Posted on 01/08/2019 7:55:48 PM PST by Pinkbell
I hoped for a long time for him to do this address, but I thought, while okay, it could have been better in terms of detail. I was hoping for something longer and infused with stats. I'm afraid what we heard was general comments usually made. I would have had border patrol there if I could have & local sheriffs - have a couple step forward & give their experience at the border & the impact a wall has had in the places where it is and would have.
I guess the format I'd have used is:
~Number of illegal entries per month and year (complete with some video from border patrol of those entries)
~Number of criminals who cross illegally per year
~Amount of drugs brought in per year
~Trafficking statistics
~Discuss the Flores settlement and how that leads to Catch and Release and an increase in family units crossing
~Discuss the human smuggling that occurs, particularly of families, due to Flores
~The overflowing facilities
~The annual crime regarding drugs, number of Americans raped, assaulted, and killed
~The annual cost of illegal immigration
~The dangers of sanctuary cities
~The magnets & loopholes that must be closed - need a wall, E-Verify, Biometric Visa, to end birthright citizenship (being taken advantage of by people as far away as Russia & China), and end sanctuary cities and welfare to those coming illegally
~Reiterate that the wall works in areas that it is tried with statistics & that it isn't immoral or Chuck & Nancy wouldn't have supported the Secure Fence Act years ago, that wealthy have walls around their homes because they work.
~Chuck and Nancy know it is a crisis because it was going on under Obama & they were giving him money. They have had decades to deal with the situation, but they have failed and have no plan except status quo. They don't even think it is a problem and are only offering some form of security because Trump is raising the issue. Why say they support enhancing border security at all via different means than a wall if there is no problem to fix in the first place? The border patrol agree that drones & technology can't replace a physical barrier - that's why they have physical barriers around wealthy homes of prominent celebrities and politicians. If it's immoral to keep people out with an visible wall, then why would an "invisible" wall be moral? Should current, existing wall be torn down as immoral? Why aren't they protesting it?
I just feel that this speech was general & didn't get into the detail that people don't know. I feel it won't move the needle in terms of the beliefs people are already have.
Thankfully, Chuck and Nancy's speech was worse than even I could have anticipated, and they did nothing to help their own cause. They said there was no crisis while admitting that they needed to do something but offered vague generalities and the status quo.
Trump's next chance is seemingly the State of The Union. I don't know if the shutdown will still be ongoing, but he needs to convey all of this to the people in more detail.
That said, he could do something even sooner. If I were his staff, this is his signature issue, I'd have him down there visiting all the border towns, meeting with patrol and sheriffs and speaking at every place. I'd pound the issue so the media has to show it.
Thanks. I got to watch half, will rewatch a bit later and reflect on your observations. What little I saw looked serious, sober.
Personally, I agree. Of all trumps speeches at press conferences, at rallies, even on the White House lawn this one was one of the least impressive. The guy is such a showman it is shocking that he settled for an eighth grade speech on the border. Fortunately those two democrat idiots far out did him so his speech looked better than it really was.
He did a good job. He knows his audience. There is a limited amount of time for this message before he gets tuned out. I agree your ideas are good but I trust Trump’s instincts.
Would have loved for him to play video of Nan and Chuck supporting immigration enforcement, though...
That would have been one of Obama/Castro/Chavez 2 hour speeches.
He simply had to look like he cared about the right things, and was fighting the good fight, that it matters, and that HE is the reasonable guy in this. He succeeded.
Nancy and Chucky had to not look like clueless crazy octogenarians. They failed.
I think Trump is doing this to gauge the reaction of the Left.
Trump needs to stick Schumer with the Calif. immigrant Figi cop’s death.
I was hoping for: “As I speak, teams of agents are arresting Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Rice, etc...”
Except for sanctuary cities, everything on your list was there. The President was making sure all Americans hear his point of view.
When you get elected you can do it your way.
I’m just grateful to FINALLY have a President on OUR side.
The previous FOUR were NOT.
We all have dreams..........
First step.
You people are UNBELIEVABLE arrogant and self centered.
For all the time you took for your criticism...YOU DONT GET IT AT ALL...DO YOU.????
This wasn’t for political junkies like you...It was for THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN ...Who may not like Trump...a short, speech about why this is a crisis.
For THAT audience it was perfect.
I think he’s making them (Dems) continue to stink and tonite he made them do it on national tv. Granted more would be nice but he has to win in 2020, or we are screwed after that. He still holds the emergency closure option. Home run yeah. Grand slam maybe soon. We got in the war on 12/07/41, it wasn’t won till 1945. Hang in there.
That was deliberate. They have been trying to paint him as a psycho off his meds making impulsive decisions. They were waiting for him to declare martial law. To say something nutty. To declare a national emergency and to have the Army start work tomorrow. They thought maybe he would close the border, etc etc.
Instead, he was the grownup in the room.
The speech was great and took away their method of attack. He seemed reasonable.
Trump's 10 minutes were fine and was loaded with enough factual stats to suffice.
I thought it was pretty boring, but it was a homerun compared to Chancy.
I don’t think more stats would have helped much. Too many numbers tend to make people’s eyes glaze over.
I don’t think the address merited the attention it got. I say that because I don’t think he said anything that’s going to change anything. Whoever wrote it ought to be reassigned.Trump is usually much, much better than he was tonight.
I still believe the probable outcome will be the Repubs in Congress crying uncle. They’ll probably go along with the Democrats’ approach in submitting separate bills for each department.
Bttt
He had to keep it short, to the point and focus on key issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.