President Trump will deliver a prime-time address Tuesday, 9PM

Sep 16, 2012
6,803
6
440
24
tbf we have been burning billions on blowing up people, torturing people, accidentally droning schools and hospitals, arming insurgent groups, providing arms and weaponry to warzones, etc. for the past decade plus, throwing some of that to a physical barrier actually seems like some of the less egregious Homeland Defense spending we have done
that's a pretty uncompelling argument, again it just boils down to "it's not thaaaat bad and people want it so lets just do it anyway".
Is that really the standards people apply to the center of a political agenda? Like honestly, its not even a left vs right thing its just bad policy.
 
Oct 2, 2012
3,193
108
410
This is what really gets me. It's obviously not about the money. It's a rounding error to the US Government.

Then what is it about?

Preventing sexual assault? Nope, suddenly Nancy and Chuck seem to think 80% of women getting sexually assaulted is a manufactured crisis. But #metoo which impacted far fewer individuals was used very opportunistically. I guess they only care about white women, not brown women getting sexually assaulted.

Preventing human trafficking? Nope, suddenly Nancy and Chuck seem to think that's just fine as long as they are coming from the southern border.

Preventing violence? I guess brown people killing or getting killed is A-OK for now.

It's purely a political maneuver for 2020. The only reason they care is they know if President Trump gets the wall done he'll win in a landslide. Sexual assault, human trafficking, violence be damned.
The money is indeed not the issue.

The issue is that this incompetent president didn't manage to build an inch of actual wall with 2 years of absolute republican rulership, and now that the dems took the house he throws a wall tantrum while holding the government hostage to blame someone else.

If tantrums get him what he wants, he'll keep doing it again and again, risking lives and hurting people's livelihoods because he only cares about his ego.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,257
788
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
The money is indeed not the issue.

The issue is that this incompetent president didn't manage to build an inch of actual wall with 2 years of absolute republican rulership, and now that the dems took the house he throws a wall tantrum while holding the government hostage to blame someone else.
I'll just quote a Washington Post story from the 21st of December:

When Nancy Pelosi chided President Trump in the Oval Office last week that he didn’t have the votes in the House to pass a government funding bill that included $5 billion for his border wall, she was probably expecting that Trump’s GOP critics, particularly those on their way out the door, would buck him.

But when House Republican leadership, backed into a corner by the White House and the Freedom Caucus, brought it to the floor Thursday night, all but eight Republicans voted in favor of a temporary spending bill that would avert a shutdown and provide Trump’s wall money. That, coupled with the 20 House Democrats who weren’t there to vote, handed Trump a victory, at least optically, and made Pelosi’s assessment incorrect.
The GOP in the House did their part. The GOP in the Senate are in favor of the wall, but as has been pointed out already, they couldn't pass it without Dem votes. Dem leadership wanted a barrier a decade ago, Schumer even said comprehensive immigration reform wouldn't work unless illegal border crossings were addressed. The steel slats over a lengthier portion of the border would help address the illegal border crossings, as stated by border patrol agents.

So, how do Dems walk out of this hole? Right now, they're counting on exploiting emotions because now people are starting to worry and protest for going without pay. The Dems and their media puppets are going to use them to say Trump is responsible for this suffering, except that's ignoring the government workers who support the wall, the fact that Dems are the ones that have been yelling "no, no, no" and the hole the Dems are currently standing in because of their unexplained 180 flip on the issue.
 
Jun 9, 2004
12,437
181
1,350
Wonder what happened to Mexico paying for the wall.
Mexico will end up paying for any sort of border enforcement.

Remember, payment doesn't always come in the form of money. A non-porous Southern border would force Mexico to address its myriad social, political, and economic issues. For Mexico, the cost would be astronomical.
 
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
Mexico will end up paying for any sort of border enforcement.

Remember, payment doesn't always come in the form of money. A non-porous Southern border would force Mexico to address its myriad social, political, and economic issues. For Mexico, the cost would be astronomical.
Trump does not think so . If Mexico will pay for it then why bother the US tax payer and risk a national emergency.

He lied
 
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
Mexico will not directly fund a border wall in all likelihood. However, that wasn't my point and you didn't even bother to acknowledge it.
Because if you think a border wall will force Mexico to address it's issues you are sadly mistaken solving them would take generations and a new government . It's already been proven that they will not indirectly or directly pay for the wall. If that was the case then I'll ask you again .. why bother the US tax payer.
 
Jun 9, 2004
12,437
181
1,350
Because if you think a border wall will force Mexico to address it's issues you are sadly mistaken solving them would take generations and a new government . It's already been proven that they will not indirectly or directly pay for the wall. If that was the case then I'll ask you again .. why bother the US tax payer.
Mexico and Central America rely on the United States as a safety valve. Imagine all the disaffected people in those countries not being able to seek greener pastures. They'd be forced to agitate for change in their home countries.

The price for Mexico would be astronomical.

As for the United States, it certainly behooves the country to enforce its borders. Whether this takes the form of a physical wall is largely irrelevant.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,257
788
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
Because if you think a border wall will force Mexico to address it's issues you are sadly mistaken solving them would take generations and a new government . It's already been proven that they will not indirectly or directly pay for the wall. If that was the case then I'll ask you again .. why bother the US tax payer.
You're paying ICE and the border patrol agents tasked with monitoring the wall, apprehending those attempting to cross illegally, detaining them, feeding them, giving them health care, bringing them to court, driving/flying them back to their home country... You are paying for that. Imagine if you could cut those costs by doing something as simple as putting up a $5.7B wall?
 
Dec 3, 2013
16,567
9,148
555
You're paying ICE and the border patrol agents tasked with monitoring the wall, apprehending those attempting to cross illegally, detaining them, feeding them, giving them health care, bringing them to court, driving/flying them back to their home country... You are paying for that. Imagine if you could cut those costs by doing something as simple as putting up a $5.7B wall?
He's not paying for that, he doesn't even live in America.
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
Has there even been a bigger political fight in history over such a measly amount of money?
I mean, we spend 150 billion just on foreign aid. Per year.
The government routinely gives billions to other countries to help with their defense/security.
And you are saying we can't spend 5 billion to help (not completely solve) our OWN security problems?
It's just mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2018
413
608
235
The money is indeed not the issue.

The issue is that this incompetent president didn't manage to build an inch of actual wall with 2 years of absolute republican rulership, and now that the dems took the house he throws a wall tantrum while holding the government hostage to blame someone else.

If tantrums get him what he wants, he'll keep doing it again and again, risking lives and hurting people's livelihoods because he only cares about his ego.
It's honestly just like negotiating with terrorists. After about 10 of these government shutdowns, it's completely clear that the only sensible position to take is to never grant a single thing to anyone threatening to shut down. Just let them keep it shut down for as long as they want. We can all live without the Smithsonian museums for 2 more years. Government workers will find new jobs.

It should be a zero tolerance policy. If you grant anything it just makes them do it again next time.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
I mean all the people making arguments about the wall being "a waste of money", just doesn't hold water. The government routinely wastes billions and no one cares.

Of course they realize this and I notice the argument has now changed to, "we can't reward Trump's bad behavior etc".
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
Mexico and Central America rely on the United States as a safety valve. Imagine all the disaffected people in those countries not being able to seek greener pastures. They'd be forced to agitate for change in their home countries.
You know most undocumented immigrants are now coming in via airplane on visas and overstay . A wall wont stop someone. And it certainly won't address Mexico's issues with drugs and gangs .

You're paying ICE and the border patrol agents tasked with monitoring the wall, apprehending those attempting to cross illegally, detaining them, feeding them, giving them health care, bringing them to court, driving/flying them back to their home country... You are paying for that. Imagine if you could cut those costs by doing something as simple as putting up a $5.7B wall?
The wall is going to cost allot more than 5.7b most people have it at just over 20b plus the untold amount of money you would need for up keep. It's almost like throwing money down a black hole .
 
Dec 3, 2013
16,567
9,148
555
Undocumented immigrants merely do not have a legal right to stay in the U.S.

They can come legally and then overstay.
Lol, no shit. You guys love conflating illegal immigration that has zero documentation history, ever, with people who already been documented and shows that they're here. If they overstay they know they're still here because there is no record of them anywhere in the system leaving the country.

Just using typical wordplay through partisanship.

I know what you are doing, and it's bogus.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Lol, no shit. You guys love conflating illegal immigration that has zero documentation history, ever, with people who already been documented and shows that they're here. If they overstay they know they're still here because there is no record of them anywhere in the system leaving the country.

Just using typical word playthrough partisanship.

I know what you are doing, and it's bogus.
It's about the legal right to stay, that's it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
Can someone please explain to me how the wall is a bad idea, like who loses if the wall is made? What exactly are the negatives of the wall?

I just can’t think of a logical reason to oppose the wall, other than just being anti Trump
 
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
You're paying ICE and the border patrol agents tasked with monitoring the wall, apprehending those attempting to cross illegally, detaining them, feeding them, giving them health care, bringing them to court, driving/flying them back to their home country... You are paying for that. Imagine if you could cut those costs by doing something as simple as putting up a $5.7B wall?
Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $125 billion annually. Anyone citing costs as a reason to oppose the wall is very uninformed.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $125 billion annually. Anyone citing costs as a reason to oppose the wall is very uninformed.
Where did you get this figure from?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna950981

Can someone please explain to me how the wall is a bad idea, like who loses if the wall is made? What exactly are the negatives of the wall?

I just can’t think of a logical reason to oppose the wall, other than just being anti Trump
The design of the wall keeps changing so it is hard to say on one aspect. Is it 234 miles long (budget proposal), or 2000 miles? Is it a fence where water can travel through preventing flooding?

So your have basic concerns about the environment, but there's also the government forcing the sale of private lands that had been a big deal to locals. Is it worth that?

Then there's a matter of effectiveness which needs to be qualified since they're asking for spending to a problem. We don't need roi's because it's only a little amount of money, but some real expectations. What problems are expected to be solved, what are the the estimates? We also need an explanation for why it is just 5b now. What's the damn roadmap?

Prove that the wall isn't a vanity project.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
Where did you get this figure from?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna950981



The design of the wall keeps changing so it is hard to say on one aspect. Is it 234 miles long (budget proposal), or 2000 miles? Is it a fence where water can travel through preventing flooding?

So your have basic concerns about the environment, but there's also the government forcing the sale of private lands that had been a big deal to locals. Is it worth that?

Then there's a matter of effectiveness which needs to be qualified since they're asking for spending to a problem. We don't need roi's because it's only a little amount of money, but some real expectations. What problems are expected to be solved, what are the the estimates? We also need an explanation for why it is just 5b now. What's the damn roadmap?

Prove that the wall isn't a vanity project.
“Minus illegal tax contributions” lol. Ok then, let’s go with that $54 billion annually. Wouldn’t it be good to save that money?
Let’s not forget all the crimes they commit, 56,000 in federal prison, 127 border patrol officers killed, etc

Also, please correct me if I’m wrong, you’re against the wall, therefore you’re saying that we shouldn’t have any barriers/fences whatsoever?
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
“Minus illegal tax contributions” lol. Ok then, let’s go with that $54 billion annually. Wouldn’t it be good to save that money?
Let’s not forget all the crimes they commit, 56,000 in federal prison, 127 border patrol officers killed, etc

Also, please correct me if I’m wrong, you’re against the wall, therefore you’re saying that we shouldn’t have any barriers/fences whatsoever?
I dunno if you can save that money because it costs a lot to get undocumented immigrants out, and then you have to factor in the loss to the economy. If you just want to analyze and solve southern border crossing illegal immigrants YOY, in prison and elsewhere, costs are even trickier and lesser.

So it's probably not a good idea to go by costs, and rather stick to the basics of "undocumented Immigration is bad" .

So then you have to consider what is the role of a 236 mile wall in that? What's it going to do?

The answer to that is more than "Don't let those criminals in ahahahahahahahahahahaha! Your life will be so nice better!".

We already have strategic fencing up, and it sounds like the 2000 mile wall turned into 236 miles for now (strategic). Is there gonna be a shutdown every budget extension to pay for another 236 miles of wall?
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
I dunno if you can save that money because it costs a lot to get undocumented immigrants out, and then you have to factor in the loss to the economy. If you just want to analyze and solve southern border crossing illegal immigrants YOY, in prison and elsewhere, costs are even trickier and lesser.

So it's probably not a good idea to go by costs, and rather stick to the basics of "undocumented Immigration is bad" .

So then you have to consider what is the role of a 236 mile wall in that? What's it going to do?

The answer to that is more than "Don't let those criminals in ahahahahahahahahahahaha! Your life will be so nice better!".

We already have strategic fencing up, and it sounds like the 2000 mile wall turned into 236 miles for now (strategic). Is there gonna be a shutdown every budget extension to pay for another 236 miles of wall?
WTF. You literally are not making any sense.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
WTF. You literally are not making any sense.
- The net cost of illegal immigration from the southern border is hard to track down, so it's not a good motivator for justifying the wall. The only reason you need is that it is illegal. So with that out of the way, what will another 236 miles of wall do? What will it provide to us?

- We already have border fencing, so how can I be against it if it is already there? What purpose will 236 more miles serve?
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
- The net cost of illegal immigration from the southern border is hard to track down, so it's not a good motivator for justifying the wall. The only reason you need is that it is illegal. So with that out of the way, what will another 236 miles of wall do? What will it provide to us?

- We already have border fencing, so how can I be against it if it is already there? What purpose will 236 more miles serve?
Have you ever driven in traffic? If so, do you know what a bottle neck is? In case that concept is too hard to grasp, let me explain. Barriers prevent flow through the barricaded area. This forces people who wish to pass to cross through a smaller opening. In terms of border security, it is easier to guard a small area than a vast area. And even for those clever enough to drudge a 40 foot ladder through the desert, they will have to place it, go up and over single file, and will be vastly easier to identify due to other security measures around or on the wall.

These arguments against it are bordering on the insane. Too expensive (tiny fraction of overall spending, tiny fraction of foreign aid, tiny fraction of annual economic costs stemming from illegal immigration). Won't work (while everyone who can afford it builds a fence, including other countries with wild success from it). It's immoral (even the Vatican has walls).

SMH at all the phonies. No one can be dumb enough to believe this crap. Just admit it - people are against it for 1 of 2 reasons or both. Either people want it to remain easy to sneak across the border, or they want Trump to fail with no regard for anything else because of 2020.
 
Likes: #Phonepunk#
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Have you ever driven in traffic? If so, do you know what a bottle neck is? In case that concept is too hard to grasp, let me explain. Barriers prevent flow through the barricaded area. This forces people who wish to pass to cross through a smaller opening. In terms of border security, it is easier to guard a small area than a vast area. And even for those clever enough to drudge a 40 foot ladder through the desert, they will have to place it, go up and over single file, and will be vastly easier to identify due to other security measures around or on the wall.
The challenge point is that we are doing well without the extra 236 miles of fencing, or the 2000 miles of fencing. Minus a blimp here and there, almost all of the metrics are getting better (except border budgets) without needing a wall.

You want to run the government like a business? Justify the new fencing, prove that it isn't a vanity project.

Give me info (Trump admin) like this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
The challenge point is that we are doing well without the extra 236 miles of fencing, or the 2000 miles of fencing. Minus a blimp here and there, almost all of the metrics are getting better (except border budgets) without needing a wall.

You want to run the government like a business? Justify the new fencing, prove that it isn't a vanity project.

Give me info (Trump admin) like this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/
Enough bullshit. Jim Acosta spent all day yesterday proving that fencing is no vanity project, and you know it. I would post the twitter video but I do not actually know how to post images or videos. or gifs. Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility. Just ask Jim Acosta.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Enough bullshit. Jim Acosta spent all day yesterday proving that fencing is no vanity project, and you know it. I would post the twitter video but I do not actually know how to post images or videos. or gifs. Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility. Just ask Jim Acosta.
Nonononono,

You don't get to say that putting up a wall would solve all of our problems. It won't, not even close, and second that's just blind faith. We still don't have immigration reform inside of these walls.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
wow this is some of the best info I've seen on the subject, thanks!


Did you see how peaceful and prosperous it was where Acosta was on the border? The fencing that is in place needs to be restored.
Enough bullshit. Jim Acosta spent all day yesterday proving that fencing is no vanity project, and you know it. I would post the twitter video but I do not actually know how to post images or videos. or gifs. Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility. Just ask Jim Acosta.
It won't solve all of our problems - no shit. But facts are facts. Just yesterday CNN's very own Jim Acosta proved that walls work and are not mere vanity projects. You asked for proof, so I gave it to you.



more specious reasoning from the usual suspects
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
Nonononono,

You don't get to say that putting up a wall would solve all of our problems. It won't, not even close, and second that's just blind faith. We still don't have immigration reform inside of these walls.
It won't solve all of our problems - no shit. But facts are facts. Just yesterday CNN's very own Jim Acosta proved that walls work and are not mere vanity projects. You asked for proof, so I gave it to you. Stop moving the goal posts with stupid claims like we can only build a wall if we pass amnesty with it, as suggested by your blatant attempt to muddy the waters by changing the subject to immigration reform. Getting tired of this nonsense.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
wow this is some of the best info I've seen on the subject, thanks!








more specious reasoning from the usual suspects
Your analogy only works if you believe no one sneaks across the border generally, and never did in the specific location where Jim showed how well the wall works. The shareblue and reddit politics crowd might enjoy jerking off to this silly comparison though.
 
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
- The net cost of illegal immigration from the southern border is hard to track down, so it's not a good motivator for justifying the wall. The only reason you need is that it is illegal. So with that out of the way, what will another 236 miles of wall do? What will it provide to us?

- We already have border fencing, so how can I be against it if it is already there? What purpose will 236 more miles serve?
So does the border fencing work or not?
 
Apr 9, 2009
27,004
1,420
815
As of today this is tied for the longest us government shutdown.

3 ways this ends:
1. Shutdown continues and people eventually start rioting. Worst case.
2. Wall in exchange for major political concessions by pubs. Highly unlikely.
3. Trump tries to build wall through national emergency, gets held up in court. Trump remains popular with his base and govt gets to reopen.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
Your analogy only works if you believe no one sneaks across the border generally, and never did in the specific location where Jim showed how well the wall works. The shareblue and reddit politics crowd might enjoy jerking off to this silly comparison though.
You specifically said: "Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility. Just ask Jim Acosta." You are crediting 'peace and tranquility' in that area entirely to the existence of a wall, without comparing it to other areas of 'peace and tranquility' that don't have walls, or areas that have a wall, yet are in disarray... You are making a wild assumption about the conditions of a location based on a single variable, 30 seconds of footage, and no understanding of that location. You are also assuming that because no illegal immigrants happened to wander into frame during Acosta's short time at the border, the wall has prevented immigrants from getting into that town. This is the same logic that shows Lisa's rock prevents tigers or Homer's bear patrol prevents bears.

There are honest ways to argue in favor of a wall. This is not one of them.
The The_Donald and Breitbart politics crowds have been enjoying jerking off to that very same silly attempt at logic, though. In fact, I'm sure this is why you and your buddy thought it would pull some weight, here

Check out the article @ssolitare posted that you immediately labeled 'bullshit' without reading. It is a comprehensive and even-handed appraisal of the border situation, and I'm sure it's quite illuminating for both sides of the argument. You're likely to even find defense of the wall in there you can use without resorting to the fallacy that spreads around misinformed right-wing circles
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
are not mere vanity projects...claims like we can only build a wall if we pass amnesty with it....
I didn't say those things, but I did imply that there are bigger fish to fry.

Your Jim Acosta logic is dumb, the article I posted better explains the impact of border barriers and crossing illegals. We may not need to spend a ton of money on fencing if we're strategic about it. 5 billion is better than 30, but what's the whole plan? What does the 263 miles do?
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
Also let's be honest here....the Democrats, most desperately, DO NOT WANT THIS DEBATE TO CONTINUE. Because the longer it goes on, the more they have to explain to the American people why a few billion dollars for barriers is "immoral". The longer this debate goes on, the more uncomfortable they are becoming. You can already see this on CNN and other cable news. So even if Trump doesn't actually get the wall, I think this shutdown has accomplished something...it has continued the debate.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
I didn't say those things, but I did imply that there are bigger fish to fry.

Your Jim Acosta logic is dumb, the article I posted better explains the impact of border barriers and crossing illegals. We may not need to spend a ton of money on fencing if we're strategic about it. 5 billion is better than 30, but what's the whole plan? What does the 263 miles do?
263 miles of fence adds security measures to 263 miles of the border. Is that really so hard to understand? Really?

And post any article you want. They are meaningless. Anyone who has ever walked a path that is ultimately blocked by a wall, fence, gate, etc., knows that the path suddenly becomes more difficult to cross when they encounter the obstruction. All snark aside, its not your disagreement with the wall that made me poke fun by referencing Acosta. It's the intellectual dishonesty I keep seeing by people suggesting they don't think walls work, that its too expensive for dems' to stomach, etc. Just be honest - you don't want Trump to win.
 
Last edited: