Government Shut-Down Thread

[DCHawk1]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

[twocoach]

Mr. Literal wanted to let you know that's "some" of the Dems stance, not all.

Also, that's "some" of the Repubs stance too.

Did I miss an announcement that a Dem was switching over and supporting Trump's wall plan? It's been very busy at work so I haven't been reading stuff this week.

Shoot me a link, please.

Not that I've seen...but some don't want any barriers at all. That's what I was referencing.

Please link to the Congressional Democrat that wants all physical barriers removed from our Southern border. I'll wait...

[Deleted User 89]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

lol...”some” is a pitifully small proportion

and that doesn’t answer my question, but whatevs

[Geezer]

Who wanted to abolish US Customs and Border patrol?

[twocoach]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

Their same role would still be performed, just by a different agency. What's so scandalous about that?

The answer to my question is "nothing, if you read beyond the headline".

[twocoach]

Who wanted to abolish US Customs and Border patrol?

But...but.... ICE?

[DCHawk1]

Who wanted to abolish US Customs and Border patrol?

It's...uhhh...Customs and Border PROTECTION, but then it's irrelevant, as you know.

[DCHawk1]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

Their same role would still be performed, just by a different agency. What's so scandalous about that?

The answer to my question is "nothing, if you read beyond the headline".

Rousseau laffs.

[DCHawk1]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

lol...”some” is a pitifully small proportion

and that doesn’t answer my question, but whatevs

Including at least three presidential hopefuls.

[twocoach]

Who wanted to abolish US Customs and Border patrol?

It's...uhhh...Customs and Border PROTECTION, but then it's irrelevant, as you know.

AKA the people who would take over what ICE does if ICE were to be abolished.

One less agency full of mid level managers sucking off the govt teet works for me. Roll their work into CBP and cut some staff. I thought the GOP wanted smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government?

[DCHawk1]

Who wanted to abolish US Customs and Border patrol?

It's...uhhh...Customs and Border PROTECTION, but then it's irrelevant, as you know.

AKA the people who would take over what ICE does if ICE were to be abolished.

Which is to say that the whole production is all about the rhetoric, while the actual policy would be simply to shuffle the deck chairs.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Geezer]

What point?

[twocoach]

It's...uhhh...Customs and Border PROTECTION, but then it's irrelevant, as you know.

AKA the people who would take over what ICE does if ICE were to be abolished.

Which is to say that the whole production is all about the rhetoric, while the actual policy would be simply to shuffle the deck chairs.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Cut some staff by getting rid of a bunch of admins, paper pushers and managers/directors and roll a chunk of their actual agents under CBP.

It's called streamlining and eliminating duplicate functionality to save money, time and reduce inconsistencies in policy and procedure.

[DCHawk1]

AKA the people who would take over what ICE does if ICE were to be abolished.

Which is to say that the whole production is all about the rhetoric, while the actual policy would be simply to shuffle the deck chairs.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Cut some staff by getting rid of a bunch of admins, paper pushers and managers/directors and roll a chuck of their actual agents under CBP.

It's called streamlining and eliminating duplicate functionality to save money, time and reduce inconsistencies in policy and procedure.

lulz

That's not the point of the Abolish ICE and Occupy ICE movements and you know it.

[DCHawk1]

What point?

The one on the top of your head?

[Deleted User 75]

Did I miss an announcement that a Dem was switching over and supporting Trump's wall plan? It's been very busy at work so I haven't been reading stuff this week.

Shoot me a link, please.

Not that I've seen...but some don't want any barriers at all. That's what I was referencing.

Please link to the Congressional Democrat that wants all physical barriers removed from our Southern border. I'll wait...

Google.com will give you many examples of Dems saying they don't want physical barriers....

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be "immoral."

"We cannot protect the border with concrete," Clyburn said recently. 

"That is what real border security looks like, and I can tell you that San Diegans want that border security," Peters said. "But we do not want a wall."

[twocoach]

Which is to say that the whole production is all about the rhetoric, while the actual policy would be simply to shuffle the deck chairs.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Cut some staff by getting rid of a bunch of admins, paper pushers and managers/directors and roll a chuck of their actual agents under CBP.

It's called streamlining and eliminating duplicate functionality to save money, time and reduce inconsistencies in policy and procedure.

lulz

That's not the point of the Abolish ICE and Occupy ICE movements and you know it.

It needs to be throughly reviewed and reformed just as all of the other agencies and policies involved in our immihration system need.

ICE seems to running off the leash in many cases. Our government should not have employeees behaving in the manner that has been reported of numerous ICE agents. Any system where that egregious behavior occurs should be dismantled and rebuilt with more oversight and policy in place.

[Deleted User 75]

Which is to say that the whole production is all about the rhetoric, while the actual policy would be simply to shuffle the deck chairs.

Thanks for proving my point.

Nope. Cut some staff by getting rid of a bunch of admins, paper pushers and managers/directors and roll a chuck of their actual agents under CBP.

It's called streamlining and eliminating duplicate functionality to save money, time and reduce inconsistencies in policy and procedure.

lulz

That's not the point of the Abolish ICE and Occupy ICE movements and you know it.

He just spews talking points from the left. He's not being genuine in nearly 100% of his dialogue on here with who he views as people on the "right" and it's obvious. It's why when you (or others) provide stats or worthwhile counterpoints he ignores those comments and moves onto something else (easier).

[Deleted User 62]

Some want to "abolish" the government agency that handles border security -- and actually campaigned on that platform.

I think that this situation was created when Donny John decided to militarize ICE.

[twocoach]

Nope. Cut some staff by getting rid of a bunch of admins, paper pushers and managers/directors and roll a chuck of their actual agents under CBP.

It's called streamlining and eliminating duplicate functionality to save money, time and reduce inconsistencies in policy and procedure.

lulz

That's not the point of the Abolish ICE and Occupy ICE movements and you know it.

He just spews talking points from the left. He's not being genuine in nearly 100% of his dialogue on here with who he views as people on the "right" and it's obvious. It's why when you (or others) provide stats or worthwhile counterpoints he ignores those comments and moves onto something else (easier).

You want genuine? DC threw this garbage out here about Abolish ICE as chum. It's a dog whistle for mentally lazy people who rally around it as some alleged proof that Dems want an open border with no enforcement all as some ploy to get more people into the country to be Dem voters to ruin the way of life of those GOP voters.

Frankly, it's barely worth arguing because I know he doesn't actually give a shit about it and is just stirring the pot. There, genuine enough?