The Trump Shutdown

[DC Tom]

Poll Finds 100% Of Americans Blame Shutdown Entirely On Colorado Representative Scott Tipton

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Yes.  In the middle of Lake Erie.

 

You still have to report to customs. I think he meant legally.  I think...........

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

13 minutes ago, Logic said:

 

 

Speaking of running way from posts filled with information and data...

Care to comment on the post I made today citing numerous facts and statistics pointing out the futility and ineffectiveness of the wall?

It included multiple quality and difficult-to-refute points and well reasoned arguments -- most coming from conservative outlets, no less -- and neither you nor any other seemingly wall-supporting person said a peep. 

The assumed moral and intellectual superiority -- not to mention hypocrisy -- of many on this forum is staggering. 

Their answers were: "No, we don't like thinkpieces. Also, here is a survey of government employees."

 

Yes, I am going out of my way to insult them. I am being the gadfly. But I try to provide fact checked info, try to make sure that I am not pulling dreck from liberal rags. 

 

I was once asked, "Why are you so upset."

 

Like you have found, it was, as you put it: "assumed moral and intellectual superiority -- not to mention hypocrisy" of what I have found.

 

Also....let's get back on track from the Wall stuff:

 

Trump has still shut down the government. The House keeps passing the Senate approved bills, if McConnell will let it go to a vote. 

 

McConnell and Trump remain the biggest reasons for the shutdown. Wall negotiations can still happen without the collateral damage. Trump just seems to think that he should include that in his bargaining price.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Their answers were: "No, we don't like thinkpieces. Also, here is a survey of government employees."

 

Incorrect. 

 

Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Yes, I am going out of my way to insult them. I am being the gadfly. But I try to provide fact checked info, try to make sure that I am not pulling dreck from liberal rags. 

 

It's all you have left to offer, since you're unwilling to converse honestly or openly. You don't fact check your sources, you regurgitate only those sources which speak to your preformed conclusions on any matter. It's your track record to date down here, and it's piss poor. 

 

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

I was once asked, "Why are you so upset."

 

Like you have found, it was, as you put it: "assumed moral and intellectual superiority -- not to mention hypocrisy" of what I have found.

 

Wait, you mean the guy who calls those who disagree with them "white nationalists" without evidence isn't speaking from a place of assumed moral and intellectual superiority? 

 

Projection and deflection. It's all NPCinPhilly has left. 

 

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Also....let's get back on track from the Wall stuff:

 

Trump has still shut down the government. The House keeps passing the Senate approved bills, if McConnell will let it go to a vote. 

 

McConnell and Trump remain the biggest reasons for the shutdown. Wall negotiations can still happen without the collateral damage. Trump just seems to think that he should include that in his bargaining price.

 

Proving again you're more interested in what the narrative engineers of your party push rather than the truth. 

 

You're terrible at this whole thinking for yourself thing.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Questions for you open border chaps:

 

1) Do you have a door on your house?

2) Do you have walls on your house?

3) Would you (or have you) call the police if someone trespassed inside of your home?

 

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Questions for you open border chaps:

 

1) Do you have a door on your house?

2) Do you have walls on your house?

3) Would you (or have you) call the police if someone trespassed inside of your home?

 

Would you be upset if someone burst into your living room and started raping a 6 year old.

[Chandemonium]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Questions for you open border chaps:

 

1) Do you have a door on your house?

2) Do you have walls on your house?

3) Would you (or have you) call the police if someone trespassed inside of your home?

 

 

 

 

Not an open border chap, but here goes:

1) yes

2) yes

3) I’d call the coroner, but I’m sure the police would come too. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Their answers were: "No, we don't like thinkpieces. Also, here is a survey of government employees."

 

Yes, I am going out of my way to insult them. I am being the gadfly. But I try to provide fact checked info, try to make sure that I am not pulling dreck from liberal rags. 

 

I was once asked, "Why are you so upset."

 

Like you have found, it was, as you put it: "assumed moral and intellectual superiority -- not to mention hypocrisy" of what I have found.

 

Also....let's get back on track from the Wall stuff:

 

Trump has still shut down the government. The House keeps passing the Senate approved bills, if McConnell will let it go to a vote. 

 

McConnell and Trump remain the biggest reasons for the shutdown. Wall negotiations can still happen without the collateral damage. Trump just seems to think that he should include that in his bargaining price.

 

The reality is that you're sourcing opinion pieces, and disregarding data which runs strongly against your biases.

 

And in doing so, you're aiding and abetting the systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children, because you care more about politics and emoting than you do about people.

 

It's ugly, and sad.

 

But it's who you are as a man.

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Questions for you open border chaps:

 

1) Do you have a door on your house?

2) Do you have walls on your house?

3) Would you (or have you) call the police if someone trespassed inside of your home?

 

 

 

 

 

Let me answer the way the liberals look at it

 

1. Yes

2. Yes

3.  Give them a job and free food 

[The_Dude]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Would you be upset if someone burst into your living room and started raping a 6 year old.

 

Must be a Muslim living room. 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

27 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The reality is that you're sourcing opinion pieces, and disregarding data which runs strongly against your biases.

 

And in doing so, you're aiding and abetting the systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children, because you care more about politics and emoting than you do about people.

 

It's ugly, and sad.

 

But it's who you are as a man.

No, I source data that is verifiable, can be cross checked, and also the interpretations of experts in their field.

 

You make up random bull####, and reject reality. And then throw up ***** about "systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children" and then promptly ignore anything that might actually help the problem that isn't in your myopic worldview. You reject the idea that "hey, how about 5.7 billion dollars into something that isn't a waste of money" might be a better idea.

 

You reject any reality that isn't your own, and any solution to the problem that isn't the one you have chosen, no matter how poor yours is equals raping children in your mind.

 

You sicken me. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind, and you are too jaw droppingly stupid to realize it.

Edited January 18, 2019 by WhitewalkerInPhilly

[Chef Jim]

18 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Must be a Muslim living room. 

 

Muslim children are raped more than others?

[Warcodered]

45 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Must be a Muslim living room. 

Or you live in a Catholic Church.

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Again, just wanted to hope back in the parts about how wall is useless, including against the movement of goods. The Cato Institute one is of special note in that regard.

Why are you so against it? Where you against it last year when the dems were for it?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Another brick in the wall

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[TakeYouToTasker]

57 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

No, I source data that is verifiable, can be cross checked, and also the interpretations of experts in their field.

 

No, you actually don't.  Allow me to help you here as you struggle:  You source op-ed pieces, which are anecdotal.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

 

Data is what I have provided:  89% of BP agents support a wall and feel it would make them more effective in their jobs, while only 7% disagree.

 

Further data I provided when you dismissed those 89% of BP agents as "hillbillies with rape fantasies of brown people", was that 52% of border agents are Hispanic.

 

Quote

You make up random bull####, and reject reality.

 

No, what I do is source data.  What you do is post anecdotes and op-eds which don't even entirely support your position.

 

To wit:

 

This article you linked as evidence of your position was an interview with a border patrol agent:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/

 

Ignoring the fact that you argued out the other side of your mouth that border patrol agents were racist hillbilly rapists, and thusly their opinions on the issue shouldn't matter, you asserted that it was evidence of your position because an expert was referenced giving a first hand accounting, and stated that "nothing would stop smuggling and trafficking".

 

A few points:

 

You selectively ignored the fact that:  "Eisenhauer declined to comment on “policy or legislation,” but maintained that the solution to border security requires a combination of technology, infrastructure and agents."  (hint:  infrastructure means a wall)

 

There are no 100% sure methods of stopping human trafficking, but the article cleanly skits around the facts that the quotes being used indicate that wall segments would certainly make it more difficult for slavers:

 

“What we see is, to avoid detection, these criminal networks will try and exploit areas that are more remote... kind of a harsher terrain, with the idea that agents have less of a response time and less of response capabilities there and that there is less tactical infrastructure in those areas,”

 

“Border fortification means a lot of things in different areas,” said Eisenhauer. “In areas where we can’t have a physical structure, we use the environmental challenges to funnel traffic into certain areas to identify and apprehend [individuals] in a more effective manner.”

 

This is exactly what the wall segments being proposed are designed to achieve:  to force traffickers away from these remote and inaccessible areas, and to funnel them towards areas which are easier patrolled and have shorter response times.  It is a creation of the "tactical infrastructure" the agent says is lacking. 

 

Quote

And then throw up ***** about "systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children" and then promptly ignore anything that might actually help the problem that isn't in your myopic worldview.

 

Oh, look, a lie in two parts!

 

I'll address your first lie:  And then throw up ***** about "systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children"

 

This is the single greatest humanitarian crisis we face as a people.  Because of the logistics of human smuggling, the easiest way to get them into the country is through our largely unprotected border with a third world country.  It is far more difficult to bring them in through designated ports of entry which have security check points.  Again, the wall is not a panacea, but rather is a tool, and only part of the solution.

 

As to the nature of the trafficking situation on the border:

 

First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html 

 

https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html

 

Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico 

 

Various government and international organizations:

 

https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border 

  

https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking

 

http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf

 

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking

 

Now for the second part of your lie:  and then promptly ignore anything that might actually help the problem that isn't in your myopic worldview.

 

No where have I argued that the construction of wall segments is the only thing we should be spending money on in regards to the border.  We also need to increase the amount of actual man power, and implement technology that would help such as "ground sensors and infrared and camera technology."

 

Personally, I'm in favor of completely militarizing the border in addition to the wall.

 

Quote

You reject the idea that "hey, how about 5.7 billion dollars into something that isn't a waste of money" might be a better idea.

 

I reject the idea because the experts who do the work of breaking up child trafficking rings every day insist a wall would help them do so; and don't believe that, given a fiscal budget of over 4.4 trillion dollars for the year 2019, that 5.9 billion is too much to spend if it makes the job easier (IE sets slaves free).

 

Quote

You reject any reality that isn't your own, and any solution to the problem that isn't the one you have chosen, no matter how poor yours is equals raping children in your mind.

 

 

 

You sicken me. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind, and you are too jaw droppingly stupid to realize it.

 

 

I believe I've amply demonstrated this not to be the case, and conversely have allowed you to paint yourself as a raving lunatic, dismissive of data, and so dogmatically opposed to the current President of the United States that you would rather see the weakest and most at risk among us suffer at the hands of brutal captors than allow the President a political victory, even when it's the right thing to do in the name of human freedom.

Edited January 18, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

50 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

You reject any reality that isn't your own...

 

So, is your argument that human trafficking does not happen across the southern border? Or do you admit that it's a real problem that impacts millions of lives a year?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

You still have to report to customs. I think he meant legally.  I think...........

Yep!  Waterskiing in Fort Erie.  Didn't get on land.  I guess that's worse.  LoL...

[Koko78]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, you actually don't.  Allow me to help you here as you struggle:  You source op-ed pieces, which are anecdotal.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

 

The real plural of "Data":

 

[IDBillzFan]

9 hours ago, BigMcD said:

FFS just get Mexico to cut the initial check and get going. It’s easy to get them to pay for it. 

 

Yep. Just tell Mexico if we don't build the wall, Canadians will start invading Mexico.

 

They'll HELP build the wall. Because let's face it...not even the Mexicans want anything to do with Canadians.

[B-Man]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, you actually don't.  Allow me to help you here as you struggle:  You source op-ed pieces, which are anecdotal.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

 

 

I believe I've amply demonstrated this not to be the case, and conversely have allowed you to paint yourself as a raving lunatic, dismissive of data, and so dogmatically opposed to the current President of the United States that you would rather see the weakest and most at risk among us suffer at the hands of brutal captors than allow the President a political victory, even when it's the right thing to do in the name of human freedom.

 

 

........Good Lord stop the fight............TYTT over NPC in PHILLY by KO

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

18 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Yep. Just tell Mexico if we don't build the wall, Canadians will start invading Mexico.

 

They'll HELP build the wall. Because let's face it...not even the Mexicans want anything to do with Canadians.

 

We invade with timeshares in Cancun

[Logic]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

You really suck at yourself.

Only in private, and it took a lot of yoga to get to this point.

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You seem not to care about that issue. That's where we differ.

Because I have a differing viewpoint from you, I don't care about the issue? Sure Rhino, whatever you say.

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Would you be upset if someone burst into your living room and started raping a 6 year old.

Good God almighty, you have problems.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

Good God almighty, you have problems.

 

I have problems because you don't recognize the severity of the child sex trafficking epidemic on our southern border?

[Logic]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I have problems because you don't recognize the severity of the child sex trafficking epidemic on our southern border?

You have problems because your ONLY way of attempting to contribute to a debate seems to be to accuse those who think differently than you of condoning pedophilia and rape. 

Enough with that garbage. You're like a broken record. 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

 

So, now that we've established that neither of you are interested in putting an end to modern human slavery and child sex trafficking; what do each of you feel is the acceptable amount of slavery and pedophilia we should have in America?

You pedophobe.

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Again, here are the arguments from people who actually are in charge of preventing human trafficking. 

 

In which they negate the value of a wall to stop human trafficking.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/will-trump-s-border-wall-prevent-human-trafficking-experts-aren-n751466

 

 

 

But you like to ignore them.

 

You stupid Mother *****.

 

As a quick note, the fantasies that you concoct while you stroke yourself do not count as evidence, so...come up with something better.

Uh.  Saying Trumps co doesn't know if it would work with one breath and not quoting her to wuote some other who knows lady from some acronym...  How does that work?  

 

You're taskers B word.  He's in your head and he owns you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Logic said:

You have problems because your ONLY way of attempting to contribute to a debate seems to be to accuse those who think differently than you of condoning pedophilia and rape. 

Enough with that garbage. You're like a broken record. 

 

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else is intentionally condoning slavery, rape, or pedophilia.  What I'm saying is that the policy you support makes way for those things to occur with greater frequency and ease, and that's a hard reality whether you like it or not.

 

So, by taking the stance that you do, you are passively allowing that there is some acceptable level of the occurrence of those things within the United States, balanced against cost.

 

You don't like having that difficult reality pointed out, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

 

 

[boyst]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Again, just wanted to hope back in the parts about how wall is useless, including against the movement of goods. The Cato Institute one is of special note in that regard.

1 article vs anyone anyone can find... I love how one ***** article vs another article arguments go. It's like children at recess, except youre special Ed and taskers B word.

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

*pat pat pat*

 

Awww, it's so cute when he pretends he knows people. He thinks he has friends.

 

Give me data. Give me something that can be independently verified. Because all I've seen from you lot is:

 

"I FEEEEEEEELZ A BORDER WALL WILL WORK. NO, I AIN'T GOT NO PROOF, BUT GRANDPAPPY JIM SAYS THAT BROWN PEOPLE ARE RAPISTS, AND SO DID ORANGE MAN11111 WHY YOU DOUBT ORANGE MAN? yOU HATE AMERICA!!!11111"

 

 

I have almost shat myself laughing at your "feelz" comments, when I keep bringing independently verified facts, and you come with "NUH UH!!!"

 

It is like watching a special ed student try to get into a debate. At first, it's funny, but the more it's just...sad.

I can give you numbers of people I know which would probably get me arrested and them fired, would that do anything for ya?

[Logic]

And another thing, @Deranged Rhino:

You keep talking about how you've "personally talked to people on the southern border about the wall" and they all, "to a man", back you up. My article, citing multiple OTHER articles, stated 

6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So, in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.

7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them. Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually—well after the wall is built—to create a nearly 2,000-mile militarized, 24-hour-surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. 

So, as for the "many people" on the southern border that YOU'VE talked to about the issue who "to a man" want Trump's wall (which, by the way, I guess we're all just supposed to take you word for it that you've had these conversations and that these people actually exist): Not all border patrol agents agree. Yet you speak as though you represent the views of border agents universally. Between that bit of "take my word for it" conjecture and your "I care about it and you don't, that's the difference" line, you're pulling moves that would cause you to laugh your debate opponent off the floor if he tried them. That goes back to my point that you suffer from an assumed moral and intellectual superiority and hypocrisy...or as you once called it: Intellectual Dishonesty. And that's not to even MENTION the fact that you easily dismiss reasonable counter-arguments or op-eds as "pushing a narrative", while I suppose YOUR arguments and statements are...WHAT, exactly? Certainly not pushing your OWN narrative, right? Hypocrisy.

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else is intentionally condoning slavery, rape, or pedophilia.  What I'm saying is that the policy you support makes way for those things to occur with greater frequency and ease, and that's a hard reality whether you like it or not.

 

So, by taking the stance that you do, you are passively allowing that there is some acceptable level of the occurrence of those things within the United States, balanced against cost.

 

You don't like having that difficult reality pointed out, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

 

 

May I ask if you consider yourself a Donald Trump supporter?

[DC Tom]

Just now, Logic said:

And another thing, @Deranged Rhino:

You keep talking about how you've "personally talked to people on the southern border about the wall" and they all, "to a man", back you up. My article, citing multiple OTHER articles, stated 

6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So, in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.

 

 

Because nobody in the history of anything has ever looked over a wall before. 

[Logic]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Because nobody in the history of anything has ever looked over a wall before. 

You're an idiot.

[The_Dude]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-ll-send-wall-them-200150051.html

 

Ha!

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

You're an idiot.

 

Ever notice how you have no thoughts of your own, but continually parrot other people's opinions, even to the point of repeating "you're an idiot?"

 

It's a shame you lack the insight to understand how truly ridiculous you are.  The rest of us find it very amusing.

[Logic]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Ever notice how you have no thoughts of your own, but continually parrot other people's opinions, even to the point of repeating "you're an idiot?"

 

It's a shame you lack the insight to understand how truly ridiculous you are.  The rest of us find it very amusing.

Ever notice that you contribute little to any discussion other than personal insults? 

It's not surprising, given your avatar and whatnot. But yeah. You're basically just a parody account.

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, Logic said:

Because I have a differing viewpoint from you, I don't care about the issue? Sure Rhino, whatever you say.

 

From your posts you've made it clear that you believe human trafficking is either not happening or a big enough issue to worry about when talking about the border. If that is incorrect, please expound on your position. 

 

It's hard to argue you care about an issue when you're willing to overlook how this very issue serves to help combat it. 

 

Pointing out that you don't care about this issue, based on your posts, is not an attempt to dismiss your opinion. It's an attempt to wake you up to the actual realities and what this whole mess is really about. 

14 minutes ago, Logic said:

So, as for the "many people" on the southern border that YOU'VE talked to about the issue who "to a man" want Trump's wall (which, by the way, I guess we're all just supposed to take you word for it that you've had these conversations and that these people actually exist): Not all border patrol agents agree. Yet you speak as though you represent the views of border agents universally.

 

This is incorrect. I've always presented it as anecdotal with the purpose of pointing out anyone can do the work I've done. All it takes is the willingness to travel and talk to the people doing the work. 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

Ever notice that you contribute little to any discussion other than personal insults? 

It's not surprising, given your avatar and whatnot. But yeah. You're basically just a parody account.

 

There's no point, as you can't think for yourself and you wouldn't pay attention anyway.  All you've earned are insults.

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Logic said:

Between that bit of "take my word for it" conjecture and your "I care about it and you don't, that's the difference" line, you're pulling moves that would cause you to laugh your debate opponent off the floor if he tried them. That goes back to my point that you suffer from an assumed moral and intellectual superiority and hypocrisy...or as you once called it: Intellectual Dishonesty. And that's not to even MENTION the fact that you easily dismiss reasonable counter-arguments or op-eds as "pushing a narrative", while I suppose YOUR arguments and statements are...WHAT, exactly? Certainly not pushing your OWN narrative, right? Hypocrisy.

 

That'd all be true... If I didn't provide copious amounts of sources and information anyone can vet for themselves. If you bother to read my stuff, rather than react to it, you'd understand my mantra is NOT to "just trust me", but to learn to hone your own discernment and trust yourself - not "experts" or "media outlets" who are not working in your best interests. 

 

It'd also be true if I wasn't always willing to converse, engage, and change my opinion when presented with new information. 

 

All things you've yet to demonstrate yourself down here in the dungeon, despite now over two years of trying. 

[Swill Merchant]

6 hours ago, Logic said:

https://medium.com/s/story/what-happened-when-a-trump-supporter-challenged-me-about-the-wall-e54e86a5edd1?fbclid=IwAR1d_5b4gazBYOJXw-p5LIBoTgCuDuQIlOuaW7hrrruu79u0ajjxcoX90pk


The article above -- which I'm sure most won't click on before calling me an idiot -- uses only conservative sources to point out why the wall is such a bad idea. The pieces cited in the above article are listed below if you want to skip directly to them. They all point to the same fact, though: 

"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in 'extreme danger' and only a wall will make them 'safe.'

Unfortunately, their need to feel safe is much stronger than their will to grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it.

And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn."

 

Cato Institute: “Why the Wall Won’t Work” https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison Donna Wiesner Keene: “The Conservative Case Against a Border Fence” published by U.S. News & World Report.  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money

The Chicago Tribune (a conservative-leaning paper): “Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security”    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html

National Review (conservative magazine): “Trump’s Border Wall Plan Is Ridiculous on Its Face” https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/

I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument.

 

First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials as its sources, and presented it as fact.

 

Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under (obviously).  I'll take them one by one.

 

1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government.

 

2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas.

 

3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers).

 

4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea."

 

So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas.

 

This is nothing everyone did not know already.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Swill Merchant

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That'd all be true... If I didn't provide copious amounts of sources and information anyone can vet for themselves. If you bother to read my stuff, rather than react to it, you'd understand my mantra is NOT to "just trust me", but to learn to hone your own discernment and trust yourself - not "experts" or "media outlets" who are not working in your best interests. 

 

It'd also be true if I wasn't always willing to converse, engage, and change my opinion when presented with new information. 

 

All things you've yet to demonstrate yourself down here in the dungeon, despite now over two years of trying. 

 

Or, to phrase it another way...

 

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There's no point, as you can't think for yourself and you wouldn't pay attention anyway.  All you've earned are insults.

 

I'm not insulting, I'm parsimonious.

1 minute ago, Swill Merchant said:

I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument.

 

First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials its sources, and presented it as fact.

 

Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under.  I'll take them one by one.

 

1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government.

 

2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas.

 

3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers).

 

4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea."

 

So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas.

 

This is nothing everyone did not know already.

 

 

Nothing any person wouldn't have figured out if they'd applied a little...well...logic, ironically.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

May I ask if you consider yourself a Donald Trump supporter?

 

I've addressed this here before, though I'm happy to do it again.

 

I don't support individuals, as I believe the "great man" perspective of history to be dangerous because it lionized cults of personality over the law.  I believe in supporting moral ideals, the protection of human freedom, and positive outcomes towards those ends.

 

I was vocally opposed to the President during the run-up to the election, as I'm a classically liberal rights theorist, and everything I knew about President Trump prior to his election led me to believe that he was a dangerous demagogue, with leftist tendencies, who had no interest in libertarian principals.  I thought he would be the downfall of conservatism in the United States, and would usher in an era of unchecked leftist populism which would be the final nail in the coffin of individual rights and national autonomy.  I voted for Johnson, as he presented himself as the least appalling of 4 terrible candidates.

 

But, as I said, I guided by a belief in human freedom, and rights theory; and as such I chance my stance based on evidence.

 

The President has changed my mind, and has done more for advancing the cause of human freedom both domestically and abroad than any President in my adult lifetime; and I support that.