Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yeah I mean there's a real belief among some people that 9/11 was an inside job. Why are one group of people paranoid conspiracy nuts, while the other are not?

---

No-one should be judged independent of the evidence. I personally think there's plenty enough fishy about 9/11 to take the idea of an inside job out of the tinfoil hat category.

As for Trump, the evidence is still pending, so thats why i say 'belief' rather than 'fact'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I've seen failure after failure in USA. This one doesn't seem so bad. I mean, I dunno if you noticed, but things have calmed down somewhat around the world. Maybe he's just more discreet with his destruction of other countries.

---

Calmed down? What was going on that has calmed down? He's wrecked the Iran nuclear deal, made a pretend deal with NK that KJU immediately spat on, gone on an insult tour of Europe, started a trade war that is damaging the world economy, separated thousands of children from parents at the border, hired and fired people left and right. It never ends.

If there's calm in other places in the world it's only because everyone is busy picking their jaws up off the floor.

Quote:

---

He's wrecked the Iran nuclear deal

---

This is a good thing. Iran's elite are bad people. This deal was making them richer. The Iranian people deserve better.

Quote:

---

made a pretend deal with NK that KJU immediately spat on

---

Have NK fired any rockets since?

Quote:

---

gone on an insult tour of Europe

---

Some people need to be insulted.

Quote:

---

started a trade war that is damaging the world economy

---

World econnomy? His remit is the American economy.

Quote:

---

separated thousands of children from parents at the border

---

Haven't we established this is leftism talk for "detained criminals, while caring for their children"?

Quote:

---

hired and fired people left and right.

---

Why does this concern you? It doesn't concern me.

Quote:

---

It never ends.

---

The incessant noise never ends.

Quote:

---

If there's calm in other places in the world it's only because everyone is busy picking their jaws up off the floor.

---

Or maybe, just maybe, this "literally Hitler" guy that everyone seems to hate isn't quite as terrible a person as his predecessor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I personally think there's plenty enough fishy about 9/11 to take the idea of an inside job out of the tinfoil hat category.

---

Not enough IQ's

The main problem with breaking with the Iran deal was that it sent a clear signal that the United States cannot be trusted. Any deal you negotiate can be dismantled by the next president, who may or may not be a fucking moron.

NK didn't agree to anything in writing, so there was no deal, but there was at least the expectation that they would stop developing nuclear weapons. They did not. They did not fire rockets, but we know they are actively working on nuclear weapons.

In terms of actions: there are still 500 children separated from their parents who were supposed to be reunited weeks ago. The only reason the other 2500 were reunited was because federal courts stepped in and ordered the Trump administration to do it. This is action in line with calling brown people: low iq, dogs, rapists and calling their countries shitholes, while wishing you could have more immigrants from norway. I don't know if there is an n-word tape, but I can tell you for sure that it would not change the opinion of the majority of his voter base. They knew what they were voting for, and they got it. If wuf and banana had their way, america would head straight for autocracy, and I'll say it again: after this is over, one of the main tragedies I will lement is that those who supported Trump will not be the ones paying for the consequence of their abject stupidity.

Still finger crossed that a non-zero number of trumples will find out how their second ammendment anti-tyranny tools stack up against Space Force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Not enough IQ's

---

Hmm, yeah good point. I guess it's hard for you to grasp something you'd prefer not to believe might be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is a good thing. Iran's elite are bad people. This deal was making them richer. The Iranian people deserve better.



Have NK fired any rockets since?



Some people need to be insulted.



World econnomy? His remit is the American economy.



Haven't we established this is leftism talk for "detained criminals, while caring for their children"?



Why does this concern you? It doesn't concern me.



The incessant noise never ends.



Or maybe, just maybe, this "literally Hitler" guy that everyone seems to hate isn't quite as terrible a person as his predecessor.

---

Breaking deals made by Obama because he's Obama and a lot smarter than you are is not a good thing. Never mind that all your allies were part of the deal, which makes it even worse.

The deal was touted as 'you won't have to worry about nukes from NK again' (paraphrasing Trump). Well, two weeks later photos showed they were building up their nuclear facilities, not tearing them down. Does that make you feel safe? Or do you feel safe because they're not firing empty rockets over the ocean?

"Some people need to be insulted" is the kind of arguments a 3rd grader would use. It just says nothing.

US is part of the world economy. Economics is not a zero-sum game, unfortunately. Just ask the US farmers and manufacturers who are losing out.

"We" never decided anything of the sort about child-separation policy. Any objective view on the topic is that it was a blatant and cruel attempt to dissuade immigration that went well beyond anything a decent country would do.

His hiring/firing all the best people is evidence he doesn't hire the best people. A lot of the ones who haven't quit/been fired yet are no prizes either. His family, for one thing, doesn't belong in the WH. His Education Minister (or w/e they call her) is clearly a fucking idiot who has no clue. His EPA guy is trying to destroy the EPA. The guy who runs housing knows nothing about housing. Many ambassador jobs are vacant. All this points to someone in charge who has no clue how to run a gov't but just tries to make it entertaining for the bleating 33% of the country who will support him no matter what.

Or maybe so many people hate him for good reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

The main problem with breaking with the Iran deal was that it sent a clear signal that the United States cannot be trusted. Any deal you negotiate can be dismantled by the next president, who may or may not be a fucking moron.

---

There's that as well. Never mind whether the next president is any better or worse. He's basically sending a message that whatever the last guy did I feel free to rip up the deal and so in four years (or less) you might get another guy who doesn't think America's word is worth anything either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I don't know if there is an n-word tape,

---

It would certainly not surprise anyone, and I agree it's not going to sway anyone one way or another. Obviously those who accept him are ok with his racism since it's so impossible to deny at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

This is action in line with calling brown people: low iq, dogs, rapists and calling their countries shitholes,

---

"brown people"

Show me that's what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

"brown people"

Show me that's what he said.

---

In his defense, he does call lots of people dogs. But 'low IQ' he seems to reserve for blacks, and the 'shithole' countries (as in 'why are we taking immigrants from all these shithole countries?') were all non-white nations iirc. I guess you could argue he was referring to their economic condition or whatever, but still it's pretty insensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

"brown people"

Show me that's what he said.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial...f_Donald_Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hmmm, you can talk to wuf about that shit.

---

That ya have thought I believe any of these sorts of things is testament that an idea can grow so ridiculously away from the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That ya have thought I believe any of these sorts of things is testament that an idea can grow so ridiculously away from the facts.

---

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa

Have you, or have you not postulated that Mueller is in fact investigating deep state corruption and the ultimate outcome of his inquiry will be the indictments of Obama administration officials within the department of justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa

Have you, or have you not postulated that Mueller is in fact investigating deep state corruption and the ultimate outcome of his inquiry will be the indictments of Obama administration officials within the department of justice?

---

Of course I have postulated that, as any free thinker would. Doesn't mean I believe it.

What I acknowledge is that the facts tell us what meets the eye is unlikely to be what is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Of course I have postulated that, as any free thinker would. Doesn't mean I believe it.

---

Where did I say you believe it?

I'll say that I'm a free thinker, and I don't believe it's possible. That would mean that Mueller roasted Manafort as an elaborate distraction. Cmon man.

I do think that Brennan, McCabe, and Ohr are all in serious serious serious fucking trouble. But I don't think their crimes were exposed as a result of Mueller's work. Alot of people forget that Mueller's investigation is actually the third attempt to expose a Russian connection to the White House. The House and Senate intelligence committees each did their own inquiries into this, and that's where we learned about all the shady shit, and that's what got those guys in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Where did I say you believe it?

---

I may have conflated what you said with what I've seen others say in the past

Muh bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial...f_Donald_Trump

---

There are five instances of the word "brown" on this page, and not once is it a Donnald Trump quote.

Here's the problem I have... the people using phrases like "brown people" are those who are accusing Trump of racism.

The claims of "Trump is a racist" are so transparent it's amazing to me that people still espouse such an opinion. When you say "Trump is a racist", what you're *really* saying is:

Quote:

---

"I have absolutely no way to credibly debate a position against Trump's policies. There's no sensible argument against a wall. The economy is running fucking great. We're not in a war. This Russia stuff is bogus. No one really cares how sleazy he is. However, my fragile ego cannot bear the cognitive dissonance associated with admitting that I was wrong about this man being a literal demon. I can't do that because I'm weak, cowardly, and ignorant.

Rather, I think I will double down on my demon claims, and I'll scrape together any shred of flimsy evidence I can find. If I can brand this man a racist, then I can take everything he has ever said or done, put it in a box, put the box on a shelf, and completely remove him from the dialogue. If he's out, then I don't have to contend with the fact that he's actually done a pretty good job as president. I can ignore that, and then I don't have to experience the crushing cognitive dissonance associated with changing my opinion of Trump so that it's based on objective facts.

By fishing for anything that can be spun into a racist claim I can make myself feel good because I'm really good at deluding myself into believing I actually have pure motivations of compassion, equality, and racial sensitivity. Now I can feel good about ignoring the objective reality of Trump, because in my own false narrative, he's a vile racist. So in this narrative, that only exists in my feeble mind, I am a compassionate hero standing up for the rights of the oppressed. And Trump is evil. Boy that feels good."

---

I believe the above accurately describes, in every detail, the thought process espoused by Oskar, Jack, Poop, CNN, MSNBC, Trevor Noah, Bill Maher, Elizabeth Warren, and everyone else with a low IQ.

The hypocrisy and cowardice in these sentiments is really getting old.

Why shouldn't we build a wall? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we restrict travel from countries that state-sponsor terrorism? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we cut taxes? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we have free speech? RACIST!
Why shouldn't we have competent non-activist judges? RACIST!
Why can't I use the same insults to describe all my enemies, regardless of race? RACIST!
Can we debate the issues civilly? RACIST!

And it's not just the racist thing.

Fascist! Authoritarian! Dictator! Nazi!

All of these terms are not only wrong, they're ironic in a way that would be side-splitting hilarious if it wasn't so god damn tragic. None of these words could be credibly used to describe a single Trump behavior. Meanwhile the most fascist organization on earth right now is Antifa. Try wrapping your brain around that.

Stupid. Dumb. Babbling idiot. Moron.

Sorry, no. He's done way too many complex things.

Sleaze, womanizer, uncouth, bombastic

All of these are true. But you knew about it before he became president. You knew about it for DECADES before he became president. People knew it when they voted for him. Why do we care now?

Well the first two sentences you put in others' mouths are already retarded enough to make me stop there.

As if there's no credible argument against Trump's policies. That's just authoritarianism right there. If you can't even understand where and when the other side has credible arguments, then your position is akin to a 4 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'lalala i can't hear you.'

There's one very sensible argument against building a wall, even if you are anti-immigration. It's too fucking expensive, and Mexico is not going to pay for it. This is 2018, there's a lot of better ways to have border security than a physical wall. Drones, for example. The best thing you can say about the Wall is that it's at least not as stupid and archaic a solution to a problem as trying to resurrect the coal industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well the first two sentences you put in others' mouths are already retarded enough to make me stop there.

---

Are you saying I didn't properly capture your essence in that hypothetical soliloquy? What exactly do you disagree with?

Quote:

---

As if there's no credible argument against Trump's policies. That's just authoritarianism right there.

---

No. I'm merely making an observation that says "We've been having these debates for two years now and all they got are deplorable epithets...racist/sexist/blahblahblah." Assuming that a credible argument doesn't exist, evidenced by the fact that one hasn't materialized, is a long way from authoritarianism. But thanks for proving me right. Rather than present a credible argument, you went straight to ad hominem demagoguery.

Quote:

---

If you can't even understand where and when the other side has credible arguments, then your position is akin to a 4 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'lalala i can't hear you.'

---

If your so called 'credible' argument is "nyah racism!", then I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears and ignoring you. I'm openly mocking you.

Quote:

---

There's one very sensible argument against building a wall.....It's too fucking expensive

---

No it isn't. This is just wrong. Tell me your very sensible argument why it's too much money. When you're done I'll name ten expensive things the government pays for but shouldn't. If expense is a sensible argument against a wall, then it's a sensible argument against Planned Parenthood, the post office, foreign aid, and overburdened welfare programs.

Hey look, here's some money!
https://freebeacon.com/issues/califo...nds-snap-work/

Quote:

---

and Mexico is not going to pay for it.

---

Oh, they will pay. Obviously they're not going to write a check. But they will pay.

Quote:

---

This is 2018, there's a lot of better ways to have border security than a physical wall.

---

This is also wrong. I see you claim to have credible arguments. I see you trying to impugn me as being naive and childish for refusing to acknowledge when and where the other side has credible arguments. however, you would only be right in that position if you actually had credible arguments. Talking bullshit is not credible. When someone calls it bullshit, it's on you to explain why it's not bullshit. It shows the glaring weakness and lack of credibility in your argument if all you have for a defense is "You're just stubborn" (more ad hominem demagoguery)

Quote:

---

Drones, for example.

---

not a credible argument. Look, when two people disagree it's because one of them is a missing a fact. Here you are missing an obvious fact that you could only ignore if you were thoughtlessly possessed by partisan anger. The fact that you can't see why this is a completely ineffective solution pretty much proves that you actually have no interest in a sincere debate between credible arguments. You're just so hopelessly insecure that you'll confirmation-bias yourself into believing anything as long as it defies one of Trump's ideas.

Do you wanna take a stab at why this 'drone' argument sucks? I know you know the answer. You've invoked it elsewhere to criticize Trump's policies. Funny how you've completely forgotten that logic now. If you can't figure it out, let me know. Because I can eviscerate this 'drone' idea in about three friggen seconds. It's a flimsy argument that I can easily blow into bits. Do you want me to tell you? Are you even open to the possibility that your idea is dog shit? Or do you wanna double-down on it again so I can make you look extra stupid and hypocritical?

^^^

I'm sure this is full of insights, completely unbiased and without a trace of bile. Unfortunately I'm busy now so maybe I'll get to your essay later. Then again, maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

^^^

I'm sure this is full of insights, completely unbiased and without a trace of bile. Unfortunately I'm busy now so maybe I'll get to your essay later. Then again, maybe not.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA PATHETIC!

Runs out of credible arguments
Runs out of ad hominem demagoguery
Suddenly doesn't have time....

Nice spine, pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

HA HA HA HA HA HA PATHETIC!

Runs out of credible arguments
Runs out of ad hominem demagoguery
Suddenly doesn't have time....

Nice spine, pussy.

---

More like:

Makes two perfectly credible arguments, concisely.
Sees a wall of text that experience tells him is full of bullshit and personal attacks.
Can't be bothered.
Says as much.

Suck it, loser.

Expense is not a credible argument. Too subjective. We pay for all kinds of shit that has a lot less utility and costs a lot more than a simple wall.

Drones are not a credible argument either. I'm still shocked that you don't see why. It stuns me that you consider yourself a person of intelligence and still say drones is a "credible argument".

Remember when you and Oskar shit all over Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal? Remember how you said it was so bad that a President just undid the work of his predecessor?

What happens when the next President says "I want open borders, and drones are too expensive?"

People want a wall because it's PERMANENT. It's not like sensors, or drones, or more manpower. It can't be 'cut' from year to year. It can't be removed and replaced based on the ideology of whoever is in office. Americans had been duped by "immigration reform" before, and it didn't work. This time they want a solution that is permanent and sustainable over the long term. Drones don't satisfy that need.

So both of your supposedly credible arguments are dog shit. That is self-evident, objective fact.

^^^

Here we go again. Guy can't even express himself in less than 1000 words.

I know what this says "Fuck you I'm great you suck, etc etc. demagogue, blah blah, blah."

Really, why WOULD I read your bullshit stupid fucked up pathological post? You really think I have an interest in your idiotic opinions and insults?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

^^^

Here we go again. Guy can't even express himself in less than 1000 words.

I know what this says "Fuck you I'm great you suck, etc etc. demagogue, blah blah, blah."

Really, why WOULD I read your bullshit stupid fucked up pathological post? You really think I have an interest in your idiotic opinions and insults?

---

I thought you were busy? What are you still doing here?

Fuck off

The irony here is that you really did read it, and you know your "drones" policy is fucking stupid. You just wanna play ostrich now so you don't have to face the idiocy of your own ideas.

Keep the faith my friend. Maybe someday they'll make a pill for cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I thought you were busy? What are you still doing here?

---

Laughing at you.

For a guy with such a high IQ it sure is easy to pull your strings. Look at how many words I made you type that no-one's even going to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

[la la la la la I can't hear you]

---

It would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic

---

You're both hilarious and tragic at the same time. Congrats.

So tell me again why drones would be so effective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So tell me again why drones would be so effective?

---

I never told you the first time, 'cause it's so obvious that anyone who isn't a retard could figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I never told you the first time, 'cause it's so obvious that anyone who isn't a retard could figure it out.

---

Actually, it's not obvious.

What IS obvious, is how ineffective such a measure would be, and how it would completely fail to meet the mandate to secure the border that emerged from the 2016 election.

Sorry if you don't have enough IQs to figure it out, or even find the info on the internet about how they're already using drones in border patrol. I'd give you a long, detailed explanation about it, but it sounds like it's beyond your capacity to take it in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sorry if you don't have enough IQs to figure it out, or even find the info on the internet about how they're already using drones in border patrol.

---

Hmm, and that's been working right? It's been so effective that half the country voted for a crass celebrity because he promised a wall.

Once again, a disagreement is born because one stubborn demagogue is ignoring facts. If you embraced all the available information, you and I would probably agree on everything.

But apparently you only have enough IQ's to embrace the information that feeds your confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hmm, and that's been working right?

---

Net migration from Mexico was negative at the end of Obama's 2nd term.

Maybe you need to spend less time making up stories on the internet and go back to finance class and get a brush up on what 'net negative' means, dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's been so effective that half the country voted for a crass celebrity because he promised a wall.

---

Half?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Once again, a disagreement is born because one stubborn demagogue is ignoring facts.

---

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you ignored all the available information, you and I would probably agree on everything.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

But apparently you only have enough IQ's to embrace the information that feeds your confirmation bias.

---

yea that's it lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Net migration from Mexico was negative at the end of Obama's 2nd term.

Maybe you need to spend less time making up stories on the internet and go back to finance class and get a brush up on what 'net negative' means, dunno.

---

Stupidest thing you've said today. And that's saying ALOT.

Lumping in legal immigrants and claiming a "net negative" is a silly trick that demagogues use when they want to be deceptive. Or, it's a stupid mistake that idiots make when they're ruled by confirmation bias.

Are you really telling me that more Americans crossed into Mexico illegaly than vice-versa?

The problem we're trying to solve is the illegal entry into America. You're trying to make into some kind of referendum on Mexico. Demagogue

Nice reductio ad bananum there. How many edits did it take you to twist my words into saying what you wanted them to say?

You really are useless as an interlocutor. That's why no-one takes you seriously. It's surprising that you spend so much time arguing with people but can't even form a cogent representation of what they said.

Lol, perfect example

Quote:

---

Are you really telling me more Americans crossed into Mexico illegally than vice-versa?

---

Well, no I'm not, and no-one would possibly think I was unless they're a moron.

Try reading what people say and taking it literally. Maybe use a dictionary if it helps. Don't just change the words around so it sounds like they're saying something silly and pretend that's what they really meant instead of the words they actually used.

Your post 168 above is another perfect example of constructing someone else's arguments and then dismantling them. At least it's clear you're making up an imaginary enemy there and quoting them for whatever reason.

More usually, it's like you're living in a different world where no matter what other people say, if you can re-arrange the words and/or insert different words to make their argument incorrect, you've won the argument.

That's not how debates work. Sorry if a real debate over facts is too much for you to handle, what with your low IQ and everything.

Why is net migration even a relevant stat if we're talking about policies aimed at strictly illegal immigration?

Why won't you just contend with the facts and give up this shitty ad-hominem demagoguery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Of course I have postulated that, as any free thinker would.

---

As any free thinker would?
"Sir, did you postulate that the ultimate outcome of the Mueller probe will be that Obama is going to prison? - No? Well I guess you're not a free thinker, then! ANY free thinker would have postulated that. If you didn't postulate that, I don't know what kind of thinker you are, but you sure as hell aren't a FREE thinker!"

I guess any free thinker would have also made statements like "russia is still a thing? el oh el" - just a couple of days ago.

I'm predicting (different from postulating) that there will be a lot more free thinking happening around these parts in the coming months. Will take a lot of free thinking to convince yourself that you've been on the right side of history, and I believe you'll be able to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Try reading what people say and taking it literally. Maybe use a dictionary if it helps. Don't just change the words around so it sounds like they're saying something silly and pretend that's what they really meant instead of the words they actually used.

---

I did take it literally. And then I wondered why you would even bring that up. It's completely not cogent, and even mentioning that statistic is wholly absurd.

So....I had HOPED that maybe you were just stupid, and by reprhasing your statement into the stupidity that it appears to be, might help you reconcile the idiotic inconsistencies that exist in your head.

But if you're telling me that you're NOT stupid, and that you just have no sensible defense for your position, and you can't meet a challenge to rise above demagoguery, so you used an irrelevant stat to distract from the flimsiness of your own argument....then I guess I stand corrected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Your post 168 above is another perfect example of constructing someone else's arguments and then dismantling them. At least it's clear you're making up an imaginary enemy there and quoting them for whatever reason.

More usually, it's like you're living in a different world where no matter what other people say, if you can re-arrange the words and/or insert different words to make their argument incorrect, you've won the argument.

That's not how debates work. Sorry if a real debate over facts is too much for you to handle, what with your low IQ and everything.

---

I've told him a long time ago I will only respond to the first statement of any post he makes. What he's doing is as old as the internet. Bury you so far in bullshit statements that you can't possibly answer them all, and no matter how much you address, he can always go: BUT YOU DIDNT ANSWER THAT ONE! Why won't you answer that one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why is net migration even a relevant stat if we're talking about policies aimed at strictly illegal immigration?

---

Why not say that the first time then. It's a valid argument.

Why turn the words around so they mean something completely absurd?

If you say 'that's irrelevant', then leave it at that, you're doing fine.

it's when you say 'are you saying xyz?' , where 'xyz' is obviously retarded, when the person obviously isn't saying that, then you're being an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Why not say that the first time then. It's a valid argument.

---

Why is it valid? Were you being stupid? Or stubborn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

it's when you say 'are you saying xyz?' , where 'xyz' is obviously retarded, when the person obviously isn't saying that, then you're being an idiot.

---

It was not obvious to me that you weren't saying something obviously retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I've told him a long time ago I will only respond to the first statement of any post he makes.

---

Fuck you

Have a nice day.

Even the most stubborn retard knows it's not difficult to see drones are cheaper than a physical wall. You still have to monitor the space somehow, whether it's to see if someone is scaling the wall or digging a tunnel under it or whatever. So either you send patrols around in trucks (inefficient and costly), use cameras (static, can only cover so much area at once, and can be disable), or you have drones do that monitoring.

Here's how it works, in terms even a moron can follow: Agent GI Joe sits in his command center with a wall of cameras connected to drones flying around the border area. When he sees someone cross the border, he gets the A Team and they go round 'em up.

Each drone costs probably 1/10000th of what an area of actual wall that covers the same size would cost and does the same job. See how easy that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why is it valid? Were you being stupid? Or stubborn?

---

I made a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It was not obvious to me that you weren't saying something obviously retarded.

---

It was obvious, completely obvious what my words were. Why you felt the need to turn them into something absurd when they were merely irrelevant is the issue here.

Banana, I'm pretty sure you have a gun. Banana, the deep state compromised Michael Cohen, and he's implicating Trump in a crime that will get him impeached. Banana, this is the deep state toppling a democratically elected president! It's time to make a stand, Banana! The time for heroism is now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Even the most stubborn retard knows it's not difficult to see drones are cheaper than a physical wall.

---

They're also less effective. Do you get that? Or are you a stubborn retard?

Quote:

---

You still have to monitor the space somehow, whether it's to see if someone is scaling the wall or digging a tunnel under it or whatever.

---

Again, this where a disagreement is being fueled by one person missing facts. Get the facts. Find out how the wall actually works. First of all, it can't be scaled. They built like a dozen prototypes and sent special forces soldiers to try and breach them. They failed. The wall cannot be scaled. As far as digging a tunnel, also almost impossible. The wall continues underground, and is equipped with sonar to detect digging activity up to hundreds of feet under the surface. Please get your facts.

Quote:

---

So either you send patrols around in trucks (inefficient and costly)

---

Please get the facts on how the wall works.

Quote:

---

, use cameras (static, can only cover so much area at once, and can be disable),

---

Please get the facts on how the wall works.

Quote:

---

or you have drones do that monitoring.

---

Please get the facts on how the wall works.

Quote:

---

Here's how it works, in terms even a moron can follow: Agent GI Joe sits in his command center with a wall of cameras connected to drones flying around the border area. When he sees someone cross the border, he gets the A Team and they go round 'em up.

---

That's how it works with the wall too. Except it takes less people, less cameras, no drones, less trucks, etc etc etc. And the major difference is that some libtard progressive could be elected in 2024 and shut down all the drones. YOu can't shut down a wall. Once it's there....its' virtually permanent.

Quote:

---

Each drone costs probably 1/10000th of what an area of actual wall that covers the same size would cost and does the same job. See how easy that is?

---

It doesn't do the same job. Not even close.

Please get the facts on how the wall works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I've told him a long time ago I will only respond to the first statement of any post he makes. What he's doing is as old as the internet. Bury you so far in bullshit statements that you can't possibly answer them all, and no matter how much you address, he can always go: BUT YOU DIDNT ANSWER THAT ONE! Why won't you answer that one!

---

Yea, and the signal-to-nonsense and/or being-a-douche ratio is so high it's not even worth trying to wade through all the chaff to get to the occasional valid point he makes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Banana, I'm pretty sure you have a gun.

---

False

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

They're also less effective. Do you get that? Or are you a stubborn retard?

---

So salty.

Sure, a ten-tier string of wile coyote booby traps along the border PLUS the Wall, plus some landmines, plus some killer bees, would also be more effective. But since Congress is the one who has to approve the payment for the Wall (not Mexico, 'cause anyone who isn't a retard figured out right away that's never happening), then Congress are the ones who decide if the extra cost is worth it. How's that been going?

Edit: Oh, snap in a jar!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-...ng-bill-2018-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Again, this where a disagreement is being fueled by one person missing facts. Get the facts. Find out how the wall actually works. First of all, it can't be scaled. They built like a dozen prototypes and sent special forces soldiers to try and breach them. They failed. The wall cannot be scaled. As far as digging a tunnel, also almost impossible. The wall continues underground, and is equipped with sonar to detect digging activity up to hundreds of feet under the surface. Please get your facts.

---

Scaled, flown over, whatever.It's not an impregnable barrier is my point. It's not like the wall's going to go up on D-day and on D+1 there's going to be zero illegal immigration coming from Mexico. Get the facts yourself.

Edit: Actually, it's not like the Wall's ever going up at all, at least not the super-duper impregnable wall the Trumptards are after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

That's how it works with the wall too. Except it takes less people, less cameras, no drones, less trucks, etc etc etc. And the major difference is that some libtard progressive could be elected in 2024 and shut down all the drones. YOu can't shut down a wall. Once it's there....its' virtually permanent.

---

Why would it take any trucks, cameras, or anything? You said it was impossible to climb or tunnel? Once that Wall is up, it's game over for illegal immigrants. The only Mexicans you'll be seeing is the Mexican president coming over with a cheque for $30b.

Lol you're such a deluded twit.

Edit: Oh wait, I guess I'm being irrelevant again since the Wall's never going up. But thanks for explaining how this fantasy Wall would work though banana - real good points there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

False

---

FUCK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Banana, I'm pretty sure you have a gun. Banana, the deep state compromised Michael Cohen, and he's implicating Trump in a crime that will get him impeached. Banana, this is the deep state toppling a democratically elected president! It's time to make a stand, Banana! The time for heroism is now!

---

The sad part is, somewhere in the US is someone who combines Banana's inherent rage-a-holism with Wuf's suscepibility to these theories, and if/when Trump finally gets the boot, they're gonna go and do some fucked up shit.

And when i say 'somewhere' and 'someone', i mean those in the plural sense. I just hope it isn't too many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

False

---

Was it taken away? 'Cause you seem so keen on seeing people get shot, I'm surprised you're not going around with your gun picking fights over parking spaces, waiting for someone to look at you the wrong way so you can plead self-defense.

What is the justified homicide law in NH anyways? How much of an excuse do you need to pop a cap in a stranger's ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Scaled, flown over, whatever.It's not an impregnable barrier is my point. It's not like the wall's going to go up on D-day and on D+1 there's going to be zero illegal immigration coming from Mexico. Get the facts yourself.

---

Ok, Got the facts.

https://www.breitbart.com/london/201...crisis-levels/

Quote:

---

migrants entering Hungary, going from 6,353 to 29 a day in just a week after completing the fence

---

https://media.breitbart.com/media/20...ls-October.jpg

Walls work you deluded twit

Is there a comparable graph for when they used drones?

No-one said a fence/wall wouldn't do anything. I said drones would be cheaper and more cost-efficient.

Also, if a fence works so well why do you have to build a kevlar wall?

Edit; Oh fuck, missed that this was Breitbart reporting the words of the Hungarian gov't. Glad to see your using only reputable sources there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Was it taken away?

---

No, I'm actually a Karate master just waiting for the day that a cadre of government thugs kicks in my door so I can finally get some real practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No-one said a fence/wall wouldn't do anything.

---

OMG go fuck yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's not like the wall's going to go up on D-day and on D+1 there's going to be zero illegal immigration coming from Mexico.

---

^That's EXACTLY what would happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

OMG go fuck yourself.

---

Sorry I forgot you read one thing but see another. Go back and read what I said again please and maybe get someone to help you with the bigger words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

^That's EXACTLY what would happen

---

Damn, it's too bad the R congress won't vote you the money to do it then. Seems like something the great negotiator would have no trouble getting them to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is there a comparable graph for when they used drones?

---

They use drones now. We still have a problem with illegal immigration.

There's an opioid drug crisis in this country right now. The drugs are coming from mexico. They must be getting past the drones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

They use drones now. We still have a problem with illegal immigration.

There's an opioid drug crisis in this country right now. The drugs are coming from mexico. They must be getting past the drones.

---

Well wait, weren't the Mexicans using drones to fly the illegal drugs over the border Wall? That seems like something even the super duper impregnable Wall wouldn't be able to stop.

At least it proves drones are good at something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Damn, it's too bad the R congress won't vote you the money to do it then. Seems like something the great negotiator would have no trouble getting them to do.

---

Relax. He's already convinced congress to spend a lot of money on military funding and tax cuts. Priorities kiddo. One thing at a time. The guy has six more years to get it done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ok, Got the facts.

https://www.breitbart.com/london/201...crisis-levels/



https://media.breitbart.com/media/20...ls-October.jpg

Walls work you deluded twit

---

That is the realest graph I have ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well wait, weren't the Mexicans using drones to fly the illegal drugs over the border Wall? That seems like something even the super duper impregnable Wall wouldn't be able to stop.

---

Special forces have drones. Special forces can't breach the wall.

you fail.

Also I thought a large part of this problem was due to overprescription by doctors. So, unless it's illegal Mexican immigrant doctors prescribing smuggled opioids I'm not sure how a Wall is going to fix that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Special forces have drones. Special forces can't breach the wall.

you fail.

---

You go over the wall with the drone, not through it. You know drones can fly, right?

Your special forces were outsmarted by Mexican drug dealers. No wonder you don't feel safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You know drones can fly, right?

---

You know that technology exists to detect flying objects, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You know that technology exists to detect flying objects, right?

---

ya and even better, Congress thinks it's worth providing money for it.

Special forces better watch out before they become obsolete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Special forces have drones. Special forces can't breach the wall.

---

Oh wait, by 'breach' you meant 'circumvent'. 'Cause obviously 'breech' means 'put a hole in', which was confusing since I'm pretty sure Special forces knows better than to try to fly their drones through walls.

I see why understanding the words of others is so difficult for you now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Relax. He's already convinced congress to spend a lot of money on military funding and tax cuts. Priorities kiddo. One thing at a time. The guy has six more years to get it done.

---

yea, 'cause it's always so hard to get Republicans to cut taxes and boost military spending. The guy's fucking genius at getting people to do what they would do anyways.

Edit: I should say 'cut taxes for the rich'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

yea, 'cause it's always so hard to get Republicans to cut taxes and boost military spending. The guy's fucking genius at getting people to do what they would do anyways.

---

Just wait until he starts entitlement reform. Buckle up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Just wait until he starts entitlement reform. Buckle up

---

Will that be a shorter or longer wait than the one for the Wall?