Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
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?