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

Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
Why should I take any of your opinions, on border security or otherwise, seriously when you are this sloppy about forming them?
You posted this article and said that is where my reference came from:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/19/donald-trump-border-wall/

That is almost a year older than the article I referenced. No, it is not the same article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/quicktake/?utm_term=.1e4c8aab7b6f
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
Yes. It is. Read the WashPo article.
I've tried to explain this to you multiple times now. Please explain how you are coming to the conclusion that the 722-mile proposal in the WaPo article is the same as the $5b proposal. I'm not sure how else I can illustrate that it's not

This is the exact quote from your article, published recently:
"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."
Quote from my article, published in early 2018:
"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."

Your article is referring to an "early in 2018" policy, which is 10 months before the $5B figure ever came out
The article I posted was from early 2018, and written by the same people.
Both articles are referring to "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."
Both articles are citing the same $18B proposal with this line (as priced in the initial article, but left out of the new article since the proposal's been abandoned and the price is no longer relevant)

To further differentiate the two proposals, Trump's new plan for $5B is apparently for 215 miles of border wall, with over 100 miles of that being new wall.

BTW your second link is broken

I apologize as I realize English may not be your first language, thus, this may be harder to understand. If so, please let me know and I will be happy to explain it as thoroughly as necessary. I would add, however, that taking such strong stances on Trump's policies without a firm grasp of English may be detrimental, as Trump's intentions aren't even clear to those who grew up with the language. I have been called out for arguing from an America-centric position on this forum before, and it's a bit hard for me to remember this is an international discussion when the topic is American politics.

It is the proposal on the table. Trump wants $5.7b to build 250 miles of wall. Heritage Foundation supports that plan.
you posted a piece in their commentary section. I posted their written 2018 border policy. Their written 2018 border policy matches my opinions about the need for a wall, hence why I've been citing it in this thread to show alternatives to a wall. You've done nothing to refute their (or my) positions in their 2018 policy posting. What more do you want me to say?

And once again, I don't care if they support Trump's $5B, I have been citing them as I agree with their reasoning concerning the efficacy of technology and personnel over barriers where they are not needed. My stance has not changed. Trump's $5B will not build a wall, so they are free to agree with it if they find the proposal sound

You posted this article and said that is where my reference came from:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/19/donald-trump-border-wall/

That is almost a year older than the article I referenced. No, it is not the same article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/quicktake/?utm_term=.1e4c8aab7b6f
Dude, you really need to read the articles you post and comment about before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Those articles are both written by Bloomberg, one year apart. Likely by the same author, but he is not credited in the first one. I did not call them "the same" (another straw man from you) I called one an update. Obviously your reference "comes from" the first article published, as any other article using the same words would otherwise be plagerizing.

The new article is an update reflecting the ongoing changes in the wall proposal. Notice it uses the exact same structure and most of the same questions. WP likely commissioned a piece based off the old one since wall talk is all the rage now, and Bloomberg took some shortcuts
The new article includes that line because Bloomberg were the ones who reported on the January 2018 policy using that line. They are still referring to the 2018 policy in the new article

Here are three articles discussing the $18B/700-mile policy from last January that aren't the Bloomberg article:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/border-security-billions-trump-wall/index.html
CNN said:
The document says the $18 billion investment will cover 722 miles of border wall
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...-satisfied-even-500-miles-replacement-barrier
Dallas News said:
Earlier this year (2018), Trump asked Congress for $18 billion, which the administration said was enough for about 700 miles of barrier.

Some — maybe most — would replace 654 miles of aging fence built under a 2006 law.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/congress-watchdog-border-wall-may-cost-more-take-longer
Fox News said:
The administration has estimated it will cost $18 billion for 722 miles (1162 kilometers) of barriers but that was based on an average cost per mile.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
You posted this article and said that is where my reference came from:

http://fortune.com/2018/01/19/donald-trump-border-wall/

That is almost a year older than the article I referenced. No, it is not the same article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/quicktake/?utm_term=.1e4c8aab7b6f
Oh, and in addition to what I said above, now I see that you are flat out lying to me. Way to be an ass

You didn't get your quote from here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f878a26288a_story.html?utm_term=.73c1e5ac3fb5

This is how your quote was phrased (You even posted it that way twice):
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.
This is the exact same phrasing from the Fortune article I referenced. It is not the phrasing used in the article you claim you got it from.

Awful strange coincidence that changes you made to the quote caused it to match the article I referenced exactly. So why lie? Where'd you get the quote from and why are you purposefully mucking up the conversation to pretend you found it in a different article?

None of those are the most recent proposal. WTF?
Exactly, that is the point.

The $18B/722-mile policy is not the most recent proposal. The recent $5B proposal has nothing to do with your 722 mile statement. I'm glad you agree

But now I'm beginning to understand that you know this, and you are just lying to me to string me along for some reason. I have no idea what you get out of this, laughs maybe?

But you're certainly succeeding at making it look like wall proponents and Trump supporters completely lack basic reading comprehension skills.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
That's what I have been saying. The current proposal is $5.7b for an estimated 250 miles of new wall. The rest will be reinforcing the fencing that is currently in terrible condition. So why do you oppose it? You've yet to offer a coherent argument.
no, this is not what you've been saying. you've repeatedly claimed the $5B proposal was for your 722-mile statement:

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.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The $5B dollar proposal is the most recent proposal, it is not the proposal referenced in the 722-mile statement you posted.
Yes. It is. Read the WashPo article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is you claiming the 722-mile policy is Trump's $5B plan, twice. There were more

Now you've lied to me twice. I'm done talking to you until you explain why you lied about the source of your statement
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
You're going to take your ball and go home? Because you can't tell me what it is about Trump's current proposal that you reject.
No, I'm still here, I'm just done answering your questions until you explain why you are blatantly lying to me

I don't see why I should be meeting your every demand when you consistently ignore my own questions and blatantly lie when you realize you fucked up, and I'm not sure how you blatantly lying helps any discussion
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
Um, yeah. In the beginning of this thread, you were literally arguing against a $30b, 30 foot high, border spanning wall. Until I corrected the false narrative.
the beginning of this thread, where you are pulling these quotes from, was predicated on the phrase "walls don't work". I was responding to the concept of a wall (body condom) vs. the concept of efficiently planned barriers (condoms). Every one of my posts in this thread has been in favor of properly planned barriers, and against a nebulous "wall". None of this is in bad faith. The OP is about Democrats opposing "a wall" but Democrats, as we have both acknowledged, support properly planned barriers. Thus I assume "the wall" being referred to in the OP is the concept of a border spanning wall which Trump campaigned on, and I addressed it as such

I even touched on this earlier in the thread when a asked the OP sepifically what "the wall" is:
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?
I did not receive a reply, but he 'liked' the post

I had expanded upon this considerably the last time it came up, and will quote it here so I don't have to re-type it:
I will admit that a wall of some sort will happen and Trump and his most fervent supporters will laud him for it and claim it is the wall. Heck, he already has some barriers they will claim as "the wall" if funding dries up tomorrow. That is part of the problem here. "The wall" is improperly defined, and everybody arguing about it, voting on it, and pitching their opinions is talking about something they've made up in their heads based on Trump's ramblings, filtered through a divisive media. So much for our "great negotiator"
The wall is rhetoric. Trump is relying on its lack of definition so people will support their own impressions of it, and so that he will have an excuse if it doesn't meet expectations. You and I were never discussing a border spanning wall, we were discussing 722-miles of wall, I addressed the topic as such. As for the OP, that's anybody's guess.

And you did not correct that 'false narrative' you quoted. You engaged me by citing that the 'cost of the wall was cheap compared to the overall budget'. A justification I rightfully called out as poor, and you've since backed off from. You never pointed out that the wall I was referring to was a 'false narrative' until now. Had you done so, I would've explained myself, as I have done with the quotes you just dug up, and as I suggested I would:
Point out where I'm being dishonest and I'll gladly correct, as I did with the confusing sentence you cited earlier.
See, it isn't that hard for me, so it shouldn't be that hard for you. Why don't you clarify your statements about where you sourced your 722-mile quote, and why you insisted it was part of the $5B plan?
This is now the third time you've lied to me in this thread

And what's worse, you also conflated wall sections, barriers, and walls:
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.
Trump campaigned on a 30ft high, border spanning wall. I rounded the cost to 30 billion, which matches the estimates in your own source close enough (1,000 miles of wall x $37 million per mile). You can't use Trump's campaign promises to justify what is getting built, yet get mad at someone for referencing those promises when the term 'wall' is mentioned, at least not until 'wall' is properly defined (a definition that likely won't be what those people voted for)
If you're mad people are conflating walls and barriers, blame Trump for spearheading this confusion. The sources I've posted and my own opinions have made clear distinctions between the two

You are still a liar
You lied about where you sourced your statement from
You lied about understanding the 722-mile proposal
You lied about correcting my 'false narrative' about a border spanning wall
tell me more about 'good faith'
 
Last edited:
Jun 7, 2004
31,945
9
1,500
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.
It's certainly being sold as something that covers the entire length of the border, which is nearly 2000 miles. I mean, it's not much of a "border wall" if it only covers about 1/3 of the border.

If this is such a common and incorrect misconception, then why is nothing being done to correct it? It seems like the quickest way to a compromise and public acceptance would be to admit that it's just a refurbishment of currently existing barriers, yet Trump acts like this is all going to be totally new construction.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
It's certainly being sold as something that covers the entire length of the border, which is nearly 2000 miles.
No, it actually isn't. But it's easier for people to argue against the proposal using that sort of rhetoric. It's not a 2,000 mile, 30 foot high, $30b wall. It's $5.7b for 250 miles of new wall and reinforcing the shoddy fencing currently in place.

Sad, really.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
No, it actually isn't. But it's easier for people to argue against the proposal using that sort of rhetoric. It's not a 2,000 mile, 30 foot high, $30b wall. It's $5.7b for 250 miles of new wall and reinforcing the shoddy fencing currently in place.

Sad, really.
Well that's just the digestible proposal, or is it the final? What's the goal? Some transparency would be nice.
 
Dec 25, 2018
456
286
185
Democrats are saying that Illegal Immigrants are Sperm with this logic.

Joking aside, not sure what else can be done other than a physical border to stop illegal immigrants from crossing without being shot at or physically grabbing them and chucking them back out.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
Democrats are saying that Illegal Immigrants are Sperm with this logic.

Joking aside, not sure what else can be done other than a physical border to stop illegal immigrants from crossing without being shot at or physically grabbing them and chucking them back out.
But they also build tunnels (over 200 discovered) climb the walls, and use boats to get to ports.

Erected fences get backed by increased security. It's not a set it and forget it situation. I'll add that this isn't the golden era where there area 2 million apprehensions a year anymore (incl asylum seekers etc).

So we should really be thinking about what's effective and needed here.
 
Dec 25, 2018
456
286
185
But they also build tunnels (over 200 discovered) climb the walls, and use boats to get to ports.

Erected fences get backed by increased security. It's not a set it and forget it situation. I'll add that this isn't the golden era where there area 2 million apprehensions a year anymore (incl asylum seekers etc).

So we should really be thinking about what's effective and needed here.
I definitely agree there.

Sorry if I am not up to date on this stuff (I don't live in the US), but it's interesting to know that they have other ways of getting across such as Tunnels and Ports.

Do they do Tunnel and Port Checks as well to stop them from getting across?

I think in the UK where people seek asylum by crossing the Sea the border control by the Sea rescue them and revaluate whether they can stay for a short period or deport them back to the country of origin, regardless of whether it is safe to.

I don't agree with a full deportation but there is likely a way to sending them back to a neutral country who can offer a program to gain basic skills to reapply to the desired country, but of course this would cost money to do. It would be better overall if the Immigrant wants to stay in another country but has no skills to successfully stay there without the illegal means to do so.
 
Mar 1, 2017
609
355
255
That might be the dumbest analogy and I can't say I'm surprised to see it employed by those who believe a government shutdown is the appropriate means of raising $5 billion for a border wall
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
Well, when I hear Obama's border security chief say there is a need for a wall, excuse me if I take his opinion over yours.
This guy's gotta play nice to Trump first and foremost, but he also said:

"Morgan said Trump may have called for a wall along the entire border, but no one actually believes it’s needed for the entire 2,000 miles. But there are areas that remain porous, he said, that encourage illegal immigration rather than coming through legal ports of entry."

Let's see a specific proposal.

But we really need to pass something because not every fed employee is getting back pay, and it's pay time, people living paycheck to paycheck can't hold out.

Way back when Dems gave 25 billion to Trump for the wall for the compromise on their version of immigration reform. Trump said no. Could have made history.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,500
1,061
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
This guy's gotta place nice to Trump first and foremost, but he also said:

"Morgan said Trump may have called for a wall along the entire border, but no one actually believes it’s needed for the entire 2,000 miles. But there are areas that remain porous, he said, that encourage illegal immigration rather than coming through legal ports of entry."

Let's see a specific proposal.

Dems offered Trump the 25 billion he wanted, and the dude said no so.
Dems also pulled that offer back.

"Schumer had made the offer last Friday in a last-ditch effort to head off a government shutdown, then came scalding criticism from his party’s liberal activist base that Democrats had given up too easily in reopening the government without more concrete promises on immigration." -PBS

Sound familiar? It should. Trump got raked over the coals by most of the mainstream media for giving in to the demands of his supporters, TV/radio personalities included, and refusing to sign the funding bill. Schumer, though, largely escaped that criticism despite doing the exact same thing.

That $25B offer was also a 10 year proposal, actual wall funding to be discussed at a later date. It was a negotiation tactic and nothing else. I shake my head whenever I see an elected Democrat bring it up in the media today, they might as well be holding up a giant sign calling their audience ignorant and laughing as they do it.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
Dems also pulled that offer back.

"Schumer had made the offer last Friday in a last-ditch effort to head off a government shutdown, then came scalding criticism from his party’s liberal activist base that Democrats had given up too easily in reopening the government without more concrete promises on immigration." -PBS

Sound familiar? It should. Trump got raked over the coals by most of the mainstream media for giving in to the demands of his supporters, TV/radio personalities included, and refusing to sign the funding bill. Schumer, though, largely escaped that criticism despite doing the exact same thing.

That $25B offer was also a 10 year proposal, actual wall funding to be discussed at a later date. It was a negotiation tactic and nothing else. I shake my head whenever I see an elected Democrat bring it up in the media today, they might as well be holding up a giant sign calling their audience ignorant and laughing as they do it.
Well yeah, there were no concrete details around the wall, so everything was an "okay, let's do this and hash it out later basis".

But this isn't the whole story, although most of it. The deal was on the table for a month, but it was clear that it wasn't going to go because it didn't go hard enough for Republicans. It had 54 votes in the Senate if that means anything.

So it could have happened in a technical basis, but oh well, It can't anymore because Trump can't scrap DACA.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
The Senate and the President are on the same page. It's the House that is the holdout on this modest proposal.
I'm not so sure about that. But I did find this interesting (even though it doesn't mean much).

Democrats this week already blocked work on a pro-Israel bill, and Thursday afternoon, the blocked it again when Republicans called it up for a vote. That bill wold have allowed states to stop doing business with companies that boycott Israel, a move aimed at fighting the global effort to boycott, divest and sanction Israel.

Democrats have also suggested they will filibuster all bills other than spending bills for the nine federal agencies subject to the partial shutdown.
Speaking of the 25bil/DACA thing