Trump's wall is about ego and having a politically efficacious talking point, not border security

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Dec 22, 2018.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    and that bank is in ...?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Aruba.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Somewhere that rhymes with "Prussia" would be my guess.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Well, so long as there is a nice golf course nearby.... What about extradition?
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    "Comrade Trump is enjoying his stay in his golden dacha, as a repayment for his services to Mother Russia. I am sure you understand. We wouldn't want to have to take this . . . nuclear, would we?"
     
  9. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    As an outsider, I have some questions if this boarder barrier is so wrong.

    1. Why did the Democrats sign the funding off for the Secure Fence Act 2006 to increase the barrier by 700 miles?

    2. Obama was in for two terms, why didn't he remove it?

    3. Is this current wall debacle just because it's Trump?

    4. Who initially built the barrier, and who's maintained it, just republicans?
     
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    You also answered them. The barrier already exists. Border security is already eating a huge budget all its own, and they'er even willing to add some more - just not that much more. Some of the places where Trump wants to build are extremely contentious. It's far too expensive : the $5 billion he's demanding now is just a down-payment; if they approved it in principle, he'd keep coming back for more. The money is supposed to come from the taxes of the people he's stiffed before and isn't paying right now, while he throws hissy-fits, and he himself has never paid taxes on his highly questionable earnings; and it's unnecessary ---
    and it wouldn't solve anything!!
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  11. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Hmm, if I've answered them, I can't find the answers.

    What are the estimates illegals are costing America on a yearly basis?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Unlikely. Not even the oligarchs want to bank in Russia.
    - - - -
    Some claim "America" is making a profit on them.
    The Dems voted against it 2/1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
    Many Dems voted for it for various reasons, including attempts to get the bigot vote - Dems with national ambitions often thought, at the time, that what we all know as the "Trump voter" could be compromised and reasoned with.
    How?
    Yep. Nobody else wants a wall like this - just Trump and the R- Base. It's too fucking stupid.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Why spend the money to do that? Seems pretty wasteful.
    Partly. Anyone else would not have proposed such a foolish boondoggle.
    Nope. The US government. It was a good attempt, but it just doesn't work. They find about a tunnel a year in San Diego used for smuggling drugs and immigrants - and those are only the poorly hidden ones. There is no doubt that the better hidden tunnels are still operating. Even the triple walls by San Diego are easy to climb. (My wife had to do it once; the kids near the border showed her two places to do it. In one they had dug under it, in the other they had just piled up dirt to make a ramp, then made some handholds.)

    Want to keep immigrants out? Do what works. Patrols, unmanned vehicles, fixed sensors.

    Want to build a wall? No problem. Have Trump go to Mexico, get the check and build the wall, as he promised.

    What? You want MY money to build an ineffective wall just to assuage someone's ego? Sorry, all tapped out.
     
  14. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Wasn't Obama a senator in 2006 and he was one of many that signed the funding off?

    If Democrats dislike the wall, why didn't Obama remove it? In the UK, Labour hate privatisation. Tony Blair was in 13 years and he didn't re-nationalise the utility companies.

    So as why do the left fiercely complain about walls and privatisation but do nothing about it when in office for so long?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Wouldn't surprise me. He had national ambitions, and spent his entire career trying to cut deals and compromise with the shithead Republicans.
    It was already built. Why throw good money after bad? What are you talking about?
    The "left" hasn't had controlling power since before Reagan.
    Maybe you're talking about the Dems, and never heard of Blue Dogs and the like because you are ignorant.?
    Ok: Part of the reason the lefty Dems don't reverse bad Republican policies all by themselves is that they can't. They don't have enough power.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Likely, yes.
    Why waste the money doing that? Nothing wrong with a wall. It just doesn't work, and is not worth the money.
    Conflation alert! Conflation alert!

    One issue is the wall. Doesn't work, as previously discussed.

    Another issue is privatization. For some things (i.e. consumer electronics) it's a great idea. For other things (i.e. roads) it has some good aspects, some bad aspects. For yet other things (i.e. the military) it's a TERRIBLE idea.

    Those are two separate issues.
     
    Xelor likes this.
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Funny - they're right out in the open and I even reiterated them for you.

    There are all kinds of estimates by all kinds of interested parties.
    I'm guessing two things:
    1. immigrants add more value to the US economy than they take out and
    2. illegal immigrants cost a fraction of the money residing in the US than the cost of keeping them out, routing them out and throwing them out.
    I'm sure of one: the whole kerfuffle is a giant stinky red herring.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    that is an emotional construct.

    how is the wall defined by you as an emotional construct("so wrong") rather than a border wall for national security ?

    is "so wrong" able to be used as a reply to your 4 questions ?

    =
    = emotional pre-definition to the question as an emotional value rather than a scientific value.

    this can be duplicated for each of the 4 questions.

    are you attempting to have an emotional debate about a moral issue ?

    if so, could you please state your "moral question" ?
     
  19. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Red:
    Because then-extant circumstances militated for doing so, or at least elected office-holders then thought so.

    Blue:
    Because illegal crossings of the southern border were then, as now, declining and because his administration was going at deportations with a vengeance.

    Pink:
    • If "because it's Trump" means because Trump is the one who proposed installing additional walling on the southern border, yes, ; however, there are surely some people for whom the answer is "no."
    • If "because it's Trump" means because Trump rather than someone else proposed installing additional walling on the southern border, no; however, there are surely some people for whom the answer is "yes."
    Green:
    Who initially voted for, built and maintained the existing southern border bollard fencing is irrelevant to the merit of installing and maintaining more of it.

    While many folks have summarily asserted that a southern border barrier (wall or bollard fencing) is needed, I have yet to see the fence's/wall's most ardent advocate, Donald Trump (his Administration), produce so much as one rigorous and sound/cogent report that credibly quantifies (i.e, in accordance with the accounting principle of conservatism) a positive economic case (reasonably estimable gains exceeding reasonably estimable costs/losses) for installing that wall.

    When Mexico was paying for the wall, I was willing to be somewhat apathetic/acqiescent about its installation. Now that my tax dollars must pay for it, well, there's no way I'm cottoning to that in advance of research and analysis such as that I've above described.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Wow, Trump is really going off the rails. After his rambling, disjointed speech today, even republicans are going to start considering the 25th amendment.

    He started off by coming out of the White House confused and a little breathless. Then he talked about the emerg . . . no, he talked about China and trade. Can we make it better? "Who knows?" Then he talked about the UK, then Syria, then North Korea for a bit. Then without any transition he started talking about the border. That meant he was about to talk about the emerg . . . no, back to the economy. Then the stock market. Then the border. Then he reminisced about how much fun he had at the El Paso rally and how he was a bit annoyed at all the factinistas who pointed out that crime really didn't drop when they put up the wall. But he asked some people at his rally and they say it did, so there.

    Then he launched into his really odd fantasy of "three, four women" tied up with duct tape on their mouths. The border patrol has been looking of any indication that this is a real thing, and so far have found nothing. Perhaps after getting beaten so badly by Pelosi over the border funding issue, he's just having fantasies about taping women's mouths shut?

    Then Israel.

    Then he finally remembered what he was there for. “So, I’m going to be signing a national emergency, it’s been signed many times before.” Then he said it was no big deal. Then he said it was really important. Then he used some dead kids to try to prove his point.

    Then he said he didn't need to declare an emergency. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster.”

    Then he started bragging about how much better China is than the United States because they have a death penalty for people who sell drugs. Note that his "emergency" will take funds away from drug smuggling enforcement. (And for military family housing, but who gives a sh*t about them, right? Certainly not Trump.)

    During the Q+A, a reporter asked him if he was worried that taking money from drug enforcement would cause the problems he claims to want to solve. Trump said that an aide tried to explain all that to him but "it didn’t sound too important to me.”

    Then he claimed that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Obama. Then he left to go golfing.
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    misconception ?
    Regan was an actor. his best role might arguably be playing the president.

    If donny-do-wall can do the same he will feel like a boss

    if he can feel like a boss on national tv then all those wanting to feel like a boss will vote for him because they want to be him.

    add water & stir politics...

    what other presidents were/are actors ?
    reggy-arms-deals-mcdraw
    donny-do-wall
    ...

    note language "foreign actors" attempting to make slang term for actors to be foreign agents and untrustworthy
    same with slagging off all the celebrities supporting the dems.

    when in reality the Reality-TV Actor is the president... he is one... an actor

    just like regan
    what i doubt is donny-do-wall to be happy with some anti-climate change library being named after him.
    i think he probably wants to have his name on some type of war concept(authoritarian power symbology).
    be it guns or a walls etc... space corps would be a nice out for that. but i doubt the republicans are ever going to support the funding knowing they have spent decades attacking nasa and calling them commys etc.


    all the political troll-hags wage open hate on celebrities supporting dems telling them they should not be in politics.
    yet their beloved donny-do-wall and their beloved Regan are the only actors to make it to the presidency
    thus it invalidates their own leaders opinions and voice.

    is it any surprise they are ranting on and on about free speech... lol no

    its quite a sham really. but it works.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's a net profit when you count taxes.
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    problem with partisan US politics is that accounting makes them commys.

    the government is not allowed to make profit according to the republican party so its a poisoned debate set up to fail ideologically.

    the repubs go on and on arguing that govt should not be in the business of business yet they declare it must run as one and hold the citizens to account for its management when the management is mostly managed and run by rich right wing elitist industrialists.

    so its a total sham.

    you cant force the government to make a profit by cutting all its expenses and budgets while skimming all its profit.

    republican ideology is to skim govt profits and cut govt spending

    yet the income of the govt does not increase to match corporate growth standards.

    it is totally in-congruent

    but the logic of the economics seems to be lost on the masses and the politicians in the US bi-partisan political model.
     

Share This Page