be. His mistake was trying to cover up what his subordinates did after he found out. He did what a conscientious man would do and resigned. While I am no great fan of Nixon he did end the Vietnam war and open up China to trade, which has not really turned out so well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You don't think Sweden is socialist? I think we've found the problem...

Sweden is a Democratic Socialist country.

Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist.

[quote[They began as socialists back in the 70’s but found out that it didn’t work. They freed up the manufacturing and business to independent owners and the economy flourished. Now they impose a high tax rate which the government then uses to control all the social welfare. It is no longer a strictly socialist country because of it.[/quote]

So that's why the cost of living in the United States is 5% higher than in Sweden?
Cost of Living Comparison United States vs Sweden.

But socialism is not a Constitutional government. In order for socialism to be the government the Constitution has to be abandoned and destroyed.

Don't see how. All the constitutional rights we have, exist in Sweden. Can you be specific about which rights in our Constitution aren't in Sweden's?

That is not going to happen without much bloodshed.

We're halfway there in terms of socialistic institutions. And no bloodshed.

It is true that socialism has been the end in view since the 1930’s. Gradually, like a frog being boiled to death, it is growing ever more quickly. That is why we need to put a stop to it now. If we keep letting it grow before we can blink we will be under the bondage of socialist government.

What "bondage" do you think a Swedish citizen is under that we don't have?

I was around then. I was actually married and close to having our first child by then. Nixon wasn’t as bad as he was made out to be.

You really got that one wrong. He was a very competent man, and did some good things for the United States. But he was a mean, untrustworthy criminal. And he was malignant enough to want to destroy anyone who got in his way. That included Americans not like him:

(President Nixon): All of the Jewish families are close, but there's this strange malignancy now that seems to creep among them. I don't know, the radicalism. I can imagine how the fact that Ellsberg is in this must really tear a fellow like Henry to pieces, or Garment, you know. Just like the Rosenbergs and all that. That just has to kill him. And you feel horrible about it.

(Ronald Ziegler): Couldn't be a guy by name of Snyder.

(President Nixon): There ain't none.

(H.R. Haldeman): It would've been a Rosenstein that changed his name.

(Ronald Ziegler): It is. Right. It's always an Ellsberg or (unclear).

(President Nixon): They're all Jews. Every one's a Jew. Gelb's a Jew. Halperin's a Jew. But there are bad- Hiss was not a Jew. So that proves something. Very interesting thing. So few of those who engage in espionage are Negroes. Very lucky that way. And good. As a matter of fact, very few of them become Communists. If they do, they either, like, they get into Angela Davis, they're more of an activist type, and they throw bombs and this and that. But the Negroes, have you ever noticed? There are damn few Negro spies.

(H.R. Haldeman): They're not intellectual enough. Not smart enough.
Nixon: "The Jews are Born Spies" | Miller Center

Trump, by comparison, is mostly a self-absorbed numbskull whose offenses are mostly because he can't see beyond his own self-interest. Nixon was as close to evil as a human can get.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
John Ehrlichman
Nixon's Drug War, An Excuse To Lock Up Blacks And Protesters, Continues

 

[mark kennedy]

As long as Dems shield anti-Semites, promote the crazy green new deal, promote socialism, continue trying to kill private health insurance and demand gun confiscation, higher taxes, destroy jobs and continue with these silly investigations because Mueller disappointed them, they are headed for huge losses in the next election and they will not win the presidency. The Democrat party of today is a disaster.

I don't know, they are going to show Republicans how it's done when you are in control of the House, Senate and White House. There are no guarantees but the trend now is for it to shift from one party to the other. I agree that they will swing hard left, I know my party, they will swing hard left even if they have no chance of success and they are pretty much going to coast into 2020. Still don't know what's in the Mueller report but I doubt seriously he colluded with Russia, if he did I would advise Russia to check to make sure they still have their wallet and their watch. Trump doesn't even collude with his staff, does anyone seriously think he could collude with Russia in a highly technical hacking operation? Trump had better be watching out of the SDNY, they are loaded for bear and probably going to wait and see if he gets voted out before preferring charges, whatever they might be.

 

[twin1954]

That's what every wannabee dictator says. Politicians should fear the people, and they do. That is why they rig various ways to keep the people from controlling the government.

Majority rule is where five people want your bicycle and so having a majority they take your bicycle. BTW, we were never a democracy or a representative democracy. We are a representative republic.

And the vote of each of them should count just as much as the vote of every other American voter. That's what the founders intended.

Not at all. The founders set up a system by the Constitution that gives the states all the power over the federal government. That is what the War Between the States was all about. Men fought for their state on both sides. That is when Lincoln, pht pht had to get that bad taste out of my mouth using that name, forged a strong federal government which has only gotten stronger.

You mean, the government would be subject to the will of the governed? Isn't that a communistic idea? (Barbarian checks) No, actually it's what the founders intended.

It is what the founders intended but not in the way you think. The federal government was to be subject to the states. The will of the people of each state came through state elections. That is why the Senate has an equal amount from each state, which is patterned after the House of Lords in Britain, and the House of Representatives goes by population which is patterned after The House of Commons.

Someone, actually very many, needs a lesson in civics.

Which is what the Senate is for; each state gets two of them, so states with very few people have a much greater representation per person than states with large populations. That's how the founders intended it to be. As Washington said, it was to cool the heat of the moment, and to put a brake on unrestricted democracy. It seems to have been intended to copy the Roman Republic, with its Tribunes, Senate, and Princeps.

See what I wrote above.

Actually, everyone's vote would count the same. Except in Senate elections, of course.

Actually as it is set up only each state’s vote counts. Each state’s vote in the general election is decided by the majority of voters in each state. That is the wisest way to do it.

What you're suggesting is a coyote telling ten chickens what will be for lunch.

Not at all. The electoral college ensures that the lamb is not overruled in his vote.

That's what the founders intended, when they set up the electoral college.

Exactly!

No. It would mean that they would campaign everywhere they thought they might get some votes. Now, they merely campaign in swing states and ignore the others.

(Barbarian notes that it's the Constitution that grants rights to aliens in the United States)

True But his point was that since the population centers would have control of elections there would be no need to campaign elsewhere.

It doesn't grant rights and privileges that don't belong to you, either.

There was an old saying that I was taught as a kid, “Your rights end where your neighbor’s nose begins.”