*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

If you think there are none, you can just say that too. That's fine.

[oskar]

I ask you to name one so I can understand your definition of racism and how it doesn't apply to Trump.
In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof. I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well. White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far. How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right? Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.

Like, do you admit now that Trump's statements about killing terrorists families was in regards to his policy position on changing military rules of engagement and not some pornographic desire to murder brown babies?

Absolutely not. He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives." He has defended this statement many times, but initially it was about killing their families for interrogation, which of course is retarded, but I think president Trump is a mentally retarded person, so no surprises there for me. The Fox news clip was the 2nd or 3rd time he publicly defended this. Also notice how Fox moves on immediately with the next question instead of asking even a single follow-up to the guy who just said "kill their families" 3 times in one sentence.

[TheSpoonald]

I ask you to name one so I can understand your definition of racism and how it doesn't apply to Trump.

Good. Do you understand now?

In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof.

DR was one guy with zero support. Forgive me if I'm not freaking out about a crime wave.

I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well.

Sure, I guess so, for convenience I guess it's alright. If you want to be precise, I have a bit of a hard time classifying "jewish" as a race. But I guess the sentiment is close enough.

White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far.

For a country that's 250 years old, why is a sample size of 14 months significant? Will you drop this argument if some muslims bomb cinco de mayo next weekend? You know if you add up the body count of all of those domestic terror attacks in the US in 2018 and 2019 it's still only a fraction of the number of dead "easter worshipers" who were not killed by white supremacists. It's pretty easy to make an argument when you presume to arbitrarily confine stats to certain regions or time periods.

Did you know that NOAA has data from ship hulls that tells them ocean temperatures over time, and that it shows 15 full years with no change at all? You still believe in climate change right?

See how that works, lol

How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right?

What? When did I use the word "threat"? I used the word "incompatible"

Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero

Zero??? Did you really just type that? Do me a favor and google the phrase "easter worshipers"

while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.

And?

He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives."

citation needed

[TheSpoonald]

If that's your evidence that Trump is racist, you're deranged.

You know, ten years ago, that could have been a DNC ad. But then in 2015 they changed their mind because ORANGE MAN BAD

[oskar]

You seem to know know the meaning of the word domestic. Make domestic your word of the day. It's a good word to know.

[TheSpoonald]

You seem to know know the meaning of the word domestic. Make domestic your word of the day. It's a good word to know.

I fully understand what you meant.

My argument is not supported by fact unless I arbitrarily restrict the stats in a way that makes me sound right.

[oskar]

A wall isn't racist. Saying you need a wall because immigrants murder is. Illegal immigrants murder at a much lower rate than citizens. So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist. In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.

A wall or barrier in the right places makes sense. A wall in the middle of the desert is retarded.

[TheSpoonald]

A wall isn't racist. Saying you need a wall because immigrants murder is. Illegal immigrants murder at a much lower rate than citizens.

This is wrong. Again, you're conflating two talking points. Stop watching CNN. It's true there is less crime per capita among immigrant populations compared to native born US populations. That's it. You don't get to insert any additional words into that sentence. End of talking point.

Do you have any data that shows the frequency of criminal activity among illegal immigrant populations compared to native born populations? Do you have that data? Because it kinda pads your crime stats if you include a few million people who waited in line at the border, and went through the immigration process legally. We already know those are law abiding people. The wall isn't meant for them.

Before you go on a goose chase, you should know that the data you would actually need is difficult to come by. Many states dont' ask the immigration status of criminals. In many states, it's illegal to do so. However, the federal government does keep stats.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...16/Table09.pdf
US Citizens are responsible for only 58% of crime. Does that sound proportional to their population??????

So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist.

Uh, no it isn't.

In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.

Provably false

The Justice Department keeps data on federal crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally — and an analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that undocumented immigrants made up a disproportionate share of federal inmates sentenced for nonimmigration crimes in 2016.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...16/Table09.pdf
US Citizens are responsible for only 58% of crime. Does that sound proportional to their population??????

According to this,there were only 84 murder convictions in the US in all of 2016.

Something tells me they don't have anything approaching a complete data set here.

[TheSpoonald]

According to this,there were only 84 murder convictions in the US in all of 2016.

Something tells me they don't have anything approaching a complete data set here.

It's federal stats. And the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the state level. If you had any shred of reading comprehension you'll see where I clearly stated that available data on this is thin.

[Poopadoop]

It's federal stats. And the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the state level. If you had any shred of reading comprehension you'll see where I clearly stated that available data on this is thin.

If you were trying to argue in good faith you wouldn't have even put this up.

You may as well look at one courthouse and try to draw conclusions about what is happening everywhere in the country.

[oskar]

It's kinda entertaining, but I don't understand how you can base all your believes purely on what feels correct to you - never bother to look up anything, but go around calling people idiots for citing department of public safety statistics.

[TheSpoonald]

It's kinda entertaining, but I don't understand how you can base all your believes purely on what feels correct to you - never bother to look up anything, but go around calling people idiots for citing department of public safety statistics.

Uh, you didn't cite public safety statistics, you cited the Cato Institute. Try again.

[Poopadoop]

Frankly, bananold, I'm impressed it's taken you this long to start being abusive as a regular form of argument. Well done I'd say. You held it together there for quite a while really.

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Oskar....did you know that most drowning rescues occur in places where lifeguards are on duty? Does that mean it's completely safe to swim everywhere else?

[oskar]

If you had read the corresponding section, which is only a couple sentences long, you'd see that the DEA accounts for that. They're not fucking retarded.

How did you find the link you gave on crime statistics? Like what did you google for?

[oskar]

430 posts and 7 days

[Poopadoop]

This is also why I was curious about whether the order Trump gave had been followed or not - because he has the habit of giving illegal orders and getting involved where it's not his place to get involved. That's why a lot of people choose not to follow his orders.

[TheSpoonald]

This is also why I was curious about whether the order Trump gave had been followed or not - because he has the habit of giving illegal orders and getting involved where it's not his place to get involved. That's why a lot of people choose not to follow his orders.

Just fuck off

[Poopadoop]

Just fuck off

So, you don't like where this is heading eh? I can see why.

[oskar]

Drugs are killing people. If you're 40 years old in America there is almost ZERO chance that you don't know someone who has died of a drug overdose. Life expectancy actually dropped for the first time in virtually forever.

How's the MAGA going?

[oskar]

Or its through underground tunnels, and a wall would stop that too.

fantastic

[TheSpoonald]

fantastic

Were you not aware that the wall prototypes have ground-penetrating radar, or sonar, or whatever scientific shit that can see 10 feet below the earth's surface?

EDIT: Before you say "what about a tunnel 11 feet deep?" the answer is "fuck off". If the cartels can dig a tunnel that deep, for miles, and have it not cave in, and not be detected.....then more power to them.

[oskar]

Were you not aware that the wall prototypes have ground-penetrating radar, or sonar, or whatever scientific shit that can see 10 feet below the earth's surface?

EDIT: Before you say "what about a tunnel 11 feet deep?" the answer is "fuck off". If the cartels can dig a tunnel that deep, for miles, and have it not cave in, and not be detected.....then more power to them.

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

[TheSpoonald]

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

Hmm, that would have been fun. Oh well.

[Poopadoop]

I wasn't going to say that. I was going to make fun of you for being so naive to think that the Trump™ wall will be 10 feet deep and have sonar "or whatever"... or will be more than replacement fencing for that matter.

I like how the new wall is not only going to have 'sonar or whatever' (is that a direct quote from Trump?), but while it's only 10 feet deep it runs for miles beyond the border itself.

[oskar]

And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments.

You are the perfect customer.

[oskar]

... and let's not forget that the decade long war on drugs has been a full-on success story.

Banana weren't you a Dave Rubin level libertarian memer? And now you're begging on your knees for the government to control what you put into your body?

[TheSpoonald]

... and let's not forget that the decade long war on drugs has been a full-on success story.

It needed a wall

Banana weren't you a Dave Rubin level libertarian memer

I don't know what a memer is. Also, Dave Rubin libertarian??

And now you're begging on your knees for the government to control what you put into your body?

Citation needed

[oskar]

HOW DARE YOU!
THAT'S SOCIALISM!

[Poopadoop]

What would the US do if it had an epidemic of another deadly disease, like, say pig 'flu or w/e?

Actually, let me re-phrase that. What SHOULD a country do when facing an epidemic of a deadly disease? 'cause I'm guessing America would probably declare war on whatever country the disease started in. Or build a wall around it or summat.

Seriously though, what do you think you should do?

[oskar]

Dave Rubin libertarian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtU

Absolute below room temperature moron.

[TheSpoonald]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYotqgekKtU

Absolute below room temperature moron.

Since you watch TYT, you know that Dave has been on the right for about fifteen minutes. Give the guy a chance. His heart's in the right place.

[Poopadoop]

You sure about that?

My understanding is the relapse rates are 40-60%. So, 40-60% cure rate.

What % of addicts stop using without treatment?

[oskar]

He's thinking of alcohol rehab. Opiods has a higher success rate. Even if they have a pretty high relapse rate so even if you have something like an 80% relapse rate for alcohol, you still get the people off for a period of time. Also there's a difference between actual rehab hospitals and whatever nonsense they're peddling in the US.

[Poopadoop]

You understand the logic of replacing a street drug injected with a dirty needle with a controlled substance given in a controlled environment, right? Because it's a pretty big change in quality of life and/or risk of infection.

[TheSpoonald]

it's a pretty big change in quality of life.

Citation needed

and/or risk of infection.

Not even close to addressing the real problem.

It also increases the risk that the addict will go sell the buprenophrine and then go buy heroin. Now all you've done is double the amount of drug addicts out on the street

[Poopadoop]

Citation needed


Not even close to addressing the real problem.

It also increases the risk that the addict will go sell the buprenophrine and then go buy heroin. Now all you've done is double the amount of drug addicts out on the street

Have a nurse give the injection; that makes it hard to go sell the drug.

Also, lol that someone will sell a drug to go buy a dirtier version of the same drug.

[Poopadoop]

Citation needed

Common sense needed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You don't get to bring up the argument of "the government spends too much money" and then [...]

Lucky for me that I never said anything of the sort.
Can you answer the question without subjectively adding a freight train of your own baggage to it, then tearing down the strawmen you've built out of thin air?

Having fun being facetious today?

It was alright.

You obviously know exactly what I mean

I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?
I mean, I get that you're all, "right wing good. left wing bad," but that's not really an informed position on any issue. I don't see any central core or consistency to what your vision of America's future is aside from that caveman agenda to "stick it to the cry-baby libruls."


question: do you actually think you have any idea what the rest of us mean?
I think we have something like 7 pages of data right here as my source indicating you don't.

The manpower isn't as effective without the wall.

Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.
Me: A wall without manpower, sensors, drones = not stopping anyone / no more resilient to the cutting of manpower, sensors, drones.
Spoon: the manpower isn't effective without a wall!

SMH. Just keep moving the goal posts and changing the topic so you can maintain that level of outrage, man.
I said a wall without manpower is no more permanent than manpower without wall.
If you're arguing against that, then dafuq, man?

Your statement about the permanence of walls is stupid. Just suck it up and admit that you said a stupid thing. Then re-evaluate what that means for the case you were trying to make. Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved and you don't change your position. Maybe it doesn't matter... maybe you're just latching onto anything to support your emotional stance.

You think a wall isn't a populist idea?

Once again... I said nothing of the sort.
I'm tired of correcting your reading comprehension. Can you just not suck at it so much? K thx

[TheSpoonald]

Lucky for me that I never said anything of the sort.

Liar.

Can you answer the question without subjectively adding a freight train of your own baggage to it, then tearing down the strawmen you've built out of thin air?

Can you make a post without a metric ton of ad hominem nonsense? You're not even good at it.

It was alright.

You do you man.

I almost never know what you actually mean. Do you, even?

It's crystal clear.

I mean, I get that you're all, "right wing good. left wing bad,"

Uh no. You clearly don't know anything about my political views.

but that's not really an informed position on any issue

Agreed. I'm glad that's not my position.

I don't see any central core or consistency to what your vision of America's future is aside from that caveman agenda to "stick it to the cry-baby libruls."

It's like you're conflating me with the magnified perception of a cliche that you think I am. It's confusing and silly.

My vision for America is one where regular folks, with 100 IQ's, can work, and be engaged in society. Right now people like that are totally dispossessed. They are either unemployed, or about to be. They have drug and alcohol problems. Divorce is the rule. Domestic violence is common. Depression and suicide and rampant. And while people like that used to be able to save money and give their kids a better future, nowadays those people are two paychecks from oblivion. In 2015, America's middle class became a statistical minority. That's not going to work. Society functions a hell of a lot better if 80% of the country is bourgeoisie. We used to have that. Now that class is in the minority. That's what "Make America Great Again" means. It means regular folks get re-engaged and take back power from the ruling class.

It's not a left/right thing for me at all. If you want to understand my political views think of it like this: Everything Bernie Sanders says is correct, except for when he makes suggestions on how to fix things. All of his complaints are spot on. All of his criticisms are apt. All of his policy ideas for solutions are complete buffoonery.

Trump on the other hand is part of the inequality problem that Bernie bitches about. However, his ego is so far beyond restraint that he can't help himself but to push back against it if it makes him famous. I believe he's a patriot. I believe he really wants to do a good job as POTUS. And if he wants to crush the system he enjoyed for decades just to pump himself up....I'm going to let him.

question: do you actually think you have any idea what the rest of us mean?

Definitely. Oskar thrives on racism. He loves it. He sees it everywhere and he makes a little white puddle in his pants anytime he can stick up for the brown guy. Poop is just a contrarian but lacks the talent to do it well. Doesn't matter what's posted, he'll find some illogical way to push back against it. Stuff like "How come the Navy follows Trumps orders but his lawyer doesn't? NYAH!" And you, MMM, you just seem to want to land some haymaker on me. You've been trying for days without success. How much longer is this gonna go on?

Spoon: Manpower, sensors, drones = not permanent, therefore not effective 'cause someone later down the line can remove them.

Right

Me: A wall without manpower, sensors, drones = not stopping anyone

It might stop someone. I'll grant you that it's less effective. But don't pretend like a 30 foot concrete wall is just a speed bump.

/ no more resilient to the cutting of manpower, sensors, drones.

Actually it is more resilient. See if you cut funding for manpower, you have nothing. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, you still have a wall. What's not clear about that?

Spoon: the manpower isn't effective without a wall!

This is also true. Evidence: 25 million illegal immigrants are here right now.

SMH. Just keep moving the goal posts and changing the topic so you can maintain that level of outrage, man.

What goalpost am I moving? What exactly is the goal here? How has my position been inconsistent? Do you think that my policy position was to just build a wall and then leave it alone? Do you really think that I think that stacking some bricks up in the desert is gonna solve immigration all by itself?? This is why I don't understand what you're trying to do. For your arguments to even make a lick of sense, you'd have to assume I have the intelligence of Oskar. Have we not determined that my IQ is nearly two full standard deviations higher? Give me some fucking credit man.

I said a wall without manpower is no more permanent than manpower without wall.
If you're arguing against that, then dafuq, man?

I am arguing against that. As I said above. If you cut funding for manpower, the man goes home. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, the wall still stands. At least for a while. And probably a long time. I'm not sure that "more permanent" is even a logically sound phrase, but assuming it is...then a wall is more permanent than a man. Dafuq you talking about?

Your statement about the permanence of walls is stupid. Just suck it up and admit that you said a stupid thing.

Uh no, because it's not stupid. You understand the difference between a 30 foot mass of concrete, and a sensor with dead batteries right? Assume that the next POTUS declares that he's not funding border patrol anymore. Now you've got a a wall, and a senor with dead batteries sitting out there in the desert. Neither one is consuming any resources. Neither one requires any funding. Yet one still functions, and the other is a useless object.

Do you know what permanence means?

Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved

The only supporting fact that I'm assuming is that if the next POTUS cuts funding for wall maintenance, that the wall will not dissolve into dust automatically. Has that fact been disproven? Source?

Once again... I said nothing of the sort.

Hold on, yes you did. I said "America voted for a wall". You said "Hey wait, I thought you said America voted for a populist". Do you see how you're implying that a wall is not consistent with populism?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Liar.

Quote or STFU.
I asked if it's our best option. I never said anything about the gov't spending too much on anything. I never said the wall is more expensive than anything else. I asked if it was. You dodged the question, changed the subject, invented strawmen, jumped to conclusions, etc.

Can you make a post without a metric ton of ad hominem nonsense? You're not even good at it.

Criticizing your inability to stay on topic and effectively communicate is neither ad hominem, nor nonsense.
I'm not using the criticism of your ability to communicate as a means to discredit anything you're trying to say.
Ergo, ad hominem doesn't apply.

Discrediting what you're saying because it asserts a position to me that I do not hold is a totally different thing going on there.

You clearly don't know anything about my political views.

Refresh my memory on the last time you spent more than 1 post giving as much of a heated defense of any left-wing policy as you have to the wall issue, please.
I'm not claiming to know your political views beyond what you've posted here. My memory isn't all that great. I don't recall you taking a strong position on a political issue that was on the left-wing side of things. If you have, and I've forgotten, then please remind me.

My vision for America [...]

That was nice. Thanks.

And you, MMM, you just seem to want to land some haymaker on me.

Not a bit of it. I want to understand why you're so single-mindedly defending the wall that you'll say things which are not supported by any data (reality). Some data which illuminates things on topic has been posted ITT at your request, but none of it seems to have changed even a nuance of your position.
Ergo, you've got an emotional attachment to the idea of the wall that you're willing to defend with or without facts.
That's interesting.

That's what I'm trying to draw your attention to, as it's what I'm stuck trying to figure out. I'm not trying to "haymaker" you. I'm trying to figure out why you're building a house of cards.

This is also true. Evidence: 25 million illegal immigrants are here right now.

Where'd you get that number?
It says 12 million on the DHS site.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...est-report.pdf
(So now half the problem is already solved for you, right? Because that 25 million number was important to your point? Because you don't just throw out unimportant nonsense to support a position with data that you came to with emotions? Right? You're a logical adult, so this new information will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know, right?)

***
Did you know most immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas?

https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-...s-border-wall/
"This report speaks to another reason to question the necessity and value of a 2,000-mile wall: It does not reflect the reality of how the large majority of persons now become undocumented. It finds that two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas. Moreover, this trend in increasing percentages of visa overstays will likely continue into the foreseeable future."

(I didn't find any more recent data. Let me know if you do.)

Assuming illegal immigration is the crisis you say it is, is a wall the best way to address this, given these data?

Actually it is more resilient. See if you cut funding for manpower, you have nothing. If you cut funding for wall maintenance, you still have a wall. What's not clear about that?

OK, I'll grant you that a swiss cheesed ex-wall with ladders along it is probably easier to bootstrap than no wall.
Still a far, far cry from "permanent," but if that's all you meant, then I'll drop it.

What goalpost am I moving? What exactly is the goal here? How has my position been inconsistent? Do you think [...]?

calm down there, bucko.
The evidence is in your face every day or so. All I asked was, "Is a wall the most effective use of our money to address these issues?" and you've digressed into many tangents and asserted a load of nonsense that I never said. We're a page later and many posts and you still haven't answered the question.
You picked up the goalpost and moved it so many times you forgot where it started.

For the record I don't think any of those things. IDK what you're even on about. I never said any of those things. With how unrestrained I am when speaking with a fellow interlocutor of your caliber, I'd think you know that I'm not holding anything back. If I think something about you, I'm pretty open with saying it.

If I ask you a question, it's because I don't know the answer.

It might stop someone. I'll grant you that it's less effective. But don't pretend like a 30 foot concrete wall is just a speed bump.

Nope. Once the border patrol isn't coming along and confiscating abandoned ladders, well... it's not even a good speed bump.
Oh. I forgot. You live in a world where you can't make a ladder out of sticks. Or launch a grapple up 30 feet. After all, only 1 guy in that test was able to do it. Good thing he's on our side.

Yet one still functions, and the other is a useless object.

The wall doesn't stop a determined bad guy. It makes his job harder. It slows him down so less manpower can apprehend more criminals. If it takes the bad guy 5 minutes to cross, then we need a lot more guards than if it takes them 30 minutes. Even when we have cars and drones and sensors, we still gotta get there in time.

Do you know what permanence means?

Do you know what ladder means?

Hold on, yes you did. I said "America voted for a wall". You said "Hey wait, I thought you said America voted for a populist". Do you see how you're implying that a wall is not consistent with populism?

Hey wait... that's still not me saying a wall isn't a populist idea. It's still me pointing out that people voted for Trump for many reasons, and just because a majority of people voted him over Clinton, that doesn't mean the same majority supports each of his positions and policies.


Communication. It's about what someone said, not what you wish they would have said so you can tell them how wrong they are.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm not claiming to know your political views beyond what you've posted here. My memory isn't all that great. I don't recall you taking a strong position on a political issue that was on the left-wing side of things. If you have, and I've forgotten, then please remind me

What exactly do I have to do to prove to you I'm not a right winger? I'm a registered independent. I intend to vote in the democrat primary and vote for elizabeth warren. In my last post I just told you how spot on Bernie Sanders is. I wholeheartedly support universal healthcare. Personally I think it's a horrible idea, but I acknowledge that America voted for it in 2008. I love democracy, even when my side loses. But that same democracy voted for a wall in 2016. So fuck the cost. Fuck whether it will work or not. America voted for it. Build the fucking thing. And anyone who doesn't like it, should reflect on why their message lost in 2016 and try to do better next time. Either that, or shut the fuck up.

I lean right, heavily right, when it comes to the size and power over government. And it's not that so much that I'm libertarian on those issues. I'm *for* a lot of things the government does. I just think the government sucks at doing it. I can't think of anything the government has done that wasn't wildly inefficient and far less beneficial than promised. They suck at doing it.

Would it be good if some guns were banned? Sure. I can get behind that. But who decides where the line is and who enforces it? The government? No. They are guaranteed to fuck that up. So I'll live with whatever consequences come with allowing 12 year olds to buy bazookas. So I lean right on the 2nd amendment.

I'm heavily left on abortion. Maybe I could be convinced it's murder, but I still wouldn't care. Nobody wants it? Kill it. More air for me. Am I for abortion right up until the moment of birth?? I dont' know? If I'm not, then where's the line and who enforces it? The government? No. They are guaranteed to fuck that up. So I'll live with whatever consequences come with allowing a pregnant woman to tap out right before the epidural.

I hope that clears it up.

I want to understand why you're so single-mindedly defending the wall

See above. Same reason I'll single-mindedly defend an absurd and dangerous policy like universal healthcare.

that you'll say things which are not supported by any data (reality)

Walls work.

. Some data which illuminates things on topic has been posted ITT at your request, but none of it seems to have changed even a nuance of your position.

there's no nuance. Walls work.

Ergo, you've got an emotional attachment to the idea of the wall that you're willing to defend with or without facts.

FACT: Walls work.

I'm not trying to "haymaker" you. I'm trying to figure out why you're building a house of cards.

I'm trying to build a wall.

Where'd you get that number?

You cited "reality" as "data" earlier. I'd like to do the same.

It says 12 million on the DHS site.

Search harder. Related question: If we already know how many there are, why does it matter if we ask citizenship on the census?

Because that 25 million number was important to your point?

Right

Because you don't just throw out unimportant nonsense to support a position with data that you came to with emotions?

Right

Right?

Right

You're a logical adult, so this new information will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know, right?

Your information is old. Here is some new information,
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...ious-estimates
and I hope it will change your position as you incorporate it into what you know
Right?

Did you know most immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas?

Yeah, if you go back to the 70's to calculate the average. I'm totally over this whole argument. There are 60K+ people a month showing up at the border. That's the situation right now, today.

(I didn't find any more recent data. Let me know if you do.)

See above. Current as of today.

Assuming illegal immigration is the crisis you say it is, is a wall the best way to address this, given these data?

You act like this question hasn't already been answered. Google "2016 election". This has already been adjudicated....WALL.

If you're asking my personal, non-political opinion, as to what is the best way to keep unwanted people out of a place? WALL.

"Is a wall the most effective use of our money to address these issues?"

Poop is gonna give me crap for changing what you say here. But you have to understand, from my perspective, this question is *exactly* the same as asking "Should we listen to democracy". The answer is yes. yes we should.

ladders,

I'm really over this ladder argument. Honestly, it's pathetic. First of all, if Trump was able to build the wall he wanted...ladders wouldn't work. You can't perch yourself on top while you lift the ladder over. Two ladders? Maybe. They would have to be really tall. They would have to be really strong. Picture it, would people orderly climb over one at a time? Or would they just all climb up the ladder single file? How many people are on the ladder at once? How strong does this ladder have to be? How much would that ladder weigh? How easily could something like that be carried through the desert?

How likely is it that someone would be able to approach the wall, set up the apparatus to get people climbing over it, herd people over it, and then move into america undetected? Without a wall, all they have to do is walk on through.

The wall doesn't stop a determined bad guy.

And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.

It makes his job harder. It slows him down so less manpower can apprehend more criminals.

These are all good things.

Hey wait... that's still not me saying a wall isn't a populist idea

Holy fuck. Ok. Fine. If you're gonna play this game, I can too. I didn't say you said a wall isn't a populist idea. I said you implied it. And when you implied it, I asked you a question. That's not me putting words in your mouth. You said something. I interpreted it, and then I asked you to confirm my interpretation. What exactly is your problem with that?

It's still me pointing out that people voted for Trump for many reasons, and just because a majority of people voted him over Clinton, that doesn't mean the same majority supports each of his positions and policies.

So? Why does that matter? You elect whole candidates.

[oskar]

Maybe acknowledge that's a telltale sign of confirmation bias if your supporting facts get disproved and you don't change your position.

Improved visibility

[Poopadoop]

A contrarian is someone who opposes popular opinion, usually in terms of the stock market.

Seriously man, invest in a dictionary. It will help you so much.

After you get one of those, see if you can learn the basics of logical argument. That will help you too.

Finally, try to get it through your head that others here see right through your little tricks like changing what they said to mean something else (reductio ad bananum). People know what they fucking said. If you want to be so contrary as to argue with what they didn't say, don't expect anything other than to be called out on it.

[TheSpoonald]

A contrarian is someone who opposes popular opinion, usually in terms of the stock market.

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

Finally, try to get it through your head that others here see right through your little tricks like changing what they said to mean something else (reductio ad bananum).

Citation needed

People know what they fucking said. If you want to be so contrary as to argue with what they didn't say, don't expect anything other than to be called out on it

Funny, I feel like this happens to me alot. Citation=All of MMM's posts in the last two weeks.

[Poopadoop]

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

You'd then sound just as dumb, but more projecting. 'Raging' is clearly more descriptive of you than of me.

Really, a dictionary.

Citation needed

lol, sure I'll go back and find every time you did it and point them out to you so you can argue you didn't.

Funny, I feel like this happens to me alot

Yeah it does.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If I said raging oppositional defiant douchebag, I'd get banned. So cut me some slack on the vocab.

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

[TheSpoonald]

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

Yes. Yes that is exactly what would happen.

[oskar]

Can't ban a mod. I mean.. I could ban this account under the pretext that I don't "know" it's spoonitnow, but I do know, so that would be a stupid move. Then you log in with your mod account and ban me and then what? We gotta get gmml involved over a childish pissing match?

I'm not doing that.

Besides. You had a role in me becoming a mod here in the first place. Me banning an account of yours is nonsense.

C'mon there's no way. I thought it might be spoon because to have people on one board who can type really fast but have really shaky reading comprehension seems like a huge coincidence, but there are some differences that would make it pathological if those are the same person. Unless you actually know it's the same IP, I'm calling bullshit. Weren't banana and spoon posting at the same time? And this is clearly banana, or him writing as his bananastand personality. Was he actually posting from two accounts talking to himself?

[MadMojoMonkey]

C'mon there's no way. I thought it might be spoon because to have people on one board who can type really fast but have really shaky reading comprehension seems like a huge coincidence, but there are some differences that would make it pathological if those are the same person. Unless you actually know it's the same IP, I'm calling bullshit. Weren't banana and spoon posting at the same time? And this is clearly banana, or him writing as his bananastand personality. Was he actually posting from two accounts talking to himself?

Sorry, but I know spoon, and this is spoon.

some differences between the nanners and spoon:
1) nanners was not a consummate word-smith. Spoony is. Nanners had bad spelling, weird commas, etc. All the normal stuff most people have. Spoony is almost immaculate in his writing. I think I've spotted 1, maybe 2 typos in the past 7 pages from him. That's not something that people can fake. I mean... maybe spoon could fake nanners, but no way can nanners fake spoon.

2) nanners could barely restrain himself from openly raging almost all the time. Much that I sometimes like to imagine that spoony is a mouth-frothing rageaholic, he's not. Spoon's especially cool under pressure, a quality that nanners absolutely lacked. Look at the push-pull between me and spoon. When I get emotional, he gets down-to-earth. When I get intellectual, he gets emotional. IDK how he does it, but if I can hand anything to him, it's that after a few years, he's learned that the only way to actually shame me is to be more level-headed than I am when I get heated.
(Props to you for that. I never told you of this, spoon. Effective. You found something I value in myself and you combat when I break that value by showing it in spades. I hope this is intentional, because it's masterful. For all our sparring, I respect you.)

3) If I half-pushed nanners buttons with something like my "fine fermented flatus" comment, he'd be all over me with expletives and who/what I have sex with and all that high-school level nonsense that passes for insults to kids. When spoon gets petulant, it's in a totally different way.


I mean seriously, if this is nanners and NOT spoon, then I owe nanners the biggest apology ever. Bigger than I gave wuf way back when.
And seriously, if this is nanners AND spoon, then epic troll deserves credit where it's due. Damn. Hot damn. It'd mean he even trolled me in the moderators forum discussion thread about it, then doubled down with an epic... and I mean EPIC troll the next week. Seriously.. spoony's smart, but I really don't think this level of troll is anywhere near his wheelhouse.

[TheSpoonald]

For anyone who doesn't understand my politics, or wonders what my "vision for America" might be. It's all right here.

This is really, so good.

Don't be intimidated by the length. Skip to about 9 minute mark for the meat of the speech. And the Q&A during the second half is not really relevant.

I promise it's not as stiff as it looks. It's borderline stand-up comedy. But he's dead serious.



Oskar and Poop, if you watch this and tell me whether or not you still think ORANGE MAN BAD I promise to be a good sport and commit to watch 60 minutes of whatever leftist drivel you think I need to know.

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

[oskar]

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

Wow, shocker! Nobody saw that coming.

[Poopadoop]

Hey Poop, if you haven't seen this yet, I hope you're not in public. You're about to have a throbbing erection

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/polit...obe/index.html

If you're thinking of telling me why this matters...don't bother. It doesn't.

Hey banana, you've got a funny idea of what gives me an erection.

And yea, huge shock there.

And yea, it hardly matters since OOJ has already been shown.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I said, "Refresh my memory on the last time you spent more than 1 post giving as much of a heated defense of any left-wing policy as you have to the wall issue, please."
re. your opening paragraph. That's cool and all, but it doesn't address what I said. Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?
'cause I'm sorry if I painted you as more right-wing than centrist if that how you see yourself, but it's not the impression you've made here.


That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

Oh FFS.

Walls work
there's no nuance. Walls work.
FACT: Walls work.
I'm trying to build a wall.

he cries into the wind as the walls close in around him.

As if you saying a thing makes the facts on the table go away.
Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone, it slows them down, buying more time for law enforcement to apprehend them in the act.
Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

Information that you posted, which was contrary to my expectation drew these interesting conclusions:
The immigration population is roughly double what we've thought it's been for decades. It didn't suddenly double, it's just that our metrics for estimating a hidden population were not very good. However, our metrics for measuring crimes committed has been fine. We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still. So the crime committed by illegal immigrants is apparently a red herring. It needs to be dropped from a civilized discussion of why illegal immigration is bad for crime.
Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

So these pressures on (these aspects of) American life are put to the test and come out not compelling.
I hadn't expected that. No, it doesn't change my opinion because I while interesting, my opinion was never rooted in these data.

Your opinion, on the other hand, is partially rooted in the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants, so at least that part I'm curious about.
Do you have anything to refute the validity of the source you just offered? (and does that mean you abandon the 25 M number for the 11.3 M number?)

I'm really over this ladder argument. Honestly, it's pathetic. First of all, if Trump was able to build the wall he wanted...ladders wouldn't work. You can't perch yourself on top while you lift the ladder over. Two ladders? Maybe. They would have to be really tall. They would have to be really strong. Picture it, would people orderly climb over one at a time? Or would they just all climb up the ladder single file? How many people are on the ladder at once? How strong does this ladder have to be? How much would that ladder weigh? How easily could something like that be carried through the desert?

Are you actually descending into dementia during this post?

Are you that much smarter than the average bear that you're the only one who would think of TWO ladders?
Well.. Again... at least you're on our side, huh?
You don't even need a saw to make a ladder. Just some sticks and twine and you're set. Bonus: Mr. Cayote's already got one stashed in a gully about a 1/4 mile from the wall.

As to the rest... just c'mon, man. One team borks a ladder and has to fix it with some sticks and twine on the fly and then everyone gets over and takes the rope down the other side ('cause they don't have your 2-ladder genius *wink*). The Cayote takes the borked ladder and stashes it back in the gully, 'cause he's not crossing. He don't give a fuck if they live or die. He got paid to get them across, and he did.
Those people are desperate, but they're still people. They're not stupid. They don't lack creativity and problem solving skills. They have a lot of time on their hands and motivation to not get caught.

How likely is it that someone would be able to approach the wall, set up the apparatus to get people climbing over it, herd people over it, and then move into america undetected? Without a wall, all they have to do is walk on through.

99%+ for an unmanned wall. 'bout the same as no wall. A manned wall is a totally different story, though, and not really answerable by me.

I don't get you. Would a wall would stop you, spoon, if you wanted past it, and were determined to break the law to do so. You think an unmanned 30 foot wall is "stopping" you? With your 2-ladder genius?
Naaaaaah.
You're a smart guy, but this doesn't require genius, man.

And locks are for honest people. So leave your front door open and stop locking your car.

You make it sound like crimes of opportunity aren't a thing. Or that illegal immigration is a crime of opportunity.
That's funny.
I wasn't going to go to Mexico, but I mean.. I was in Texas, and like, Mexico's right there, unprotected by a huge fuck-off wall... so I illegally immigrated. lolz. YOLO!

You on the populism thing still? You now telling me that asking a question in black and white is implying some position on my part? C'mon, man. Communication. You can do it real good when you want to. I've clarified my question had nothing to do with me making an assertion, rather just pointing out that by your own words, it's not so cut-and-dry as "everyone who voted for Trump did so because they totally support all of his policies, ergo a mandate on his campaign promises."


If I write it in all caps will you stop with the thing where you think I care about what have never mentioned?

I DON'T CARE WHY YOU WANT THE WALL.

I care why you think it's good for America's future. Subtle, but different.
You want the wall 'cause democracy. Fine.
Not interesting.

You said you not only want the wall 'cause democracy, but also 'cause it's best for America.
That's interesting.
What problems do you think a wall addresses?
Is a wall the optimal solution to those problems?

[TheSpoonald]

Have you ever taken a pages long stand on any of those issues?

What do you want from me? No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

That's a very interesting study from Yale. I was wrong. Your number seems better.

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

Fact: a wall doesn't stop someone

Actually, walls work.

Fact: an unmanned wall isn't even going to slow people down by a significant amount.

Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

We already knew that crime rates among illegal immigrants was lower than the citizenry, now we know it's half that still.

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

Same for jobs taken. Whatever the rate of jobs taken by illegal immigrants, that rate is from a population 2x the size we thought it was.

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

Ladders and a bunch of other crap that isn't very smart.

Walls work.

I care why you think it's good for America's future.

Walls work

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you want from me?

Sorry. I thought you were someone else. Now I'm more certain that you have never spent more than lip service to support a left-wing issue, while you frequently spend days dropping walls of text in support of a right-wing issue.
I don't want anything but to understand who you are. Again. Sorry if me saying you're on the political right doesn't match your own vision of yourself.

No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

Well... nothing get them worked up like having someone who has no data (reality) to back up what they're talking about, and you do that a lot. Add on top that your positions are not in line with theirs and everything gets exciting. I can't even remotely disagree with that much.

Oskar has repeatedly posted that Trump is not smart enough to understand grammar or string together a coherent sentence. That's probably the extent of the "orange man bad" talk here. Oskar's other opinions on political issues, Trump or otherwise, don't usually boil down to that.

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

2x the people causing the same impact doesn't increase the problem, it shows that per capita, the problem is 1/2 what we thought it was.

In the post you linked with the 25M number, they made that clear. Do you want me to quote it for you, rather than summarize?
If you're using the data to support the 25M number, then you can't throw out the conclusions of the researchers whom collected and analyzed that data.
Either you show their methods are faulty, their conclusions false, or you accept their results.
If you accept 25M, then you have to accept, "same number of illegal aliens apprehended for crimes committed over the past XXX years we've been collecting data, but from a population that is 2x what our previous, bad estimates have guessed."

I wasn't concerned about it before. I'm not concerned about it now. It's never been a part of my line of questioning to assert an opinion on the matter. It's been a part of your line of reasoning vis-a-vis why you think a wall is good for America.

Actually, walls work.
Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

"Shut up," he opined.

Forgot where you started with that goal post again, didn't you?
It was your assertions that an unmanned wall is effective at least as a speed bump and your use of the word "permanent" that was under question.
Since you've cleared up that by permanent you meant something like, "more resilient to re-boot if it ever gets cancelled and then reinstated," I'm fine with that.

At least admit that you wouldn't be "stopped" by a wall if you were already prepared to commit the crime of crossing it and there wasn't any personnel working that wall to swoop in and catch you. Sure... it will slow you down. The longer the manpower is gone, though, the less it slows anyone down.

Cayotes are unscrupulous assholes who can make a lot of money by assisting people in this crime. That means there are going to be professional wall-get-acrossers for hire before the entire wall is even finished being built, let alone the inevitable de-funding.

Nothing lasts forever. (My professional opinion with caveats involving event horizons and time dilation.)

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes. What we didn't know what how many illegals there were total. So we were using a false estimate of 11.3 for the denominator in that equation. We have hard data on the number of arrests, so the numerator is static. The rate goes down if the numerator is static and the denominator increases.

Those per capita claims were based on the faulty estimate of 11.3M undocumented illegals. It's right there in the Yale link you posted.

Now, we could certainly postulate that if the number went from 25M (or whatever is current) to 50M (or whatever is 2x current), then we'd see a doubling in total crimes, at the same rate per capita. That is, you see, an entirely different topic, though.

Projecting an estimate about the future is not the same as incorporating new data into old data.

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

The irony is that you're an accountant, right?

We don't have as good stats on jobs taken as we do arrests, but we do have some indication of the pressure those "taken" jobs has had on the economy and workforce. Again, that data hasn't changed, the number of people causing that data has changed.

Walls work.


Walls work

"Shut up," he opined.

If you're not prepared to discredit the entirety of the Yale study and its number of 25M, then you can't discredit the researchers other conclusions without getting into the nitty gritty about where exactly did they cross the line.
Else you're just being intellectually vapid, and you don't want that, do you?

[TheSpoonald]

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes.

100% false and that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

The point is that we don't know how many arrests have been made. In most states, it's illegal to ask someone their immigration status when you arrest them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

100% false and that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

The point is that we don't know how many arrests have been made. In most states, it's illegal to ask someone their immigration status when you arrest them.

Ugh. OK, you have a point that the exact numbers are hard to come by. All I find is long ass report after long ass report about how it's hard to get good numbers on it.

Fine. We don't know the exact numbers. They're still the numbers from the past, which the new projection from Yale doesn't change.
It was a bad assumption on my part to say "we know the exact numbers." Seems like the kind of thing you don't really have to ask. One you got name, address, etc. to file the charges, you can pretty much figure out if they're a citizen of the US or not. I'd think by process of elimination, you eventually get to the illegal immigrant status, even if you never asked them. Just diligent background about who it is exactly that's getting their criminal record updated. Guess it's more complicated than that.

It's beside the point, though.

It's the Yale researchers who've said that the per capita rates are halved, not my dumb ass interpretation of it.

New data doesn't change old data. How ever many crimes were committed, that's a number. Whether or not we know it, it's a number from the past. New data can't change that number. How ever many crimes were committed, we thought it was from a population half the size we now think it is. Ergo, the rate is reduced by half, whether we know the exact value or not.

You follow?

[Jack Sawyer]

Mmm the plot thickens

[oskar]

Wow, we need to dive deeper on this. There's no way spoon can go 7 days without bragging about how many pages of clickbait he wrote, how many 2's have let him lay on top of them, or say "dingdingdingdingding" or "cuck."

If those are the same, he's a psychopath. They are distinctly different and they were talking to each other. Spoon is way more of the wuf school of thought where the less you say, and the more cryptic you say it, the less likely people are to find out you actually have no clue what you're talking about, where banana will just go full speed ahead. This is going to be controversial, but I also think in terms of cognitive function banana is a notch above spoon. There's some extreme cognitive dissonance and cult-like thinking but within that framework his synapses seem to be firing, whereas spoon just straight up shit the bed on most things that weren't high school math.

But most important is the lack of bragging. Spoon constantly brags about himself, banana doesn't and "Spoonald" is doing many things but he's not bragging.
Also spoonald referenced my IQ which is a banana thing.
Banana is banned and has a reason to create a new account, spoon doesn't.
We're on completely opposite sides of this.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... you make some interesting points.
He hasn't pressed a semi-misogynist agenda while constantly reminding us about both his wife and the 20-something shag he's got living in the other bedroom, either.

Honestly, at this point we're just giving him ideas.

[oskar]

Hey Trumples, how do you feel about the fact that we have to do some forensic fucking graphology over here to keep you puppets apart?

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Trumples, how do you feel about the fact that we have to do some forensic fucking graphology over here to keep you puppets apart?

Tell your mom to bring me a fucking sandwich you demagogue!!

[TheSpoonald]

This shows the number of people apprehended making an unauthorized entry into Hungary from Serbia. Can you guess which day they built the wall?



Hey Monkey....I thought it was really easy to make a ladder? Like you could use sticks and twine right?? Do they not have those things in Serbia?

WALLS WORK

[Poopadoop]

This wall worked at this time in this place.

fyp

[Poopadoop]

Here's some philosophy 101 for you. See if you can make the connection between this fallacy and your argument that 'walls work'.

Hasty Generalization

A Hasty Generalization is a Fallacy of Jumping to Conclusions in which the conclusion is a generalization. See also Biased Statistics.

Example:

I've met two people in Nicaragua so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Nicaragua will be nice to me.

In any Hasty Generalization the key error is to overestimate the strength of an argument that is based on too small a sample for the implied confidence level or error margin. In this argument about Nicaragua, using the word "all" in the conclusion implies zero error margin. With zero error margin you'd need to sample every single person in Nicaragua, not just two people.

[TheSpoonald]

Here's some philosophy 101 for you. See if you can make the connection between this fallacy and your argument that 'walls work'.

There's more data that says walls work than there is data that shows ladders are useful for breaching them.

Show me where Hungary or Israel are kicking themselves for not thinking that immigrants might use ladders.

Two walls. Both wildly successful.

Is there a wall on a country's border somewhere that is consistently thwarted by ladders? Anywhere??

Sounds like "But Ladders" is the only "Hasty Generalization" in this thread.

[Poopadoop]

There's more data that says walls work than there is data that shows ladders are useful for breaching them.

Show me where Hungary or Israel are kicking themselves for not thinking that immigrants might use ladders.

Two walls. Both wildly successful.

Is there a wall on a country's border somewhere that is consistently thwarted by ladders? Anywhere??

Sounds like "But Ladders" is the only "Hasty Generalization" in this thread.

You've doubled the number of your sample size now from n=1 to n=2. Well done, you're on the right track.

There's plenty of examples of people scaling or breaching walls from history. I'm not going to bother to list them here because it's not productive.

No-one would dispute that wall > no wall in hindering movement. The question is 1) whether it's going to address the problem of illegal immigration in a cost effective way, and 2) whether the wall is permanent and irreversible. Most experts don't think so on 1), and on 2) it's clear there's no such thing as a 'permanent' wall.

Your counter to this seems to be 'even so, election was vote on wall' which is overly simplistic, since the Wall was only one issue on which Capt. Retard ran.

[TheSpoonald]

There's plenty of examples of people scaling or breaching walls from history.

History huh? Not now though? What happened? Did Ladders get un-invented?

1) whether it's going to address the problem of illegal immigration in a cost effective way

Who is asking that question? Are they sincerely asking it? Or are they being politically obstructive on purpose?

Most experts don't think so

^"Hasty Generalization" Do you have a source, or some way to substantiate "most"? And what qualifies someone as an expert on border walls?

2) it's clear there's no such thing as a 'permanent' wall.

That's not clear except if you're going to be a hair splitting cunt about the word "permanent" and insist it means "until the end of time".

Your counter to this seems to be 'even so, election was vote on wall' which is overly simplistic, since the Wall was only one issue on which Capt. Retard ran.

We elect whole candidates. What don't you understand about this?

[TheSpoonald]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond. You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

[Poopadoop]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond.

He says in the lead to his response.

You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The point is you can't figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency, not that you should try to.

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then? Or do you believe that every one of his 2016 policy ideas should be followed through on?

And if they aren't followed through on, whose fault is that? Mueller?

Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The mask is slipping, if there ever was one. Careful there ragey Joe.

[TheSpoonald]

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

If you're telling me the election of 2016 was not many things, and that one of those things was not a referendum on a wall....just gtfo

[Poopadoop]

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

Not up on the story behind this, but Imma going to go out on a limb again and suggest that that is with great likelihood a gross oversimplification of how the SC ruled on that case.