2020 US Election (Part One)

[Sommerswerd]

I think it makes sense for trump to insist on his wall, cause that was his main thing when he was in the primaries. Of course mexico wont pay for it, but it will be funny to see a few tens of billion dollars used for a border wall.
If it is to deter without threat of manual use of force, it would have to be seriously tall and sturdy.

That said, even if would get built, the immigrants could just use the sea route. Though i suppose they would have to land on red states.

It absolutely makes sense for Trump to insist on getting funding for The Wall, because he knows that his supporters have negative feelings about Central and South Americans, particularly Mexicans... that's why he promised The Wall in the first place... he knew that there was a large segment of Americans who would really love the idea of a large "Mexicans Keep Out!" monument.

As far as actually keeping people out... people will continue to dig tunnels under the wall, and use the numerous already existing tunnels so The Wall is useless... except as a symbol... but that's OK, because that's the real reason people want it... to let those Mexicans know that this is a white, English speaking country and we want to keep it that way... so we don't want them here.

 

[sophie]

She's a Soc Dem (and an honest one at that), and I worry she got too much of the Hillary treatment to pose any kind of legitimate threat to Trump come 2020. I haven't looked at any of her specific campaign positions yet. I'm really not excited at the prospect of voting for her, and will wait to see who else is throwing their hat in the ring.

 

[Takhisis]

I think it makes sense for trump to insist on his wall, cause that was his main thing when he was in the primaries. Of course mexico wont pay for it, but it will be funny to see a few tens of billion dollars used for a border wall.
If it is to deter without threat of manual use of force, it would have to be seriously tall and sturdy.

That said, even if would get built, the immigrants could just use the sea route. Though i suppose they would have to land on red states.

It absolutely makes sense for Trump to insist on getting funding for The Wall, because he knows that his supporters have negative feelings about Central and South Americans, particularly Mexicans... that's why he promised The Wall in the first place... he knew that there was a large segment of Americans who would really love the idea of a large "Mexicans Keep Out!" monument.

As far as actually keeping people out... people will continue to dig tunnels under the wall, and use the numerous already existing tunnels so The Wall is useless... except as a symbol... but that's OK, because that's the real reason people want it... to let those Mexicans know that this is a white, English speaking country and we want to keep it that way... so we don't want them here.

First comes the mandatory comment about Trump not being much good for manual labour with those hands and those bone spurs.
Now, about its symbolic value…(part of) the US kept supporting South African apartheid even to its own detriment, and they really do seem willing to shoot themselves in the foot (they support Trump's economic policies) just to, as onejayhawk puts it, ‘annoy liberals’. So it's completely not far-fetched.

btw are they ever gonna pay Pink Floyd their royalties?

She's a Soc Dem (and an honest one at that), and I worry she got too much of the Hillary treatment to pose any kind of legitimate threat to Trump come 2020. I haven't looked at any of her specific campaign positions yet. I'm really not excited at the prospect of voting for her, and will wait to see who else is throwing their hat in the ring.

Basically anybody polling better than me (I'm know only by a nickname to a few dozen/hundred USian posters) will get the Hillary treatment unless they announce their candidacy as a write-in bastion of democracy an hour before the candidacy registration deadline.

 

[Berzerker]

It absolutely makes sense for Trump to insist on getting funding for The Wall, because he knows that his supporters have negative feelings about Central and South Americans, particularly Mexicans... that's why he promised The Wall in the first place... he knew that there was a large segment of Americans who would really love the idea of a large "Mexicans Keep Out!" monument.

As far as actually keeping people out... people will continue to dig tunnels under the wall, and use the numerous already existing tunnels so The Wall is useless... except as a symbol... but that's OK, because that's the real reason people want it... to let those Mexicans know that this is a white, English speaking country and we want to keep it that way... so we don't want them here.

Back in the 80's I lived in SoCal when the drug war was nearing its worst wrt violent crime. I gave a ride to about 8 Mexican Americans to the local quick shop. When I came out of the store I walked right into a brawl started by Colombians, that was my personal introduction to south of the border gangs moving into the USA. The Mexicans didn't want them here either. This aint about Mexicans, its about criminals having access to a porous border. Either you believe Americans have the right to prohibit their entry or you dont. Which is it? Isn't that why we have walls, fences, and armed guards now? Trump wants more walls and he's the devil, does that make you the devil if someone wants fewer walls than you?

If the Dems appear weak on the border it'll hurt them against Trump. I know, one of the reasons the Libertarians cant get traction is their support for essentially open borders. Yelling racist at people who dont want criminals entering the country is a losing strategy...and thats being kind. You think the wall is a monument to racist attitudes, but its foundation is comprised of all the people hurt or killed by criminals in the same way 9/11 built more walls at airports.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If the Dems appear weak on the border it'll hurt them against Trump.

That's the reason you'll see that the Democrats will continue to give lip service to supporting more funding for "intelligent" and "effective" border security measures. They are worried that if they don't, they will cede too much ground to Trump on that issue.

Yelling racist at people who dont want criminals entering the country is a losing strategy...and thats being kind. You think the wall is a monument to racist attitudes, but its foundation is comprised of all the people hurt or killed by criminals in the same way 9/11 built more walls at airports.

The Wall is a monument to racial animosity and prejudice. Redefining whole racial/ethnic groups as "criminals" (as Trump did to open his campaign) so you don't have to feel bad about not wanting them in your country, doesn't change the fact that your true motivation for wanting to exclude them is racial/ethnic prejudice and animosity. Also, the notion that the majority, or any significant percentage of the people who are clamoring for The Wall and chanting for it at Trump rallies were "hurt by (the implication being Central and South American) criminals" is nonsense. And even for the minuscule number of people who actually were the victims of crime at the hands of some person they perceived to be Central or South American... that experience is anecdotal, and does not justify walling off an entire racial/ethnic group based on their negative personal experience with one member of that ethnic group. "I saw a Mexican rob someone, so we need a wall to keep out all Central and South Americans, because they're obviously dangerous, violent people"... textbook racial/ethnic prejudice.

However, I fully recognize that people, Conservatives/Republicans in particular, greatly resent their conscious and subconscious racial/ethnic prejudices being called out. Democratic politicians recognize this as well, so they will not be as direct about it as I am being. They will instead say softer things like "The Wall is immoral", which then unfortunately opens them up to nonsensical arguments about being hypocrites for saying they are "against walls" but then building walls on their houses ... and walls being immoral for holding up rooftops and similar. I don't have that problem, because I can just call The Wall for what it is... a monument to racial/ethnic prejudice. I do recognize that calling out people's prejudices is not a winning strategy for getting their votes... but I'm not running for office, so I don't have to worry about it being a "losing strategy".

 

[onejayhawk]

It absolutely makes sense for Trump to insist on getting funding for The Wall, because he knows that his supporters have negative feelings about Central and South Americans, particularly Mexicans... that's why he promised The Wall in the first place... he knew that there was a large segment of Americans who would really love the idea of a large "Mexicans Keep Out!" monument.

As far as actually keeping people out... people will continue to dig tunnels under the wall, and use the numerous already existing tunnels so The Wall is useless... except as a symbol... but that's OK, because that's the real reason people want it... to let those Mexicans know that this is a white, English speaking country and we want to keep it that way... so we don't want them here.

This is completely false and you should know better. A wall is extremely effective when combined with active monitoring. To say it is 100% effective would be a lie. To say that it has no impact is a bigger lie

J.

 

[Takhisis]

I do recognize that calling out people's prejudices is not a winning strategy for getting their votes...

I don't know, I mean, the racist party candidate lost the ‘popular’ vote.

This is completely false and you should know better. A wall is extremely effective when combined with active monitoring. To say it is 100% effective would be a lie. To say that it has no impact is a bigger lie

To say that Sommerswerd says the wall would have no impact would be the lie.

 

[onejayhawk]

To say that Sommerswerd says the wall would have no impact would be the lie.

It is an accurate portrayal of the words "The Wall is useless... except as a symbol."

J

 

[Berzerker]

The Wall is a monument to racial animosity and prejudice.

Then why didn't they build a wall long ago? Were people less racist in the past or do people today have more pressing concerns?

Redefining whole racial/ethnic groups as "criminals" (as Trump did to open his campaign) so you don't have to feel bad about not wanting them in your country, doesn't change the fact that your true motivation for wanting to exclude them is racial/ethnic prejudice and animosity

“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.” - Donald Trump

Also, the notion that the majority, or any significant percentage of the people who are clamoring for The Wall and chanting for it at Trump rallies were "hurt by (the implication being Central and South American) criminals" is nonsense.

I didn't mention Trump rallies, I said the victims of criminals here illegally are the wall's foundation. I haven't looked but I doubt opinion polls showed many people supporting a wall before Nixon's drug war, but that number began growing right along with the violence induced by prohibition and Cold War policies.

And even for the minuscule number of people who actually were the victims of crime at the hands of some person they perceived to be Central or South American... that experience is anecdotal, and does not justify walling off an entire racial/ethnic group based on their negative personal experience with one member of that ethnic group. "I saw a Mexican rob someone, so we need a wall to keep out all Central and South Americans, because they're obviously dangerous, violent people"... textbook racial/ethnic prejudice.

Are the victims racists? People respond to anecdotes, you dont have to be a racist to cringe upon hearing a child was murdered by a gang and want more done to stop criminals from getting into the country. Thats what the wall represents, thats what the walls under Obama and Pelosi represent, telling the victims they're racists wont win elections or 'keep it real'.

However, I fully recognize that people, Conservatives/Republicans in particular, greatly resent their conscious and subconscious racial/ethnic prejudices being called out. Democratic politicians recognize this as well, so they will not be as direct about it as I am being. They will instead say softer things like "The Wall is immoral", which then unfortunately opens them up to nonsensical arguments about being hypocrites for saying they are "against walls" but then building walls on their houses ... and walls being immoral for holding up rooftops and similar. I don't have that problem, because I can just call The Wall for what it is... a monument to racial/ethnic prejudice. I do recognize that calling out people's prejudices is not a winning strategy for getting their votes... but I'm not running for office, so I don't have to worry about it being a "losing strategy".

They're hypocrites because they've been building walls on the border for decades. The walls to your house, the locks on your doors and windows all exist to keep people out. Why are your walls moral but not a wall to stop criminals from entering the country? People resent mindreaders, (some) people resent hypocrisy. Pelosi said a border wall is immoral while she funded the construction of walls on the border.

 

[Berzerker]

Warren's out in Iowa, the first question she faced was about her DNA test.

"I am not a person of color. I am not a citizen of a tribe. Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry."

Warren went on explaining that when she ran for public office for the first time in 2012, Republicans "honed in on this part of my history" and made a lot of "racial slurs."

"So my decision was, I'm just going to put it all out there," Warren said of her decision to release the results of the DNA test.

"I can't stop Donald Trump from what he's going to do. I can't stop him from hurling racial insults," Warren said. "But what I can do is I can be in this fight for all of our families."

She's not a person of color. Interesting choice of words, thats how she was described at Harvard, she was their first 'woman of color'. Not that had anything to do with her getting a job

So she's putting it all out there? What does that mean? Did you plagiarize a cookbook with alleged Cherokee recipes? And why is Trump mocking you with "Pocahontas" a racial insult? I see she's still demagoguing her critics.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

The DNA thing was a big mistake and will haunt her forever.

However, her performance in Iowa was actually really good. I think she is quickly learning what works and what doesn't and isn't intending to repeat Hillary's mistakes. The problem is, of course, that she could be too radical for the Democratic party, and they will just nominate Hillary again or someone very similar.

 

[Kyriakos]

Which would be the worst. Besides, when was the last time that a candidate who lost a general election was nominated four years later too?

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Then why didn't they build a wall long ago?

They built a wall in China... a couple thousand years ago... and it didn't work, even though back then they didn't have airplanes, trains, visas, etc. As people here have told you already, most immigrants come in the country legally and then stay. At this point pretty much no one tries to cross the desert and run at border guards to get shot. The wall is a joke idea, and everyone knows it, even Trump himself.

 

[Bootstoots]

The wall already exists along the majority of the land border plus the more populated parts of the Rio Grande. It's a fence, sure, but Trump has already been forced to concede that his wall would have to mostly be a fence. I'm not sure what it would even mean to give Trump his $5 billion. The fence gets extended along the stretches of barren wasteland that it currently doesn't span, and then Trump declares victory?

 

[Kyriakos]

A fence won't do anything. Btw, have any people been shot while trying to enter the usa in that way?

 

[onejayhawk]

The wall already exists along the majority of the land border plus the more populated parts of the Rio Grande. It's a fence, sure, but Trump has already been forced to concede that his wall would have to mostly be a fence. I'm not sure what it would even mean to give Trump his $5 billion. The fence gets extended along the stretches of barren wasteland that it currently doesn't span, and then Trump declares victory?

While not accurate this does serve as a point of contact. Of the 1900+ miles of border, some sort of barrier exists on 600+ miles. It has been built primarily in populated areas such as Nogales, AZ shown blow. The term that is most commonly used is force-multiplier. Patrolling a section of unwalled border requires about 10 times the manpower of a section of wall, making it extremely cost effective.

It has been derided as merely symbolic. While this is a Trump-sized overstatement on its face, it also begs the question what's wrong with symbolism?

 

[danjuno]

Wasting billions of dollars on a vanity project while millions of Americans starve.

 

[Berzerker]

They built a wall in China... a couple thousand years ago... and it didn't work, even though back then they didn't have airplanes, trains, visas, etc. As people here have told you already, most immigrants come in the country legally and then stay. At this point pretty much no one tries to cross the desert and run at border guards to get shot. The wall is a joke idea, and everyone knows it, even Trump himself.

Most immigrants aren't criminals, if the criminals dont want to risk a legal entry then crossing the border somewhere else becomes a viable option.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Most immigrants aren't criminals, if the criminals dont want to risk a legal entry then crossing the border somewhere else becomes a viable option.

Most "criminals" enter the country legally, as well. I mean, if they haven't committed a crime but intend to, they aren't criminals yet. And most crime happens legally, anyway. It's only a crime when it's discovered.

 

[Takhisis]

It is an accurate portrayal of the words "The Wall is useless... except as a symbol."

*somewhere a mirror shatters*

Which would be the worst. Besides, when was the last time that a candidate who lost a general election was nominated four years later too?

2000-2004. The RNC fielded the same candidate and won the second time around.
There's also Nixon.