Schumer says Dems won’t budge on Trump wall demand

JasperL said:

Yeah, I listened, and still the basic question, "What is a 'wall' is assumed there but unanswered. The story has images of bollard fencing. She talks about how she's "prioritized" spending on new sections of "wall" but no one can point me to this document or to Trump's proposal.

No one is arguing we don't need barriers, and we HAVE hundreds of miles of barriers in place, right now, so when she says, "We certainly need a wall" well, of course we need BARRIERS of various kinds but what does that mean? It appears she's adopted the language of Trump - the "wall" - to mean really anything that goes up as a barrier, but you can understand the confusion when Trump talks about the "wall" and what it means to him (these hundreds of miles of concrete rising 30 feet into the air) versus the fencing we see going up which isn't anyone's definition of a "wall" and it is nothing like the prototypes built and evaluated last year.

If we want to call any improvement or enhancement of existing barriers a "wall" to soothe Trump's childish ego, and say, "Yes, Mr. President, here's your precious wall" I'm good with that. But that still isn't an actual case for anything, much less the need to fund $5 billion of improvements or else.

Click to expand...

You're being silly. Most likely deliberately evasive and demanding more details because you're running on empty. You demand to know details of what The Wall will look like, where, when, and deployed by whom it's planned to be deployed. Yet you didn't even know what's happened so far.

Perotista said:

Interesting. We'll see what happens. One thing I have noticed quite a lot over the last 10-15 years is that if the Republicans propose something, the Democrats are automatically against it. If the Democrats propose something, the Republicans automatically oppose it. Very little thought is given to the merits of the proposals. It's who proposes them that counts.

Time will tell.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth to that but there are a number of very important issues in which the majority of each party agrees such as criminal justice, reform, immigration, and infrastructure

The Bollard Fencing is fine and if DHS has its head about it, that is what will be in its proposal, an integrated system for Border Security including some amount of new Bollard Fencing.

Its the 1,100 miles that appears to be in the still to be completed DHS proposal that will be an issue even if in fact they want new Bollard Fencing as part of an integrated solution. 1,100 miles is not just months of eminent domain and property purchase negotiating with land owners that are at best split over the whole idea of some big Wall abutting what is now in the main their property. It won't be a matter of months unless you want to avoid saying that about 24 months of negotiating and court action is actually two years.

bubbabgone said:

Where doesn't it work?

Click to expand...

China, Berlin, various prisons throughout history, castles.

Do I need to go on?

All of those walls failed to some extent.

And they were all put in place to keep people that want or need something out (or in).

There was a draw of some.kind. Mongols wanted in, prisoners wanted out.

And they figured out a way.

Human ingenuity defies attempts to stop people.from.getting what they want/need. Every time. We spent billions and ruined countless.lives on the drug war and never even managed to make them more expensive.

So a multi-billion dollar wall might help for a while.

Demanding that our "leaders" deal with the draw, by actually going after employers or putting pressure on Mexico to deal with their income/wealth disparity issues would be more effective.

End the draw of jobs or reduce the depth of poverty.

We won't do the former because too many donors enjoy the cheap labor and scapegoats. Nor the latter, as that would cut into donor profits in Mexico.

But both of those are "hard" targets. Algorithms could find employers. The numbers can't add up. The next time people in Mexico rise up we could just let them do as we did 200 years ago instead of helping Mexico put them down.

But all of the above is based on reason.

And "build the wall" isn't about reason. It is about emotion. That's what Bannon and Cambridge Analytica was looking for when they focus-grouped the term before trump was even running.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CBAB&usg=AOvVaw2VkM7ze6AC4XYrhuGCsuHt&ampcf=1

They chose it because it elicited the desired emotional response. And it worked. Just watch tapes of trumps campaign speeches. Every time he lost his train of thought he simply used one of these phrases. And the crowds went wild, never noticing his loss of direction. Because their brains were flooded with the chemicals of emotion.

So, no.

A wall is stupid. Better, cheaper solutions are available.

Feeding a desire for more happy juice is not a good reason to spend billions and billions of dollars on a monument to stupid.

What if...? said:

China, Berlin, various prisons throughout history, castles.

Do I need to go on?

All of those walls failed to some extent.

And they were all put in place to keep people that want or need something out (or in).

There was a draw of some.kind. Mongols wanted in, prisoners wanted out.

And they figured out a way.

Human ingenuity defies attempts to stop people.from.getting what they want/need. Every time. We spent billions and ruined countless.lives on the drug war and never even managed to make them more expensive.

So a multi-billion dollar wall might help for a while.

Demanding that our "leaders" deal with the draw, by actually going after employers or putting pressure on Mexico to deal with their income/wealth disparity issues would be more effective.

End the draw of jobs or reduce the depth of poverty.

We won't do the former because too many donors enjoy the cheap labor and scapegoats. Nor the latter, as that would cut into donor profits in Mexico.

But both of those are "hard" targets. Algorithms could find employers. The numbers can't add up. The next time people in Mexico rise up we could just let them do as we did 200 years ago instead of helping Mexico put them down.

But all of the above is based on reason.

And "build the wall" isn't about reason. It is about emotion. That's what Bannon and Cambridge Analytica was looking for when they focus-grouped the term before trump was even running.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2VkM7ze6AC4XYrhuGCsuHt&cf=1

They chose it because it elicited the desired emotional response. And it worked. Just watch tapes of trumps campaign speeches. Every time he lost his train of thought he simply used one of these phrases. And the crowds went wild, never noticing his loss of direction. Because their brains were flooded with the chemicals of emotion.

So, no.

A wall is stupid. Better, cheaper solutions are available.

Feeding a desire for more happy juice is not a good reason to spend billions and billions of dollars on a monument to stupid.

Click to expand...

Yes. You need to go on. Your examples are absurd. Those walls served their purpose against whom they were intended and the intended then weren't what we're talking about today.

I already said that those other actions should be taken also and for good reasons ... some that you mentioned. I also explained why they wouldn't ... for bipartisan reasons you neglected to mention.

The Wall would have the most immediate effect wherever it's built.
That's undeniable by serious people without an agenda.

What if...? said:

So why a wall?

Y'all couldn't stop drug smugglers. Not even enough to drive prices up. Drugs are one of the few things that haven't seen inflation even. Still cost about the same they did thirty years ago.

The airplane rendered walls ineffective.

Hell, a guy with a convertible defeated the German wall repeatedly, driving under the barrier.

Ever see a zipline?

I could go on...

And "build the wall" is just a Bannon focus grouped phrase:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2VkM7ze6AC4XYrhuGCsuHt&cf=1

Chosen because it elicited the desired emotional response in the target demographic.

Which you obviously belong to.

Click to expand...

The Great Wall of China.The Berlin Wall.The Wall just built in Israel.
What are you just being a purposeful contrarian.You and them dems are not
on the side of strength here.In fact,ironically and purposefully dealing from a position
of weakness.True Americans do not cotton that.Ever watch a classic cowboy movie.
The Good Guy almost always wins.There's the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.
Just because Obama the Demagogue made it fashionable to implement _ Rules for Radicals _
while mouthing Doublspeak does not mean a majority of Americans bought into it.
They obviously didn't.That's why Donald Trump Won over a Majority of America.
Take California away from Hilary { she collected over 4.5 Million more votes than Trump
in California } and Trump dominated the United States.30 Governorships and counting.

bubbabgone said:

You're being silly. Most likely deliberately evasive and demanding more details because you're running on empty. You demand to know details of what The Wall will look like, where, when, and deployed by whom it's planned to be deployed. Yet you didn't even know what's happened so far.

Click to expand...

It's pretty funny how you and others keep accusing me of being deliberately evasive, and insulting me, instead of just, you know, pointing to these documents I'd find if I was interested in finding them and I wasn't so intellectually dishonest.

Perotista said:

Interesting. We'll see what happens. One thing I have noticed quite a lot over the last 10-15 years is that if the Republicans propose something, the Democrats are automatically against it. If the Democrats propose something, the Republicans automatically oppose it. Very little thought is given to the merits of the proposals. It's who proposes them that counts.

Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Well, 12 years ago a slew of Democrats signed onto the Safe Fencing Act. Does that not count?

On this topic, it also matters a great deal that it's Trump demanding his precious wall. It's very difficult for Democrats to join hands with a guy who just spent the midterms running inflammatory, anti-immigrant ads and ginning up fear of immigrants with the caravan nonsense. He campaigned telling everyone that voting for Democrats is voting for criminals, gangs, murderers, terrorists and spreading disease, for starters. And now he wants the same people who repeatedly and gleefully maligned with no regard to facts - just classic fear mongering - to give him his ask on the wall, and to assume that the guy who operated in bad faith during the election should now be trusted as a partner.

Surely you can see how big a bind that puts Democrats. They have a majority in some large part BECAUSE voters rejected Trump's divisive rhetoric on immigration. How can Democrats join hands and sing kumbaya with that guy, when his negotiating tactic so far is "GIVE ME MY MONEY!! OR ELSE!!" and who lied like a dog even in that little press debacle. He's not an honest broker and you cannot be surprised that dishonest brokers aren't the best political allies.

joko104 said:

At least Schumer doesn't deny he doesn't give a damn about the USA or Americans, it is all about fighting against the President.

This is fairly simple. Illegal immigration is an issue the Republicans win. Healthcare is an issue Democrats win. Schumer has now agreed the top issue will be immigration for which the Democratic Party demands open borders, with the Republican President vowing to protect our borders.

This may be a very foolish gamble for Schumer and Pelosi to take for 2020 elections, but time will tell. If you want unlimited illegal immigration by anyone and to reward foreign criminals throwing rocks at law enforcement, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican. Rather simple to understand.

Click to expand...

Trump and the right-wing media spent 2 months hammering that issue (with great help from the caravan) and LOST.

I guess concern about health care Trumped fear of the brown horde.

Pssst. No one of any significance wants "open borders". That's just a fear mongering slogan.

bubbabgone said:

Yes. You need to go on. Your examples are absurd. Those walls served their purpose against whom they were intended and the intended then weren't what we're talking about today.

I already said that those other actions should be taken also and for good reasons ... some that you mentioned. I also explained why they wouldn't ... for bipartisan reasons you neglected to mention.

The Wall would have the most immediate effect wherever it's built.
That's undeniable by serious people without an agenda.

Click to expand...

It's not undeniable. Or if it is undeniable, you have evidence, so present it.

JasperL said:

It's pretty funny how you and others keep accusing me of being deliberately evasive, and insulting me, instead of just, you know, pointing to these documents I'd find if I was interested in finding them and I wasn't so intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

I already did and you insisted on more details from the person in the video.
Yet you never offered any details for an argument about why a Wall would not affect illegal immigration.

JasperL said:

It's not undeniable. Or if it is undeniable, you have evidence, so present it.

Click to expand...

I said it was "undeniable by serious people without an agenda."

foolardi said:

The Great Wall of China.The Berlin Wall.The Wall just built in Israel.
What are you just being a purposeful contrarian.You and them dems are not
on the side of strength here.In fact,ironically and purposefully dealing from a position
of weakness.True Americans do not cotton that.Ever watch a classic cowboy movie.
The Good Guy almost always wins.There's the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.
Just because Obama the Demagogue made it fashionable to implement _ Rules for Radicals _
while mouthing Doublspeak does not mean a majority of Americans bought into it.
They obviously didn't.That's why Donald Trump Won over a Majority of America.
Take California away from Hilary { she collected over 4.5 Million more votes than Trump
in California } and Trump dominated the United States.30 Governorships and counting.

Click to expand...

He did NOT win over a majority of America. He won the electoral college.

Care to explain why orrin hatch tried to eliminate the employer sanctions way back right after the Reagan amnesty?

Why has no one on EITHER side gone after the criminals stealing Americans jobs and giving them to illegals?

Why the focus on the desperate illegals? Why not on those drawing them here in the first place? Breaking numerous laws in the process.

Seems pretty "weak" to me that lobbyists and special interests got YOUR wide to turn a blind eye for decades.

And want taxpayers to pay for a wall.

On a small part of the border. That MUST be manned or they'll just go over. Or under. Or around.

Like the smugglers they never even hindered.

Israel and the east Germans have/had to man their walls full time. And Israel now deals with rockets and many people got past east germany's wall too.

Ask the Chinese about the Mongols. They got through their wall.

JasperL said:

Well, 12 years ago a slew of Democrats signed onto the Safe Fencing Act. Does that not count?

On this topic, it also matters a great deal that it's Trump demanding his precious wall. It's very difficult for Democrats to join hands with a guy who just spent the midterms running inflammatory, anti-immigrant ads and ginning up fear of immigrants with the caravan nonsense....

Surely you can see how big a bind that puts Democrats. They have a majority in some large part BECAUSE voters rejected Trump's divisive rhetoric on immigration. How can Democrats join hands and sing kumbaya with that guy, when his negotiating tactic so far is "GIVE ME MY MONEY!! OR ELSE!!" and who lied like a dog even in that little press debacle. He's not an honest broker and you cannot be surprised that dishonest brokers aren't the best political allies.

Click to expand...

The press debacle was Trump's best shot, given that the two Democratic leaders were never going to fund a wall behind closed doors. However, it was risky and now it has hardened positions to the point that I doubt they would even fund fencing.

A more talented and graceful debater, and a deftness for behind the scenes arm twisting, might have secured greater progress. For example, when Nancy said fences are okay and lets discuss it in private TRUMP should have jumped on that - "As fences are walls with holes in them, that's progress. Okay so lets discuss wall-fences in private, as you suggested".

He got something in public, take it and run. If Trump came out of private negotiations with coast to coast double or triple fencing, that would also work. As he did with Schumer who at offered some kind of trade for DACA, Trump didn't take his gains and at least memorialize it for future bargaining.

Trump's art of bargaining has always been weird, and as many who have dealt with him in business can attest to.

bubbabgone said:

Yes. You need to go on. Your examples are absurd. Those walls served their purpose against whom they were intended and the intended then weren't what we're talking about today.

I already said that those other actions should be taken also and for good reasons ... some that you mentioned. I also explained why they wouldn't ... for bipartisan reasons you neglected to mention.

The Wall would have the most immediate effect wherever it's built.
That's undeniable by serious people without an agenda.

Click to expand...

And if we went after employers, the wall would be moot by the time it was completed.

All y'all talk like it'll just magically appear. It will take YEARS to build.

You just want it because dems don't. And you assume that Republican donors are gonna give up their cheap labor, wage depression and scapegoats. Which is painfully naive. If they wanted to deal with the "problem" they would have done it decades ago. By using the supply side solution. The job supply.

You are seriously claiming that no other solution will work when the wall gores all the same oxen, if it works.

Which means, as congress does as donors dictate, that they don't really intend to build any wall but just use the issue as political capital.

As I said, its an emotional response researched and paid for.

You just want it because dems don't. Makes you feel like you're "winning".

Reason says that if they didn't deal with the issue up until now, they aren't going to.

Even with a wall.

Its smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

Bannon and the Mercers got a good return on his focus groups.

That's where "build the wall" came from. Trump only started using it after they took over the campaign.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CBAB&usg=AOvVaw2VkM7ze6AC4XYrhuGCsuHt&ampcf=1

Persuasive messaging targets emotions. It isn't based on facts or reason. When Cambridge Analytica focus grouped it they weren't testing how people already felt, what they believed to be true. Just how they responded emotionally to the message at hand.

I know this technology works and I am basically just using y'all to demonstrate this to others reading these threads.

As y'all steadfastly ignore anything but "build the wall". Dismiss any other option. You are addicted to the chemicals hearing the phrase releases in your brains. And you will reject anything that threatens that supply.

Like realizing you've been had.

bubbabgone said:

I already did and you insisted on more details from the person in the video.
Yet you never offered any details for an argument about why a Wall would not affect illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

The person in the video didn't say anything. She's prioritized it. Great. Let's see it. What kind of person says, "Give me $5 billion!" and the basis for that is someone saying, "Yeah, sure, we can spend it!"

bubbabgone said:

I said it was "undeniable by serious people without an agenda."

Click to expand...

Again, if it's undeniable there is evidence that any reasonable person must accept. What's this evidence?

What if...? said:

And if we went after employers, the wall would be moot by the time it was completed.

All y'all talk like it'll just magically appear. It will take YEARS to build.

You just want it because dems don't. And you assume that Republican donors are gonna give up their cheap labor, wage depression and scapegoats. Which is painfully naive. If they wanted to deal with the "problem" they would have done it decades ago. By using the supply side solution. The job supply.

You are seriously claiming that no other solution will work when the wall gores all the same oxen, if it works.

Which means, as congress does as donors dictate, that they don't really intend to build any wall but just use the issue as political capital.

As I said, its an emotional response researched and paid for.

You just want it because dems don't. Makes you feel like you're "winning"....

Click to expand...

A lot of sweeping emotive statements, however not exactly fair. Those of us who were engaged on this hot-button issue long before Trump was a Republican know that the proposed solutions came to a head under Bush - realizing that control could only be established through a combination of measures aimed at border obstacles and fences, mandatory E-Verify, Visa biometric tracking, and robust punishment of offenders on many levels.

For some, the Wall is a solution. For many others, "the wall" is a place holder label for far more than a wall, for a multi-layered system. Whatever the view of wall supporters, they DON'T support it because Democrats don't. Border security has been a hot issue since the 1980s when Reagan and Democrats and Republicans tried the idiotic amnesty was suppose do solve illegals - we know how that turned out.

The wall resonates because of what it stands for, not because somebody used a focus group to discover that resonance.

JasperL said:

The person in the video didn't say anything. She's prioritized it. Great. Let's see it. What kind of person says, "Give me $5 billion!" and the basis for that is someone saying, "Yeah, sure, we can spend it!"

Click to expand...

You never offered any details for an argument about why a Wall would not affect illegal immigration. Let's see it.
I should tell you that I knew from the beginning you were playing the "Prove it would" game after being asked for evidence of your claim that a Wall wouldn't work and not being able to do it.
Sometimes I like to see how far a person will go to avoid the unavoidable so I played along.
You took it pretty far and never deviated but you should realize that when you keeping taking that same approach there will come a time when everyone notices.
That time has passed.
If you had nothing to offer in defense of your position you probably shouldn't have started in the first place ... and certainly not have continued.

What if...? said:

And if we went after employers, the wall would be moot by the time it was completed.

All y'all talk like it'll just magically appear. It will take YEARS to build.

You just want it because dems don't. And you assume that Republican donors are gonna give up their cheap labor, wage depression and scapegoats. Which is painfully naive. If they wanted to deal with the "problem" they would have done it decades ago. By using the supply side solution. The job supply.

You are seriously claiming that no other solution will work when the wall gores all the same oxen, if it works.

Which means, as congress does as donors dictate, that they don't really intend to build any wall but just use the issue as political capital.

As I said, its an emotional response researched and paid for.

You just want it because dems don't. Makes you feel like you're "winning".

Reason says that if they didn't deal with the issue up until now, they aren't going to.

Even with a wall.

Its smoke and mirrors. Nothing more.

Bannon and the Mercers got a good return on his focus groups.

That's where "build the wall" came from. Trump only started using it after they took over the campaign.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2VkM7ze6AC4XYrhuGCsuHt&cf=1

Persuasive messaging targets emotions. It isn't based on facts or reason. When Cambridge Analytica focus grouped it they weren't testing how people already felt, what they believed to be true. Just how they responded emotionally to the message at hand.

I know this technology works and I am basically just using y'all to demonstrate this to others reading these threads.

As y'all steadfastly ignore anything but "build the wall". Dismiss any other option. You are addicted to the chemicals hearing the phrase releases in your brains. And you will reject anything that threatens that supply.

Like realizing you've been had.

Click to expand...

If you had a Wall, by and large those other solutions would be unnecessary.
But the best part about the Wall is its permanency.
Once it's up folks like a President Beto or Congressman Cortez would be unable to legislate against an existing physical barrier.
But they could loosen any rules put in place by those other solutions.

You seem to be freaking out about Bannon for some reason. He really must be a Svengali to have exerted such influence over Schumer, Hillary, and Obama. Wow.

maxparrish said:

A lot of sweeping emotive statements, however not exactly fair. Those of us who were engaged on this hot-button issue long before Trump was a Republican know that the proposed solutions came to a head under Bush - realizing that control could only be established through a combination of measures aimed at border obstacles and fences, mandatory E-Verify, Visa biometric tracking, and robust punishment of offenders on many levels.

For some, the Wall is a solution. For many others, "the wall" is a place holder label for far more than a wall, for a multi-layered system. Whatever the view of wall supporters, they DON'T support it because Democrats don't. Border security has been a hot issue since the 1980s when Reagan and Democrats and Republicans tried the idiotic amnesty was suppose do solve illegals - we know how that turned out.

The wall resonates because of what it stands for, not because somebody used a focus group to discover that resonance.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the spittle free response.

But there are some problems with your position.

Such as Hatch trying to eliminate employer sanctions from Reagan's amnesty right after it passed.

Why not just a $5000 a head fine with a ten percent reward?

Do you think former Uber drivers would turn in every landscaper and hotel using illegals in short order?

Do you think employers would continue to use them if this was the policy? That the risk would be worth the savings in labor costs? That illegals would continue to come in such numbers if they knew no work would be available? That they wouldn't be easy to find if they only had welfare and panhandling to support themselves?

The fact that this "simple" solution has never been implemented puts the lie to the whole "problem".

The right steadfastly says "Mexican "criminals" BAD!" "American "criminals", uh shut up liberal, BUILD THE WALL!"

They need to put up or shut up. Simple as that.

bubbabgone said:

If you had a Wall, by and large those other solutions would be unnecessary.
But the best part about the Wall is its permanency.
Once it's up folks like a President Beto or Congressman Cortez would be unable to legislate against an existing physical barrier.
But they could loosen any rules put in place by those other solutions.

You seem to be freaking out about Bannon for some reason. He really must be a Svengali to have exerted such influence over Schumer, Hillary, and Obama. Wow.

Click to expand...

The dems are stupid and dishonest on this issue too.

You'll notice that my solutions don't spare the illegals. They would end up deported

So I'm not condoning the behavior.

What I am doing is making the point that if those in power blame some major problem on the powerless, they are lying to you.

Do you honestly believe that the republican donors who enjoy cheap labor are going to let that labor go away?

Or that Americans are going to stand for the dramatic increase in cost of living getting rid of illegals would cause?

None of this passes the three year old test.

Ask "Why?" just a couple of times and the whole house of cards comes down.

I understand that your position is that neither side will deal with the problem but a wall will.

If they didn't deal with it before, why now?

Nothing has changed in the dynamics. We just have a bunch of emotion based posturing around "build the wall". Which is what those doing those focus groups were looking for.

You yourself are clearly emotionally attached to it. You honestly believe that the expensive solution that won't even be in place for YEARS is the most important thing to do. Must be done FIRST.

Here's my take:

There was never any real intention to build a wall. It was just propaganda.

They'll continue to ring that bell until the right stops salivating (they will eventually).

Then the proposal will fall by the wayside and if challenged as to why they'll say it was the liberals fault.

Because the donor class has spent a LOT of money over the years making sure congress never did anything serious about the issue.

Why would they allow something that would work now? Why this when by your own admission neither side will do anything else about it.

JasperL said:

Well, 12 years ago a slew of Democrats signed onto the Safe Fencing Act. Does that not count?

On this topic, it also matters a great deal that it's Trump demanding his precious wall. It's very difficult for Democrats to join hands with a guy who just spent the midterms running inflammatory, anti-immigrant ads and ginning up fear of immigrants with the caravan nonsense. He campaigned telling everyone that voting for Democrats is voting for criminals, gangs, murderers, terrorists and spreading disease, for starters. And now he wants the same people who repeatedly and gleefully maligned with no regard to facts - just classic fear mongering - to give him his ask on the wall, and to assume that the guy who operated in bad faith during the election should now be trusted as a partner.

Surely you can see how big a bind that puts Democrats. They have a majority in some large part BECAUSE voters rejected Trump's divisive rhetoric on immigration. How can Democrats join hands and sing kumbaya with that guy, when his negotiating tactic so far is "GIVE ME MY MONEY!! OR ELSE!!" and who lied like a dog even in that little press debacle. He's not an honest broker and you cannot be surprised that dishonest brokers aren't the best political allies.

Click to expand...

Just check and see how many times { democrats and Hollywood elites } have uttered sheer
hatred of a sitting President.It's way beyond historical,this degree of blatant hatred and bias
against a guy who truly loves America and wants it's Restored to it's greatness.Starting with
our Military where Obama purposedfully emasculated it and neutered when and where ever
possible.Under Obama we also had a neutering of Marriage and the very idea'r of a Nuclear Family.
Watch the almost ridiculous automatic response to run to the floor of congress or a mic
by those like Pelosi and Schumer and little Adam Schitt in order to lambaste this President.
That was NEVER ... as in Never done to Obama.
Not even John Boehner who Obama used as his tool boy and accused of threatening to shut
down the government unless he got his spending cuts { 2011 and Political battle over Sequestration }.

JustHanging said:

They don't build 25+ billion dollar walls, a wall that will cost billions/year to maintain, in unpopulated areas, and expect those walls to stop people. Nope. That would be idiotic, which is likely why an idiot (according to many top government officials) or moron (take your pick) like Trump thought it was a good idea.

Anyone who knows they are going to be needing a thirty foot ladder will likely be carrying one, or the materials to make one. Honestly, they aren't that complicated, although let's face it, there will soon be an abundance of used ladders along the wall.



Yeah, building a 25+ billion dollar wall that can be defeated by a $25 ladder isn't silly at all. SMH. Is it any wonder China is catching up to the USA so quickly?

EDIT: Remember when Trump thought it was a good idea to put solar panels on the wall? :lamo No wonder Trump is a laughing stock around the world.

Click to expand...

If a substantial wall in "an unpopulated area" will not stop illegal aliens then how will a lesser wall or fence do so without greatly increased personnel in the area 24/7? How does that save any money? The ladder argument is an absurd one as walls would soon go out of existence if they could simply be defeated by ladders. There is also no rational argument to be made for having a wall, fence or barrier that can easily be defeated WITHOUT a ladder. Yet, that is what you argue for.

maxparrish said:

A lot of sweeping emotive statements, however not exactly fair. Those of us who were engaged on this hot-button issue long before Trump was a Republican know that the proposed solutions came to a head under Bush - realizing that control could only be established through a combination of measures aimed at border obstacles and fences, mandatory E-Verify, Visa biometric tracking, and robust punishment of offenders on many levels.

For some, the Wall is a solution. For many others, "the wall" is a place holder label for far more than a wall, for a multi-layered system. Whatever the view of wall supporters, they DON'T support it because Democrats don't. Border security has been a hot issue since the 1980s when Reagan and Democrats and Republicans tried the idiotic amnesty was suppose do solve illegals - we know how that turned out.

The wall resonates because of what it stands for, not because somebody used a focus group to discover that resonance.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the problem. It's a bright, shiny object and not a solution, but a symbol. The GOP told you and the rest of us how much they care about illegals when they stripped mandatory e-Verify from the immigration bill and.....nothing passed.