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

Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#52
Thanks for illustrating disingenuity. It was improperly cited earlier in this thread

My dream is that nobody has to work and all jobs are automated. That doesn't mean if I'm president the first step I take will be to outlaw work.

Show me Clinton's border policy. I don't see anything about opening borders here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

Explain why she voted in favor of barriers, a fact your friends are so happy to point out in other contexts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

Explain her vocal support for barriers where needed

Show me where she proposes actual policy for open borders

BTW, here's Clinton's full quote: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

As someone who is in favor of secure borders, I have this same pie in the sky dream. It is not contradictory to be in favor of security where needed, but wish for a future where it is no longer required
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#53
I respect disagreement. Cherish it even. It helps advance our species. However, disagreement needs to be articulated genuinely. And I do not believe that is happening in our exchange and prefer to move onto greener pastures.
agreed

I've genuinely articulated that the dems are opposing the wall because it is bad policy, and you articulated nothing of substance. There's not much more to be said.

I, too, cherish discussion. Sad it can't be found here
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#56
And I don't disagree. That's because public positions require public support, concensus, etc to bare fruit. See @Joe T. 's comments about compromise and being held hostage by a base of extremists. Clinton can desire open borders for a future where they work, yet advocate policy that supports the reality that they are needed. And this is exactly what she has done

Once again, I provide specific policy sources and my opposition supplies out of context conjecture. I asked you for something very specific which you have not provided. I am still waiting for. Show me where she proposes actual policy for open borders.

And once again, as someone who is in favor of secure borders, I have this same pie in the sky dream. It is not contradictory to be in favor of security where needed, but for a future where it is no longer required. My private policy position is that I'd like to see all of North America united as a single country (thus the borders would be easy to defend). My public policy would not be to do such a thing, as it would take decades to implement. Rather I would push for some aligning of laws and values while continuing to maintain security
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,463
1,007
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#57
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.
The US has a problem, a problem both sides can see, but both want to address in very different means. In the other thread about the presidential address last night there are arguments stating the wall is decades too late, that's an admission that a barrier would have helped mitigate the current problems you face from illegal border crossings. Pelosi, Schumer, Obama and Hillary were all speaking out against illegal immigration and in favor of border barriers just a decade or so ago. So, what has changed over that time that a barrier is no longer acceptable? That is the 5.7 billion dollar question.

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
"Consistently ignored" describes the immigration problem the US is facing - it's been in and out of the national news for decades and hasn't been adequately addressed yet, which is why it's become such a hot topic. Again, the Democrats funded border barriers in the past, some of which strike me as laughable wastes of money, like a little barbed wire almost anyone can cross right through with little cause for concern. Trump is merely taking the Democrats' idea and improving upon it. Like Schumer said in 2009, comprehensive immigration reform won't mean much unless you can prevent illegal immigration. The wall, fence, barrier or whatever term Democrats are comfortable uttering, according to Trump, the GOP and the border patrol agents speaking alongside them, is one key aspect to mitigating the illegal border crossings. By opposing this barrier the Democrats are telling you they don't think it will help address border security, and I think even the furthest left among us can probably agree it will help mitigate the problem by at least some degree. No one's claiming it will be perfect, nothing ever is.

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 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 there silence on this matter and bi-partisan approval of previous funding efforts shows where they stand) is leaning on extreme positioning in order to full a more favorable outcome.
I was merely using the Pelosi video as an example to show that the Democrats have their own angry mobs to appease (link to the story behind it in the video's description), same as Trump. Giving Trump any money for a wall would be viewed by the most vocal Dem supporters as betrayal, regardless of what any experts have to say on the matter, and the party doesn't want to risk hurting their popularity in the lead up to the 2020 election. If losing to Trump in 2016 brought forth such widespread meltdowns by Democrat supporters, imagine how much worse Nov 2020 will be if they lose to him again? They want to avoid that at all costs because losing again would raise serious concerns about the viability of the party.

The Dems aren't willing to compromise here, they have flat out said "no" to funding for it and have been saying so for months. The wall, according to Democrats, started as a $70B concrete eye-sore that would come to poorly represent America's image to the rest of the world. It has now changed into a $5.7B wall of steel slats that is a far different beast than what was originally proposed, so by their own account, while Trump hasn't compromised on the need for a physical barrier at the border, the barrier itself has changed a great deal, both in aesthetics and in cost. The Democrats did themselves no favors by telling the American people the wall could cost that much because they now have to explain why cutting that cost drastically and changing the design to be in line with one that matches their own isn't worthwhile. What changed over the last 10 years?
 
Likes: NickFire
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#58
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?
It's not bad at all. It's perfectly logical and applicable in this debate. The fact is the cost is rather minimal. So the argument that it is expensive is intellectually dishonest. As much of your shtick is.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#59
If its bad policy why have Schumer Clinton Obama etc all supported barriers in the past?
a wall is bad policy, not border security. Strategic placement of barriers is not bad policy, that is what both sides of the isle have supported in the past.

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
You liked this post, did you read my arguments? I've posted more than I intended to here, so I'll help you get right down to one of the answers to your question:

 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#60
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.
We think slowing the flow of heroin is worth the $5b. We think that stopping human trafficking is worth the $5b. We think that spending $5b would alleviate the need to spend almost $12b yearly on securing wide open areas.

It's why Trump won.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#63
It's not bad at all. It's perfectly logical and applicable in this debate. The fact is the cost is rather minimal. So the argument that it is expensive is intellectually dishonest. As much of your shtick is.
wow

is this really the best you can do? You aren't addressing the 'value' or ROI on wall spending in any way shape or form

Once again:
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.
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
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?
What's the point of quoting me if you aren't actually going to respond to me. Do you like going in circles? Tell me how the cost of the wall is a better use of money than bolstering border town security personnel. Tell me your opinion on using tax dollars to build transgender bathrooms everywhere since it will only cost a small percentage of the federal budget

My shtick is defending my position with actual sources and fully replying to the rubes who can't do the same. Not sure how that schtick is dishonest. Point out where I'm being dishonest and I'll gladly correct, as I did with the confusing sentence you cited earlier. Keep pretending you're above it all
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
885
965
210
#64
I honestly think both sides actually want a wall (Or a form of it) but Trump wants it for the wrong reasons and the Democrats opose it just because it's Trump and they can't let him "win" even if they agree, bunch of babies really.

@PkunkFury

You're way more informed on this issue than me but, isn't the wall a one time spending to solve an ongoing problem? Obviously there's maintenance and all that but still.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pramod
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#65
Nancy Pelosi has said any form of wall is "immoral".

She has promised not to allocate a single dollar to physical barriers or walls.
Show me the 'not a single dollar' quote, because last I saw, the Dems were willing to continue funding as established last year.

If they are decreasing funding, that wouldn't surprise me, as now that they have the House they have more power. Though, even so, I doubt that they can stipulate that 'not a dollar' of a border defense budget go to barriers. If Nancy is truly doing so, I do not agree, and I suspect most Democrats do not either.

As you yourself have pointed out, democrats support barriers.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#66
You aren't addressing the 'value' or ROI on wall spending in any way shape or form
Tell me your opinion on using tax dollars to build transgender bathrooms everywhere since it will only cost a small percentage of the federal budget
Transgenders aren't bringing in heroin or trafficking humans across the border. We don't *already* spend $12b yearly to stop transgenders.
 
Likes: PkunkFury
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#67
I honestly think both sides actually want a wall (Or a form of it) but Trump wants it for the wrong reasons and the Democrats opose it just because it's Trump and they can't let him "win" even if they agree, bunch of babies really.

@PkunkFury

You're way more informed on this issue than me but, isn't the wall a one time spending to solve an ongoing problem? Obviously there's maintenance and all that but still.
I agree with your first assessment, which is exactly why the senate had passed a bi-partisan solution but Trump refused to sign it. Everything that's happened since that resolution passed is about political theater and 'winning', not about border security. Watch the video I posted. Trump bragged about last year's security, and Schumer offered to continue it. "The wall" was being built as needed

As far as your question, a wall built where it is not needed is not useful. In areas of vast openness, border jumpers are caught via technology, patrols, etc. A wall there is useless. I will quote the Heritage Foundation again:
thus you have initial investment where it's not required, plus the cost of maintenance and upkeep, and the cost of people to guard/patrol the wall. Why not cut out the cruft and just hire people to patrol those borders, as has been working. These same people could also find illegals who have already crossed, and deter crime committed by legals. Barriers are only useful where they provide good ROI. Please click the link for detailed explanations of other, more successful border security methods this money could be used for.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#68
Transgenders aren't bringing in heroin or trafficking humans across the border. We don't *already* spend $12b yearly to stop transgenders.
thanks, you are finally actually justifying the cost, instead of just claiming we should build it because it is a 'fraction of the federal budget'. See???? That wasn't hard at all, and your argument is no longer vapid! props
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#69
thanks, you are finally actually justifying the cost, instead of just claiming we should build it because it is a 'fraction of the federal budget'. See???? That wasn't hard at all, and your argument is no longer vapid! props
Pointing out that it is a fraction of the budget simply contradicts the liberal talking point that it is too expensive. It's not. It is very affordable for our country.

And the cost is JUSTIFIED by the lives saved from hard drugs and human trafficking. And that is ON TOP of the money and lives it will save our border agents. My logic is coherent and my point remains solid. You're arguing purely on emotion.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#70
Pointing out that it is a fraction of the budget simply contradicts the liberal talking point that it is too expensive. It's not. It is very affordable for our country.

And the cost is JUSTIFIED by the lives saved from hard drugs and human trafficking. And that is ON TOP of the money and lives it will save our border agents. My logic is coherent and my point remains solid. You're arguing purely on emotion.
ugh, no dude

you were doing great, too. You actually had a point this time. You are right that a wall may stop hard drugs and human trafficking. If you actually want to convince me, I'd love to see some data. As for what's currently being proposed, steel slats, I don't see that stopping the drug trade at all, as drugs can simply be passed through the slats. I'm also not convinced a wall will do much but change how the drug trade operates. As I mentioned earlier, those with incentive (and ability) will find a way around the wall. Those who are legit destitute and looking for salvation are the ones who will be stopped by a wall. Hence my "condom that blocks pregnancy but lets syphilis through" comment. There are far better ways to stop the drug trade. I'd be happy to see human trafficking numbers cut down, though, and I do think the wall would help there. It's much harder to find alternative ways to smuggle a human, and they won't fit through the slats. I'd like to see numbers as to how much would be stopped, though. I still don't believe it merits the cost of a border spanning wall over other options

Anyway, then we get to the bolded part of your post.

The only emotion I'm feeling in this thread is frustration, from having to repeat the same things over and over and watch as people ignore any real points to project intentions on me or find the one part of my post they can twist. I've been upfront about my desires for border security in this thread, and have even provided reasoning as to why I would want it, so you can get the perspective of someone on the left. If we don't have border security, we can't account for stable population numbers with sweeping social policies. Border security is a pre-requisite for single payer healthcare, universal basic income, public education through collage, etc, etc. If Trump had a button that would magically stop all illegal immigration once pressed, I'd %100 support him pressing it. The problem is that a wall will not magically end illegal immigration and building one is very much not free. There are many better options, many of which are listed here (which you still give no indication you have read)

Let's not forget that you were the one doofily arguing, in multiple posts, that I don't want a wall because I want illegal immigrants to come here and vote Democrat. Talk about emotion. The emotion is real for one of us. You really want that wall, to the point that you struggle to articulate why
 
Likes: Silas Lang
Nov 5, 2016
7,169
7,161
300
I don't care where (just far)
#73
lol at those Hillary posters.

Not even the quotes, I’m sure said those things, I just always chuckle at the “ominous shading on unflattering picture” approach.

I’m fucked if I ever run for office. They quote me from here and show my hideous face in a setup like that and I’ll be laughing stock of the century
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#74
We think slowing the flow of heroin is worth the $5b. We think that stopping human trafficking is worth the $5b. We think that spending $5b would alleviate the need to spend almost $12b yearly on securing wide open areas.

It's why Trump won.
But it won't "stop" heroin or human trafficking. It may decrease it to some extent. And I'm sure it's not your belief that building a wall will mean we no longer have to spend any money on other means of securing the border. Without some kind of quantification of those things you can't plausibly argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. Moreover, what empirical evidence there is suggests, at least tentatively, that it is unlikely to be worth it, so you need a more rigorous analytic case. Hope, as they say, is not a plan.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#75
I don't know how you post this sort of stuff. Wow.
Heritage Foundation said:
Increase Border Barriers Where Needed. Effective border obstacles are expensive to construct and must be constantly monitored and patrolled, therefore they should be deployed only in areas where they are effective. Fencing is especially critical in areas with a low “melting point”—the time it takes for an individual to cross the border and “melt” into a landscape unnoticed. Areas along high-traffic smuggling routes are also good candidates. The building of additional infrastructure should be driven by operational requirements and can be constructed under existing law and funded through the regular appropriations process.

Focus on Technology at the Border. Regardless of which barriers are in place, the border must be patrolled. The most effective way for border patrol agents to patrol the border is to make greater use of surveillance technologies, including unmanned aerial vehicles, various camera arrays, and ground sensors. These tools allow agents to be more aware of what is occurring on the border, and then effectively respond to potential border threats and illegal crossers.

Increase Cooperation with Mexican and Other Latin American Governments. Cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement through existing Border Enforcement Security Task Forces and related Merida Initiative programs is essential. Similarly, the U.S. must enhance its law enforcement and security assistance to other Latin American countries to reduce instability that can drive illegal immigration.
Please don't reply to me unless you have something to say about the Heritage Foundation's take on this as well. It takes two minutes to read, and it's the perfect concise explanation as to why most of your elected representatives do not want a wall. It's infinitely rare that I agree with the Heritage Foundation, but they are spot on here

You continue to argue with emotion.

You have no idea how effective other methods of security are on the border and no idea what is required to maintain defense of a wall.

You have a hardon for a wall, so you pretend there aren't better options, without providing any sources or data supporting the efficacy of a wall

You wil never stop all the crime. But that doesn't mean you stop trying. It's worth the human trafficking element alone.
Why have we stopped trying to prohibit alcohol? It's worth it to end drunk driving alone.

Why don't we round up all guns and melt them down? It's worth it to end school shooting alone.

This post is especially ironic given that you just accused my posts of being emotionally driven. This is nothing but an appeal to emotions. Show us data. Show us how much effect a border spanning wall would have on existing human trafficking, and justify it vs. the cost of said wall. Better yet, justify it vs. the cost of other programs that would minimize human trafficking of all sorts, not just along the Southern border

You are not in any way addressing whether or not it makes economic sense to build a wall to stop trafficking. Never mind the fact that I just told you I want border security as well, thus I also want trafficking over the border to end. This is not what you and I are discussing, we are discussing the efficacy of specific solutions, and their economic ROI
 
Last edited:
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
#76
Who the fuck is actually saying "Walls don't work"? Seriously, find me one rational public figure claiming that.

This has to be the dumbest and most pathetic straw man argument. Nobody is saying that walls, as a general concept, are ineffective. Just that a giant wall that stretches 2,000 miles is stupid and unnecessary.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,501
501
1,120
#77
Yes, when sperm decide as a group to take an alternate route and impregnate women via their ears the condom is truly useless. Let me know when that happens.

Trump did the same thing to get elected, after all. Instead of appealing to your intelligence or your humanity he went around that wall and targeted your fear and insecurity which was and is your weak spot.
 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2016
742
743
250
#78
The OP's analogy is completely wrong. Let me restate it through science. I mean only rednecks deny science

Teen prengancies are trending at low levels. Therefore, teens do not need to wear condoms anymore. If they do, it is symbolic of preventing of minority babies from being born. That is divisive and racist. We want to be inclusive of all babies.

 
Last edited:
Likes: NickFire
Jan 16, 2013
4,902
165
415
#79
If trump really cared about drugs trafficking into this country from mexico and groups like MS-13. First thing he should do is legalize marijuana (or decriminalize it at the federal level). If you cut out the money from the drug trade then you cut incentive for these people and weaken their organizations in their own countries. Then you don't have to worry about people 'fleeing' to the US because their countries would not be as big of 'shitholes' with drug cartels and criminal organizations controlling things.
 

OSC

Banned
Jun 16, 2018
1,184
467
215
#80
Nancy Pelosi has said any form of wall is "immoral".

She has promised not to allocate a single dollar to physical barriers or walls.
Trump should just reallocate funds from the defense budget, which is massive, and this is the sort of things that are national defense priority. Build it by force, and let them eat cake

A minefield might be cheaper and more effective, but I'm sure none wants the immorality of that, the wall may cost more, but it is nothing more than a stronger more effective fence. Why the idea of a weak fence, one easily broken through? What is the issue if the wall cost is minimal, and it will provide construction and maintenance work, it will stimulate the economy, the money isn't being burned in a coal oven, people are being paid and the money flows through the economy.

If trump really cared about drugs trafficking into this country from mexico and groups like MS-13. First thing he should do is legalize marijuana (or decriminalize it at the federal level). If you cut out the money from the drug trade then you cut incentive for these people and weaken their organizations in their own countries. Then you don't have to worry about people 'fleeing' to the US because their countries would not be as big of 'shitholes' with drug cartels and criminal organizations controlling things.
They move to increased human trafficking and other illegal and lucrative activities, not like they'll vanish without the drugs.

 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#81
Nobody is saying that walls, as a general concept, are ineffective. Just that a giant wall that stretches 2,000 miles is stupid and unnecessary.
Speaking of a strawman, you're doing a very good job of it.

Plans now call for a more modest, 722-mile barrier that is a mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#82
Never mind the fact that I just told you I want border security as well, thus I also want trafficking over the border to end.
So what part of the following do you obstruct to?

Plans now call for a more modest, 722-mile barrier that is a mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#83
So what part of the following do you obstruct to?

Plans now call for a more modest, 722-mile barrier that is a mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
I don't know, this is a confusing question because you are not providing me with the necessary information. What do you expect to gain from asking me this?

Essentially, you are describing continuing to do what we are already doing, as 700 miles of the border are already fenced, and you are describing mostly updating those barriers. So in that sense, I don't "obstruct to" this at all. It's exactly what the $1.6 billion dedicated last year was used for (to great success according to Trump), and exactly what I've suggested we continue to do in this very thread.

Secondly, you've attached no cost to this statement. Once again, what outcome are you hoping to get by waving this statement around? You didn't even bother to source it.
The source of the quote appears to be Bloomberg, based on its attribution in a book that cites it, but why do I have to do your work for you?

And if we are going off of Bloomberg, the cost associated with your quote is $18-20 Billion. That's massive! What exactly are we gaining with $18-20 billion going towards reinforcing the existing 700 miles of barrier?
If you bothered to follow up on the statement you cribbed from "somewhere" you'd see how it's been digested:

The full quote:
meaning that if Trump has indeed changed his position, he was already getting what he wanted with last year's security deal, and by citing this quote all you've done is proven that what Trump is throwing a tantrum over now is nothing more than political theater. And Trump is willing to sink taxpayer money into his theater and force thousands of government employees to go unpaid for it. You are falling for a scam, but this is unsurprising, given your propensity to fall back on conspiracy theories about opposition to a border wall, and your refusal to back up your positions with anything more then emotions and rhetoric
All you are doing is proving my point.
Existing border security methods are working, and they mostly require upkeep.
Important to consider the same source gives us the following:
Which is once again exactly what I've been saying. I appreciate that when you finally introduced a source to this thread, you picked one that backs up my positions.

And assessment from the other source, the important parts bolded:
Gilmartin said:
However, Trump's revised plans 'now call for a more modest, 722-mile barrier that is a mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what's been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest' (Bloomberg, 2018). Despite these developments, the details of how (and, indeed, if) the border wall will be delivered remain unclear at the time of writing. Nevertheless, the issue has remained central to Trump's policy rhetoric.
The details of how are extremely important when billions of dollars are being requested, and they remain unanswered. Furthermore, this source (correctly) labels the issue as rhetoric.

The fact that Trump consistently lies to me directly about the need for a wall and that no major push for this massive increase in border security spending is coming from anywhere trustworthy certainly calls the need for a major increase in spending into question

Do we need this? All evidence I've seen points to, "No". Trump bragged about the results he got last year without getting this request fulfilled, and apparently privately agrees it's sufficient. Statistics show border crossings continue to fall. Once again, I'd rather the money for the 'wall' go towards more useful areas of border security that could be leveraged more widely in the future, or more direct attempts to combat drugs or trafficking in a broad sense
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#84
Essentially, you are describing continuing to do what we are already doing, as 700 miles of the border are already fenced, and you are describing mostly updating those barriers.
Wrong. This is the plan Trump is requesting $5b for and you just admitted you support. There is no plan for a 2,000 mile wall. Save your Heritage Foundation rhetoric. Trump has proposed a modest plan to build walls where it is needed, fencing in other areas and more money for enforcement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f878a26288a_story.html?utm_term=.4f9fdd32e313

A Trump administration proposal early in 2018 called for a more modest 722-mile mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,694
1,381
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#85
There is a gulf between "works in >99% of cases" and "does not work ever". You probably think that it's stupid to not play lottery because you shoudl expect to lose, yet still would be willing to bet that there are two people who share a birthday in a room with 100 people.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#88
Not Wrong. If you are going to be condescending, at least be correct

This is the plan Trump is requesting $5b for and you just admitted you support..
It's not the plan Trump is requesting $5b for (more later). It's not even a plan, it's a generic statement. Once again, there's no cost associated with it. That statement could mean anything from spending $100 on some extra barb wire, to spending $50b to completely rebuild all of those barriers as solid concrete. Why would I support something I have absolutely no insight into or understanding of. I'm not like you

I admitted support for continuing to do what we did last year, which falls under the purview of that incredibly generic statement, as succinctly explained in my post

There is no plan for a 2,000 mile wall.
I did not say there was a plan for a 2,000 mile wall, though I will now take the time to point out that it was initially promised, and Trump has gone out of his way to ensure complete lack of details would obfuscate the fact that such a plan is no longer being considered.

I did you the honor of responding to exactly what you asked me. Please do me the same, and don't project straw men onto me. Nothing in my post was related to a wall spanning the full border, it was entirely focused on the 700 mile plan. Making things up about my position won't bring discussion anywhere useful

Save your Heritage Foundation rhetoric.
more arguing with emotion. You have no response to actual policy decisions as published by Heritage, so you dismiss it outright as rhetoric. Which is hilarious, because you asked for alternative policy and it was provided to you. I'll take this as an admission on your part that Heritage has good points, until you step up and refute them

Trump has proposed a modest plan to build walls where it is needed, fencing in other areas and more money for enforcement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f878a26288a_story.html?utm_term=.4f9fdd32e313

A Trump administration proposal early in 2018 called for a more modest 722-mile mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
This is not the source of the statement you posted. I provided you the source of the statement you posted and you ignored it.

The source is Bloomberg, from January 2018. Trump's $5 Billion number didn't materialize until December of 2018. Bloomberg reports the statement alongside Trumps request for 18-20 billion. And they aren't the only ones.

The WP article you sourced is an update to the original article I posted, once again, from Bloomberg! You cribbed a quote form it to make it look like the statement is related to Trump's current proposal, which it's not. Here's the full quote, with the relevant portion you left out:

Bloomberg... again... said:
A Trump administration proposal early in 2018 called for a more modest 722-mile mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest. More recently Trump has pitched a row of “artistically designed steel slats.”
They are describing two different plans, the original from early 2018, and the current, with the steel slats. Presumably the current plan is the $5 billion dollar plan, but we don't know, because once again, no actual proposal or pricing is cited. And this is because, once again, Trump does not have a properly detailed, sourced, and budgeted public facing policy. This whole thing remains theater

And further more, since this is your first direct link to a source, I feel I should quote from it as well:

Bloomeberg said:
Most experts doubt that a physical wall would do much to reduce illegal drugs pouring into the country each year. As part of a set of tools to combat illegal immigration, however, physical barriers could help.
That's two sources you've now provided that agree with me. Thanks!

What is this source? It's some book from an author I have never heard of. It's a partisan mess. One of the guys is a Democrat from Ireland. Great source.
I explained why I included this source is my post, it's the source that attributes the quote you cribbed to Bloomberg. I don't care what you think of the authors. You are also a partisan mess, but, unlike you, at least they source quotes. Why should I trust you over them?

If you want to be taken more seriously than "a partisan mess" and "a Democrat from Ireland" (ooooo scary), provide something more than emotion and rhetoric to back up your claims. The notion that you can't trust "a Democrat" is silly, and exemplifies how your partisan extremism is sandbagging the country. Or is the problem that he's Irish? Note that I selected the my extreme opposition (the Heritage Foundation) to back up my own positions. I do not blanket all "Republicans" as not worth listening to. Disprove their assertion that Trump's wall plans were unclear in 2018, and that building a wall was central to his rhetoric, instead of crying identity politics. I don't think you can.

If you believe they have somehow dishonestly cited Bloomberg, here's another source that properly attributes the quote (via publication in Fortune).

Nobody is going to fall for that BS. Even Obama has admitted our border is in crisis mode. We don't want the status quo. It's NOT working.

LOL, you've put literally no effort into this discussion. You ignore questions I ask you, when I answer all of yours, you don't cite sources, you crib the tiniest pieces of my posts you think you can hit me on, and ignore the obviously larger points. Why on earth would I sit through a 20 minute video with absolutely no context from you. Tell me what is important in this video if you think it will convince me we need a wall.

I even humored you, to hilarious results. I listened to the opening few minutes of the video, and at 38 seconds in:

Obama said:
The issue is not that people are evading our enforcement officials. The issue is that we’re apprehending them in large numbers. And we’re working to make sure that we have sufficient facilities to detain, house, and process them appropriately, while attending to unaccompanied children with the care and compassion that they deserve while they’re in our custody.
So thanks for proving my point that the $5B could be better spent on other areas of border security, particularly the areas Obama identifies as limiting
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#90
ou have no response to actual policy decisions as published by Heritage
This is tiresome. Like speaking with a child. This was from Heritage. They support Trump's current $5b proposal. Sorry.

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-s...order-wall-plus-other-measures-reduce-illegal

President Trump didn’t start Washington’s border wars. But if he sticks with his entire border control strategy, he should succeed in winning the immediate political debate and fixing our broken immigration system for the long haul.
 
Jun 26, 2018
830
555
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#92
And further more, since this is your first direct link to a source, I feel I should quote from it as well:
I didn't take that from Bloomberg. I got it from the Washington Post. WTF are you talking about?

I explained why I included this source is my post, it's the source that attributes the quote you cribbed to Bloomberg.
Not Bloomberg. Washington Post. I posted the link. That book is three partisan democrats you've never even heard of. LOL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...37900e-1049-11e9-8f0c-6f878a26288a_story.html
 
Last edited:
May 19, 2010
2,034
178
565
#93
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".
it's great that you posted this because it really outlines how republicans don't even bother to try and claim that they're the party of science and logic lol

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
also lol another pramod topic btfo. great work, everyone!
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,983
475
1,345
USA
#98
Yes. It is. It is the most recent proposal. You are consistently wrong.
The $5B dollar proposal is the most recent proposal, it is not the proposal referenced in the 722-mile statement you posted.

Bloomberg... again... said:
A Trump administration proposal early in 2018 called for a more modest 722-mile mix of wall and fencing, mostly updating what’s been in place for decades, while relying on drones and other methods to secure the rest.
The "plan" from January 2018 that was never fully fleshed out and requested $18-$20 billion, first cited here, and corroborated here. Ten months before the $5 billion request

Bloomberg... again... said:
More recently Trump has pitched a row of “artistically designed steel slats.”
The new $5B dollar "plan"

The initial statement you posted describes the January 2018 plan, a plan that existed 10 months before the $5B budget

please explain where this is confusing you, I will be happy to help clarify

If there's something you still think I am "consistently wrong" about, please explain to me specifically what I have wrong so I can clarify.

If you are going to be condescending, at least be correct

This was from Heritage. They support Trump's current $5b proposal. Sorry.

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-s...order-wall-plus-other-measures-reduce-illegal

President Trump didn’t start Washington’s border wars. But if he sticks with his entire border control strategy, he should succeed in winning the immediate political debate and fixing our broken immigration system for the long haul.
Holy shit. You are posting an opinion piece posted in Heritage's commentary section. I posted positions from Heritage's actual 2018 border security policy page.

And hilarious that rather than actually discuss the policy points I provided you, you dig around on Heritage's site to find a way to pretend they don't support what I posted. Way to prove you want to go beyond rhetoric. How about addressing the actual policy?

It's possible Heritage supports the $5b proposal assuming it meets the qualifications laid out on their policy page, we don't know because that policy isn't fully established and presented. As I've said. Repeatedly. They support "Increased Border Barriers Where Needed", as do I. We may disagree on the exact budget required to do so, and the locations where they are required, but this is immaterial since that information is not available
This is tiresome. Like speaking with a child.
You said it buddy! Obviously children are the ones who can understand what they and others are sourcing...

He literally said it was in crisis. If you had watched, you would have noticed. That is the point.
If it was in crisis, that was in 2014, and it was resolved, without building walls. It spiked again, but has continued to trend downward. The numbers are extremely low compared to a decade ago.

And once again, I've never said we don't need to change immigration policy (which is what he's suggesting) or border security. So it seems you are twisting my point. My point is that a wall is a poor use of border security funds. Obama seems to agree with me. He doesn't mention walls or fencing at all in that speech

I didn't take that from Bloomberg. I got it from the Washington Post. WTF are you talking about?

Not Bloomberg. Washington Post. I posted the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...37900e-1049-11e9-8f0c-6f878a26288a_story.html
Holy shit





Why should I take any of your opinions, on border security or otherwise, seriously when you are this sloppy about forming them?

That book is three partisan democrats you've never even heard of. LOL
LOL. I am not relying on them for any of my positions, I used them to identify where your statement came from, since you didn't provided that information, and I did you the service of showing you how I found an attribution for that statement. They were right. You continue to be wrong.

I've also never heard of you. Once again, why should I trust you over them? They are public experts who dictate arguments and properly site source. You continue sandbagging discussion as a partisan shill
If you want to be taken more seriously than "a partisan mess", provide something more than emotion and rhetoric to back up your claims. The notion that you can't trust "a Democrat" is silly, and exemplifies how your partisan extremism is sandbagging the country. Or is the problem that he's Irish? Note that I selected the my extreme opposition (the Heritage Foundation) to back up my own positions. I do not blanket all "Republicans" as not worth listening to. Disprove their assertion that Trump's wall plans were unclear in 2018, and that building a wall was central to his rhetoric, instead of crying identity politics. I don't think you can.

I see you, Jeff. Back at it again.

LOL
 
Last edited: