Poll: for or against the wall

facts and reason wrote:

Trumpsters everywhere wrote:

I'm for an impenetrable fortress of fear and hate.

That's all you got? Another Democrat response based on emotion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfKW9bKE4Ww

A LEGAL immigrant was killed by an ILLEGAL immigrant. His brother is against crimes committed by illegals.

c'mon guys, don't need to feed this troll.

A normal person, even if stupid, would realize how dumb they would look calling themselves 'facts and reason ' , calling out 'emotion' based Democrats and then post purely emotion based, factless links over and over and over

move along.

"'Liberal' SJWs still don't get why a majority of Americans voted for Trump. They voted for Trump because of YOU and your incessant preaching about the evils of white male privilege from your white male privilege middle-class suburbs and with the benefit of your white male privilege snowflake Ivy League educations, protected as you are in your privileged snowflake lives from the impact of globalization that the ordinary average person in the USA or Europe is having to deal with on the front line (the reason 'Yellow Vests' are rioting all over Europe now)."

Ever heard of a comma?

The majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. The majority voted for someone else. HRC received about 3 million more votes than Trump.

For vote Trump because you dislike SJW is stupid. Just as voting for HRC because you hate preachy, xenophobic conservative talk show hosts is stupid. There is enough preaching on both sides to go around.

As for my opinion, I'm against Trumps wall. I'm not against a wall in every location. I'm not against fixing some parts of the wall. I certainly against shutting the government down to build a wall that is not 100% necessary over a "crisis" which is hyped up and overblown. Drugs are not streaming across open areas of the country. Illegals are not killing Americans left and right. Everything Trump has said about the "crisis" is either a flat out lie, or a huge exaggeration.

I live in San Diego. My city is a far better place because of the influence of our neighbors from the south. We probably have one of the highest per capita populations of illegals than most places and it's not made our life a living hell.

blort wrote:

I live in San Diego. My city is a far better place because of the influence of our neighbors from the south. We probably have one of the highest per capita populations of illegals than most places and it's not made our life a living hell.

But, but Hillary's emails!

What about murderers and rapists? I mean, maybe some illegals are almost tolerable but surely you cannot deny that the majority are murderers, rapists, terrorists and drug carriers, right?

North of There wrote:

blort wrote:

I live in San Diego. My city is a far better place because of the influence of our neighbors from the south. We probably have one of the highest per capita populations of illegals than most places and it's not made our life a living hell.

But, but Hillary's emails!

What about murderers and rapists? I mean, maybe some illegals are almost tolerable but surely you cannot deny that the majority are murderers, rapists, terrorists and drug carriers, right?

Yep.

What are the actual logical arguments for building a wall? Border stops are down and building a wall is expensive. The money could be spent on people living here, on services that we need, on services that the government is supposed to provide.

The only people who support this thing are white folks who are scared of brown people. Prove me wrong.

]

I’m not going to track 3000 years history of para-political subversion for you. You are blind or have ZERO correlation skills if you can’t connect the dots that-

UN/European Union agenda for mass illegal imigration is designed to:

1)destabilize local culture,

2)break down local autonomy

3)and facilitate centralized control.

It’s a total sham in the US where shadow organizations encourage these caravan wankers to cause a scene on the border. Total manufactured chaos. If you can’t see that is what’s happening- then, oh well. Others do.

Bannon types- bad ass. Populist movement- saving countries. Strong borders- protection from Soros type globalist chaos agenda.

M A GA[/quote]

Did you just call "Bannon types" bad asses?

Were you able to type that while keeping a straight face? If so, I am impressed. I was not even able to read it without busting out in uncontrollable laughter.

Good job![/quote]

I know. Sadly I don’t rely on Jimmy Kimmel for my world news.

Straight from the horses’ mouth. Can’t stop. Won’t stop. Freedom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NAfm5L_DOLM

I am also against. I fully support.

Mogul wrote:

]

I’m not going to track 3000 years history of para-political subversion for you. You are blind or have ZERO correlation skills if you can’t connect the dots that-

UN/European Union agenda for mass illegal imigration is designed to:

1)destabilize local culture,

2)break down local autonomy

3)and facilitate centralized control.

It’s a total sham in the US where shadow organizations encourage these caravan wankers to cause a scene on the border. Total manufactured chaos. If you can’t see that is what’s happening- then, oh well. Others do.

Bannon types- bad ass. Populist movement- saving countries. Strong borders- protection from Soros type globalist chaos agenda.

M A GA

Did you just call "Bannon types" bad asses?

Were you able to type that while keeping a straight face? If so, I am impressed. I was not even able to read it without busting out in uncontrollable laughter.

Good job![/quote]

I know. Sadly I don’t rely on Jimmy Kimmel for my world news.

Straight from the horses’ mouth. Can’t stop. Won’t stop. Freedom.

- link -[/quote]

Love that cute Jimmy Kimmel phrase. Truly adorable.

But did you have some sort of point to your post?

c'mon guys, he's laying it on pretty thick wrote:

facts and reason wrote:

That's all you got? Another Democrat response based on emotion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfKW9bKE4Ww

A LEGAL immigrant was killed by an ILLEGAL immigrant. His brother is against crimes committed by illegals.

c'mon guys, don't need to feed this troll.

A normal person, even if stupid, would realize how dumb they would look calling themselves 'facts and reason ' , calling out 'emotion' based Democrats and then post purely emotion based, factless links over and over and over

move along.

The murder of the officer in California brings up a different issue. The authorities were aware of the shooter as he had twice been arrested for drunk driving. That should have been enough for deportation.

The point is, today’s SJ’s, milenials, NPC’s and sadly many “older” libs don’t know how to think for themselves or how to critically think at all.

Orange man bad. He’s a racist. Punch a Nazi. Bannon fat coke man (my favorite).

NPC is the classic description of these fools. They truely don’t know where their information (or history of that information) is coming from. All they know is that it sounds cool, popular and safe.

Bannon is epic in that Economist interview. Unfriendly audience setting. And that’s how he is in EVERY interview. Lays waste to an editor who once probably thought she had pretty decent oratory skills until Bannon defused every one of her stink bombs.

Winning. M A GA

Raddison wrote:

The problem for Trump with the Israeli West Bank Barrier is it is not a wall but rather a series of fences. Only 5 to 10% or the barrier is a concrete wall , the rest is fencing.

The primary reason it is a fence is that Israel plans to continue taking over Palestinian lands. A fence is easy relocate. A solid wall signals that the expansion has stopped, and lands beyond it belong to the Palestinians.

No, we believe people who want to come to this country should be allowed to become American citizens. Just as YOUR ancestors did. It's pretty simple really.[/quote]

I have no problem with people coming to this country and becoming American citizens just like my ancestors did. Let's review. They broke no laws to enter. They received no government assistance. They had to have a sponsor. They spent time at Ellis island proving they had no diseases.

We should secure our borders and then debate how many can enter and what criteria should exist for accepting or rejecting those asking to enter. Realistically we can not have unlimited in a short period of time.

legal only wrote:

I have no problem with people coming to this country and becoming American citizens just like my ancestors did. Let's review. They broke no laws to enter. They received no government assistance.They had to have a sponsor. They spent time at Ellis island proving they had no diseases.

Your post is nonsense. No sponsors were required. Government assistance did not start until the early 1930s.

Many people assume that their family immigrated to the United States legally, or did it “the right way.” In most cases, this statement does not reflect the fact that the U.S. immigration system was very different in the past and that their families might not have been allowed to enter had today’s laws been in effect. When many families arrived in the United States, there were no numerical limitations on immigration, no requirements to have an existing family or employment relationship with someone in the country, and no requirement to obtain a visa prior to arriving.

If you are for the wall (or even against) you may be interested in reading this book:

'The Land of Open Graves' by De Leon.

While this is absolutely written from a liberal perspective... while it may not change your mind about things perhaps it will give you some pause for thought.

If you are for the wall (or even against) you may be interested in reading this book:

'Ordeal by Hunger: The Story of the Donner Party' by George R. Stewart.

While this is absolutely written from an academic perspective (the author prompted the National Weather Service to use personal names to designate storms) ... it will reveal the ugliness of American immigrants trying to escape religious persecution to new state where they could fully practice Catholicism.

Hardloper wrote:

In favor

Whom are you against? Surely you are not anti-Mexican. US is a trading partner with Mexico. Are you anti-Guatemalan? If you have ill will toward the people of Guatemala, please explain why.

'The Land of Open Graves' by De Leon.

'Ordeal by Hunger: The Story of the Donner Party' by George R. Stewart.

There are striking parallels in the above two books. People driven away by those who oppress them. It happens within the US, and not just at the border of the scary brown people.

Another book about a forgotten past--American ugliness--is "Whitewashed Adobe: The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its Mexican Past" by William Francis Deverell. The name says it all. Whites coming to California and working so hard to turn it as white as possible. There are chapters in the book that describe how dumb whites were—why did the Mexicans living there build homes on hills above the lovely rivers rather than beside it?—because the rivers flood during the rainy season, as white river builders learned the hard way ? And then there is a chapter about racist white southerners who funded paramilitary groups with intent of taking over Baja California to turn it into a free slave nation. The book is kind of dry, but the history of racial whitewashing makes it a worth a read.

Again and again. wrote:

The point is, today’s SJ’s, milenials, NPC’s and sadly many “older” libs don’t know how to think for themselves or how to critically think at all.

Orange man bad. He’s a racist. Punch a Nazi. Bannon fat coke man (my favorite).

NPC is the classic description of these fools. They truely don’t know where their information (or history of that information) is coming from. All they know is that it sounds cool, popular and safe.

Bannon is epic in that Economist interview. Unfriendly audience setting. And that’s how he is in EVERY interview. Lays waste to an editor who once probably thought she had pretty decent oratory skills until Bannon defused every one of her stink bombs.

Winning. M A GA

LOL, you typed M A G A with a straight face and 'indepenent thought' in the same post.

Is there any real debate that th remaining Trump supporters have expressed the least independent thought in modern American history? They will literally believe anything the guy says even though he's shown to lie at record-setting levels.

What exactly ARE these independent thoughts that you are having? That facts don't matter?

Israel take overs wrote:

Raddison wrote:

The problem for Trump with the Israeli West Bank Barrier is it is not a wall but rather a series of fences. Only 5 to 10% or the barrier is a concrete wall , the rest is fencing.

The primary reason it is a fence is that Israel plans to continue taking over Palestinian lands. A fence is easy relocate. A solid wall signals that the expansion has stopped, and lands beyond it belong to the Palestinians.

US left are dividing into two groups: 1) Slightly left of center group of Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, John Lewis and others. The listed individuals supported mass incarceration, unlimited funding for Apartheid in Palestine by white Jews against black Jews, brown Jews and Arabs. This group supports US military industrial complex. There are way more than the four I listed. The first group would be willing to tolerate a wall as part of a compromise. 2) The second group is not anti-white Jew, but are no longer interested in supporting white Israeli Jews imprisoning and slaughtering others not exactly like them. The second group are not pro-US Empire. Not pro-Empire is not the same as anti-USA. The second group want government sponsored healthcare for all. The second group want a reasonable size US police force. The second group want a reasonable size US military. The second group is pro-public K through 12 teachers. The second group does not support a wall.

and the Right is dividing into one pile.

Everyone is getting sht on, the only choice is whether or not they open their mouths.