Edifice Mex | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

Edifice Mex

Uploaded: Jan 9, 2019
Kenny Rogers was right: a good gambler knows when to hold ‘em … as well as when to fold ‘em. Take a lesson Mr. Trump.

After showing a weak hand in the early rounds of this new pokerfest – and very nearly making the smart fold-em move, the Prez went and held-em. He precipitated a costly, absurdist shutdown of the federal government, with no prospect of taking the pot. You can’t bluff or bluster your way to a win when the whole table knows you got nothin’.

He might try calling senior national security advisors Coulter and Limbaugh – they got him into this fine mess, any thoughts on how to get him out? Maybe promise to build the wall out of coal? Or as an aside, was the primary purpose to briefly distract the nation from DiJiTs’ increasingly dire legal everglades? There are, after all, no fewer than 17 ravenous investi-gators in that swamp, not counting the House Dems’ predations to-come.

But what of that “national emergency” card he claims to hold – the “absolute right” to declare one, and then build the wall with the military? Turns out that it’s a much better threat than an actual move, for several reasons.

o – First, what emergency? There does need to be one, after all. But it’s been two years since he took office, and three if you count the escalator speech that was functionally identical to last evening’s soliloquy. He had unified control of Congress during that whole period, but chose to place his political chips elsewhere, albeit to mediocre legislative results. Indeed, he hasn’t even expended all the funds he currently has for border security, including failure to hire some 2,000 authorized Border Patrol positions.

Further, the only people claiming ‘crisis’ are the Administration minions – no one else, including his own Border Patrol agents, who prioritize hiring first and have little use for ‘the wall.’ All nine borderlands Congressfolk, of both Parties, oppose Trump's wall. The numbers used in defense of a falling sky have been thoroughly debunked – on Fox News, no less! Elsewhere, the stats reflect business-as-usual on the southern frontier, with outcomes well below historic highs.

Crying ‘Wolf!’ - it just never ends well.

o - But what of the ‘humanitarian crisis’ at the border? Let’s consider the cruel irony that bursts out of this claim, as made by the very sociopathic authors of immigrant mal-treatment. Most of the human suffering that continues down south arises out of the Trumpian decision to hold asylum-seekers in-custody pending their hearings – months away. This despite the fact that the former, derisively-labeled catch-and-release program had a very high return compliance rate.

Also, consider where those $5B (Billion!) that the Pentagon must find in its couch cushions would go: will it build increased, uncaged sheltering capacity? Provide baseline medical treatment or psychological interventions for traumatized children? No, to address this humanitarian crisis it is proposed … to build a wall. Brilliant – just like all those former East Germans took refuge within the welcoming confines of the Berlin edition.

o – Second, an “absolute right” to bypass Congress? Such a thing is generally hard to come by in our system of check-and-balances, and it does not exist here. From the founding, there has been a deep suspicion of, and reluctance to allow domestic deployment of military personnel, for obvious reasons.

The Constitution is dubious, as was made clear in the 1953 "Youngstown Sheet and Tube" case. There, the Supreme Court invalidated President Truman’s emergency takeover of the steel industry (during the Korean War – at least he had a reasonable ‘crisis’ argument).

Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in that case carries the most enduring weight, and its language is interesting and instructive. He writes about the difficulty of these cases:

“That comprehensive and undefined presidential powers hold both practical advantages and grave dangers for the country will impress anyone who has served as legal adviser to a President in time of transition and public anxiety. … The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results - and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.'

"Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.”

Jackson went on to distinguish three situations:

1 – a broad Presidential discretion to declare emergencies exists where Congress has expressly delegated its power to the Executive Branch (natural disaster declarations are supported this way by statute);

2 – a middle ground where Congress has not acted, pro-or-con to delegate its power; and

3 – dramatically narrowed Presidential discretion where Congress expressly opposes it, or provides other means to deal with a serious policy matter. (the seizure in the 'Youngstown' case fit here and was invalidated, as Congress had provided other ways to deal with labor unrest, notably the cooling-off period mandated by the Taft-Hartley Act, for those keeping score at home).

This situation probably fits best under number 2: significant Presidential power, but far from “absolute” - as Mr. Nixon learned twenty years later.

It should also be noted that the Supreme Court is at its least partisan on issues of structural power – they take this stuff very seriously, as Jackson suggests above. A Conservative majority is often useful to a right-side President – but not always. It is far from a slam-dunk affirmance here, especially with Chief Justice Roberts soberly casting the possibly deciding vote (remember the ACA case?).

It’s quite likely that the Court majority would decline to permit the unilateral emergency declaration here, especially where it is being used so transparently as a "transient" bargaining ploy … versus the co-equal Congress. The Supremes generally look askance at sullying the Constitution by involving it in such low-brow political leverage-seeking – so there’s great risk for the Prez here.

o – Which is why Trump has repeatedly threatened this tactic – but Not played the card. The Dems hope he will - they've been inviting him to do so by opining that he can. Because once he does, he has to reopen the government – there’s no more issue about that. If the declaration is later invalidated by the courts – perhaps even quickly by a trial court with injunctive tools - he’s done. No wall. No other available hostages to take.

He really ought to cut his losses and fold. Sooner would be better. Both Kenny and Fred Rogers would approve of that smart, neighborly outcome.
What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 9, 2019 at 8:35 pm

Cushing said:

“Brilliant " just like all those former East Germans took refuge within the welcoming confines of the Berlin edition."

Occasional Cortez said:

“Asking to be considered a refugee and applying for status isn't a crime. It wasn't for Jewish families fleeing Germany,"

You two are so cute together.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 9, 2019 at 8:49 pm

On a more serious note...

Tuberculosis, flu, infections rampant as the number of sick migrants surge at border - Washington Times

And...

Homeland Security officials say families released rarely show up for deportations. About one-third of them cut off ankle bracelets almost immediately after they're released, authorities say - Washington Times

So, Mr. Cushing, what is your solution?


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 9, 2019 at 10:48 pm

You liberals have been counting him out for 3 years, and have been wrong for...let's see...3 years.

This isn't about a wall, because everybody with the slightest bit of understanding, knows it will work. That is the problem for the Democrats: it will work, and slow the number of new voters for the Democratic Party, and their dream of a new Socialist America. After all, more Democrats in Congress are coming out in support for Socialism. AOC is your new spokeswoman.

The enforcement agencies that work the border all agree that a border wall is needed; drones and all the other tech toys are great, but the wall works best. This is why 70 countries have or are working on walls. I go by Pelosi's house a lot in San Francisco and she has a wall. We taxpayers have paid for other country's walls. We have Americans dying in other countries every year protecting their walls. And we can't have one? $5.7 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of budgets ear-marked for expenditures here and around the world. Heck, we are paying $5+ billion a month for Iraq.

You see, the Democrats no longer support, protect, or care about middle Americans. The Democratic Party isn't the party of JFK or even Bill Clinton. This is the new party of corporate sponsors, billionaire elites, and Silicon Vally types.

You can hate President Trump all you like, ridicule and demean him with your labels (which lack definition) all you want. I am not here to defend him. But one thing I do know: he will win and he will build that wall. You Democrats may have tried to pull off the most treacherous coup in American history by attempting to steal an election, but you failed. You people fail because you have lost your values, your eithics, your love for this country. You better be careful what you wish for, because we are sliding down the path toward Europe. I don't want to be Europe.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 12:50 am

Great point, Jake. The Democrat of old was not really that much different from a Republican in a lot of ways. But now? Look no farther than OAC and Tlaib and their socialist agenda. It will be interesting to see how mainstream Democrats handle their liberal colleagues. And speaking of liberals...

History has a fascinating way of bringing the past into the present. Check out what Malcolm X - a radical in his day - had to say about liberals:

“The white Liberal differs from the white Conservative only in one way; the Liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical, than the Conservative. Both want power, but the White Liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the White Liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or a weapon in this political football game, that is constantly raging, between the White Liberals and the White Conservatives. The American Negro is nothing, but a political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives."

Malcolm X spoke the truth.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a DanvilleSanRamon.com blogger,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 6:45 am

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

It's always interesting to come here and see what the last dozen-or-so Trumpistas in the valley are thinking, and being fed by the WNM - even if it rarely has much to do with the blog.

Keep those communication channels open, fellas.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 7:42 am

What would be the outcome of pitting the IQ of self-professed super genius Donald Trump against the IQ's of illegal immigrants?

Doh!

“Test of steel prototype for border wall showed it could be sawed through"
“A photo demonstrated that the steel columns could breached with a common industrial tool."

“President Donald Trump has repeatedly advocated for a steel slat design for his border wall, which he described as "absolutely critical to border security" in his Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday. But Department of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS."
NBC News: Web Link
- - - -


 +   4 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 7:57 am

Happy New Year Tom.

What is very disturbing is the labeling of anyone who supports efforts to stop illegal aliens from entering our country as a "racist", and the media's false narrative that President Trump is "racist" for supporting the wall.

Following that logic, are the following individuals "racist"?

This individual has more public schools named after him in California than George Washington. California has a state holiday to honor him. However in 1972 in an interview with a San Francisco television state he used the term "wet back" to rail against those who illegally entered our country from Mexico and took jobs away from his union workers. When the U.S. failed to secure the border, in 1979 he led his union, the UFW, in organizing the interception of people entering our nation illegally, and using violence to curb their illegal crossing. In an interview with the New York Times, Yuma County Sheriff Travis Yancey noted he watched this union leader's members set up a one hundred mile line of tents along the border and "beat the hell out of" anyone entering illegally. This union leader did not deny any of this, and was publicly quoted as saying, "Yes, there was a union wet line along the border and it cost us a lot of money and we stopped a lot of illegals". So, who was this "racist" who actually supported the use of violence on those illegally entering our country? Yes, Cesar Chavez.

This next "racist" was Governor of California in 1975 and railed against Vietnamese Boat refugees from entering California, even those who legally were granted permission from our Federal Government. It was reported on NPR that he said he "didn't want any of these refugees, because California had unemployment. They already had a large number of foreign-born people here. Too many people on welfare." This person also said to the Los Angeles Times, "There is something a little strange about saying Lets bring in 500,000 more people when we cant take care of the one million Californians out of work". So, who is this "racist"? Yes, Governor Jerry Brown.

This next "racist" was President of the United States and said this to the American People in his 1995 State of the Union address: "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large number of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by U.S. citizens or immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers". So, who was this "racist"? Yes, President Bill Clinton.

Finally, in 2006, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama, Chuck Schumer, and 23 other Senate Democrats voted in favor of building a fence along the Mexican border.

So, President Trump, and anyone who favors actually enforcing our immigration laws and supports measures to stop illegal aliens from entering our nation must be "racist", just like Cesar Chavez, Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer?


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 8:10 am

Wow, look at “American" go! He sure is beating the stuffing out of that Straw Man!

- - - -
Straw Man Argument: “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.“
Wikipedia: Web Link
- - - -


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Apex, a resident of California Somerset,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 8:24 am

Web Link


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:10 am

Thanks Counselor Am, and backatcha. You need your own blog.

I don't intend to engage on your issue, because as Mr. Doug points out, it's completely off-topic. That said, in law careers we seldom get to choose the clients on whose behalf we strenuously argue. Here, however, there's a choice.

If I was making that choice, I would pick a much more worthy exemplar of "not a racist."


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:21 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

oh, let's just pay for the Wall and have Trump name all over it in GOLD lettering. That will make him happy? Yeah? Let's all just make him happy and maybe he'll be less embarrassing? AND a few hundred thousand workers can A) be paid or B) return to work.

One could hope, yea?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 10:45 am

Your position is that my analysis of critics falsely labeling President Trump "racist" for refusing to back down on his border wall, is "completely off-topic" to your topic of President Trump demand for the border wall and resulting government shut down?

I disagree, and think it is entirely probative and on point.

First, what is the main reason we hear from Democrats and the media(who have morphed into the same) as to their refusal to negotiate with President Trump on the border wall to end the government shutdown? Racism. The Democrats and the media claim it is "racist" to build a wall to stop illegal aliens.

Chuck Schumer made it clear in his speech Tuesday that "not one dollar for Trump's racist wall".

Nancy Pelosi called it a "racist wall".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted that President Trump's proposed wall was "racist" and she would never support it.

Democrat wanna be heartthrob Beta O'Rourke piped in, "Trump's wall is racist".

The USA Today article today head line was "Trump's Border Wall Isn't About National Security, It Is About Stoking Racial Resentment".

NBC News recent segment caption was "Trumps border wall was not about security, it was meant to remind Latino's they are not welcome in America".

Finally, Democrat Rep. Adam Smith, who chairs the Armed Services Committee said Monday in a Seattle Times interview "Trump wants to scare people about the hordes coming from south of the border. It's rooted in racism".

Clearly, my analysis was right on point and highly relevant and probative on the topic as the government shut down continues as Democrats label the border wall as "racist" and thus will not budge, although my analysis shows if it is "racist" than so are Cesar Chavez, Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer.

If we want to end the shutdown, than we need to stop falsely labeling the wall as racist. Both sides need to compromise, and stop using false rhetoric that only inflames each side and makes it hard to negotiate.

My suggestion is give the Democrats the Dreamers path to citizenship, and give President Trump the money for a "defense structure" to be built.(Don't call it a wall as the term for some reason drives Democrats nuts)

Finally, Tom, do not be so confident in your opinion that President Trump can not use his "emergency powers" to get the "defense structure" to be built. Democrat Rep Adam Smith, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, and is an attorney, admitted in his interview Monday with the Seattle Times, that he "concedes the President may have the legal authority to shift those funds as National Emergency".


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 11:07 am

"no one else, including his own Border Patrol agents,"

I guess the author might have forgotten this episode of Border Patrol agents enthusiastically calling for a wall just a few weeks ago: Web Link

"Most of the human suffering that continues down south arises out of the Trumpian decision to hold asylum-seekers in-custody pending their hearings " months away."

This is such disingenuous claptrap. Obama put people in cages. Trump has improved those conditions immeasurably and, oh by the way, is still carrying on the SAME program that Obama and Bush had in place. I remember all your complaints during the Obama admin - oh wait - you didn't say one word about it then. Why not?

"Also, consider where those $5B (Billion!) that the Pentagon must find in its couch cushions would go".

Maybe the author has spent a little too much time outside of civilization to know that the Pentagon has given the Treasury $27b in unappropriated funds since 2013. It's just sitting there and, according to legal experts, can be used for funding the wall: Web Link

"...deep suspicion of, and reluctance to allow domestic deployment of military personnel, for obvious reasons."

He deployed the military to the border before the last election and I didn't hear a peep from congress. Do you know why? Because anyone who was looking at the film of the migrant caravan knew that it looked like an invasion and if congress prevented the President from moving troops, there would have been hell to pay. That's why.

"Youngstown Sheet and Tube" case. There, the Supreme Court invalidated President Truman's emergency takeover of the steel industry (during the Korean War " at least he had a reasonable ‘crisis' argument).

False equivalence. 10 U.S.C. § 284 allows the President to use the Department of Defense in support of other agencies of the federal government to counter drug activity and transnational organized crime, using such means as “Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States."

In addition, 10 U.S.C. § 2808 allows the President to declare a national emergency and direct the U.S. military to undertake military construction projects using appropriated funds for military construction, including family housing, that have not already been obligated.

The funding that the DoD just returned plays right into 2808.

And finally, a key distinction between the border issue and steel mills was that the government owns the land that the wall would be built. In contrast, the Steel Mills were private entities and thus, not subject to Government takeover.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 11:15 am

@American :"Finally, Tom, do not be so confident in your opinion that President Trump can not use his "emergency powers" to get the "defense structure" to be built. "

Did it occur to you that by setting that precedent that Trump would be enabling any future Democratic President to do the same thing for any pet project that he or she greatly desires? Be careful what you wish for.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 11:37 am

Doug,

“Precedent"?

Obama declared a state of emergency in 2009 during the Swine flu outbreak.

And where exactly did you fall when the senate, under the leadership of the democrats, decided to change the 2/3 majority rule in all judge appointments?

Your outrage seems a little selective.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 11:49 am

@Resident

Fine. Let's see Trump declare an emergency and build a Wall. Remember, you wanted this.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 pm

@ Doug

So, let me walk this back a little...

The Democrates voted in favor of having a "fence" secure our border back in 2006. By 2015, the government had constructed about 650 miles of fence, most of it after passage of the act according to a report by the US Government Accountability Office.

A "fence," Doug. Seems to me a fence would be much easier to breach than a steel wall (slats), don't you think? However, you Democrats (or are you a liberal?) became upset when Trump suggested a concrete wall be erected on other areas of the border. So, he compromised and suggested a steel wall, or steel slats be used.

I would think that someone who claims he has a PhD read up a little about the topic at hand before making an argument void of facts.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 12:49 pm

Apparently Scott Hale believes in a porous border.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 12:56 pm

Check this out from the Harvard International Review (a liberal publication):

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised Trump's idea for a wall as a “great idea" and a “great success," claiming on Twitter that his own wall “has stopped all illegal immigration." While Israel's wall has definitely not stopped all illegal immigration, it has assisted in cutting it down significantly. According to statistics published by Israel's Ministry of the Interior, 17,000 African immigrants entered the state illegally in 2011. However, in 2013, after the completion of the wall, the number fell to a mere 43.

Imagine that?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 1:24 pm

@Malcolm Hex: "A "fence," Doug. Seems to me a fence would be much easier to breach than a steel wall (slats), don't you think?"

The devil is in the details, Malcolm, and once again you're oversimplifying things in a Trump-like way. A lot of the "fence" that you refer to is not anything like a high border fence designed to keep people out. In fact, it's a relatively low fence that an individual could possibly climb over with little difficulty. Now why would the US bother to construct a lot of border fencing that individuals can climb over without too much difficulty in remote areas of the border? Well, we have two options here: Either (1) the people who came up with the fence plan are stupid or (2) you don't understand the purpose of the fence or have given much thought to it.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 2:10 pm

Uh Doug, there must be a disconnect. The "fence" you Democrats voted in favor of - minus Pelosi - was of course shorter than what Trump currently proposing now.

Thank you though for help making my argument.




 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 2:44 pm

@Malcolm

I never thought that I would come across someone on these forums who is even more obtuse than DKHSK, but you've proved me wrong. Boy, do I have egg on my face. Congrats.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 3:23 pm

Oh Doug, LOL!!!

Tell me how you really feel! No, wait. On second thought, if you spoke your mind, you'd be speechless.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 3:39 pm

Let me further build on my comment above that again, for the Democrats, it is not about a WALL as it is about preservation of their party. We clearly know that Blacks are leaving the DNC, particularly young Black conservatives, due to the realization that the DEMS have never had interest in helping them. They could count on the propaganda every 2 to 4 years and then go back to supposed governing. The new #BLEXIT movement (another Civil Rights action I support) acknowledges that departure. They are leaving the plantation and good for them. Polls also indicate that many Hispanics too are leaving the Democratic Party. Which brings us to the crux of their fight: the need for more voters, particularly compliant and unchallengeable ones.

The true manufacturing of a crisis is within their (Democrats) own party. This is a distraction, which is seen by their strategy of changing the goalposts every chance they get: immoral, costs too much, unnecessary, manufactured, humanitarian effort, caravans don't exist, and so on. I'm waiting for the next adjective to sling-shot them again. Geez, even Mexico is going to build a wall at the border of Central America.

The Democrats are not interested in fixing any problems, for that would help raise the popularity of President Trump. They are your ANTIFA party. The party of no agenda, but to be antagonists and obstructionists.

But I believe this country will get the wall so we can stop this madness.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 5:48 pm

Well said Jake!

You actually hit the nail on the head. Sad really that Democrats put politics first over national security.

I wonder why people like Tom and Doug don't believe in national security.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 6:09 pm

@Jake Waters :"Let me further build on my comment above that again, for the Democrats, it is not about a WALL as it is about preservation of their party. We clearly know that Blacks are leaving the DNC,(blah) (blah) (blah)... The new #BLEXIT movement (another Civil Rights action I support) acknowledges that (blah) (blah)...Polls also indicate that many Hispanics too are (blah) (blah) (blah)...The true manufacturing of a crisis is within their (Democrats) own party. This is a distraction, which is seen by their strategy of (blah) (blah) (blah) I'm waiting for the next adjective to...(blah) (blah) (blah)....The Democrats are not interested in fixing any problems, for that would help raise the popularity (blah) (blah)... They are your ANTIFA party. The party of no agenda, but to be (blah).(blah)..(blah)...."

Huh? Oh, you're finished? Hey, Jake. Instead of whining and whining and whining about Democrats being to blame for your not having a Wall, why don't you blame Donald Trump, the guy who promised you that he would get Mexico to pay for the Wall because he's some kind of "master genius" negotiator? He scammed you, and you fell for it. Don't get angry at Democrats for Trump's failure to live up to his promises or for your naïveté in believing in a guy who is a known scam artist.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 6:28 pm

Doug said:

"Hey, Jake. Instead of whining and whining and whining about Democrats being to blame for your not having a Wall, why don't you blame Donald Trump..."

Trump wants a wall Doug and you don't - including your political party. Thank you for the clarification.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Lance P, a resident of Walnut Creek,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 6:38 pm

Doug, you appear to be very, very angry. Jake apparently touched a nerve.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 7:58 pm

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Hex:? Huh? My post said to build the wall and put Trump's name on it IN GOLD. Wouldn't that make him happy? Wouldn't that put 800k back to work (or getting paid for working)?

Just wondering if anybody truly believes a trade agreement, not yet ratified by congress, will PAY for the wall as Trump believes.

I mean he did say Mexico will pay for the wall, yeah? I'm good with that vs punishing 800k federal workers. Empathy, look it up.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 8:22 pm

The anger that is voiced on this page is endemic to the Democrats. They have a difficult time discussing or debating an issue unless you agree with them. I see it everywhere. I see it on my street, in the gym, even among my Democrat neighbors and friends. They fall back on what they know, and what they know is very little and confusing. They apparently sit on MSNBC or CNN and assume that is news. God forbid they even reach out and read articles or books.

It is frustrating to even have a conversation with a Democrat, because what little they do know when you press them they explode. They hit you with the 7 deadly debate/conversation stoppers: Homophobic, Fascist, Islamophobic, Misogynist, Nazi, Racist, and Xenophobic. Though the labels never fit and they can never justify them, that means nothing, because they are hoping you will spend the time defending yourself. I don't.

I think the cruel karma that comes around did so with Jim Acosta at the border. Check out the clip on him in front of a steal wall where he mistakenly defends it and echos the President's point. Furthermore, Pelosi just offered tech toys and fixing the walls that are present. Well Nancy, you just further solidified the need for a wall, because by fixing them dear, means they work.

I could go on and on, because this is fun. But a last note I have to throw out: I hope you Democrats are happy with Gavin Newsom, because we will be paying more taxes to cover the illegal aliens here, and more to follow with the additional healthcare bill designed specifically for them.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 10, 2019 at 9:29 pm

@Jake Waters :"The anger that is voiced on this page is endemic to the Democrats. They have a difficult time discussing or debating an issue unless you agree with them. I see it everywhere....."

*yawn*. Maybe you, Lance, and some others here should spend more time trying to justify why this $25 billion Wall idea is a good, worthwhile, cost-effective upgrade in border security over the present system rather than always trying to play the lame and pathetic game of armchair Internet forum psychiatrist all the time. Be sure to include the fact that most illegal immigrants get into this country by entering legally and overstaying their visas rather than by sneaking across the border.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by wwe 2ka9, a resident of Alamo Elementary School,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 3:32 am

wwe 2ka9 is a registered user.

I truly love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself? Please reply back as I'm planning to create my own personal website and would love to learn where you got this from or what the theme is called. Kudos!
Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 4:12 am

At ex-Hale...

You threw a word tantrum ex-Hate, I mean Hale.

I suspect you want an open border and ICE to go away too? Maybe you and the no-nothing socialist in your party should embrace in a group hug. You too would make a fine pair.




 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 7:25 am

Is Trump a liar? You make the call:

Trump in 2016: “It's an easy decision for Mexico. Make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."

Trump today: “Obviously, I never said this and I never meant they're (Mexico) going to write out a check"


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 11:45 am

Angry Doug appears rather naïve when it comes to sins of past presidents. Let us take a moment and sort out thy presidential transgressions.

President Obama

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,"

According to NBC News, the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 percent to 67 percent of people in the individual health care market would likely not be able to keep their existing policies. - Ballotpedia.

The actual number of people who lost their healthcare coverage can be debated, but most people, right and left, agree that close to a million people lost their healthcare coverage.

Bill Clinton

"I did not have sex with that woman." Oh yes you did Bill. You lied. You were also impeached.

Richard Nixon

The (Watergate) tapes were exactly the smoking gun needed to implicate Nixon in the cover-up of the scandal. They revealed that he obviously knew more about the matter than he claimed. Upon the initiation of impeachment proceedings, Nixon gave up and resigned from office. Oh, and by the way, omitting the truth, Angry Doug, is the same as a lie.

Lyndon Johnson

In August 1964, in Vietnam's Gulf of Tonkin, two U.S. ships were reported attacked. Johnson went on the air that night and spoke to the American people about the “unprovoked" attack and the bombing response he ordered in retaliation against the North.

The truth was that the Johnson administration had already drawn up plans for putting military pressure on North Vietnam, a communist government which the U.S. was convinced was the first domino in the fall of Asia to Soviet and Chinese domination. - AlterNet

Not saying that what President Trump lied about was the right thing to do, Angry Doug. Most Certainly not. But I will take his "lie" about needing a wall any day over lies about health care and war.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 12:21 pm

@Malcolm Hex: "President Obama "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,""

The fact that you conservatives bring up the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" quote over and over and over and over and over again just goes to show that you don't have much else to draw on in trying to counter Trump's lies. Same thing with Hillary's "snipers in Bosnia" comment. Yeah, she lied - but the fact that you go back to the same lie over and over and over again shows that you don't have much ammo.

Me? I've got tons of ammo! And Trump hands out more just about every day.

"Trump's Lies: The Definitive List": Web Link

"All False statements involving Donald Trump": Web Link

(P.S. Make sure that you have plenty of time before starting to read the lists because you're going to need it.)


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 1:24 pm

Angry Doug, as usual, misses the point - and deflects too. I also find it interesting how Angry Doug avoids a solution to comment regarding the wall. Instead, angry Doug focuses his hate towards the president.

Hey Angry Doug, I hear another caravan is about to make its way north.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 1:35 pm

@Malcolm Hex

LOL! I'm doing fine, Malcolm. But you appear to be getting a bit heated up, though. Why don't you take a break and relax and enjoy the weekend? Catch you later...


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Pat, a resident of Diablo,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 1:46 pm

For a guy that claims to have a PhD, according to Malcolm anyway, Doug comes across as a kind of rebel without a cause.

Malcolm, to his credit, more or less conceded that presidents do not always tell the truth. I agree with him on that.

Tom, how do feel about the wall?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 1:58 pm

I didn't ask if you were fine. Making stuff up must fascinate you.

Have a nice weekend.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 2:32 pm

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Hex: You must have a problem with comprehension? Simply put I said build the wall and put Trump' name on it. Oh, and gold lettering. Not exactly sure how you read more into it than that? Catch up, ok?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 3:39 pm

Am: re your concern that Dem-Rep Adam Smith stated that he thinks DiJiTs can declare the emergency, my last paragraph suggests that the Dems are hoping for/daring Trump to declare it. It's a rope-a-dope strategy, is my guess. They hope he'll fall for it, because if he does, chances are good that he loses. He certainly loses control of the issue.

Hopefully, you remember enough Constitutional Law to recall how reluctant the Supremes are to let the Constitution get sucked into political shenanigans and inter-branch squabbles. I predict that factor overrides left-right leanings - except maybe for Thomas and Mr. Justice Squee.

Frankly, if Trump himself thought the tactic would be successful, he'd have done it, instead of repeatedly threatening and then hedging, which he's done four times now. Perhaps he got good legal advice, but once again tried to run a bluff. WAPO reports that he appears now to be backing away from the idea.

I'm actually surprised that people aren't in the streets over this, in sympathy and solidarity. We've become a nation of spectators - not our finest hour in my view. Maybe next weekend, in concert with MLK Day?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 3:54 pm

Oh, so you want the wall, but you don't want Trump to build it? ROFLMAO!!!!! You and "Tippy-tops" would make a fine pair.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 4:01 pm

Malc, if that's your comprehension of my comment above, then no amount of further explanation will help.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 4:56 pm

Tom: Just to be clear, I am not personally in favor of President Trump using the "Emergency Power" unilaterally to build the "defense structure", just like I was against President Obama using "Executive Orders" routinely for matters that should be passed thru Congress. I am a checks and balance guy. I am no Constitutional scholar, but from what I have read it appears there is a greater than 50% chance the current US Supremes would rule in favor of President Trump on the "Emergency Power", particularly if current estimates of a new caravan of 15,000 moving toward the border.

As to your comment about your surprise that more are not out in the streets in sympathy and solidarity with the Dems, I think people tend to underestimate how people(excluding the Bay Area and few other inner large cities) really feel about illegal aliens coming here. As I mentioned earlier, Cesar Chavez organized violent attacks on illegal aliens, Bill Clinton attacked them in his State of the Union, and in 2006 Hillary and Schumer and 23 other Dems voted in favor of a border fence. Suddenly, the media and the Dems label anyone who publicly supports enforcing our immigration laws and taking steps to curb illegal aliens as racist, so in public people are quiet or go along to avoid confrontation. They speak with their votes in private.

Remember, when President Trump has that cheesy announcement he was running for President and came down the elevator in Trump Tower, his number one campaign issue was stopping illegal immigration. It hit a nerve with people, especially those former middle class blue collar workers who were long ignored by the Dems. I think the trouble you are having in understanding this issue is one that your fellow Dems better figure out, or you will lose again to possibly one of the most personally flawed
Republican candidates in decades.

As long as the Dems and the media(same thing) lump immigrants(here legally) together with illegal aliens(here illegally) as being the same thing, you will quietly see large voters hold their nose and vote for President Trump yet again.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 5:12 pm

Tom: Last thought, you mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. day, and your hope that it would drive people out to support the Dems on this immigration issue. F.Y.I, in 1969 when Cesar Chavez led a march down the agricultural spine of California to protest illegal aliens coming to California and taking jobs away from his union, guess who marched with him? Reverend Ralph Abernathy, long time top aide to Martin Luther King, Jr.

Even long time African American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan routinely attacked the danger of illegal aliens in her speeches, including noting in 1994 that "it is a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage lawful immigration", even stating that all lawful immigrants "learn our common language: American English". Did the Dems and the media attack her as being "racist"? No, rather President Clinton gave her that same year the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 pm

Am: " ... you will quietly see large voters hold their nose and vote for President Trump yet again."

I'm not certain who these 'large voters' are, or regarding what office they'll be voting for Mr. Trump - Trusty at Club Fed, perhaps? Calling Bubba ...


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 8:28 pm

One last comment that I neglected to offer, which will no doubt singe the hair of Democrats, is that I expect and encourage President Trump to pull the lever on the final act for the wall: National Emergency. By doing this, Congress, individually, will be held accountable by their constituents in 2020 for whether they did something to protect this nation and its people or stood in the doorway and let the problems walk in.

And, in case CNN and MSNBC didn't tell you, another caravan is forming to walk this way. Again. Until we get a big, beautiful wall, caravans will continue to come. For lessons, look at Europe, even a number of their leaders feel they made a mistake. If they don't turn it around over there, the people will burn it down. Let's not become Europe.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 9:31 pm

Arch enemy here...

Hmmm... This is so strange. Call it a bizzare double-entendre... of sorts. Cushing believes Trump will win the next election and I don't.

I believe Trump will not make it through the next election cycle. Too much hate out there for him.

On the other hand, forget about club fed, ain't gonna to happen - at least not while Trump is in office.

Mueller's investigation - while complex regarding people associated with Trump - will fall short of collusion or obstruction. I say this based on how the Enron investigation unfolded under Meuller's top dog, Andrew Weissman.

Weissman's investigation of Enron's accounting firm, Athur Anderson, turned into a conviction for the government that was overturned by the supreme court. Executives from other companies associated with Enron also had their convictions overturned based on lack of material evidence.

And lack of material evidence will most likely get Trump off the hook. Oh, and I wouldn't count on Cohen's testimony. Any testimony from him will be quickly discredited - and Meuller knows it.







 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jan 11, 2019 at 11:25 pm

Doug,

Blithely cast aside my comment regarding emergency orders but remember this: Trump will most likely have one more Supreme Court justice, and maybe two if he gets re-elected. With a potential 6-3 conservative Supreme Court (I don't count Roberts), you think a Democrat president stands a chance of declaring a national emergency and having it stand in court?

Highly unlikely.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:12 am

Resident
Just so you know, under National Emergency, the courts can't get involved.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 6:42 am

Jake: you may add that comment to the list of things about which you are in error.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 7:58 am

Robert Adam is a registered user.

How about this for an effective solution instead of a wall:

Thoughts and prayers.

Good enough for our kids, good enough for America


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 9:32 am

Robert Adam is a registered user.

Republithugs, you're mad at the wrong people. Fat Donnie had 2 years of majorities in both chambers and could have had a wall approved and funded in a half a day. But he didn't. Why aren't you mad at him? Why do you keep yelling at me and Doug? I'm mad at Obama for not raising the marginal tax on the rich to 94% like FDR. Seriously. Why isn't your anger directed at Republicans who should have given you your wall? Ok then. No wall for you!!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 11:13 am

Robert Adams... Another angry individual. Calm down, sir.

Maybe you should ask yourself why the Democrats are opposed to a wall in the first place


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:12 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

Where in my comment did you detect anger? I guess you just like making stuff up.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sue Thayer, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:27 pm

It's just another trumpian distraction tactic. Puts the burden on you to defend your sanity in the face of this idiocy. I think it's best if you can ignore it.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:47 pm

To address Robert:

When you call people thugs, say that your're mad at the former president, etc. Yeah, I would say you are a tad angry.

To address Sue:

The use of the word "Trumpian" is so 2016. And fortunately for me, Trump does not affect me the way he apparently affects you.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 1:05 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

It brings me pleasure to find fitting labels for people based on their behavior. Not anger. How many angry comments have you posted on this blog alone? I proved (like the blog author) that you are mad at the wrong people. I did it with one sentence. Simple. Elegant. Easy for anyone to understand. You got schooled and keep embarrassing yourself in this semi-public setting


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 2:45 pm

Labels, Mr. Adams? You just called Republicans thugs. You're as bad as the guy you hate.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 3:16 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

I call them as i see them. Today's lesson you should have learned is that if you build an argument on a false premise anyone can pull the rug out from under your hose of cards and make you look silly. My advice to you sir is "Try another day". I'm not interested in you changing your mind or becoming a democratic voter. I just like sucker punching people who take themselves too seriously. You had a nice plan, a well constructed argument. To quote Mike Tyson... "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Good day Mad Malcolm


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 3:17 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

House of cards


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 6:53 pm

Huh? Mad Malcolm? Say, that's not bad. I will take that, and my hose, under submission.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sue Thayer, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 7:28 pm

Mex - I will take your comment under advisement.

Oh wait - no I won't. That would dignify a ridiculous claim.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 8:23 pm

Uh Sue, um, who is Mex? ROFLMAO!!!!! Are you posting from Elliot's?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 8:27 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

She just called you a Mex! Haha, short for Mexican....haha! Clever girl. Well done!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 8:29 pm

Robert Adam is a registered user.

I was going to call you Malcolm the 10th


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 12, 2019 at 8:48 pm

I know. Alcohol makes people say silly things.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 8:51 am

Mex? duh

I just called you a caca-soid! tee hee...


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 9:57 am

Hey, everyone, wasn't this forum supposed to be a discussion about Trump's attempt to get his Wall built?

Doesn't appear that things are going that well for him so far. Wasn't very smart of him to impulsively say to Pelosi and Schumer in front of TV cameras and dozens of witnesses that he would be “proud" to own the shutdown, was it? Seems like a guy with a self-professed 156 IQ would know better than to do that.

“Most Americans Blame Trump for Shutdown"

“A Majority Says Trump Bears More Responsibilty for Shutdown than Democrats"

CNN: Web Link
- - - -


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 11:32 am

“...witnesses that he would be “proud" to own the shutdown, was it?“

And he has taken the responsibility, that's what leaders do.

Only a PhD can be so tone deaf.

I agree, the thread has been trolled by a few.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 12:06 pm

Doug is more concerned anout Trump than the security of the country. So evident.16


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 4:49 pm

Jeez, I leave for the weekend, and this place devolves into an AOL chatroom. Okay, Dad's back - and he's got a trigger finger on the delete button.

One thing I've noticed, here and elsewhere, is how the trumpistas' arguments, charges and worldview seems to resolve into a binary set of choices - one or t'other. You want a wall or you're for open borders, or wall vs. national security, or ultimately, you're with us or ag'in us - our tribe or the enemy.

Trouble is, the world doesn't resolve into those sharp blacks and whites, ones or zeros. There are options and alternatives, there's nuance and shading. 'My way or the highway' works okay in one-off deals or when you've got all the cards (say, when you decide not to pay for services rendered by a little guy on your commercial property and you have Roy Cohn on speed-dial).

But when you do repeat business so that relationship matters, and you don't have all the cards, and you only have bully boy bluffs in your bag of tricks, and they've got armor, so you actually have to Deal - you don't know what to do. I think that's what Binary Don is facing now - and he's ill-prepared to deal.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 5:25 pm

I was just about to make some of the same points that Tom just did. A lot of Trump Wall supporters seem to have this view that either one is for Trump's Wall, or one is for open borders and in favor of illegal immigration. It's this “either you're with us or you're against us" arrogant and intolerant attitude which is a real turn-off for many independents like myself, Did it ever occur to any of you pro Trump Wall people that a person might be in favor of tougher controls against illegal immigration but at the same time not believe that Trump has made a good case for this proposed $25 billion Wall?. One point worth noting - which I have brought up multiple times on this thread and others here but pro-Wall supporters seem to want to ignore - is that most illegal immigrants get here by entering the country legally but then overstaying their visas, not by sneaking across the border. So right there we're at less than 50% effectiveness for any Wall, no matter how tall or thick. Why do none of you Wall supporters want to address that point? Given the fact that neither Trump nor the Wall supporters here want to address that point makes me suspicious about whether this Wall is supposed to be a real solution against illegal immigration or is merely a political ploy. There are also questions which I've raised about the construction of a Wall west of El Paso versus east of El Paso on the other thread which I haven't seen Trump or any supporter here answer. I'm not against well thought out, cost effective ways of increasing border security, but I've got to tell you Wall supporters: I don't think that Trump has given much thought to all of the issues related to the Wall. I think that he just wants to build this $25 billion thing to fulfill a campaign promise to his supporters, and that's not a good enough reason to spend $25 billion to me. Now if Trump can get Mexico to pay for the Wall as he promised he would do, I have no objections to building the Wall - because Mexico would be paying for it! But if you think that I and other taxpayers should agree to spending $25 billion of taxpayer money for this Wall idea simply because Trump says that it's a good idea, you completely underestimate what a low opinion we have of Trump and his motives. I'm pro-tougher enforcement against illegal immigration, but I have absolutely no confidence that Donald Trump did his homework on this Wall idea.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jan 13, 2019 at 6:32 pm

I did not vote for Trump in the last election.
However, if Trump is not indicted, not impeached and not dead.
Trump will win reelection in 2020, with using the democratic refusal to find the wall. Building the wall elected Trump the first time, it will work again for Trump in 2020.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 4:24 am

For anyone who complains about the cost of the wall: Web Link

Quotes:
“This week, for example, the Government Accountability Office reported that in 2017 alone, the federal government made $141 billion in "improper payments."

And

“Citizens Against Government Waste has identified 636 examples of wasteful government spending that, if eliminated, would save $430 billion in the first year alone.“

I don't want to read another god-far rd word from anyone telling me that we can spend our money wiser than building the wall.

That we just accept the above is mind-numbingly stupid.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:10 am

@Resident

I honestly don't find the argument of “Since wasteful government programs exist, why not spend another $25 billion?" to be very convincing. If you accept the logic of that argument, then you may as well also support Bernie Sanders' $50 billion “free college for everyone" proposal, or any other wild government spending proposal no matter how weakly justified since there are wasteful government programs that spend more. Pretty surprised that you, a conservative, would put forth an argument which sounds more like the sort of argument that a so-called “free spending liberal" would use to justify every social program that they can think of.

(BTW, I tend to be a more skeptical reader than you and don't accept at face value your linked article's statement that the GAO said that there was $141 billion in “improper payments". When I see an article make a claim like that, I look for the reference so I can verify the fact for myself. Your linked article didn't provide any references for that claim or, for that matter, any of its claimed facts so I can't consider it to be an article worth taking seriously.)


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:11 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"But when you do repeat business so that relationship matters, and you don't have all the cards, and you only have bully boy bluffs in your bag of tricks, and they've got armor, so you actually have to Deal - you don't know what to do. I think that's what Binary Don is facing now - and he's ill-prepared to deal."

Or perhaps your explanation is "ill-prepared". Democrats have "few cards" - they only control the House. Republicans control the Senate and White House. If anyone should be dealing and negotiating, it's Pelosi/Schumer (and they've done nothing). Their party is not in a position to dictate terms and to simply expect the opposition to cave in.

If Democrats had large majorities in the Congress and only the President was a Republican, the situation would be different.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:20 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I'm mad at Obama for not raising the marginal tax on the rich to 94% like FDR. Seriously."

You seriously need to get over the silly idea that what people earn (regardless of the amount) somehow "belongs" to the government - and needs to be redistributed accordingly based on "need". Obama was a disaster on the economy and not having his policies continued was a step forward for those looking for better jobs/increased economic growth.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:38 am

@MichaelB :"If anyone should be dealing and negotiating, it's Pelosi/Schumer (and they've done nothing)."

That's not true at all. Pelosi and Schumer were there at the last meeting to negotiate an end to the shutdown and Trump is the one who issued an inflexible demand and, when refused, abruptly walked out on them. Not the mark of a good negotiator. Also, Democrats offered Trump $20 billion for border spending including spending for a Wall last January in return for resolving DACA but Trump turned down the proposal. You can claim that you don't like the proposals that Democrats have offered, but you can't claim that they've “done nothing". On the other hand, what flexibility have we seen from Trump? The only “concession" I recall seeing from him is that he's offered to have the Wall made of “steel slats" as opposed to a solid concrete Wall, as if the material composition of the Wall is something that Pelosi and Schumer should care about.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:45 am

@MichaelB : “Obama was a disaster on the economy..."

Don't know how you figure that a guy who first entered the White House with the nation in the midst of the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and then left the White House with the nation having a healthy economy and unemployment at 5% was a “disaster" for the economy. The S&P 500 tripled over Obama's eight years in office.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 8:11 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Don't know how you figure that a guy who first entered the White House with the nation in the midst of the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and then left the White House with the nation having a healthy economy and unemployment at 5% was a “disaster" for the economy. The S&P 500 tripled over Obama's eight years in office."

Simple. Not a "healthy economy" given the weak annual economic growth rates during his years in office/those normally experienced coming out of a recession. Not surprising given the "guy" (who lacked executive/management experience as a candidate) wanted to "spread the wealth around" as part of his plans, lectured business people that they "didn't build that", and blamed the "1%" for not paying enough taxes.

Somehow poor results had nothing to do with the fact that his regulate/spend/tax ("economic justice") agenda was the exact opposite of how the private sector economy worked/expanded - when that's exactly what we needed coming out of a recession. Thankfully, Democrats lost seats and control of Congress while he was President. Otherwise it would have been much worse.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Robert Adam, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 8:11 am

Robert Adam is a registered user.

MichaelB if you refuse to make honest statements you will be easily embarrassed.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 8:29 am

@MichaelB :"Simple. Not a "healthy economy" given the weak annual economic growth rates during his years in office/those normally experienced coming out of a recession."

Are you aware that the quarterly GDP growth rate numbers of Obama throughout most of his terms after the recession are similar to the quarterly GDP growth rate numbers of Trump?

As for comparisons to recoveries “normally experienced coming out of a recession", are you not aware of the fact that the recession that occurred around 2008 was no ordinary recession but the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? I wasn't engaging in hyperbole when I wrote that the first time. It was indeed a catastrophic meltdown. You don't see long-time established financial institutions like Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers going bankrupt during ordinary recessions. You don't see officials from the Fed holding emergency late-night and weekend meetings with bank and financial institution executives to avoid financial catastrophe during ordinary recessions. Why on earth would you think that the rate of recovery “normally experienced coming out of a recession" should be the standard for coming out of the last recession? It's as if you don't remember what the last recession was like at all.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 9:23 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"As for comparisons to recoveries “normally experienced coming out of a recession", are you not aware of the fact that the recession that occurred around 2008 was no ordinary recession but the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? I wasn't engaging in hyperbole when I wrote that the first time. It was indeed a catastrophic meltdown."


Apparently you are not aware that "spread the wealth around" was really not a viable plan for economic growth/prosperity in this nation - and that it was not the fault of the "1%" that businesses will not expand/hire fewer employees when the government wanted to regulate and tax them more. Obama was not and that's why the recession lasted longer/annual growth rates were lower.

You can't keep playing the "he inherited it" card when policies offered do not make economic sense. Obama/progressives wanted to legislate economic outcomes by taking more resources from those who earn and giving to those who do not for "fairness" reasons vs. creating economic opportunities for people to increase their own incomes.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 9:47 am

@MichaelB

I don't agree with all of Obama's policies and actions on the economy but, sorry, writing that “Obama was a disaster on the economy" is just factually wrong.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 10:22 am

Donald Trump (Twitter): "Nancy and Cryin' Chuck can end the Shutdown in 15 minutes. At this point it has become their, and the Democrats, fault!"

I've got to ask: If Trump is sincerely interested in getting together with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to negotiate an end to the shutdown, is this a smart twitter for him to write? What does he think that he's accomplishing with this tweet? What purpose does it serve?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by PostMod JB, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 10:31 am

This much should be clear by now. It's not about national security, but rather: Web Link (sfw)


 +   6 people like this
Posted by PostMod JB, a resident of Danville,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 1:24 pm

... no crisis.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jan 14, 2019 at 4:46 pm

LOL!!! You talk about sincerity Doug? What a con. You want Trump to back down and not build a wall. Period. Too bad you can't admit it.

But the con is the twist you spin that Trump isn't being sicere? He backed off the wall in favor of something else, and that still wasn't good enough for Nancy and Chuck.

Taking you seriously us a laugh - you little socialist you.


 +   13 people like this
Posted by Sue Thayer, a resident of Birdland,
on Jan 15, 2019 at 7:52 am

Here's a pro-tip: caps, acronyms, and scornful trumpian nicknames may make you feel like a big man, but they make you look like a juvenile body part. Most readers just skip cheap garbage like that.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a DanvilleSanRamon.com blogger,
on Jan 16, 2019 at 11:00 am

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

If the recently deleted comment is any indication, I think this 'discussion' is well-past its sell-by date. I'm closing Comments.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Workday committed to growing in Pleasanton
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 1,177 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 501 views

 

Nominations due by Sept. 16

DanvilleSanRamon.com and Pleasanton Weekly are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form