CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall

[Marion Morrison]

So? Are you proposing to let all the drugs in?

yup, a wall will stop all the cargo ships carrying containers full of dope.

and nothing will stop the ignorance of Trumpdrones.

How many container ships go from Mexico to the USA?

Don't know. Tell us. How many?

None, dumbass. I love the way you snowflakes always double down on your stupidity.

So you're saying no containber ship ever traveled from Mexico to america.

Why would they? What does Mexico produce that's container-worthy?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Woo Hoo! Go Trump! Do it! Kick those snowflakes in the yarbles!

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall - Big League Politics

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land. The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation. This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable. But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public. Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government. It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue. The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans. Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.​

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

What does that have to do with Trump not using these multiple funding options that the people on this forum say are valid?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

sell california to china for wall money and a clean slate of debt.

Give it back to Mexico in exchange they build the wall and throw the tunnels in for free...

 

[Marion Morrison]

Woo Hoo! Go Trump! Do it! Kick those snowflakes in the yarbles!

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall - Big League Politics

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land. The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation. This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable. But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public. Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government. It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue. The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans. Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.​

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

What does that have to do with Trump not using these multiple funding options that the people on this forum say are valid?

So you think it's OK for taxpayers to already have funded a wall twice and Congress raided the funds and we still have no wall? I don't, sorry! Not sorry.

Angry, yes.

 

[BULLDOG]

But Mexico will pay for it, and they already are in seized drug cartel cash that Nancy Pelosi isn't going to get.
There will also be a new tax for remittances to Mexico which again means Mexico pays.

It's you that doesn't care about America as a Sovereign Nation. We have a right to defend our borders, PERIOD!

Cartels aren't Mexico. They are drug thugs that operate in Mexico as well as several other countries.
Tax on money sent out of the country will never work. Congress would have to pass laws for that, and off shore accounts would suffer.

And let's all remember who the customer base is, americans.

So? Are you proposing to let all the drugs in?

yup, a wall will stop all the cargo ships carrying containers full of dope.

and nothing will stop the ignorance of Trumpdrones.

How many container ships go from Mexico to the USA? Most of the drugs in this country come through the Mexican border.

Link?

 

[H B Lowrie]

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

What does that have to do with Trump not using these multiple funding options that the people on this forum say are valid?

So you think it's OK for taxpayers to already have funded a wall twice and Congress raided the funds and we still have no wall? I don't, sorry! Not sorry.

Angry, yes.

Free people do not yearn to be walled in by concentrated power and wealth since feudalism.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Cartels aren't Mexico. They are drug thugs that operate in Mexico as well as several other countries.
Tax on money sent out of the country will never work. Congress would have to pass laws for that, and off shore accounts would suffer.

And let's all remember who the customer base is, americans.

So? Are you proposing to let all the drugs in?

yup, a wall will stop all the cargo ships carrying containers full of dope.

and nothing will stop the ignorance of Trumpdrones.

How many container ships go from Mexico to the USA? Most of the drugs in this country come through the Mexican border.

Link?

Good luck ...

 

[Rigby5]

But Mexico will pay for it, and they already are in seized drug cartel cash that Nancy Pelosi isn't going to get.
There will also be a new tax for remittances to Mexico which again means Mexico pays.

It's you that doesn't care about America as a Sovereign Nation. We have a right to defend our borders, PERIOD!

Cartels aren't Mexico. They are drug thugs that operate in Mexico as well as several other countries.
Tax on money sent out of the country will never work. Congress would have to pass laws for that, and off shore accounts would suffer.

And let's all remember who the customer base is, americans.

So? Are you proposing to let all the drugs in?

yup, a wall will stop all the cargo ships carrying containers full of dope.

and nothing will stop the ignorance of Trumpdrones.

How many container ships go from Mexico to the USA? Most of the drugs in this country come through the Mexican border.

No, thousands of container ships travel constantly between Mexico and the US. It is not just that the US has moved most of its heavy production, like cars, to Mexico, but NAFTA has encouraged all Asian countries to middle their goods through Mexico as well.

 

[Rigby5]

And let's all remember who the customer base is, americans.

So? Are you proposing to let all the drugs in?

yup, a wall will stop all the cargo ships carrying containers full of dope.

and nothing will stop the ignorance of Trumpdrones.

How many container ships go from Mexico to the USA? Most of the drugs in this country come through the Mexican border.

all of them - they sail right across the Rio.

You believe your abject stupidity is funny?

Here's a clue for you, moron, there are no container ships going from Mexico to the US. Why would they bother when they can just drive it to the US?

Container ships cost about 1% what trucking does to operate.
There are no friction or hills on the ocean.
No blown tires, no accidents, icy roads, drunks, etc.
A crew of 5 can do what would need a thousand drivers.

 

[Rigby5]

Woo Hoo! Go Trump! Do it! Kick those snowflakes in the yarbles!

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall - Big League Politics

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land. The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation. This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable. But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public. Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government. It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue. The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans. Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.​

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

Social Security need more immigrants paying in, not fewer.
And what good would a wall do?
Since we are now dependent upon Mexican imports, the people will just follow the goods by what ever routes the goods take.

 

[boedicca]

Yes.

Any other questions?

Wouldn't 3 be better?


Some of us are old enough to recall growing up under a US regime that forced children into duck and cover drills as kids in schools as if that were going to protect us from nukes dropped on us by evil societies who built walls around their populations.


And now we are one of those.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

 

[boedicca]

Yes.

Any other questions?

Wouldn't 3 be better?


Some of us are old enough to recall growing up under a US regime that forced children into duck and cover drills as kids in schools as if that were going to protect us from nukes dropped on us by evil societies who built walls around their populations.


And now we are one of those.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

That should be applied to the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class that has always and forever lobbied and think tank draft legislated for "illegals" to be here.

Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzz.

How original of you to suggest that we tax the rich. SRSLY.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Woo Hoo! Go Trump! Do it! Kick those snowflakes in the yarbles!

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall - Big League Politics

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land. The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation. This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable. But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public. Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government. It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue. The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans. Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.​

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

Social Security need more immigrants paying in, not fewer.
And what good would a wall do?
Since we are now dependent upon Mexican imports, the people will just follow the goods by what ever routes the goods take.

The Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class' goal in not to investi n society, but to continue the societal wealth extraction process. They would like to eradicate social security, medicare and the entire commons.

 

[bendog]

Wouldn't 3 be better?


Some of us are old enough to recall growing up under a US regime that forced children into duck and cover drills as kids in schools as if that were going to protect us from nukes dropped on us by evil societies who built walls around their populations.


And now we are one of those.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Wouldn't 3 be better?


Some of us are old enough to recall growing up under a US regime that forced children into duck and cover drills as kids in schools as if that were going to protect us from nukes dropped on us by evil societies who built walls around their populations.


And now we are one of those.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Trump made it his signature issue and nobody made him.
And factually you are incorrect
Did Democrats Once Support Border Wall? - FactCheck.org

 

[H B Lowrie]

Wouldn't 3 be better?


Some of us are old enough to recall growing up under a US regime that forced children into duck and cover drills as kids in schools as if that were going to protect us from nukes dropped on us by evil societies who built walls around their populations.


And now we are one of those.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Right, everyday people now beg now to be walled in by concentrated wealth and power. Fweedumb.

 

[Siete]

if walls work so well just think, 20 million illegals cant escape the country.

TRUMP HAS THEM NOW BY GOLLY !

 

[boedicca]

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Trump made it his signature issue and nobody made him.

No - it was already an issue. He committed to doing something about it.

But thanks for playing!

 

[boedicca]

Absolute nonsense. Comparing duck and cover drills to protecting the border is a non sequitur.

I do recall duck and cover drills as a child in CA...but that was for earthquake preparedness.

I actually remember them, and I remember my mother was terrified, but she was of the WWII generation and knew men killed, and her own brother never recovered from PTSD.

But the shame of this nonsense is Trump's pathetic comparison to actual emergencies and the courage of Americans, not that illegal immigration isn't a problem, but this disagreement is now about Trump trying to save what passes for his presidency from the criticism of Coulter and Rushbo, and the dems sensing an opportunity to draw blood. And neither side is actually pursuing border security.

I like Ted Cruz's proposed legislation that would use assets seized from drug lords (i.e. El Chapo) to pay for the wall.

Civil forfeiture is a slippery slope that seems a gold mine for law enforcement. But money seized for el chapo or cartels ... I don't much care. But the wall is just a political issue. We need more courts, more deporations, and places to humanely house families that come here until they can be kicked out ... legally. And some added barriers seem to be supported by non-political immigration folks.

The wall most certainly is NOT just a political issue. The Dems supported it in 2006 and 2012 for over $25B of funding that they now refuse to appropriate. One can find Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary etc. making statements in the past regarding stopping illegal immigration and securing our borders. They have turned our national security into a stupid Tump-bashing circus.

In RealityLand, people like the families of Cpl. Singh and Kate Steinle understand who really pays when the border is unprotected: regular everyday people who are not protected in walled off estates with bodyguards.

Right, everyday people now beg now to be walled in by concentrated wealth and power. Fweedumb.

Condolences on your lack of cognitive function.

 

[Brain357]

One has to wonder what would have happened to your half brain, had Obama proposed to sell federal lands to fund the ACA........lol

Besides, nitwit......federal lands are NOT Trump's to sell to fulfill his moronic campaign "promise".........Hell, should Trump sell the White House to Russian oligarchs to raise the money for his wall?????.................LMAO

You're descending into pure idiocy.

Yes you are. You want to sell land for even more spending.

$5 billion is pocket change. You know Dims are full of shit when they claim that amount will break the budget.

You know repubs are full of shit when they claim to be fiscally responsible...

Try to think up something original.

Repubs are 1000 times more fiscally responsible. The Dims are always lobbying for more spending than what the Repubs want to spend.

They sure have you duped. Can’t really take you seriously. Deficits increased with repubs in full control. Shut down is for more spending. You want to sell land for more spending...

 

[Marion Morrison]

Woo Hoo! Go Trump! Do it! Kick those snowflakes in the yarbles!

CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall - Big League Politics

To build a wall along the United States’ international border with Mexico, President Donald Trump could order the sale of approximately 500,000 to 5 million acres of federal land. The U.S. Government currently claims ownership of about 640 million acres of land — or about 28% of the total land mass of the nation. This could raise the entire $25 billion needed to finance building the wall (not just the next installment we are currently fighting over).

But one must understand that out of 640 million acres there is a vast diversity of terrain. The task is to select only between around 0.08% to 0.78% of that total land. Most federally-owned land is not suitable. But some land would be appropriate for sale to the State government, the County, or the general public. Some Western public land is nothing but empty grassland, just ordinary grazing land. Some public land is indistinguishable from the type of land currently owned and used by private citizens. In some cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the federal government to be holding the land at all.

Decisions about which public lands within a state to consider as candidates must be nominated by each State government. It cannot be the President deciding, because left-wing interests groups will demagogue the issue. The State must identify which lands are not environmentally sensitive, culturally historic, important for scenic or recreational purposes, or reasonably claimed by Native Americans. Throwing those decisions to the States allows all the stake-holders to debate the choices, minimizing left-wing hysteria.​

First, the above moron "forgets" that we have courts to prevent dictators to run our government......and

Second, review the source of the above moron's citation.................lol

Big League Politics

RIGHT BIAS

First you would have to prove that doing so is illegal. The whole point of the article is that it is legal.

Your chart is meaningless horseshit, of course.

The question still remains, if it is legal why is he not doing it? Why the shutdown if it is not necessary? Why make people work without a paycheck if he has so many other options?

Excuse me, Mister Motherfucker, but this issue has been glossed over by every fucking Congress since Reagan was President. IMO, the funding for it should come from all those current and previous politician's pockets. Reagan agreed to amnesty for 3 million in exchange for a wall and got nothing.
No more amnesty, no more bullshit! Build a wall!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwFGuvKUcAAGxom.jpg

Social Security need more immigrants paying in, not fewer.
And what good would a wall do?
Since we are now dependent upon Mexican imports, the people will just follow the goods by what ever routes the goods take.

Illegal Mexicans steal Social Security numbers. In all reality, the US could cut off all imports from Mexico and be OK.

Fuck Chevy, too.