• 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!

Democrats say no border wall and no voter ID

Mycroft said:
LOL!!

You haven't proved anything. You asked for something. I provided it. If you dispute what Trump said, then trot out your objections. Or don't.

Your choice.
Click to expand...

I showed you a direct quote of him stating a deal will pay for it, and then showed you why it wouldn't work.

You are being dishonest right now. Trying to save face. You're twisting in the wind.

Like I said, put up or shut up.

Now go through every point on that archived website, show trump specifically stating it somewhere either in a video or even a tweet. Go on. You speak with such confidence in these matters, it should be easy for you.

It was easy for me to show you how much you were full of ****. Should be easy for you...
 
Mycroft said:
I think he trolls the media for sport. Entertainment, you know.
Click to expand...

You think...

Or it's just (in your mind, and your mind alone) a good way to dismiss any counterpoints you don't agree with.

"When he says things that don't make me look stupid, its the truth. When he says things that make me look stupid its trolling. har har."

**** that.

Get honest or get gone.
 
Grand Mal said:
You approve of that?
Click to expand...

Of course he does, makes it convenient for him to say, "He was just trolling, so I dismiss your argument." with no proof of trolling.

It's weakness. Pure weakness.
 
Grand Mal said:
You approve of that?
Click to expand...

Sure. Considering the stuff the media does to him out of sheer hatred, the least he could do is troll them for sport.

He's not being mean about it like they are.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, maybe not to the 'Trump side' but certainly away from the Democrat party, and rightfully so. They've lurched to the left all the way to looney tunes land.
Click to expand...

Lesse: the voter fraud commission snipe hunt disbanded, found nada. We’e did fine without a wall for a long time and illegal immigration had been down. Solutions (tinged with race) in search of a problem.

Nada means nothing, by the way.
 
Mycroft said:
Sure. Considering the stuff the media does to him out of sheer hatred, the least he could do is troll them for sport.

He's not being mean about it like they are.
Click to expand...

Uh, "enemy of the people". The last time I remember reading that phrase it was coming from the Stalin regime and was the justification for horrendous crimes. Think about that term. Enemy of the people. You might want to call that stuff 'trolling' but that's not what it is at all. It's vile in a way nobody has been toward Trump.
Your boy is about the worst thing that's happened to your country since I don't know when.
 
Mycroft said:
Sure. Considering the stuff the media does to him out of sheer hatred, the least he could do is troll them for sport.

He's not being mean about it like they are.
Click to expand...

Calling them the enemy of the people is mean. You’re a hypocrite as well.
 
Grand Mal said:
Uh, "enemy of the people". The last time I remember reading that phrase it was coming from the Stalin regime and was the justification for horrendous crimes. Think about that term. Enemy of the people. You might want to call that stuff 'trolling' but that's not what it is at all. It's vile in a way nobody has been toward Trump.
Your boy is about the worst thing that's happened to your country since I don't know when.
Click to expand...

And the media has said far worse in reference to Trump.

The only difference is that they are not trolling.

In any case, let me know when Trump actually takes "horrendous action" against the media. (and when you do, please try to dial down the hyperbole, eh?)
 
Mycroft said:
And the media has said far worse in reference to Trump.

The only difference is that they are not trolling.

In any case, let me know when Trump actually takes "horrendous action" against the media. (and when you do, please try to dial down the hyperbole, eh?)
Click to expand...

Indeed.

The 'news' media (DNC political propaganda arm) that laughingly and incredibly calls itself impartial, unbiased and fair. No, their reporting is little more than a cruel joke inflicted on the nation and its people. Hard to imagine this from a 'friend' of the people, don't you think?

Especially when held in contrast to journalistic standards, that the majority of them literally don't adhere to.
Especially when held in contrast to their envisioned and intended role, namely, informing the electorate and speaking truth to power.

Present day media is falling woefully short of the mark, much to their discredit and deserved of scorn.
 
Mycroft said:
And the media has said far worse in reference to Trump.

The only difference is that they are not trolling.

In any case, let me know when Trump actually takes "horrendous action" against the media. (and when you do, please try to dial down the hyperbole, eh?)
Click to expand...

What has the media said about Trump that's 'far worse'? And mainstream media only, please, not some fringe, radical-left publication.
I wouldn't call it horrendous, though some would, but Trump, far as I know, is the only President who ever pulled a white house correspondent's pass. Not even Nixon, with his relationship with the press, ever did that. A President dictating who may and who may not report on his press conferences is pretty friggin' bad. Trust me, it is, even if you've become so inured to Trump's childish tantrums that it sounds normal to you.
 
Logical1 said:
With Pelosi and Schumer, they say no border wall, and no voter ID. When are they going to quit putting criminals ahead of American citizens. That kind of thinking is driving more and more people over to the Trump side every day.
Click to expand...

We can only hope. I don't require that anybody agree with me or do it as I think it should be done in order to be acceptable. But when elected leaders of the country put partisan politics ahead of what is right for the country, they must be opposed. They have no reason to give a damn about what is right so long as their partisan base supports them no matter what.

But if we can keep making it known that we want common sense and practical action using logic, reason, and being respectful but loud enough that we can't be ignored, we can hope there are still enough thinking people out there to make a difference. They want re-election more than they hate President Trump.
 
Why are democrats so against voter ID?
 
Grand Mal said:
What has the media said about Trump that's 'far worse'? And mainstream media only, please, not some fringe, radical-left publication.
I wouldn't call it horrendous, though some would, but Trump, far as I know, is the only President who ever pulled a white house correspondent's pass. Not even Nixon, with his relationship with the press, ever did that. A President dictating who may and who may not report on his press conferences is pretty friggin' bad. Trust me, it is, even if you've become so inured to Trump's childish tantrums that it sounds normal to you.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

You have to be living with your head in the sand to not know of the "far worse" from the media.

Here's one recent example:

 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

You have to be living with your head in the sand to not know of the "far worse" from the media.

Here's one recent example:

Click to expand...


I don't open video links. I pay for bandwidth.
Does MSNBC call Trump 'the enemy of the people' in that clip?
 
OscarLevant said:
Start, and be specific as to how Mexico will pay for it.

If you are talkin' tariffs, no, that won't do it, either.




Got anything else?
Click to expand...

It is estimated that the illegals are sending billions of U.S. dollars back to Mexico every year. And that doesn't count the billions in cost of drug and human trafficking that is rampant. The boost to Mexico's economy is almost certainly the reason their government fears neither tariffs or any other punitive measures we might take. They LIKE all that lovely money pouring into their country and don't have any incentive to stop it. And it is estimated that the cost of having the illegals here is in no way offset by the small contribution they make to our economy--the cost of providing them free medical care, free education for their kids, free legal services, dealing with the criminal element among them, etc. etc. etc. almost certainly adds even more billions to the total.

If a wall even stopped SOME of that, let alone most which it probably would, the cost of the wall would be a real bargain. And Mexico would be paying for it.
 
OscarLevant said:
Start, and be specific as to how Mexico will pay for it.

If you are talkin' tariffs, no, that won't do it, either.

Got anything else?
Click to expand...

There are import and export tariffs, no? Anything else? Maybe closing the border, starting with the heavy crossed San Diego crossing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is estimated that the illegals are sending billions of U.S. dollars back to Mexico every year. And that doesn't count the billions in cost of drug and human trafficking that is rampant. The boost to Mexico's economy is almost certainly the reason their government fears neither tariffs or any other punitive measures we might take. They LIKE all that lovely money pouring into their country and don't have any incentive to stop it. And it is estimated that the cost of having the illegals here is in no way offset by the small contribution they make to our economy--the cost of providing them free medical care, free education for their kids, free legal services, dealing with the criminal element among them, etc. etc. etc. almost certainly adds even more billions to the total.

If a wall even stopped SOME of that, let alone most which it probably would, the cost of the wall would be a real bargain. And Mexico would be paying for it.
Click to expand...

A wall sufficient to put a small dent into the problem you describe would cause tens of billions estimates are upwards to 50 maybe 70 billions of dollars.

Drugs can flow over under and around any wall and the money behind drugs would easily afford such efforts. So it's not the wall in principle it's the cost-benefit analysis it's just not there.

Because the legalization of marijuana has done more to stop the flow of marijuana coming from Mexico than any wall my recommendation is to make all drugs legal.
This would completely undermine the drug cartels in Honduras Guatemala and El Salvador and they would have to find more productive work, maybe grow and sell something legal like kratom
 
Last edited:
Sabre said:
There are import and export tariffs, no? Anything else? Maybe closing the border, starting with the heavy crossed San Diego crossing.
Click to expand...

Closing the Border would stop all Commerce going to and from the border and the tens of thousands of citizens who live in Mexico and work in San Diego etcetera etcetera closing the border is simply not feasible. Read the article I linked to on tariffs it doesn't work.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is estimated that the illegals are sending billions of U.S. dollars back to Mexico every year. And that doesn't count the billions in cost of drug and human trafficking that is rampant. The boost to Mexico's economy is almost certainly the reason their government fears neither tariffs or any other punitive measures we might take. They LIKE all that lovely money pouring into their country and don't have any incentive to stop it. And it is estimated that the cost of having the illegals here is in no way offset by the small contribution they make to our economy--the cost of providing them free medical care, free education for their kids, free legal services, dealing with the criminal element among them, etc. etc. etc. almost certainly adds even more billions to the total.
Click to expand...

I've heard the opposite. Usually it's best if you can include reputable sources to support your assertions.

If a wall even stopped SOME of that, let alone most which it probably would, the cost of the wall would be a real bargain. And Mexico would be paying for it.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence from reputable sources which support the idea that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall is a cost effective strategy for limiting illegal immigration and drug smuggling, or are you just making things up?
 
JustHanging said:
I've heard the opposite. Usually it's best if you can include reputable sources to support your assertions.




Do you have any evidence from reputable sources which support the idea that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall is a cost effective strategy for limiting illegal immigration and drug smuggling?
Click to expand...

A wall, however cruel in that case, between east and west Germany was quite effective. Some did beat it but most didn't try. Walls have been almost 100% effective in keeping militant Palestinian terrorists out of Israel. The Democrats have easily voted for that and other walls in the Middle East that they considered effective. It is only one that President Trump wants that 'won't work' it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom