None of this has anything to do with the Wall, dear. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low - down by over two-thirds since 2000. There is no "humanitarian crisis".

The majority of illegal aliens in the US are visa overstayers. Most of the crime Mr Trump referred to was not done by border crossers, but as he said, "illegal aliens".

The majority of drugs aren't smuggled in over the border, most come by plane or boat.

Mexico will not "indirectly" pay for the Wall. This doesn't make any sense - Mr Trump didn't even try to explain it. Raising the idea of walls around politicians' homes makes even less sense. Mr Trump's trying to build a Wall, for the most part, in the middle of a desert.

A government shutdown won't pay for the Wall either. No president has ever cut off government funding under similar circumstances. Imagine, 800,000 US employees are now off work or working for no pay at all.

The 5.7 bil won't even pay for the Wall, just one year's funding in an estimated 28 billion project over many years. All experts say this is a huge underestimation of the total cost.

Feel free to stick to the topic, Aquascoot. You don't care about the Wall, you're just here to defend a "strong, confident leader".

Others, however, defend Mr Trump solely because of the Wall. They see it as a race issue - "they're rapists, murderers, they bring in drugs and some, I assume, are good people".

The Wall is essentially a race issue - keeping out people from "shthole countries". It's not a humanitarian crisis and we all know this. The only humanitarian crisis has been the detention of illegal border crossers and the removal of their children. Mr Trump has created a problem, and now, he wants to present a solution.

But a wall is not the solution. Mr Trump said he'd been asked by border security officials to build a wall. This is false. There have been no formal requests, suggestions or reports from ICE or any other agency requesting a wall. The reports, which Democrats and Republicans in congress have already acted upon (and funded) recommended more electronic surveillance.

Mr Trump has changed the design from a "big beautiful wall - not a fence" to steel fenceposts so that border police can see through. They specifically recommended against a wall. A wall would actually hinder their work. They don't want the very thing Mr Trump promised - a fortress that would block off the murderers and rapists and keep them out of sight.

Did you know? The nearly 2 billion already funded by government to secure the border has not even been spent. In a "humanitarian crisis", Mr Trump hasn't even got to work on what border officials have requested, and what the congress and senate have already funded. And this, from a property developer "who builds things", who always comes in "ahead of time and under budget".

Mr Trump's speech was surprising in that it just reiterated what Mr Trump's already said. Nothing was announced - no emergency powers or military intervention. It was a last-ditch effort from a president who is utterly out of his depth, and possibly in his last days.

This is certainly the feeling in the White House by all accounts. Mr Trump is desperate to fund a core erection promise that no one wants or needs. Mr Trump, as president of the United States, is blindly tilting at a windmill. He doesn't even care about the Wall, he's just worried he'll have no political clout if he doesn't at least try.

Maybe, but he's not going to get it, so why try so hard?

Obama, with all his concessions and deals, finally got health care through a Republican house and senate. Mr Trump can't get his Wall through a Republican house and senate. Why would he succeed now?

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:



Aborigines? Never thought about it.

No, Aquascoot, all presidents do not immerse themselves in the durr state. They surround themselves with capable staffers who try to keep them out of it. You know, chiefs of staff to help plan their time, senior cabinet members to advise them and help run the government, security advisors to give them the best intelligence, political advisors to help them plan tactics.

The Donald? He won't work with a chief of staff, hence he has hardly any planned meetings or appointments. Most of his days are blocked out as "administrative time". This is where he watches TV and Tweets. In the last week, he's had 3 official meetings. He's now playing golf in Mar a Lago. On average, the Donald spends 3 to 4 hours a day in the Oval Office, compared to past presidents who spent 9 or 10, before they rushed off to state dinners. With the exception of the odd sports team, the Donald doesn't host them. He prefers to eat McDonalds in his room.

The Donald doesn't take much advice, which is a good thing. Over 60% of his cabinet have either been fired or quit (his favourite was arrested for lying to the FBI). Even the Donald's loyal Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is rumoured to be leaving after less than a year. After years of being ignored, his last secretary of defence finally quit, giving the Donald a letter explaining why. The Donald patted him on the back and said how great James Mattis was. The Donald doesn't read letters, so the press had to tell him what was in it. The Donald then fired the man believed by most in Washington to have been the last grown-up in the Donald's cabinet. The nerve! You can't quit - you're fired.

The Donald doesn't listen to security advisors or intelligence either. He even tells the heads of the CIA and NSA to go back to school - what would they know? The Donald wants them to listen to him! It's unknown where the Donald gets his intelligence from because he only has about one security briefing a week and never reads the daily reports. Fox News is the most likely source, along with a strangely Russian take on foreign policy no one has worked out where it comes from.

The Donald's political advisors are now mostly facing jail time, but he does listen to Fox News hosts. The Republicans are blaming Hannity and Judge Janine for talking the Donald into shutting down the government and creating all that hassle for nothing. The Donald's paid advisors can't even get him to read an autocue. Mind you, he listens to his attractive daughter, the lovely Ivanka. She helped the Donald host the Apprentice, so she has some experience in political planning and working with Congress to draft policy.

But I'm curious. I have a question I'm dying to answer, dear. We call a politician who makes fake promises to get erected a salesman, right? We call one who pretends he's a victim of his own security forces a trickster. So what do we call one who gets impeached for lying about having sex with that woman, hypothetically speaking?

Cheers, dears.

Classic light, backed into a corner, spams an entire page worth of posts to cover it up.

The thread boils down to you complaining about a decision on here you didn't like because it meant you cannot attack others here accusing them of supporting child porn.

You've tried to change the goal posts to pretend you have a genuine concern about the issue, despite being handed on a silver plater the means by which you can take action to at least attempt to prevent the South Park imagery that was the basis for your complaint and the original topic of this thread, but you refuse to do anything about it, eroding even the slightest notion of your motives being genuine.

It is there for all to see.

As usual, I see no point in going around in circles with this.  You won't budge, you'll refuse to accept reality or "see the light" and we'd just be wasting everybody's time, as was always the case when you'd been confronted with evidence you can't handle. 

When you get stuck on spam and silly memes, we all know you've lost.

I'll leave this thread, you'll make some other absurd claims or personal attacks, it will go ignored and you'll think you've won.

As long as everything is ok in your own little reality yeah?

I honestly thought you might have come back a better person after your break.

Wrong.

Whats the best way to start up the boats?

Take an insignificant passing of a bill that only affects existing detainees - and shout from the rooftops that this is such a great opportunity for people who might arrive by boat.

The cynicial and totally irresponsible opportunism of the government over this bill - putting our border security directly at risk - is shocking and despicable.

If boats do start up again, it will be because Morrison, not Shorten, laid out the welcome mat.

only a true mentally retarded buggerwit would try to turn this terrible attack by white people on a police officer, into an anti black thread.

I'd be tempted to, Brandon, sure. But I'd also be looking at the evidence and listening to what Pell's barrister presumably said about beyond any reasonable doubt.

I have doubts that the victim could not easily have made up a story to attack Pell and the Catholic Church. I also have doubt, as Pell said, that there wouldn't have been plenty of people milling around after a service of that size. Why would Pell put himself at such risk?

I have doubt, legitimate I think, that Pell would do something like this in a church after a mass. One thing Pell does have is a deep-seated belief in the rituals and sanctimony of the Catholic Church. Pell is most definitely a holier-than-thou kind of guy.

The look on Pell's face when he was told of these charges was genuine, I think. You could see the blood rise straight to his head and face. It is indeed a farcical charge - a priest of Pell's stature pulling out his dick and orally raping two boys as punishment for breaking into the priest's chamber. Pell's right - it's a ludicrous claim, even if true.

These are all doubts, Brandon. They've also caused me to doubt the 7.30 Report allegations made about Pell in his younger days in Melbourne. As the court ruled, none of that was provable, could easily have been misconstrued or didn't meet the threshold for a criminal act.

When I saw the witnesses describing their claims, I was convinced. I believed Pell was guilty for sure. The court found otherwise.

What I'm saying is I have reasonable doubts that have not been put to rest. I think for a trial of this magnitude, we should be presented with the evidence the jury went on. Members of the Catholic Church have come out to confirm these doubts, and I can understand them perfectly. Without the evidence, Pell is being turned into a martyr.