Right, so still don't get what the troll is then. Is it the D's fault they're detaining more people at the border than they have the capacity to house?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Printable View
Right, so still don't get what the troll is then. Is it the D's fault they're detaining more people at the border than they have the capacity to house?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I guess one objection might be that it's a childish and irresponsible way of dealing with his the shortcomings of his own immigration policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So? What else ya got?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Pelosi called the policy "cruel". Who is the victim in that story?
Sure. Before ORANGE MAN BAD, both of these people said the exact opposite of everything that they say on this video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEjRkGVyNsY
I think it's irrelevant what Pelosi says, especially if you condense it into one word. We're talking about why it's a victory troll for Trump or why a victory troll ranks up there with the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act as a presidential achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You'll forgive me for not wanting to watch the Munsters again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
What did they say 'immigration is bad' or 'close the borders?'
Sorry, really don't see where you're going with this.
"Shut up!" he explainedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Did you watch the Tucker Carlson video I posted earlier? If not, do so, and you'll have an answer to this question.Quote:
We're talking about why it's a victory troll for Trump
Your words, not mine.Quote:
a victory troll ranks up there with the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act as a presidential achievement
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I know what Tucker said 'these people love immigrants - why are they complaining when we offer them all they want?'
What I don't know is why this is a win for Trump. How does solve the immigration problem?
I think you meant to ask "when". And I already told you. It was before ORANGE MAN BADQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can find PLENTY of video of Schumer and Pelosi advocating for the construction of a border wall on the floors of congress. It happened. Google it.
Then one day ORANGE MAN BAD and now these exact same two people are telling us that a wall is immoral
But yeah, Trump is just SOOOO much more dishonest and retarded than they are. Riiiiiiiigggght
Democrats have been advocating against the wall on moral grounds. This proves how full of shit they are. Any court can see that. Now that they're platform has been exposed as a swamp of bullshit, they really can't stop Trump from implementing stricter immigration policy, including a wallQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't really have a beef with that. That's the thing. I feel utterly non-triggered by that suggestion, but it seems like a far left-ish proposal. How that would trigger dems is what I don't get. Trump has said on many occasions he wants to get rid of immigration judges. The proposal we're talking about would skip immigration court and put them straight on american mainland... just not in border cities. It's open borders a bus ride removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
yeah, so they oppose the POTUS of the other party regardless of what they said or did before.
Still don't see how he is getting some victory troll major presidential achievement out of this.
nononono. Most have said they oppose it because it's a waste of money and because it wouldn't work. Most illegal immigrants overstay their visa, most drugs come through points of entry. To put most of the funds you have in a wall is... you might say... retarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Eh, think you're reaching there. It's not simply a choice between open borders bus them all to Beverly Hills and build the Wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Regardless, I'm pretty sure he's not getting his wall.
But...but... "BUILD THE WALL" is such a great chant! What difference does it make if it's a retarded idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That makes you unusual among lefties.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You're adding elements to it that aren't there. It's just our current immigration policy, as-is, plus a bus ride. Nothing is being "proposed" except the bus ride. That's why it's such a great troll....there's NOTHING to object to, unless immigrants are undesirable.Quote:
but it seems like a far left-ish proposal.
That doesn't sound right. I'd ask for a citation, but I don't care that much. It's not relevant to this anyway. No one is trying to change the number of judges right now.Quote:
How that would trigger dems is what I don't get. Trump has said on many occasions he wants to get rid of immigration judges.
No. The proposal that you imagined would skip immigration court. Again...follow me now....everything stays the same, except we add the bus ride. Got that? The bus ride is new, everything else stays the same for now.Quote:
The proposal we're talking about would skip immigration court
Ok lol. But why give them the free bus ride? Doesn't that cost money? Why not give them a free house with a chicken in the pot and car in the garage too?
It sounds kinda 'differently abled' if you ask me.
No they haven't. It's a moral issue and has been ever since ORANGE MAN BAD. Even the leftiest lefty wouldn't believe the "too expensive" argument. Illegal immigrants cost our economy $116B a year. $20B for a wall is a no-brainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Walls work. Don't even try to argue that they don't. They do.Quote:
and because it wouldn't work.
Diversion. 60+ thousand people a month are showing up at the border with no visa. That's a humongous problem by itself. If more immigrants are getting in other ways...that's a separate problem.Quote:
Most illegal immigrants overstay their visa
You took a misleading talking point and then warped it into a complete falsehood. For the record, the correct talking point that you were trying to cite was that "most drugs are confiscated at points of entry". But that's misleading. Who knows what percentage of total drugs that represents. And who knows how much drugs go between ports of entry.Quote:
most drugs come through points of entry.
Suppose you had termites in your house. And when you sought a solution you were told "don't worry about it, most termites are in the forest anyway"
What we do know is that fentnyl deaths have caused life expectancy in the US to decline for the first time in almost a century. So the drugs are getting in. Period.
Not 'getting rid of' in sense of 'ordering someone to fire them all', just not replacing ones who quit/retire. So far.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...s-hiring-pause
Why not? Isn't it moral to welcome immigrants warmly? Why not send them to the most open-minded and generous cities that we have? Wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Again...who is the victim in that scenario? Why are Pelosi, and Schumer, and every sanctuary city mayor calling this policy "cruel"? What do they have against immigrants?
I've heard them say the same thing. There's better and more effective ways to police the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Seems impossible to quantify this precisely, and in any case having a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration dead in its tracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Sure they work better than an empty space. Doesn't mean they're the best/only solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Are they showing up in the desert or at a point of entry? 'Cause I don't think a wall in the desert is going to change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
That's terrible. But, do you imagine people are carrying bags of drugs across the desert border by mule? Or, are they using boats and planes and things that actually make sense if you're trying to traffic large quantities of drugs? How tall is that wall going to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I don't know why they'd call it 'cruel' - that doesn't make sense to me. It sounds stupid, but not cruel.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Maybe that's true. In fact, it probably is true. It's also not relevant. Because none of those methods are permanent solutions like a wall. That's the one advantage a wall has over all other solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The next liberal president can't come in and un-build a wall. He CAN come in and slash funding for sensors, border agents, detention facilities, and all that stuff that is supposedly "more effective".
That's why the wall is the superior solution. The american public won't accept the other measures. We were sold that shit in the 80's, and 30 years later we have over 20 million people here that shouldn't be.
Because they got trolled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
BothQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Something like that.Quote:
But, do you imagine people are carrying bags of drugs across the desert border by mule?
I'm not sure how much you know about fentanyl, but a thermos of the stuff could wipe out a city. "Large quantities" is a fungible term.Quote:
Or, are they using boats and planes and things that actually make sense if you're trying to traffic large quantities of drugs?
I could give you sources but I'd just google "trump immigration judges" and give you the top results.
Currently they're detaining everyone who's waiting for an asylum hearing. What Trump is saying is going a step further than catch and release, but even if he walks it back to catch and release, then you're back to Obama policy. In what way is walking immigration laws back to how they were under Obama trolling the libs? What am I missing?
So because you made something up that you think they'd say, they got trolled?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It's not made upQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3443705002/
"cruelty"
"cynicism"
"inhumanity"
"disgusting policy"
Why would they say that? Are immigrants "disgusting"?
Until there is nowhere left to detain them. Which is the point we are at.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You seem to be missing how the left collectively lost it's friggen shit over this. Cher had the best response of all, but she's an irrelevant hag so it's not that big of a deal. But Pelosi, and every democrat mayor from coast to coast all simultaneously had a stroke.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
yeah, something isn't adding up here...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Pelosi referred to Trump's child separation policy as cruel. Did she say the same thing about bussing people to Oakland? What are you talking about here?
You'd have to ask them to clarify, but I'm reading this as: the notion that you can send human beings as punishment to "send a message to democrats" is cruel and inhumane.
Better close the airports and post offices too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
And where is this illicit fentanyl originating? About 80 percent of the pure fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities last fiscal year arrived from China, often through the mail.
Or maybe that he's using this threat as leverage to get money for his Wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I say: most illegal immigrants overstay their visa.
You say:
JackieChanwutface.jpgQuote:
Walls work. Don't even try to argue that they don't. They do.
Are there are lot of pure fentanyl overdoses? Or is heroin usually involved? Where does the heroin come from?
Her response, through a spokeswoman, to this exact policy is quoted belowQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated
Oh yeah well here's a clue:
Ok I mean their response is out of proportion as usual, but still it's a greasy move. And its a stupid idea.Quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district was specifically targeted, according to the Post, noting that the White House wanted to transport migrants into her congressional district in San Francisco.
Ashley Etienne, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, called the proposal "despicable."
"The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated," Etienne said in a statement. "Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal."
Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., agreed.
"Immigrants are people. Not pawns to deploy in the President's petty political fights," Quigley said on Twitter. "@realDonaldTrump’s cruelty knows no limits."
Mostly through ports of entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Whoa!! you tried to CNN me there for a minute. Not falling for it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Here's what really happened.
You/Poop said: Walls are ineffective
I said: Walls work.
Where do the needles come from they use to inject themselves? Try stopping immigration from those countries too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Remember the war on drugs and how they were going to get Colombia to stop trafficking cocaine to the US? How did that plan work out?
Alright. I guess they work in some sense. They just won't stop the flow of illegal immigration, and won't stop the flow of drugs, so they don't work in the context we're discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
How do you know that? who is measuring how much doesn't come through ports of entry?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You need to fix your facts. What you're trying to quote here, is the shallow and pedantic talking point that most drugs are "confiscated" at ports of entry. That's WAY different than saying "most drugs come through ports of entry".
That's like saying most drowning rescues occur where there are lifeguards. You can still drown in every other body of water!!
In other words...we seem to find drugs only in the places that we look, and we don't find drugs in the places we don't look.
And any quantification that seeks to use the word "MOST" is a propagandist fucking lie.
Not quite the same as saying bussing people to a city is cruel, as if that's somehow punishing them. That's where context matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The same person who is measuring how much comes from which country?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Outreach volunteers in sanctuary cities. Isn't that fucking something??? They even have lounges where you can go and hang out while you wait for the heroin to wear off. All legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't know. I can get weed. I can get pills. I can get heroin. I have no idea where to get coke. So there's some anecdotal evidence of success. But I'm not sure I see your point. It sounds like you're saying that protecting your own country from an inflow of drugs is more effective than trying to prevent outflows of drugs from another country. So we agree.Quote:
Remember the war on drugs and how they were going to get Colombia to stop trafficking cocaine to the US? How did that plan work out?
Talking about the wall feels like talking about 9/11 truthers. I think everything has been said. Here's my final point... Would you take the following bet: You get to spend an arbitrary amount to build a wall. If I can scale the wall, you have to pay me the amount of money you spent on the wall. If I can't, I have to pay. Is that something you're comfortable with? Even if you trust your gut feeling more than data you get from the DEA... even in your fantasy scenario, a wall is horrendously cost ineffective.
Stopping the aids epidemic is bad cause muh feelings!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
10,000 percent yes. I'll even give you odds. What do you want, 20 to 1? 100 to 1? I honestly do not care what the number is.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You might have missed it, but US special forces (Navy Seals) spent THREE FUCKING WEEKS trying to breach wall prototypes with conventional tools/gear (everything short of rocket launchers), and they could not get over, under, around, or through the wall. Navy fucking Seals
Walls work.
But what country are they produced in? Shouldnt something be done about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Point is, people buy the cheapest drugs they can usually. Making coke more expensive by burning a few hectares of rainforest and killilng Escobar didn't stop people using drugs. And building a Wall isn't going to stop it either. And you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Never heard of a rope and grappling hook I guess. You owe Oskar $20bQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Do some research on this. As I just mentioned...special forces spent three weeks trying this. In that entire time, among dozens of the most highly trained human specimens on earth, only one guy was able to get a grappling hook to stick on the top. Once...in three weeks of trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
you so funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8237631.html
Apparently the impenetrable Wall isn't quite ready for mass production yet.
Quote:
A Customs and Border Protection report on the tests had identified "strengths and flaws of each design but does not pick an overall winner or rank them, though it does point to see-through steel barriers topped by concrete as the best overall design," the AP reported.
Oh so it wasn't special forces, it was just regular military. My bad I guess. Nice fact check bro!! HIGH FIVE!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But we're clear now....for three weeks "highly trained testers" did everything within reason to try and breach that wall. And they could not do so.
I'm willing to bet $20B that Oskar can't either.
All that quote seems to be saying is that it's really easy to build an effective wall, and no design is particularly superior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The quote says each design has weaknesses (i.e., none are impregnable, presumably even by people without special skills/equipment). The best design was the steel slats, but get a cutting torch and a tank of acetylene and Oskar is $20b richer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It doesn't say whether the "best" design is also $20k per foot either. So it doesn't really seem settled.
Seriously, are you mentally challenged in some wall related way? The steel slat wall they're building. You can saw through that by hand. To get over you'd use a rope with a hook. Bring a blanket if there's barbed wire. If you just want to get fentanyl through, you'd probably put that in car tires and drive through, but in case you want to prove a point, you'd just throw it.
This is a bit ambiguous. What kind of "help?" It could have just been another guy helping him throw it.Quote:
“Only once did a tester manage to land a hook on top of the wall without help,” the AP reported, according to one source.
Oh yeah I forgot about that lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You know, for a guy who thinks that congress should rule omnipotently over all three branches of government, you seem unusually willing to dispense with democracy. Funny, but for some reason I doubt the sincerity of your fiscal concerns. I think you're opinion just morphs to whatever fits the narrative of ORANGE MAN BADQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Anyone citing cost has completely missed the point. A) It's a permanent solution, and nothing else is. and B) That's what America wants. America didn't vote for Trump because he promised fiscally responsible border policy. They voted for him because he promised to BUILD A FUCKING WALL.
It's the American people's job to decide what their money gets spent on, and they want a fucking wall.
Is he building a wall though?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
it's a permanent solution only if you couple it with an international band on hacksaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
To be clear, he also promised it would be paid for by Mexico. So there's that little detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Do you? Maybe you should hold a Wallerendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
No, but that's the democrat's fault ldo. Don't you remember when the Rs controlled the House and Senate for two years and he couldn't get approval for his Wall monies? That was all the Ds fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Right...like it's just that easy. You could chip at it with a teaspoon and eventually break through if you were persistent enough. Didn't you see Shawshank?? The idea that you could cut through and make any meaningful breach of the border quickly enough to not get caught is just preposterous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The wall prototypes can't be climbed over. They can't be breached quickly enough to avoid detection. they have sensors that can identify underground tunnelling. If those sensors go 20 ft deep....I guess you could dig a tunnel 30feet deep. But then you've really got a deterrent there.
Would you take your kids for miles through an underground tunnel, 30ft down, dug discreetly by criminals?? How bad would shit have to be in guatemala before you tried that?
yeahQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm pretty sure he's just replacing existing fence.
Read your own links man. They tried that. For three weeks. Can't get through the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
With a wall!Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/imag...88rtx6jhvu.jpg
This is a wall?
Are you going to drag a ladder all the way from Guatamela to get over a wall?
I'm not sure what your point is. They have to all sit on the top until the last person gets up. Then all climb down the other side. Good luck not getting spotted by a drone or motion sensor, or camera in that time.
A family with kids couldn't get over that wall. Someone transporting a cadre of sex slave prostitutes will have a hell of a time getting over that wall. Anyone traveling alone/discreetly (like a heroin smuggler) can't get over that wall.
Works for me.
How thick do you think these steel beams are? A cutting torch goes through steel pretty quick. A hacksaw, maybe an hour. So is your patrol going to cover every inch of the wall every hour?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald