# Who should pay for the US/Mexican wall?



## Taleweaver (Jan 9, 2019)

I really wonder how we'll look back at this period in time in history. Trump already broke many traditions and honors and made more dumb and dangerous remarks than any US president I know. Not only is US on track for breaking the longest government shutdown in recent history, it is all for something that is COMPLETELY NORMAL. The border situation is at best moderately worse than before, but in reality it's just the same.

But Donald Trump made a campaign promise that was so ridiculously dumb that opponents didn't bother to disprove ("Mexico paying for a wall with USA? They already replied they weren't going to!"). Nobody thought that clown would beat all the other candidates, and even less people thought he'd attempt to follow through on his lie. The result: he's looking for someone to blame. Mexico would be pretty stupid to blame (he never even started any dialogue in that direction, he has zero bargaining power and - again - they denied they were going to pay for it even during the election campaign). So he once again tries to blame democrats.

Fucking democrats...how dare they not wanting to waste US tax dollars? Even worse: they chose to believe people in the field rather than...than...erm...well, who besides Donald IS saying this wall is a good idea?

And now it comes to this.
George W. Bush made a public speech after 9/11
Barack Obama made a public speech to announce they killed Osama Bin Laden
Donald J. Trump made a public speech to plea to build a wall


Honestly: why do you Americans let him do all that shit? He's on the brink of being trialed as a fraud, and in the mean time you just let him piss all over whatever ethical standards there are on being the president of the united states? Why?

...on second thought: don't answer that question. I don't wanna hear it.


----------



## cots (Jan 9, 2019)

Your poll and your post are biased. You only take one side of the issue into account and then ask for opinions that don't allow anyone that doesn't blatantly hate Trump to participate. It's a simple "Let's Bash Trump" thread. No thanks.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 9, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Honestly: why do you Americans let him do all that shit? He's on the brink of being trialed as a fraud, and in the mean time you just let him piss all over whatever ethical standards there are on being the president of the united states? Why?
> 
> ...on second thought: don't answer that question. I don't wanna hear it.


Honestly, our laws wasn't prepared for a Trump nor the things surrounding him. We are going need a whole lot of new or fixed laws to make sure this doesn't happen again... or at least combat it much quicker.


----------



## DinohScene (Jan 9, 2019)

Trump is like a small child, take his internet access away for a while and ground him.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Your poll and your post are biased. You only take one side of the issue into account and then ask for opinions that don't allow anyone that doesn't blatantly hate Trump to participate. It's a simple "Let's Bash Trump" thread. No thanks.


So...when Trump rallied his election entourage into shouting "build that wall", did you stand up to him and pointed out that he only took his own opinion into account and didn't allow for participation of others (like...the Mexican president who said outright "no, we're not paying for that") ?

The answer is, of course, no. You didn't. I didn't. No one did. So do me a favor: don't hold others to different standards. He never cared for politics, reaching agreements or being politically correct (or even polite, for that matter). He nor his followers should expect to be treated any different than they themselves treat others: with disdain, malice and without a fair chance to come with a reply.

It's been two years. In those two years, I've seen countless people attempt to argue and reason with him, and they all failed. Anyone in the government truly interested in the best of the country either quit or was fired before they got a chance to. So it's no coincidence that the only achievement that the Trump administration pulled through was a tax break for the rich. Everything else got shot down, delayed or canceled.

Is this a Trump bashing thread? Yes. What you should be asking is whether it is deserved or not.

Look...I've made a blog not too long ago about Belgian politics. Should I be being kind or forgiving when they screw up their job? Fat chance. But even in their bitter disagreement on issues, they acknowledge that these issues ARE, in fact, issues. You don't even have that. You've got a president who fabricates a problem that no one else can see and shuts down the government over it. That's worthy of a third world banana republic.

Questioning my objectiveness (which I never claimed) isn't going to convince me that the USA isn't becoming a dictatorship.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 9, 2019)

The wall is a complete waste of money and completely pointless. I am actually shocked (and also not shocked at the same time,) there are people stupid enough to support the idea of a border wall and don't see the countless flaws with it.


----------



## DBlaze (Jan 9, 2019)

Hey, at least he's trying to keep his promises, can't say that about any of our politicians!
that was meant to be slightly ironic because he shutdown the goverment over a wall, but it's a good thing a politician tries to stay with his promises, i guess.

Other than that, I try to avoid political discussions like the plague, because there's always someone that will get butthurt over something.
The alternative to Trump wouldn't have been a whole lot better anyway.

I just hope for America's sake there will be better candidates next time.

He should just pay for his own wall


----------



## leon315 (Jan 9, 2019)

I picked the last one, it's a crime to not pick the last one.

Trump's foreigner politics will just isolate more USA from the rest of world, which he started wars he likely will never win and costs more day after days on his supporters' +all usa taxpayers' shoulders.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Your poll and your post are biased. You only take one side of the issue into account and then ask for opinions that don't allow anyone that doesn't blatantly hate Trump to participate. It's a simple "Let's Bash Trump" thread. No thanks.


So justify it or explain the nuance.

To most outside observers then looking to put 1300+ miles of rather high wall through a lot of desert, far from any infrastructure and having to build the infrastructure to start to build it... that is a serious affair*. It had better either generate serious revenue (unlikely) or solve a serious problem, and if it is just an extravagance then one really ought to be able to justify the funds which given the debts and deficits people the country presently runs... yeah.

*I am not much of a civil engineer but I have done plenty of concrete on farms where we first had to clear and build tracks or a base of operations, and I have also done things in hot and remote environments. Compared to doing it in a town where I can easily call a concrete lorry and have it drive out the next day it is a logistical nightmare (this even when I can then go home or to a nearby hotel at night) that sees costs shoot up and up and up vs doing similar things in towns. The scenario as posed previously is not likely to see either an economy of scale really kick in or things get easier, though I would be curious to see what goes with some of the prefab building sections made in a factory that China et al seem to be pioneering**. Maintenance costs, staffing costs and more are also a factor in this and I doubt it would want to be a folly abandoned in a few years when the next el presidente gets in, assuming it is even built in time.

**in case you had not seen it


So what is the problem it is looking to solve, or at least increase the efficacy of. Nominally it is claimed to be immigration of the illegal variety, and possibly smuggling of drugs and goods. Assigning a value to this one gets fun -- immigration of the sort demonstrably has a depressive effect on certain classes of wages***, and all sorts of weird knock on effects (UK wise the lack of cheap labour in some farms has seen automation kick in massively, and take out things once considered human only work. In this case though cross border trade might be impacted), and there are also crime stats and types to consider.

***typically not professional ones, which is fine as having your youth and low skilled peeps mill around is not a great recipe for good outcomes (see also the present fun and games with opiates/addiction, depression and debt among those). It is a rather humanitarian concern for a country without free healthcare (something the aforementioned might appreciate having actually)... maybe you can write it off as pure pragmatism.

How effective is it likely to be? One of the more interesting things I saw was that fairly small efforts prevent certain types from getting through. I don't mind scaling something and doing a desert crossing but trying to do that with elderly grandparents and young kids in tow is an entirely different matter. I might be prepared to send bitcoins home but others would be less inclined to leave family.
On the flip side would that just change the game a bit? Sitting in a boat makes me seasick but it is not so bad if just for a day or so. Similarly if I can go on holiday and just stay on (already a popular trick) then would that not become the more dominant method? Canada and down instead? I am told there are already tunnels so those would probably get a bit of boost. Drugs wise planes, subs, drones and more are popular and the drug peeps have lots of money to waste trying these sorts of things (percentage profit wise it is insane, and they already have lots in the bank to fund a bit of research, which is only getting easier as time goes on -- all those cheap remote control drones/planes/boats what would have cost hundreds and hundreds and be worse in my youth? Yeah).

For the problems discussed are there more practical solutions? If you are already going to be manning it then would those costs be more effective with intelligence, intelligence gathering apparatus -- a tower with an eye of sauron being cheaper than a few miles of wall, more people to guard/intercept, possibly some legal reforms to make it even less attractive (maybe keep someone's tax return if they can be shown to be demonstrably negligent in hiring, vs a slap on the wrist that it is now), drug wise there are some things able to be done (see something like Portugal, maybe also shove some funding into that cocaine vaccination stuff we saw a few years back, elsewhere in the world help and not handcuffs is also seen to do well and might help bring down incarceration rates, within the US what are the relative DUI/DWI rates where weed is legal?), if this wall is already something of a makework program and your cities are already prostrating themselves for big companies when it comes to concessions then looks like there are already the conditions necessary to do something fun there (might have to lessen that "government can't compete with private enterprise" nonsense, else just do the usual government loans end run of it all).

So again to outside observers the only reaction kind of has to be mockery, especially when "Mexico will pay for it" was a line from the mouth of the person pushing it, despite them not caring (nor likely to be able to afford it) and it making no sense in the history of business/international relations/logic.


----------



## YetoJesse (Jan 9, 2019)

I remember this video of a colored man (I'm lazy, so my simple minded self would define him as a black man, others might call him 'African American' or whatevz) talking to a white millenial that was publicly ranting about trump being a racist and screwing everything up due to the news saying what not. In response, the other man said 'Thanks to Trump, unemployment rates in the black communities went down' he even went and said numbers were better than when Obama was president.

That being said, the only things I hear about America regarding Donald Trump are:
A. How bad Trump is, regarless of what he does. he's bad, even if it's something he said ages ago or whatever the situation. anything he says is bad.
B. He looks weird so he's a weirdo. But please don't just be, because you hurt my feelies. But Big 'ol Trumpy is a meanieboo..
C. The European economy is worse than it used to be because the american economy seems to be flourishing. (... this.... )

I mean... If I recall correctly, nearly nothing of what people were panicking about is happening. 
But that could be me. It just feels like everyone loves to complain about anything that's in over their head because self importance is top priority..

I'm probably missing something, but all I'm hearing is 'My opinion is worth more than yours, because here are the research results on opinions.'.
Well, overpopulation is a problem too, though...


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Your poll and your post are biased. You only take one side of the issue into account and then ask for opinions that don't allow anyone that doesn't blatantly hate Trump to participate.



Let me flip your complaint around for you:  How would take the current situation, where Trump is demanding that American taxpayers pay for* a wall on the Mexican border** instead of his promise of Mexico paying for said wall, and in this this request he refuses to approve a bill to fund the US government until said demand upon American taxpayers, be met in a non-bashing, neutral/positive light?  The only way I can see we can not blame Trump is if we blame all those in Congress who refuses to override Trump's veto to fund the government; of course, that doesn't really get Trump off the hook as it still makes him look like a petulant child.  It's why I voted for the "have Donald J Trump pay for it" option, even though he couldn't legally do it anyways because he'd require the power of eminent domain (which would be outside his power using his own funds) and likely couldn't build on large parts of the extant government land.



YetoJesse said:


> 'Thanks to Trump, unemployment rates in the black communities went down'



Except it's unlikely Obama or Trump was directly or even very much indirectly responsible for unemployment rates.  I mean, maybe there's a psychological basis to believe "Trump is on our sides, so let's hire more people", but I don't tend to buy that.  Nominally, government tends to only have an effect on the unemployment rate when it either (1) prevents or limits a catastrophe, (2) does a substantial amount of funding/spending on some projects, or (3) introduces new onerous rules/regulations that cost substantial amounts of money.

Tax breaks don't tend to do a lot.  Obamacare could be said to be (3) except it at most slowed growth.  Trump removing the health insurance mandate probably at best reversed  the slowing of growth, but the consequences on the health care system as others have to start picking up the slack again probably just means a delayed reaction.  These repeated government shutdowns are doing more of (3) than probably any of the feel good hiring.  Overall, it's hard to claim any one person is responsible for the current circumstance of economic growth.  Maybe the federal reserve and their interest rate/currency manipulations, but that's a board of people.

PS - One option you missed:  a gofundme page.

* And blaming American Democrats in the process.

** For which at least part of which would violate treaties about not building in a floodplain upon the border without agreement and cooperation with Mexico, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 9, 2019)

Where's the "both countries" option? Not that I am going to choose it but I thought it would be there.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 9, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> Hey, at least he's trying to keep his promises, can't say that about any of our politicians!
> that was meant to be slightly ironic because he shutdown the goverment over a wall, but it's a good thing a politician tries to stay with his promises, i guess.


Erm...the promise was actually that Mexico was going to pay for it. So this isn't anywhere near keeping his promise. Oh, and you're talking plural for some reason. I can name lots of other broken promises, but not really an important one that he managed to keep. That might just be me, though.



DBlaze said:


> The alternative to Trump wouldn't have been a whole lot better anyway.


Sorry, but it's time to face reality: it would. I'm not much of a Clinton-fan, but really: even if she was just the run-of-the-mill politician with vague promises and no follow through, it still would've been a whole lot better.



YetoJesse said:


> I remember this video of a colored man (I'm lazy, so my simple minded self would define him as a black man, others might call him 'African American' or whatevz) talking to a white millenial that was publicly ranting about trump being a racist and screwing everything up due to the news saying what not. In response, the other man said 'Thanks to Trump, unemployment rates in the black communities went down' he even went and said numbers were better than when Obama was president.


I really don't know what to say to this. Obama started his presidency right after the largest financial breakdown in recent memory. Trump inherited a flourishing economy which is just the last couple of months starting to show some cracks. But it's not so much that I don't believe you, but that Trump is so busy insulting people and reacting to self-proclaimed insults that it's hard to pick up on whatever he does. If he really took steps in that direction, shouldn't he be tweeting that sort of stuff into the world rather than how everyone is victimizing him?



YetoJesse said:


> That being said, the only things I hear about America regarding Donald Trump are:
> A. How bad Trump is, regarless of what he does. he's bad, even if it's something he said ages ago or whatever the situation. anything he says is bad.
> B. He looks weird so he's a weirdo. But please don't just be, because you hurt my feelies. But Big 'ol Trumpy is a meanieboo..
> C. The European economy is worse than it used to be because the american economy seems to be flourishing. (... this.... )



A. Sorry you only hear those things. It's not wrong either: the only thing I hear he had done right was arrange a tax break for the super rich. Would've been good news if  all US citizens were super rich, but since that isn't the case I don't consider that good thing. What can I say? Perhaps that my news papers have no interest in his downfall, and thus just go with what he does rather than what he says.

B. he really has only himself to blame. if I dye my hair porn star blond, wear a ridiculous oversized tie, tout my mouth as a toddler sucking a tit and start repeating myself in mid-sentences, I get laughed at as well. For good reason. Really: if he doesn't want that, he shouldn't keep acting as a caricature.

C. ...but the European economy isn't worse than it used to be. Sure, we're recovering from the economic crisis worse than America, but we're better than we were before.



> I mean... If I recall correctly, nearly nothing of what people were panicking about is happening.
> But that could be me. It just feels like everyone loves to complain about anything that's in over their head because self importance is top priority..


I agree to that: nothing of what people were panicking about is happening. Remember that huge line-up of immigrants that were going to invade the USA a couple months back? Trump sent 5'000 troopers to the Mexican border, but it has gone pretty quiet on that front. Which is pretty much the opposite of what should've happened if you wanted to rally support for a wall.



> I'm probably missing something, but all I'm hearing is 'My opinion is worth more than yours, because here are the research results on opinions.'.
> Well, overpopulation is a problem too, though...


I consider that part of the problem: opinions that are weighed, researched and double checked are no longer considered to be worth more than opinions based on nothing (or even worth less than opinions based on emotions). I wasn't making up that experts claim the wall will do nothing to remedy the immigrant situation. But no matter how many experience they have, their collective opinion on the matter is ignored because someone with a blonde hairdo and extra large tie thinks otherwise.


----------



## Technicmaster0 (Jan 9, 2019)

YetoJesse said:


> I remember this video of a colored man (I'm lazy, so my simple minded self would define him as a black man, others might call him 'African American' or whatevz) talking to a white millenial that was publicly ranting about trump being a racist and screwing everything up due to the news saying what not. In response, the other man said 'Thanks to Trump, unemployment rates in the black communities went down' he even went and said numbers were better than when Obama was president.


The same happened when Hitler began to rule over Germany. But the work was funded on owes. Funny how the history repeats.
In addition to that the improvements since trumps election could still be based on the work of Obama. Some things need their time, you know


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 9, 2019)

There should be stricter, more efficacious immigration laws, a wall won't do jack shit.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 9, 2019)

Well.. One thing I can say is:

Mexican steals American's job. Mexican came here illegal without a shots like flu etc can carry new diseases and speard to American people in America. I said NO!

If they want to come here... Legal, period. And don't bother becoming a legal because finding a job are impossible here for legal immigration people. Cost of living here is VERY HIGH and healthcare is POORLY system.



the_randomizer said:


> There should be stricter, more efficacious immigration laws, a wall won't do jack shit.



A stricter is not working. The law system is still failed.


----------



## blahblah (Jan 9, 2019)

Silly thread. It should not and will not be built. America is no longer in the business of building racist monuments. Any other stupid questions?


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 9, 2019)

Btw, I said Trump should build it (and maintain it), even if I think it is a waste of time and money. 

Anyway, isn't population declining? If anything, we need more immigrates.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 9, 2019)

The first option is killing me


----------



## linuxares (Jan 9, 2019)

Look how effective the Berlin wall was


----------



## Glyptofane (Jan 9, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> There should be stricter, more efficacious immigration laws, a wall won't do jack shit.


The wall would be effective as long as it is sufficiently patrolled and maintained. It's difficult to exactly compare it to other nations with effective border walls/fences though as theirs are infinitesimal compared to the size of US' southern border. Even those against the wall have shifted the argument from being ineffective to being immoral and impossible to maintain.

Trump says illegal immigration costs US $200 billion annually while his enemies admit at least $54 billion on the low end. The numbers are all over the place on everything depending on the agenda of who their coming from, but the max maintenance cost is pegged around $750 million annually, so it would really only need to stop of a fraction of illegals in order to break even.


----------



## Rioluwott (Jan 9, 2019)

I think building and maintaining the wall would cost a lot and i don´t think mexico has the money to actually build it we have our own problems, the wall wouldn´t stop all the immigration even if is supervised, being able to go legally to usa is quite difficult and cost a lot even if you have all the papers and the money they can decline if they think you are going to usa to work so that makes people go illegally(in my own opinion)
btw how has usa changed since trump became president im curious


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 9, 2019)

A country has its rights to protect themselves from outsiders who intend on entering illegally. If anyone wants to visit/join a country then it needs to be done legally. Maybe, maybe a wall isn't necessary but stricter border controls are and none should be able to get from one country to another illegally.

A borderless country is the same as allowing anyone to step into your house.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 9, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Mexican steals American's job. Mexican came here illegal without a shots like flu etc can carry new diseases and speard to American people in America. I said NO!



For the first part, yes, sort of.  The supposed stolen jobs are often ones where employers are paying below minimum wage, demanding unpaid overtime, etc.  The most effective strategy to combat this would be to punish employers who hire illegals, Mexican or otherwise.  For the last part, flu shots?  Really?  At least bring up a disease that can be long-term vaccinated against.  The whole reason we have yearly flu globally is flu changes rapidly and precisely because we have global movement of people, no illegals required.  If you want to halt all movement of people to stop the spread of flu and other diseases, good luck.  Otherwise, such an argument is pointless.



Glyptofane said:


> The wall would be effective as long as it is sufficiently patrolled and maintained.



One, a large percentage of people in the US illegal came here legally and overstayed their visa.  Two, actually holding people for the crime of illegal entry/overstaying their visa instead of repeated deportation would likely do a lot to reduce people's inclination to enter or overstaying their visa.  Three, see above about punishing employers for hiring illegals.  Having said all that, yes, a wall would probably substantially reduce illegal immigration by land if sufficiently patrolled and maintained.  Do you have any idea how expensive that'd actually be, though, not even counting the cost of building the wall?


----------



## jt_1258 (Jan 9, 2019)

I alect that if the wall will go in wethere we like it or not that it be an electric fence instead. Electric type moves are super affective against human types.


----------



## Rioluwott (Jan 9, 2019)

jt_1258 said:


> I alect that if the wall will go in wethere we like it or not that it be an electric fence instead. Electric type moves are super affective against human types.


i think they can always dig below and get in, and as we know ground is immune to electric type moves


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 9, 2019)

Rioluwott said:


> i think they can always dig below and get in, and as we know ground is immune to electric type moves


Illegals could do that but most of the time they don't and they try to get in the easiest or convenient way.


----------



## bitjacker (Jan 9, 2019)

If mexico does not pay for it, that should be the end of it. Using emergency powers can't authorize funding.
How about we fix the real problem? if anyone knows of people paying illegals to work for wages that are less than what a legal worker makes, tell on them! The illegals are not the problem, the exploitation of them is...
There needs to be harsh punishment for employers not having workers pay taxes, like maybe dissolve companies (that money would go to charity) and put upper management of that company in prison doing work until the taxes that were not paid get paid. Then when that is done, they loose their u.s. citizenship. The exploited "illegals" should be given full citizenship. And some money for college.
Greed is the problem.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 9, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> For the first part, yes, sort of.  The supposed stolen jobs are often ones where employers are paying below minimum wage, demanding unpaid overtime, etc.  The most effective strategy to combat this would be to punish employers who hire illegals, Mexican or otherwise.  For the last part, flu shots?  Really?  At least bring up a disease that can be long-term vaccinated against.  The whole reason we have yearly flu globally is flu changes rapidly and precisely because we have global movement of people, no illegals required.  If you want to halt all movement of people to stop the spread of flu and other diseases, good luck.  Otherwise, such an argument is pointless.



I am not talking about just FLU.. Its pointless but I am talking about new viruses. Thats something else.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 9, 2019)

Well, we're already in debt and our taxes go nowhere.. Why not? Let's foot the bill!


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 9, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> I am not talking about just FLU.. Its pointless but I am talking about new viruses. Thats something else.



If you're worried about "new viruses", then be prepared to entirely close the borders to all travel; it's not as if we have vaccines for them, so all travel risks spreading such disease.  If you're talking about know viruses with vaccines, then perhaps you should actually look at Mexico's Immunization Schedule and compare it to the United State's Immunization Schedule to see what few diseases it may make sense for each other country to adopt.  Or you could complain about one country--*cough*the US*cough*--where parents seem to be regularly ignoring government recommendations and causing measles outbreaks.  Finally, if you're still concerned about it, perhaps the best medicine would for the world to better coordinate mandatory vaccinations--excluding the few people with compromised immune systems or sufficiently young--to work towards eliminating known diseases.  I mean, that's costly and difficult to manage, but it'd seem the best way to actually combat your stated fears.


----------



## Skittyusedcovet (Jan 9, 2019)

Trump might as well build himself a mote with a wall and incase himself into the wall so he can never leave it. He can only leave it when he grows up and realizes what he did wrong. At least then he will have his dumb wall and the rest of the world will be happy.


----------



## jt_1258 (Jan 9, 2019)

Rioluwott said:


> i think they can always dig below and get in, and as we know ground is immune to electric type moves


wouldn't that be a normal type move?
...gonna be honest, I probably shouldn't be making Pokémon jokes about imigration issues but I can't help it XD


----------



## Skittyusedcovet (Jan 9, 2019)

jt_1258 said:


> wouldn't that be a normal type move?
> ...gonna be honest, I probably shouldn't be making Pokémon jokes about imigration issues but I can't help it XD



Dig is a ground type move not a normal type. At least you have two turns to prepare for it. lol


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 9, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> If you're worried about "new viruses", then be prepared to entirely close the borders to all travel; it's not as if we have vaccines for them, so all travel risks spreading such disease.  If you're talking about know viruses with vaccines, then perhaps you should actually look at Mexico's Immunization Schedule and compare it to the United State's Immunization Schedule to see what few diseases it may make sense for each other country to adopt.  Or you could complain about one country--*cough*the US*cough*--where parents seem to be regularly ignoring government recommendations and causing measles outbreaks.  Finally, if you're still concerned about it, perhaps the best medicine would for the world to better coordinate mandatory vaccinations--excluding the few people with compromised immune systems or sufficiently young--to work towards eliminating known diseases.  I mean, that's costly and difficult to manage, but it'd seem the best way to actually combat your stated fears.



LOL


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 10, 2019)

Wow, a wall, that'll sure stop people from using boats, airplanes and tunnels from coming over!


----------



## slaphappygamer (Jan 10, 2019)

Sad story is if trump ever gets his head out his ass and actually builds this wall, the next president is obligated to maintain it. Trump won’t maintain it himself, he will probably outsource the job. The next president will have their hands tied maintaining. Donald doesn’t care who follows him, this is what he wants and he doesn’t care what you think. Anyway, that just a wall in one area. I don’t think Donald knows that people come over by boat and air also. We actually need a bubble!


----------



## Lacius (Jan 10, 2019)

The wall started as a mnemonic trick from his advisors to get him to talk about immigration policy in a way that was simple enough for him to remember: "Build a wall." Anything else about immigration would have been too complicated for him.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 10, 2019)

slaphappygamer said:


> Sad story is if trump ever gets his head out his ass and actually builds this wall, the next president is obligated to maintain it. Trump won’t maintain it himself, he will probably outsource the job. The next president will have their hands tied maintaining. Donald doesn’t care who follows him, this is what he wants and he doesn’t care what you think. Anyway, that just a wall in one area. I don’t think Donald knows that people come over by boat and air also. We actually need a bubble!



This is what he LITERALLY wants it to be.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Your poll and your post are biased. You only take one side of the issue into account and then ask for opinions that don't allow anyone that doesn't blatantly hate Trump to participate. It's a simple "Let's Bash Trump" thread. No thanks.


There's really no debate here, a wall is a stupid idea in modern times.   There are effective solutions to securing the border, but those are the solutions that Trump wants nothing to do with.  It seems Republicans are just going to have to wait for a better man with bigger ideas before there's any real progress made in this area.


----------



## EmulateLife (Jan 10, 2019)

Nintendo, since they're suing every rom site in the United states that's all free money. They should pay it back by paying for the wall.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 10, 2019)

This is why I'm cynical of all government officials, irrespective of the country. Why? Because all of them are out to do things out of spite, never for the people, never for the greater good, regardless of it being from GOP or GDP, spiteful bastards, the lot of them. That's just what I perceive from lamestream media.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

bitjacker said:


> if anyone knows of people paying illegals to work for wages that are less than what a legal worker makes, tell on them!


*Cough,* I might know one guy guilty of this...

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-golf-course-may-committed-immigration-crimes-1274608



Memoir said:


> Well, we're already in debt and our taxes go nowhere.. Why not? Let's foot the bill!


"We're already in a hole caused by the current president, why not let him keep digging?  It's not like there's an impending recession or anything!"


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 10, 2019)

The problem isn’t about not having a physical barrier. The problem is having beaurocratic ones in the immigration processes. It’s a very long and expensive pain in the ass process to be here for many people, who are likely here just to make a decent living wage.

I think a major misconception being pushed here as rhetoric and propaganda is that the illegal immigration problem is primarily from border crossings. It’s not. It’s from visa overstays and legal crossings where people just didn’t go back. Arrests at the border have actually gone down.

This wall idea is completely asinine. We have technology that can spot a jackrabbit from 30 miles above the earths surface, helicopters with an operation/time range of 100 miles per 30 minutes, unmanned drones that can deliver a missile into an Amazon box, and our proposed solution to a border crossing problem is ... a big ass wall?!? 

If that’s the case can I be knighted and have a broadsword too?


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 10, 2019)

Republican evolution over the course of 30 years:
This ...


Evolved into this ...


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 10, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The wall started as a mnemonic trick from his advisors to get him to talk about immigration policy in a way that was simple enough for him to remember: "Build a wall." Anything else about immigration would have been too complicated for him.


So basically what you saying is, Trump has the attention span of a toddler and this was an attempt to keep him just a little focused on something. But like a toddler, he thought it was a serious idea and is throwing a fit because now he wants it.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 10, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Republican evolution over the course of 30 years:
> This ...
> 
> 
> Evolved into this ...



It’s so weird, Republicans and Democrats flipped on this issue. Republicans wanted no wall because cheap labor, Democrats wanted a wall because they wanted higher wages for workers, then all of a sudden Trump came in and they flipped. I have no idea what’s going on.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@brickmii82

Do they really care about this immigration issue or are they just saying what people wanna hear to get votes?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 10, 2019)

All governments, congresses, mayors and etc are all hypocrisy.. Always was and always will be. ALL HYPOCRISY!


----------



## linuxares (Jan 10, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Evolved into this ...



China is would like to have a word about a great wall.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> All governments, congresses, mayors and etc are all hypocrisy.. Always was and always will be. ALL HYPOCRISY!


I wouldn’t put faith in either the Democratic or Republican Party. They just say what people want to hear to get votes. Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief when he was president

Democrats voted for a border fence in 2006, that would cost billions over the years. And rag on Trump for wanting what was a Democratic policy for a long time. Even before this government shut down happened. They both are not to trust.


----------



## CORE (Jan 10, 2019)

The Europeon Shadow Government! For Helping to cause instability and other Traitors of Humanity!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 10, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> A country has its rights to protect themselves from outsiders who intend on entering illegally. If anyone wants to visit/join a country then it needs to be done legally. Maybe, maybe a wall isn't necessary but stricter border controls are and none should be able to get from one country to another illegally.
> 
> A borderless country is the same as allowing anyone to step into your house.


Just out of curiosity: which poll option (if any) did you fill in? 

I ask, because I've yet to hear the first US politician who wants to reduce border protection in any way, shape or form. It's rather the contrary: both parties want the most efficient border protection. It's just that they disagree on what that is.



Glyptofane said:


> Trump says...


Sorry, but I'm very much past the point of giving Trump any shred of credibility. I (and others who share my opinion on this) have already been accused of interpreting anything he says as bad, which is (at least for me) a very fair point of criticism. Critics claim that since he came into office, he has spewed about 16 lies and falsehoods per day. That's an astonishing amount...and I believe that. I do believe he's a pathological liar who just keeps on lying to cover up previous lies (small example: why isn't anyone talking about his earlier promise that Mexico would pay for the wall? Because now he's distracting the media with the bait of "it's the democrats' fault").

Take an example: if I point at a random person and claim that he has committed over 200 murders, your response shouldn't be "well...if only a fraction of that amount is true, then that's still a very bad person". Your response should be "is that Taleweaver guy credible enough to make such claims?". For me - and for at least a sizable amount of Americans - the very same thing goes: Trump is simply not credible enough to debate with.

I wasn't there in those 'behind closed door'-meetings. For all I know, Pelosi and Schumer tied him to a chair and anally raped him with the declaration of independence, shouting "beg for your wall, bitch! BEG FOR IT!!!". I fully admit: they could do it and get away with it because I simply _do not believe someone who spewed so many lies already_.

So...get me someone else. Honestly: can you link me one credible person who is in favor of the wall and can throw some numbers at me that somehow prove that this wall isn't a waste of money?
Heck...it's getting so ridiculous that even fox news channel corrects Trump's spokesperson ("erm...nope. Sorry: those two thousand terrorists you were talking about came here by plane.").


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I wouldn’t put faith in either the Democratic or Republican Party. They just say what people want to hear to get votes. Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief when he was president


Obama was also humane about deportations, and neither did he separate children from their families just to later hand them over to human traffickers, or have them die in ICE custody.



SG854 said:


> Democrats voted for a border fence in 2006, that would cost billions over the years. And rag on Trump for wanting what was a Democratic policy for a long time. Even before this government shut down happened. They both are not to trust.


You mean like the fence that's already on the border and in shambles?  Again, Democrats aren't against border security, they just don't want to waste money on childish and ineffective solutions.  They repeated that point in their response to Trump's prime-time address, and the response actually received higher viewership than the address itself.


----------



## mrdude (Jan 10, 2019)

Companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, WallMart etc, should pay their fair share of tax instead of using offshore havens and using every dodge in the book to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The average man in the street pays a higher percentage of his incoming finances than these companies do (in comparison). Maybe if those companies payed their taxes properly - the wall could be built with that money.
The walls a good idea - it would make it more difficult for economic migrants to invade your country from its southern border - although wouldn't migrants just fly to Canada - and then come via your northern border - or just get a boat and sail to the eastern or western coastline?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

mrdude said:


> Companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, WallMart etc, should pay their fair share of tax instead of using offshore havens and using every dodge in the book to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The average man in the street pays a higher percentage of his incoming finances than these companies do (in comparison). Maybe if those companies payed their taxes properly - the wall could be built with that money.


Why though?  Why wouldn't we use that money for literally anything else?  Social Security needs more funding.  Healthcare is a disaster in this country and it could be used to kickstart Medicare for all.  Our existing infrastructure is shit across the board.  We're way behind the rest of the world in renewable energy investments.  Certain areas of the country don't even have clean drinking water.  Too many more issues to list.

When it comes down to it, the only purpose a wall could possibly serve is to be a constant symbol of racism.  Trump prioritizes building that symbol above all else, even programs/proposals that are much more popular and might've given him a shot in 2020.  All I can do now is laugh because he's put himself in the worst no-win situation possible.  Don't build the wall, lose some vital supporters.  Build the wall, piss off the other 60% of voters who don't want their taxpayer dollars frittered away on a vanity project.

Regardless of it all, the vast majority of illegals will continue flying into the US and overstaying their work Visas.  Nothing is going to change on that front, so Trump supporters are just going to have to get used to seeing brown people.  Painful as it might be for them.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I really wonder how we'll look back at this period in time in history. Trump already broke many traditions and honors and made more dumb and dangerous remarks than any US president I know. Not only is US on track for breaking the longest government shutdown in recent history, it is all for something that is COMPLETELY NORMAL. The border situation is at best moderately worse than before, but in reality it's just the same.
> 
> But Donald Trump made a campaign promise that was so ridiculously dumb that opponents didn't bother to disprove ("Mexico paying for a wall with USA? They already replied they weren't going to!"). Nobody thought that clown would beat all the other candidates, and even less people thought he'd attempt to follow through on his lie. The result: he's looking for someone to blame. Mexico would be pretty stupid to blame (he never even started any dialogue in that direction, he has zero bargaining power and - again - they denied they were going to pay for it even during the election campaign). So he once again tries to blame democrats.
> 
> ...


Well, we all know who the spoon-fed college student is now...


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Well, we all know who the spoon-fed college student is now...


Oh god, he went to college instead of living in a trailer in his hometown for his entire life?!?

*HERETIC!  BURN THE EDUCATED ONES!  */s


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 10, 2019)

I just get tired of people that prefer to get their news from celebrities and news stations (CNN and Fox included) instead of doing their own independent research. Based on the most recent USA Census, about 63% of illegal immigrants access the US Welfare system for financial support. Coupling that with the fact that $18.3 billion is spent annually for Medicaid-funded medical visits, the entirety of the wall could be funded easily AND still have substantial money left over from just the taxpayer-funded Medicaid spent in one year!

The arguments provided by many online and in person are, for the most part, emotionally based and do not take the economyand national wellbeing into account. The first argument provided is usually related the the welfare of the children and women that are emmigrating to the continental United States, but their welfare should be taken into account first by their very own people. As you can read *here*, the caravan's own members leave women and children behind with a survival-of-the-fittest mentality, wether it be hitchhiking in a pickup or completely leaving women and children at home. If the families were truely in danger, the whole family would have gone together, correct?

Immigrants were even offered citizenship by Mexico, but refused, determined to get to the United States. If Mexico offered you sanctuary in one of the safer areas of Mexico, why would you STILL refuse to accept aid unless your reason for venturing to America was for abusing government aid and manipulating government institutions for selfish personal gains?

*The reason I used the Washington Times article was to show that the same people peddling the immigrant inclusion is also admitting that the caravan isn't inclusive itself.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 10, 2019)

The assumption was, by those with an understanding of how government should work, he was too obvious in his ignorance to be electable.  We overestimated people's knowledge about government.

Those who don't pay attention still think republicans are fiscally conservative and for small government, and democrats are for using the government to help as many people as possible (the balance between the two had helped us in the past to max/min helping/cost and minimize red-tape). But currently the US system is more akin to whatever corporate influences can buy folks. they've always been self-serving, but now they can do it easily without repercussions.

Majority of republicans are conservative in name only, and any actual folks aiming for a positive progression of the country have to struggle to meet some semblance of sanity (this applies to real republicans and democrats alike). I mean, just look at this wall. So many people support it. but why? It's not fiscally responsible, it will have no consequences other than adding billions to the national debt, and most likely will make only those who pass it richer through kick-backs. It is the definition of everything fiscal conservatives should be against, as well as democracts, and yet most party republicans are on board for it. Why? this certainly has helped me distinguish between those from who understands government and those who just root for their favorite team, regardless of ideology.

Even if you want to continue supporting trump because...well, you like his "I dunno" style of government, and don't care about his racism/sexism/general lack of humanity, you don't have to support everything he does. Supporting someone doesn't mean being required to support everything they do. Something as obviously detrimental as this should be a no-brainer, "who would want something so expensive and ineffectual," kind of decision.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Based on the most recent USA Census, about 63% of illegal immigrants access the US Welfare system for financial support. Coupling that with the fact that $18.3 billion is spent annually for Medicaid-funded medical visits, the entirety of the wall could be funded easily AND still have substantial money left over from just the taxpayer-funded Medicaid spent in one year!



Do you know how people sign up for such things? how they start getting money? You make it sound like just by breathing in the states you get a wad of money and keep some sort of anonymity.

Also, the wall won't actually keep any undocumented folk out. That's the false assumption that's going to cost us billions. And if you want to save money on healthcare, get rid of our for-profit system and replace it with a cheaper system. Republicans tend to be against this fiscally responsible choice as well, oddly enough.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Immigrants were even offered citizenship by Mexico, but refused, determined to get to the United States. If Mexico offered you sanctuary in one of the safer areas of Mexico, why would you STILL refuse to accept aid unless your reason for venturing to America was for abusing government aid and manipulating government institutions for selfish personal gains?



So you're saying a wall is going to protect us from immigrants not going through mexico? Or just those who live in mexico have a good reason to want to be in the states?


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 10, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The assumption was, by those with an understanding of how government should work, he was too obvious in his ignorance to be electable.  We overestimated people's knowledge about government.
> 
> Those who don't pay attention still think republicans are fiscally conservative and for small government, and democrats are for using the government to help as many people as possible (the balance between the two had helped us in the past to max/min helping/cost and minimize red-tape). But currently the US system is more akin to whatever corporate influences can buy folks. they've always been self-serving, but now they can do it easily without repercussions.
> 
> ...


Jim Accosta, one of the most outspoken people against President Trump just accidentally admitted himself that the border wall would indeed work.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1083411819354558467


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Based on the most recent USA Census, about 63% of illegal immigrants access the US Welfare system for financial support.


Do you have a source for that?  Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive welfare or other federal assistance programs, so I don't know how 63% could possibly find a loophole around that.

https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Coupling that with the fact that $18.3 billion is spent annually for Medicaid-funded medical visits, the entirety of the wall could be funded easily AND still have substantial money left over from just the taxpayer-funded Medicaid spent in one year!


Healthcare costs in this country are out of control regardless.  Spending more money on a wall wouldn't do anything to fix that, but I would be happy to spend that money on kickstarting a national healthcare program instead.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Jim Accosta, one of the most outspoken people against President Trump just accidentally admitted himself that the border wall would indeed work.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1083411819354558467


He didn't say anything even remotely close to that.  All he says in that video is that there's no national emergency at the border (duh).  If anything it speaks to what's already there being effective enough, and the lack of need for an additional wall.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 10, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Jim Accosta, one of the most outspoken people against President Trump just accidentally admitted himself that the border wall would indeed work.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1083411819354558467


Not sure his opinion should be the deciding factor on whether you agree with the facts or not. Though I'm pretty sure he didn't say what you think he said.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Jan 10, 2019)

How exactly do people think a concrete wall will stop the illegal immigration flow into the country?
Are people really that stupid as to believe that?
FYI, there is already some sort of tall steel wall/fence in the border of Texas:


Spoiler: Steel fence in Texas











And many other border cities between Mexico and USA already have such a thing.
I highly doubt covering all ground in between both countries would make a difference.
Why?

Cutting off the entire ground entrance to the country will not stop other methods of illegal flow.
Going through the desert is not the ONLY way to enter the country illegally, even if Trump makes it seem as that is the only known way. There's also the sea, air, tunnels, etc. You will be amazed at just how many things people can do to enter when one method is cut-off.

Don't forget fake documents are also a thing, and a lot of people enter the country that way.
If the steel fence and other walls made in borders haven't stopped illegal flow, why would the wall make a difference?
If at all, I say that the immigration policy of the US is WAY too strict, that is the problem.
Let's say someone needs to enter the country for some reason, the way the law is right now for immigration can be sketchy, and the person might get his request denied.
Hence, that said person will look for other means, legal or not, because the law is so tight in immigration policies that at the most minimum inconsistency (or if they didn't like something), you can get denied.

Also, for the people claiming that immigrants "rob" Americans from their jobs...
Excuse me? What the fuck makes you people think you are entitled to that?

People get jobs depending on whether or not the people is capable, trained and qualified for said work.
Besides, it's not like the country has been such a metropolis from the start, nor the continent.
The whole American continent (not just USA) was build on invasion, death, lust, greed and power-hunger,  actually ROBBING people from their land, belongings and resources. Doesn't sound so patriotic does it? The very land that any people steps within a country inside the American continent was build from immigrants from Europe and other continents. So that falls as an hypocrisy.

Immigration exists so that people can seek a better place for themselves, one that fits their needs and wishes. If an immigrant is more capable to get a job than a "native" citizen, then so be it.
It's called being fair.
If people from other countries taking your jobs was the problem, then why are so many people in higher positions in a huge amount of enterprises foreigners? That makes the point mute.

Illegal immigration exists mostly due to Americans themselves (not all) being so greedy and selfish that they want to pay below minimum wage to someone to get a job done.
THAT is main reason why people enter the country, and the Americans themselves encourage this.

Oh and also, if people are SO worried about supposed "diseases" entering the country, then you might as well just close all international travels. Don't be naive and stupid, the US is one of the most international countries in the world, don't forget it gets a lot of tourists and people that have to travel to the country for work purposes, and it has a huge amount of people going in and out of it through all kinds of transports, illegal or not.
If a disease will enter, it will do so despite illegal immigration, it's not like illegal immigrants are the only people prone to get sick, a-hole.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Do you have a source for that?  Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive welfare or other federal assistance programs, so I don't know how 63% could possibly find a loophole around that.


It's called waiting until 8-9 months pregnant and conceiving the child(ren) once crossing the border illegally.
https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/hehs-98-30
The PDF at the bottom contains more information.



Xzi said:


> Healthcare costs in this country are out of control regardless.  Spending more money on a wall wouldn't do anything to fix that, but I would be happy to spend that money on kickstarting a national healthcare program instead.


I agree that healthcare is exponential campared to average wages, but I blame Congress and the Senate for that, especially since it is all but confirmed that lobbying isn't done without a paycheck.



Xzi said:


> He didn't say anything even remotely close to that.  All he says in that video is that there's no national emergency at the border (duh).


There is no issue at THAT section of the border due to the steel barriers. The main issue is along the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, followed by Laredo, Tucson, and Yuma.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats

*I'm done responding to this topic because no one else wants to provide factual evidence, from either side of the debate.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 10, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> It's called waiting until 8-9 months pregnant and conceiving the child(ren) once crossing the border illegally.
> https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/hehs-98-30
> The PDF at the bottom contains more information.


From your own link, "this amount accounted for about 3 percent of AFDC and 2 percent of Food Stamp benefit costs."  Which I'm honestly fine with.  People born here are American citizens, that's based in the constitution.  They should be cared for by federal assistance along with every American citizen.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> I agree that healthcare is exponential campared to average wages, but I blame Congress and the Senate for that, especially since it is all but confirmed that lobbying isn't done without a paycheck.


Democrats have proposed a ban on becoming a lobbyist after being a federal government employee.  Of course, Republicans won't even bring it to a vote.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> There is no issue at THAT section of the border due to the steel barriers. The main issue is along the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, followed by Laredo, Tucson, and Yuma.
> https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/media-resources/stats


There is no issue at all.  Again, the vast majority of illegals come from overstaying work visas.  The vast majority of drugs come through legal ports of entry or boats or planes.  The need for a wall is simply nonexistent, because it doesn't solve any problem that we're actually having.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> *I'm done responding to this topic because no one else wants to provide factual evidence, from either side of the debate.


The wall is an argumentative concept based in emotion and ignorance coming from the president.  Facts have never been much of a factor in the debate from the beginning, especially for one side.  If you can't handle some logic-based criticism of a "plan" born from a coked-out Roger Stone and memes, it does show the futility of trying to debate in the first place.

A wall is 7th century military technology.  We might as well shut down the government to fund trebuchets and war chariots.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 11, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> It's called waiting until 8-9 months pregnant and conceiving the child(ren) once crossing the border illegally.



Ah, so it's *legal* citizen children born of illegals that are using those services which may incidentally benefit (illegally) parents until such point that illegal and legal child are deported?  I don't see the 63% listed in your link/pdf.

Btw, as for you Jim Accosta twitter link:  his point was that back in the early 2000s when Democrats/Republicans were pushing for borders, they specifically wanted high-effectiveness borders of high population density.  It was considered absurd to build thousands of miles of borders in the desert precisely because the people who would travel hundreds of miles in the desert are only going to be marginally slowed down by a fence/wall.

It's why during Obama's presidency there was discussion of expanding border patrols and using technology to scan the desert because, in the end, you need a physical person to detain and prosecute the person.  A wall alone means little.  This also ties into Democrats and Republicans pushing for immigration reform, but they both have widely different ideas of what sort of reforms should happen.  The whole "lots of people want to cross as refugees" as the humanity crisis (which implies trying to reform the refugee part of immigration policy) was, AFAIK, the Democrat's position.  Apparently Republican's position is to build a wall and pretending we don't see what's happening in the south.

Oh, and it's sort of funny.  Mexico offering people an ability to stay and people still wanting to leave?  It's almost as if they know of all the risks of Mexico as well.  The only reason Mexico would fund a wall is if Mexico was pulling an East Germany:  a strong desire to keep people from leaving with walls (and guards) to insure they stay.  As it stands, though, clearly Mexico is fine with people abandoning the country; most definitely this is because of all the money that funnels back to Mexican families from workers in the US.  If that were to change and Mexico actually wanted to fund a wall that the US (or Mexico) would build?  The mere thought of that is gut wrenching to me for what that would mean.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 11, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> The assumption was, by those with an understanding of how government should work, he was too obvious in his ignorance to be electable.  We overestimated people's knowledge about government.
> 
> Those who don't pay attention still think republicans are fiscally conservative and for small government, and democrats are for using the government to help as many people as possible (the balance between the two had helped us in the past to max/min helping/cost and minimize red-tape). But currently the US system is more akin to whatever corporate influences can buy folks. they've always been self-serving, but now they can do it easily without repercussions.
> 
> ...


Bingo, both parties can be bought off.

Though there is an alternative people may not consider. That money to buy off politicians may actually be extortion money. Legislatures have powers to pass laws to screw over businesses, they might use their power to get extortion money from businesses or they’ll threaten to screw them over with laws and regulations.

Businesses pay the their extortion money and politicians act like innocent victims being bought off when they are actually the ones perpetuation this to begin with.

This is a possible scenario I haven’t heared many talk about.

(You came off as arrogant with “those people who haven’t been paying attention,” “overestimate people’s knowledge”, I heared this so many times from both sides it doesn’t really mean anything anymore. Too many people seem to know the answers, act arrogant and cocky, and talk down on others because they know stuff. When In reality we don’t know much.)


----------



## Godofcheese (Jan 11, 2019)

Denmark should pay for the wall.
Damn danes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2019)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Also, for the people claiming that immigrants "rob" Americans from their jobs...
> Excuse me? What the fuck makes you people think you are entitled to that?
> 
> People get jobs depending on whether or not the people is capable, trained and qualified for said work.
> ...



Willingness to pay less than the minimum wage (or also dodge having to dodge having to provide healthcare, pensions, sick pay, nice conditions, decent hours..., not that such things are so very common in low end jobs today) is a fun one. Here I would probably first look to the thing in US law that says companies can be sued if they don't go in hard for the profits, with some small notice given to a company's mission statement, and repeatedly sees it used as well (shareholder sues for lost earnings being a reasonable start for a search there).
Entitled is not necessarily the right term. Most would however say you, as a government, are responsible for providing, or maybe ensuring conditions (there are some people with varying opinions on the responsibilities of the state), for your citizens to thrive. That includes your poor skilled and poorly able (which in case you missed it is no small part of the population and much of the theoretical base of the president) which are quite likely to be displaced or have their quality of life reduced. While I am likely to be fairly callous and aim for meritocracy it is not the only way and "so be it" is far from the only option (we see people encourage, subsidise and cajole to do things all the time).
Minimum wage itself is also not a policy without question by those with their eyes on workers getting a good deal (between limiting growth, pricing certain people out of the market*** and a rising tide lifting all ships) but we should probably skip that one at this point in the discussion.

***if I am compelled to hire someone for minimum wage and I can hire an 18 year old with a strong back to push the button in my factory line the 35 year old disabled guy or a 60 year old semi retired guy looking for some pocket money has not got a look in, to say nothing of it making it likely for me to automate the task when the payoff for it hits around the 3 year range if my usual talks are anything to go by.

When such a thing is coupled with not many disincentives to avoid hiring such people (for all the strong talk it really is easy to hire and be hired there).

Also is it immigrants or illegal immigrants? Big difference in a lot of cases and your post frequently blends the two.

What does that history have to do with today? One is typically not held as responsible for the actions they did not have a part in, and given nobody alive today (give or take the 300 year old illuminati members but there are only like 12 of those so statistical anomaly and all that) will have taken part in it. History, borders and such is a fun one the world over, especially since we decided Westphalian sovereignty was the model to be used (compare to older models of more loose affiliations, those things done under feudalism, the likes of the Austro-Hungarian thing, marcher lords and that is just Europe-Russia for the most part), but in general it is noted that history can't be changed, and thus we are left with solving problems of today and the future, both of which we can seemingly change or effect. Absolutely remember the past, and I look down upon that would seek to forget it, but "you are here, now, it is what it is, deal with it" is a fairly sound policy.

There is also the argument that you don't want to drain the resources of other countries, typically a phrase like brain drain is used here, and it represents a real problem for those countries (you scrimp, save and make international standards, only to have them turn around in the prime of life and say "see you, I might be back to retire or for a holiday"), and possibly also your natives as well*. Economics is a complicated problem here with all sorts of things that happen, and while I would say anybody that claims to know the full picture/resulting effects (even ignoring black swan events) of twiddling a few knobs via a given policy is a charlatan there are still observed patterns and there is a reason we call economics a science. Speaking of it being a science this whole sanctuary city (or in some cases state) thing probably provides us a nice basis to do their favourite trick of a regression analysis on things and resulting effects.

*since the advent of computer work outsourcing (which might speak to the higher positions thing, I should also note the word on the end should have been "moot" as mute means person that can't speak, thing which has the sound turned off or not very bright colours) it has had some fun effects on the natives, and how being able to import 10000 nurses from central America/Africa/somewhere poor is not going to have some serious effects on their original countries and your locals looking at it as a career. Not sure what an answer might be here as I have not even started to properly do the cost-benefit analysis.

Disease spread is an interesting topic and you are possibly over simplifying things. That said controls with regards to diseases are there for good reason -- India and Pakistan having some nice examples for humans (them sending people into the mountain passes to say "we don't care what you do beyond this, if you come through though your kids are getting these vaccinations" being a favourite), though for America a lesser known one would be the end of the Californian quarantine** when everything got diverted to go after the largely theoretical terrorists).
**as 2002 was so long ago (possibly before many here were born, or otherwise were able to make some real sense of the world around them) then some might not have experienced it. Anyway when driving into California there would be people that stopped you and got you to throw away all fresh fruit and veg you were bringing with you (I saw it when coming through Oregon into there, friends have seen it having started in Texas and New Mexico). Right now everybody is concerned with fruit flies (and various types have been for a while now) but it was noted that after such controls were lessened (within the US itself) that things picked up fairly soon after they were dropped.
I would agree the moron natives which eschew vaccinations for their kids for no rational reason are the bigger threat, with misuse of antibiotics being another problem, but to dismiss the problems associated with the more unchecked types of immigration would be a disservice to those looking to control disease spread. Whether it is a good reason to do various things, and what steps are warranted, remains to be debated but to dismiss it out of hand is a bit strong.

I would happily agree that the US' immigration policies are very strange and in need of considerable reform as they make things far harder than they ought to be (not aided by a commonly held notion that it is the best place on earth and essentially everybody would choose to live there if they could, I certainly wouldn't do more than a sub year project and said project would have to be mightily interesting), however at the same time your thoughts here might represent something of an oversimplification of things.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 11, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Just out of curiosity: which poll option (if any) did you fill in?
> 
> I ask, because I've yet to hear the first US politician who wants to reduce border protection in any way, shape or form. It's rather the contrary: both parties want the most efficient border protection. It's just that they disagree on what that is.
> 
> ...


At least you’re staying opened minded about this, and consider criticism that matter.

Trump lies, people lie about Trump. So many people lying. It hurts my head. I’m to the point where Trump does something bad I just don’t care, we hear about 1,000 of what Trump did bad every day, some lies about Trump, and some actual good criticisms. But with this bombardment I’ve become overexposed and I just don’t care anymore. And it seems a lot of people are the same.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Bingo, both parties can be bought off.


Such a played out fallacy.  All because Republicans don't understand nuance, and thus don't actually understand what corruption is.





Source: Kevin G. Shinnick's research
More sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Such a played out fallacy.  All because Republicans don't understand nuance, and thus don't actually understand what corruption is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except it's not. If Democrats aren't appealing to appease the financial industry and other prospective donors, why did almost no one go to prison after breaking numerous banking and finance laws causing the housing crisis and financial collapse of 07/08? Credit rating manipulations, anti-trust practices, insider trading, and numerous other crimes yet President Obama's administration, along with his colleagues in the House and Senate did an absolute minimum and instead, focused on the ACA. Why? Because they're more concerned with winning the next election over being morally conscientious. Like it or not, this isn't a fallacy and anyone who isn't trying to pick sides can see that big money has tainted our government. Again, Bernie should have won. The DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP. They both drink from the same trough.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 11, 2019)

Trump just claimed we lose 300 americans every day coming through the southern border.

Let that sink in for a second.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> (You came off as arrogant with “those people who haven’t been paying attention,” “overestimate people’s knowledge”, I heared this so many times from both sides it doesn’t really mean anything anymore. Too many people seem to know the answers, act arrogant and cocky, and talk down on others because they know stuff. When In reality we don’t know much.)



Well, specifically those who think trump was going to be better for the country than other republicans, or any of the democrats. I'm not sure knowing the basics should be considered arrogant or bragging X'D. I'm not sure how to phrase it that wouldn't be slightly condescending.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Except it's not. If Democrats aren't appealing to appease the financial industry and other prospective donors, why did almost no one go to prison after breaking numerous banking and finance laws causing the housing crisis and financial collapse of 07/08? Credit rating manipulations, anti-trust practices, insider trading, and numerous other crimes yet President Obama's administration, along with his colleagues in the House and Senate did an absolute minimum and instead, focused on the ACA. Why? Because they're more concerned with winning the next election over being morally conscientious. Like it or not, this isn't a fallacy and anyone who isn't trying to pick sides can see that big money has tainted our government. Again, Bernie should have won. The DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP. They both drink from the same trough.


Nearly all of the 'big money in elections' issue stems from Citizens United, a pro-Republican SCOTUS decision handed down during the GWB administration.  Bipartisan legislation has been introduced to overturn Citizens United, but as usual, the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to kill it by refusing to bring it to a vote.

https://raskin.house.gov/media/pres...amendment-overturn-citizens-united-introduced

On top of which you have Warren and other Senate Democrats pushing for a lifetime lobbying ban on lawmakers:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/21/elizabeth-warren-lobbying-crackdown-745261

Yet another non-starter because of Republican corruption.

Yes, both parties participate in the system as it's designed, but only one of the parties is actually pushing back against the flawed design.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Bingo, both parties can be bought off.
> 
> Though there is an alternative people may not consider. That money to buy off politicians may actually be extortion money. Legislatures have powers to pass laws to screw over businesses, they might use their power to get extortion money from businesses or they’ll threaten to screw them over with laws and regulations.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for coming off as arrogant. I'm used to standoffish discussions with people using verbal rhetoric as actual arguments, with them immediately going on the offensive. It's not a defense, but an explanation.

Also, I totally agree with you.



Xzi said:


> From your own link, "this amount accounted for about 3 percent of AFDC and 2 percent of Food Stamp benefit costs."  Which I'm honestly fine with.  People born here are American citizens, that's based in the constitution.  They should be cared for by federal assistance along with every American citizen



It's hard to give documented evidence for what I'm about to say, but Social Workers AND illegal-gone-legal citizens from
Central/South American countries explained how illegal immigrants received much more than that, which is as such; now that the child is a recognized US citizen, the mother becomes the legal guardian of the child, allowing them to fast track their green card application. When filling out the green card application, they declare themselves as single mothers without an income (most admitting to being married and working for cash), granting them welfare, housing, SNAP, and various medical benefits.

Once the family has an apartment, the father then gets a two-way ticket for 'vacation', but doesn't get on the return flight home. Now, since he was never mentioned in the wife's paperwork, the government has no idea the father is actually living with her, basically rendering himself invisible. For transportation, a few states have VERY lax registration policies (California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida) as long as you know how to fill out vehicle registrations the "correct way". Couple that with basic liability coverage and now the car is legal enough to drive.

*Edit: what I've personally been told


Xzi said:


> Democrats have proposed a ban on becoming a lobbyist after being a federal government employee.  Of course, Republicans won't even bring it to a vote


Both sides of the aisle don't want legislation like this.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2019)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> It's hard to give documented evidence for what I'm about to say, but Social Workers AND illegal-gone-legal citizens from
> Central/South American countries explained how illegal immigrants received much more than that, which is as such; now that the child is a recognized US citizen, the mother becomes the legal guardian of the child, allowing them to fast track their green card application. When filling out the green card application, they declare themselves as single mothers without an income (most admitting to being married and working for cash), granting them welfare, housing, SNAP, and various medical benefits.
> 
> Once the family has an apartment, the father then gets a two-way ticket for 'vacation', but doesn't get on the return flight home. Now, since he was never mentioned in the wife's paperwork, the government has no idea the father is actually living with her, basically rendering himself invisible. For transportation, a few states have VERY lax registration policies (California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida) as long as you know how to fill out vehicle registrations the "correct way". Couple that with basic liability coverage and now the car is legal enough to drive.
> ...


This seems anecdotal at best, pulled from thin air at worst.  In any case I'm simply not outraged by the thought of immigration like the president and his supporters are, and the hypocrisy makes it hard to take them seriously, given that Trump himself employs illegals at his golf courses.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Both sides of the aisle don't want legislation like this.


I linked a source to the proposed legislation literally one post above yours lol.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 11, 2019)

Something for Trump to watch, I think.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 11, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Except it's not. If Democrats aren't appealing to appease the financial industry and other prospective donors, why did almost no one go to prison after breaking numerous banking and finance laws causing the housing crisis and financial collapse of 07/08? Credit rating manipulations, anti-trust practices, insider trading, and numerous other crimes yet President Obama's administration, along with his colleagues in the House and Senate did an absolute minimum and instead, focused on the ACA. Why? Because they're more concerned with winning the next election over being morally conscientious. Like it or not, this isn't a fallacy and anyone who isn't trying to pick sides can see that big money has tainted our government. Again, Bernie should have won. The DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP. They both drink from the same trough.


Exactly, both sides are responsible from the housing crisis. (I’ve even recommended a book before by Thomas Sowell about the Housing Crisis and he puts blame on Bush as well as Democrats.) But people solely want to put the blame on Republicans. They both screwed it up.

California recently voted to increase their rent on themselves. But then People started to protest because their rent was increased. But why would they protest? They chose this, they voted for this. Why would you agree to something then blame it on someone else when you did his to yourself. 

That extra money collected usually goes to illegal immigration.


Don’t mind the guy calling people morons. But c’mon you voted for this, you voted to pay increase your rent. This is a situation where they need to take responsibility and not blame others. But they are not and are going to blame politicians.

I equally blame the people too for their situation, not just the politicians. They vote even though they don’t fully understand what they are voting for.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> But people solely want to put the blame on Republicans. They both screwed it up.


Shit like that just doesn't happen with a Democrat-controlled government.  The GWB administration knew exactly what they were doing when they cut taxes after starting two wars, then gutted regulations on the housing market and wall street to top it all off.  Or if they didn't, then it was their ignorance that caused the final straw to break.

There's a reason we elected a Democrat to clean everything up afterward, and it wasn't because they were "equally responsible."  Republicans were pretending they never supported GWB to begin with by that point, because even they knew who caused the problem.  We'll see the exact same thing happen once Trump causes another recession.

Today, Trump rejected a shutdown deal negotiated amongst his own party:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...tdown-deal-republicans-negotiated-republicans

Really does show that nobody can negotiate with a toddler.  In the end, they're just going to have to defect and re-open government without giving Trump anything.  Otherwise there are going to be a lot of pissed Americans wondering where their tax refunds are.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 12, 2019)

Pfff...I can hardly make time for this thread anymore. There are some very interesting things being said, but I really don't have the time to reply to everyone. Sorry. 



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Well, we all know who the spoon-fed college student is now...


I know you don't mean it as such, but I'll take that as a compliment. From my perspective, most of what Donald's doing is basically saying "here...go catch" when he says something. By the time his critics have fundamental proof that he's lying, he just throws another lie out to catch. Result: in the mean time, he's using that "benefit of the doubt" time to convince the remaining people (those too uneducated to second guess whatever he's saying) that those people researching things are the enemy.


SuzieJoeBob said:


> I just get tired of people that prefer to get their news from celebrities and news stations (CNN and Fox included) instead of doing their own independent research.


Funny: I get the same tiring feeling for the very same reason in this argument. It's just not plural: there is only one celebrity (he happens to be president) and at best one news station on Trump's side.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> Based on the most recent USA Census, about 63% of illegal immigrants access the US Welfare system for financial support. Coupling that with the fact that $18.3 billion is spent annually for Medicaid-funded medical visits, the entirety of the wall could be funded easily AND still have substantial money left over from just the taxpayer-funded Medicaid spent in one year!


No one's arguing the problem, so don't bother with those numbers. But if the majority of those illegal Mexicans come in through airports or with green cards, then THAT is where you should focus the solution.



SuzieJoeBob said:


> The arguments provided by many online and in person are, for the most part, emotionally based and do not take the economyand national wellbeing into account.


Could be, but even so: they're irrelevant. Trump could dress and talk like a normal person, but with the same (lack of) arguments he has, he still won't convince anyone. It'd probably turn down the personal attacks a bit, though.

But on topic: since you dish intellectual opinions for being "elite"...do you _really_ want to talk about economy and national well being? I can discuss quite a bit on fallacies like "stealing American jobs" or "immigrants are bad for the economy", but either I make things up as I go along (which you won't like because 'lack of sources'), or either I research (which you  won't like because 'I don't have an opinion of my own'). If you're going to dislike it either way, then - no offence - I'm done arguing with you.


----------



## DarthDub (Jan 12, 2019)

I heard on the radio that Trump could use the military to build the wall.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 12, 2019)

DarthDub said:


> I heard on the radio that Trump could use the military to build the wall.


He's back to threatening a declaration of national emergency.  In which case the money would indeed be taken from the military and disaster relief funds.  A federal judge could strike that down pretty quick, though.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 12, 2019)

DarthDub said:


> I heard on the radio that Trump could use the military to build the wall.


That would be an interesting twist, but TBH I think the presenter mostly forgot to add "Trump says...".

From what I can make of this, this is true IF he can convince "Pentagon lawyers that the situation there constitutes a threat to national security – a true national emergency, and not a law enforcement matter" (source).

I'm not very proficient in US army spending. I know USA has the largest army (and spends the most on it), but even so, I think this would take a huge bite out of army budget that could be located at useful targets. So...I don't think those pentagon lawyers are quickly going to come through to Trump. I mean...it's not like there is any southern army amassing at the border or anything. And Trump firing Mattis probably didn't help much in that regard either.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 13, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Pfff...I can hardly make time for this thread anymore. There are some very interesting things being said, but I really don't have the time to reply to everyone. Sorry.
> 
> 
> I know you don't mean it as such, but I'll take that as a compliment. From my perspective, most of what Donald's doing is basically saying "here...go catch" when he says something. By the time his critics have fundamental proof that he's lying, he just throws another lie out to catch. Result: in the mean time, he's using that "benefit of the doubt" time to convince the remaining people (those too uneducated to second guess whatever he's saying) that those people researching things are the enemy.
> ...



1) Don't get me wrong; Donald Trump's method of debate/insulting and subsequent temper tantrums like a 3-year-old are highly unrespectable as a person, let alone as the spokesperson for an entire nation. He needs to grow the hell up and treat his position with the respect it deserves, as well as stop making claims just to create news headlines about himself.

2) Hispanic immigrants are not stealing jobs; they are doing the ones that most Americans find beneath them, but then complain are being stolen from them. Most of the ones compliaining about jobs being stolen by Hispanics are the same ones that vegitate on their couches and milk the government for Social Security, food stamps, and welfare.

3) People that manipulate government programs for unnecessary handouts (citizens AND illegal/legal immigrants) DO harm the economy, while ones that aren't don't. Assistance is supposed to be for people whom cannot get by on what they currently have, not for people that want to live lavish lifestyles at the taxpayers' expense.

4) Both sides of my family came to the United States the LEGAL way, selling much of what they had to get here. The reason aquiring citizenship is such an expensive undertaking is to see who is truly serious about becoming a citizen. Unfortunately, the pathway to citizenship is TOO expensive and is a major deterrent for that exact same reason.

If countries allowed the United States to run more in-depth background checks using the immigrants' original home countries' citizenship information (and vice-versa), the ability for people to become citizens of the United States would be much less rigorous.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jan 13, 2019)

"Donald J. Trump: the one person on the planet who's really passionate about building it" Eh, seems a good amount of us citizens (people who voted for him) are quite happy with the wall.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 13, 2019)

Not enough to fund it according to the GoFundme.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 13, 2019)

Just a reminder for anyone who supports the wall, planes and boats still exist. A wall is a waste of money and you are stupid if you believe it would do anything


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 13, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Just a reminder for anyone who supports the wall, planes and boats still exist. A wall is a waste of money and you are stupid if you believe it would do anything


A wall as envisioned/talked about would do something. Whether that something would justify the cost is an entirely different matter.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 13, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> "Donald J. Trump: the one person on the planet who's really passionate about building it"



You know, that's a great line.  Makes me realize not only should Donald J Trump pay for the wall, he should build it himself.  One could call it "hard labor".  One could call it "something to do in between tweets because the government is shutdown anyways".  I just like the idea of vision of Trump out there on the southern border with shovel in hand, some bags of cement, etc trying to build that wall.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> "Donald J. Trump: the one person on the planet who's really passionate about building it" Eh, seems a good amount of us citizens (people who voted for him) are quite happy with the wall.


They shouldn't be, since they were also promised Mexico would pay for the wall.  They're short-sighted idiots willing to forgive any flaw or lie, though.

Also worth remembering that many of the people who are in support of the wall don't see a need for the government to be shut down over negotiations for it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 13, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> "Donald J. Trump: the one person on the planet who's really passionate about building it" Eh, seems a good amount of us citizens (people who voted for him) are quite happy with the wall.


Well,then they should get on record about it. Rally in the street. Hold banners and make sure you support your president. I'm not a us citizen, and from what I hear, it really appears as if he's the only person in the world who believes in it.
 In case you hadn't noticed :your government is in shutdown over the issue  having people voice their opinions seems pretty ligitimate (on both sides, BTW).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kuwanger said:


> You know, that's a great line.  Makes me realize not only should Donald J Trump pay for the wall, he should build it himself.  One could call it "hard labor".  One could call it "something to do in between tweets because the government is shutdown anyways".  I just like the idea of vision of Trump out there on the southern border with shovel in hand, some bags of cement, etc trying to build that wall.


Someone even made him a nice plan, complete with a single nimbus key:


Spoiler


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 13, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Someone even made him a nice plan, complete with a single nimbus key:



You know Trump.  He'll lose the plans, break the key, and then blame the Democrats, all while sitting in the Oval Office.  Having to actually life a finger to do actual work?  That's too much.  Besides, everyone knows you got to liter the plans with "Trump" (possibly embossed on each slat) or he'll lose interest after a few seconds.


----------



## Lumstar (Jan 14, 2019)

The whole shebang is flawed from the start. If this money were put toward addressing WHY people flee Mexico in such numbers...


----------



## Retro_Mod_Gamer (Jan 14, 2019)

First of all I just want to point out that I don't understand the need people have to bring Trump into literally EVERYTHING, including our little online playgrounds where we are supposed to unite for our love of video games... aside from that, here's what I have to say to this obviously anti-Trump post.

Do you want open borders or well-funded social programs? Pick one. Both cannot simultaneously exist because it is unsustainable. If you disagree with this, please explain how you can achieve both, I assure you they are mutually exclusive.

Open borders? No social programs.
Welfare state? Shuttered borders.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> First of all I just want to point out that I don't understand the need people have to bring Trump into literally EVERYTHING, including our little online playgrounds where we are supposed to unite for our love of video games... aside from that, here's what I have to say to this obviously anti-Trump post.
> 
> Do you want open borders or well-funded social programs? Pick one. Both cannot simultaneously exist because it is unsustainable. If you disagree with this, please explain how you can achieve both, I assure you they are mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...



Well.. for one.. This is the world news section.. Two.. the reason why he is being brought up. The mother fucking cum guzzling ass fucking Putin cock sucking zubat is the one who SHUT OUR GOVERNMENT DOWN because he literally has to win a dick waving contest.

And no.. Just because you don't understand how the fuck shit works, doesn't mean it goes the way you -think- it does.

His wall would cost a HUGE amount every year just to keep operated, hell in order to fund it, he wants to pull from Disaster relief and department of homeland security, *Which I don't like.. but don't say we need to do it for security then gut you're goddamn security division! Unless YOU would be willing to use you're doors to build a fence around you're yard!

That still ignores that most undocumented immagrints came in LEGALLY *so you can't even argue that they broke the law to get here* and simply stayed. 

But here is a logical solution to combating some of the problems... Fine/Arrest the people who HIRE undocumented immigrants. If the "Job opportunity" dried up... a lot of the issues would go away. Also.. the asshole mcasshole face kept ignoring that the people with the caravans were there to LEGALLY APPLY for asylum.

But no.. you're just probably afraid some brown person is going to come after you.


----------



## Retro_Mod_Gamer (Jan 14, 2019)

Tigran said:


> Well.. for one.. This is the world news section.. Two.. the reason why he is being brought up. The mother fucking cum guzzling ass fucking Putin cock sucking zubat is the one who SHUT OUR GOVERNMENT DOWN because he literally has to win a dick waving contest.
> 
> And no.. Just because you don't understand how the fuck shit works, doesn't mean it goes the way you -think- it does.
> 
> ...



Ah yes the ad hominem attacks and make it about me. "[I'm]...afraid some brown person is going to come after [me]". I don't even live in the USA so how can you make this about me being afraid?

Adding 3b to border security isn't much money in the scale of a Federal budget, Schumer and Pelosi can end the shutdown tomorrow but they refuse to negotiate at all.

I'm fine with open borders, I'm fine with social programs, they are just incompatible. I'm not seeing your argument for how they can coexist.

It's already illegal to hire undocumented immigrants, punishable with criminal fines and loss of business licenses. I know this, and you think I don't understand how stuff works? You're just an angry person who hates Trump and doesn't care about the facts. Trump Derangement Syndrome on display for all.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jan 14, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Well,then they should get on record about it. Rally in the street. Hold banners and make sure you support your president. I'm not a us citizen, and from what I hear, it really appears as if he's the only person in the world who believes in it.
> In case you hadn't noticed :your government is in shutdown over the issue  having people voice their opinions seems pretty ligitimate (on both sides, BTW).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


I really wish those walls were available as Legos. It would have saved me hours when building Lego buildings as a kid...


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> I'm fine with open borders, I'm fine with social programs, they are just incompatible. I'm not seeing your argument for how they can coexist.


The hell are you talking about?  Firstly, nobody is advocating for "open borders."  Secondly, we've had social programs for well over half a century now, regardless of what immigration policy changes have been made over the years.  The two are completely separate issues with completely separate funding.  We can work out funding for border security, a path to citizenship, and still expand current social programs or implement new ones.  None of this requires the government to be shut down to accomplish.


----------



## Retro_Mod_Gamer (Jan 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The hell are you talking about?  Firstly, nobody is advocating for "open borders."  Secondly, we've had social programs for well over half a century now, regardless of what immigration policy changes have been made over the years.  The two are complete separate issues with completely separate funding.  We can work out a path to citizenship and still expand current social programs or implement new ones.



A path to citizenship is great, but a lot of the same people that are against borders are also for free healthcare and education. If you let everyone in to receive the social programs the burden becomes too great and they collapse. People need to decide if borders matter or not as one issue, and then if they should be enforced or not as a separate issue. We've had political discourse with as much nuance as "If Trump is for it, I'm against it" for two years now and it's tiring as hell.


----------



## Zonark (Jan 14, 2019)

Special tax on movie industry


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> A path to citizenship is great, but a lot of the same people that are against borders are also for free healthcare and education. If you let everyone in to receive the social programs the burden becomes too great and they collapse. People need to decide if borders matter or not as one issue, and then if they should be enforced or not as a separate issue. We've had political discourse with as much nuance as "If Trump is for it, I'm against it" for two years now and it's tiring as hell.


You'd be surprised how much funding for everything else would be available if we'd just stop giving everything away to the rich.  Besides, illegal immigration is at the lowest rate it has ever been, and illegals contribute more to the economy than they take out.  Your assumption is that illegals are a massive drain on the system, but our inefficient education and healthcare systems are a far bigger drain on themselves than anything else.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 14, 2019)

And you're still ignoring that no one said "Open borders.", Most undocumented immigrants don't come in through the southern boarder... No wall has EVER worked, the environmental and economic damages along the boarder... The fact that the wall would have to be several miles inside either the Mexico Border, OR the US border... Not ON the border. The cost of the wall yearly which would well exceed the 5.7b or whatever he wants now.. Not to mention even THAT is a drop in the bucket to the cost of building the wall.


Besides... Trump is SUPPOSEDLY so rich, and SUPPOSEDLY wants this so badly.. He can pay for the fucking thing himself.

He still hasn't released his tax returns.

Also his fucking wall can be cut by a damn household saw!


----------



## Retro_Mod_Gamer (Jan 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You'd be surprised how much funding for everything else would be available if we'd just stop giving everything away to the rich.  Besides, illegal immigration is at the lowest rate it has ever been, and illegals contribute more to the economy than they take out.  Your assumption is that illegals are a massive drain on the system, but our inefficient education and healthcare systems are a far bigger drain on themselves than anything else.



I mentioned earlier that the rich Americans are the highest contributors to government revenue. Also you're now advocating for illegal immigration so obviously you wouldn't support a wall, which is okay. I'm pretty sure Trump won't back down when it comes to border security so it's going to be a bumpy ride.


----------



## Tigran (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> I mentioned earlier that the rich Americans are the highest contributors to government revenue. Also you're now advocating for illegal immigration so obviously you wouldn't support a wall, which is okay. I'm pretty sure Trump won't back down when it comes to border security so it's going to be a bumpy ride.




But the Rich -arn't- the highest contributors to government revenue... at least not by much. They constantly get tax breaks to avoid that.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> I mentioned earlier that the rich Americans are the highest contributors to government revenue. Also you're now advocating for illegal immigration so obviously you wouldn't support a wall, which is okay. I'm pretty sure Trump won't back down when it comes to border security so it's going to be a bumpy ride.


I'm not advocating anything, I stated the facts.  And they better be the highest contributors, the 1% has far more wealth than the other 99% of Americans combined.  It doesn't mean they're actually paying their fair share between ludicrous tax cuts (like Trump slashing the corporate tax rate in half), offshore tax havens, and massive corporate welfare in the form of subsidies.  I'm sure all the biggest welfare states combined don't even cost us annually what subsidies for one large corporation do.


----------



## Retro_Mod_Gamer (Jan 14, 2019)

Tigran said:


> But the Rich -arn't- the highest contributors to government revenue... at least not by much. They constantly get tax breaks to avoid that.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016

Tax breaks or not, they still hold the country up by paying the most into taxes.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 14, 2019)

Both sides need it, both sides should pay for it.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> Do you want open borders or well-funded social programs? Pick one. Both cannot simultaneously exist because it is unsustainable. If you disagree with this, please explain how you can achieve both, I assure you they are mutually exclusive.



Uh, no they're not mutually exclusive.  About half of social programs are funded by taxes at a flat rate upon income earned*.  This means that the best way to fund social programs is to have higher paying jobs on a broad base of the population.  An open border doesn't push wages down unless there's a glut of supply of workers and even then only so long as minimum wage laws are ignored.  For the former, one could argue that there's a glut of supply of workers substantial enough that open borders immigration would have little to no effect--look at the US's relatively open border position when it comes to doctors and yet the US has one of the highest pay rates on doctors.  For the latter, well, that's more a problem of a system designed to in theory discourage illegal immigration but in practice to allow abuse of illegal immigrants.  If we wanted to actual focus on discouraging the hiring of illegal immigrants, we'd go after employers who do that.

I'm actually for open borders.  One would have much more solid argument if you were talking about state taxes and state programs, especially education, but most the US has an ass backwards broken property tax based system for local funding which is again is ass backwards broken.  Being from a lower property neighborhood shouldn't translate into having a less well funded education.  Further, federal efforts (NCLB and Common Core) have been cluster fucks because of the nature of their design.  My point is, the programs under federal control should be sustainable with open borders.  The ones under state control are various levels of shit by state design, which has little to do with immigration policy.



Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> Tax breaks or not, they still hold the country up by paying the most into taxes.



Granted, although I always hate when journalists report "income tax" and ignore the obvious:  if you make relatively little income, it's payroll taxes that fund social programs which make up the substantial amount of your federal taxes.  It's the progressive income tax that of course causes the 1% to pay substantial more income tax than the bottom 90% (or bottom 50%) precisely because there's no means one could tax the bottom 50% at any rate that they'd be able to substantially contribute to the social and non-social spending the federal government engages in.

Now, if you want to argue for changing federal government spending to resolve some of these funding/taxing discrepancies, I'm all ears.  IMHO, EITC should be gotten rid of as well as federal housing assistance--that really should be dealt with at the state level or at least be something the states pay into and be federally managed.  SNAPs is agricultural subsidies and should be probably taken out of military spending--it's intended to be a strategy of guaranteed overproduction of food for security reasons.  Military spending itself could be greatly decreased, which needs to happen anyways because the spending to funding ratio is way off.

So, yes, the very rich are a substantial part of what keeps the country afloat.  That functionally can't change in any government.  Efforts to close tax loopholes (including with corporations)** would improve the funding to spending ratio, but it obviously isn't nearly enough.  Immigration is something that should be resolved but more for the recognition of human rights***.  If we want to tie many social benefits to citizenship and limit citizenship, so be it; we already do that, and I don't really have much problem with it so long as we make citizenship a reasonably achievable goal for most people.

* Ignoring that some taxes have a cap which effectively makes the tax regressive after a certain income.

** For all the talk of people moving, there's a reason why very rich people still live in the US and pay substantial taxes.  It's not out of the goodness of their heart.  It's that most other equally western countries where they'd have ready access to the means of their wealth have much greater tax ratios.  There's a lot of room to move before they would bulk in leave the country, just as it's lots of hyperbole when people said they'd leave the country if Trump were elected.

*** The world has become globalized, so it's reasonable to expect that people with the basic right to travel should be able to travel to follow work, wherever that may be.  In the short term there's always hiccups with such an approach, but it's literally the foundation of how the US became the diverse and powerful country that it is.  Or should we go back to wanting to lynching all the Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc that dared to come and have children here?


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> A wall as envisioned/talked about would do something. Whether that something would justify the cost is an entirely different matter.


What it would do is put the nation into more debt over the literal years that will be required to build it and waste more money to station more people around it. What it won't do is stop people from using boats to get around it.


----------



## regnad (Jan 14, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> What it would do is put the nation into more debt over the literal years that will be required to build it and waste more money to station more people around it. What it won't do is stop people from using boats to get around it.
> View attachment 155059



I'm sure Russia would be perfectly okay with the US plunging itself further in debt.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

regnad said:


> I'm sure Russia would be perfectly okay with the US plunging itself further in debt.


Don't worry, Republicans will be back to hand-wringing about the debt just as soon as a Democrat is president again.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Don't worry, Republicans will be back to hand-wringing about the debt just as soon as a Democrat is president again.



Republicans hand-wring more about spending than actual debt.  Or tax and spend, which apparently as some sort of potentially sound fiscal policy is of course the ideals of the devil, the Democrats.  Don't worry, though.  One way or another, some small bit of the wall will be built--even if it's just upkeep on the current sections of wall across the border.  Then, of course, Republicans will joyously announce that with all the money saved from all the stopped illegal immigration--based on figures quintuple counting (by overlapping sets) a variety of hypotheticals--we all deserve a tax cut.  And by "we" I mean "the top income bracket".


----------



## mrdude (Jan 14, 2019)

Build that wall!, Build that wall!.

The cost to the US economy due to the government being shut down - is nearly what the wall would have cost. Probably President Trump should have just got the money in the first place and saved the Taxpayer a whole heap of cash.

I think that Trump has has a pretty bum deal with being president so far, I don't ever recall any other president getting the amount of crap and biased news outlets running fake stories, or being investigated as much as he has been - and all to tarnish him.

Personally I think Hilary Clinton should be in prison, but you don't see the same level of outrage conducted towards her - and she's broken the law. Any other citizen that did what she had done would be spending years in a federal penitentiary.

I'm not from the US - so it's not an issue I need concern myself about, however with a population of over 325 million people - you 'only' had a choice between Clinton or Trump - it just shows that money talks and the world is run by the rich, as there are thousands upon thousands of smarter people than those two morons.

If you think anyone here's opinion on the wall makes a blind bit of difference you're sadly mistaken. The same thing is happening in the UK - we voted to leave the EU - but the money men are trying to overturn the vote. Democracy is an illusion, and if you think otherwise, your mistaken.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

mrdude said:


> I think that Trump has has a pretty bum deal with being president so far, I don't ever recall any other president getting the amount of crap and biased news outlets running fake stories, or being investigated as much as he has been - and all to tarnish him.


You have your own very obvious bias if you believe any of the investigations into the Trump administration have been opened for the sole purpose of 'tarnishing Trump.'  He does a more than sufficient job of tarnishing his own reputation on a daily basis with tweets that have terrible grammar, spelling, and random capitalization.  The very act of personally running a Twitter account is well beneath the office of president, but he's obviously committed so many more serious faux pas that we're naturally all numb to it by now.



mrdude said:


> Personally I think Hilary Clinton should be in prison, but you don't see the same level of outrage conducted towards her - and she's broken the law. Any other citizen that did what she had done would be spending years in a federal penitentiary.


What a surprise, one is "too many investigations" for Trump, but after like twenty investigations into Clinton that turned up nothing, still "too few investigations" into her.  

I hope you realize that Ivanka and the Trump administration are guilty of not only the same 'e-mail crimes,' but much worse crimes as well, including doxxing American citizens.


----------



## nando (Jan 14, 2019)

I specifically became a US citizen last year so that I wouldnt be billed for the wall as a mexican.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 14, 2019)

mrdude said:


> Personally I think Hilary Clinton should be in prison, but you don't see the same level of outrage conducted towards her - and she's broken the law. Any other citizen that did what she had done would be spending years in a federal penitentiary.


You mean like "lock her up"?

Anyway, you would think people would be tired of buttery males already.


----------



## mrdude (Jan 14, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> You mean like "lock her up"?
> 
> Anyway, you would think people would be tired of buttery males already.



I think you're missing the point - you've a country of over 350 million people, and these two buffoons are the best two people your country could get to run it. Clinton is as bad as Trump - if not worse, but it's not a competition. Clinton is a criminal and Trump lacks any empathy and is border line psychopath.

You basically had a choice between electing a turd sandwich and a giant douche - not because they were good leaders, but because they came from family's with lots of money. If you think either of these two twonks wanted to run the country for the benefit of the people, you're mistaken. They wanted to run the country for their own ego and to get some more wealth.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 14, 2019)

Retro_Mod_Gamer said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016
> 
> Tax breaks or not, they still hold the country up by paying the most into taxes.


That's actually a very interesting article. But these statistics don't really mean what you think it means. It has two crucial flaws:

1) the richest tax payers aren't automatically the richest persons. Multinationals and large firms shift their capital around to the countries where taxes are lower (that's the benefit of being very rich: you can afford a bookkeeper to do all these things for you and - even with his wages included - still come up ahead).
2) since income taxes are income percentage based...what exactly does that say on inequality in the USA? You look at those numbers and say that the top 1% should have equal say over the country because they contribute as much to the income taxes as the bottom 90%. I say that the bottom 90% should earn more so their contributions to the income taxes will raise.

Not convinced? Look some more. And shiver...

_The average tax rates paid for the very wealthiest has fallen in recent years from a peak of 24.1 percent in 2013 to 22.9 on 2016 and was a full four percentage points below the 26.9 percent that the top one percent paid on average._

This drop of 1.2 percent may not sound like much, but this is in the category that payed as much as the bottom NINETY percent.
In numbers...in 2016, the top 1% payed 3.8046 trillion dollars (10.2*37.3%=). Subtract 1.2% of it, and you've got 0.0456552 trillion dollars, or 45.6552 billion dollars. Basically: NOT having this drop would've meant that this stupid wall could've been build already.

And now for the scary part:

_The most extensive rewrite of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years was signed in law in early 2018. Individuals may start to feel the effects of last year’s tax overhaul when they file their returns in April. Estimates show the law’s biggest benefits go to top earners._

The article doesn't state the percentage drop, but assuming (pretty conservatively) that it's in the same area...it means that if Trump didn't push this extensive rewrite through, then he would have had the budget for it coming April.

Or in other words: last year, Trump already took away as much as the price of a gigantic wall away from the 90% lowest tax payers away from the economy. Do you want to pay a similar price again this year?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

mrdude said:


> I think you're missing the point - you've a country of over 350 million people, and these two buffoons are the best two people your country could get to run it. Clinton is as bad as Trump - if not worse, but it's not a competition. Clinton is a criminal and Trump lacks any empathy and is border line psychopath.


37 indictments and 7 convictions from the Trump administration so far.  We've just learned over the last few days that Manafort personally handed Trump campaign polling data to Russian intelligence, and that Trump has been trying to keep records of meetings with Putin secret from even his own officials.  He didn't even deny being a Russian asset on Fox News, of all friendly outlets.

You're absolutely delusional if you think any of this would be happening with Clinton as president.  She even called out all of this criminality very specifically during the debates.


----------



## mrdude (Jan 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 37 indictments and 7 convictions from the Trump administration so far.  We've just learned over the last few days that Manafort personally handed Trump campaign polling data to Russian intelligence, and that Trump has been trying to keep records of meetings with Putin secret from even his own officials.  He didn't even deny being a Russian asset on Fox News, of all friendly outlets.
> 
> You're absolutely delusional if you think any of this would be happening with Clinton as president.  She even called out all of this criminality very specifically during the debates.



So like I said, they are both scumbags - and they are the best people your country had a choice between. Money talks.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2019)

mrdude said:


> So like I said, they are both scumbags - and they are the best people your country had a choice between. Money talks.


This is the epitome of the phrase, "it's easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled."  The evidence that Clinton is who you believe her to be is nil.  I suppose the one benefit of Trump being elected is that we now have proof positive he's a corrupt mobster, and the public attention that comes with being president is ultimately what will lead to his indictment and conviction.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 15, 2019)

The wall is never going to be built. It's disgraceful that the government is still shutdown from this bullshit.


----------



## bodefuceta (Jan 15, 2019)

Ideally it'd be paid with the money they'd send ISRAEL for no fucking reason.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I really wonder how we'll look back at this period in time in history. Trump already broke many traditions and honors and made more dumb and dangerous remarks than any US president I know. Not only is US on track for breaking the longest government shutdown in recent history, it is all for something that is COMPLETELY NORMAL. The border situation is at best moderately worse than before, but in reality it's just the same.
> 
> But Donald Trump made a campaign promise that was so ridiculously dumb that opponents didn't bother to disprove ("Mexico paying for a wall with USA? They already replied they weren't going to!"). Nobody thought that clown would beat all the other candidates, and even less people thought he'd attempt to follow through on his lie. The result: he's looking for someone to blame. Mexico would be pretty stupid to blame (he never even started any dialogue in that direction, he has zero bargaining power and - again - they denied they were going to pay for it even during the election campaign). So he once again tries to blame democrats.
> 
> ...


honestly hes a fucking retard my family doesnt like me because i will not vote for him and i cant stand his oompa loompa mcdonalds face. This hamburgler is a  racist and this wall i hope never happens i wont say much more but i dislike him very much.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bodefuceta said:


> Ideally it'd be paid with the money they'd send ISRAEL for no fucking reason.


no he will use the treasury as his purse social security will go away writings on the wall and it looks like the movie they live has became reality


----------



## Fugelmir (Jan 15, 2019)

I know who should build the wall. He'll cover the costs, too.


----------



## DinohScene (Jan 15, 2019)

Keep it civil people!
Thank you!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Republicans got completely crushed in the midterm election.  Trump's numbers keep falling during the shutdown, we'll see how low they can go after he crashes the economy as well.



I don't know if crushed is a terribly accurate word here. I was there for the run up and voting. The "blue wave" never quite materialised, several what were dubbed sure fire races weren't, many states appear to be quite split, and the end results were not enough to do the supermajority thing. Also the senate appears to be Republican controlled still, and they had more gains.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 15, 2019)

Every time I hear about a Red or Blue wave, I always think of The Wave.  I don't think Trump cares about his numbers; I don't see why most politicians would since most in the Federal Government have such horrible numbers.  Clearly few are following the will of the people.  There isn't some coherent strategy that's being offered.  Instead, all we have is constantly hoping for gridlock so nothing gets done.  In that way, Trump has been key to the pragmatic strategy which the US has adopted for so long.


----------



## Fugelmir (Jan 15, 2019)

DinohScene said:


> Keep it civil people!
> Thank you!



It would be nice to have a civilized conversation without big brother censoring everything.    Donald J. Trump is quite an excellent president and his approval rating is up if compared to Obama's at the same timeframe.

It's a pendulum.  Democrats get the vote, get too fringe, then get voted out, the Republicans do the same.  

I'm very jealous that the United States has an anti globalist leader.  You folks are lucky.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't know if crushed is a terribly accurate word here. I was there for the run up and voting. The "blue wave" never quite materialised, several what were dubbed sure fire races weren't, many states appear to be quite split, and the end results were not enough to do the supermajority thing. Also the senate appears to be Republican controlled still, and they had more gains.


It was the largest margin Democrats have ever won a midterm election by, edging out their win during the Nixon administration.  Muslim women were elected in red states.  It doesn't get much more definitive than that.  Ever since his election, Trump's endorsement has been absolutely toxic to other candidates.  He almost lost Texas, FFS.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 15, 2019)

mrdude said:


> I think you're missing the point - you've a country of over 350 million people, and these two buffoons are the best two people your country could get to run it. Clinton is as bad as Trump - if not worse, but it's not a competition. Clinton is a criminal and Trump lacks any empathy and is border line psychopath.





> I think that Trump has has a pretty bum deal with being president so far, I don't ever recall any other president getting the amount of crap and biased news outlets running fake stories, or being investigated as much as he has been - and all to tarnish him.



This seems like a big change of tone here. You went from defending Trump, saying all these things are only happening to tarnish him, to calling him a borderline psychopathic buffoon?


----------



## mrdude (Jan 15, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> This seems like a big change of tone here. You went from defending Trump, saying all these things are only happening to tarnish him, to calling him a borderline psychopathic buffoon?



I'm neutral in the entire Trump V'S Clinton thing, I don't live in USA so it doesn't affect me because I don't vote for either of them. I'm literally stating my views from an outside perspective.

1: Trump seems to be getting picked on by the media, more than any other president in living memory.
2: He's an Idiot.
3: Clinton is a criminal.
4: USA population is 350 + million, and these two idiots were who YOU guys picked.

All 4 of these things are in my mind true, whether you agree or not is up to you.


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 15, 2019)

mrdude said:


> 1: Trump seems to be getting picked on by the media, more than any other president in living memory.
> 2: He's an Idiot.



Maybe those two are related?  I mean, it's hard to not criticize people who say and do stupid things who the power to enact at least some of those stupid things, no matter how many checks and balances we supposedly have.  I mean, look at the all the torture authorized by GWB.  Or I guess we can pretend he's not really responsible and all the bucks go everywhere, or however it was Trump put it.  I would say this, at least so far GWB was much worse for what he allowed and authorized.  How quickly we forget that because "a borderline psychopathic buffoon".  At least Trump is the sort of villain that twirls his mustache.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It was the largest margin Democrats have ever won a midterm election by, edging out their win during the Nixon administration.  Muslim women were elected in red states.  It doesn't get much more definitive than that.  Ever since his election, Trump's endorsement has been absolutely toxic to other candidates.  He almost lost Texas, FFS.



An amusing factoid but where rubber hits the road, again an amusing factoid and possibly and interesting either demographic or cultural thing to consider but numbers wise of not all that much relevance. Texas wise then post 70s it does seem to be a republican state, but I dare say the more interesting discussion there would be the turnout (28.9 percent) and what might follow there.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> An amusing factoid but where rubber hits the road, again an amusing factoid and possibly and interesting either demographic or cultural thing to consider but numbers wise of not all that much relevance.


Considering how low Democrat turnout for the midterm typically is, it's definitely significant.  Extrapolating the midterm results to the general election means a win by a wide margin for Democrats in 2020.  All they have to do is equal that same turnout, and odds are there's actually going to be a lot more interest in the 2020 election than the midterm.



mrdude said:


> 1: Trump seems to be getting picked on by the media, more than any other president in living memory.


Give me a break.  The media attacked Obama for using dijon mustard and wearing a tan suit.  He didn't throw a tantrum and shutdown the government over it, he kept working.  If you're gonna run for president, it's obvious you're going to be under a lot of scrutiny.  Nobody puts up with a whiny bitch playing the victim card 24/7 for very long.



mrdude said:


> 2: He's an Idiot.


Worse than that, he's an idiot with no experience relevant to the presidency.  There were a lot of idiots running in the Republican primary, but any one of them still would've been more qualified than Trump.



mrdude said:


> 3: Clinton is a criminal.


Opinion does not determine one's criminal status.  She has never been convicted of anything.  Neither has Trump (yet), but obviously there are several active investigations which he is subject in, and he's been named as an unindicted co-conspirator to at least one crime by his personal attorney, Michael Cohen.



mrdude said:


> 4: USA population is 350 + million, and these two idiots were who YOU guys picked.


The entire election cycle was manipulated by foreign interference, so really we didn't pick them any more than the UK picked Brexit.  Even among those two we clearly made the wrong choice, but IMO if we had been free from outside influence, Bernie Sanders would be president right now.


----------



## lexarvn (Jan 15, 2019)

Most illegal immigration right now isn't from the mexico border, and people heavily tend to illegally cross at the same places. Here is an interesting article on it: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/6836...tion-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us
And note the data sources. If the data from the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection can't be trusted to have accurate data, then no one does.

So I'm of the opinion that a wall will mostly be useless at this point


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2019)

Purpose of the wall is to stop Human Trafficking and cut 1 source of income to the bad side of the so called US goverment
Kids from all over the world are being brought in form the mexico border, this would cripple that enterprise

Trump could build it and might build it militarily but hes not a dictator and is trying to go through congress as it should be

The bad side of the goverment is trying to make him look like a traitor but putin is actually working with him - The deep state is in deep shit

When you see this shit on the main channel news then you know the deep state is done

This generation lives in a very special time


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

lexarvn said:


> Most illegal immigration right now isn't from the mexico border, and people heavily tend to illegally cross at the same places. Here is an interesting article on it: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/6836...tion-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us
> And note the data sources. If the data from the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection can't be trusted to have accurate data, then no one does.
> 
> So I'm of the opinion that a wall will mostly be useless at this point


Even funnier: the Border Patrol union just recently deleted a webpage, opened in 2012, which vehemently opposed a border wall.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...012-webpage-opposing-walls-and-fences-1081250

They now claim to support the wall, so the article is a back and forth argument between 2012 Border Patrol union and 2019 Border Patrol union.  



			
				Politico said:
			
		

> A union that represents Border Patrol agents recently deleted a webpage that said building walls and fences along the border to stop illegal immigration would be “wasting taxpayer money.”
> 
> The deleted webpage, posted in 2012, argued that border barriers don’t tackle the root causes of migration — and could potentially encourage more migrants to enter the U.S. fraudulently or overstay visas.
> 
> ...



I think 2019 Border Patrol union makes a very good case about one thing, and it's in the very last sentence of the article:



			
				Politico said:
			
		

> Still, the union said at the time that physical barriers will remain “essential” if the federal government doesn’t target employers who hire undocumented immigrants.


We really need to be going after the people who employ illegal immigrants more than anybody if we truly wanted to remove the appeal to illegally immigrate.  That won't happen though because the president employs illegals.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-golf-club-employed-illegal-immigrants-report-2018-12-06


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 15, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> It would be nice to have a civilized conversation without big brother censoring everything.    Donald J. Trump is quite an excellent president and his approval rating is up if compared to Obama's at the same timeframe.


Reality would like a word with you.

...or are you saying that shutting down the government and putting 800'000 people on unpaid jobs somehow increased his popularity since december?


----------



## 210modz (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Reality would like a word with you.
> 
> ...or are you saying that shutting down the government and putting 800'000 people on unpaid jobs somehow increased his popularity since december?



Does it directly effect you? It directly effects my household and I'm 100% for it. It's basicly a paid holiday. Everyone will eventually get paid for time that they did not even work. You people are always looking for something to cry about. It usually doesn't even effect you nor do you know anything about what you speak of but hey you are soo edgy.


----------



## aerios169 (Jan 15, 2019)

well i am doctor on Mexico, i am not a bad people also i dont steal anything etc etc. so in my point of vew   why me and people should pay for a wall that wants to be on US border. Is like that mongols should pay china´s  great wall.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

210modz said:


> Does it directly effect you? It directly effects my household and I'm 100% for it. It's basicly a paid holiday. Everyone will eventually get paid for time that they did not even work.


Not everyone can be so gullible and/or blindly trusting.  Not to mention that bills don't wait for late paychecks to come in, and the vast majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.



210modz said:


> You people are always looking for something to cry about.


If Trump would just quit doing stupid shit, then there wouldn't be so much stupid shit in the news to discuss, or "cry about."  C'est la vie.



210modz said:


> It usually doesn't even effect you nor do you know anything about what you speak of but hey you are soo edgy.


He posted a source and stated some facts, nothing about it was edgy.  Also nobody needs any unique qualifications to discuss politics, your attempts at gatekeeping are nonsense.


----------



## 210modz (Jan 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not everyone can be so gullible and/or blindly trusting.  Not to mention that bills don't wait for late paychecks to come in, and the vast majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
> 
> 
> If Trump would just quit doing stupid shit, then there wouldn't be so much stupid shit in the news to discuss, or "cry about."  C'est la vie.
> ...



0 facts. The whole poll isn't bipartisan. Your lack of any facts are quite laughable. The fact that you know nothing about the subject just makes you look like a bigger nincompoop everytime you reply. You are screaming "poor them" for people that are getting a paid vacation. Not only that. The facts are there. Walls work.

Now let's look at this stupid option.

"No one: I'm with border specialists, congress and the democrats who believe it's a waste of money"

Border patrol wants the wall. Who is more of a border specialist than border patrol? Who is the border specialist that he speaks about? It's for sure not the people on the Frontline because they have already stated their favor in the wall.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

210modz said:


> 0 facts. The whole poll isn't bipartisan. Your lack of any facts are quite laughable. The fact that you know nothing about the subject just makes you look like a bigger nincompoop everytime you reply. You are screaming "poor them" for people that are getting a paid vacation. Not only that. The facts are there. Walls work.


Not everyone is being a lazy fuck, there are people actually continuing to work without pay.  And you're right, walls did work.  In the 7th century.  The fact is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive via plane and simply overstay their work visas, and a wall would just drive that number up further.



210modz said:


> Now let's look at this stupid option.
> 
> "No one: I'm with border specialists, congress and the democrats who believe it's a waste of money"
> 
> Border patrol wants the wall. Who is more of a border specialist than border patrol? Who is the border specialist that he speaks about? It's for sure not the people on the Frontline because they have already stated their favor in the wall.


They were against the wall since 2012, and only as of a couple weeks ago have they declared their support for the wall.  Hard to take their new position as anything but politically expedient, and they don't give good reasoning in support of that position, either.


----------



## 210modz (Jan 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not everyone is being a lazy fuck, there are people actually continuing to work without pay.  And you're right, walls did work.  In the 7th century.  The fact is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive via plane and simply overstay their work visas, and a wall would just drive that number up further.
> 
> 
> They were against the wall since 2012, and only as of a couple weeks ago have they declared their support for the wall.  Hard to take their new position as anything but politically expedient, and they don't give good reasoning in support of that position, either.



OH so now the ones that aren't working are "lazy fucks". Put that shoe further in your mouth. The stupid is leaking out even more. 

The left was has cried about the border crises for decades. But now they want to open the flood gates. This isn't about the wall. This is about their hatred towards the man that was elected. You obviously also fit into that catagory. Your "facts" on how illegals get over here are misconstrued. Just because it looks good to you when you type it doesn't make it factual. The gang members and alot of the bad crowd don't come by visa. They hop the border because they wouldn't get accepted for entry into the U.S. you can argue all you want. You are just stating opinions. There is no sustenance to your argument. You are just just mad that daddy Trump made your little vagina sandy. The wall will be built and I will make sure to make a poll on how sandy the vaginas are then.


----------



## nashismo (Jan 15, 2019)

Build casinos, hotels and resorts on the WALL and then it pays for itself, gives mexicans work at the same time, everybody happy 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



YetoJesse said:


> I remember this video of a colored man (I'm lazy, so my simple minded self would define him as a black man, others might call him 'African American' or whatevz) talking to a white millenial that was publicly ranting about trump being a racist and screwing everything up due to the news saying what not. In response, the other man said 'Thanks to Trump, unemployment rates in the black communities went down' he even went and said numbers were better than when Obama was president.
> 
> That being said, the only things I hear about America regarding Donald Trump are:
> A. How bad Trump is, regarless of what he does. he's bad, even if it's something he said ages ago or whatever the situation. anything he says is bad.
> ...



You are missing the fact that 80% of the media and 100% of Hollywood are socialists and that media conglomerate lies every day to light the fire of hate towards a business man who became president, a someone who they cannot control. In the end is all about the money, they cannot control the money (president) and these people enrage, well they killed Kennedy for his policies, no big surprise. But this time their wet dream is that someone hate filled (by the brainwashing media) could kill him in their behalf, washing their hands, I see it pretty clearly.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 15, 2019)

210modz said:


> Does it directly effect you? It directly effects my household and I'm 100% for it. It's basicly a paid holiday. Everyone will eventually get paid for time that they did not even work. You people are always looking for something to cry about. It usually doesn't even effect you nor do you know anything about what you speak of but hey you are soo edgy.


We call out lies where we see them.

Oh, and...how about we stay on-topic a bit? Attempting to make this about me isn't going to change anything.


----------



## Fugelmir (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Reality would like a word with you.
> 
> ...or are you saying that shutting down the government and putting 800'000 people on unpaid jobs somehow increased his popularity since december?



I wouldn't pin the shutdown entirely on him and I definitely don't think his voting block does.  If he actually succeeds in getting the funding here with this risk, he's gonna see a massive surge.  Like the most correct analysts posit:  *if he gets the wall built, he will guarantee his 2nd term.*

By comparison, our government and liberal prime minister is losing us jobs with *more *regulation.  Anyway, (shāʾa llāh إن شاء الله‎) someone needs to clone him and replace world leaders with his clones.


----------



## cdcrossy (Jan 15, 2019)

fuck it ive got enuff lego ill build it lol


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2019)

210modz said:


> The left was has cried about the border crises for decades. But now they want to open the flood gates. This isn't about the wall. This is about their hatred towards the man that was elected. You obviously also fit into that catagory. Your "facts" on how illegals get over here are misconstrued. Just because it looks good to you when you type it doesn't make it factual. The gang members and alot of the bad crowd don't come by visa.



From where I sit the open border set is a fairly small segment of whatever the US cares to deem left wing politics these days. If you want to laugh at them then allow me to join you in that. Border controls are and enforcement is still wanted. The question is, and always was, would building, manning and maintaining a high wall (as in high enough to need big boy foundations and construction methods) across that crazy a length and hostile conditions (or land possibly not even owned by them, and without infrastructure to bring big lorries to it) provide any kind of value for money, and could such things be spent more effectively (if indeed increased security is necessary and it is not better spent on something else the government cares to handle). If you are going to break things down into types of would be border botherers (something I would do as well in assessing the potential efficacy) then it gets even more fun as the numbers are fewer, and gangs probably do have the funds to do a tunnel or boats if the people needed for their enterprises can't be bred/created there or lack the papers to go by more legitimate means (either fronting as a businessman or by having papers and training abroad).

"facts" wise Xzi appears to have endorsed the following
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/6836...tion-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us
It cites recent data from the department of homeland security and the customs and border protection which outside of a magic mirror are about as accurate as we are likely to get. If you have something better then please do share with the class.


----------



## mrdude (Jan 15, 2019)

I'll tell you something, as much as some of you people dislike Trump. He's the only president I can think of that does what he says he's going to do - or at least he tries to. He also talks straight and gives a straight answer to a question - unlike 99.9% of politicians that waffle on for ages but don't actually give an answer to a question that's been asked of them.

Like or hate him, he's the only president who's been able to talk to North Korea and try to bring a bit more peace and stability to that part of the world. Also he's for America and puts them first (especially for trade), which all good leaders should be doing. Put your own people first before anyone else.

That's from an outsiders of USA view of him. I hope he gets his wall and your country makes it harder for economic migrants & gang bangers to enter your country from the south.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2019)

mrdude said:


> I'll tell you something, as much as some of you people dislike Trump. He's the only president I can think of that does what he says he's going to do - or at least he tries to. He also talks straight and gives a straight answer to a question - unlike 99.9% of politicians that waffle on for ages but don't actually give an answer to a question that's been asked of them.
> 
> Like or hate him, he's the only president who's been able to talk to North Korea and try to bring a bit more peace and stability to that part of the world. Also he's for America and puts them first (especially for trade), which all good leaders should be doing. Put your own people first before anyone else.
> 
> That's from an outsiders of USA view of him. I hope he gets his wall and your country makes it harder for economic migrants & gang bangers to enter your country from the south.



But if said straight talk is bollocks and based on not much reason it counts for not a lot. Similarly I wish politicians would go back to waffling -- so called soundbite politics seems to have become the order of the day this last decade or more. Waffling at least could be picked apart.

North Korea wise I am not seeing it. He managed to contain the trouble of the day but results wise it seems to be business as usual (give or take China pulling back a tiny bit). Said China thing might also couple with the isolationist thing to see them have to try something as a matter of simple economics.

"For America". Are not most politicians this? A trade focus (or places where long distance shipping is a thing) is but one of many options (foreign policy, infrastructure, domestic issues, war, international relations all being other options). Similarly depending upon how you want to view it ensuring your own people are not starving and have a roof over their head is one thing*, and if you can raise your position on the international stage instead of ploughing that money into a circle (as opposed to generating new wealth by international trade or something) then that is a different matter.

*the different levels and responsibilities of government is a fun one, some reckoning social programs and infrastructure are not the domain of the government (what is typically dubbed right wing in the US supposedly favouring less government intervention outside of law enforcement and military matters).

"I hope he gets his wall and your country makes it harder for economic migrants & gang bangers to enter your country from the south."
Is a wall likely to be that effective here? If they could flick a switch and have the latter happen I am sure many would, however the billions it is likely to cost to pull it off many have to question if it is better spent elsewhere, and it would seem that is what we are discussing here (or trying to at least).


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 15, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> I wouldn't pin the shutdown entirely on him and I definitely don't think his voting block does.  If he actually succeeds in getting the funding here with this risk, he's gonna see a massive surge.  Like the most correct analysts posit:  *if he gets the wall built, he will guarantee his 2nd term.*


Hmm...there is certainly something to be said on that. I won't lie: I'm a very stern believer that Trump caused the shutdown, and I'm sure you've heard the arguments for this stance as well. But that doesn't make me right because indeed: if Pelosi and Schumer would've agreed, the government would be open (or not even had shut down in the first place).

Still, that doesn't change what I replied to you. You said that Trump's more popular than Obama in this point in his presidency. I pointed out that he was a good 6 or 7% points behind Obama (and the worst in tallied history) in december. So in order for your statement to be true, he would have needed to bridge that difference since then. Honestly: that seems unlikely. Even if this wasn't his fault, it still remains so that he's in command of a government in crisis. A self-inflicted crisis if you ask me (illegal immigration is steadily dropping since 2000), but that's up for debate.

Can you please tell me why he would see a surge in popularity if he manages to get the funding?  His most loyal fans will certainly stand with him, but from what I perceive, the rest of the US voting public doesn't have little to celebrate. I've said it before: the only way he can keep his election promise is if he can persuade Mexico to pay for it. I honestly think that the majority of swing voters will remember that part of the promise, and will feel betrayed rather than helped by whom they voted for.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...there is certainly something to be said on that. I won't lie: I'm a very stern believer that Trump caused the shutdown, and I'm sure you've heard the arguments for this stance as well. But that doesn't make me right because indeed: if Pelosi and Schumer would've agreed, the government would be open (or not even had shut down in the first place).



the only other person besides trump who caused the shutdown is McConnell.

There was a bill with unanimous support, ready to be signed.
Donald said he wouldn't. So Mitch is not even putting it to a vote (which should have been 100-0 passed) because it would force Donald to veto it and then force republicans to veto his veto.

These two are the ones who carry this. No one else.

And jesus, can you imagine if a president actually got away with this level of terrorism to get funding for anything against the wishes of both parties and the largest part of the nations inhabitants?


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> But that doesn't make me right because indeed: if Pelosi and Schumer would've agreed, the government would be open (or not even had shut down in the first place).



The government shutdown in December because Trump first said he'd take a spending bill without funding on the wall then flipped on that position.  Yes, if Democrats were on board with the wall a lot earlier, the shutdown might not have happened.  However, it's precisely the fact that Trump waffled that caused the Republican controlled Congress to go home for Christmas break and left the Democrat controlled House to come in on January to try to negotiate with Trump over spending, or not, for a wall.

It's precisely this current scenario which is why such a claim of a wall == 2nd term could hold true.  If the wall had been funded and no shutdown occurred, it wouldn't have meant much.  At this point, it's no longer about getting things done or effective governance.  It's all about getting your opponent to blink first and expecting voters to bet on the winners.  Republicans did it to Obama.  Sadly, regardless of whether it's a legitimate disagreement on policy or power politics, Democrats are doing it to Trump.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 15, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> The government shutdown in December because Trump first said he'd take a spending bill without funding on the wall then flipped on that position.  Yes, if Democrats were on board with the wall a lot earlier, the shutdown might not have happened.  However, it's precisely the fact that Trump waffled that caused the Republican controlled Congress to go home for Christmas break and left the Democrat controlled House to come in on January to try to negotiate with Trump over spending, or not, for a wall.
> 
> It's precisely this current scenario which is why such a claim of a wall == 2nd term could hold true.  If the wall had been funded and no shutdown occurred, it wouldn't have meant much.  At this point, it's no longer about getting things done or effective governance.  It's all about getting your opponent to blink first and expecting voters to bet on the winners.  Republicans did it to Obama.  Sadly, regardless of whether it's a legitimate disagreement on policy or power politics, Democrats are doing it to Trump.


You don't need to remind me: I'm very aware that Trump was running without serious opposition for nearly two year. Of course, shouting "it's all the republican's fault" doesn't sound very convincing when it's your own party blocking your pipe dream.

But I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that Trump deliberately delayed his wall-idea until the democrats won midterm so there would be more of a showdown going on? 

(I'd reply with "nobody can be THAT stupid"...but he got the most v...but he got the votes where they mattered before. So...I don't know).


----------



## kuwanger (Jan 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> You don't need to remind me: I'm very aware that Trump was running without serious opposition for nearly two year. Of course, shouting "it's all the republican's fault" doesn't sound very convincing when it's your own party blocking your pipe dream.
> 
> But I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that Trump deliberately delayed his wall-idea until the democrats won midterm so there would be more of a showdown going on?



As I understand it, in 2017 his party rebuked the wall idea--probably because it would have made their chances of reelection much worse, less than 25% of Republicans supported funding it--and Trump then said he would veto the next major spending bill--I assume not counting military spending--unless it included funding for the border wall.  So, in 2017 he "fought" for it for a while but gave up on it.  Then in 2018 when it was clear Republicans (and Democrats) still didn't want to pay for the wall, he waffled again.

What happened next?  Trump caved and it was a media frenzy, especially from his own base, on how readily he gave up on his MAGA promise.  So, whether it was a fear of losing his base or purely ego, he waffled back into at that point was a shutdown because by then Congress had already mostly left.  That it's now turned into the predictable Democrats to be blamed to rally his base?  I think that was pure luck on his part as he's tried to manage damage control.  The reality, of course, is everyone that's not his base--which includes most Republican politicians--can trivially see that first he caved to his own party, then to his base.

Of course, this point speaks to the oddity of the current situation.  On the one hand, there's some clear truth to the notion of a "deep state" except that it's really a Republican-Democrat Duopoly state where both parties jockey over their own positions with only some related moves towards fulfilling their constituents wants.  So, we elect a President that's more in line with the actual representation of at least some significant minority of the population--as half of people don't vote and elections usually show a win of 49%:45% or the like--, but he has little power to a Congressional base that's more interested in the status quo because that's the path least likely to lose them their job.

tl;dr - I only wish Trump was actually so smart instead of just a sniveling coward politician.  He thinks all he has to do is play to his base and enough Republicans will support him over the Democrats.  I wonder if the "deep state" Republicans will chose to not nominate him come 2020.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2019)

210modz said:


> OH so now the ones that aren't working are "lazy fucks". Put that shoe further in your mouth. The stupid is leaking out even more


I can understand not showing up for work if you aren't getting paid, but if the expectation is that you will get paid, you might as well work for it.  The bigger point here is that "forced vacation" is not actually vacation.  Nobody is out partying it up in early January with the government shut down.



210modz said:


> The left was has cried about the border crises for decades. But now they want to open the flood gates. This isn't about the wall. This is about their hatred towards the man that was elected.


The fuck are you talking about?  "The man that was elected" is the one that chose to shut down the government, not the left.  I can post a video clip of Trump taking credit for the shutdown about ten times in a row if you want me to.



210modz said:


> You obviously also fit into that catagory. Your "facts" on how illegals get over here are misconstrued. Just because it looks good to you when you type it doesn't make it factual. The gang members and alot of the bad crowd don't come by visa. They hop the border because they wouldn't get accepted for entry into the U.S. you can argue all you want. You are just stating opinions. There is no sustenance to your argument.


@FAST6191 posted a source with the facts that pretty much everybody bases their information on.  Your speculation remains sourceless and without merit.  If you actually wanted to reduce illegal immigration, you would be angriest at the people that employ illegals, because as long as there are positions open for them, they'll keep coming here, wall or no.



210modz said:


> You are just just mad that daddy Trump made your little vagina sandy. The wall will be built and I will make sure to make a poll on how sandy the vaginas are then.


Again, Trump has zero leverage here.  The longer the shutdown goes on, the lower his numbers drop.  Everybody knows who to blame for this temper tantrum.  I don't know what magical fix you expect Trump to pull out his ass, but if the Democrats haven't caved yet, they aren't going to.


----------



## fiis (Feb 9, 2019)

If people need a wall they should pay. The wall will not affect me at all.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 11, 2019)

Well, it's a democracy or so as they say, right? Trump and Trump supporters.

Also, if US/Guaidó attempt to drill thru Venezuela they will not succeed. Venezuela will not become another Libya.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 11, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Well, it's a democracy or so as they say, right? Trump and Trump supporters.
> 
> Also, if US/Guaidó attempt to drill thru Venezuela they will not succeed. Venezuela will not become another Libya.


The thing is that Trump supporters were led to believe that Mexico would pay for it. Acting on the basis that someone else pays for things tends to give different results (I bet most if not all democrats wouldn't mind getting a free wall next to their country). The most democratic approach in this situation would be holding a fundraiser for the project.

Perhaps kickstarter can prevent a second shutdown? 

Oh, and...I'm not sure what that second paragraph is about (Venezuela is a couple thousand kilometers away from the premisse), but maybe it's better to start a second thread about it.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 20, 2019)

From a standpoint, it makes sense US would want to have walls but they're forgetting that Mexico is a country that cares about its people and security so the US govt is targeting the wrong people. The whole "Mexicans" have been dragged through the mud so much that many think "Mexicans" and "Latinos" exist to replace them.

Neither 'Mexican' nor 'Latino' are races. Mexican is a nationality and Latino/a (male/female) is a person who has Latin ancestry but anyone who supposedly looks or speaks some sort of Spanish is "Latino" so the lines have been blurred very much.


----------

