By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump destroys Jeb Bush

Jimbo1337 on 18 February 2016
MDMAlliance said:
Rpruett said:

Your question is mostly non-sense and very easy to split out into points.

You say in conjunction to the wall, there are a number of other things you have to take into consideration.  You then list them as follows :

- Inevitability of Mexicans reaching USA

So you're saying essentially that the USA will be incapable of preventing people from getting into the country?  Is there something unique to all of the other countries who have widely successful statistics regarding prevention of illegal immigration that you're aware of?   All evidence points to the fact that a properly designed wall works incredibly well.  Which is the evidence you've been linked and provided.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I've been saying.  Cherry-picked data is not proof of concept.  Walls are not widely known to be effective as deterrents for immigration.  At the very least, not on its own.  You cannot say what works in one country or two, with totally different environments and situations, will work here.  The most you can do is say, "they can work." 

- Too great a distance to build the wall

The entire US border does not need a wall. This has been discussed ad nauseam and once you identify the segments of the border that do need a wall,  it's not much different distance-wise than walls many other countries have built.  

Another point that I did not specifically state, but even with the claims that you don't need to build a wall all the way across the border, the wall is still large.  

- The wall requires surveiliance 

How does this differ from the current border today?  

How it differs is that if you are committing to a wall to keep people out, you really will have to commit to devoting resources to people not circumventing it either, which is not that hard to do with today's technology.  If you want to claim we're already doing that, then what would be the point of the wall?

- Can't make Mexico pay, no way to strike a deal with them

This has also been discussed ad nauseam.  Mexico absolutely will pay for the wall.  The United States currently has a 58 billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico per year.  That's an easily negotioable stance for the United States.

I don't think you really understand how this works if you think that.  $58b trade deficit doesn't mean we're giving away $58b.  If you can't understand that, then you don't have any right to be arguing it.

-  Wall is stupid when you combine his positions (on cutting taxes, bombing ISIS, deporting, keeping 3 biggest items on federal budget.

None of these are mutually exclusive events.  He can cut taxes, protect the border, bomb isis,  deport illegal immigrants all at the same time.  (And commonly this is what every president does).   As for the (3) biggest items on the federal budget, what are you referencing? 

What you don't realize about Trump's policies is that he makes some pretty big claims.  He wants to cut income taxes across the board, and not by a few percent, but by a very large amount.   From nearly 40% to 25% on the top bracket, and to 0% on most of the lower-middle class.  He also wants to lower taxes on corporations on top of this.  He says to do all this, while he still is saying to keep Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid around.  This, plus his plans on bombing ISIS and these other "tough" actions he wants to take means keeping the Defense budget up, which those 3 make up the 3 most expensive items on the federal budget.  You can look it up and see for yourself.  

So, no, what I'm saying is not non-sense at all.  Many of the things you said I said were not what I said.

You are simply misinformed.  Donald Trump has been saying this from the very beginning that he would build a wall with a big beautiful door.  Despite hearing this time and time again from him, you still think that he is doing this so as to "keep people out".  A door allows people to come in and out, not just keep them out like you have stated.  So please, get your facts straight before commenting.

So let me reiterate what Donald Trump wants to do with the illegal immigration problem.  He wants to build a wall to prevent illegal immigrants from coming across the US-Mexican border while simultaneously making it easier for them to come in legally.

You and I both know that building a wall will make it harder for them to come across the border ILLEGALLY and the "big beautiful door" that he speaks of is him making it easier for them to come in LEGALLY.  Does that make sense?  

Being opposed to the above statements is like telling me that it is now better to have illegal immigrants in this country instead of legal immigrants.



Around the Network
Blob on 18 February 2016

I'm curious as to op actually is. Don't think I've seen them In any gaming threads
Seems a bit odd to join a gaming forum just to discuss Donald trump and American politics.



MDMAlliance on 18 February 2016
Jimbo1337 said:

You are simply misinformed.  Donald Trump has been saying this from the very beginning that he would build a wall with a big beautiful door.  Despite hearing this time and time again from him, you still think that he is doing this so as to "keep people out".  A door allows people to come in and out, not just keep them out like you have stated.  So please, get your facts straight before commenting.

So let me reiterate what Donald Trump wants to do with the illegal immigration problem.  He wants to build a wall to prevent illegal immigrants from coming across the US-Mexican border while simultaneously making it easier for them to come in legally.

You and I both know that building a wall will make it harder for them to come across the border ILLEGALLY and the "big beautiful door" that he speaks of is him making it easier for them to come in LEGALLY.  Does that make sense?  

Being opposed to the above statements is like telling me that it is now better to have illegal immigrants in this country instead of legal immigrants.

By definition, a wall is meant to keep something IN or OUT.  I never once stated in anything I said that Trump is planning on keeping everything out.  Obviously no one would allow a wall that never lets anyone through.  I know he wants legal immigrants, but that's not even the point here.

What you contributed was absolutely nothing.  All you're doing is making false statements about what I said.



McDonaldsGuy on 18 February 2016
MDMAlliance said:

So, no, what I'm saying is not non-sense at all.  Many of the things you said I said were not what I said.

You don't even have to go after trade deficits.

http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/remittances-totaled-oil-income/

All Donald has to do is target remittances and Mexico will beg to build the wall.



sethnintendo on 18 February 2016

Not hard to squash a mosquito that nobody wants.



Around the Network
MDMAlliance on 18 February 2016
McDonaldsGuy said:
MDMAlliance said:

So, no, what I'm saying is not non-sense at all.  Many of the things you said I said were not what I said.

You don't even have to go after trade deficits.

http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/remittances-totaled-oil-income/

All Donald has to do is target remittances and Mexico will beg to build the wall.

So basically Donald goes after the remittances, makes Mexico pay for it, then sends back a large portion of people who were sending them to begin with.  Makes sense.



Rpruett on 18 February 2016
MDMAlliance said:

You seem to be misunderstanding what I've been saying.  Cherry-picked data is not proof of concept.  Walls are not widely known to be effective as deterrents for immigration.  At the very least, not on its own.  You cannot say what works in one country or two, with totally different environments and situations, will work here.  The most you can do is say, "they can work." 

In what way has the data you've been provided been 'cherry-picked' ?  Do you have concrete examples of all encompassing walls that have failed to significantly reduce immigration?   There are countless examples proving it's merit (See Israel,  San Diego) and none that I've read proving the failure their failure.

Walls are pretty simple,  there isn't many unique situations that you're trying to imply between environments.   What are your examples as to enviromental conditions that differ in the United States southern border versus other examples you've been given?

Another point that I did not specifically state, but even with the claims that you don't need to build a wall all the way across the border, the wall is still large.  

You specifically stated and I quote  "The border is also very long, even if you do manage to build the wall, who is going to be patrolling it? "  As one of your big reasons as to why the wall is foolish.  As stated, the wall is not much longer than other ones existing across the globe.   For the largest economy in the world,  I don't think it would be a challenge.

How it differs is that if you are committing to a wall to keep people out, you really will have to commit to devoting resources to people not circumventing it either, which is not that hard to do with today's technology.  If you want to claim we're already doing that, then what would be the point of the wall?

The wall is significantly more challenging to overcome than a miniscule fence or piece of rope.  If 10 people attempt to cross the border simultaneously, it's going to take them significantly longer to overcome a wall.  You have to devote no more resources than you do today technologically speaking.    Again -- the wall is a significant obstable, in conjunction with technology makes it very hard to penetrate the border thus significantly reducing net immigration.

I don't think you really understand how this works if you think that.  $58b trade deficit doesn't mean we're giving away $58b.  If you can't understand that, then you don't have any right to be arguing it.

Yes - I understand it perfectly.  The United States quite frankly doesn't need Mexican imports.  Conversely Mexico needs every penny of those 58b in exports.  The United States can do a whole host of things with the trade imbalance situation to force the hand of Mexico to do whatever we want.

Trump knows it,  Mexico knows it and only simpletons continue to deny it.  I don't think you have a clue of how much power the United States has in this discussion.

What you don't realize about Trump's policies is that he makes some pretty big claims.  He wants to cut income taxes across the board, and not by a few percent, but by a very large amount.   From nearly 40% to 25% on the top bracket, and to 0% on most of the lower-middle class.  He also wants to lower taxes on corporations on top of this.  He says to do all this, while he still is saying to keep Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid around.  This, plus his plans on bombing ISIS and these other "tough" actions he wants to take means keeping the Defense budget up, which those 3 make up the 3 most expensive items on the federal budget.  You can look it up and see for yourself.  

Ofcourse he makes 'big claims'.   Every politician is making big claims.  

Yes - Cutting taxes is a big part of his plan.  Specifically taxes on the job creators (Corporate tax).   He's angling to bring back companies that are moving their operations out of the United States and increasing our GDP significantly from the mediocrity we've experienced during the past 16 years.  

Bombing ISIS, does not need to be a trillion dollar Bush-level invasion of the Middle East.  ISIS would not last long against the United States.  The defense budget does not need to stay up if it's streamlined and effectively utilized. (See avoiding F-35 disaster spending).   Medicaid and Social Security are items that already exist in the budget, it's not like they're going belly up tomorrow.

Increasing the GDP for the US, Reversing the trade imbalances between various countries (360 billion with China, 58 billion with Mexico),  lowering Corporate tax rate (Bringing back jobs that are moving overseas or to more tax friendly locations), reduction of taxes for citizens being increasingly burdened with taxation,  reducing the flow of a significant portion of an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants per year pulling down the low income  job market,working toward improving efficiency at all levels of government.

These would all be very effective ways of improving the economic situation the US sits in and improving it.

So, no, what I'm saying is not non-sense at all.  Many of the things you said I said were not what I said.

You specifically said :

" However, one thing to keep in mind is that, in conjunction with this wall, there are a number of other things you have to take into consideration.  

How badly do you think they want to get in?  1.) Even with a wall, people will find a way.  2.) The border is also very long, even 3.) if you do manage to build the wall, who is going to be patrolling it?  People could just get around/over it if no one is watching.  That costs money too (which the wall will undoubtedly cost much of).  4.)There really isn't any way to effectively make Mexico pay for it unless you think they think they will get something out of it.  That, or you coerce them, making relations between a country you border more tense.  Because that's what the United States needs right now, right?

The 5.)wall is also dumb if you take into consideration all the other things he wants to do.  Cut taxes, take many actions that would end up costing money (bombing ISIS, deporting, etc.), keeping the 3 biggest items on the federal budget around, and it goes on and on. "

 

I specifically pulled out what you said in the following items.  Find bolded underlined in sequence.  You said all of these sentiments in your original statement.  

1.) Inevitability of Mexicans reaching USA

2.) Too great a distance to build the wall

3.) The wall requires surveiliance 

 4.) Can't make Mexico pay, no way to strike a deal with them

5.) Wall is stupid when you combine his positions (on cutting taxes, bombing ISIS, deporting, keeping 3 biggest items on federal budget.

 

Again -- Complete non-sense with a bunch of hyperbole and deflection and little substance.



Nymeria on 18 February 2016

 

In the past decade immigration from Mexico has not been the issue it was for the thirty years prior. Not sure what building a wall would do at this point.



Skratchy on 18 February 2016
Nymeria said:

 

In the past decade immigration from Mexico has not been the issue it was for the thirty years prior. Not sure what building a wall would do at this point.

Exactly. It's just something conservatives talk about because they're mostly racist. They want the wall because they don't like Mexicans. They want to close mosques and deport Muslims because they hate Muslims. Everything they come up with is an excuse to justify their hatred for people.

 

User was warned for this post ~ CGI-Quality



MDMAlliance on 18 February 2016
Rpruett said:
MDMAlliance said:

So, no, what I'm saying is not non-sense at all.  Many of the things you said I said were not what I said.

You specifically said :

" However, one thing to keep in mind is that, in conjunction with this wall, there are a number of other things you have to take into consideration.  

How badly do you think they want to get in?  1.) Even with a wall, people will find a way.  2.) The border is also very long, even 3.) if you do manage to build the wall, who is going to be patrolling it?  People could just get around/over it if no one is watching.  That costs money too (which the wall will undoubtedly cost much of).  4.)There really isn't any way to effectively make Mexico pay for it unless you think they think they will get something out of it.  That, or you coerce them, making relations between a country you border more tense.  Because that's what the United States needs right now, right?

The 5.)wall is also dumb if you take into consideration all the other things he wants to do.  Cut taxes, take many actions that would end up costing money (bombing ISIS, deporting, etc.), keeping the 3 biggest items on the federal budget around, and it goes on and on. "

 

I specifically pulled out what you said in the following items.  Find bolded underlined in sequence.  You said all of these sentiments in your original statement.  

1.) Inevitability of Mexicans reaching USA

I didn't say that this was absolutely the case, but something to consider.

2.) Too great a distance to build the wall

You are rewording my statements.  They are right there, but you alter its meaning either way.  I only stated a fact that the border is long.  I did not qualify it with a "too much" or anything of the sort.  You are putting words in my mouth.  Even without that, the distance is still a factor.

3.) The wall requires surveiliance 

Yes, it's true.  I said "many things," not all.  Learn reading comprehension.  It's getting harder and harder to talk to you like you are capable of debate when you are not even comprehending the meaning of simple words.

 4.) Can't make Mexico pay, no way to strike a deal with them

Once again, you are twisting what I'm saying.  Read back what you bolded in my statement yourself.  "Effectively" is in there.  You clearly didn't even address the more important issues, too.

5.) Wall is stupid when you combine his positions (on cutting taxes, bombing ISIS, deporting, keeping 3 biggest items on federal budget.

You can't look at a candidate for just one point at a time.  You have to look at the whole package.  You can't just look at each issue as if they don't have any influence over each other.  They do.  There are many other reasons you can call the wall stupid, but this is one is one that can be substantiated and does not rely on assumptions. 

Again -- Complete non-sense with a bunch of hyperbole and deflection and little substance.

You say it's non-sense and contains hyperbole and deflection, and little substance.  You do not back up your argument.  You just say that it is because you don't agree with it, even though much of it is fact.  

The smaller points like people finding a way anyway is just a small part of the bigger picture that I'm saying one has to consider when talking about building the wall.  What's its purpose?  To keep the illegals from coming in.  Well, is a wall good enough?  On its own, I say no.  It can deter some people, but their determination to get in is likely great enough to not be deterred simply by a wall.  You would need another layer of security on top of it.  Doing that only increases costs and creates higher tension.  You CAN do it, but is it a good idea?  That depends on what you value, I will admit.  

So, let's break this down some more though.  One thing you likely believe is that the illegal Mexicans are not paying taxes and that they are taking our jobs.  This is only a half-truth.  Sure, they are occupying jobs in the market, and having people paying taxes with jobs is important for the government and it is important for those working people to spend money for the economy.  Well, the truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants still do have taxes they pay, it's not an all-or-nothing situation many think or claim it is.  Many jobs they take are also at a lower rate of pay the normal American would accept, or maybe even is legal.  This means that these employees are lower-cost for the companies they work for.  This also has an impact on the economy as well, which you have to take into consideration.  

You have to look at all the facts and think to yourself what the costs are, not just monetary but socially/politically as well.  All things considered, the wall cannot be considered a good investment.  A wall costs money to maintain and patrol as an unguarded wall is not much different than a fence to a determined migrant.  You can claim you know how it will end up, but there's also conflicting data that says otherwise.  Are you claiming you know everything?  I don't think so, based on how you took everything I said.

edit: Since the way you responded before, I'm going to add in that these are considerations, not predictions.  They are things you HAVE to think about if you want to invest in something like a wall that goes on for nearly 1,000 miles.  Especially if you're going to try to harm trade relations with a close trade partner.

(and the 1000 miles thing comes from Trump's revised statement on how long the wall will be, not his initial.  Just so you don't jump on that right away)