Speakeasy forum

Question

Would YOU connect THESE dots?

compare the situation on the Southern Border with troops in a "war zone"?


MILLER: One more point, I guarantee you this, if Donald Trump had said he’s invoking the National Emergency Military Construction Authority to build a security perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan or around a military installation in Syria, there would not have been one word of objection from Congress.

MILLER: No because Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergency Act and gave the president the authority, as a result of that, to invoke a national emergency in many different circumstances but among them the use of military construction funds. That was the point I was making earlier. If the president were to say we’re going to use military construction funds to, say, increase a perimeter around a base in Bahrain, around a base in Syria, nobody would even say anything about it and we have 4,000 troops on the border right now and as a result of that mission they need to secure those areas where they’re patrolling
.

Comparing the southern border of America to Iran, Syria and Afghanistan?...It must be REALLY dangerous in Texas

They aren't building a WALL to prevent illegals from entering America...they are building a WALL to protect the US troops that are stationed on the border to prevent illegals from entering America?

And that's the reason for taking funds from one purpose and using it for another?

NO troops on the border...No reason for the wall?

IF the troops weren't there, HE would have NO argument?

I think Millers nickname should be Stretch....(not because he is really tallWink
Answer This Ask For Clarification
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Would YOU connect THESE dots?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Would YOU connect THESE dots?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Clarification Request
Maybe

In reply to: Would YOU connect THESE dots?

Stephen Miller?

Collapse -
RE: Stephen Miller?

In reply to: Maybe

Spokesman for DJT.

Collapse -
RE: Stephen Miller?

In reply to: Maybe

Spokesman for DJT.

All Answers

Collapse -
Answer
(NT) ... do you mean Dennis Miller?

In reply to: Would YOU connect THESE dots?

Collapse -
Answer
The Don

In reply to: Would YOU connect THESE dots?

Needs to build the wall for political survival.

If he does not get it done and does not have a good out come 2020 he's dead.

I can listen to him and staff spin this but that's what it's all about.

The biggest national emergency we have is between the Don's ears.

Collapse -
Answer
Try these dots....

In reply to: Would YOU connect THESE dots?

"They aren't building a WALL to prevent illegals from entering America...they are building a WALL to protect the US troops that are stationed on the border to prevent illegals from entering America?"

When BO put troops on that border nobody said a word....The troops wouldn't BE necessary if the wall that was voted on by Dems currently holding office in 2013 HAD been built. The wall is not to protect the troops there now...it's being built to protect AMERICANS on our side of that wall.

Collapse -
RE: The wall is not to protect the troops there now

In reply to: Try these dots....

Thank you...YOU do not agree with Stephen Miller...spokesman for DJT

Collapse -
HE never said that....YOU did...

In reply to: RE: The wall is not to protect the troops there now

"They aren't building a WALL to prevent illegals from entering America...they are building a WALL to protect the US troops that are stationed on the border to prevent illegals from entering America?"

NOWHERE did MILLER say the perimeters built in battle zones put up to protect troops.....YOU added that tidbit to the ACTUAL reason that was at the END of that sentence you wrote.

Keep illegals out and you protect the US TERRITORY from them....and the military's role is to do that according to our Constitution. If they get protected from stampeders and/or rock throwers in the process all the better.

Collapse -
RE:NOWHERE did MILLER say

In reply to: HE never said that....YOU did...

NOWHERE did MILLER say the perimeters built in battle zones put up to protect troops..


MILLER: One more point, I guarantee you this, if Donald Trump had said he’s invoking the National Emergency Military Construction Authority to build a security perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan or around a military installation in Syria, there would not have been one word of objection from Congress. This is defending our own country.

security perimeter = perimeter....military installation= battle zone.....protect troops/defend country/American troops

Defending our own country?....protecting troops? One and the same?

Some things don't have to be said.....other things have to be stated more than once...just to get though to some people.....

It should be understood....

Ask anyone that is in the military WHY they would set up a "perimeter". Especially around a military installation...ONLY to protect the infrastructure and equipment...the personnel are on their own?

RE:HE never said that....YOU did...

HE connected the dots FIRST...I just pointed out where HIS dots led.

What do YOU think a "perimeter around a military base in Syria" has to do with troops on the US Mexico border?..

Miller seems to be able to make a "connection" between the two when it comes to "WALL FUNDING".
Collapse -
Nowhere, I repeat, did he say

In reply to: RE:NOWHERE did MILLER say

that perimeter wall was built in war zones to protect troops...do you have ANY idea how many NON-MILITARY people are protected with that wall? Just as OUR citizens would be protected.

Yep...some things DO have to be said more than once for people to 'get' it....

Collapse -
RE:Nowhere, I repeat, did he say

In reply to: Nowhere, I repeat, did he say

Nowhere, I repeat, did he say that perimeter wall was built in war zones to protect troops


Would YOU connect THESE dots?..It appears not....

Stephen Millers message went over your head and did not convince you that a wall to protect troops in a war zone is akin/similar to the WALL on the border.

YOU don't agree with Stephen Miller...like I said previously.


.
Collapse -
It didn't go over MY head....

In reply to: RE:Nowhere, I repeat, did he say

it went over YOURS. HE didn't mention protecting the troops....YOU did. YOU leapt to a conclusion by YOUR interpretation of what he said. Typical liberal spinning a sentence sideways to make a point that HE wasn't making.

Troops on our southern border must be protected by a wall.....according to YOU. BUT sections of wall have been there for tens of years WITHOUT troops there or have you conveniently forgotten THAT point?

Collapse -
RE:Troops on our southern border must be protected by a wall

In reply to: It didn't go over MY head....

Troops on our southern border must be protected by a wall.....according to YOU

According to ME?....It's MILLER that is making the comparison...I disagree with HIS logic....


When someone (MILLER) is asked a question about National Emergency being used for "Wall Funding" and that person(MILLER) responds with an argument using security perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan or around a military installation in Syria, as their argument for "Wall Funding" THEY are making a connection. (I disagree with MILLER)

White House adviser Stephen Miller argues in favor of the president's right to use a national emergency to appropriate funds for a U.S.-Mexico border wall in an appearance on 'Fox News Sunday.'

WALLACE: I didn’t need to do this. How does that justify a national emergency?

MILLER: Well as you know Chris, we already have 4,000 troops on the border in light of a national emergency, a decision that was made almost a year ago, as we see an increasing number of people crossing the border as well as increasing violence in Mexico. What the president was saying is that like past presidents, he could choose to ignore this crisis, choose to ignore this emergency as others have; that’s not what he’s going to do.

MILLER: One more point, I guarantee you this, if Donald Trump had said he’s invoking the National Emergency Military Construction Authority to build a security perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan or around a military installation in Syria, there would not have been one word of objection from Congress. This is defending our own country.

MILLER is comparing America to a military installation.....

Some Trump supporters believe what HE says...other don't even understand what HE is saying.....

Collapse -
And you still don't understand it...go figger

In reply to: RE:Troops on our southern border must be protected by a wall

"This is defending our own country. "

NOT A WORD ABOUT PROTECTING THE TROOPS...…..
Collapse -
RE:NOT A WORD ABOUT PROTECTING THE TROOPS..

In reply to: And you still don't understand it...go figger

Then WHY did MILLER bring up perimeters around military installations?

YOU don't associate troops with military installations?

What do you associate with military bases?...bowling allies and swimming pools?

PS: Do you have war games in your backyard? YOUR 20 or 23 acres?

Post was last edited on February 23, 2019 11:06 AM PST

Collapse -
Speaking of "not understanding"

In reply to: And you still don't understand it...go figger

The question was

Would YOU connect THESE dots?

I do not agree with the dots that I saw in Millers claim.

YOU could have answered Yes OR No.

I take it YOU would NOT connect the "dots" that I saw/pointed out.

Please detail the "dots" that YOU saw in HIS interview that advocated the use of funds that were allocated for military spending being redirected to fund the wall on the southern border.

YOU don't like MY "dots"...PLEASE list YOUR "dots". Get inside Miller's head and explain HIS logic.

THANK YOU.

Collapse -
You saw one set of dots

In reply to: Speaking of "not understanding"

to connect....I saw something different. In order for YOUR dots to connect, YOU inserted that the wall was to protect troops. MY dots connected via a wall to protect American citizens, just as walls in a military installation mentioned by Miller are to protect NON-military people within those walls. Obviously you've never heard of a 'green zone' on a battlefield.....it isn't only American military inside that area and it's pretty expansive.

BO had sent troops to the southern border BECAUSE there weren't enough walls in those areas to stop the illegals crisis that even HE saw happening. Just because troops are again there doesn't connect the dots you claim are there that the wall is for THEIR protection.

As for the funding from the military coffers.....that's EXACTLY what the CONSTRUCTION terminology means....and it can be used ANYWHERE in the world, including our own country.

Collapse -
RE: just as walls in a military installation mentioned by

In reply to: You saw one set of dots

just as walls in a military installation mentioned by Miller are to protect NON-military people within those walls.

ONLY NON-military? It doesn't protect the troops?

A very selective "WALL"?
Collapse -
IF the troops are there pretty much

In reply to: RE: just as walls in a military installation mentioned by

permanently, yes they are ALSO protected, but the main people being protected are the NON-military (US citizens) and they will CONTINUE to be protected after the troops leave, JP. What part of that can't you (or WON'T you) admit to?

Kind of using tear gas to break up a street riot.....yes, it protects the cops, but it stops innocent civilians from being hurt and stores being looted. The tear gas and/or a wall are the FIRST lines of defense. Obviously, you've never been in law enforcement or the military or you would know this.

Miller's example is correct....it's your INTERPRETATION of what he said that's wrong (by design, as usual).

Collapse -
RE:it's your INTERPRETATION of what he said

In reply to: IF the troops are there pretty much

MY interpretation?

HE used the example of to build a security perimeter in Iraq or Afghanistan or around a military installation in Syria, as justification for building a WALL on the southern US border.

America is NO where near like the conditions US personnel are facing in those examples HE chose. And the civilians in those countries would gladly change places with any American, where they would more than likely have little fear of their house being "bombed".

YOU try and connect those "dots"...Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq AND the United States of America.

ONE of these is not like the other three.

IF people left Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and came to America, would THEY be going from one war zone to another?

How dare he, compare living in America with living in a war torn country....

Collapse -
How dare he?

In reply to: RE:it's your INTERPRETATION of what he said

By virtue of 20+MILLION illegals here already, sanctuary cities letting criminals walk free of ICE deportations, Angle Moms and Dads burying their AMERICAN CITIZEN children killed by illegals, MS-13 and other gangs terrorizing whole cities and towns, taxpayers having NO say so over States hiring attorneys for illegals while CITIZENS aren't afforded the same level of representation (legal aid is a farce), trillions of taxpayer dollars spent for their medical, education, special privilege for college entry, giving them the right to vote in local elections, drugs that literally in small amounts the size of TWO GRAINS OF SALT coming in that can kill a person and the entire populations of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in ONE shipment, children and women used in sex trafficking, etc.

Yep....how DARE he CONSTITUTIONALLY and AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS protect US citizens?

Collapse -
RE: TWO GRAINS OF SALT coming in that can kill a person and

In reply to: How dare he?

TWO GRAINS OF SALT coming in that can kill a person and the entire populations of Texas

AND a WALL is going to stop TWO GRAINS OF SALT?

Someone just shot herself in the foot.
Collapse -
That's the amount

In reply to: RE: TWO GRAINS OF SALT coming in that can kill a person and

of fentanyl it would take to kill one person.....a shipment full would kill every person in three States. Border agents and their dogs are always at risk because just being near a broken container where it's inhaled or if it gets on their skin can kill them quickly. A wall WILL force those shipments to actual ports of entry instead of illegal crossings by carriers, so the answer is 'yes'.....

I'm done talking to a know-nothing who only wants to argue FOR open borders to the detriment of MY country. When smugglers start figuring out easier ways to get the crap to YOU, because OUR doors are finally shut to them, get back to me.

Also, it didn't go unnoticed that you had NO comment about ANY of the rest of the obvious reasons for the wall that I gave you....typical liberal....take one thing out of twenty offered to pick at and hope nobody sees you have no logical debate for the rest.

Collapse -
RE:I'm done talking to a know-nothing who only wants to argu

In reply to: That's the amount

I'm done talking to a know-nothing who only wants to argue FOR open borders

I'm not arguing FOR anything...I'm just saying that a WALL (that MEXICO was supposed to pay for) but WE won't talk about that will YOU, will NOT drastically affect the amount of drugs that enter the US through it's southern border.

RE: it didn't go unnoticed that you had NO comment about ANY of the rest of the obvious reasons for the wall

obvious reasons?...IT;s a FREE WALL...that would get my vote.

It WAS going to be a FREE WALL......Mexico was going to pay....Where is the outrage from the American taxpayer?

There was a time when some got upset about free cellphones.

I'm not even an American taxpayer and i'm upset about your president making promises for others to keep.

Waiting for your comment on Mexico NOT paying for the WALL....not holding my breath...the subject is taboo with you...not a peep on THAT point in months.

Collapse -
In reality, Mexico is ALREADY paying for the wall

In reply to: RE:I'm done talking to a know-nothing who only wants to argu

Not only are we saving millions in benefits that are no longer being given to many of their citizens that they get once they arrive by deporting thousands of them, but the money they were being paid here is no longer being sent back there.

Were you just as upset when BO was making promises that others had to keep? Didn't think so.....if I'm wrong, prove it and show me a link to ANY post you made here complaining about it.

Collapse -
RE:In reality, Mexico is ALREADY paying for the wall

In reply to: In reality, Mexico is ALREADY paying for the wall

someone needs a reality check.

Collapse -
RE: Obama was making promises that others had to keep?

In reply to: In reality, Mexico is ALREADY paying for the wall

Obama promised OTHER COUNTRIES would pay for American infrastructure(such as a WALL, or a highway, man-made island, playground, swimming pool)?

Link PLEASE, then I'll discuss.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.