Tucker Carlson: The Left Fears Trumps Wall Because They Know it Will Work?

[allthingsluxury]

Two weeks from New Years, and the Trump administration is trying one last time to get funding for the promised border wall.


Click here to watch the video and read more:

https://silverliberationarmy.blogspot.com/2018/12/tucker-carlson-left-fears-trumps-wall.html

[1715188070]

1715188070

[1715188070]

1715188070

[1715188070]

1715188070

[1715188070]

1715188070

[1715188070]

1715188070

[Spendulus]

I predict he'll build it from the military budget.

The democrats will look like fools for not going along with something the majority of people in the country know needs to be done.

[allthingsluxury]

The walls getting built. One way or another.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

[Spendulus]

The walls getting built. One way or another.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

The idea that it should be opposed is interesting.

It would be the same forces behind the "migrant" mass invasion of Europe and the "Caravans" attacking the southern US Border.

These forces are unmistakably our enemies.

Have they subverted the US Democratic Party?

[mOgliE]

The walls getting built. One way or another.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

Ahahahahahah
This is awesome xD
Honestly: the wall idea is stupid as fuck and Trump and his supporters aren't anyway better than Clinton and her supporters.

But to see part of the population actually tying a project together, directly raise the funds and trying to enforce this on the Nation, that's awesome! That's how democracy should be! Bottom-up not the other way around!

Respect to the man and the people trying to pull all of this! I disagree with pretty much everything he says and thought but at least he's seriously trying to do something he believes is right rather than just crying while doing nothing!  
(or waiting for the gvt to do it or him)

[Spendulus]

The walls getting built. One way or another.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

Ahahahahahah
This is awesome xD
Honestly: the wall idea is stupid as fuck and Trump and his supporters aren't anyway better than Clinton and her supporters.

But to see part of the population actually tying a project together, directly raise the funds and trying to enforce this on the Nation, that's awesome! That's how democracy should be! Bottom-up not the other way around!

Respect to the man and the people trying to pull all of this! I disagree with pretty much everything he says and thought but at least he's seriously trying to do something he believes is right rather than just crying while doing nothing!  
(or waiting for the gvt to do it or him)

The lack of a wall directly permits invasions of the USA, or requires identifying and massing troops on the border in response to each "Caravan".

Since the next thing our enemies will try is two, three or four "caravans" at the same time, we might as well just build the wall.

[mOgliE]

The lack of a wall directly permits invasions of the USA, or requires identifying and massing troops on the border in response to each "Caravan".

Since the next thing our enemies will try is two, three or four "caravans" at the same time, we might as well just build the wall.

Yeah exactly, that's the stupidity and nonsense I was talking about ^^

But at least the guys are committed to build the world they want. If everyone was that way we would have a much better, though much different, world by now.

[Spendulus]

The lack of a wall directly permits invasions of the USA, or requires identifying and massing troops on the border in response to each "Caravan".

Since the next thing our enemies will try is two, three or four "caravans" at the same time, we might as well just build the wall.

Yeah exactly, that's the stupidity and nonsense I was talking about ^^
....

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

[mOgliE]

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

Nope it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

I don't understand strong nationalists like you. You don't want any kind of illegal in the country? Just give the right to militaries at the border to shoot at sight anyone in the noman's land.

Wall is a hybrid useless tool. The only thing you'll achieve is that you'll ONLY get the worst of the neighbooring country, the women and children will no longer be able to go through so you'll get only the young men you fear the invasion of.


Don't want any illegal immigration? You got two solutions, either automatic legal migration (regularization on everyone with really easy conditions) which would be the "socialist" solution, or just shoot at sight (which would be the nationist focus solution). Anything in between is useless complicated stuff that will only provide poor results and high costs.

And don't think I'm making fun of the nationalis focus solution, it would be a very efficient one. Not the one getting my vote but it's a good solution.

[Spendulus]

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

Nope it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

I don't understand strong nationalists like you. You don't want any kind of illegal in the country? Just give the right to militaries at the border to shoot at sight anyone in the noman's land.

Wall is a hybrid useless tool. The only thing you'll achieve is that you'll ONLY get the worst of the neighbooring country, the women and children will no longer be able to go through so you'll get only the young men you fear the invasion of.


Don't want any illegal immigration? You got two solutions, either automatic legal migration (regularization on everyone with really easy conditions) which would be the "socialist" solution, or just shoot at sight (which would be the nationist focus solution). Anything in between is useless complicated stuff that will only provide poor results and high costs.

And don't think I'm making fun of the nationalis focus solution, it would be a very efficient one. Not the one getting my vote but it's a good solution.

If you were making fun of something, you have not answered my question. In fact your response is full of logical errors and mis representations, and hyperbole. Why?

Unfettered mass migration is total chaos. What's good about that? That's actually what the left is advocating. Total chaos. Are you in the USA? Because if you are, you are advocating the destruction of the country. Which would of course make sense if you were in certain other countries.

Repeating what I said earlier.

The lack of a wall directly permits invasions of the USA, or requires identifying and massing troops on the border in response to each "Caravan".

Since the next thing our enemies will try is two, three or four "caravans" at the same time, we might as well just build the wall.

This is exactly what has and is and will happen in the absence of a wall. Then people have to come in through gates, their papers checked and so forth. No total chaos.

You get it? NO TOTAL FUCKING CHAOS!!!

[CoinCube]

I donated my $100 to the build the wall fund.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

12.5 Million raised in 4 days not too bad. Sends a message and helps a little if nothing else.

[Spendulus]

I donated my $100 to the build the wall fund.

https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

12.5 Million raised in 4 days not too bad. Sends a message and helps a little if nothing else.

Great Idea, I will also.

This is total bullshit. The American people voted Trump in, in large part because we want that wall and see through all these half baked lies of the left.

But honestly, neither party in Washington cares about it, so its Trump and us, against THEM.

[KingScorpio]

as far as i see it:

the left think that they will eternally just life on the back of the american policeforce burning their lives in a neverending war to keep up order, that is why they dont want that wall, they want to look friendly attract mexicans and immigrants into their illusionary equity paradise,

while the right tries to seal of the issue and build that wall to free the policeforce from the neverending burden, once and for all.

i doubt however that the wall will help to fix drug and human trafficing, because the problem will then come from americans living in the usa, and then seeking to improve their economic situation (labour), trump currently trusts them fully, and thats his blind spot/weakness. it might even lead to an autocratic state.

regards

[Lammie]

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

Nope it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

I don't understand strong nationalists like you. You don't want any kind of illegal in the country? Just give the right to militaries at the border to shoot at sight anyone in the noman's land.

Wall is a hybrid useless tool. The only thing you'll achieve is that you'll ONLY get the worst of the neighbooring country, the women and children will no longer be able to go through so you'll get only the young men you fear the invasion of.


Don't want any illegal immigration? You got two solutions, either automatic legal migration (regularization on everyone with really easy conditions) which would be the "socialist" solution, or just shoot at sight (which would be the nationist focus solution). Anything in between is useless complicated stuff that will only provide poor results and high costs.

And don't think I'm making fun of the nationalis focus solution, it would be a very efficient one. Not the one getting my vote but it's a good solution.

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immigration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

[Spendulus]

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

Nope it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

I don't understand strong nationalists like you. You don't want any kind of illegal in the country? Just give the right to militaries at the border to shoot at sight anyone in the noman's land.

Wall is a hybrid useless tool. The only thing you'll achieve is that you'll ONLY get the worst of the neighbooring country, the women and children will no longer be able to go through so you'll get only the young men you fear the invasion of.


Don't want any illegal immigration? You got two solutions, either automatic legal migration (regularization on everyone with really easy conditions) which would be the "socialist" solution, or just shoot at sight (which would be the nationist focus solution). Anything in between is useless complicated stuff that will only provide poor results and high costs.

And don't think I'm making fun of the nationalis focus solution, it would be a very efficient one. Not the one getting my vote but it's a good solution.

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immagration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

Ten years ago the idea of open borders was a fringe concept being pushed by mainly Soros. But it greatly enhances the power of the United Nations, because as nations are overwhelmed with mindless chaos, they are easier to control from the outside.

Looks like a lot of the rank and file goose-stepping rabble has bought into the idea. Including the Muslim fraction of course.

What's not great about having a Right to Invade? (for the invader)

THIS IS HOW YOU GOT TRUMP, PUSHING THIS FUCKING NONSENSE>

[KingScorpio]

How is it stupidity and nonsense?

It's exactly what's going to happen and you know it.

But I am curious. Is it stupid to think that will happen or to fear the consequences or what? Or can you even explain a viewport that's half logical on the matter.?

Nope it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

I don't understand strong nationalists like you. You don't want any kind of illegal in the country? Just give the right to militaries at the border to shoot at sight anyone in the noman's land.

Wall is a hybrid useless tool. The only thing you'll achieve is that you'll ONLY get the worst of the neighbooring country, the women and children will no longer be able to go through so you'll get only the young men you fear the invasion of.


Don't want any illegal immigration? You got two solutions, either automatic legal migration (regularization on everyone with really easy conditions) which would be the "socialist" solution, or just shoot at sight (which would be the nationist focus solution). Anything in between is useless complicated stuff that will only provide poor results and high costs.

And don't think I'm making fun of the nationalis focus solution, it would be a very efficient one. Not the one getting my vote but it's a good solution.

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immagration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

Ten years ago the idea of open borders was a fringe concept being pushed by mainly Soros. But it greatly enhances the power of the United Nations, because as nations are overwhelmed with mindless chaos, they are easier to control from the outside.

Looks like a lot of the rank and file goose-stepping rabble has bought into the idea. Including the Muslim fraction of course.

What's not great about having a Right to Invade? (for the invader)

THIS IS HOW YOU GOT TRUMP, PUSHING THIS FUCKING NONSENSE>

jes soros is pushing the open borders, but not an open financial system. for that he relied on rothshilds jewish banking empire, with the freemason banksters as their servants.

[Spendulus]

....
jes soros is pushing the open borders, but not an open financial system. for that he relied on rothshilds jewish banking empire, with the gay freemason banksters as their servants.

yeah

"open borders for thee not for MEEEE!!!"

[mOgliE]

If you were making fun of something, you have not answered my question. In fact your response is full of logical errors and mis representations, and hyperbole. Why?

Unfettered mass migration is total chaos. What's good about that? That's actually what the left is advocating. Total chaos. Are you in the USA? Because if you are, you are advocating the destruction of the country. Which would of course make sense if you were in certain other countries.

Repeating what I said earlier.

The lack of a wall directly permits invasions of the USA, or requires identifying and massing troops on the border in response to each "Caravan".

Since the next thing our enemies will try is two, three or four "caravans" at the same time, we might as well just build the wall.

This is exactly what has and is and will happen in the absence of a wall. Then people have to come in through gates, their papers checked and so forth. No total chaos.

You get it? NO TOTAL FUCKING CHAOS!!!

Said what I had to say. Thinking the wall will prevent illegal chaotic immigration is really a lack of imagination. They'll climb it, they'll dig under, they'll go by sea, they'll fly over... Wall is a high cost low efficiency mean.

There is no logical error in my post. I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass

Anything in between won't work. Try it if you want, but it won't work.

[mOgliE]

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immagration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

SMALL DIFFRENCE: AUSTRALIA IS A MOTHERFUCKING ISLAND 

They already have a natural barriere making it much easier to simply send people back.

Don't want people in? You shoot. Want people in? You accept them for real.
Trying something in between won't work and have never worked and will never.

But again, if you want to build that wall do. It's not useful but I don't give a damn as you'll pay for it directly.

[Spendulus]

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immagration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

SMALL DIFFRENCE: AUSTRALIA IS A MOTHERFUCKING ISLAND  

They already have a natural barriere making it much easier to simply send people back.

Don't want people in? You shoot. Want people in? You accept them for real.
Trying something in between won't work and have never worked and will never.

But again, if you want to build that wall do. It's not useful but I don't give a damn as you'll pay for it directly.

There's little or no difference between caravans coming to a border and boats coming to a shoreline.

There  are ALL KINDS of in-between solutions. Ending birthright citizenship coupled with work permits is an example. However the person still has to be identified, have a background check and such.

And yes, the people voted for Trump on this issue and the people want it. This is how you GOT TRUMP, the inaction and don't care attitude of the senators and congressmen on this very issue.

However, you are not alone with your opinion. You stand with the "cultural elite of Washington" who share your scorn and disdain for the wishes of the actual people. After the total chaos and the thousands of rapes and murders resulting from the recent "migrant caravans" into Europe, you guys really should have learned.

Hey, want more TRUMP-like people voted in? Just keep it up.

[Lammie]

Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually this misguided and deluded? I highly advise you to take a look at the australian immagration system, a system that has proven time and time again to WORK.

You simply send back boats full of illegal immigrants. You take NONE of them in, this is the only way to discourage people from risking their lives on these cranky boats. The only immigrants that get in are the ones who apply for an official visa, and can prove that they can benifit the economy one way or another (degree, expierence etc.).

Now ofcourse, this isn't 100% comparable to the situation the U.S. is in, but the same principal can be applied across the board.

SMALL DIFFRENCE: AUSTRALIA IS A MOTHERFUCKING ISLAND  

They already have a natural barriere making it much easier to simply send people back.

Don't want people in? You shoot. Want people in? You accept them for real.
Trying something in between won't work and have never worked and will never.

But again, if you want to build that wall do. It's not useful but I don't give a damn as you'll pay for it directly.

There's little or no difference between caravans coming to a border and boats coming to a shoreline.

There  are ALL KINDS of in-between solutions. Ending birthright citizenship coupled with work permits is an example. However the person still has to be identified, have a background check and such.

And yes, the people voted for Trump on this issue and the people want it. This is how you GOT TRUMP, the inaction and don't care attitude of the senators and congressmen on this very issue.

However, you are not alone with your opinion. You stand with the "cultural elite of Washington" who share your scorn and disdain for the wishes of the actual people. After the total chaos and the thousands of rapes and murders resulting from the recent "migrant caravans" into Europe, you guys really should have learned.

Hey, want more TRUMP-like people voted in? Just keep it up.

I've been seeing it in my own country (the Netherlands) for years now. The upcoming Marrakech Agreement that we are signing will only make illegal immigration WORSE by giving more rights to illegals.

Although the agreement is ''not binding'' it will rapidly be used in court by illegals using soft-law.

The current situation is that we have absolutely no idea WHO WE ARE TAKING IN, that's the entire problem, there are ''background checks'' but it's not a check you can really take seriously. For all I know it's already too late, and possible terrorists have already invaded, it's just damage control from here on out.

If you don't see this as a problem, then I truly have no idea what you're thinking, left or right, democrat or conservative, you can't deny that this is VERY, VERY dangerous to my, and ultimately, your culture.

Total chaos is on the horizon.

[allthingsluxury]

The movement is going global, there is a reason why you can see it spreading all over the world. It is a response to the neglect that has persisted for generations.

[cryptodv]

Fear-mongering is at it's highest right now, but Trump pulls out of Syria while also saying that terrorist are coming in through the borders of Mexico. 

[Spendulus]

Fear-mongering is at it's highest right now, but Trump pulls out of Syria while also saying that terrorist are coming in through the borders of Mexico. 

I don't have the impression there was EVER fear mongering to get support for the wall.

"No wall" is a position of laziness and apathy, and a "don't care, whatever will happen will happen." attitude.

"Build the wall" is a pragmatic and practical "can do" solutions oriented approach. Frankly it's ridiculously overdue.

[DireWolfM14]

~ it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

It is stupid to believe the wall will solve the problem, and it's just as stupid to believe it won't help.

[Spendulus]

~ it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

It is stupid to believe the wall will solve the problem, and it's just as stupid to believe it won't help.

In the real world, there is neither the straw man argument or any need for the rebuttal to it.

You know damn well the solutions has dozens of parts and policies and one essential part is that fucking wall!

[TECSHARE]

~ it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

It is stupid to believe the wall will solve the problem, and it's just as stupid to believe it won't help.

In the real world, there is neither the straw man argument or any need for the rebuttal to it.

You know damn well the solutions has dozens of parts and policies and one essential part is that fucking wall!

However believing that letting millions of impoverished people in to the country will solve poverty is a perfectly acceptable conclusion.

[Spendulus]

~ it's stupid to believe any kind of wall will solve the problem.

It is stupid to believe the wall will solve the problem, and it's just as stupid to believe it won't help.

In the real world, there is neither the straw man argument or any need for the rebuttal to it.

You know damn well the solutions has dozens of parts and policies and one essential part is that fucking wall!

However believing that letting millions of impoverished people in to the country will solve poverty is a perfectly acceptable conclusion.

Some time ago, walking through some wild country, I came across the remains of a house and outbuildings perhaps two hundred years old. This was rather interesting, there were a total of perhaps ten buildings. Many had functions that were discernible, such as the shed where animals were slaughtered for meat.

The main house was small by our standards, of course. Some plants still grew where the vegetable gardens had been, onions seem to never die. The gardens were next to the house, and there was a rock wall surrounding them.

Now exactly how would they have done without that wall? There were wild pigs, and deer, rabbits, everything out there. And they're all hungry. Those in the home had dogs, too, who had a job to do both day and night. They had guns, and no doubt ate some of the varmints that crept in.

But without that wall, the garden would have never survived.

[mOgliE]

You people are incredibly blinded. I've never seen this in my life.

You're in fact not able to have a discussion, you're just plain bots.

You're talking and answering me exactly as if I said that I want the wall to not be built, that I want open borders, that I want to do nothing.

While my VERY FIRST POST is a post of congratulations to this popular initiative, saying that even if I don't think the wall is a good idea, the fact that the people are pushing it this way and actually paying for it is and example of democracy and how things should be.

Yet you're all simply seeing I disagree with the wall idea, hence putting me in the "he wants more refugees" table.


This is incredible, you're not only blinded, you're complete binary. This is the reason why you're called fucking nazis, not because of your immegration concerns, not because of your dubious ideals, but because you have only 2 points of view:
-Someone agrees with everything you say or believe  -> he's a gentleman and an intelligent being
-Someone slightly disagrees with the solution you propose but salutes you for the method and says if you do it this way you have the right to do it and government shouldn't oppose it -> he's a traitor, an idiot and just wants more rapes and crimes

You simply proved you're not able or not willing to have any kind of discussion.

Ahahahahahah
This is awesome xD
Honestly: the wall idea is stupid as fuck and Trump and his supporters aren't anyway better than Clinton and her supporters.

But to see part of the population actually tying a project together, directly raise the funds and trying to enforce this on the Nation, that's awesome! That's how democracy should be! Bottom-up not the other way around!

Respect to the man and the people trying to pull all of this! I disagree with pretty much everything he says and thought but at least he's seriously trying to do something he believes is right rather than just crying while doing nothing!  
(or waiting for the gvt to do it or him)

However, you are not alone with your opinion. You stand with the "cultural elite of Washington" who share your scorn and disdain for the wishes of the actual people. After the total chaos and the thousands of rapes and murders resulting from the recent "migrant caravans" into Europe, you guys really should have learned.

Hey, want more TRUMP-like people voted in? Just keep it up.

However believing that letting millions of impoverished people in to the country will solve poverty is a perfectly acceptable conclusion.

[TECSHARE]

You people are incredibly blinded. I've never seen this in my life.

You're in fact not able to have a discussion, you're just plain bots.

You're talking and answering me exactly as if I said that I want the wall to not be built, that I want open borders, that I want to do nothing.

While my VERY FIRST POST is a post of congratulations to this popular initiative, saying that even if I don't think the wall is a good idea, the fact that the people are pushing it this way and actually paying for it is and example of democracy and how things should be.

Yet you're all simply seeing I disagree with the wall idea, hence putting me in the "he wants more refugees" table.


This is incredible, you're not only blinded, you're complete binary. This is the reason why you're called fucking nazis, not because of your immegration concerns, not because of your dubious ideals, but because you have only 2 points of view:
-Someone agrees with everything you say or believe  -> he's a gentleman and an intelligent being
-Someone slightly disagrees with the solution you propose but salutes you for the method and says if you do it this way you have the right to do it and government shouldn't oppose it -> he's a traitor, an idiot and just wants more rapes and crimes

You simply proved you're not able or not willing to have any kind of discussion.

Ahahahahahah
This is awesome xD
Honestly: the wall idea is stupid as fuck and Trump and his supporters aren't anyway better than Clinton and her supporters.

But to see part of the population actually tying a project together, directly raise the funds and trying to enforce this on the Nation, that's awesome! That's how democracy should be! Bottom-up not the other way around!

Respect to the man and the people trying to pull all of this! I disagree with pretty much everything he says and thought but at least he's seriously trying to do something he believes is right rather than just crying while doing nothing!  
(or waiting for the gvt to do it or him)

However, you are not alone with your opinion. You stand with the "cultural elite of Washington" who share your scorn and disdain for the wishes of the actual people. After the total chaos and the thousands of rapes and murders resulting from the recent "migrant caravans" into Europe, you guys really should have learned.

Hey, want more TRUMP-like people voted in? Just keep it up.

However believing that letting millions of impoverished people in to the country will solve poverty is a perfectly acceptable conclusion.

Yes, I am sure all the past interactions I have had with you are not indicative enough of your ideology, and you were just about to introduce a reason based, logical debate to defend your position before you were so rudely interrupted. Get over yourself, or at least actually present the argument instead of crying about how we aren't interested in a debate (as you conveniently avoid one yourself).

[mOgliE]

Yes, I am sure all the past interactions I have had with you are not indicative enough of your ideology, and you were just about to introduce a reason based, logical debate to defend your position before you were so rudely interrupted. Get over yourself, or at least actually present the argument instead of crying about how we aren't interested in a debate (as you conveniently avoid one yourself).

As usual you don't read or don't think or both. I wasn't here to make an argument, I was here to congratulate the initiative presented by OP. You're the ones forcing a debate and all yelling at the fact that someone might slightly disagree with you. It's incredible how you're in fact exact copy-paste of the "offended left" you're all crying about.


Argument was presented already:

Said what I had to say. Thinking the wall will prevent illegal chaotic immigration is really a lack of imagination. They'll climb it, they'll dig under, they'll go by sea, they'll fly over... Wall is a high cost low efficiency mean.

There is no logical error in my post. I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass

Anything in between won't work. Try it if you want, but it won't work.

Wall will be costly and innefficient. Accept illegal migrants or shoot them. Wall can't stop people determined enough. People are travelling thousands of kilometers by foot in places you would never go to reach Europe. Why would they turn away for a simple wall in Mexico? Makes no sense.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, I am sure all the past interactions I have had with you are not indicative enough of your ideology, and you were just about to introduce a reason based, logical debate to defend your position before you were so rudely interrupted. Get over yourself, or at least actually present the argument instead of crying about how we aren't interested in a debate (as you conveniently avoid one yourself).

As usual you don't read or don't think or both. I wasn't here to make an argument, I was here to congratulate the initiative presented by OP. You're the ones forcing a debate and all yelling at the fact that someone might slightly disagree with you. It's incredible how you're in fact exact copy-paste of the "offended left" you're all crying about.


Argument was presented already:

Said what I had to say. Thinking the wall will prevent illegal chaotic immigration is really a lack of imagination. They'll climb it, they'll dig under, they'll go by sea, they'll fly over... Wall is a high cost low efficiency mean.

There is no logical error in my post. I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass

Anything in between won't work. Try it if you want, but it won't work.

Wall will be costly and innefficient. Accept illegal migrants or shoot them. Wall can't stop people determined enough. People are travelling thousands of kilometers by foot in places you would never go to reach Europe. Why would they turn away for a simple wall in Mexico? Makes no sense.

Ok, so you aren't here to make an argument, but you in fact made one, a poor one at that, which was quickly refuted. What you are describing is a textbook example of a logical fallacy called a "false choice" where two extremes are presented as the only solutions. The solution doesn't have to be perfect to produce positive results.

You made a poor argument, and people pointed it out. You want some one to kiss your boo boo and tell you its ok your ideas are dumb because you tried? You demand to be treated like an intellectual equal but you bring nothing to the table. You are like a child demanding to sit with the adults, but you still insist on eating your boogers in front of everyone at that table. Then you cry about the food that some one else hunted, cleaned, and prepared for you, and demand to be served a rare albino lobster instead as you pound your fists on the table throwing a fit.

[mOgliE]

Ok, so you aren't here to make an argument, but you in fact made one, a poor one at that, which was quickly refuted. What you are describing is a textbook example of a logical fallacy called a "false choice" where two extremes are presented as the only solutions. The solution doesn't have to be perfect to produce positive results.

Wall will be costly and innefficient. Accept illegal migrants or shoot them. Wall can't stop people determined enough. People are travelling thousands of kilometers by foot in places you would never go to reach Europe. Why would they turn away for a simple wall in Mexico? Makes no sense.

Did I say it wouldn't produce any result? I said innefficient.

You made a poor argument, and people pointed it out. You want some one to kiss your boo boo and tell you its ok your ideas are dumb because you tried? You demand to be treated like an intellectual equal but you bring nothing to the table. You are like a child demanding to sit with the adults, but you still insist on eating your boogers in front of everyone at that table. Then you cry about the food that some one else hunted, cleaned, and prepared for you, and demand to be served a rare albino lobster instead as you pound your fists on the table throwing a fit.

I ask you to read words, all the words not just the ones you chose.

Innefficient. Not "will produce no effect".

Saying the extreme solutions should be the ones considered because they're the most effective is NOT a false choice fallacy.

But again you don't read.

Oh and your whole metaphor is not really sharp as, again, I just came here to congratulate the man quoted in the OP. So I came at the adult table to cheer on someone, saying he had the right method if not the best goal, and got immediately caught by the rest of the "adults" because criticizing the goal is not something allowed here.

You're a special snowflake don't worry <3

[TECSHARE]

Ok, so you aren't here to make an argument, but you in fact made one, a poor one at that, which was quickly refuted. What you are describing is a textbook example of a logical fallacy called a "false choice" where two extremes are presented as the only solutions. The solution doesn't have to be perfect to produce positive results.

Wall will be costly and innefficient. Accept illegal migrants or shoot them. Wall can't stop people determined enough. People are travelling thousands of kilometers by foot in places you would never go to reach Europe. Why would they turn away for a simple wall in Mexico? Makes no sense.

Did I say it wouldn't produce any result? I said innefficient.

You made a poor argument, and people pointed it out. You want some one to kiss your boo boo and tell you its ok your ideas are dumb because you tried? You demand to be treated like an intellectual equal but you bring nothing to the table. You are like a child demanding to sit with the adults, but you still insist on eating your boogers in front of everyone at that table. Then you cry about the food that some one else hunted, cleaned, and prepared for you, and demand to be served a rare albino lobster instead as you pound your fists on the table throwing a fit.

I ask you to read words, all the words not just the ones you chose.

Innefficient. Not "will produce no effect".

Saying the extreme solutions should be the ones considered because they're the most effective is NOT a false choice fallacy.

But again you don't read.

Oh and your whole metaphor is not really sharp as, again, I just came here to congratulate the man quoted in the OP. So I came at the adult table to cheer on someone, saying he had the right method if not the best goal, and got immediately caught by the rest of the "adults" because criticizing the goal is not something allowed here.

You're a special snowflake don't worry <3

"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"

Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.

If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.

[mOgliE]

"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"

Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.

If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.

That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought.

The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument.

Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to.

[Spendulus]

.....
The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument.

Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to.

The important part of my reasoning is to call "Bullshit!" when I see it, and I, along with others, did.

[Quickseller]

The constitution specifically requires the president to protect the country against invasion. The various “caravans” and exactly this — an invasion — other illegal immigration is not far from that, if not also an invasion. The caravan is arguably an act of war, and the same for governments failure to do anything to stop it that are in a position to do so.

Tucker is right, a wall will stop both illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs that kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. The later is harming millions of additional American lives.

Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.

[Spendulus]

....
Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.

Although they gave these concepts lip service, they did not act on them. It's seemed quite reasonable to consider both Repub and Dem as not really in favor of stopping the invasions of the past, or the 10-100x invasions of the future.

It's not clear why this is so.

[Quickseller]

....
Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.

Although they gave these concepts lip service, they did not act on them. It's seemed quite reasonable to consider both Repub and Dem as not really in favor of stopping the invasions of the past, or the 10-100x invasions of the future.

It's not clear why this is so.

I suspect Trump will make progress in this regard.

Neither side has taken action on the topic of illegal immigration likely because this is a topic that 'fires up' both Dem and GOP bases, and is something that is effective in fundraising.

IMO illegal immigration has gotten bad enough so it can no longer be ignored. Although the topic of illegal drugs entering our country is separate from illegal immigration, both enter largely via similar mechanisms, and illegal drugs are killing hundreds of Americans every day, and these are drugs that many take only because of addiction and would love to not have available to them.

[TECSHARE]

"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"

Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.

If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.

That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought.

The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument.

Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to.

Oh, good thing I have you to tell me what the IMPORTANT part of the reasoning is. I don't know if I could have figured that out without you dictating to me which logic is a valid consideration or not. Read, that's... funny, coming from you. Let me know when you get done with Manufacturing Consent.

[Spendulus]

"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"

Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.

If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.

That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought.

The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument.

Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to.

Oh, good thing I have you to tell me what the IMPORTANT part of the reasoning is. I don't know if I could have figured that out without you dictating to me which logic is a valid consideration or not. Read, that's... funny, coming from you. Let me know when you get done with Manufacturing Consent.

Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this...

"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."

...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias.

I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious.

A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.

[TECSHARE]

Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this...

"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."

...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias.

I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious.

A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.

Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.

[Spendulus]

.....
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.

Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have.

This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them.

Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it.

[TECSHARE]

.....
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.

Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have.

This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them.

Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it.

Absolutely. He is a smart man, but his purpose ultimately is to sell a lie, and he even so much as admits it. When I read his work I was a true believer. OFC this was in the context of George Bush Jr., which I still stand by him being net negative and a tool of his father (as other POTUSs were). Luckily I had a strong background in psychology and philosophy so I started to see the contradictions and cognitive tricks played to sell these ideas. Along with a little more life experience, and a rapidly shifting Overton Window, suddenly my once liberal ideologies are now "far right" to some people.

As you state though, that is one of the primary weaknesses of the left. They like to pretend to know about you and your ideas, but they hardly know their own. If you don't cultivate your mind, other people will, and it will not be for your own good. Collectivists love it though... for a while...

[Spendulus]

.....
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.

Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have.

This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them.

Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it.

Absolutely. He is a smart man, but his purpose ultimately is to sell a lie, and he even so much as admits it. When I read his work I was a true believer. OFC this was in the context of George Bush Jr., which I still stand by him being net negative and a tool of his father (as other POTUSs were). Luckily I had a strong background in psychology and philosophy so I started to see the contradictions and cognitive tricks played to sell these ideas. Along with a little more life experience, and a rapidly shifting Overton Window, suddenly my once liberal ideologies are now "far right" to some people.

As you state though, that is one of the primary weaknesses of the left. They like to pretend to know about you and your ideas, but they hardly know their own. If you don't cultivate your mind, other people will, and it will not be for your own good. Collectivists love it though... for a while...

Tucker Carlson vs Chomsky in a debate, Chomsky would lose.