Disagreed, he ain't building shit with 5 billion. At this point he's better off just trying to take credit for the fencing that's been built by previous administrations as he's been trying.
I agree he's most likely going to be building very very little at this point. Even if he gets his $5 billion that is going to require Trump to go into full huckster mode to sell it as a 'winning'. He needs this to gain traction and have a snowballs chance..
Thats not what most Americans say. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...icans-blame-trump-for-shutdown-than-democrats Poll: More Americans blame Trump for shutdown than Democrats More Americans blame President Trump than Democrats for the six-day partial government shutdown, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/poll-voters-would-blame-trump-gop-for-shutdown-1068673 POLITICO/Morning Consult Poll Poll: Voters would blame Trump, GOP for shutdown If parts of the federal government shut down later this week, most voters will blame President Donald Trump and Republicans over Democratic minorities in Congress, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/22/politics/poll-of-the-week-wall-shutdown-trump-republicans/index.html Trump learned nothing from the midterms. Exhibit A: the shutdown. Number of the week: A Quinnipiac University poll finds that 43% of voters support building a wall along the Mexican border. A majority, 54%, are opposed to such a wall. If anything, the Quinnipiac poll is an outlier in favor of the pro-wall position. A CNN poll conducted earlier this month found that only 38% of Americans favored a wall, with 57% opposed. Either way, the average result is Americans clearly not wanting a wall.
He should be able to build 1/2 at least of the wall technically. He said back in 2016 he could do it for $8B. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-says-his-wall-would-cost-8-billion “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall,” Trump said in his presidential announcement speech. ”Mark my words.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wall-would-cost-far-more-5-billion-so-why-have-fight A wall would cost far more than $5 billion, so why have this fight? As the government gets set to shut down in about 12 hours, there’s apparently only one number that matters: $5 billion. That’s the only line on Donald Trump’s ransom note to Congress. If lawmakers agree to turn over the $5 billion for his border-wall project, he’ll keep the government open. If they don’t, he’ll shut the government down – “for a very long time.” But it’s worth pausing to ask an awkward question: how exactly did we arrive at this specific figure? In February 2017, Reuters published an interesting report on the project’s price tag. President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday. The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Trump himself gave the project a $20 billion price tag, while a Politico report, citing estimates from Capitol Hill sources, added that some lawmakers believe the price “could be as high as $50 billion when all is said and done.” As Vox’s Matt Yglesias noted yesterday, the White House put together a budget request last year seeking $25 billion for the project. So, putting aside related angles – I seem to recall Trump promising Mexico would pony up money for this – why is the fight over $5 billion? As best as I can tell, Trump picked an arbitrary number that sounded good, knowing that it’d be tougher to get even House Republicans to go along with the $25 billion request the White House made a year ago. Sure, $5 billion won’t build much of a wall, but during the president’s re-election bid, he’d be able to tell his followers, “Against all odds, I secured the funds needed to start the wall. Give me a second term, and I’ll finish the job.” It won’t be a great argument – there’s still the whole Mexican-financing thing to consider – but Trump also knows that if he gets nothing, which now appears very likely, he’s going to have a tough time explaining to voters why he failed so spectacularly on his signature issue. With this in mind, assuming there is a shutdown, I expect Trump to start lowering his target price, in the hopes that Democrats give him something to help him save face. I have a hunch this won’t work, but time will tell.
Here's an interesting article that kinda counters the current mantra of a "virtual" fence. (also note the last line... Obama sent National Guard troops to the border also. Did we cover that already?) ___________________________________________ Administration giving up on full 'virtual fence' on border Saturday, January 15, 2011 The Obama administration canceled Friday the troubled, billion-dollar "virtual fence" project along the U.S. border with Mexico and said it will turn to other security measures to better guard the desert region. The SBInet project, begun in 2006 and run by Boeing, was designed to pull together video cameras, radar, sensors and other technologies to catch illegal immigrants and smugglers trying to cross the porous border. But it faced setbacks, missed deadlines and cost overruns. The Department of Homeland Security said the project spent $1 billion to cover just 53 miles in Arizona. In its place, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, commercially available surveillance systems, unmanned aerial drones, thermal imaging and other equipment will be used. This new approach should cost less than $750 million to cover the rest of Arizona's border, some 323 miles, the department said. "This new strategy is . . . a more effective balance between cost and capability," Napolitano said in a statement. The Obama administration has been under pressure to beef up security to stem the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and halt the smuggling of drugs and weapons. Last year, President Obama signed a $600 million bill to fund 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and law enforcement officials along the border and to pay for two more unmanned drones. Additionally, he ordered about 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border to help with security. - Reuters
Tony's Reuters poll had more democrats than republicans and I did not see how the leaners were broken. That poll and a starbucks gift certificate for a coffee would get you a coffee. 2. Trump did learn from the mid terms. He realized his agenda was cratered by Ryan and McConnell and he won't be re elected if he does not get some victories for his former base. However, I think he may have learned this fact to late. He was screwed by Ivanka his son jn law and Ryan and friends into getting rid of the only guy who could have kept the agenda, which won, ... rolling.
I hope you're responding in jest? You and I know he would not get it done with 8 billion. I don't see how this counters the current mantra of a smart fence? They ditched one project for cost over-runs and opted for other more cost effective tech (combination of thermal, surveillance, drones/etc..). I consider these part of a "smart" fence. As to the rest, it's a well known fact Obama tried cracking down on border security as a "pre-guarantee" to compromise to get comprehensive immigration reform. Obama got a ton of flack for it. He eventually eased back when he realized the republicans were just full of shit and unwilling to compromise to get reform done.
I love when people tell you they never went to college by arguing that a poll had more democrats than republicans.