Most people don't want the wall on principle. You say it's an ad-hominem and a ransom note?We are attacking the wall from a policy perspective, on the grounds that we don't want a wall. A separate question from border security or spending in abstract is "Do we want this racist eyesore to be erected at all?" and the answer is no. You say this is a ransom by Democrats, but wasn't this bill written by Republicans and passed 100-0 in the senate just a few weeks ago? The Republicans seem to have retroactively chosen to disagree to this legislation? No? Why is a bill that passed 100-0 being abandoned by so many people all of the sudden? Could it be... political reasons?
@DanoMR98 Well, the problem with objecting to the wall in principle is that you are objecting to a tool in principle. It would be like objecting to a hammer - or in your case, calling a hammer racist.The wall may or may not be a good idea, but that assessment is best made on utilitarian grounds rather than on a symbolism that is, at best, an objective assessment of the wall's merits. To be sure, we live in the age of the symbology of symbols, where each individual chooses what a symbol means - regardless of what the designer of that symbol intended - and then reacts to that subjective assessment. It is the curse of the age, but seeing as that there are already stretches of the border with a wall, it would seem the merits of walls has been more or less accepted, symbolism or no.In any case, my characterization of the Pelosi/Schummer speech (es) was intended as descriptive, not pejorative. Substantively, both the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader accused the President of bad faith and then offered to consider what the President wanted - but only after they were assured of getting all they wanted.Suffice to say, it should come as a surprise to no one that the President - whatever the merits of his own arguments - would not find that offer appealing. As indeed he did not.For what it is worth, I am ambivalent about the wall and certainly - while it has its merits - hardly think it worth provoking the current impasse. As to the bill that passed the Senate:Yup, what of it? This President's governing style is, putting it politely, chaotic and he caught McConnell up short. (Which is why McConnell has basically washed his hands of the whole matter.)Besides, it was not so long ago that Schummer, Clinton, Obama et. al. were voting for a border wall. So it goes. There has been no shortage of situational ethics on this issue.In any case, as Keynes said, "When I see that the facts have changed, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
TYPE-O: This sentence: "The wall may or may not be a good idea, but that assessment is best made on utilitarian grounds rather than on a symbolism that is, at best, an objective assessment of the wall's merits."Should read:"The wall may or may not be a good idea, but that assessment is best made on utilitarian grounds rather than on a symbolism that is, at best, A SUBJECTIVE assessment of the wall's merits."
Isn't it obtuse to try to frame this action, building a wall, as a utilitarian structure, when the reality is that there are sociological, political and cultural implications that cannot be ignored?The idea of a wall in abstract is not inherently racist, but this particular wall is. Walls in abstract are simply tools for obstructing, but walls in context can be sociological tools, so it is only reasonable that these effects are considered too. Nevermind the fact that I don't believe the wall would work anyways, all of that shit seems to be a red herring the more I say it. I can say "the vast majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstays", or "the wall as you have promised it would be surely $25B, but likely much more when all is said and done". It doesn't matter. None of that matters, and it doesn't matter to the wall people either, because the wall isn't about whether or not it works. They tell me more shit to distract me, "We actually like legal immigrants" as they try to stop people seeking asylum, or coming as refugees, and who really try to stop as much legal immigration as they can. They feign concerns for the unions and collective bargaining of natives, which they want to bust up as soon as the topic switches. They cheer when DJT cruelly renegs on our promise to the DACA kids, and they swings them around as a political bargaining chip -- then have the nerve to tell me I don't "really care" about the DACA kids. They litter their speech with dog whistles, "travel ban", and with fig-leaves, "and some, I assume, are good people".So, Nightdrot, I don't see any sense in the kind of objective rhetoric you are trying to encourage in this debate, because it's more or less useless. For people on both sides, it is plainly obvious, we're talking about something much different than simply the functionality of a wall.
@DanoMR98 The kind of rhetoric I am trying to encourage in this debate is avoiding accusations of racism and other such inflammatory and utterly unproveable assertions. (I also avoid the use of crude vulgarities such as sh** as well.)A border is a national assertion of sovereignty, recognized in international law. If the border is permeable and requires enforcement, then there are an array of tools that may be employed to enforce it. By your logic, using drones to patrol the border must be racist. Ditto having border patrol officers and so on. The wall is merely a device - indeed, one that already exists at various points, including just south of San Diego.Frankly, my own view is rather eccentric. We have a Federal system in which states - notably California, New York and Illinois, among several others, have declared themselves sanctuary states. My own view is that it should be government policy that immigration laws will not be enforced in states that have declared themselves sanctuaries.If an illegal immigrant is caught outside of those states, he or she would be subject to immediate deportation. Otherwise they may live in the sanctuary state, unmolested in any way and free to avail themselves of whatever social services such states choose to provide.It would be an interesting experiment - albeit more difficult to implement than the simple description here suggests. My hunch is that we would suddenly find many more racists, as you rather wantonly use that term, than the current crop of moral exhibitionists might lead you to believe.
Nightdrot, you might be more optimistic than me about these people and their intentions. I have had these conversations before. You try to talk about this issue, and start somewhere perhaps logistical and policy-based. Somehow though, after a few steps deeper into the discussion, it always changes. You start getting into one thing, get to the why and the how. Peel back layer after layer, and you start to get to the same place. Why is it that I entertain the idea that maybe "s/he's one of the good, non-bigoted rightists", but 5 layers deep into the conversation, it always turns into "Why do I have to press 1 for English if I'm living in 'merica?" You start with DACA, it turns into "Only white countries are forced to mix with other ethnic types!!!" You wanna talk about the DREAM Act, or even the wall, as we have, and after 4 rhetorical layers of this conversation, it turns into "demographics is destiny". Nightdrot, you may very well be not like that. But here's the thing, there are a huge amount of people on your side of the wall issue that are. So many, that it is hard to argue with people and even believe it's in good faith. It doesn't feel like a real discussion when I'm chasing semantics with the moderate fake version of a guy who's underlying political motivation is to perpetuate some white genocide conspiracy theory, or something. You know the type, Nightdrot. You couldn't possibly be this informed and also unaware of the amount of white nationalism that exists in the shadows. We have to call out the alt right, WN, etc wherever we can. If we let the right define our terms, and make the standard that "it's not racism till they want segregation" or "it's not fascism till there's concentration camps", we'll let them lead us on a race to the bottom where they bolt towards fascism, and we stay a few degrees removed hoping that by, what, picking up "moderates" we can fix it all? It'll be like trying to save a plane the last captain was nosediving.
@DanoMR98 The problem, of course, is that you are questioning motives that you cannot know and are presuming your own moral virtue. The gravaman of your remarks is that there may be valid reasons for an action - in this case building the wall - but those must obviously wrong because not everyone shares your pristine motives.The bottom line is that in any culture, in any political system, in any given situation there will invariably be a mixed set of motives. The problem for you is that you have no way of knowing whose motives are valid, whose not, nor more to the point, what relevance that has to addressing the issue.In this case, there is a problem with controlling the southern border. Is the wall a valid tool in solving that problem? Yes. So is it relevant if the motives of everyone - whose heart of hearts you have no way of knowing - are not pure? No. In politics, if you can get the right thing for the wrong reason - take it. In any case, it is eccentric - to say no more - to suggest that wall is racist given that the wall would block anyone of any any race, color, religion or creed who wants to cross the southern border illegally from doing so. It is not as if a wall would magically open up to admit the preferred race while excluding the others.(Indeed, I would also point out as a not entirely irrelevant aside that racism suggests a schematic doctrine and philosophy. This as distinct from bigotry. So if it is, indeed, racism we are dealing with here, then what are the specific tenets of that philosophy. Indeed, if it is a philosophy, then why no wall on the northern border as well. After all, the Berlin Wall kept in everyone.)At any rate, your argument is based on motives you cannot know and fails to address a problem that actually exists. The wall has arguments for and against it, but those arguments for or against it must be reasonably related to the problem, not tangential to it. Great that your motives are pure - now solve the problem.
No one, especially not Trump, ever said the wall will stop everything, or that the wall will stop anything. He’s talking about slowing down the rate of people thinking they can easily get over the wall. It’s NOT the be-all/end-all single remedy, and that’s not his position. Whether or not you think he’s being “illogical” doesn’t really matter to anyone, but you. Lol no offense, but “illogical” is subjective, no two people agree what it means. I respect your opinion, and I would defend it. But I also have one, and it happens to differ from yours.
Some of the reasons I disagree with you are that all of that about mass shootings, or Brock Turner, or world crimes or any and all crimes are even relevant. No one is saying the this wall will stop all crime. It is a way of slowing down the mass storming of the border and attempts to overwhelm by sheer numbers that we see happening recently. Everyone across the political divide agrees in a physical barrier of some kind. The president has NOT manufactured anything, and he we will continue to educate Americans like you of the reality of the crisis. You said so, when you acknowledged the people working without pay- is that not itself a crisis? Where’s the “nonsense” you claim he’s pushing?You are the nonsensical one, which happens when you remain uninformed and willfully ignorant.
Illegals can't vote.
And implying that an entire race of people is causing our safety issue is ridiculous. Most crime is home-grown, not carried through a border.
@AlwaysWet It's all about votes for republicans. They all know this is a shitshow, but they are holding their ground as they're afraid of 2020.
The Democrats had dead voters as well as double votes on the ballots found in Florida. You as Americans have been fed such lies by your party, its hard to place blame on ignorance of the person that think rhe Democrats are playing above board. All i can say is that the arrest of Kevin Spacey is another big Democratic supporter down and he knows all about pedophilia that has gone on with the Clintons and Obama sHave been part of for years.Dont think for a second this is random circumstance all of the Hollywood big names that are being arrested this is All part of the big plan Called Draining the Swamp. Sealed indictments are being unsealed as predicted with a lot more to come. DoJ being cleaned out Complete transparency is the direction we're headed mThe Federal reserve is coming to an end. As well as federal taxes being abolished. And the biggest part of the IRS being for the most part disbanded.So if you want terrorist living freely in the USA OPEN BOARDERS AND CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING TO RUN A MUCK KEEP YOUR PATRONAGE FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
You are so blinded by your clear reservations against a changing world, and against equality for all people, that you have chosen to believe alt-right lies over objective truth. There is a critically underwhelming amount of voter fraud that occurs, while republicans act like it's still a problem. It's a distraction and it's meant to try to suppress legitimate votes. Are the Democrats the one with an election scandal rn? Nope, just the NC GOP. Everything in your post is literally not true. It would take too long to sort through the horseshit and pure falsehood in your post. It's senseless jargon, I wouldn't even know where to begin. You sound like an unironic #pizzagator. Did you really believe that shit? Like, how can a grown ass adult actually believe all these conspiracy theories?"So if you want terrorist living freely in the USA OPEN BOARDERS AND CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING TO RUN A MUCK KEEP YOUR PATRONAGE FOR THE DEMOCRATS." No sane person would type that. Take a look at yourself, and an honest look at who you're associating with. You're being fed lies.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
@SuburbanBarbie- you’re not the only one who wants all that you just listed. Millions of Americans of both parties want that. Obviously, the political side of this has gotten out of control. So you do know how you feel, you feel like most Americans feel. Now the problem is getting the politicians to get off their collective asses and fix this one and for all.
Well they’re not really going to fix it, cause the government don’t really care about the American people. They care about their pockets.
I hope you’re wrong. This MUST be fixed, we have no choice. Yes they seem to have their priorities mixed up, but that’s no reason to not fix this. The only question now, is who, besides we the people, will be most harmed?
It just made Germany more divided
You're thinking of the Berlin Wall.And not really.Google Berlin Airlift...Which is exactly what is happening already.About 1/3rd of the illegal aliens coming across our NORTHERN border with Canada are Latin Americans. Instead of dealing with the walls and fences and whatnot that DHS has along our southern border, the illegal aliens are legally flying to Canada and crossing the border from there.If you really want a wall along the southern border, build an electromagnetic one; a string of automated Active Denial Systems which beam microwaves at the target. This causes the people in the beam to feel like they are on fire and they try to escape the beam.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9p5naCkz2whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzG4oEutPbA
The German movement that you speak of was during war time situation and the had batterys of Tanks , Missiles To try and take over a territory.We aren't invadeding Mexico were working along with boarder officials to fight the War on drugs and as the Administration's agenda isn't just as B&W as a Wall as the only plan to fight this growing problem the brief is 1228 pages outlining the wall on its own merits as the main tools of the opperation, but does include many other facets of an Official security outline.Which was also explained during the state of the union address inwhich the only thing anyone remembers out of the speach was Mexico was going to pay for it. The point there not seeing is the free trade agreement has the wall figured in the budget and without know the exact perimeters of the language of the contract the interest incurred by us paying up front We not only have Mexico Pay for the wall but also pay interest for taking a loan from the U S to build it.President Trump is the only SEATED PRESIDENT That refused to take a salery for his service to our country. And finally if the Americas that literally have disrespected the (The office ) of the President of the UNITED STATES By second guessing every forward movement this President makes. Thats a huge lap in the Face of America.The President is a world class Billionaire that does most of these deals that have been unclassified and made available to the American Public in his Sleep from the simplicity.And to have a less than intelligent critics section that have done nothing in Corporate bussniess ever and then sit back and mouth off as if they have a clue of how to run there own life much less run the Free World Country of our great state of America.
@AlwysWet The Maginot Line was defeated because the Germans took a route that the French did not expect and did not fortify.Just like the Mexicans who fly to Canada and then cross into the US via the unfortified wall-less northern border.
Your seeing the need for the boarder security plan... good Now by funneling the terrorist, smugglers and refugees to choke points such as the Canadian boarders we can concentrate on these areas and the wall is doing it job. You see the less minded would of seen it as just some big wall and not a 1226 page security plan. That covers your concern. Great job studying up on a subject and not JUST THINKING IT A BIG DUMB WALL ON IT'S OWN MERRIT.Smart man
@AlwysWet Oh, yes, I never had a problem with border security.I am a New Yorker and have wanted much greater border security and zero-as-in-0 immigration. We don't need anymore.
This is on that idiot trump that wants to play with legos on Mexico's border.
I thought this was a serious question and issue. Why don’t you?
Most people don't want the wall on principle.We are attacking the wall from a policy perspective, on the grounds that we don't want a wall. A separate question from border security or spending in abstract is "Do we want this racist eyesore to be erected at all?" and the answer is no. You say this is a ransom by Democrats, but wasn't this bill written by Republicans and passed 100-0 in the senate just a few weeks ago? The Republicans seem to have retroactively chosen to disagree to this legislation? No? Why is a bill that passed 100-0 being abandoned by so many people all of the sudden? Could it be... political reasons?
I disagree with your statement that “most people don’t want the wall on principle”. Says who?You?I know of no one, who doesn’t want a physical barrier of some kind. “Do we want this racist eyesore to be erected at all”? That is absurd. First, a wall is an inanimate object, incapable of racism or any thoughts or emotions, but it also is not even a symbol of racism, it is a symbol of a sovereign nation that cares about itself, and its people have the right to protect their sovereign nation. It is no more “racist” than the picket fence in your front yard.When you inject racism into this discussion, in my opinion it raises questions as to whether or not you are the one committing the racist act.And it highlights how it’s thinking like that which politicizes an issue that is not a partisan issue. Like our collective belief that the rule of law is the foundation of what we stand for and why we need a physical barrier to help enforce those beliefs.
I have had these conversations before. You try to talk about this issue, and start somewhere perhaps logistical and policy-based. Somehow though, after a few steps deeper into the discussion, it always changes. You start getting into one thing, get to the why and the how. Peel back layer after layer, and you start to get to the same place. Why is it that I entertain the idea that maybe "s/he's one of the good, non-bigoted rightists", but 5 layers deep into the conversation, it always turns into "Why do I have to press 1 for English if I'm living in 'merica?" You start with DACA, it turns into "Only white countries are forced to mix with other ethnic types!!!" You wanna talk about the DREAM Act, or even the wall, as we have, and after 4 rhetorical layers of this conversation, it turns into "demographics is destiny". Girther, you may very well be not like that. But here's the thing, there are a huge amount of people on your side of the wall issue that are. So many, that it is hard to argue with people and even believe it's in good faith. It doesn't feel like a real discussion when I'm chasing semantics with the moderate fake version of a guy who's underlying political motivation is to perpetuate some white genocide conspiracy theory, or something. You know the type, Girther. You couldn't possibly be this informed and also unaware of the amount of white nationalism that exists in the shadows. We have to call out the alt right, WN, etc wherever we can. If we let the right define our terms, and make the standard that "it's not racism till they want segregation" or "it's not fascism till there's concentration camps", we'll let them lead us on a race to the bottom where they bolt towards fascism, and we stay a few degrees removed hoping that by, what, picking up "moderates" we can fix it all? It'll be like trying to save a plane the last captain was nosediving.
I understand your inclination to be cautious, to be wary of such conversations with someone you know nothing about. I’ve had plenty of frustration with those same exact things, but what can you do?Disengage and you risk further frustration, at least that’s how Id be, more frustrated because maybe this time, you could really make a positive difference in someone’s life. I do that other ways, rhetorical analysis is still new to me, so I don’t expect that to be an effective tool, all I can do is be as honest as I can with myself and others. I also stay engaged because I will always learn, especially when I least expect it. You surprised me with your apparent experience in the issues that come with public discourse, like we’re talking.Thanks for your opinion, a unique dive into some of the underlying issues most are not aware of.
Thanks, bruh. It's always good to end a debate on a positive note.
he pretty much said there's a "crisis"
Oh yeah well this shutdown is suppose to last into Februaryand it could really hit the Middle class bad. So people who are disabled and people relying on HUD , Section 8 housingSnap benefits , parts of SSI Income all could get hurt bad.
I'm on SSI... I hope it doesn't. We have it horrible enough.
@SirRexington Yeah same here i hope it doesn't
it was a rerun like 99% of tv
you missed nothing
Sweden Germany Has shown depleted resources and not able to take care of there own citizens because of refugees that came in because of liberals. Allowing criminals to get in our country unchecked by not being able to funnel them through choke points that the wall will provide . The free trade agreement will pay for the Wall on the back end ad stated tonight by our President.
Wow i hope they listen yo your experience of massively run over the border
@AlwysWet Why can't Donald Trump make this argument later? Why is he holding the American people hostage? Well, we all know why, but I guess I'd like to hear it from you. He knows without holding the govt hostage, there's no way he'd get a fucking dollar for that racist eyesore that most Americans do not want.
Sure love to take a minute to give you my take on a very complex issue that is not just black and white. However this is the bullet points they may give you a better perspective of the cause of action:The President is instructed to run through Congress to pass a bill.The house has stalled on passing the request for 5 billion in funds for the boarder security package. as they've done in the past with other presidents on issues that up until Friday has been exactly the same as government was shut down and not much was made of it until now do to infighting and the DNC trying to use this as a negative to shine bad light on the current administration. So were now 3 days over the last of 4 times the government shut down and im sure most wouldn't even remember when these times were and the spotlight was never even turned on until now.Now the figures have been released and through stonewalling the bill , the cost is 3.4 million in cost to our economy as of Monday. Congress has cost us the American public. This bill will pass and The President will get this security package through and its all up to Congress when that will be. This was a referendum that The campaign ran on. Mexico will pay for the wall with interest through the Free trade agreement just signed by our two countries. So the American Public should turn up the heat on congress to pass this bill, because we elected on this idea and must be started to be on time with the political promise. there's a contingent plan that an executive order can be signed to get funding from our military budget.So had the bill passed it would already be paid for and onone would be out of a paycheck and the government would of never closed.
Correction on figures the cost as of Monday is 3.4 billion
@AlwysWet Since you're a conservative, and I bet you are a pretty strong constitutionalist. Why are you not blaming the Senate for not acting as a coequal branch? The Founders wanted congress to be equal to the president, not the president's lackeys.That conservatives in this country have abandoned their own closely held views about our constitution when it serves the president is a testament to how much of a cult of personality he has. That's how the ball gets rolling before the authoritarian right take over. It's scary stuff.
Which is not what we need to be illustrating to the world right now...
It would hurt the democrat packing scheme. It would hurt the progressive plan to destroy American culture via demographic shift.
@Sixgun77 Really doesn't take long for the racism to come out, eh?
@DanoMR98 what racism is that?
>American culture via demographic shiftYou know what this guy above me, SixGun, is implying. And it is racist. He is perpetuating a racist conspiracy theory.
@DanoMR98 I don’t think it’s racist at all
No, I'm talking about ideology and demographics. You can permanently change a nations voting habits and culture by having an influx of immigrants fast enough and large enough instead of keeping it at a trickle and making sure only those who want to assimilate are allowed to enter, become citizens, and remain.
@Sixgun77 I understand, and that's why I called out the message you're sending. I have never met a single person saying "demographics is destiny" who didn't have some seriously bigoted and reactionary beliefs.