*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you absolutely sure that no human trafficking or drug smuggling occurs there? You are positive that open desert is not a vulnerability at all, and has no potential to be a vulnerability in the future. You're sure of that?

That seems like a really low bar to set for the cost involved.
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?

[TheSpoonald]

That seems like a really low bar to set for the cost involved.
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?

Honestly, I just have to roll my eyes whenever someone brings up the cost. The Government Accountability Office publishes an annual report showing that fraud, waste, and abuse in the government is enough to pay for many many many walls.

The Green New Deal costs enough to pay for 1000 walls.

It doesn't matter how else the money might be spent. Even if you could make an argument that there are more effective measures of border control....none of them are permanent. That's a unique feature of a wall, and it's kind of a dealbreaker. Voters have been misled on immigration too many times, going back to Reagan. If you pass a bill that puts sensors, patrols, and drones on the border....how am I to know that the next president won't just cut the funding for those things and leave the border unsecure again?

You can't un-build a wall.

And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments. The election of 2016 was largely a referendum on Immigration. The winning candidate had a wall as the top plank in his platform. America voted for a wall. All the counter arguments about costs, necessity, effectiveness, and other measures were aired. The debate already happened. All opinions were heard, and a vote was taken. America voted for a wall. Democracy has spoken. The POTUS has a mandate to build the fucking thing.

Anyone who thinks that they have an argument stronger than that is just a desperate narcissist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The Government Accountability Office publishes an annual report showing that fraud, waste, and abuse in the government is enough to pay for many many many walls.

The Green New Deal costs enough to pay for 1000 walls.

If those things are wrong and need to be dealt with, then that's a wholly different discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.

Unless your position is that those things you mention are "supposed" to do the work of a wall, but they're really bad at accomplishing what a wall will accomplish more efficiently, in which case, please elaborate and draw that line more clearly than the spaghetti squiggles you throw out as though they're linear thought.

It doesn't matter how else the money might be spent. Even if you could make an argument that there are more effective measures of border control....none of them are permanent. That's a unique feature of a wall, and it's kind of a dealbreaker. Voters have been misled on immigration too many times, going back to Reagan. If you pass a bill that puts sensors, patrols, and drones on the border....how am I to know that the next president won't just cut the funding for those things and leave the border unsecure again?

You can't un-build a wall.

lolwat? You just said what? FYI: check out the word "demolition." Fascinating concept. Goes back centuries.
Did you know that if you hit things with other things... the things break?
Get this... if you leave a wall alone for 200 years... it crumbles all on its own. I know... 2nd law of Thermo has some pretty wild applications, right?

Also, a wall without sensors, patrols, and drones = no difference if it's 5 feet tall or 50. If no one's watching, it will be breached, tunneled, laddered, whatever. That will take time, but how much time? IDK, but I think we can both agree there's nothing permanent about it once the manpower goes away.

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

Agreed. Now that you've discredited the positions that only you have brought up, can you get to the question?
(I bet you feel pretty burned by yourself, while also swimming in the pride of a sick burn. You're a complicated man.)

The election of 2016 was largely a referendum on Immigration. The winning candidate had a wall as the top plank in his platform. America voted for a wall. All the counter arguments about costs, necessity, effectiveness, and other measures were aired. The debate already happened. All opinions were heard, and a vote was taken. America voted for a wall. Democracy has spoken. The POTUS has a mandate to build the fucking thing.

Anyone who thinks that they have an argument stronger than that is just a desperate narcissist.

Wait... you said he was elected 'cause populism sticks it to the man.
You also said it was because Clinton was widely perceived to be a criminal (though that was a long time ago).

Which is it?
Maybe some of each?
Maybe not an actual majority on any of them, then? Maybe, but not necessarily, a majority consensus I mean.
Maybe some supported Trump to stick it to the man, others to build a wall, others 'cause Clinton is more criminal than Trump. Some a combination. Some non of the above.

The actual "mandate" thing you're talking about is making a pretty big assumption about why each voter supported Trump and how much overlap they had on specific issues.

At any rate... now that you've criticized the non-sequitur nonsense that you invented in response to nothing I actually asked,
can you answer the questions?

How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?

***
I tend to agree that Trumps election was largely predicated on people who really liked shouting "build that wall." Personally, I think it'd be an expensive and epic failure to accomplish its stated goals, but I'm excited to run the experiment. If 'Murica wants a wall, then 'Murica should build an epic fuckin wall worthy of our name. If that's not the most cost-efficient solution, then so what. Is it awesome?!
I think a wall is a bad symbol. I think there are better ways to solve problems than by clawing onto an us/them mentality. However, sometimes it really is us/them. That's the brutal reality of the world and of humans. Maybe a wall is the best move. Maybe it's really us vs. them. I just really doubt it is in this case.
Walls around prisons? Yes.
Walls around nations? No.

[TheSpoonald]

If those things are wrong and need to be dealt with, then that's a wholly different discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.

It actually does. You don't get to bring up the argument of "the government spends too much money" and then get to arbitrarily draw lines around which expenses you like, and which you don't. If government spending is a problem...cutting the wall isn't going to fix it.

check out the word "demolition."

Having fun being facetious today? Yes, I know how demolition works. You obviously know exactly what I mean, so I really shouldn't bother explaining it. It's plausible that a future administration might cut funding for other measures. But it wouldn't make any sense to appropriate funds for demolition of something that could be left alone for free.

Get this... if you leave a wall alone for 200 years... it crumbles all on its own.

I'm guessing that El Salvador won't wait that long and will be forced to get it's act together now.

IDK, but I think we can both agree there's nothing permanent about it once the manpower goes away.

And? The manpower isn't as effective without the wall. Ask Hungary's border patrol. They had thousands of illegal crossings a day. Then they built a wall. Now it's dozens. They say it takes all three, manpower, monitoring, and a structure. What's your point here? You just wanna hear yourself talk, or what?

Wait... you said he was elected 'cause populism sticks it to the man.

You think a wall isn't a populist idea? Please explain??

You also said it was because Clinton was widely perceived to be a criminal (though that was a long time ago)

.
That's not something I said

Which is it?

See my previous two sentences. I'm not being inconsistent at all.

The actual "mandate" thing you're talking about is making a pretty big assumption about why each voter supported Trump and how much overlap they had on specific issues.

That's actually not how mandates work. But if you want an example, check out Obamacare. It was challenged on constitutional grounds. the supreme court said something like "it's not our job to undo the election of 2008. People voted for healthcare, so the law stands". Thats not an exact quote, but it's pretty close.

How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?

Ineffectively

Is a wall our best option?

You make it sound like there are options. This isn't an experiment. We already know how to secure a border. Hungary and Israel told us the secrets. It's not *just* a wall. But you still *need* the wall.

Personally, I think it'd be an expensive and epic failure to accomplish its stated goals,

Why did it work in Hungary and Israel?

but I'm excited to run the experiment.

See the two countries mentioned above. What about those experiments is inconclusive to you?

If 'Murica wants a wall, then 'Murica should build an epic fuckin wall worthy of our name.

Amen

If that's not the most cost-efficient solution, then so what. Is it awesome?!

Preach it!

I think a wall is a bad symbol.

It's symbol that says "On the other side of this thing we live in a culture that acts a certain way and believes certain things. You can either be part of that by moving yourself to a lawful port of entry, or you can stay on this side of the wall and fuck off." I think that's a good symbol.

Maybe it's really us vs. them.

This is demagoguery. You know the connotation of that phrase and that's all you're really using it for. Who is "us"? Who is "them"? And why is it "vs"? What exactly is the contest? Why is it contentious? I find when people accuse an "us vs them mentality" what they're really saying is "I want everyone to think I'm smart and sensitive so I'll virtue-signal about how inclusive and non-confrontational I can be". It's gross. Stop it.

Walls around nations? No.

What exactly is a border then? What does it mean?