First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Who Will Pay For The Border Wall?
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


eggrollsama wrote:

anyone can edit a wiki page smart one


I am pretty sure edit notices are only editable by the employees. Normal users can only get so much free reign. It is essentially the same argument with not deleting bank history.


Everyone can edit Wikipedia and even without accounts except on protected articles and times of high abuse.

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

I just went ahead and edited the Barbara Bush article and replaced her picture with Darth Vader. But, the ease of changing things doesn't mean the information is bad or wrong and Wikipedia is said to be as accurate as several encyclopedias. In fact, my vandalism may be caught by the time you see this post.


I meant the notices detailing the last edit time at least, if not where.


Oh. Yeah. You are absolutely right about that. I seriously doubt that anyone would ever mess with that information. It would blow up in their face if they did.
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

Oh OK well thank you for setting me straight. I thought I was trying to convince you that there is some 700 miles of physical barrier on the Southern border already, be it wall, fence, or a mixture ... and that wall vs fence is an insignificant detail not worth quibbling over. But, you have set me straight; truly, you know my own intent greater than I. TIL: I want to convince people that a fence is a wall, without even knowing it, regardless of the fact that it is not meaningful to me at all. KennethKenstar told me so.


Gee, I'm just shocked you don't think the difference between wall and fence is significant. It's almost like you've reduced your political beliefs to hero worship and, with that, there will always be a convenient way for Trump to have not "actually" failed until you reach that breaking point where you feel betrayed by Trump even though he is a fraud and a conman.

Shocked.


No no no, you've got it all wrong: I really DO understand that there is a meaningful difference, but I just want to fool you, which is why I'm trying to convince you that a wall is a fence, remember? You said so yourself: I'm not trying to show that there are several hundred miles of imposing, physical barrier along the border and that all this freaking out about "Trump's wall" is partisan hackery; rather, I'm trying to convince you that fences and walls are the same thing, because that is what is TRULY important!

But, thank you for clarifying about the hero worship stuff. Here I thought I was a classical liberal who was actively campaigning for Rand Paul, and only grudgingly took Trump as the lesser evil in comparison to Felonia von Pansuit. Kenneth Kenster has set me straight; twice now he has shown his knowledge of my own personal convictions is greater than my own knowledge!
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

karatecowboy wrote:

No no no, you've got it all wrong: I really DO understand that there is a meaningful difference, but I just want to fool you, which is why I'm trying to convince you that a wall is a fence, remember? You said so yourself: I'm not trying to show that there are several hundred miles of imposing, physical barrier along the border and that all this freaking out about "Trump's wall" is partisan hackery; rather, I'm trying to convince you that fences and walls are the same thing, because that is what is TRULY important!

But, thank you for clarifying about the hero worship stuff. Here I thought I was a classical liberal who was actively campaigning for Rand Paul, and only grudgingly took Trump as the lesser evil in comparison to Felonia von Pansuit. Kenneth Kenster has set me straight; twice now he has shown his knowledge of my own personal convictions is greater than my own knowledge!


See: my last post.

Equating Trump's wall to previous proposals or what we have now is a false equivalency.
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

sundin13 wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

No no no, you've got it all wrong: I really DO understand that there is a meaningful difference, but I just want to fool you, which is why I'm trying to convince you that a wall is a fence, remember? You said so yourself: I'm not trying to show that there are several hundred miles of imposing, physical barrier along the border and that all this freaking out about "Trump's wall" is partisan hackery; rather, I'm trying to convince you that fences and walls are the same thing, because that is what is TRULY important!

But, thank you for clarifying about the hero worship stuff. Here I thought I was a classical liberal who was actively campaigning for Rand Paul, and only grudgingly took Trump as the lesser evil in comparison to Felonia von Pansuit. Kenneth Kenster has set me straight; twice now he has shown his knowledge of my own personal convictions is greater than my own knowledge!


See: my last post.

Equating Trump's wall to previous proposals or what we have now is a false equivalency.


By what standard?

Whether it's 35 feet of concrete or two 14 foot steel fences. Either one would keep people out, which is where the whole "Soooo waycist!" thing comes from that some people say. Actually, 35 feet of concrete is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than 28 feet of steel.

I'm not convinced the wailing about the wall is not partisan hackery. I've seen waaaay too much "It's not X when WE do it" to just buy into that.
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/1/17

karatecowboy wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

No no no, you've got it all wrong: I really DO understand that there is a meaningful difference, but I just want to fool you, which is why I'm trying to convince you that a wall is a fence, remember? You said so yourself: I'm not trying to show that there are several hundred miles of imposing, physical barrier along the border and that all this freaking out about "Trump's wall" is partisan hackery; rather, I'm trying to convince you that fences and walls are the same thing, because that is what is TRULY important!

But, thank you for clarifying about the hero worship stuff. Here I thought I was a classical liberal who was actively campaigning for Rand Paul, and only grudgingly took Trump as the lesser evil in comparison to Felonia von Pansuit. Kenneth Kenster has set me straight; twice now he has shown his knowledge of my own personal convictions is greater than my own knowledge!


See: my last post.

Equating Trump's wall to previous proposals or what we have now is a false equivalency.


By what standard?

Whether it's 35 feet of concrete or two 14 foot steel fences. Either one would keep people out, which is where the whole "Soooo waycist!" thing comes from that some people say. Actually, 35 feet of concrete is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than 28 feet of steel.

I'm not convinced the wailing about the wall is not partisan hackery. I've seen waaaay too much "It's not X when WE do it" to just buy into that.


Trump's plan for the wall costs about 10x as much (in upfront costs, not maintenance) as the Secure Fence Act. It is by no means cheaper.

The fact is, there are ample valid criticisms against Trump's wall and Trump's wall proposal is not equivalent to the Secure Fence Act. You are setting up a false equivalency. They aren't the same thing, so claiming bias when people recognize the two things are different is either extremely dense or disingenuous.
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

sundin13 wrote:



Trump's plan for the wall costs about 10x as much (in upfront costs, not maintenance) as the Secure Fence Act. It is by no means cheaper.

The fact is, there are ample valid criticisms against Trump's wall and Trump's wall proposal is not equivalent to the Secure Fence Act. You are setting up a false equivalency. They aren't the same thing, so claiming bias when people recognize the two things are different is either extremely dense or disingenuous.



Most of the people I've spoken don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act. Actually, most are not even aware of the Secure Fence Act, much less any difference in cost. For all they know, the Secure Fence Act could have cost $100 billion. They just "know" that "building a wall" is "nuts" --because a Republican suggested it. It's similar to the whole "Muslim ban" BS. Meetup.com went all berserk saying "Nationalities were targeted!" and a thus a "line was crossed". Well, gee, President Obama did that 19 times.... meetup.com didn't give a rats ass. Actually, nobody cared.

When it comes to "Trump's wall" I've heard from $3 billion to $150 billion. I think that most opposition is based on principle rather than price: it's a lot of virtue signaling and hypocrisy.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:


sundin13 wrote:



Trump's plan for the wall costs about 10x as much (in upfront costs, not maintenance) as the Secure Fence Act. It is by no means cheaper.

The fact is, there are ample valid criticisms against Trump's wall and Trump's wall proposal is not equivalent to the Secure Fence Act. You are setting up a false equivalency. They aren't the same thing, so claiming bias when people recognize the two things are different is either extremely dense or disingenuous.



Most of the people I've spoken don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act. Actually, most are not even aware of the Secure Fence Act, much less any difference in cost. For all they know, the Secure Fence Act could have cost $100 billion. They just "know" that "building a wall" is "nuts" --because a Republican suggested it. It's similar to the whole "Muslim ban" BS. Meetup.com went all berserk saying "Nationalities were targeted!" and a thus a "line was crossed". Well, gee, President Obama did that 19 times.... meetup.com didn't give a rats ass. Actually, nobody cared.

When it comes to "Trump's wall" I've heard from $3 billion to $150 billion. I think that most opposition is based on principle rather than price: it's a lot of virtue signaling and hypocrisy.


To echo sundin's point, it's really not gonna help your case if you keep comparong apples to oranges like this. :/
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:


sundin13 wrote:



Trump's plan for the wall costs about 10x as much (in upfront costs, not maintenance) as the Secure Fence Act. It is by no means cheaper.

The fact is, there are ample valid criticisms against Trump's wall and Trump's wall proposal is not equivalent to the Secure Fence Act. You are setting up a false equivalency. They aren't the same thing, so claiming bias when people recognize the two things are different is either extremely dense or disingenuous.



Most of the people I've spoken don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act. Actually, most are not even aware of the Secure Fence Act, much less any difference in cost. For all they know, the Secure Fence Act could have cost $100 billion. They just "know" that "building a wall" is "nuts" --because a Republican suggested it. It's similar to the whole "Muslim ban" BS. Meetup.com went all berserk saying "Nationalities were targeted!" and a thus a "line was crossed". Well, gee, President Obama did that 19 times.... meetup.com didn't give a rats ass. Actually, nobody cared.

When it comes to "Trump's wall" I've heard from $3 billion to $150 billion. I think that most opposition is based on principle rather than price: it's a lot of virtue signaling and hypocrisy.


People don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act because it wasn't a big deal. If the Secure Fence Act cost $100billion, it would be a big deal, and people would have complained about it. You are using broken hypotheticals to make comparisons which just doesn't work as an argument.

Its not nuts because a Republican suggested it, its nuts because Trump has billed it as a 55 foot tall wall spanning the entire border. That is nuts. No other way about it. Yes, Trump has flip flopped, but that is still the image he created.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17
The point of THIS THREAD is how it's going to be paid for. Obama paid 1.5 billion for a fence with many gaps in coverage. Fences that have been cut into, dug under, or otherwise easily circumvented. Trump's wall is estimated to run between 14 to 20 billion. That's a lot of money!

If Ted Cruz's legislation passes, then when El Chapo is convicted, his estimated 14 billion assets, stashed around the world, will go the the U.S. government, but instead of going into a general fund, will go specifically to pay for the wall, or at least a significant portion of the cost.

And it'll be a great wall, a good wall, a safe wall, a great - great wall! And El Chapo is gonna pay for it!
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

sundin13 wrote:



People don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act because it wasn't a big deal. If the Secure Fence Act cost $100billion, it would be a big deal, and people would have complained about it. You are using broken hypotheticals to make comparisons which just doesn't work as an argument.

Its not nuts because a Republican suggested it, its nuts because Trump has billed it as a 55 foot tall wall spanning the entire border. That is nuts. No other way about it. Yes, Trump has flip flopped, but that is still the image he created.


Well no, people don't know about the Secure Fence Act for the same reason they can't name the speaker of the house, the capital of the nation, or point to Australia on a map: they're generally ignorant of world and national affairs. When you say 700 miles of steel isn't "a big deal" I'm not buying it; you're only fooling yourself.

Trump has floated a whole bunch of ideas, from 35 feet to 55 feet, from a 1,000 miles to "the whole border". At this point it's a lot of talk and speculation, and any real, concrete details escape any accurate measurement because people are opposed to it in principle.

I've seen it so many times, especially on universities --those bastions of "education" -- go up to people, tell them Person A who they hate did X,Y, and Z and they'll go on and on about how horrible those things are. Then tell them actually, it was Person B who they support, and watch them backpedal "Well, um, I'm sure he had a good reason".

TIL: 700 miles of steel isn't a big deal.

923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
I like the thoughtful discussion that was generated on the border wall.

I would like to add that calling the opposition to the border wall hypocritical and based on virtue signaling leads one to ask, "What was the political messaging that suggested that the border wall be built in the first place?" Was there some hypocrisy there too, in asking for an optically impressive public works project that would have little to no effect on the intended problem?

I think most thoughtful people would agree that both sides engage in cynical strategies of political messaging, and that the job of the electorate is to hold these claims made in the heat of political rhetoric up to the light of reason. That seems to be what is happening here, and for that I am happy.
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

sundin13 wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

When you say 700 miles of steel isn't "a big deal" I'm not buying it; you're only fooling yourself.

Trump has floated a whole bunch of ideas, from 35 feet to 55 feet, from a 1,000 miles to "the whole border". At this point it's a lot of talk and speculation, and any real, concrete details escape any accurate measurement because people are opposed to it in principle.

I've seen it so many times, especially on universities --those bastions of "education" -- go up to people, tell them Person A who they hate did X,Y, and Z and they'll go on and on about how horrible those things are. Then tell them actually, it was Person B who they support, and watch them backpedal "Well, um, I'm sure he had a good reason".

TIL: 700 miles of steel isn't a big deal.



I mean, its really not a big deal. $1.5 billion isn't really a figure that draws much attention when it comes to government spending. On top of that, the fence itself wasn't really anything surprising. In fact, you talk like it was all double layered steel fencing, but actually 300 miles of that was vehicle barriers and not even really fencing. The Secure Fence Act was pretty run of the mill when it comes to bills.

Like I said previously, lower estimates of Trump's proposal puts it at 10x the cost. If you think that the Secure Fence Act was a huge deal, Trump's proposal is earth shattering. Actually, you thinking that the Secure Fence Act is a big deal just makes Trump's proposal even more ludicrous in its scope.

No matter what you think of the Secure Fence Act, it doesn't compare to Trump's wall in scope. Comparing the two simply doesn't make sense. Trump has proposed something which is so outlandish that it makes people who don't care, start to care. Thats all there is too it.

Trump's Wall is a terrible idea. Stop trying to bring bias into it. When the proposal sucks as much as it does, the only way you can start talking about bias is by arguing that the wall is a good idea, which you yourself have admitted it isn't.


It was actually > $2 billion upfront and $50 billion maintenance over the next few decades. "Not a big deal".

Google around and some economists are estimating that the wall could realistically pay for itself --- and people would still be opposed to it. Annually, California alone spends some $25 billion on public benefits for illegal aliens. Just hypothetically: if it could realistically pay for itself --- would you still think it was nuts? Would you still oppose it?

12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:


sundin13 wrote:



People don't know the cost of the Secure Fence Act because it wasn't a big deal. If the Secure Fence Act cost $100billion, it would be a big deal, and people would have complained about it. You are using broken hypotheticals to make comparisons which just doesn't work as an argument.

Its not nuts because a Republican suggested it, its nuts because Trump has billed it as a 55 foot tall wall spanning the entire border. That is nuts. No other way about it. Yes, Trump has flip flopped, but that is still the image he created.


Well no, people don't know about the Secure Fence Act for the same reason they can't name the speaker of the house, the capital of the nation, or point to Australia on a map: they're generally ignorant of world and national affairs.


Speak for yourself dude. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us can do all of that
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Speak for yourself dude. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us can do all of that


I'll testify to what I've seen and speak freely about it. You mind your own speaking.
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:

When you say 700 miles of steel isn't "a big deal" I'm not buying it; you're only fooling yourself.

Trump has floated a whole bunch of ideas, from 35 feet to 55 feet, from a 1,000 miles to "the whole border". At this point it's a lot of talk and speculation, and any real, concrete details escape any accurate measurement because people are opposed to it in principle.

I've seen it so many times, especially on universities --those bastions of "education" -- go up to people, tell them Person A who they hate did X,Y, and Z and they'll go on and on about how horrible those things are. Then tell them actually, it was Person B who they support, and watch them backpedal "Well, um, I'm sure he had a good reason".

TIL: 700 miles of steel isn't a big deal.



I mean, its really not a big deal. $1.5 billion isn't really a figure that draws much attention when it comes to government spending. On top of that, the fence itself wasn't really anything surprising. In fact, you talk like it was all double layered steel fencing, but actually 300 miles of that was vehicle barriers and not even really fencing. The Secure Fence Act was pretty run of the mill when it comes to bills.

Like I said previously, lower estimates of Trump's proposal puts it at 10x the cost. If you think that the Secure Fence Act was a huge deal, Trump's proposal is earth shattering. Actually, you thinking that the Secure Fence Act is a big deal just makes Trump's proposal even more ludicrous in its scope.

No matter what you think of the Secure Fence Act, it doesn't compare to Trump's wall in scope. Comparing the two simply doesn't make sense. Trump has proposed something which is so outlandish that it makes people who don't care, start to care. Thats all there is too it.

Trump's Wall is a terrible idea. Stop trying to bring bias into it. When the proposal sucks as much as it does, the only way you can start talking about bias is by arguing that the wall is a good idea, which you yourself have admitted it isn't.
45 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / México
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
I'm gonna tell you who's not paying for it: me.
1792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17
I honestly don't care who pays for the wall or who it affects. As long as I get a paid trip, return trip,(maybe, depends if I like Texas or want to go back to Washington) and a cheap place to live set up, they can pay me to start building it.

I'll even take whatever Texas minimum wage is, sure as hell is lower then Washington's 11 dollars too much for full time unskilled labor min wage. (unless your in Seattle, which your either a bum, retired, or got a real career that makes much more then that.)

This is all assuming that whoever is paying for the wall will be willing to pay for American workers, and not workers of cheaper costs and rumored higher quality in hard labor. (cough Mexicans cough)
11837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/4/17

descloud wrote:

It's a enormous waste of money. And will probably go down in history as the biggest waste of american dollars. Only retards support this kind of crap.

China built a wall. It failed miserably.
Berlin Germany, oh look another failure.
Belfast peace wall is supposedly being taken down also.

What does tell us? Building walls doesn't solve problems. But go ahead, let history repeat itself.


Mandatory E-verify and other internal enforcements to remove the job magnet -- those are the best.

That said, the Great Wall was rather effective at keeping out barbarian raids, and as a tool for communication and organizing responses. The Berlin Wall very good at keeping people apart: that's why they celebrated so much when it came down; if it didn't do anything then nobody would care. A wall is a tool like any tool; it all depends on how you use it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ph1a9/how_effective_was_the_great_wall_of_china_after/
17165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17
It's a enormous waste of money. And will probably go down in history as the biggest waste of american dollars. Only retards support this kind of crap.

China built a wall. It failed miserably.
Berlin Germany, oh look another failure.
Belfast peace wall is supposedly being taken down also.

What does tell us? Building walls doesn't solve problems. But go ahead, let history repeat itself.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/1/17 , edited 5/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Speak for yourself dude. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us can do all of that


I'll testify to what I've seen and speak freely about it. You mind your own speaking.


Why are you pulling the "speak freely" stuff out? Nobody is saying that you're not entitled to free speech just because what you say is highly questionable at best.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.