The Trump Shutdown

[B-Man]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, you actually don't.  Allow me to help you here as you struggle:  You source op-ed pieces, which are anecdotal.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

 

 

I believe I've amply demonstrated this not to be the case, and conversely have allowed you to paint yourself as a raving lunatic, dismissive of data, and so dogmatically opposed to the current President of the United States that you would rather see the weakest and most at risk among us suffer at the hands of brutal captors than allow the President a political victory, even when it's the right thing to do in the name of human freedom.

 

 

........Good Lord stop the fight............TYTT over NPC in PHILLY by KO

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

18 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Yep. Just tell Mexico if we don't build the wall, Canadians will start invading Mexico.

 

They'll HELP build the wall. Because let's face it...not even the Mexicans want anything to do with Canadians.

 

We invade with timeshares in Cancun

[Logic]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

You really suck at yourself.

Only in private, and it took a lot of yoga to get to this point.

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You seem not to care about that issue. That's where we differ.

Because I have a differing viewpoint from you, I don't care about the issue? Sure Rhino, whatever you say.

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Would you be upset if someone burst into your living room and started raping a 6 year old.

Good God almighty, you have problems.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

Good God almighty, you have problems.

 

I have problems because you don't recognize the severity of the child sex trafficking epidemic on our southern border?

[Logic]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I have problems because you don't recognize the severity of the child sex trafficking epidemic on our southern border?

You have problems because your ONLY way of attempting to contribute to a debate seems to be to accuse those who think differently than you of condoning pedophilia and rape. 

Enough with that garbage. You're like a broken record. 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

 

So, now that we've established that neither of you are interested in putting an end to modern human slavery and child sex trafficking; what do each of you feel is the acceptable amount of slavery and pedophilia we should have in America?

You pedophobe.

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Again, here are the arguments from people who actually are in charge of preventing human trafficking. 

 

In which they negate the value of a wall to stop human trafficking.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/will-trump-s-border-wall-prevent-human-trafficking-experts-aren-n751466

 

 

 

But you like to ignore them.

 

You stupid Mother *****.

 

As a quick note, the fantasies that you concoct while you stroke yourself do not count as evidence, so...come up with something better.

Uh.  Saying Trumps co doesn't know if it would work with one breath and not quoting her to wuote some other who knows lady from some acronym...  How does that work?  

 

You're taskers B word.  He's in your head and he owns you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Logic said:

You have problems because your ONLY way of attempting to contribute to a debate seems to be to accuse those who think differently than you of condoning pedophilia and rape. 

Enough with that garbage. You're like a broken record. 

 

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else is intentionally condoning slavery, rape, or pedophilia.  What I'm saying is that the policy you support makes way for those things to occur with greater frequency and ease, and that's a hard reality whether you like it or not.

 

So, by taking the stance that you do, you are passively allowing that there is some acceptable level of the occurrence of those things within the United States, balanced against cost.

 

You don't like having that difficult reality pointed out, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

 

 

[boyst]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Again, just wanted to hope back in the parts about how wall is useless, including against the movement of goods. The Cato Institute one is of special note in that regard.

1 article vs anyone anyone can find... I love how one ***** article vs another article arguments go. It's like children at recess, except youre special Ed and taskers B word.

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

*pat pat pat*

 

Awww, it's so cute when he pretends he knows people. He thinks he has friends.

 

Give me data. Give me something that can be independently verified. Because all I've seen from you lot is:

 

"I FEEEEEEEELZ A BORDER WALL WILL WORK. NO, I AIN'T GOT NO PROOF, BUT GRANDPAPPY JIM SAYS THAT BROWN PEOPLE ARE RAPISTS, AND SO DID ORANGE MAN11111 WHY YOU DOUBT ORANGE MAN? yOU HATE AMERICA!!!11111"

 

 

I have almost shat myself laughing at your "feelz" comments, when I keep bringing independently verified facts, and you come with "NUH UH!!!"

 

It is like watching a special ed student try to get into a debate. At first, it's funny, but the more it's just...sad.

I can give you numbers of people I know which would probably get me arrested and them fired, would that do anything for ya?

[Logic]

And another thing, @Deranged Rhino:

You keep talking about how you've "personally talked to people on the southern border about the wall" and they all, "to a man", back you up. My article, citing multiple OTHER articles, stated 

6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So, in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.

7. Border patrol agents say walls are “meaningless” without agents and technology to support them. Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually—well after the wall is built—to create a nearly 2,000-mile militarized, 24-hour-surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. 

So, as for the "many people" on the southern border that YOU'VE talked to about the issue who "to a man" want Trump's wall (which, by the way, I guess we're all just supposed to take you word for it that you've had these conversations and that these people actually exist): Not all border patrol agents agree. Yet you speak as though you represent the views of border agents universally. Between that bit of "take my word for it" conjecture and your "I care about it and you don't, that's the difference" line, you're pulling moves that would cause you to laugh your debate opponent off the floor if he tried them. That goes back to my point that you suffer from an assumed moral and intellectual superiority and hypocrisy...or as you once called it: Intellectual Dishonesty. And that's not to even MENTION the fact that you easily dismiss reasonable counter-arguments or op-eds as "pushing a narrative", while I suppose YOUR arguments and statements are...WHAT, exactly? Certainly not pushing your OWN narrative, right? Hypocrisy.

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else is intentionally condoning slavery, rape, or pedophilia.  What I'm saying is that the policy you support makes way for those things to occur with greater frequency and ease, and that's a hard reality whether you like it or not.

 

So, by taking the stance that you do, you are passively allowing that there is some acceptable level of the occurrence of those things within the United States, balanced against cost.

 

You don't like having that difficult reality pointed out, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

 

 

May I ask if you consider yourself a Donald Trump supporter?

[DC Tom]

Just now, Logic said:

And another thing, @Deranged Rhino:

You keep talking about how you've "personally talked to people on the southern border about the wall" and they all, "to a man", back you up. My article, citing multiple OTHER articles, stated 

6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So, in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.

 

 

Because nobody in the history of anything has ever looked over a wall before. 

[Logic]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Because nobody in the history of anything has ever looked over a wall before. 

You're an idiot.

[The_Dude]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-ll-send-wall-them-200150051.html

 

Ha!

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

You're an idiot.

 

Ever notice how you have no thoughts of your own, but continually parrot other people's opinions, even to the point of repeating "you're an idiot?"

 

It's a shame you lack the insight to understand how truly ridiculous you are.  The rest of us find it very amusing.

[Logic]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Ever notice how you have no thoughts of your own, but continually parrot other people's opinions, even to the point of repeating "you're an idiot?"

 

It's a shame you lack the insight to understand how truly ridiculous you are.  The rest of us find it very amusing.

Ever notice that you contribute little to any discussion other than personal insults? 

It's not surprising, given your avatar and whatnot. But yeah. You're basically just a parody account.

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, Logic said:

Because I have a differing viewpoint from you, I don't care about the issue? Sure Rhino, whatever you say.

 

From your posts you've made it clear that you believe human trafficking is either not happening or a big enough issue to worry about when talking about the border. If that is incorrect, please expound on your position. 

 

It's hard to argue you care about an issue when you're willing to overlook how this very issue serves to help combat it. 

 

Pointing out that you don't care about this issue, based on your posts, is not an attempt to dismiss your opinion. It's an attempt to wake you up to the actual realities and what this whole mess is really about. 

14 minutes ago, Logic said:

So, as for the "many people" on the southern border that YOU'VE talked to about the issue who "to a man" want Trump's wall (which, by the way, I guess we're all just supposed to take you word for it that you've had these conversations and that these people actually exist): Not all border patrol agents agree. Yet you speak as though you represent the views of border agents universally.

 

This is incorrect. I've always presented it as anecdotal with the purpose of pointing out anyone can do the work I've done. All it takes is the willingness to travel and talk to the people doing the work. 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

Ever notice that you contribute little to any discussion other than personal insults? 

It's not surprising, given your avatar and whatnot. But yeah. You're basically just a parody account.

 

There's no point, as you can't think for yourself and you wouldn't pay attention anyway.  All you've earned are insults.

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Logic said:

Between that bit of "take my word for it" conjecture and your "I care about it and you don't, that's the difference" line, you're pulling moves that would cause you to laugh your debate opponent off the floor if he tried them. That goes back to my point that you suffer from an assumed moral and intellectual superiority and hypocrisy...or as you once called it: Intellectual Dishonesty. And that's not to even MENTION the fact that you easily dismiss reasonable counter-arguments or op-eds as "pushing a narrative", while I suppose YOUR arguments and statements are...WHAT, exactly? Certainly not pushing your OWN narrative, right? Hypocrisy.

 

That'd all be true... If I didn't provide copious amounts of sources and information anyone can vet for themselves. If you bother to read my stuff, rather than react to it, you'd understand my mantra is NOT to "just trust me", but to learn to hone your own discernment and trust yourself - not "experts" or "media outlets" who are not working in your best interests. 

 

It'd also be true if I wasn't always willing to converse, engage, and change my opinion when presented with new information. 

 

All things you've yet to demonstrate yourself down here in the dungeon, despite now over two years of trying. 

[Swill Merchant]

6 hours ago, Logic said:

https://medium.com/s/story/what-happened-when-a-trump-supporter-challenged-me-about-the-wall-e54e86a5edd1?fbclid=IwAR1d_5b4gazBYOJXw-p5LIBoTgCuDuQIlOuaW7hrrruu79u0ajjxcoX90pk


The article above -- which I'm sure most won't click on before calling me an idiot -- uses only conservative sources to point out why the wall is such a bad idea. The pieces cited in the above article are listed below if you want to skip directly to them. They all point to the same fact, though: 

"The ugly genius of Trump is his ability to manipulate deep, primal emotions—namely fear and hate. Along with Fox News, he has convinced his base that immigrants put them in 'extreme danger' and only a wall will make them 'safe.'

Unfortunately, their need to feel safe is much stronger than their will to grapple with a complex, multifaceted problem—a problem that will require serious engagement with complex policies to get at the root of it.

And so, here we are, paralyzed by shutdowns at every turn."

 

Cato Institute: “Why the Wall Won’t Work” https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison Donna Wiesner Keene: “The Conservative Case Against a Border Fence” published by U.S. News & World Report.  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money

The Chicago Tribune (a conservative-leaning paper): “Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security”    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html

National Review (conservative magazine): “Trump’s Border Wall Plan Is Ridiculous on Its Face” https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/

I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument.

 

First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials as its sources, and presented it as fact.

 

Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under (obviously).  I'll take them one by one.

 

1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government.

 

2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas.

 

3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers).

 

4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea."

 

So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas.

 

This is nothing everyone did not know already.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Swill Merchant

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That'd all be true... If I didn't provide copious amounts of sources and information anyone can vet for themselves. If you bother to read my stuff, rather than react to it, you'd understand my mantra is NOT to "just trust me", but to learn to hone your own discernment and trust yourself - not "experts" or "media outlets" who are not working in your best interests. 

 

It'd also be true if I wasn't always willing to converse, engage, and change my opinion when presented with new information. 

 

All things you've yet to demonstrate yourself down here in the dungeon, despite now over two years of trying. 

 

Or, to phrase it another way...

 

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There's no point, as you can't think for yourself and you wouldn't pay attention anyway.  All you've earned are insults.

 

I'm not insulting, I'm parsimonious.

1 minute ago, Swill Merchant said:

I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument.

 

First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials its sources, and presented it as fact.

 

Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under.  I'll take them one by one.

 

1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government.

 

2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas.

 

3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers).

 

4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea."

 

So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas.

 

This is nothing everyone did not know already.

 

 

Nothing any person wouldn't have figured out if they'd applied a little...well...logic, ironically.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

May I ask if you consider yourself a Donald Trump supporter?

 

I've addressed this here before, though I'm happy to do it again.

 

I don't support individuals, as I believe the "great man" perspective of history to be dangerous because it lionized cults of personality over the law.  I believe in supporting moral ideals, the protection of human freedom, and positive outcomes towards those ends.

 

I was vocally opposed to the President during the run-up to the election, as I'm a classically liberal rights theorist, and everything I knew about President Trump prior to his election led me to believe that he was a dangerous demagogue, with leftist tendencies, who had no interest in libertarian principals.  I thought he would be the downfall of conservatism in the United States, and would usher in an era of unchecked leftist populism which would be the final nail in the coffin of individual rights and national autonomy.  I voted for Johnson, as he presented himself as the least appalling of 4 terrible candidates.

 

But, as I said, I guided by a belief in human freedom, and rights theory; and as such I chance my stance based on evidence.

 

The President has changed my mind, and has done more for advancing the cause of human freedom both domestically and abroad than any President in my adult lifetime; and I support that.