Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.
The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?
That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.
Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere
Mexico paying for it was his main campaign point. A medieval wall won't work.
No, it was not his main campaign point. His main campaign point was that a wall will be built. Nobody cares how it's paid for. Again, you've been brainwashed by the left because you can't support your argument that the wall is not needed.
Liar.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63055758/1129695645.jpg.0.jpg)
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.
Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?
Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.
Facts like what, that the FBI didn't tell the court their research was paid for by the DNC and Hillary? The fact that the FBI got a surveillance warrant to spy on a political foe? The fact that Comey told Lynch not to charge Hillary? Is NPR fact enough for you?
IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups
The FBI and IRS aren't the same.
I was providing you with examples of each.
Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Paranoid much?
Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?
Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.
Facts like what, that the FBI didn't tell the court their research was paid for by the DNC and Hillary? The fact that the FBI got a surveillance warrant to spy on a political foe? The fact that Comey told Lynch not to charge Hillary? Is NPR fact enough for you?
IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups
The FBI and IRS aren't the same.
I was providing you with examples of each.
No. You were trying to conflate everything.
How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.
Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?
Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.
Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?
Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?
Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.
Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.
Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.
So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?
How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?
Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.
Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?
Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?
Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.
Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.
Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.
So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?
That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws
We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.
I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.
That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.
Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Paranoid much?
Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.
* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?
One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.
How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.
Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?
Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?
Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.
Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.
Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.
So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?
That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws
We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.
I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.
That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.
10,000? Let me show you what a reasonable and educated response is:
Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
So you think an Executive Action can abrogate a Constitutional Right. Aren't you special
Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Paranoid much?
Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.
* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?
One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.
Wrong.
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
So you think an Executive Action can abrogate a Constitutional Right. Aren't you special
Ray is your typical rightwing idiot and liar.Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Paranoid much?
Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.
* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?
One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.
Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.
Ray is your typical rightwing idiot and liar.Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.
Her (and the Democrats) interest is making whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. That's their goal. The Democrat party is now the anti-white party, and they make no bones about it.
Paranoid much?
Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.
* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?
One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.
Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
"
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns
Wrong.
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
So you think an Executive Action can abrogate a Constitutional Right. Aren't you special
Again, Pelosi said nothing about ‘guns.’
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
So you think an Executive Action can abrogate a Constitutional Right. Aren't you special
So tell me if an executive order can abrogate Article 1 of the Constitution why any other part of the Constitution would be exempt?
Interesting and telling that not only do democrats refuse to protect our nation from illegals they actually consider our own citizens the enemy here. Pelosi makes this case perfectly here. A republican better not use a national emergency to defend our borders or else we will use it to attack your constitutional rights.
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
