• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fools' Wall

Nickyjo said:
I am leery of calling anything absolute proof, or a person a racist, but consider:

- Nixon admin sued him for housing discrimination
- his reported comment about not wanting black accountants, preferring short guys with yalmulkes
- his paying thousands for ads suggesting the death penalty for black suspects later proven innocent
- his comments about Muslims, and the ridiculous notion of banning them
- his ignoring of European or Canadian illegals who have overstayed their visas. (No doubt some rapists among them, as well as good people.)

There is probably more. I assume Trump probably couldn't care less about race. But he uses race and racist-like comments to divide us. He is the reverse of some on the left who go down similar roads. Only they don't speak for the entire country as a head of state does.

Grow up, Donald. It's not minorities, uppity women, the media, democrats... You gotta admit, at least sometimes, it's you.
Click to expand...

-The Nixon administration (snicker) Its funny that they never looked to see where the demographic line for this his so called housing discrimination was. Not to mention it wasn't up to him directly as to who lived in all of his buildings, but his name is on it some everything is his fault anyway right. I guess we can arrest the owners of the Hershey bar company for every rapist they employ as well.

-When you say reported comments its either one of two things. One being a joke he said at a party, that someone took way too seriously. Or someone is pulling way more out of context then was even there. The only validity I can even lend to this comment is that he has said in the past that in his experience, Jewish lawyers have always proven to be a better choice.

-The men were later proven guilty correct. So your basically calling him out on having a stance against their claims on innocence at a time when a multitude of people though they were guilty... (This one you did not think through) Because if he had advocated for the death penalty after their innocence was common knowledge, that is when it would really be a bad thing.

-Okay I would like a citation on this one, because I would like to see some of these ridiculous comments, and where exactly it was stated by him that he was trying to entirely ban Muslims. Because plenty of countries not on the list have Muslim populations, so why were they not on the list? Not to mention the fact that it wasn't entirely his list, but one cooked up by the Obama administration, and the fact that it wasn't even a ban.

-You can say he ignored it yes, though I would admit that the more pressing matter was the illegal element coming across the boarder. Seeing as that accounted for more of a volume then the visa overstays, and one of the selling points of his campaign was the wall. So not a lot of people touched on the visa overstays as well, not even his opponents did for that matter. I can remember Ted Cruz saying something as an off note, but his voice was pretty much side-lined before the primaries got even remotely close.
 
Oborosen said:
80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | HuffPost

Its funny how many people on here like to open their mouths, without even one cursory search.
Click to expand...

Except that story from 2014 was about Central American women not Mexicans and the rapists were guides, bandits or Govt. officials not just other migrants. It is more about the lack of law and order and the scum that prey on these poor women along the way and in no way makes Mexicans more likely to be rapists than any nationality. The fact that you don't see that is telling.

Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants, bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
Except that story from 2014 was about Central American women not Mexicans and the rapists were guides, bandits or Govt. officials not just other migrants. It is more about the lack of law and order and the scum that prey on these poor women along the way and in no way makes Mexicans more likely to be rapists than any nationality. The fact that you don't see that is telling.
Click to expand...

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report
Click to expand...

Yes it is telling, though to be honest its funny how when I nit pic at any liberal heavy news post. Using nothing but speculation, and half supported evidence, I get called out for being a Trumette or some stupid crap like that. But that vague rule goes out the window when someone with at least a modicum of common sense post something even remotely close to the topic.

Though you do get a gold star for actually reading it. The majority of left leaning individuals on here just look at the title, and scream "its far-right lunacy or its another one of Trumps blatant lies (even though Trump never said it)"

It still doesn't solve the issue that coming in through the front door of a country is preferable. When climbing through the window can get you raped, arrested, injured and or killed
 
Oborosen said:
No we can be honest that if it was somebody else calling for a better wall to be built, everyone and their mother would jump on that bandwagon. The deciding factor here is that its Trump making the call.
Click to expand...

I disagree on that. Illegal immigration and open borders supporters will oppose a border wall no matter who proposes it. These people want uncontrolled immigration no matter what.Its why every now and then they post idiotic threads like this even though there are examples of walls being effective.
 
jamesrage said:
I disagree on that. Illegal immigration and open borders supporters will oppose a border wall no matter who proposes it. These people want uncontrolled immigration no matter what.Its why every now and then they post idiotic threads like this even though there are examples of walls being effective.
Click to expand...

You have a good point.
Its like people can't just look at the EU and look at what an almost completely unchecked immigration policy will do to your country.

Its sad really.

I think Germany has suffered the most in all of this myself. Though places in Whales are looking pretty bad as is.
 
Oborosen said:
-The Nixon administration (snicker) Its funny that they never looked to see where the demographic line for this his so called housing discrimination was. Not to mention it wasn't up to him directly as to who lived in all of his buildings, but his name is on it some everything is his fault anyway right. I guess we can arrest the owners of the Hershey bar company for every rapist they employ as well.

Will try to cover yr points, but my overall one is he has used racial fears as part of his public political persona. As to the above, good point, and I don't know all the facts. I used to investigate such things. My impression: in the area of employment, an employer may be easily ignorant of a supervisors discriminatory actions. When it came to housing, the tone was set from the top. Don't get your demographic point.

-When you say reported comments its either one of two things. One being a joke he said at a party, that someone took way too seriously. Or someone is pulling way more out of context then was even there. The only validity I can even lend to this comment is that he has said in the past that in his experience, Jewish lawyers have always proven to be a better choice.

Apparently he said, "black guys counting my money, I hate it," indicating his preference for Jews. Give him a pass, tho imagine neither blacks nor Jews amused.

-The men were later proven guilty correct. So your basically calling him out on having a stance against their claims on innocence at a time when a multitude of people though they were guilty... (This one you did not think through) Because if he had advocated for the death penalty after their innocence was common knowledge, that is when it would really be a bad thing.

Post arrest, took out adds in several papers calling for them to die. Another time, another context, that's a call to a lynching. When they were exonerated by DNA and another's confession, Trump had a chance to step up like a man and admit he was wrong, apologize, anything. Adults do this sort of thing, much as he should have apologized over all the birther stuff. ("Can't believe what they are finding in Hawaii.")

-Okay I would like a citation on this one, because I would like to see some of these ridiculous comments, and where exactly it was stated by him that he was trying to entirely ban Muslims. Because plenty of countries not on the list have Muslim populations, so why were they not on the list? Not to mention the fact that it wasn't entirely his list, but one cooked up by the Obama administration, and the fact that it wasn't even a ban.

Dec. 7, 2015, Trump calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Presumably he was told first by advisors and then by the courts that this wouldn't fly, so it evolved into a face-saving ban for a period of time.

-You can say he ignored it yes, though I would admit that the more pressing matter was the illegal element coming across the boarder. Seeing as that accounted for more of a volume then the visa overstays, and one of the selling points of his campaign was the wall. So not a lot of people touched on the visa overstays as well, not even his opponents did for that matter. I can remember Ted Cruz saying something as an off note, but his voice was pretty much side-lined before the primaries got even remotely close.
Click to expand...

Visa overstayers were/are 40% or more of those here illegally. At the time Trump said those words about Mexicans, there had been an increase in deportations under Obama, especially of those who had committed crimes, to the extent that immigration advocates called him the "deporter in chief." In addition, there was, I believe, already a downturn in illegal immigration.

The overall pattern is my point here. Aside from the above examples, there are his comments about Judge Curiel not being objective cause of his Mexican descent, (deemed a textbook racist comment by Ryan) his re-tweeting false information on black on white homicide, and his falsehoods about no vetting of Syrian refugees, a flat out lie about an up to two year process, even more thorough for Syrians, and a lie easily disproven by a simple Internet search at the DOS website or many others. Trump may or may not be racist in his heart. But there are too many examples of his use of fear tinged with bigotry to discount.

This is not a fair-minded man, by all appearances. Years ago, George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, claimed he had lost his first election cause his opponent "out-niggered" him, meaning played on white fears more than George did. He adjusted his message to be more bigoted and won, becoming a symbol of southern resistance to simple Justice. Wallace evolved over the years, to the extent that before his death he apologized to a black congregation in eloquent and moving words. Don't hold your breath waiting for The Donald. Neither will I, but I have my hopes.
 
Glowpun said:
As mentioned earlier, Trump's wall will be useless and a monumental symbol of stupidity. There are more effective ways of doing this, but Trump is beholden to his followers most of whom are the low educated, low informed gullible types-the type of people Trump has more than once said he loves and is on record.

The Mexicans ain't gonna pay for that wall. That embarrasses Trump. So his only recourse? Threaten to shut the government down unless they fund the wall. God forbid it should happen. Right now, Trump has painted himself into a corner. And he realizes it, hence the reason for his threat.

It shall remain to be seen if the Republicans cave in or not. We hope they will develop a backbone and refuse and they must.

My suggestion: Trump's supporters should register themselves with him and they can be taxed for the wall. Americans should not have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
That is a load of irrational nonsense you have there.

They will pay, directly or indirectly.


White House weighing a tax on remittances to Mexico to fund border wall
White House weighing a tax on remittances to Mexico to fund border wall​
 
Nickyjo said:
Visa overstayers were/are 40% or more of those here illegally. At the time Trump said those words about Mexicans, there had been an increase in deportations under Obama, especially of those who had committed crimes, to the extent that immigration advocates called him the "deporter in chief." In addition, there was, I believe, already a downturn in illegal immigration.

The overall pattern is my point here. Aside from the above examples, there are his comments about Judge Curiel not being objective cause of his Mexican descent, (deemed a textbook racist comment by Ryan) his re-tweeting false information on black on white homicide, and his falsehoods about no vetting of Syrian refugees, a flat out lie about an up to two year process, even more thorough for Syrians, and a lie easily disproven by a simple Internet search at the DOS website or many others. Trump may or may not be racist in his heart. But there are too many examples of his use of fear tinged with bigotry to discount.

This is not a fair-minded man, by all appearances. Years ago, George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, claimed he had lost his first election cause his opponent "out-niggered" him, meaning played on white fears more than George did. He adjusted his message to be more bigoted and won, becoming a symbol of southern resistance to simple Justice. Wallace evolved over the years, to the extent that before his death he apologized to a black congregation in eloquent and moving words. Don't hold your breath waiting for The Donald. Neither will I, but I have my hopes.
Click to expand...

First of all the quoting in your post is off, someone else's post has been mixed in.

Saying it was deemed a textbook racist comment by someone, still doesn't prove it was a racist comment. Personal opinion is always going to be a deciding factor, and I've seen people get fired over saying some rather straight faced, and on the nose words (Niggardly is not a racist term, I don't care what anyone says.. its in the damn dictionary)

All rants aside though, I have come to accept that Trump is biased & bigoted in a few things he says. Though I lend that to him just being an old begrudged man, who actually reminds me somewhat of my grandfather. Who was not a racist man, but would say things that were frankly a product of his time. I see the same in Trump, and I'm able to look past what it is he is saying in more favor for understanding what he means. (Too bad only his damn thumbs adjusted to 21 century)


George Wallace is really rather extreme to bring up in this instance, both people being separated by extreme ideals, and frankly nearly a whole different age between the two. I can respect that Trump speaks off the cuff, and will tell you something to your face, or if he has to, verbally put you in your place. Though I don't see him getting as angry, or as loud as he did in the past.. then again he isn't as orange either, so maybe their is a coloration there.

Like I said before about the Visa overstays, they amounted to something. But I think it fell to the side as everyone dog piled on the whole wall idea, and a good talking point was just dropped to the dirt.
 
katzgar said:
Please go troll somewhere else

Like in the middle of the Atlantic
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Please don't make baiting comments like this.
 
Glowpun said:
As mentioned earlier, Trump's wall will be useless and a monumental symbol of stupidity. There are more effective ways of doing this, but Trump is beholden to his followers most of whom are the low educated, low informed gullible types-the type of people Trump has more than once said he loves and is on record.

The Mexicans ain't gonna pay for that wall. That embarrasses Trump. So his only recourse? Threaten to shut the government down unless they fund the wall. God forbid it should happen. Right now, Trump has painted himself into a corner. And he realizes it, hence the reason for his threat.

It shall remain to be seen if the Republicans cave in or not. We hope they will develop a backbone and refuse and they must.

My suggestion: Trump's supporters should register themselves with him and they can be taxed for the wall. Americans should not have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Personally I am against the wall for many reasons, partly due to environmental concerns but mainly because I believe there are better ways to either stop or significantly reduce illegal immigration. However to play devils advocate here while reading through this thread many have said that its stupid and would be worthless in actually stopping illegal immigration. I have to question that. In 2000 Israel started building a wall along the Gaza bank due to the amount of suicide attacks that were being committed. The number of suicide attacks dropped from 70 some odd attacks in 2000 (which killed hundreds and injured almost 1900) to 9 attacks by 2009. At least that is the numbers that I remember reading about several years ago. Seems to me that walls work in keeping unwanted people out of areas. Yeah, they're not the end all be all of stopping illegal immigration, but it seems to me that it would be helpful far more than so many that are against it are willing to admit.

And just to reiterate, I am against the wall. Period. I too once thought it was a good idea. I have since decided against it in favor of other ways that would more than likely be far more effective if actually enforced.
 
Glowpun said:
As mentioned earlier, Trump's wall will be useless and a monumental symbol of stupidity. There are more effective ways of doing this, but Trump is beholden to his followers most of whom are the low educated, low informed gullible types-the type of people Trump has more than once said he loves and is on record.

The Mexicans ain't gonna pay for that wall. That embarrasses Trump. So his only recourse? Threaten to shut the government down unless they fund the wall. God forbid it should happen. Right now, Trump has painted himself into a corner. And he realizes it, hence the reason for his threat.

It shall remain to be seen if the Republicans cave in or not. We hope they will develop a backbone and refuse and they must.

My suggestion: Trump's supporters should register themselves with him and they can be taxed for the wall. Americans should not have to pay for it.
Click to expand...


A physical wall may not be the best idea but be careful not to use terms like "ain't," which Merriam Webster defines as "... more common in the habitual speech of the less educated," right after you accuse others of being "...low educated, low informed gullible types..."

It greatly reduces your position.

That said, I agree that a physical wall is a mistake, at least along the entire border. The best scenario would be for Mexico to offer to help control illegal immigration from their side in exchange for greater LEGAL immigration opportunities. As it is, they're refusing to assist with the problem, which means they'll be hit with higher trade costs and more stringent regulations, which will end up costing them quite a bit.
 
HowardBThiname said:
A physical wall may not be the best idea but be careful not to use terms like "ain't," which Merriam Webster defines as "... more common in the habitual speech of the less educated," right after you accuse others of being "...low educated, low informed gullible types..."

It greatly reduces your position.

That said, I agree that a physical wall is a mistake, at least along the entire border. The best scenario would be for Mexico to offer to help control illegal immigration from their side in exchange for greater LEGAL immigration opportunities. As it is, they're refusing to assist with the problem, which means they'll be hit with higher trade costs and more stringent regulations, which will end up costing them quite a bit.
Click to expand...

One problem with Mexico controlling migration is that the right to leave your country is pretty much absolute. I don't think their constitution would allow it, though obviously the right to leave does not mean the right to enter another country. As noted before, we have a land border between a very rich country and a relatively poor one, possibly unique in the world. In addition, our blue collar wages are lower than in many industrialized nations and we have weak unions, thus our society has many jobs that are not that attractive to citizens and legal residents. No less a person than Cesar Chavez campaigned against non-enforcement of immigration laws, due to the use of illegals to break strikes in agriculture. He took a lot of flack for that and changed his position.

Just heard that rebuilding Houston will require many more construction workers than we have. Have to assume that many of those who rebuild will be here illegally.

Severe steps to curtail illegal immigration is generally unpopular with democrats. Attempts to raise wages or strengthen unions are unpopular with republicans. Ergo, no solution. Until Trump, both parties supported free trade, meaning among other things, the ability of capital to cross borders seeking a better return on its investment. I have heard that US penetration into Mexico's corn market was devastating to small farmers there, thus increasing the pressure to migrate to Mexico City or El Norte (great movie, by the way). The undocumented are acting like small businesses, investing their labor where it brings a greater return. A contradiction rarely pointed out. It is "an act of love" as one republican (Jeb Bush?) noted. Also rarely pointed out is that many Latino migrants come from El Salvador and Honduras, fleeing not hunger, but gang violence, which in El Salvador's case, could arguably be traced back to its civil war and US intervention.

The one constant is US employers' appetite for cheap labor, whether barbaric (slavery) or contracted (the "wartime" bracero program which lasted til 1964) or through legal immigration (of Irish and Italians and Jews 100 years ago) or illegal immigration currently. Money talks.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Yeah, I continue to look for the research that supports Trump's obsession for building his wall.

What exactly is it going to accomplish?

Why is Trump's wall the best course of action and compared to what?

What are the projections regarding results?

How and when will they be measured?

What are the projected negative outcomes?
Is the rest of the nation willing to replace the large financial losses that may be incurred by Texas, Arizona and California due to loss of trade?

These are a few questions I'd like for Trump Wall advocates to answer. Hell, I'd love the Trump Administration to answer them. We know, however, that the Trump Administration does not rely on data and research.
Click to expand...

Oh, they rely on focus grouped data.

Polling for "message" effectiveness, etc.

Not that trump.lets them get one going good before he torpedoes it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom