• 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!

Donald Trump: Don't change abortion laws

First, part of that wall you say will never be built already has been - and it has been very effective. We just need to finish it.

Second, the chart shows the tsunami is still ongoing. Again according to the chart the problem has grown at least threefold. It appears to have slowed down a little, but is still continuing to grow.

Do you want me to post the video again of girls climbing over the existing wall in 18 seconds, or the story about the wall on some rancher's property doing nothing to stop illegals because they can easily climb it? Detentions on his property more than doubled AFTER the wall was completed.

Unless the entire border is effectively militarized, the Great Wall will do almost nothing - slow them down a few minutes at best. High tech gadget like ladders and ropes will mean it won't stop much unless there are agents all along the border to catch them WHEN they easily climb over.

And the graph shows net illegal immigration since Obama took office of less than zero. That's not a tsunami. It's negative.
 
Building a wall will not solve the problem. It will simply give tunnel makers job security.

The real problem is that Congress doesn't want to solve the problem, and their big donors don't want them to solve the problem.

Once again, just building the wall won't solve the problem. Just denying illegals access to services won't solve the problem. It'll take both and more.

Btw, tunnel makers already have job security. Heck, before there was a wall there were tunnels. LIDAR is a wonderful thing.
 
Do you want me to post the video again of girls climbing over the existing wall in 18 seconds, or the story about the wall on some rancher's property doing nothing to stop illegals because they can easily climb it? Detentions on his property more than doubled AFTER the wall was completed.

Unless the entire border is effectively militarized, the Great Wall will do almost nothing - slow them down a few minutes at best. High tech gadget like ladders and ropes will mean it won't stop much unless there are agents all along the border to catch them WHEN they easily climb over.

And the graph shows net illegal immigration since Obama took office of less than zero. That's not a tsunami. It's negative.

Dollars to donuts there were just as many, if not more, coming through his property BEFORE the wall was put up. What he "noticed" is hardly a benchmark for how many were using that route to come across. Also note the bolded. Why were detentions up? Because we're not just talking about building a wall and walking away, never to visit again. The wall is guarded and monitored. When someone climbs it, we KNOW and border patrol agents respond.

Growing over threefold in 15 years is indeed a tsunami.
 
Last edited:
Dollars to donuts there were just as many, if not more, coming through his property BEFORE the wall was put up. What he "noticed" is hardly a benchmark for how many were using that route to come across. Also note the bolded. Why were detentions up? Because we're not just talking about building a wall and walking away, never to visit again. The wall is guarded and monitored. When someone climbs it, we KNOW and border patrol agents respond.

But the point is simple. Kids, old people, pregnant women crossed over the wall with no difficulty. It's not an answer to anything other than the profits of some well connected construction firms, concrete and steel sellers, and a few thousand workers to build this stupid boondoggle.

And if we want to guard and monitor thousands of miles of border, we can do it with or without a dang wall. The wall is a minor annoyance - nothing more than that - without serious manpower and if we devote the manpower we're already 99% there. Why spend $10s or hundreds of $billions to get that last 1% when we aren't close to achieving the 99%. It's just not a serious suggestion to the problem of immigration to build a wall. It's simplistic solutions for people who haven't thought the issue through AT ALL.

Growing over threefold in 15 years is indeed a tsunami.

But for the past 8 years, net negative....
 
Once again, just building the wall won't solve the problem. Just denying illegals access to services won't solve the problem. It'll take both and more.

Btw, tunnel makers already have job security. Heck, before there was a wall there were tunnels. LIDAR is a wonderful thing.

Yes, and a wall won't stop the tunnelers.
 
Do you want me to post the video again of girls climbing over the existing wall in 18 seconds, or the story about the wall on some rancher's property doing nothing to stop illegals because they can easily climb it? Detentions on his property more than doubled AFTER the wall was completed.

Unless the entire border is effectively militarized, the Great Wall will do almost nothing - slow them down a few minutes at best. High tech gadget like ladders and ropes will mean it won't stop much unless there are agents all along the border to catch them WHEN they easily climb over.

And the graph shows net illegal immigration since Obama took office of less than zero. That's not a tsunami. It's negative.

Seriously I almost spit out my tea reading that :)
 
Thank you. Korea is not Vietnam, nor are North and South Carolina at all relevant to the discussion.

Actually the parallels are pretty direct and powerful.

Their Northern Neighbor is actually the northern half of their nation.

Yeah. Ditto for Korea. Ask either Korean government.

It's a good thing there was no great power capable of supporting the Confederacy during our own civil war. We could still be split into a north and south.

Capable or willing.

However, we were initially founded as a single, unified nation-state. both Korea and Vietnam were divided in the aftermath of WWII and the follow-on imperial drawdown.

That's not what he said. He said "protesters", not "combatants." Now, you're changing his words to something more acceptable, just like the Trumpeteers do.

No, I'm pointing out that when you begin to engage in violence, you cease being a protestor, and become a combatant. Tackling and physically subduing someone holding up a sign at a Trump rally is unacceptable. Tackling and physically subduing someone trying to rush the stage is not. Tackling and physically subduing someone trying to do physical damage to others is not.
 
Actually the parallels are pretty direct and powerful.



Yeah. Ditto for Korea. Ask either Korean government.



Capable or willing.

However, we were initially founded as a single, unified nation-state. both Korea and Vietnam were divided in the aftermath of WWII and the follow-on imperial drawdown.



No, I'm pointing out that when you begin to engage in violence, you cease being a protestor, and become a combatant. Tackling and physically subduing someone holding up a sign at a Trump rally is unacceptable. Tackling and physically subduing someone trying to rush the stage is not. Tackling and physically subduing someone trying to do physical damage to others is not.

And simply shooting into the crowd, is that acceptable too?
 
And simply shooting into the crowd, is that acceptable too?

Hm. There are some situations where it is - terrorists, for example, often use crowds as effective human shields, necessitating killing some innocents in order to stop them and save more lives. We had problems with people putting family members in VBIED's, for example, hoping that we would be unwilling to shoot up kids in order to stop a car bomb. I wouldn't say that it seems to be the case here.
 
Hm. There are some situations where it is - terrorists, for example, often use crowds as effective human shields, necessitating killing some innocents in order to stop them and save more lives. We had problems with people putting family members in VBIED's, for example, hoping that we would be unwilling to shoot up kids in order to stop a car bomb. I wouldn't say that it seems to be the case here.

No, I wouldn't either.

It is a case of carrying the protesters off on stretchers, though. That's what Trump wanted. Now, let's see... what was this thread about again? I'm afraid we may have derailed it. Oh. It's about Trump and his stance on abortion. I'm not sure which stance, but one of them at least.
 
No, I wouldn't either.

It is a case of carrying the protesters off on stretchers, though. That's what Trump wanted. Now, let's see... what was this thread about again? I'm afraid we may have derailed it. Oh. It's about Trump and his stance on abortion. I'm not sure which stance, but one of them at least.

:lol: Oh, I think that might possibly be the case :lol:
 
Hm. Nah. I recall a lot of the anti-Iraq movement claiming moral equivalence between the US and Saddam.

I dont remember a single example of that. I guess you have, so then please provide some sources...something that shows a trend at least, as you claim.
 
Hm. Problem for you, however, is that the men who wrote those concepts were equally clear that they weren't, in fact, creating them. .

Not a problem at all. I dont deny they had their religions and philosophies. So cool...that proves exactly what I wrote. They based our govt on many of those foundations. Great.

They are great guidelines. Who says that rights 'arent based on anything?' They are...things that man conceives and considers important.

Are we done yet or would you like to, as I requested, prove that rights are 'inherent?'
 
If "rights" are merely whatever liberties our Government grants us, then the above words cannot be true, because that would mean that Government cannot abuse your rights. If your "rights" are whatever government gives you, then whatever government gives you is what you have a right to.

In reality, that is exactly true. Whatever the foundation for that govt is and its interpretation and enforcement...yup...exactly true.
 
Back
Top Bottom