Originally posted by SquallX
Calling Trump a retard because he wants to secure he’s country’s border?So I guess the Emperor Of China was a retard too for building the Great Wall to stop the Monguls invasion?
Or the Vatican?
Or every walls that were build to protect one’s on country in the last 1000 years?
Except the Great Wall did not keep the Mongols out of China. If that is your example, then wanting to build a border wall for security after its spectacular failure would be retarded.
Originally posted by SquallX
So I guess you’re also a retard for living in a house with walls and locked doors? Since according to your logic, if a criminal wants access to your house, they’ll find a way?
That is the same line of argument conservatives make against common sense gun laws. I am glad you agree they are retarded.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Except the Great Wall did not keep the Mongols out of China. If that is your example, then wanting to build a border wall for security after its spectacular failure would be retarded.That is the same line of argument conservatives make against common sense gun laws. I am glad you agree they are retarded.
The wall did indeed worked, only problem was the Mongolian went and attacked were there were no wall. So yes, the wall did indeed accomplished its intended goal.
Guns don’t magically kill people though. But I also like the fact you forgets, those politicians that screams guns are bad, have bodyguards that protects them with guns, and live in gated communities with walls to keep the unwanted out.
What Happened When a Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the Wall
A conservative challenged liberal Facebook friends to “make a case, not based on emotion” against Trump’s wall. Conservative buddies flooded his post with snide remarks about how this would be impossible for “deluded libs.”
“Okay, I’ll play,” I responded. And in order to avoid being accused of bias, I explained that I would use only conservative sources to prove my point. My primary source was a policy paper by the Cato Institute, a conservative, rightwing think tank, along with other conservative voices (listed at the end of the piece). Here’s why I’m against the wall, I wrote:
[list=1][*]Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls to simply drive over them. People find a way. When East Germany erected its wall, it created a military zone, staffed by booted, machine-gun carrying guards ready to shoot to kill. Yet thousands managed to make it to West Germany anyway. More to the point, do we really want to model ourselves after communist East Germany?
[*]Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.” They come to the US legally — for vacations, business, to study, etc. — and then STAY past their visas. By 2012, overstayers accounted for 58% (THE MAJORITY!) of all unauthorized immigrants. A wall is meaningless here!
[*]Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the US. According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in secret containers and/or among legit goods in tractor-trailers. A wall will have little to no impact on the influx of drugs into our country.
[*]It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of STEEL fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage. Also, conservative sources generally do not address the environmental harm that walls create, but there is plenty of documentation available that show its potential for irreparable damage to both plant and animal life.
[*]A wall would forces the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles. Private citizens own much of the land slated for the wall. The costs of the government snatching private land — and the legal battles that would ensue — are incalculable.
[*]Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.
[*]Border patrol agents say, “Walls are meaningless without agents and technology to back them up.” Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually — after the wall is built — to create a nearly 2,000 mile, militarized 24-hour surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. Again, are we really, going to use East Germany, a brutal communist state, as our model here?
[*]Where walls have been built, there was “no discernable impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens.” In other words, they came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions precluded a wall.
[*]An unintended consequence is that a wall blocks farmworkers from EXITING when their invaluable seasonal work is done. Farmers are against the wall because it makes getting cheap seasonal labor almost impossible as few American citizens want or can even do those jobs. And if seasonal worker do get in, a wall makes it harder for them to leave! A wall traps migrant farm laborers in our country.
[*]Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would ACTUALLY be needed. For example, according to the Cato Institute: An estimate for a border wall area that only covered 700 miles was originally 1.2 billion. How much did it REALLY cost? SEVEN BILLION. And that’s only for 700 miles. Whatever we think it’s going to cost, experience shows us we have to multiply it by more than 500%.
[*]According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion. Homeland Security estimates it at $22 billion. Given the pattern of spending mentioned in number 10 (plus Murphy’s Law), that means we’re really talking about pouring endless billions into something that doesn’t even work. And, of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill, not Mexico. Given all the drawbacks, is that REALLY the best use of our taxes?[/list]
As the conservatives of the Cato Institute put it, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration." Also it would create many “direct harms": “the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrant’s freedoms of movement.”
And, we must add, since conservative sources do not — that the environmental harms are likely to be severe.
In other words, the facts show that walls don’t work and they create even bigger, more expensive problems.
So what happened after I posted this conservative-sourced, fact-based list of why the wall is a bad idea?
Silence.
I waited for someone to respond, to engage with me. Where were the angry defenses or rebuttals? But when I searched for the post after a few days, I couldn’t find it.
My FB friend had deleted it. You could say, like Trump with the government, he shut me down rather than deal with the facts.
The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions — namely fear and hate. He, along with Fox News, have convinced his base that they are in “extreme danger” from immigrants and only a wall will make them “safe.”
Unfortunately, the need to “feel” safe is much stronger than the will to grapple with a complex, multi-faceted problem.
And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn.
Conservative Sources Outlining the Uselessness of Trump’s Wall:
Originally posted by SquallX
The wall did indeed worked, only problem was the Mongolian went and attacked were there were no wall. So yes, the wall did indeed accomplished its intended goal.
So what you are saying is that people will just enter the country another way, as the majority already do, or they will just go around the wall. I agree, that is why a wall is a dumb idea.
Originally posted by SquallX
Guns don’t magically kill people though. But I also like the fact you forgets, those politicians that screams guns are bad, have bodyguards that protects them with guns, and live in gated communities with walls to keep the unwanted out.
But people who are determined to get into the country will find a way, just as people who are determined to get a gun will find a way. So why build a wall or have gun laws?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what you are saying is that people will just enter the country another way, as the majority already do, or they will just go around the wall. I agree, that is why a wall is a dumb idea.But people who are determined to get into the country will find a way, just as people who are determined to get a gun will find a way. So why build a wall or have gun laws?
So Yes. We should just stop Enforcing All Laws cause lets face it. People want to break them.
Like Gays Raping Children. We shouldn't stop that.
Gawd Adam is a Horrible Person at times.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm in favour of the wall. It will force all the smugglers and sneaks to develop their skills and hone their border-crossing abilities. Like a negligent overuse of antibiotics, this extremely expensive border decoration will create a species of SUPER illegal immigrants, who can evade and hide from the authorities with an enhanced understanding of subterfuge and fence-dodging. A master race of criminals who sneak into the U.S. while all eyes are on the Aggro Wall.
Finally, immigrants worthy of living in the US!
I have yet to actually received a legit reason why there should be no wall.
Calling Trump a retard because he wants to secure he’s country’s border?
Most times its not WHAT Trump is saying (Personally i’m all for keeping out some other country’s criminals and or potential terrorists), its HOW he’s saying it.
He’s an overbearing douchenozzle without a shred of couth and a blatant, cartoony racist.
That may be great when looking for ratings on a TV show, but not when the leader of the free world is looking to promote an agenda.
As for a legit reason why there should be no wall, its just not a prctical idea.
Originally posted by cdtm
Mexico was, indeed, supposed to pay for it.In Trumps defense, I don't think it's in his nature to consider that someone will ever say "No. Whatcha gonna do about it?" And that there wouldn't actually be a damned thing he can do about it.
It was dumb to say Mexico would pay for it, but I find it interesting how some continually bring this up.
Let's be honest: if tomorrow Mexico magically decided they would pay for the wall, how do you feel democrats would react? Throw their arms up in the air and go "oh fine, as long as they are paying for it!"? Is that would people think would happen?
Cuz it wouldn't lol. They call the very notion of a wall immoral. Who pays for it is irrelevant nor is the effectiveness relevant: they do not want a wall, period.
So while Trump, like a jackass, continues to pretend Mexico will pay for it you have these jackasses acting like they would be in favor of it if it was feasible. No, they really would not. It is not about money nor is it about effectiveness. It never was.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well they did kill a lot of "aliens".They're also a big part of why the director's cut is much more awesome.
Yes. Sadly that is a prime example of why the Wall can't be "Effective". Because We have to make sure it is a HUMANE Wall.
That is just a sign that were are a bunch of wussies to other nations.
Originally posted by Surtur
So while Trump, like a jackass, continues to pretend Mexico will pay for it you have these jackasses acting like they would be in favor of it if it was feasible. No, they really would not. It is not about money nor is it about effectiveness. It never was.
Again, it'd be shortsighted to take decisions of billions of dollars because how democrats would feel don't you think?
So we all agree money and effectiveness it's what decisions should take into account and not shift focus into feelings of moral validation.
Very Robtard of you to bring politic divisions into the subject though.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]What Happened When a Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the WallA conservative challenged liberal Facebook friends to “make a case, not based on emotion” against Trump’s wall. Conservative buddies flooded his post with snide remarks about how this would be impossible for “deluded libs.”
“Okay, I’ll play,” I responded. And in order to avoid being accused of bias, I explained that I would use only conservative sources to prove my point. My primary source was a policy paper by the Cato Institute, a conservative, rightwing think tank, along with other conservative voices (listed at the end of the piece). Here’s why I’m against the wall, I wrote:
[list=1][*]Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls to simply drive over them. People find a way. When East Germany erected its wall, it created a military zone, staffed by booted, machine-gun carrying guards ready to shoot to kill. Yet thousands managed to make it to West Germany anyway. More to the point, do we really want to model ourselves after communist East Germany?
[*]Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.” They come to the US legally — for vacations, business, to study, etc. — and then STAY past their visas. By 2012, overstayers accounted for 58% (THE MAJORITY!) of all unauthorized immigrants. A wall is meaningless here!
[*]Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the US. According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in secret containers and/or among legit goods in tractor-trailers. A wall will have little to no impact on the influx of drugs into our country.
[*]It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of STEEL fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage. Also, conservative sources generally do not address the environmental harm that walls create, but there is plenty of documentation available that show its potential for irreparable damage to both plant and animal life.
[*]A wall would forces the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles. Private citizens own much of the land slated for the wall. The costs of the government snatching private land — and the legal battles that would ensue — are incalculable.
[*]Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.
[*]Border patrol agents say, “Walls are meaningless without agents and technology to back them up.” Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually — after the wall is built — to create a nearly 2,000 mile, militarized 24-hour surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. Again, are we really, going to use East Germany, a brutal communist state, as our model here?
[*]Where walls have been built, there was “no discernable impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens.” In other words, they came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions precluded a wall.
[*]An unintended consequence is that a wall blocks farmworkers from EXITING when their invaluable seasonal work is done. Farmers are against the wall because it makes getting cheap seasonal labor almost impossible as few American citizens want or can even do those jobs. And if seasonal worker do get in, a wall makes it harder for them to leave! A wall traps migrant farm laborers in our country.
[*]Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would ACTUALLY be needed. For example, according to the Cato Institute: An estimate for a border wall area that only covered 700 miles was originally 1.2 billion. How much did it REALLY cost? SEVEN BILLION. And that’s only for 700 miles. Whatever we think it’s going to cost, experience shows us we have to multiply it by more than 500%.
[*]According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion. Homeland Security estimates it at $22 billion. Given the pattern of spending mentioned in number 10 (plus Murphy’s Law), that means we’re really talking about pouring endless billions into something that doesn’t even work. And, of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill, not Mexico. Given all the drawbacks, is that REALLY the best use of our taxes?[/list]
As the conservatives of the Cato Institute put it, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration." Also it would create many “direct harms": “the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrant’s freedoms of movement.”
And, we must add, since conservative sources do not — that the environmental harms are likely to be severe.
In other words, the facts show that walls don’t work and they create even bigger, more expensive problems.
So what happened after I posted this conservative-sourced, fact-based list of why the wall is a bad idea?
Silence.
I waited for someone to respond, to engage with me. Where were the angry defenses or rebuttals? But when I searched for the post after a few days, I couldn’t find it.
My FB friend had deleted it. You could say, like Trump with the government, he shut me down rather than deal with the facts.
The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions — namely fear and hate. He, along with Fox News, have convinced his base that they are in “extreme danger” from immigrants and only a wall will make them “safe.”
Unfortunately, the need to “feel” safe is much stronger than the will to grapple with a complex, multi-faceted problem.
And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn.
Conservative Sources Outlining the Uselessness of Trump’s Wall:
If walls don't work, why did we bother putting up fencing?