DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Build That Wall or Elect Someone Who Will

It seems as though an audio visual aid helped you.

I have no idea what that means. What's an audio visual aid and how did it "help me"?

I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

Ah, you want me to watch your videos about the turnstile.

No thanks.

He was well-spoken in that second video and withstood up to a lot of scrutiny. It's an odd dynamic since he was a devoted Republican, on a Republican network, with a far-right host, and she attempted to put him on his heels, and he fought back. He did a good job addressing the discrepancy with the 5,000 people. She thanked him for explaining that discrepancy, but then went back and doubled down on the point she made before he explained how she was misunderstanding everything. He responded with "No" again when she misrepresented the figure, but he was not given the chance to re-explain how she was wrong, and then had to move on to another part of the bill.

I remember early on in this topic, I asked "Would a wall really be all that effective?" The response I received was along the lines of "Well, it would be better than nothing."

I'd like to turn that notion to the bill that Lankford discussed? Would that not be better than where we currently are?

This reeks of what I said earlier: "No success unless it's my success."

It actually reeks of totally ignoring what's in the bill...


The proof is right there from the first question about the NGOs.

"Sure, we're going to give them more money, but not until...
More deportation flights
More detention beds
Till we hire more ICE officers
Till we hire more Border Patrol officers
Till we implement tougher standards
So that money is held till there is full implementation in other areas".


You're a smart man, how fast do expect all that will take place? And consider Lankford's following statement (his disclaimer about the 5000 number)...

"Every single person is detained and deported in the process, whether it's one or it's 5000".

So this magical infrastructure that is going to appear at the border will change the time span from 6 years to "immediately". And it will do that instantaneously?

Does this cat sell bridges as well?


And BTW, his claim that there is a "mandatory shutdown" at 5000 is a complete and utter lie. No excuse for that crap either since he wrote the bill. The shutdown or "Emergency Powers"...

* Do not affect ports of entry
* Can be ignored by Biden if deemed "not in our national interests"
* Leave the border wide open for undefined "Humanitarian Exceptions"
* And then there's a blanket disclaimer at the end that Team Sleepy retains power to "opt out" on ALL limits on migrant numbers.

And since he did a good job of explaining the 5000 people rule, please explain how you understood that to work?

And then he lies again when he ignores the question about the ten million that already crossed and says "Nope, actually we're trying to focus on how to secure the border right now and how to have implementation long term. No question, people that are in the interior that are here illegally can all be deported".

So I guess he just forgot about the part where AUTOMATIC "Conditional Permanent Resident" status granted for ALL who entered after July 2021?

This bill is a sham, he's a shill and a shyster. He himself, early in this 9 month odyssey, said the Biden Admin was going to have to bend on this huge (5000) number if there was any hope of getting this passed. They DID NOT but suddenly he says it's a good idea. I know it seems shady, and otherworldly, but maybe he has some self-serving interests at stake here? (No way!)

So everyone can keep screaming "Bipartisan!" all they want because there was a idiot with an (R) next to his name behind these closed doors (God forbid they talk to anyone who actually deals with this mess on a daily basis), but that has nothing to do with a rotten, one-sided bill that doesn't do anything to secure the border.

What. A. Joke.

No doubt we need a wall and upgrade our standards.

With just a little research , I found out what other countries require if we wanted to live there.

Panama...income of at least $1000 a month, valid birth cert, and passport.

Belize...$2000 per month income, pass a security check.

Phillipines...must deposit $20,000 in Philippine bank . Sustainable, verified income.

New Zeland..Must invest $470,000 to live there, plus $300,000 to live on and a $35000 annual income.


Here....lol, we pay low income wetbacks to come here. No I.D., no nothing. Maybe we need to have some standards for entry in to our country.

Here's the standard... you read it from a cue card the cartel gave you...

"I am in fear for my life"

And OFF you go, to the city of your choice.

I didn't expect you would want to see the facts about what was actually in the immigration bill. It debunks all of your faux rhetoric and you don't wish to open your mind to anything other than your false narrative. It's the trumpian way.

Your claim is don't overhaul immigration policies because it will take some time to implement everything? You sound like every obstructionist in the House.

I already responded.

The immigration bill had more funding for the wall and raised the standard required to seek asylum. Everything you are talking about was in that bill.


What is something a racist POS would say for $500 Alex?

And who is it you claim is "paying them to come here"?

Your response is that you refuse to watch a Republican who helped write the bill explain the bill. And that since it can't all be implemented immediately they should do nothing. Thanks for that.

Yeah, that's what I said.

I'm saying if you're going to rewrite the entire thing, don't call it an "emergency secure the border bill". And if you think you're going to sneak in amnesty for 10 million illegals, you should already know this thing will be DOA.

This whole mess is predicated by the wash, rinse, repeat of this administration from day one.

Start big fires.
Throw water on them (once it's scorched earth) and act like a hero.
Blame the whole mess on somebody else.

And in this case, then act like 5000 per day is no big deal.

There was no amnesty for 10 million people included in this bill. Yet another lie.

There are 500 words there, if you think I'm going to argue about this sentence all day, you're smokin' crack.

Actually, I'll tear down the whole bill, just for you. Since your only defense for this disaster is acting like this is the perfect remedy, but, Trump.

You'll try to tear it down by what you want it to mean while refusing to listen to the man who helped write the bill who explains what it means. Typical coming from you.

I should listen to this guy 'splain it when he's lied about it over and over? No thanks, I have a brain of my own and can read the bill itself. I've watched this dolt be corrected by reporters and numerous occasions as they remind him what's actually in the bill... I'm not sure he's ever read it.

Here's that shill in a nutshell:

"The 5000 was an internet rumor".
Then... "oh, yeah, but it's not really what you think".
Then... "well, there's more than 5000 there nearly everyday anyway".

And again, he complained out loud that the Sleepy admin needed to just that number from the beginning, then it suddenly became a great idea. #onthetake

It shows an actual FOX reporter trying to grill him on it and he explains every detail. I understand that you think your own brain understands the bill better than the man who helped write it. There's a lot of that going around these days. That's a large part of the reason why we're where we are these days.

Let me know which part confuses you... wait, let me know... nevermind.

(Don't know what happens to the copy/paste feature when copying directly from the bill pdf, none of those words had weird characters in the original text. I bet that for 150 billion they'll figure it out by 2075 though and this stuff will stop looking like bad OCR from 1985. /rant)

Cool. I watched it.

Explain the 5000 people deal in your own words then...

He already explained it. I'm not willing to continue down the path of redundancy that you do based on nothing but how you feel about what you think it says. As they say in court, "Asked and answered."

What you or I "think and feel" about it, the man who helped write the bill explained it. And he's not a liberal democrat or even a democrat. But you have decided to listen to those who didn't write the bill and every tidbit of misinformation they've spread about it.

*** Pit refuses to explain it because he CAN'T. ***

Neither can anyone one else, without admitting that this allows 5000 illegals to cross the border before anything is done.

It's been explained by the man who helped write it. I'm not stupid enough to think I know what's in it or explain it better than he can. But someone on here is.

LMFAO.

You can't explain the 5000 people deal so now you're going to act like I'm asking you to explain the whole bill?


Explain the 5000 people b.s. Pit, you've been saying it's a conspiracy theory for weeks on end.

You type 5 million words here per week. Surely you can take a sentence explain something you keep calling a lie.

It was explained in the video. There's nothing to add to it. I'm not here to please you or meet you demands. I provided the explanation in the video by the man who helped actually write the bill. You can deal with that or not. Throwing a tantrum on a message board about that isn't going to help you. Either you're willing to debate his explanation which I provided to you or you not. It's not my job to provide you with multiple explanations for the same thing.

I never called anything a conspiracy. I provided where trump told them not t pass and it and they didn't pass it. That's what's known as stating facts in their chronological order. I understand why you would have trouble understanding the difference.

Here, I'll help you out with the chronological Cliff notes from Lankford himself:

"The 5000 was an internet rumor".
Then... "oh, yeah, but it's not really what you think".
Then... "well, there's more than 5000 there nearly everyday anyway".

Come on, YOU CAN DO IT!

"It was explained in the video"

Dawglover? You still reading?

Pit refuses to explain the very thing he keeps using as "evidence".

You watched the video, what did you get from that "explanation"?

Actually, I'll just go ahead and and transcribe. I mean, since it's so well explained in the video. At least that's what Pit has said 25 times...

You just going to gloss right over this, Pit?

I mean, you called me a liar, back it up. Need Lankford to explain it to you, or is the bill itself evidence enough?

Want me to timestamp your precious video where he lies about this?

The 5000 number was not being represented for what it meant. See details in the video. I don't respond to trumpian rhetoric well. But you keep trying to use it. Baiting me and acting like a bully will not work on me. I've dealt with your kind before. They generally don't fare well.

Fate... "I can't deal with the man who actually wrote the bill. I think I know more about it than him. So I want Pit to think he knows more than him too and explain what he already provided an explanation for by the man who wrote the bill!"

#wannabetoughman

Dee, dee, dee.

Sure since you think you know more than the man who wrote the bill. It was a very comprehensive immigration bill and you have done nothing but throw a tantrum about it from the beginning.

Why is something always a tantrum when you don't like it and can't find any bs to refute it?

Asking for a friend the entire message board.

Still ignoring this?

You called me a liar, c'mon.

Call Lankford, he'll give you some creative language to deflect from the truth.

Since Lankford, who actually helped wrote this bill gave you the facts, maybe you can actually find something in the bill which shows he is lying? Or actually things in the bill itself that shows you are correct.

Just like in your own assertions.... Who are these people that qualify for permanent residence status? What steps did they have to go through to qualify? Are you suggesting that at no point should any of them qualify for that status? You like to state open ended things like that which give no actual context to who or what they are describing. Watching you flail around by saying nothing is amusing at best.

Man, that's a whole lotta deflecting. 😮


Here's the great explanation transcribed from Pit's precious video. I mean, it contains a lot of misinformation, especially the talk about immediate deportation, that's not in the bill at all. But again, his explanation about the 5000 is "it's not what you think".


It IS what you think, and has been from the beginning, it's letting 5000 cross the border everyday. If anyone can prove otherwise, I'd LOVE to hear it.


Here's the horse (one trick pony):

"Senator, how did you come up with 5000 people, is this Kyrsten Sinema's idea or did you want 5000 people everyday?"

"Let me set something straight right now. If president Trump were president right now, we wouldn't have the numbers that we have right now. But also this 5000 number has been the most misunderstood part of all of this.

This is not about 5000 people that are allowed into the country, this is about an emergency authority that kicks in above and beyond everything else. The goal is every single person is detained and deported in the process, whether it's one or whether it's 5000. But there is an extra emergency authority that gets in if we get caravans, if we have a day like yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that, or the day before that, where the border is shut down and everyone is deported, no one is even processed at all, everyone's just turned around and sent back into Mexico."


Somebody PLEASE explain to me how 5000 didn't just cross the border.

ALL of them.
None.
Not suggesting that at all, suggesting it shouldn't be automatic if the person in office decides it should be. Only if we were a country ruled by monarchy. Crap like this should never be in a "bill".


I posted THE BILL ITSELF, you're embarrassing yourself again. Why don't you go read it and come back when you have a shred of intellect on the subject. Want the link??

No it's not. You act like they're going to let these people free into the U.S. That's not what this bill says. They will be processed and sent back unless they reach this "new threshold" which is much more restrictive on who qualifies form asylum. The bill funds more immigration judges to process these people and once they get above 5000 people a day they can no longer handle the flow. Explain to me how that adds 5000 people into the U.S.? The added judges will make the hearing process move much more quickly and those who even meet the qualifications will get a much swifter hearing to determine if they even meet that status.

Your only point is that they will cross the border to be processed. By and large they won't be staying. Somehow that doesn't meet your unrealistic expectations and fear tactics of the far right extremists.