Why I appose a wall

[X Factor]

Of course a large physical barrier is generally effective. Military installations, air ports, shoot even our local water company uses fencing and barriers to protect its property. It actually makes no sense to oppose it on the basis of it being ineffective. If it won’t make a single bit a difference as if it’s not even there, then let it happen and be happy in the knowledge that it won’t matter. My strong suspicion is that people who say they oppose it for being ineffective, actually oppose it because they know it will be.

 

[Phys251]

The promise to fix infrastructure is what is going to get him re-elected in 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Just like the mile-long list of promises your boy has broken. But hey, maybe someday he'll actually start keeping his word consistently! :lamo

 

[Phys251]

It actually makes no sense to oppose it on the basis of it being ineffective. If it won’t make a bit a difference then let it happen, happy in the knowledge that it won’t matter.

Please tell me you said that ironically.

 

[Lutherf]

Of course a large physical barrier is generally effective. Military installations, air ports, shoot even our local water company uses fencing and barriers to protect its property. It actually makes no sense to oppose it on the basis of it being ineffective. If it won’t make a single bit a difference as if it’s not even there, then let it happen and be happy in the knowledge that it won’t matter. My strong suspicion is that people who say they oppose it for being ineffective, actually oppose it because they know it will be.

Heck, if it really doesn't work you can point to it in September of 2020 and say "Look, he demanded a wall and we gave in to his petty temper tantrum and it hasn't accomplished anything!" I figure that if it doesn't do anything then it would be a GREAT campaign issue to run on.

 

[Mycroft]

From the article:
"The Obama administration is spending close to a half a billion dollars to build a sophisticated electronic fence along Jordan's northern and eastern borders, a wall which US strategic planners hope will stem the flow of refugees and also wall off the increasingly important American base from the disintegration of Syria and Iraq."

"When completed later this decade, the border wall will have a camera-studded high-security fence, plus a network of ground sensors and a set of fixed and mobile surveillance towers that will be able to see and detect activity five miles away on either side of the fence."

Judging by the picture in the article, it is a 10' chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Decked out with cameras and sensors and patrolling guards, I'm sure it will work as advertised. Without any of the latter, it would not work at all.

What's your point?

Oh...wait...do you think Trump wants to build a wall and that's it? Nothing else to go along with it?

 

[X Factor]

Please tell me you said that ironically.

Maybe I did. I find a lot of irony in the anti wall argument.

 

[Mycroft]

This is the Achilles heel of this argument. A wall in no way reduces the manpower requirement. Without human beings present, a wall is not a deterrent to immigrants on foot. They will find the unguarded section of the wall, and they will scale it. With human beings present, a small fence is an equal deterrent to a 50' concrete barrier.

With reduced human beings present, a 50' concrete barrier is MUCH more effective than a small fence...with or without humans present.

 

[lwf]

What's your point?

Oh...wait...do you think Trump wants to build a wall and that's it? Nothing else to go along with it?

My point is that a better use of the money would be to expand and upgrade the fencing that already exists and use the savings to increase the things that actually prevent migrants from crossing into the US. The primary of which is: boots on the ground.

The wall is a waste of money.

 

[X Factor]

With reduced human beings present, a 50' concrete barrier is MUCH more effective than a small fence...with or without humans present.

Kind of amazing the counter intuitive stuff one has to digest to oppose a wall on the basis effectiveness.

 

[Mycroft]

My point is that a better use of the money would be to expand and upgrade the fencing that already exists and use the savings to increase the things that actually prevent migrants from crossing into the US. The primary of which is: boots on the ground.

The wall is a waste of money.

The increased manpower will likely end up costing more than the wall.

 

[Phys251]

Maybe I did. I find a lot of irony in the anti wall argument.

Going full Scrödinger's Cat, I see. Interesting.

 

[lwf]

The increased manpower will likely end up costing more than the wall.

Even if it does, the money goes farther that way.

If you have $120 and can spend $100 on a plastic owl that keeps squirrels out of your attic with an 80% success rate, or $80 on a mesh screen with a 25% success rate, would you 'splurge' for the owl? Isn't your money going farther by spending on the thing that works the best?

 

[Mr Person]

Kind of amazing the counter intuitive stuff one has to digest to oppose a wall on the basis effectiveness.

If your intuitions tell you a wall will accomplish anything, your intuitions are terrible at their job and should be fired immediately.

There are way better and more cost-effective ways to approach it. But you guys love the wall not so much because it would work, but because you know you're not likely to get it. So, you can use it to put on a show of being Big Patriots, and then put it to the secondary use of lying about what "liberals" supposedly think about illegal immigration (most recently, claims that liberals want "open borders").

I mean, I hate to break it to you, but things like ladders, ropes, tunnels, humans trafficked in trucks, and boats are not liberal conspiracies. They really do exist, and they really do work quite well against a dreaded wall. The only way a wall could work is to keep it constantly staffed and monitored, which requires enormous expenditure in terms of personnel costs, maintenance/vehicle costs, and all the infrastructure needed to support permanently stationing a ton of wall-watchers along all 2,000 miles.

And remember, you'd have to still hope that they wouldn't just do something like head over to Mexico's west coast and get in one of those mythical boat things, then travel by water....







PS: The dems have previously offered Trump full funding for his stupid ****ing wall, if he'd sign DACA into law. This could go away at any time Trump wanted it to. That's just icing on this manufactured controversy.

PSS: Remember, the GOP didn't try to pass appropriations when it had the majority of the house. So...

:shrug:

 

[trouble13]

Just like the mile-long list of promises your boy has broken. But hey, maybe someday he'll actually start keeping his word consistently! :lamo

He is doing just fine. Seems to be really chafing asses on the left, lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Person]

He is doing just fine. Seems to be really chafing asses on the left, lol

^
The kind of person decrying loss of "civility" in political discourse, the kind of person who dishonestly whined about "divisiveness" for which Obama was supposedly responsible, etc., it's always the same kind of person, isn't it? You know...

...the kind of person who supports a politician because he thinks that politician might have upset a liberal.

 

[X Factor]

If your intuitions tell you a wall will accomplish anything, your intuitions are terrible at their job and should be fired immediately.

There are way better and more cost-effective ways to approach it. But you guys love the wall not so much because it would work, but because you know you're not likely to get it. So, you can use it to put on a show of being Big Patriots, and then put it to the secondary use of lying about what "liberals" supposedly think about illegal immigration (most recently, claims that liberals want "open borders").

I mean, I hate to break it to you, but things like ladders, ropes, tunnels, humans trafficked in trucks, and boats are not liberal conspiracies. They really do exist, and they really do work quite well against a dreaded wall. The only way a wall could work is to keep it constantly staffed and monitored, which requires enormous expenditure in terms of personnel costs, maintenance/vehicle costs, and all the infrastructure needed to support permanently stationing a ton of wall-watchers along all 2,000 miles.

And remember, you'd have to still hope that they wouldn't just do something like head over to Mexico's west coast and get in one of those mythical boat things, then travel by water....







PS: The dems have previously offered Trump full funding for his stupid ****ing wall, if he'd sign DACA into law. That's just icing on this manufactured controversy.

Walls and fencing is effective. People understand this pretty readily no matter how much you try to argue against it.

 

[Mr Person]

The increased manpower will likely end up costing more than the wall.

The wall without massively increased manpower is ****ing useless.


Ladders, Ropes, Shovels, Trucks, Boats, and the like are not liberal myths. They are real things that exist in the world.

 

[Mr Person]

Walls and fencing is effective. People understand this pretty readily no matter how much you try to argue against it.

Figured I'd give you an undeserved chance to say something worth reading. Oh well. Shame on me.

 

[X Factor]

Figured I'd give you an undeserved chance to say something worth reading. Oh well. Shame on me.

Only in the realm of politics is there even an argument about whether walls and fences offer some level of protection for what’s inside. Further, only in the realm of politics does the fact that something can be defeated mean that it doesn’t do any good at all. I lock the door to my house every morning even knowing that locks sometimes fail to keep people out.

 

[apdst]

Prosecute business owners who hire illegal workers. Ensure that non legal residents can't get access to social funded benefits.




Problem solved.

Punishing the citizen and not punishing the non-citizen isn't a solution.

 

[apdst]

If your intuitions tell you a wall will accomplish anything, your intuitions are terrible at their job and should be fired immediately.

There are way better and more cost-effective ways to approach it. But you guys love the wall not so much because it would work, but because you know you're not likely to get it. So, you can use it to put on a show of being Big Patriots, and then put it to the secondary use of lying about what "liberals" supposedly think about illegal immigration (most recently, claims that liberals want "open borders").

I mean, I hate to break it to you, but things like ladders, ropes, tunnels, humans trafficked in trucks, and boats are not liberal conspiracies. They really do exist, and they really do work quite well against a dreaded wall. The only way a wall could work is to keep it constantly staffed and monitored, which requires enormous expenditure in terms of personnel costs, maintenance/vehicle costs, and all the infrastructure needed to support permanently stationing a ton of wall-watchers along all 2,000 miles.

And remember, you'd have to still hope that they wouldn't just do something like head over to Mexico's west coast and get in one of those mythical boat things, then travel by water....







PS: The dems have previously offered Trump full funding for his stupid ****ing wall, if he'd sign DACA into law. This could go away at any time Trump wanted it to. That's just icing on this manufactured controversy.

PSS: Remember, the GOP didn't try to pass appropriations when it had the majority of the house. So...

:shrug:

What are they?

 

[Grokmaster]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

"Not effective'? Since when? Depends on how serious a wall is built:


Worked HERE:





Worked HERE:




Looks like it's STILL WORKING HERE:

 

[OscarLevant]

A wall will reduce manpower requirement along the entire border. That manpower can be shifted to catch more drug smuggling at the ports of entry.

There are more than enough personnel currently at the ports of entry. I repeat, a wall will do NOTHING to stem the flow of drugs.

In fact, why are cartels producing and selling drugs?

Because AMERICANS are BUYING THEM.

Make them legal, in a controlled environment, here in America, and this will stop the flow of drugs.

Since Marijuana is now legal in many states, the Pot flow from Mexico to the US has been drastically reduced.

There is the answer, and until Repubs and Dems wake up to the fact that PROHIBITION is the reason for drug cartels and the reason people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are fleeing persecution from these cartels and apply for asylum in America, the problem will only continue.

 

[OscarLevant]

Tell that to the poor starving children of gov workers. I'm sure they will be relieved that the party of no isnt going to budge

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Tell it To Trump, he stated, on NATIONAL TV, 22 times, he would shut down the government if he didn't get his way


Pelosi and Schumer are not going to negotiate with hostage taking, that is not how deals are going to get done in congress and the senate, not anymore, anyway.

IF they did negotiate, then that means any time Trump whines and doesn't get his way, when a CR is up, he will shut down the government. There is only one way to stop this insanity, and that is to say NO.

Sorry, no can do.

It's on Trump.

 

[Phys251]

Walls and fencing is effective. People understand this pretty readily no matter how much you try to argue against it.

Sometimes.

Sometimes not.