Most Helpful Girl
The wall is needed, its just a shame they can't come to an agreement with putting Americans that are caught in the middle by this bill.
The Democrats want to allow Sanctuary cities as they have done in Europe to get more democratic votes. Not caring if Terrorism slips through the cracks as happens in Europe with bombings happening all the time.
If The President has too he can get the funding from military funds but he's trying to let this play out as Americans through political parties.
There agenda is all about VOTES NOT CARING A OUT American SAFTEY
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Guys
In terms of both speeches, it was the most wasted half hour in politics since television became a social force in the 1950s. As Rep. Amash (R-MI), not normally one of my calendar pin-ups, put it, "No minds were changed."
Indeed, it is hard to see, other than consolidating their political bases, what either side hoped to accomplish. In total fairness, President Trump's speech was the more substantive. He cited some not insignificant data - some of which was, to be sure, somewhat out of context - and he pointed to recent headlines to give the speech some immediacy and force.
However, the President's delivery was flat and the speech gave no indication why a wall - or other such barrier - was necessarily the best answer to the problem. Let alone why it was worth risking a government shutdown to get the funding to build one.
To wit, if you were not persuaded of the President's argument before he made it, you were not apt to be persuaded. It lacked policy context and said nothing the President had not said a hundred times before.
In the case of Minority Leader Schummer and Speaker Pelosi, their speech was mostly an ad hominem with a ransom note attached. Few datapoints were included. Rather the President was accused of bad faith - and was then informed that as soon as he gave the Democrats in Congress all that they asked for, then they would consider what he wanted.
That the President would not jump at such an offer is a surprise to no one. Moreover, an argument against the man is not an argument against the policy. So again, the aim of the speech (es) seemed to have been to preach to the converted, not move the undecideds and persuade the persuadable.
As an aside, from a presentation perspective, the President got the edge. Though he did not look great, the Oval Office has a certain gravitas that attaches to it. By contrast, the sight of two Congressional leaders, one talking while the other stood there like a grim faced stick figure, was bad visuals.
So, in terms of the speeches, there was no there there and fundamentally the dynamics will remain unchanged. The President gets the slightest of edges in terms of presentation and content, but nothing that could be measured without a micrometer.
In terms of policy, the wall - or whatever - has been blown way out of proportion. It ought be one part of a larger toolkit. In tandem with other policies and technologies it would be useful in terms of controlling the border - not least by serving as a complicating deterrent to human traffickers - which was it legal would amount to a $33 billion industry according to Justice Department statistics.
In that connection, walls, even in the 21st century, do work - as Israelis in Jerusalem can attest. The dismissal of them as outdated relics ignores a fair amount of evidence, as well as the request by the border patrol that some barriers be erected.
That the wall - or barrier - will not by itself solve the border/immigration issue is the fallacy of the false alternative. By itself, it fails. In tandem with other programs, policies and technologies, it is a useful tool.
That this has been boiled down to a stark all or nothing is because such oversimplifications spare people the torture of having to think. Nuance is hard.
The inclination is to blame the politicians, but the truth is that the public is content to operate on the basis of caricature. It is all so simple - why don't they just compromise? Well, yes, by which the public, to the extent that its short attention span is engaged at all, defines compromise as "Be reasonable, do it my way."
Neither the President nor the Speaker and Senate Minority Leader will get any kudos. Their presentation was dreadful, their message predictable where not simply vapid.
However, thus is politics in a populist age. As H. L. Mencken put it, "Democracy is the theory that the people should get what they want - and get it good and hard." So they are.
- Show AllShow Less
50% lies followed by 50% fearmongering. At no point did he actually factually lay out the problem, reveal a solution and demonstrate how the solution would solve the problem. This combined with the fact that a presidential address is not meant for the President to push politics.
A good example of what a presidential address is supposed to be is when George Bush announced that USA was at war or when Obama announced that Bin Laden was dead. What Trump did however was just a glorified political speech. To be fair I doubt he actually understand its purpose in the first place.