What a Waste of Prime Time Television

[nightswhisper]

1. Those who overstay their visa are like guests at your house. You can evict them but they are far less of a problem than those who try to force their way in. I can only assume you wouldn't support people forcing through your door and living in your basement.

Castles fell out of favour with the advent of artillery and mortar, both of which can't be used to launch people across a wall.

4. https://cis.org/Report/Deportation-vs-Cost-Letting-Illegal-Immigrants-Stay

6. He didn't win because he wanted to. He won because Hilary fucked Sanders and is even shittier than Trump.

7. Just because they are less likely doesn't mean they don't. If they weren't around their crimes would be non-existent.

 

[clu]

Just because they are less likely doesn't mean they don't. If they weren't around their crimes would be non-existent.

I always find that argument funny. If they're less likely to expand the criminal pool, then they are more likely to expand the victim pool. If you're worried about being a victim of a crime then statistically speaking you should be pro-immigration because they bring more "decoy victims" than criminals, decreasing the odds you personally will be a victim.

 

[nightswhisper]

I always find that argument funny. If they're less likely to expand the criminal pool, then they are more likely to expand the victim pool. If you're worried about being a victim of a crime then statistically speaking you should be pro-immigration because they bring more "decoy victims" than criminals, decreasing the odds you personally will be a victim.

I am pro legal immigration (as I was one.) I did not wade across the pacific ocean with my family! 8)

 

[westwoody]

a fence is not a significant line of defence.

Maginot Line worked great for the French.

 

[Correct]

Just let him build his dumb wall. The illegals will just go over it, or cut a hole in it anyway. But maybe both sides will at least stop whining once it is up.

 

[storm rider]

How is Donald Trump not worse on every single one of these points alone?

Wow such a good response.Not only did you not answer the query you also changed the subject.You should immediately enquire if the Lieberal party has an opening in your local riding for the next Federal election as you have the right stuff to be a Lieberal MP.

SR

 

[clu]

Wow such a good response.Not only did you not answer the query you also changed the subject.You should immediately enquire if the Lieberal party has an opening in your local riding for the next Federal election as you have the right stuff to be a Lieberal MP.

SR

Um, what?! Take a look at the topic. It's Donald Trump's prime time address. You were the one that changed it. Your hard on of hate that compels you to turn every topic into anti-Trudeau rhetoric aside, I was just trying to figure out how it tied back to the actual thread topic.

But since you asked and apparently want it spelled out... Donald Trump: silver spoon - check, spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on personal trips - check, needing ridiculous concessions and costs to babysit his kid because his princess of a wife can't - check, government that's style (or hot air) over substance - check, etc.

I had no interest in prolonging your latest tangent about Trudeau. I was simply asking why, if you feel this way, you give Trump a pass on the same infractions, magnified?

 

[80watts]

Great Wall of China- Genghis Khan went around it.

Maginot Line in France- Germans went around it.

Walls don't work that great. Go over, under, or around it.

Walls and Castles went out of favour because of gunpowder. (ie Artillery) even Constantinople fell to the Turks, it had 20 ft thick walls surrounding the city. In WW2 the British dropped 20,000 lb bombs on the German sub pens (in France) that didn't do much. Today the US has bunker busters that defeat bunkers roughly 50 to 100 ft under ground....
Battleships of WW2 with 17 inches of armour were abandoned after WW2 in favour of airpower (dive bombs, missles etc), ships became lighter (no armour) and faster. Mostly because 500lb bombs wound make its way through the armour. New technology has in US ships has kelvar in important spaces.
So it goes to show that any thing you come up with that is defensive, ultimately will be overcome by newer technology.

 

[nightswhisper]

Great Wall of China- Genghis Khan went around it.

Maginot Line in France- Germans went around it.

Walls don't work that great. Go over, under, or around it.

Walls and Castles went out of favour because of gunpowder. (ie Artillery) even Constantinople fell to the Turks, it had 20 ft thick walls surrounding the city. In WW2 the British dropped 20,000 lb bombs on the German sub pens (in France) that didn't do much. Today the US has bunker busters that defeat bunkers roughly 50 to 100 ft under ground....
Battleships of WW2 with 17 inches of armour were abandoned after WW2 in favour of airpower (dive bombs, missles etc), ships became lighter (no armour) and faster. Mostly because 500lb bombs wound make its way through the armour. New technology has in US ships has kelvar in important spaces.
So it goes to show that any thing you come up with that is defensive, ultimately will be overcome by newer technology.

The Great Wall of China did not exist as a completed secure wall in the time of Genghis Khan. It deterred the Mongols by five years, and the Mongols succeeded in their invasion only because of defection at key chokepoints. This wall would later be completed in entirety (rather than sections) and proved impenetrable in the Ming war against the Qing.

The Maginot line worked as it was supposed to in deterring Germans from attacking from the East. The Germans used the Schlieffen Plan and attacked the only spot without a wall - through Belgium.

Note that the reason why these "walls" failed were human, not the walls themselves, because the defenders sucked at their jobs. Most of the attackers required significant more time and resource to bypass a wall and in most cases, couldn't.

Mexican immigrants don't really have the resources to circumvent a wall. Much less missiles or propellant weapons. The purpose of a wall is to deter and make illegal immigration significantly more difficult and thus make defenders more effective.

It's weird to discredit how well walls work considering castles, forts, and old cities all existed with walls for thousands of years in the very testament that they worked and deterred attackers. Citing a few famous examples where the defenders failed (rather than the walls failing) is kind of weird. Maybe houses should stop having fences that deter intruders and other animals, and apartments should stop having controlled-access doors.

The Berlin Wall worked so well that the few escape and breach attempts became examples rather than status quo.

Walls work. Very well.

 

[nightswhisper]

Um, what?! Take a look at the topic. It's Donald Trump's prime time address. You were the one that changed it. Your hard on of hate that compels you to turn every topic into anti-Trudeau rhetoric aside, I was just trying to figure out how it tied back to the actual thread topic.

But since you asked and apparently want it spelled out... Donald Trump: silver spoon - check, spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on personal trips - check, needing ridiculous concessions and costs to babysit his kid because his princess of a wife can't - check, government that's style (or hot air) over substance - check, etc.

I had no interest in prolonging your latest tangent about Trudeau. I was simply asking why, if you feel this way, you give Trump a pass on the same infractions, magnified?

In Trump's defense, he's trying to bully his way into getting things done the way he wants.

Trudeau is trying to charm his way into being re-elected whilst doing as little as possible.

Whether you agree with Trump, he's getting more things done... for better or worse... than Trudeau.

 

[clu]

In Trump's defense, he's trying to bully his way into getting things done the way he wants.

Trudeau is trying to charm his way into being re-elected whilst doing as little as possible.

Whether you agree with Trump, he's getting more things done... for better or worse... than Trudeau.

Again I don't want to get baited into derailing another thread into a Trudeau debate, so I'm going to stick to Trump in my reply. (Not that Trudeau isn't a worthy subject of debate, what with this being an election year, but can we relegate him to his own thread instead of hijacking others?)

My feeling is Trump may be "doing" a lot, but he's not accomplishing a lot. He is largely "sound and fury signifying nothing." He reminds me of a few employees I've had who would loudly boast of how hard they're working and how challenging the work was, but if you objectively looked at their output, it was more bluster than productivity. That perhaps even sums up his televised speech.

Other examples: Trump didn't really accomplish anything in North Korea. Kim lies to his face and kept on researching. But Trump pats himself on the back and moves on. The news cycle is overloaded so it slips into the background, but it's not gone. (And that's also a very good example of how crises can be manufactured. Not a lot has objectively changed with North Korea but somehow the urgency is gone.)

Or USMCA: a superficially amended NAFTA that Trump will now claim full responsibility for, and now every cent of revenue from which he will claim was won by him to go toward this border wall, even though most of it would still have been due under the prior terms. There he's doing what he's always done: put his name on something and claiming credit.

His only significant impact IMHO has been (a) appointing two conservative Supreme Court justices (will it be three? Now that would be quite the lucky coup for him) and (b) being a mouthy release valve for pent up tribalism and partisanship. In a perverse way I'd say he deserves credit for taking full advantage of circumstance.

 

[Shakerod]

Sure, they need to crack down on all areas that they are getting through. A wall would be one way.
So let me ask you a question...should the people of the United States not be worried about possible retribution from enemies that have been bombed since 9/11?

 

[johnnydepth]

They also built a wall between East and West Germany for those that might have forgotten.
I think Trumps focus on the wall serves a few purposes. It creates an us versus them mentality. It gives him a simple, single project to focus on because he can't deal with complex issues very well. It keeps Americans distracted from things going on behind the curtain while they are focused on the wall. It gives Trump a place to skim millions of dollars into his own pocket.

 

[Shakerod]

Again I don't want to get baited into derailing another thread into a Trudeau debate, so I'm going to stick to Trump in my reply. (Not that Trudeau isn't a worthy subject of debate, what with this being an election year, but can we relegate him to his own thread instead of hijacking others?)

My feeling is Trump may be "doing" a lot, but he's not accomplishing a lot. He is largely "sound and fury signifying nothing." He reminds me of a few employees I've had who would loudly boast of how hard they're working and how challenging the work was, but if you objectively looked at their output, it was more bluster than productivity. That perhaps even sums up his televised speech.

Other examples: Trump didn't really accomplish anything in North Korea. Kim lies to his face and kept on researching. But Trump pats himself on the back and moves on. The news cycle is overloaded so it slips into the background, but it's not gone. (And that's also a very good example of how crises can be manufactured. Not a lot has objectively changed with North Korea but somehow the urgency is gone.)

Or USMCA: a superficially amended NAFTA that Trump will now claim full responsibility for, and now every cent of revenue from which he will claim was won by him to go toward this border wall, even though most of it would still have been due under the prior terms. There he's doing what he's always done: put his name on something and claiming credit.

His only significant impact IMHO has been (a) appointing two conservative Supreme Court justices (will it be three? Now that would be quite the lucky coup for him) and (b) being a mouthy release valve for pent up tribalism and partisanship. In a perverse way I'd say he deserves credit for taking full advantage of circumstance.

He didn't accomplish anything with North Korea? Think back to when Trump was calling him 'Rocket Man' and he was criticized for possibly starting WW3. Now he gets criticized for stopping WW3, or appeasing him, as his critics would say. In other words he can't do anything right no matter what he does. The urgency is gone because the media can't find a damn thing to criticize him about on this issue, so rather then praise him, they stop talking about it.

 

[johnnydepth]

He didn't accomplish anything with North Korea? Think back to when Trump was calling him 'Rocket Man' and he was criticized for possibly starting WW3. Now he gets criticized for stopping WW3, or appeasing him, as his critics would say. In other words he can't do anything right no matter what he does. The urgency is gone because the media can't find a damn thing to criticize him about on this issue, so rather then praise him, they stop talking about it.

Unless you have spent significant time on the Korean peninsula please don't bring this up. There is almost zero truth in western media publications on Korea. One thing I have learned over the years travelling the globe is the media covers only what they want and portrays it in a light they want or are encouraged to do so. Trump accomplished nothing with North Korea.

 

[golferjohn]

The Wall is a ruse. Are we really to believe Trump cares one iota? He said it himself, 'going to the border is a waste of time'. We're dealing with a petulant 10 year-old who has bullied his way through life (with the help of his daddy's wallet). This is a 'cash-grab' pure and simple (and it's blatant). I'm not certain what the Forever-Trumpers (30%?) believe he's doing for them, but if they think he gives fuck-one about them, they're delusional.
It has nothing to do with a Wall/N. Korea/Syria/Healthcare/Infrastructure...it's a smokescreen. Follow the money and you'll find the motivation

 

[badbadboy]

In Trump's defense, he's trying to bully his way into getting things done the way he wants.

Trudeau is trying to charm his way into being re-elected whilst doing as little as possible.

Whether you agree with Trump, he's getting more things done... for better or worse... than Trudeau.

Trump uses executive orders circumventing the democratic process of the three branches of government.
He unilaterally enforces national security to get his way on trade which is an abuse of power knowing he would never get a previous Republican Congress to support it.

Canadians wouldn't tolerate a mini Trump pulling the same stunts. Besides our Parliamentary process has checks and balances against dictatorial behaviour.

Besides this wall is just a smoke screen away from the multitude of personal issues facing Trump. Everyone knows a 900 mile wall won't stop the narcotics being imported into the US. If anything, US border requires more inspections of transport trucks into the US. Cartels are very sophisticated and don't use illegal immigrants as drug mules.

 

[Cock Throppled]

The Wall is a ruse. Are we really to believe Trump cares one iota? He said it himself, 'going to the border is a waste of time'. We're dealing with a petulant 10 year-old who has bullied his way through life (with the help of his daddy's wallet). This is a 'cash-grab' pure and simple (and it's blatant). I'm not certain what the Forever-Trumpers (30%?) believe he's doing for them, but if they think he gives fuck-one about them, they're delusional.
It has nothing to do with a Wall/N. Korea/Syria/Healthcare/Infrastructure...it's a smokescreen. Follow the money and you'll find the motivation

You think the Democrats are any different? They will reverse positions in a blink of the eye if they think it will oppose Trump, or appeal to their core base.
Trump hs backed himself into a corner on the wall, but he won't back down. I don't think the Dems realize that, yet.

The same people who said the following, now want open borders, and claim everyone who shows up at a crossing is a legitimate refugee.

OBAMA 2005: "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked."
SCHUMER 2009: "Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple."
HILLARY 2015: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in."

 

[clu]

You think the Democrats are any different? They will reverse positions in a blink of the eye if they think it will oppose Trump, or appeal to their core base.
Trump hs backed himself into a corner on the wall, but he won't back down. I don't think the Dems realize that, yet.

The same people who said the following, now want open borders, and claim everyone who shows up at a crossing is a legitimate refugee.

OBAMA 2005: "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked."
SCHUMER 2009: "Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple."
HILLARY 2015: "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in."

There's cognitive dissonance in your summary here. Showing up at the border is not illegal. The caravan wasn't illegal. One can reject illegal entry and still be sympathetic to refugees. The words "illegal" and "immigrant" are not synonymous.

 

[nightswhisper]

Trump uses executive orders circumventing the democratic process of the three branches of government.

He unilaterally enforces national security to get his way on trade which is an abuse of power knowing he would never get a previous Republican Congress to support it.

Unconventional? Yes. Hitlerian? Yes. Wrong? Unfortunately not.

Canadians wouldn't tolerate a mini Trump pulling the same stunts. Besides our Parliamentary process has checks and balances against dictatorial behaviour.

Different countries, different problems. We don't really breed his type of personality because we have different socio-politico-economic landscape. We tolerate a lot more incompetence than we tolerate dictatorship, which is bad in its own way.

Besides this wall is just a smoke screen away from the multitude of personal issues facing Trump. Everyone knows a 900 mile wall won't stop the narcotics being imported into the US. If anything, US border requires more inspections of transport trucks into the US. Cartels are very sophisticated and don't use illegal immigrants as drug mules.

A lot of that is human issue. The Cartels have corrupted or pay off all sorts of people along the way to transport their drugs by land. When that fails, they've built submarines, drones, aircrafts and even tunnels to transport the drugs. However, the wall will control access of humans, which will be effective if the defenders on this side don't suck at their jobs or get paid off to look the other way. This wall is primarily to stop the flow of illegal immigration. As is with all policies, politicians always throw in some extra arguments to convince the masses.

[/QUOTE]