How (and when) will the Government Shutdown end?

@oralloy,

Which will accomplish nothing.

@revelette1,

It might result in Trump's wall being built.

@oralloy,

Not it won't. It's impossible to build a wall all along the Southern Border, not to mention insanely expensive and ineffective in the reason for the stupid wall to begin with.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wall-impossible-build-architects-2017-1

1 Reply

@revelette1,

If the courts do not block Trump's wall, he's going to start building it after he declares an emergency.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Do you agree that border security, more BP agents, more judges, more technology, and maybe even fencing in certain areas is a compromise to a gulf to ocean physical wall?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I think it'll have to be something that Trump can credibly claim to be his wall.

It probably doesn't have to go all the way from gulf to ocean. But it probably has to be a substantial physical barrier of some sort.

He wants to either run for reelection on a credible claim that he got it done, or on a credible claim that he is getting it done and will finish the job if he is reelected.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I think it'll have to be something that Trump can credibly claim to be his wall.

Do you think that border security, more BP agents, more judges, more technology, and maybe even fencing in certain can be credibly claimed to be a wall

Or a 'smart-wall'?
Or a technological-wall.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I think it'll have to be something that Trump can credibly claim to be his wall.

I asked if it were a compromise.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Probably not. I think it'll have to be a substantial physical wall -- not coast to coast, but in some places.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I would consider a compromise as the Democrats getting a real and permanent fix for DACA (that they are satisfied with) in exchange for Trump getting a real physical wall (that he is satisfied with).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Probably not. I think it'll have to be a substantial physical wall -- not coast to coast, but in some places.

Do you think Trump should be required to submit a plan for this substantial physical wall before it be considered?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I would consider a compromise as the Democrats getting a real and permanent fix for DACA (that they are satisfied with) in exchange for Trump getting a real physical wall (that he is satisfied with).

I want more than a DACA fix. That was on the table over a year ago and it was turned down by Trump. That was the deal when Democrats didn't have any leverage of their own. America gave them more leverage in 2018.

I want a DACA fix, including citizenship and it should be ongoing past the dates in the Obama EO
I want more and enough judges to expedite all things related to immigration to happen in days not years.
I want employers to be held responsible for hiring illegals
I want a large, large guest worker program
I want an increase to legal immigration say 10x and a number that automatically adjusts with population growth and that would require a bill passed by congress to change

I would trade all of those things for a solid concrete physical barrier on the Mexican border.

I'd even throw my support behind a Canadian barrier if you add in a path to citizenship for all the illegals in America today and up until these other changes are implemented and some way to guarantee that these government shutdowns never happen again.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I think most of those things could be considered a form of a DACA fix.

At any rate, I think the Democrats would be reasonable to ask for all of that. I would support them in such a request. I like all the ideas that you mentioned.

I'd want people who become citizens to be properly indoctrinated in the value of our civil liberties (including the Second Amendment) as part of the process of becoming a citizen though.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Do you think Trump should be required to submit a plan for this substantial physical wall before it be considered?

Sure. Why not?

And if Democrats don't like it they can submit a counter-proposal.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Do you think Trump should be required to submit a plan for this substantial physical wall before it be considered?
Sure. Why not?

No reason why not. But Trump hasn't done this and I'm not expecting that he will before 3 weeks from now.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'd want people who become citizens to be properly indoctrinated in the value of our civil liberties (including the Second Amendment) as part of the process of becoming a citizen though.

Increasing the US population without changing current lifestyle/economic norms would be bad for the environment and sustainability unless all the newcomers live in car-free areas like NYC.

Even when people move to NYC and other car-free areas, however, they engage in business activities that stimulate more of the anti-environmental economic activity elsewhere.

Reforms have to be supported by the voluntary free will of people with liberty, so the popular will to resist sustainability/climate reforms amounts to a reason to restrict immigration and population growth more generally.

Just as we have to have the liberty to bear arms yet not kill and terrorize each other with them, we have to exercise the liberty to have industrial machinery and the economic power to use it without undermining environment and future sustainability.

We can't achieve a proper combination of liberty and goodness until people stop fighting for more money, power, equality, etc. We have to accept that liberty, environment, and sustainability are more important than economic gain and rivalry. Economic inequality has to become sustainable, meaning people with less income and property still need to live at prosperous-yet-meager levels, meaning a small house and transit/bicycle but not car/truck and/or big house and other luxuries.

Everyone should be free from crime, obnoxious neighbors, disruptive classrooms, and economic exploitation; but eliminating wage gaps and other economic inequalities are not the solution, nor is expensive health insurance mandates that just result in more economic stimulus of unaffordably-priced healthcare.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

We can sustain a larger population.

Cars are no problem. Use nuclear reactors to separate hydrogen from water. Power cars with hydrogen fuel cells.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

We can sustain a larger population.

Cars are no problem. Use nuclear reactors to separate hydrogen from water. Power cars with hydrogen fuel cells.

Cars and pavement are a huge problem. Reforestation is a crucial component of natural climate-restoration.

Try a simple experiment to see for yourself: Look around anywhere there is automotive traffic on the roads and ask yourself how much tree canopy and forest ecology can be restored without reducing traffic and narrowing roads to single-lanes.

As for nuclear reactors, they are just not sustainable. Even if you didn't have the long-term buildup of radioactive waste to deal with, they are still a non-renewable resource.

Radioactive elements are also part of the planet's natural heat-containment mechanisms that keep the mantle and core molten so that the magnetic field continues to protect life against cosmic radiation and atmosphere-loss.

The sun delivers (fusion) energy to the planet as sunlight. Life on Earth has always sufficed with the sunlight it can capture and harness on the surface. Humans are clever so we figured out how to dig up more concentrated fuels and harness them for industrial power, but we should be using our technological savvy to reform industrialism to suffice within the traditionally-sustainable margins that life on Earth has always abided.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Cars and pavement are a huge problem. Reforestation is a crucial component of natural climate-restoration.
Try a simple experiment to see for yourself: Look around anywhere there is automotive traffic on the roads and ask yourself how much tree canopy and forest ecology can be restored without reducing traffic and narrowing roads to single-lanes.

I'm not trying to turn the US into a forest in the first place.

livinglava wrote:

As for nuclear reactors, they are just not sustainable. Even if you didn't have the long-term buildup of radioactive waste to deal with, they are still a non-renewable resource.

We don't have a long-term buildup of radioactive waste to deal with. That supposed waste is actually fuel that the environmental movement insists that we not use.

Fissile material may be finite, but there is a very large supply.

livinglava wrote:

Radioactive elements are also part of the planet's natural heat-containment mechanisms that keep the mantle and core molten so that the magnetic field continues to protect life against cosmic radiation and atmosphere-loss.

Mining of uranium and thorium is not going to freeze the core of the planet.

livinglava wrote:

The sun delivers (fusion) energy to the planet as sunlight. Life on Earth has always sufficed with the sunlight it can capture and harness on the surface. Humans are clever so we figured out how to dig up more concentrated fuels and harness them for industrial power, but we should be using our technological savvy to reform industrialism to suffice within the traditionally-sustainable margins that life on Earth has always abided.

Once we set up orbiting space mirrors to collect more sunlight, maybe we will be able to transition to renewable energy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'm not trying to turn the US into a forest in the first place.

Deforestation impairs the long term capacity for the carbon cycle to re-absorb all the carbon that has been released into the atmosphere as CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels.

The carbon cycle involves the natural life-cycles of surface life, as well as the gradual build up of sedimentation from that biological life. We are spending the fossil fuels that have built up due to this sedimentation, but we are developing and using land in ways that prevent it from continuing to function in the way it has since the beginnings of life on Earth.

Quote:

We don't have a long-term buildup of radioactive waste to deal with. That supposed waste is actually fuel that the environmental movement insists that we not use.

Using that waste for fuel is more dangerous, I've read, and requires a lot of handling/processing. Even if the fuel can be burnt completely, it is still a non-renewable source, one which has a natural role to play in the long-term sustainability of the planet.

Quote:

Fissile material may be finite, but there is a very large supply.

It's just not wise to go down that path and establish energy-use patterns that will ultimately lead future humans into problems. It makes far more sense to modify industrial lifestyles and economies to fit within the margins of what is totally sustainable. We have the technology to properly insulate buildings and bodies to suffice with very small quantities of energy, so why not achieve that?

Quote:

Mining of uranium and thorium is not going to freeze the core of the planet.

You are thinking on the order of decades or maybe centuries. Sustainability means achieving patterns of activity that will never ever cause problems in the future. It is doable.

Quote:

Once we set up orbiting space mirrors to collect more sunlight, maybe we will be able to transition to renewable energy.

Earth gets plenty of sunlight. It uses most of it well. What we clever humans need to do is utilize our technological savvy to making do with that energy. Ancient people that lived in northern latitudes did it by wrapping themselves in the pelts of animals that are naturally adapted to the cold. Humans now have much more knowledge and skill to make cloths and insulations that work better than animal insulation. Eskimos built igloos and kept them above freezing by burning a small amount of fat or whatever they had to burn. Today we have even more effective insulation that can be used to keep a single room or zone of a building at 60F without using practically any energy, and the energy used can come from solar panels whose energy is stored in batteries.

1 Reply

How (and when) will the Government Shutdown end?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know