I saw one of these in my little backwater town ...............

[Cantdoitsal]

I think you don't come across many people from the right. Many people on the right have been vocal about their dismay at their naivety regarding those institutions. That has been a sea change on the right and the cause of a lot of despair to think that at least our officer ranks of the armed forces are lost. And I think Bush, Cheney, and Powell all held in lower regard, if not low regard.

Certainly there's plenty of reflexive being against whatever the other side is for, but there has been a real change in attitude. If Obama had left Afghanistan, I think you would have seen a lot of people on the right criticize him for leaving Afghanistan. There's been some criticism of Biden from the Bush/Cheney type leftovers, but Biden has mostly just been blasted for how incompetent the withdrawal was, not actually withdrawing.




Nobody can get a political coalition to actually control immigration, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between Trump and Biden's policies.

Whether Trump gets elected or not doesn't matter as much as somebody getting elected that follows Trump's Immigration policies that are A$$ Opposite of what's going down the last 2.5 years. We've got a National Disaster on our hands and nobody's paying attention to it while MSM continues to cover up what they don't want you to see.

 

[L4Dawg]

I don't. It took Russia a long time to pull this off, and it has no comparable neighbors to repeat it on? Belarus, Latvia maybe, but how much global impact does that have? Are they in NATO? I'm assuming China would prevent an invasion of Khazakstan.

I get there's some importance there, but when uou start talking a trillion dollars, my pocket book starts to matter more. You've made that argument yourself a few thousand times, Liver.

If they take Ukraine, you really think they will stop there? They won't, they have said as much. Putin has been talking about this for years, and nobody took him seriously in the West.

 

[GloryDawg]

If they take Ukraine, you really think they will stop there? They won't, they have said as much. Putin has been talking about this for years, and nobody took him seriously in the West.

He will stop there. He knows the next nation would be a NATO nation. NATO would destroy what is left of military in three days. NATO would not even have to put boots in harm's way. You can argue with me all you want but what I did in the Marine Corps required me to understand what their capabilities were and what was ours. If you could go back to the old web site, you will see I got bashed when I declared Russia would not take Ukraine in three days. In fact, I said it was possible Russia would lose. I understand how things works. I have set in on operational planning for combat missions and saw how it always turned out.

I am also saying China cannot take Taiwan. They do not have the capabilities to get enough boots on the ground fast enough. If they could do it, they would have done it. No other military can do what our military can do. They just can't. Everyone thought Russia was a giant lion, but they were just another ***** cat. I called it on the old SPS.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

He will stop there. He knows the next nation would be a NATO nation. NATO would destroy what is left of military in three days. NATO would not even have to put boots in harm's way. You can argue with me all you want but what I did in the Marine Corps required me to understand what their capabilities were and what was ours. If you could go back to the old web site, you will see I got bashed when I declared Russia would not take Ukraine in three days. In fact, I said it was possible Russia would lose. I understand how things works. I have set in on operational planning for combat missions and saw how it always turned out.

I am also saying China cannot take Taiwan. They do not have the capabilities to get enough boots on the ground fast enough. If they could do it, they would have done it. No other military can do what our military can do. They just can't. Everyone thought Russia was a giant lion, but they were just another ***** cat. I called it on the old SPS.

Ziskey?

Man, I love you!

Can you autograph this for me?

 

[Curby]

If they take Ukraine, you really think they will stop there? They won't, they have said as much. Putin has been talking about this for years, and nobody took him seriously in the West.

Sure, Putin wants to get the old Soviet Union back together.

Trump said he told Poot that he’d bomb Moscow if he tried anything.

I wish all that military equipment we left in Afghanistan could be transferred to Ukraine. Bidin really screwed up that situation. And then yawned and looked at his watch when the dead US bodies arrived.

 

[L4Dawg]

He will stop there. He knows the next nation would be a NATO nation. NATO would destroy what is left of military in three days. NATO would not even have to put boots in harm's way. You can argue with me all you want but what I did in the Marine Corps required me to understand what their capabilities were and what was ours. If you could go back to the old web site, you will see I got bashed when I declared Russia would not take Ukraine in three days. In fact, I said it was possible Russia would lose. I understand how things works. I have set in on operational planning for combat missions and saw how it always turned out.

I am also saying China cannot take Taiwan. They do not have the capabilities to get enough boots on the ground fast enough. If they could do it, they would have done it. No other military can do what our military can do. They just can't. Everyone thought Russia was a giant lion, but they were just another ***** cat. I called it on the old SPS.

There are plenty of non-Nato nations on his borders he could strike. Do any of you people look at maps?

 

[HailStout]

Sure, Putin wants to get the old Soviet Union back together.

Trump said he told Poot that he’d bomb Moscow if he tried anything.

I wish all that military equipment we left in Afghanistan could be transferred to Ukraine. Bidin really screwed up that situation. And then yawned and looked at his watch when the dead US bodies arrived.

I just want to point out that the first post in this thread was someone mentioning they had seen an electric truck.

 

[mstateglfr]

You mean building a wall isn’t a good idea for border control?

why did Obama, Hilary and joe all support it before trump?

Claiming Mexico would pay for the wall, building the haphazard segments of wall in seemingly random spots, parts of the wall already in disrepair and at risk of falling...I would not say that his specific vision was good or successful.

As for immigration, I dislike what I've seen so far from Biden too.

 

[GloryDawg]

There are plenty of non-Nato nations on his borders he could strike. Do any of you people look at maps?

Ukraine is the only one he cares about. The others are either NATO or already allied with him. There is only five or so country's that boarder Russia on that boarder. Latavia (NATO), Estonia (NATO) Finland (NATO), Belarus (Russian Allie) Ukraine (On their own). South of those is the Black Sea. North of those between Finland is Baltic Sea and north of Finland is sea.

Edited to add that once you get West of those Nations Moldova is the only non-Nato country.

 

[Walkthedawg]

I didn't say you were. I asked. But that's the level of reading comprehension I expect from a climate denier.

Absolutely fantastic post from someone who apparently didn’t read all of my responses.

 

[Walkthedawg]

Genuinely, this is all great to see. Super that you plant trees.

It looks like I wasnt the only one to say 'cut off your nose to spite your face' though. Perhaps since multiple people viewed your comments in that exact manner, there is some truth to it.
That small handful of people can be detestable and we all can still do things that they suggest. It really is OK for that to happen. If it makes you feel better to loudly declare 'I am doing this in spite of what DiCaprio says!' then have at it. Whatever it takes for people to actually do something is good by me- curse those hypocrites and prove to them that you are better by doing what they want AND doing it better than them by creating less emissions.

So basically… in this day of banning Mark Twain books, digging up confederate generals from their graves, scrutiny of early films and actors, attempted cancellation of comedians due to jokes, etc… we are picking and choosing “failings”.

Apparently these folks and their “failings” of damage to the climate in this climate emergency… while preaching about the climate emergency… get a complete and total pass. Not a sour word said. No cancellation for hypocrisy or their damage. They are actually held up as heros. I mean.. John Kerry is the “US Special Envoy for Climate”. It’s like the surgeon general smoking on TV and doing McDonalds commercials.

All I need is a viable explanation as to why Dave Chappelle was ran through the wringer for a simple joke…. But we allow people to profit off of the “climate emergency” while doing the complete opposite.

Everyone still detests Jimmy Swaggart. Other televangelists are mocked and laughed at (rightly so) for claiming they need jets to “spread the message. Why are we allowing the climate versions of Jimmy Swaggart to reap the praise? Why are we allowing the climate televangelists to have their unnecessary jets and homes?? What’s the difference? Failings are failings.

I just need to know the difference.

 

[Walkthedawg]

You do realize how well climate skepticism pays, right?

At least they are consistent. They have that.

 

[paindonthurt]

Claiming Mexico would pay for the wall, building the haphazard segments of wall in seemingly random spots, parts of the wall already in disrepair and at risk of falling...I would not say that his specific vision was good or successful.

As for immigration, I dislike what I've seen so far from Biden too.

I know facts don’t matter to you but whatever he was doing was helping.

Imagine if congress would have worked with trump how much he could have done for illegal immigration

US election 2020: Trump's impact on immigration - in seven charts

Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 with a pledge to bring down immigration. Did it happen?

www.bbc.com

 

[mstateglfr]

I know facts don’t matter to you but whatever he was doing was helping.

Imagine if congress would have worked with trump how much he could have done for illegal immigration

US election 2020: Trump's impact on immigration - in seven charts

Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 with a pledge to bring down immigration. Did it happen?

www.bbc.com

Oh my goodness- I want to say I cant believe you posted that link in response to my comment, but its you so I can totally believe it.

- In response to me mentioning Trump's illegal immigration ideas werent good, you questioned if the wall at the Southern Border isnt a good idea for border control. I pointed out just a few of the many issues with Trump's 'wall', and you countered with a link that discusses immigration overall(not specific to the Southern Border and not at all discussing the 17ing wall).

This comment is actually in your link-

Despite widespread media coverage of the border crisis, the data for 2019 suggests that would-be migrants have not been deterred - the number of detentions at the border was more than double the number for the previous year, driven largely by a large rise in the number of families attempting to get across.

In Trump's 3rd year in office, so well into his tenure were time has allowed his administration to implement agenda/policy, migrants werent deterred and there was a large rise in families attempting to cross compared to the prior year. And while you could claim that they are caught- keep in mind that more attempting to cross and failing means many are getting thru.

I will end the post with this...

President Trump has not brought about any significant changes to the number of people in either deportation category compared with his predecessor.
The US Immigration, Customs and Enforcement agency, which handles most deportations, has described the current rate of removals as "extremely low", blaming a lack of resources and "judicial and legislative constraints", among other things.

 

[mstateglfr]

So basically… in this day of banning Mark Twain books, digging up confederate generals from their graves, scrutiny of early films and actors, attempted cancellation of comedians due to jokes, etc… we are picking and choosing “failings”.

Apparently these folks and their “failings” of damage to the climate in this climate emergency… while preaching about the climate emergency… get a complete and total pass. Not a sour word said. No cancellation for hypocrisy or their damage. They are actually held up as heros. I mean.. John Kerry is the “US Special Envoy for Climate”. It’s like the surgeon general smoking on TV and doing McDonalds commercials.

All I need is a viable explanation as to why Dave Chappelle was ran through the wringer for a simple joke…. But we allow people to profit off of the “climate emergency” while doing the complete opposite.

Everyone still detests Jimmy Swaggart. Other televangelists are mocked and laughed at (rightly so) for claiming they need jets to “spread the message. Why are we allowing the climate versions of Jimmy Swaggart to reap the praise? Why are we allowing the climate televangelists to have their unnecessary jets and homes?? What’s the difference? Failings are failings.

I just need to know the difference.

Hell if I know.
I dont worship at the foot of any of the people you have ranted about- environmentalists or televangelists, so I really cant say what the difference is.

I really dont need a difference between some environmentalists and corrupt televangelists in order to decide to try and do something in my life, with my family, and within my community.

Your complaint is exactly like someone refusing to participate in their local church and not donating to the causes/ministries of that church because there are some corrupt televangelists within the religious community at a national level. That person wont participate at the local level to improve the community around them because there is hypocrisy and inconsistency elsewhere at a larger level.

But really, I dont know what the difference is. If you figure it out, lemme know.

 

[mstateglfr]

Sure, Biden isn't. Just an executive agency under his administration that is issuing a proposal that would ban somewhere between 50% to 95% of existing gas stoves/cooktops. People are just crazy to think that these government entities are serious when they say things or propose things.

Gas Stoves Are Back Under Scrutiny With New US Limits Proposed

(Bloomberg) -- Gas stoves are coming under fresh scrutiny as a second federal agency has now stepped into the political firestorm with a proposal for new regulations for the appliances. Most Read from BloombergWhat You Need to Know About the Suspected Chinese Spy Balloon Floating Over the...

www.yahoo.com

Ok, so from your link, I have learned that the standards were mandated by Congress and are feasible for both gas and electric cooktops. I also learned that the DOE specifically is not proposing a ban on either type of stove, and that every major manufacturer currently has products which meet or even exceed the proposed requirements.

The Energy Department said the standards, which would result in $1.7 billion in reduced energy costs, were mandated by Congress and are technologically feasible for both gas and electric cooktops.

“We are not proposing bans on either,” the department said in a statement. “Every major manufacturer has products that meet or exceed the requirements proposed today.”

So not proposing bans on either. And it is worth noting that a trade group made the claim that is hadnt yet evaluated the rule, but thought that 'it appears' 95% of the market would meet the proposed levels. Lets settle down a bit on the hysterics.

Additionally, I learned that improved grates and a better optimized burner are proposed standards. So gas would still exist, the grates would just be better.

The proposed standards are based on improved cooking efficiency through the use of design options, such as an optimized burner and improved grates, and some products are already on the market that meet the requirements, the group said.

 

[paindonthurt]

Oh my goodness- I want to say I cant believe you posted that link in response to my comment, but its you so I can totally believe it.

- In response to me mentioning Trump's illegal immigration ideas werent good, you questioned if the wall at the Southern Border isnt a good idea for border control. I pointed out just a few of the many issues with Trump's 'wall', and you countered with a link that discusses immigration overall(not specific to the Southern Border and not at all discussing the 17ing wall).

Immigration rate overall decreased with more people trying to cross. Wall or not he was doing something right. I understand that hurts you to admit it.

Despite widespread media coverage of the border crisis, the data for 2019 suggests that would-be migrants have not been deterred - the number of detentions at the border was more than double the number for the previous year, driven largely by a large rise in the number of families attempting to get across.

So more families were trying to cross but less got across than normal based on rates. Something was working. More attempts but rates dropped. Math is hard.

I will end the post with this...

President Trump has not brought about any significant changes to the number of people in either deportation category compared with his predecessor.
The US Immigration, Customs and Enforcement agency, which handles most deportations, has described the current rate of removals as "extremely low", blaming a lack of resources and "judicial and legislative constraints", among other things.

Deportation is different than stopping illegal immigration. We need both but the left is standing in the way of deportation and that can't be argued intelligently. I mean you quote actually states that unless you think conservative "constraints" are stopping it. Are you for deportation of illegal immigrants?

 

[johnson86-1]

Ok, so from your link, I have learned that the standards were mandated by Congress and are feasible for both gas and electric cooktops. I also learned that the DOE specifically is not proposing a ban on either type of stove, and that every major manufacturer currently has products which meet or even exceed the proposed requirements.



So not proposing bans on either. And it is worth noting that a trade group made the claim that is hadnt yet evaluated the rule, but thought that 'it appears' 95% of the market would meet the proposed levels. Lets settle down a bit on the hysterics.

Additionally, I learned that improved grates and a better optimized burner are proposed standards. So gas would still exist, the grates would just be better.

I'm sure that the 5% to 50% of the market that currently meet the standards are just as cheap as the ones being banned and that they will continue to work just as well, just like our greatly improved washers and dryers. Pretty stupid for people to think the federal government would idiotically raise costs while also reducing quality. What are the chances that would happen. Excuse me, I have to step away to go run my dryer on the same load of clothes again and also find a gas can that works as smoothly as the one I had 20 years ago.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Here You Go Boys Enjoy Yourselves

mstateglfr probably runs this for a living with the political writing zeal he has. Some of the rest you ain't too far behind

 

[paindonthurt]

Here You Go Boys Enjoy Yourselves

mstateglfr probably runs this for a living with the political writing zeal he has. Some of the rest you ain't too far behind

My writing skills are $h1t, but i can run circles around mstategopher's logical reasoning skills

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Sure, Putin wants to get the old Soviet Union back together.

Trump said he told Poot that he’d bomb Moscow if he tried anything.

I wish all that military equipment we left in Afghanistan could be transferred to Ukraine. Bidin really screwed up that situation. And then yawned and looked at his watch when the dead US bodies arrived.

Cooterpoot is Putin?

…

Cooterpootin? **

 

[L4Dawg]

Ukraine is the only one he cares about. The others are either NATO or already allied with him. There is only five or so country's that boarder Russia on that boarder. Latavia (NATO), Estonia (NATO) Finland (NATO), Belarus (Russian Allie) Ukraine (On their own). South of those is the Black Sea. North of those between Finland is Baltic Sea and north of Finland is sea.

Edited to add that once you get West of those Nations Moldova is the only non-Nato country.

You don't look at maps for sure. There are nations to the east too. They are getting really nervous. Putin is on record as saying the baltics belong to Russia.

 

[HailStout]

Phase one is electric truck and phase 3 is every political talking point that exists

 

[mstateglfr]

I'm sure that the 5% to 50% of the market that currently meet the standards are just as cheap as the ones being banned and that they will continue to work just as well, just like our greatly improved washers and dryers. Pretty stupid for people to think the federal government would idiotically raise costs while also reducing quality. What are the chances that would happen. Excuse me, I have to step away to go run my dryer on the same load of clothes again and also find a gas can that works as smoothly as the one I had 20 years ago.

So all current appliances would be rendered illegal and people would be immediately forced to purchase the qualifying appliances?

 

[mstateglfr]

Immigration rate overall decreased with more people trying to cross. Wall or not he was doing something right. I understand that hurts you to admit it.

- I made fun of Trump's claims about the wall as well as actions when it came to the building and funding the wall.
- You questioned me by asking if a wall isnt good for border control.
- I pointed out just a few of the many issues with Trump's wall.
- You then linked an article that discusses immigration as a whole, both legal and illegal, and the many ways in which both types of immigration play out.


This is what has happened.
To actually answer you- a physical wall can help reduce trespassing in some situations, so sure it can be helpful in controlling illegal immigration is specific instances. With that said, Trump's claims for how the wall would be funded were 17ing BS. Trump's claims for how effective the wall would be were 17ing BS. The segments of wall that Trump 'built' were not effective and continue to not be effective. They were not effective if you look at the cost and they were not effective if you look at them as a literal barrier.

That was the point I initially made, that is the point you initially took issue with, and that is the point I am bringing this conversation back to.



I have no idea why you think it is good that overall immigration decreased(you say that since you say he was doing something right). We need immigration to continue to grow and succeed. We need to attract the world's best and brightest if we want to continue to be a major driving economic force on a global scale.
If you think this country is going to hell right now, isolationism and closed borders will only increase our decline.

 

[Curby]

- I made fun of Trump's claims about the wall as well as actions when it came to the building and funding the wall.
- You questioned me by asking if a wall isnt good for border control.
- I pointed out just a few of the many issues with Trump's wall.
- You then linked an article that discusses immigration as a whole, both legal and illegal, and the many ways in which both types of immigration play out.

Trump never meant Mexico was going to write a check for a border wall. Stop being brainwashed by CNN.

The Tariffs changed for Mexico so much in the USA's favor that they indirectly paid for it....but most of the construction stopped because....being blocked......and the Dem party wanting to change voting demographics and have illegals voting them in for the next several decades.

 

[GloryDawg]

You don't look at maps for sure. There are nations to the east too. They are getting really nervous. Putin is on record as saying the baltics belong to Russia.

And Mexico thinks Texas belongs to them but to your point the Blatics Countries are all NATO now. There are only three of them. NATO would kick his *** in three days. It would be like Desert Storm all over again with Russian Soldiers surrender to NBC News Crews just like the Iraqis did.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

I saw one of these today. Made me think of a cross between a Land Rover and jeep

 

[mstateglfr]

Trump never meant Mexico was going to write a check for a border wall. Stop being brainwashed by CNN.

The Tariffs changed for Mexico so much in the USA's favor that they indirectly paid for it....but most of the construction stopped because....being blocked......and the Dem party wanting to change voting demographics and have illegals voting them in for the next several decades.

Brainwashed by CNN? WT17 are you talking about? I posted that comment because it is what Trump said.
Here is his quote-

"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall," President Donald Trump said on June 16, 2015, when he announced his White House run.
"Mark my words," he said.

Fact check: Trump says he 'obviously' never said Mexico would pay directly for the wall. But he did.

"I never meant they're going to write out a check," Trump claimed. But his campaign did say he would get a "payment of $5 - 10 billion" from Mexico.

www.usatoday.com

I understand that years later he claimed he never said that. And then he claimed he never meant it. And then he claimed he meant it, but it an indirect manner...obviously.***
But none of that lines up with his other comments and ideas, which all exist based on him actually meaning Mexico would pay.

An August 2015 campaign position paper said "Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do," the U.S. would "impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages," increase fees on visas and ports of entry into the U.S., and possibly implement tariffs or cut aid.

An April 2016 campaign memo outlined similar ways of pressuring Mexico. That plan explicitly said Mexico would make "a one-time payment of $5 - 10 billion" for the wall.

The memo also proposed threatening to block remittances from Mexican nationals in the U.S. back to Mexico – which the campaign said amounted to $24 billion a year. The plan was to then "tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall," the rule blocking the money transfers would not be enacted.

He really did say it. He really did mean it. He really did release multiple ideas for how to make it happen.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

Not too many US government elected officials in this neck of the woods. Only two I know of within 100 miles. I don't think they have access to US government moter pools. Nor would they have been driving themselves alone in a pickup in a lone US government vehicle. Had to be relatively low rank civil service here. Driving a dang luxury vehicle. Lowest bid my ..............

Things aren't always lowest bid. Depends on the agency and the service and the product. If it's epa or something I could see electric. Maybe not that but there could be some special situations with grants and whatever that gives them access to that vehicle

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

So now we covered the border wall, gas stoves, what NATO is, and many other topics that have absolutely nothing to do with sports. I have a few questions from just watching and reading.

1. Where do you some of you guys get the time for all these dissertations? I mean my dad some of you guys report to have jobs and families, but how do you ever give them any time when so many people are needing to be corrected on the six-pack machine?
2. Didn't this start out as a thread about an electric truck? After five pages it kind of all runs together.
3. Golfer, we have had our battles, but do you ever talk about anything other the politics? I mean no offense but if it is a political board you seek there are plenty of great options out there.
4. The conservatives arguing with golfer you understand that is what he wants for you to do is argue with him right? I would think this would be very obvious by now, it is kind of like the Gremlins you cant feed them and expect good things to happen. Truth is you guys are never going to agree on much that is just the way it is these days.

Final Thought: Even though we are from different political perspectives, I mean I am the devil for heavens sake trying to get people to come together. Cant we all just agree this is suppose to be a place that we all come together, and drown our sorrows in how much it sucks to be a State fan sometimes? Now roast me for my post not being long enough, or for being dumb enough to think we could ever lay down our verbal swords and get back to real purpose of this site. Just one devils thoughts.

 

[Curby]

I have no idea why you think it is good that overall immigration decreased(you say that since you say he was doing something right). We need immigration to continue to grow and succeed. We need to attract the world's best and brightest if we want to continue to be a major driving economic force on a global scale.
If you think this country is going to hell right now, isolationism and closed borders will only increase our decline.

Legal immigration is fine. There are so many hundreds of thousands flooding in unchecked (regardless of what the idiot Mayorkas says)
that the next big group of big-event terrorists are already within our border. It's just a matter of time. Crime will be rampant along the border states. The Fentanyl crisis and human/sex trafficking issues are rampant. And the current administration does not care.

We refuse to vet people. And the majority coming over are certainly not the best and brightest of Mexico and central America.
If there was a way to just get people with good intentions just trying to make a better life for themselves and become productive citizens, I'm all for that.

 

[GloryDawg]

Legal immigration is fine. There are so many hundreds of thousands flooding in unchecked (regardless of what the idiot Mayorkas says)
that the next big group of big-event terrorists are already within our border. It's just a matter of time. Crime will be rampant along the border states. The Fentanyl crisis and human/sex trafficking issues are rampant. And the current administration does not care.

We refuse to vet people. And the majority coming over are certainly not the best and brightest of Mexico and central America.
If there was a way to just get people with good intentions just trying to make a better life for themselves and become productive citizens, I'm all for that.

Hell, they are coming from 150 different countries from all over the World. It is ridiculous what Brandon is allowing to happen. Just enforce the laws that are on the books.

 

[johnson86-1]

So all current appliances would be rendered illegal and people would be immediately forced to purchase the qualifying appliances?

Is that the way it worked with washers and dryers and gas cans? Did that somehow stop people from getting stuck with shittier and/or more expensive options?

 

[paindonthurt]

- I made fun of Trump's claims about the wall as well as actions when it came to the building and funding the wall.
- You questioned me by asking if a wall isnt good for border control.
- I pointed out just a few of the many issues with Trump's wall.
- You then linked an article that discusses immigration as a whole, both legal and illegal, and the many ways in which both types of immigration play out.


This is what has happened.
To actually answer you- a physical wall can help reduce trespassing in some situations, so sure it can be helpful in controlling illegal immigration is specific instances. With that said, Trump's claims for how the wall would be funded were 17ing BS. Trump's claims for how effective the wall would be were 17ing BS. The segments of wall that Trump 'built' were not effective and continue to not be effective. They were not effective if you look at the cost and they were not effective if you look at them as a literal barrier.

That was the point I initially made, that is the point you initially took issue with, and that is the point I am bringing this conversation back to.



I have no idea why you think it is good that overall immigration decreased(you say that since you say he was doing something right). We need immigration to continue to grow and succeed. We need to attract the world's best and brightest if we want to continue to be a major driving economic force on a global scale.
If you think this country is going to hell right now, isolationism and closed borders will only increase our decline.

so to be clear you think a wall is a good idea? yes or no. And, if no, did you hate that idea when obama, biden and hilary did/supported the same thing?
Trumps wall is the same wall that was there 10 plus years before.

His claims? He ran on a political motto of "build the wall" among other things. Politicians do it all the time. Walls are effective also. Plenty of proof and examples.

You think the southern border is bringing "the world's best and brightest". Shirley you jest.

Making mexico pay for it. Well if you take that literally i can't help you. But, if you use your brain and realize trump threatened them with tariffs on imports to the USA if they didn't do something, you'd understand. Did he do that? Some, but it wasn't that effective. But he ran on that platform and tried to do what he said.

 

[mstateglfr]

Is that the way it worked with washers and dryers and gas cans? Did that somehow stop people from getting stuck with shittier and/or more expensive options?

Way to answer the question with questions.
I won't wait for an actual answer to my question.

 

[johnson86-1]

Way to answer the question with questions.
I won't wait for an actual answer to my question.

If you weren't able to figure out that was an actual answer, and also showed why your question was a stupid one that was missing the point, I can't help you and probably neither can anybody else.

 

[mstateglfr]

so to be clear you think a wall is a good idea? yes or no. And, if no, did you hate that idea when obama, biden and hilary did/supported the same thing?
Trumps wall is the same wall that was there 10 plus years before.

His claims? He ran on a political motto of "build the wall" among other things. Politicians do it all the time. Walls are effective also. Plenty of proof and examples.

You think the southern border is bringing "the world's best and brightest". Shirley you jest.

Making mexico pay for it. Well if you take that literally i can't help you. But, if you use your brain and realize trump threatened them with tariffs on imports to the USA if they didn't do something, you'd understand. Did he do that? Some, but it wasn't that effective. But he ran on that platform and tried to do what he said.

As already stated, a wall can be an effective deterrent as part of a comprehensive border plan.
I do not think what he planned or what he accomplished qualifies as an effective deterrent.

I did not say, nor did I even hint at, the best and the brightest are coming from the southern border. Some may qualify as that, I don't know, which is why I didn't comment on it.
Your earlier posts seem to bounce back and forth between legal immigration and illegal immigration based on the link you posted and your comments. As such, it appears you have commented on immigration in general being bad. You are confusing yourself at this point.



As for what Trump meant when he flat out said Mexico would pay, and followed that up with specific ways to make Mexico pay, we'll yeah that to me means he wanted Mexico to pay. Crazy, right? How crazy of me to think that, when he both said it and came up with ways for it to happen.

 

[HailStout]

 

[paindonthurt]

As already stated, a wall can be an effective deterrent as part of a comprehensive border plan.
I do not think what he planned or what he accomplished qualifies as an effective deterrent.

You can’t answer the question can you? Trumps wall was no different than dems walls. Not at all.

Illegal immigration rates were down under trump. I don’t care if his advertised wall helped or not. I don’t care that he was a d1ckhead. I care that it worked better than others.

I did not say, nor did I even hint at, the best and the brightest are coming from the southern border. Some may qualify as that, I don't know, which is why I didn't comment on it.
Your earlier posts seem to bounce back and forth between legal immigration and illegal immigration based on the link you posted and your comments. As such, it appears you have commented on immigration in general being bad. You are confusing yourself at this point.

Tell me how he specifically said they would pay and use sources.
And who cares what he said if it worked.

my god you people care more about mean tweets than you do any results.

As for what Trump meant when he flat out said Mexico would pay, and followed that up with specific ways to make Mexico pay, we'll yeah that to me means he wanted Mexico to pay. Crazy, right? How crazy of me to think that, when he both said it and came up with ways for it to happen.