Condoms can break, therefore condoms don't work and are a waste of money

Oct 24, 2017
1,481
1,129
290
#1
This is the exact same logic I see Democrats try to use when explaining why "walls don't work".

"Hey honey, should I buy some condoms?"
"No, they can break."
"You're right honey, it's a waste of money. Let's just not use them at all."

So by the Democrats' logic, anything that isn't 100% guaranteed to work are also wastes of money: things like seat belts, parachutes, vaccines, etc...why do we just get rid of all of them?

Or even things like doors and locks on our homes....why do we need them? When the thief can just come through the window instead?
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#7
way to betray how poorly you understand the situation, this is a terrible metaphor

Condoms cost $0.02 to manufacture. They are a cheap, efficient, targeted solution meant to prevent the overwhelming majority of anticipated problems, and are used on a personal basis. Can you still catch something while using a condom? yup, but you're going to stop the worst offenders. Mostly you'll catch things you could've caught without sex, anyway. Every now and then a bad hombre like herpes or HPV will go around it

Condoms are equivalent to intelligently planned and reinforced barriers at low melting point border sites, you know, the types advocated by any sensible policy makers on both sides of the isle (even the goddamn Heritage Foundation.) Targeted for maximum efficiency to stop the worst of what can get through at the lowest cost


A 30ft high, border spanning wall is equivalent to a body condom



A massive, ridiculously priced, inefficient, unnecessary, gimmick that is more of a purposeful overreaction to make a dishonest statement than an actual, functional necessity. Yes, it will stop all offenders, but at a high economic and personal cost, including restrictive movement and cutting off important environmental properties in addition to the dangers. Have fun in your body condom, OP :p

Never mind that while condoms "can break", they still function as advertised unless they break, whereas a wall will keep out the asylum seeking children, but can be easily circumvented by the worst offenders, without breaking...

A wall is basically a condom that stops pregnancy but looks the other way as syphilis slips through.

Condoms are also tested to prevent breakage, users are encouraged to test them personally, and users are encouraged to check packaging for holes, not reuse them, check expiration dates, etc. The analogy to 'condoms can break' is 'barriers at low melting points can deteriorate', thus they require upkeep, much like condoms require testing. Imagine the upkeep required for a wall that spans the border...

And that condoms are chosen to be used on a personal basis and those who want to accept the risks have every opportunity to shun them, whereas a border wall would be forced on a majority of citizens who don't want to invest in one, and are happy to accept the risks of not building one

And that the chance of undesired consequences from not using a condom are much higher than the chances of undesired consequences from not having a massive, border spanning wall, particularly in that the personal consequences are much higher.

And that sex without a condom means little to no defense against said consequences, whereas the border segments without a wall are still monitored and protected as needed

So yeah, this is dumb

OP's analogy hits the nail on the head. Only problem OP, is that nails have more brains than the average head these days. So your point will be missed by many.
which heads have the fewest brains, I wonder? Those mindlessly championing political theater, or those weighing economics vs. risk and coming to sensible conclusions? Keep being you
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#8
which heads have the fewest brains, I wonder? Those mindlessly championing political theater, or those weighing economics vs. risk and coming to sensible conclusions? Keep being you
There is not a single person who matters in this fight who legitimately believes a 30 foot steel barrier will not make sneaking across the border more difficult than it currently is wherever said steel barrier is installed. Not a single one.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#11
There is not a single person who matters in this fight who legitimately believes a 30 foot steel barrier will not make sneaking across the border more difficult than it currently is wherever said steel barrier is installed. Not a single one.
Obviously. This has no bearing on what I said or what you quoted.

Spraying our towns nightly with wolf urine would ensure nobody in our towns is ever attacked by bears. So why don't we dedicate 30 billion to spraying wolf urine all over every US town every night?

There is not a single person who matters in this fight who legitimately believes that spraying wolf urine all over every town nightly will not make bear attacks less frequent than they currently are. Not a single one

See how meaningless your statement is?

I'm not saying a 30 foot wall won't stop some people, I even pointed out which people it would stop in the post you quoted. My entire post was directly addressing how economics are weighed against risk, a point which you completely ignored, and possibly even missed entirely
 
Last edited:
Apr 9, 2009
27,402
1,930
815
#12
- illegal crossings are down
- spending on border security is high and has been increasing for the past decade. As tech improves, the idea of spending billions on yet another physical barrier is dumb.
- none of us who actually live on the border want the goddamn wall. There is only one (1) republican house rep in a congressional district that borders Mexico. Not popular with us.
- the caravans and such will not be stopped by a wall because they apply for aslyum processing at ports or entry regardless. That drama that happened last year will happen with a wall too.
- trump had an opportunity to get the wall with 5 times the funding (25b vs 5b). He didnt take the deal because he wasnt willing to not crack down on legal migration either which he apparently is fine with now.

If dems do want to negotiate for the wall, I'd say bare minimum every single daca recipient needs to be granted american citizenship immediately in return. Otherwise no.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#13
Obviously. That has no bearing on what I said or what you quoted.

Spraying our towns nightly with wolf urine would ensure nobody in our towns is ever attacked by bears. So why don't we dedicate 30 billion to spraying wolf urine all over every US town every night?

There is not a single person who matters in this fight who legitimately believes that spraying wolf urine all over every town nightly will not make bear attacks less frequent than they currently are. Not a single one

See how meaningless your statement is?

I'm not saying a 30 foot wall won't stop some people, I even pointed out which people it would stop in the post you quoted. My entire post was directly addressing how economics are weighed against risk, a point which you completely ignored, and possibly even missed entirely
You 100% specifically suggested that the Dems resist because of risk vs reward. I called that suggestion bunk and asserted that none of the congress people who matter oppose it for risk vs. reward. Directly related response to what you said.

Your bear analogy though. Wowser.
 
Likes: pramod
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#15
You 100% specifically suggested that the Dems resist because of risk vs reward. I called that suggestion bunk and asserted that none of the congress people who matter oppose it for risk vs. reward. Directly related response to what you said.

Your bear analogy though. Wowser.
what are you talking about 'none of the congress people who matter oppose it for risk vs. reward'?

Prove this to me. Because I see lawmakers in favor of continued funding for border security as needed, where needed, and opposing massive spending on something 'not needed'. Funding what is needed and opposing funding what is not useful is the definition of weighing economics vs. risk. And probably worth specifying which congress people 'matter' vs. which ones don't as well...

my bear analogy is purposefully stupid, and perfectly illustrates how senseless your statement was. Nobody is denying that a wall could potentially block some illegal crossings, just like nobody will deny that spraying wolf urine all over town could potentially deter bears. It's a question of whether or not blocking those few bears is worth the expense, effort, loss of dignity and smell
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#16
what are you talking about 'none of the congress people who matter oppose it for risk vs. reward'?

Prove this to me. Because I see lawmakers in favor of continued funding for border security as needed, where needed, and opposing massive spending on something 'not needed'. Funding what is needed and opposing funding what is not useful is the definition of weighing economics vs. risk. And probably worth specifying which congress people 'matter' vs. which ones don't as well...

my bear analogy is purposefully stupid, and perfectly illustrates how senseless your statement was. Nobody is denying that a wall could potentially block some illegal crossings, just like nobody will deny that spraying wolf urine all over town could potentially deter bears. It's a question of whether or not blocking those few bears is worth the expense, effort, loss of dignity and smell
You know I cannot provide a clip where Chuck and Nancy said we are only opposing this to resist. They are too smart to make that mistake. But that does not make it any less obvious than it already is.

Let me ask you this. Do you have a video where Trump said he cheated on his current wife within 1 year of the birth of his son, either before or after the birth? Do you have a video of him banging someone within that period? I bet the answer is no, and I bet you still nevertheless believe he did so. And in my opinion, your belief would be right despite the smoking gun proving it not existing.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#17
I'm convinced. Brb, buying a 5 billion dollar pack of condoms.
Well, the 2018 US Budget is $4.094t. And $5b is roughly .12% of that. So to say that $5b is a lot of money is to suggest that about $85 is a lot of money if you make about $75,000 a year. That's really not that much. And it's not $5b every year. It's $5b one time with prospective upkeep costs. We spend a lot more on other things that prove much less value.
 
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#18
Nobody is denying that a wall could potentially block some illegal crossings, just like nobody will deny that spraying wolf urine all over town could potentially deter bears. It's a question of whether or not blocking those few bears is worth the expense, effort, loss of dignity and smell
Again, the cost of this wall is relatively cheap when it comes to our federal budget. And by your own admission, it would prove effective.
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,481
1,129
290
#19
It just amazes me that Democrats claim to be the party of science and logic. They are the ones who say that we must spend trillions to fight climate change because of scientific "proof", while at the same time telling us that "walls don't work" and can't figure out what's the definition of "is".
 
Last edited:
Nov 5, 2016
7,450
7,648
315
I don't care where (just far)
#20
This is the exact same logic I see Democrats try to use when explaining why "walls don't work".

"Hey honey, should I buy some condoms?"
"No, they can break."
"You're right honey, it's a waste of money. Let's just not use them at all."

So by the Democrats' logic, anything that isn't 100% guaranteed to work are also wastes of money: things like seat belts, parachutes, vaccines, etc...why do we just get rid of all of them?

Or even things like doors and locks on our homes....why do we need them? When the thief can just come through the window instead?
I’m not trying to get into a WhatAbout War but I have to ask, and forgive me, but isn’t this also how Republicans shoot down Gun Reform ideas too? Basically saying “crazies will still get guns either way,” and stuff like that?

I’m not trying to challenge you or anyone, I agree that democrats resort to thick skulled stubborn reasoning just like republicans or anyone does. I also concede there’s way more to the gun debate than just this aspect, however just thought maybe asking if this is a parallel.
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#21
Well, the 2018 US Budget is $4.094t. And $5b is roughly .12% of that. So to say that $5b is a lot of money is to suggest that about $85 is a lot of money if you make about $75,000 a year. That's really not that much. And it's not $5b every year. It's $5b one time with prospective upkeep costs. We spend a lot more on other things that prove much less value.
What is the dollar value that $5b worth of wall will provide?
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,481
1,129
290
#22
I’m not trying to get into a WhatAbout War but I have to ask, and forgive me, but isn’t this also how Republicans shoot down Gun Reform ideas too? Basically saying “crazies will still get guns either way,” and stuff like that?

I’m not trying to challenge you or anyone, I agree that democrats resort to thick skulled stubborn reasoning just like republicans or anyone does. I also concede there’s way more to the gun debate than just this aspect, however just thought maybe asking if this is a parallel.
I'm not sure what Republican argument you are talking about, because gun ownerships is a fundamental right as stated by the 2nd amendment in the Constitution, and Republicans simply want to obey the Constitution, unlike Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#23
I’m not trying to get into a WhatAbout War but I have to ask, and forgive me, but isn’t this also how Republicans shoot down Gun Reform ideas too? Basically saying “crazies will still get guns either way,” and stuff like that?

I’m not trying to challenge you or anyone, I agree that democrats resort to thick skulled stubborn reasoning just like republicans or anyone does. I also concede there’s way more to the gun debate than just this aspect, however just thought maybe asking if this is a parallel.
That's a fair analogy IMO, and I think there are more right leaning people who support gun reform than the NRA believes. And that includes Trump who ordered a ban of bump stocks (which I fully agree with). There is a huge difference though. The 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and a lot of opposition comes from people who are fighting for what they interpret as protected by a constitutional right they have as citizens. The wall does not prevent a US citizen from entering the country. So the beneficiaries of inaction are night and day. But that said, I do give you props for the analogy despite the differences. And I share the sentiment that we need to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of our schools. I have kids, and no one's right to have assault rifles trumps their safety in my book. I'll happily take my chances that the government can be trusted not to become a dictatorship over praying for the odds when breaking news stories pop up for mass shootings.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#26
The majority of sperm fertilizing eggs are Visa overstays.
Maybe true, maybe not. We know of visa overstay numbers because they were given a visa to enter and then never left as promised. But last time I checked we didn't even count illegals on a census in recent years. Never mind ask them how they got here.

And don't forget - if you came on a visa you were specifically deemed to not be a security threat. So suggesting we should not worry about those who were never inspected is kind of dodging the whole border security thing.
 
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#27
The majority of sperm fertilizing eggs are Visa overstays.
While that definitely is a problem, at least we know who they are and that they are in the country. When someone enters illegally, we simply do not know their history. And if we are going to hire them in public venues, I think knowing their history is an important part of it all. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are everyday criminals (beside crossing illegally), but we don't know either way.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#28
You know I cannot provide a clip where Chuck and Nancy said we are only opposing this to resist. They are too smart to make that mistake. But that does not make it any less obvious than it already is.
ah, so this about you being one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that Democratic opposition to the wall is due to some nefarious intent like making Trump look bad, or worse, promoting illegal democratic voters sneaking across the border. Well played. So, yes. I know you cannot provide such a clip. I know very well

Nevermind that a wall wasn't built in the late 2000s when border crossings were actually concerning, and instead targeted security measures were put in place (and worked!). Never mind that a wall wasn't built in the first two years of Trump's presidency, when Republicans had much more government control, or when Bush had three branches. Nevermind that I can actually provide clips where Chuck, Nancy, or other lead democrats voice support for barriers and increased border security, using proper, economically viable methods (as can you, they've been posted on here as some silly 'gotcha' for the Dems a number of times, when Democrats have never been against securing the border). Nevermind that even far right think tanks agree the wall is a poor use of money and effort:

Let me ask you this. Do you have a video where Trump said he cheated on his current wife within 1 year of the birth of his son, either before or after the birth? Do you have a video of him banging someone within that period? I bet the answer is no, and I bet you still nevertheless believe he did so. And in my opinion, your belief would be right despite the smoking gun proving it.
No, I don't. I don't care about this. Why are you asking this? This has nothing to do with the topic

Again, the cost of this wall is relatively cheap when it comes to our federal budget. And by your own admission, it would prove effective.
No, not by my own admission. Do not put words in my mouth. By my own admission, it would stop the crossings I am least interested in paying billions of dollars to stop.

What part of "A wall is basically a condom that stops pregnancy but looks the other way as syphilis slips through." did you not get?

Everything about my post was about how the massive costs of a full border wall are not worth the minimal effectiveness

And everything is "relatively" cheap compared to the federal budget, this is the most vapid defense of the wall I've seen yet. Total expenditures for the 2018 federal budget were $4.094 trillion. Obviously if we start justifying purchasing everything we want by comparing it to the federal budget, we will simply grow the deficit. Maybe the government should buy me a car?? It would be a fraction of the federal budget! As long as there are better ways to spend the money used to build a wall, I'd rather the money be spent those ways. The question is not how much is being spent, but what value that spending provides. There are many ways that billions could be better spent than a border wall. That includes better forms of border security, and policing in border towns.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#29
ah, so this about you being one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks that Democratic opposition to the wall is due to some nefarious intent like making Trump look bad, or worse, promoting illegal democratic voters sneaking across the border. Well played. So, yes. I know you cannot provide such a clip. I know very well
That you would call me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting this is political theater is beyond the pale. You are not debating in good faith and within the bounds of reason to make such an allegation.
 
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#30
No, not by my own admission. Do not put words in my mouth.
Nobody is denying that a wall could potentially block some illegal crossings, just like nobody will deny that spraying wolf urine all over town could potentially deter bears
Obviously if we start justifying purchasing everything we want by comparing it to the federal budget, we will simply grow the deficit.
People don't want the government to buy you a car. Nobody won an election on the premise they would buy you a car. But Trump did win by campaigning for a wall. And he IS president. So there is ample justification for spending the money. You just don't want to stop the illegals from voting. Admit it. You have NO ideas to improve border security.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#31
That you would call me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting this is political theater is beyond the pale. You are not debating in good faith and within the bounds of reason to make such an allegation.
You are saying they are too smart to be recorded saying... something... but you leave filing in that blank up to us.

You know I cannot provide a clip where Chuck and Nancy said we are only opposing this to resist. They are too smart to make that mistake.
Why don't you actually 'debate in good faith', then, by telling us what reason Chuck and Nancy have to resist? You left this purposefully ambiguous, so I postited with two answers, one that seems to be what you are implying, that they want to make Trump look bad, and one that others in this thread are implying:

I guess that depends on how important you feel border security is to our country. Personally, I feel that it's well within the budget and the necessity is clearly there. But I also understand why Democrats find the status quo perfectly acceptable. Those are easy votes.
I did not specify which camp you fell into, just pointing out your reasoning of "they'll never tell us the what they're really up to" supports both positions. You are roping yourself into the same group @ConnorDuffy1977 occupies whether you want to or not. But go ahead and play the victim

In the mean time, Chuck and Nancy told us exactly what they are up to on TV, in front of the president.

Chuck - 'We have a disagreement about the wall, not on border security, but on the wall'
Chuck - 'You're bragging about what has been done. We want to do the same thing that was done last year, this year'

The Dems are in favor of border security. They are opposing wasteful spending on political theater
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#32
You are saying they are too smart to be recorded saying... something... but you leave filing in that blank up to us.



Why don't you actually 'debate in good faith', then, by telling us what reason Chuck and Nancy have to resist? You left this purposefully ambiguous, so I postited with two answers, one that seems to be what you are implying, that they want to make Trump look bad, and one that others in this thread are implying:
You know darn well that making Trump look bad is a major goal they have for political gain, yet have the gall to claim they have no interest in actually doing that and I am a conspiracy theorist for stating the obvious. You are beyond disingenuous.
 
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#33
I did not specify which camp you fell into, just pointing out your reasoning of "they'll never tell us the what they're really up to" supports both positions. You are roping yourself into the same group @ConnorDuffy1977 occupies whether you want to or not. But go ahead and play the victim
I am @ConnorDuffy1977.

The Dems are in favor of border security. They are opposing wasteful spending on political theater
Ah yes. The old 'better infrastructure and fencing' BS. LOL. Why a fence and not a wall? WTF?
 
Likes: OSC
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#34
People don't want the government to buy you a car. Nobody won an election on the premise they would buy you a car. But Trump did win by campaigning for a wall. And he IS president. So there is ample justification for spending the money. You just don't want to stop the illegals from voting. Admit it. You have NO ideas to improve border security.
LOL

how unsurpirsing that you have no response to my actual points, so you respond to the farce I threw in to show how dumb it is to justify spending because it is a small fraction of the federal budget. My bad, let me use a 'poltical' example. Adding transgender bathrooms to every government building would be a small fraction of the federal budget. Are you in favor?

How about actually responding to the fact that your justification of wall funding on the basis of it being a small fraction of the federal budget is a bad one?

And once again, don't put words in my mouth (the bolded). Illegals don't vote. And if there are already 11 million in the country, a wall won't stop them from voting. If you want to stop them from voting, you do so at the polls, not the border. This is even more vapid than your budget excuse. I do not want illegals in the US, and it has little to do with them voting

I have PLEANTY of ideas to improve border security. I included one in my last reply to you, which you clipped when quoting me:

That includes better forms of border security, and policing in border towns.
and the stuff from the Hertiage Foundation (whose position against the wall and alternative solution I cited in that post) which I mostly agree with: https://solutions.heritage.org/providing-for-a-strong-defense/border-security/
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#35
I guess that depends on how important you feel border security is to our country. Personally, I feel that it's well within the budget and the necessity is clearly there. But I also understand why Democrats find the status quo perfectly acceptable. Those are easy votes.
It seems to me that if your assertion is that the benefits outweigh the costs, you should at least have some rough idea what the value of the benefits are. Vague invocations of "border security" are hardly that, since, of course, this project will not provide perfect security at the border and nobody expects it to. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs, but unfortunately the pro-wall position appears to be based on little more than a vague feeling that a wall is a valuable investment without any facts or analysis to support it. That's presumably why Trump felt forced to rely so heavily on tear-jerking appeals to emotion.
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#37
You know darn well that making Trump look bad is a major goal they have for political gain, yet have the gall to claim they have no interest in actually doing that and I am a conspiracy theorist for stating the obvious. You are beyond disingenuous.
No, you do not understand what disingenuous is.
I am saying that Chuck and Nancy are not opposing the wall 'to make Trump look bad' and I am providing documented examples that show this to be the case. They are opposing the wall because it is bad policy. They are supporting good policy that keeps the border secured, policy that gives Trump numbers that he is reading off to make himself look good. I have actually provided you sources, both via Trump, Nancy, and Chuck's own words, and via hard right think tanks agreeing that the wall is bad policy. You have once again ignored my sources, provided none of your own, and doubled down on playing victim

and look, your buddy doubled down:

People don't want the government to buy you a car. Nobody won an election on the premise they would buy you a car. But Trump did win by campaigning for a wall. And he IS president. So there is ample justification for spending the money. You just don't want to stop the illegals from voting. Admit it. You have NO ideas to improve border security.
Gonna keep yelling at me for calling out those who project motivations onto democrats as conspiracy theorists while he drags your position further down??? Of course, I would never expect you to pipe up and call someone on your own side out for actually being disingenuous. Lie with dogs, have fun with your fleas
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#38
. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs, but the pro-wall position appears to be based on little more than a vague feeling that a wall is a valuable investment without any facts or analysis to support it.
It's a real world solution to a problem that continues to cost our country billions of dollars each year. Again, Democrats have said they are in favor of a fence. So the logic is definitely accepted. It's just that you seem to be worried about image. Which is odd.
 
Likes: OSC
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#39
Gonna keep yelling at me for saying believing Chuck and Nancy aren't opposing the wall for policy reasons is a conspiracy theory while he drags your position further down???
Your post is incoherent. Sorry. The facts are there. It is financially viable and the idea of a physical barrier is supported by Democrats.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#40
I know, but thanks for confirming that you know as well

Ah yes. The old 'better infrastructure and fencing' BS. LOL. Why a fence and not a wall? WTF?
No you don't. Infrastructure and a fence are not what is needed.
I provided you the information you asked for. Did you read it? I know you didn't, you responded far too quickly. Why should I expend effort on something you won't read or bother to seriously consider? The answer to 'why not a wall' is in that link

and you haven't even bothered to acknowledge my suggestion of 'better policing in border towns'. I think spending 5 billion on better policing would be preferable to a wall. At least the personnel policing would catch other crimes as well, would find those who are already here illegally, and would catch those who get through legit border points, overcame the barriers, etc. Much better ROI, and no physical infrastructure with no other purpose to upkeep

And that's the point. You don't want to stop them.
More projecting onto me, is this your only move? I am a champion of vast social policies that can't be implemented without controlled immigration. I have every reason to want to stop them, as long as the measures taken are reasonable. A wall is not reasonable, that's why it isn't happening. Have fun in your body condom!

Your post is incoherent. Sorry.
thanks, we actually agree on this point, fixed

The facts are there. It is financially viable and the idea of a physical barrier is supported by Democrats.
You are not saying anything new here. I have repeatedly pointed out that Dems support a physical barrier in this very thread. What is your point? Dems do not support a border spanning wall.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,500
1,061
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#41
Why don't you actually 'debate in good faith', then, by telling us what reason Chuck and Nancy have to resist?
Let's start here:


The American public has grown tired of the dysfunctional government, which in large part helped someone like Trump rise to power, and both parties are now held hostage by their supporters. I use the term supporters very loosely because you're trapped in a two party system where one side is fighting the good fight while "the other side" isn't, but this border funding battle perfectly illustrates how beholden both parties are to their base, where compromising even just a little would be perceived as a sign of great weakness and a "win" for the other party. That is not conducive to a properly functioning government, yet it's where the country finds itself - compromise and you/your party lose support, even though it benefits the country. Look where the ACA/Obamacare got the Democratic party in 2010 - they don't want to make that same mistake again.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#42
It's a real world solution to a problem that continues to cost our country billions of dollars each year. Again, Democrats have said they are in favor of a fence. So the logic is definitely accepted. It's just that you seem to be worried about image. Which is odd.
What Democrats favor is not dispositive of whether it is a good policy, and probably isn't even relevant. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Democrats have supported a number of policy ideas that turned out rather poorly.

Now, turning to the wall specifically, whether it is in fact a real world solution, rather than a pie in the sky project to create the illusion of security and make people feel good (i.e. image), depends on whether the benefits to the country outweigh the costs of building and maintaining it. It's pretty straightforward. If B > C, then it's good policy. If B < C, then it isn't. But wall advocates don't appear to have the foggiest notion what the value of B is, and even worse, don't even seem interested in knowing.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC
Mar 12, 2014
3,699
2,243
415
#43
No, you do not understand what disingenuous is.
I am saying that Chuck and Nancy are not opposing the wall 'to make Trump look bad' and I am providing documented examples that show this to be the case. They are opposing the wall because it is bad policy. They are supporting good policy that keeps the border secured, policy that gives Trump numbers that he is reading off to make himself look good. I have actually provided you sources, both via Trump, Nancy, and Chuck's own words, and via hard right think tanks agreeing that the wall is bad policy. You have once again ignored my sources, provided none of your own, and doubled down on playing victim
I am not saying I am a victim. I am saying you are full of shit. I am saying it because I don't believe you could really have drank enough of the Kool Aid to actually believe Chuck and Nancy oppose this because it's a waste of money as opposed to the political capital they gain by winning this fight. That is less believable than the tooth fairy.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,083
493
430
Reading, Berkshire
#44
This is the exact same logic I see Democrats try to use when explaining why "walls don't work".

"Hey honey, should I buy some condoms?"
"No, they can break."
"You're right honey, it's a waste of money. Let's just not use them at all."

So by the Democrats' logic, anything that isn't 100% guaranteed to work are also wastes of money: things like seat belts, parachutes, vaccines, etc...why do we just get rid of all of them?

Or even things like doors and locks on our homes....why do we need them? When the thief can just come through the window instead?
I mean it's the same argument everyone uses:

Gun control - "People will still be killed by guns, therefore what's the point in any type of gun control legislation"
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,481
1,129
290
#45
Schumer and Hillary and Obama have all supported border barriers in the past. So why did they support it when it doesn't work and is a waste of money?

Trump should call the Dems' bluff. Ask them for a proposal for a solution to the border issues and ask them to offer him a budget and break it down into costs for agents, technology, physical barriers, etc.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#46
Let's start here:


The American public has grown tired of the dysfunctional government, which in large part helped someone like Trump rise to power, and both parties are now held hostage by their supporters. I use the term supporters very loosely because you're trapped in a two party system where one side is fighting the good fight while "the other side" isn't, but this border funding battle perfectly illustrates how beholden both parties are to their base, where compromising even just a little would be perceived as a sign of great weakness and a "win" for the other party. That is not conducive to a properly functioning government, yet it's where the country finds itself - compromise and you/your party lose support, even though it benefits the country. Look where the ACA/Obamacare got the Democratic party in 2010 - they don't want to make that same mistake again.
What does this have to do with Chuck and Nancy resisting funding a wall? The Democrats are compromising. The opposite of the position of building a wall is open borders, abolishing ice, or whatever other doofy ideas the far left is pushing. Chuck and Nancy are in favor of neither. They are supporting actual policy, i.e. dedicating funds as necessary to address a problem in the best ways possible. They are supporting the same policies this year that gave Trump the numbers he's bragging about from last year. That is a government functioning.

Once again, I have posted a direct source showing Chuck and Nancy want to continue protecting the border using the same means Trump has sighted as successful last year. If there has been no significant increase in border problems since last year, it stands to reason continuing with last years strategy is a sensible path to take. This is consistently ignored

I have no idea what the context of the video you posted is. I just see Nancy trying to calm down rabble rousing, presumably from the far left. This just seems to be another example of Nancy trying to compromise. I can't tell what the people are saying. Feel free to add context

I do agree with your overall assertion that partisanship is negatively affecting the government, and that it makes compromise difficult. The problem with using that example here is that the partisanship in this instance is the wall. Once again, it's a very far right position that even far right think tanks do not support. Thus, I could agree with you if the purpose of your statement is that "Trump is being held hostage by his supporters", because in this specific instance, that statement rings true. That doesn't mean Democrats can't be in a similar situation on other issues, it just happens that in this instance the Democrats are the ones taking the level headed, centrist, compromising stance, whereas Trump (read, not event the Republicans, as their silence on this matter and bi-partisan approval of previous funding efforts shows where they stand) is leaning on extreme positioning in order to reachl a more favorable outcome.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#47
Schumer and Hillary and Obama have all supported border barriers in the past. So why did they support it when it doesn't work and is a waste of money?
Read my posts in this very thread. I have explained this repeatedly. Democrats are not against border security. Being against a useless wall is not the same as being against secure borders

Trump should call the Dems' bluff. Ask them for a proposal for a solution to the border issues and ask them to offer him a budget and break it down into costs for agents, technology, physical barriers, etc.
The Democrats are in favor of providing the appropriate budgets to the appropriate agencies as needed, which is exactly what has been done for years. Those agencies are the ones who understand the problem and come up with the best solutions.

It is telling that you want the Democrats to come up with a detailed policy when they are not suggesting any changes to the policies that have been working. Why not ask Trump to come up with such a detailed proposal instead? After all, he's the one proposing a change to the budget for border security. Has he made such a proposal? Can you tell me what 'the wall' is? Can you tell me what it would cost? Can you tell me what the $5 billion Trump is randomly asking for will achieve? Can you site studies showing how effective it will be? Did this idea come from the agencies that deal with border security?
 
Likes: pramod
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
#48
I am not saying I am a victim. I am saying you are full of shit. I am saying it because I don't believe you could really have drank enough of the Kool Aid to actually believe Chuck and Nancy oppose this because it's a waste of money as opposed to the political capital they gain by winning this fight. That is less believable than the tooth fairy.
oh I admit that the Democrats are gaining political capital in this situation. I've never said otherwise. That has no bearing on the fact that building a wall has always been, and remains 'bad policy' which the Democrats have always been against, thus their opposition to it qualifies as opposition to 'bad policy' and has nothing to do with Trump himself, beyond the fact that Trump is foolishly making it about himself. If Dems are gaining political capital from this, Trump is to blame

once again:

Nevermind that a wall wasn't built in the late 2000s when border crossings were actually concerning, and instead targeted security measures were put in place (and worked!). Never mind that a wall wasn't built in the first two years of Trump's presidency, when Republicans had much more government control, or when Bush had three branches. Nevermind that I can actually provide clips where Chuck, Nancy, or other lead democrats voice support for barriers and increased border security, using proper, economically viable methods (as can you, they've been posted on here as some silly 'gotcha' for the Dems a number of times, when Democrats have never been against securing the border). Nevermind that even far right think tanks agree the wall is a poor use of money and effort:
ha, people even turned to the silly 'caught the Dems' line about Dems supporting barriers, after I posted this. Way to prove my point!

And glad to see you are not the victim, despite repeatedly calling me out for labeling you a conspiracy theorist. But now you are full on insulting me. Once again, you have provided me with no sources. I have linked you to plenty which you have ignored. Which of us is full of shit?

And you're still not calling out @ConnorDuffy1977 for pushing that voting conspiracy, are you? Don't forget, it's post like his that drain meanings from comments that you make like the following:
You know I cannot provide a clip where Chuck and Nancy said we are only opposing this to resist. They are too smart to make that mistake. But that does not make it any less obvious than it already is.
 
Last edited: