- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wall vs Fence
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:52 pm
Would some liberals explain to me why a fence is ok but not a wall? How is a wall immoral but a fence is not?
Is a fence going to work better than a wall? If you believe yes, please explain. If a wall is a waste of money, how is a fence not an even bigger waste of money?
Please in detail explain why Dems were ok with $25 billion a few years ago and yet now they aren't.
Just want to hear your explanation for those simple details.
Is a fence going to work better than a wall? If you believe yes, please explain. If a wall is a waste of money, how is a fence not an even bigger waste of money?
Please in detail explain why Dems were ok with $25 billion a few years ago and yet now they aren't.
Just want to hear your explanation for those simple details.
12
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:53 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
How is a wall immoral but killing a full term baby is not?
FIFY
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:53 pm to TigerMyth36
shite vs. dump
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:53 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
a few years ago
Barack Obama
quote:
and yet now they aren't.
Donald Trump
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:53 pm to TigerMyth36
Fences aren't quite as immoral? 
It's just stupid politics. I really wish politicians on the left would get called out for their stupid bullshite.
It's just stupid politics. I really wish politicians on the left would get called out for their stupid bullshite.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 12:54 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Just want to hear your explanation for those simple details.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:00 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Just want to hear your explanation for those simple details.
Good luck with that! I would love to hear some real answers, not just talking points, I’m all ears.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:07 pm to TigerMyth36
I think I can help you understand.
When border security experts recommend fencing in areas, typically near crossings and in populated areas, no one questions the need or functionality because the requests are specific and the benefits are easy to perceive. That has always been the case and continues to be the case.
But just objectively go back and consider what Trump uses as his campaign and rally hook.
Trump wants a 1,000 mile wall separating the United States from Mexico. The only areas where there will be no wall are areas where mountains and landscape makes it impassible anyway.
That is an entirely different animal. Some people have a natural aversion to walling off our country. Others find the project to be vastly more massive than anything which is required or which can support a counter benefit. Others, simply don't see how the known data on how immigrants enter the country supports such a massive project.
No one says they oppose the wall because they love crime or unpermitted entry. There is no binary choice of 1,000 miles of wall or love of crime or open borders.
Now Trump says he only wants $5 billion. How much wall is he proposing to build? No one knows. $5 billion wouldn't build 1,000 miles of interstate highway. This is a similar scale project. Some oppose it because the proposed project itself is undefined and they want more specificity for that kind of use of taxpayer money.
There are many very reasonable and good reasons to oppose what Trump has proposed, whatever that is now.
When border security experts recommend fencing in areas, typically near crossings and in populated areas, no one questions the need or functionality because the requests are specific and the benefits are easy to perceive. That has always been the case and continues to be the case.
But just objectively go back and consider what Trump uses as his campaign and rally hook.
quote:
Oct. 28, 2015
“As far as the wall is concerned, we’re going to build a wall. We’re going to create a border. We’re going to let people in, but they’re going to come in legally. They’re going to come in legally. And it’s something that can be done, and I get questioned about that. They built the Great Wall of China. That’s 13,000 miles. Here, we actually need 1,000 because we have natural barriers. So we need 1,000.”
Trump wants a 1,000 mile wall separating the United States from Mexico. The only areas where there will be no wall are areas where mountains and landscape makes it impassible anyway.
That is an entirely different animal. Some people have a natural aversion to walling off our country. Others find the project to be vastly more massive than anything which is required or which can support a counter benefit. Others, simply don't see how the known data on how immigrants enter the country supports such a massive project.
No one says they oppose the wall because they love crime or unpermitted entry. There is no binary choice of 1,000 miles of wall or love of crime or open borders.
Now Trump says he only wants $5 billion. How much wall is he proposing to build? No one knows. $5 billion wouldn't build 1,000 miles of interstate highway. This is a similar scale project. Some oppose it because the proposed project itself is undefined and they want more specificity for that kind of use of taxpayer money.
There are many very reasonable and good reasons to oppose what Trump has proposed, whatever that is now.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:14 pm to TBoy
Here's some other explanation. Trump estimates that the wall will actually cost somewhere around $20 billion.
So what exactly is he proposing at this time? No one knows. Trump hasn't given us any specifics.
It doesn't matter if you call it fencing or wall. That doesn't matter. What matters is whether Trump wants 1,000 miles of it at a cost of $20 Billion, and whether that is a reasonable and appropriate public work.
quote:
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump ....The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, which has a ridiculous $71 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.S. The $20 billion dollar Wall is “peanuts” compared to what Mexico makes from the U.S. NAFTA is a bad joke! 105K 5:25 AM - Jan 18, 2018
So what exactly is he proposing at this time? No one knows. Trump hasn't given us any specifics.
It doesn't matter if you call it fencing or wall. That doesn't matter. What matters is whether Trump wants 1,000 miles of it at a cost of $20 Billion, and whether that is a reasonable and appropriate public work.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:23 pm to TBoy
quote:
Trump hasn't given us any specifics.
Says the party who voted twice for “Hope & Change.”
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:23 pm to TigerMyth36
Normandy Fence
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:28 pm to TigerMyth36
Liberals are all of a sudden against inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
When it is actually an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Dems are actually FOR ineffiecient use of taxpayer dollars and AGAINST efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
When it is actually an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Dems are actually FOR ineffiecient use of taxpayer dollars and AGAINST efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:28 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Normandy Fence
Posted on 2/1/19 at 1:30 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Please in detail explain why Dems were ok with $25 billion a few years ago and yet now they aren't.
I keep hearing this about the Democrats, but I don't know what is meant by the democrats or the "Dems"
A specific piece of proposed legislation? If so, what exactly did it propose?
I don't give much of a shite about ancient history.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 2:03 pm to TigerMyth36
To really address the OP's question, the original "fence" (which is not much different from Trump's current "wall") was a bipartisan effort to increase border security after 9/11. It was pretty much a failure.
The "fence" came in way over budget, was an ecological disaster because impact studies were never conducted, and did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of immigrants, drugs, and potential terrorists from crossing the Southern Border.
In 2011, a bipartisan amendment to the Secure Fence Act was passed that gave DHS the authority to use more advanced and cost-effective means to patrol the border, although physical barriers are still allowed to be built.
But that is why people could be for the fence in the past, and opposed to the fence now. It seemed like a good idea back then, but has proven to be more trouble than it was worth.
OTOH, I don't at all agree with Pelosi's claim that a "wall" would be "immoral". I'm all for allowing immigrants to attempt to enter the country legally -- even if they are seeking asylum with little chance of success -- but it seems like they could do that at legal ports of entry.
The "fence" came in way over budget, was an ecological disaster because impact studies were never conducted, and did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of immigrants, drugs, and potential terrorists from crossing the Southern Border.
In 2011, a bipartisan amendment to the Secure Fence Act was passed that gave DHS the authority to use more advanced and cost-effective means to patrol the border, although physical barriers are still allowed to be built.
But that is why people could be for the fence in the past, and opposed to the fence now. It seemed like a good idea back then, but has proven to be more trouble than it was worth.
OTOH, I don't at all agree with Pelosi's claim that a "wall" would be "immoral". I'm all for allowing immigrants to attempt to enter the country legally -- even if they are seeking asylum with little chance of success -- but it seems like they could do that at legal ports of entry.
Posted on 2/1/19 at 2:04 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Please in detail explain why Dems were ok with $25 billion a few years ago and yet now they aren't.
The $25B was in exchange for a path to citizenship for all DACA-eligible children.
That didn't even take long to explain!
Posted on 2/1/19 at 2:15 pm to BamaAtl
That was the more recent time. I'm talking about when they actually agreed back in 2006 to even more money.
Plus the DACA deal was a bait and switch. They were wiling to spend the money for the standard DACA continuation, then they decided to renege on their original deal and wanted full citizenship.
However, your point doesn't explain why they wall wasn't immoral in that deal and yet it is now. It also doesn't explain why they didn't care about the spending then and they do now.
Really silly considering the deficit increased 10 trillion under Obama's watch and yet now they are concerned about spending. If they are so concerned I'd be more than happy for Trump to start pushing budget cuts across every single department in the government including defense.
Plus the DACA deal was a bait and switch. They were wiling to spend the money for the standard DACA continuation, then they decided to renege on their original deal and wanted full citizenship.
However, your point doesn't explain why they wall wasn't immoral in that deal and yet it is now. It also doesn't explain why they didn't care about the spending then and they do now.
Really silly considering the deficit increased 10 trillion under Obama's watch and yet now they are concerned about spending. If they are so concerned I'd be more than happy for Trump to start pushing budget cuts across every single department in the government including defense.
This post was edited on 2/1/19 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 2/1/19 at 3:52 pm to VOR
quote:
I keep hearing this about the Democrats, but I don't know what is meant by the democrats or the "Dems" A specific piece of proposed legislation? If so, what exactly did it propose? I don't give much of a shite about ancient history.
So 10 or 15 years ago is ancient history? And yes, I believe there was proposed legislation.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News