President Disconnected from Reality
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The AP Article largely refutes things President Trump did not say. He did not say that former President Obama called for a wall, he said that Obama had referred to the influx of families and unescorted minors, which has since gotten worse, as a crisis. That is precisely correct.
It was not Obama who endorsed the wall, it was his Border Patrol chief.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a bit of a cherry pick, and I note you chose not to address what they clearly got exactly correct about his lying.
LikeLike
“But during a congressional hearing, he was asked whether he supported “comprehensive immigration reform,” and he said, “yes.” What he meant, he says now, was a holistic approach to how immigrants come into the country, which would include a barrier, enhanced technology and more personnel, as well as more bed space in holding facilities, more immigration judges and aid to Central American countries to help them improve their quality of life.”
This was Obama’s Border Patrol Chief.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/obama-border-patrol-chief-trump-stay-course-border-wall/?utm_term=.31707b4fe5ad
Notice all the parts that are ignored when just focusing on the wall. If construction on the wall began today it would take years to build. Not a good way to handle a crisis or worse yet a ginned up “national emergency “.
All the parts other than the wall such as personnel, technology, judges, aid to Central America etc., would be much more immediate and effective.
No one is disputing border security or for that matter fencing or shoring up existing walls in strategic places.
No reason that a president shouldn’t negotiate comprehensive reform by accepting the 1.7 Billion and sit down on the rest of the issues. Be the bigger man for the good of the country. All of it and just his core followers and Coulter et.al.
Unless that president happens to be Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Be the bigger man for the good of the country.”
“Comprehensive reform” is bureaucratic-speak for “no focus/no action/mediocre results.” Whenever politicians want nothing to happen, they insist that only comprehensive solutions are desirable.
If the public falls for the ruse, politicians get a bonus in being able to hide corrupt provisions in a big legislative package that no one will read.
The president is doing the right thing by keeping public attention focused on border security to the exclusion of other concerns.
LikeLike
“focused on border security to the exclusion of other concerns.‘
You’re drinking the kool-aid, there are many much more important problems than the on-going south boarder issues. trump is, as always, is just focused on what matters to his fragile ego. SAD.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You’re drinking the kool-aid…”
Sorry to be contentious, but I fail to see how my personal state of mind or the psychology of the president has any bearing whatsoever in the issue.
LikeLike
Fair enough; you state that there is nothing more important than being “focused on border security” and I stated there are much more important problems. That was the central issue. The fact that he’s doing what he’s doing for reasons of ego and that you may have bought into his rhetoric is besides the point.
LikeLike
“Whenever politicians want nothing to happen, they insist that only comprehensive solutions are desirable”.
Well that may have been true with the Republican House. The GOP has always been afraid to tackle immigration reform. Obama should have tackled that before ACA, but that was hindsight as healthcare was the bigger crisis in recession America.
I think the Democrats should put together a bill that addresses border security, DACA, legal immigration goals and restrictions, work visas, and even some plan for foreign assistance to the nations that are creating refugees from violence. Send it to McConnell for changes then forward a bipartisan agreement to Trump. I think Pelosi is strong enough to keep her fringes in check except for occasional outbursts like we have seen.
Just fighting over a wall is short sighted, in my opinion. It won’t solve much of anything for years to come even if it did get funded fully.
Good leaders see the big picture and the long term. Digging in heels for minutia on construction details is not the big picture. The bill is in Trump’s court now. I consider McConnell to be Trump’s lackey in this case and he his holding up the bill to protect Trump…and vulnerable Republicans.
LikeLike
RE: “Just fighting over a wall is short sighted, in my opinion. It won’t solve much of anything for years to come even if it did get funded fully.”_
I like the president’s proposal and approach as is. If anyone in Congress actually wants border security, they can vote to fund the appropriation. The big picture here — leaving egos and unsubstantiated assertions out of it — is that the appropriation can’t hurt and will do some good.
LikeLike
Perhaps if the president offered something in return like DACA or more judges or more specifics about the wall locations…
Negotiate rather than demand. Congress does hold the purse strings by Constitutional mandate.
LikeLike