As long as it really sticks it to those libs, I suppose.
So you’re okay with the NEA, then, and indeed with any federal government expenditure less than $5.7 billion? Cool.
I’d like to review the part where he said 5.7 billion dollars, and then no more, ever again, scouts’s honor, that’s it, not another dime. Once you pay the Duncegeld, they always come back for more.
Yes. Trump’s wall *is *immoral. It will cost between $15billion- 70billion, and wreak a disaster on the environment. All for racist reasons.
Racism- immoral
Wasting Taxpayer money- immoral
Destroying the environment- immoral.
It’s tripley immoral.
And law enforcement doesnt want it. (They sure would like a larger budget plus I think they wanted 100 Million? for fixing and improving the fence already there). Both sides already approved a $1.1 Billion dollar border security measure. But now, that is gone.
So, we’re getting LESS border security.
Hell, I’m waiting for the President of Mexico to present Mr, Trump with a giant-sized cheque that says, “Pay to the order of the United States of America, the sum of $5 Billion American Dollars.” And on the memo line, it will say, “Thank you, Mr. Trump, for the wall.”
Except that we all know that that’s not going to happen. Dear Lord, where does Mr. Trump get these stupid ideas?
So, just to be clear, spending 5.7 billion dollars on a vanity project is perfectly okay with you? Seems like a bit of a ludicrous thing for a republican to say - does your party have a single functional principle left, or did you just abandon the last of 'em?
And, contrary to popular belief, the left is against wasting taxpayer money. Because that statement is an applause light.
This case is remarkable only in that I mistook the applause light for a policy suggestion, with subsequent embarrassment for all. Most applause lights are much more blatant, and can be detected by a simple reversal test. For example, suppose someone says:
[INDENT]We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI.
If you reverse this statement, you get:
We shouldn’t balance the risks and opportunities of AI.
Since the reversal sounds abnormal, the unreversed statement is probably normal, implying it does not convey new information. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for uttering a sentence that would be uninformative in isolation. “We need to balance the risks and opportunities of AI” can introduce a discussion topic; it can emphasize the importance of a specific proposal for balancing; it can criticize an unbalanced proposal. Linking to a normal assertion can convey new information to a bounded rationalist—the link itself may not be obvious. But if no specifics follow, the sentence is probably an applause light.[/INDENT]
Think about it. What’s the opposite of “we shouldn’t waste all those precious taxpayer dollars”? It’s “we should waste all those precious taxpayer dollars”. Nobody would say that. It’s fucking deranged. So the statement is an applause light, meant not to convey any useful information, but as a truism (with perhaps some hidden meaning it’s signaling). The emphasis here needs to be on the word “waste”. Because while a concrete (or steel) border wall is indeed a pointless and stupid boondoggle that not even the fucking border patrol wants and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money, there are plenty of perfectly good, perfectly reasonable things we could be spending that money on. Like giving Flint clean water.
Why is it that republicans are so utterly unwilling to fund even the most basic social programs, but when there’s a huge, stupid, racist boondoggle that no rational thinker could possibly endorse, they’re willing to break out the checkbook?
As has been pointed out numerous times I’m sure, the idea that $5.7B comes anywhere close to building a wall along the border is so stupid as to be beyond laughable. The actual price will be upwards of 10 times that.
Historically, shutdowns have failed. They don’t work to get the party that initiates the shutdown (i.e. the party trying to do something other than just continuing to fund the government, like killing the ACA or building a stupid wall-shaped shrine to bigotry) what they want. The party that just wants to continue to fund the government wins, historically speaking.
The Democrats would be highly foolish to change this and allow the shutter-downers to win. Especially when polling is on their side. Trump and the Republicans are on the losing side of history on this.
They have been told to fear Mexicans and to believe that a wall will be an effective barrier to those smallpox-carrying leprous rapists. They have not been told to care about basic services in Michigan. That’s why.
Well, they’ve also been told that a border wall is liberal kryptonite, or something, and the response is almost Pavlovian.
Trump supporters drool more.
I propose 10 million dollars for a needs analysis and environmental impact study. This would include looking at ongoing maintenance and other options. That’s sort of how big projects start. Do not give the contract to Russia for analysis. Split it between ~4 firms. Two chosen by the House, and two chosen by the Senate.
THEN and ONLY THEN we can talk about this.
Trump will, of course disagree because he is the best business man EVER !!1!11 (he can only get loans from Russia) and he knows more about technology than anyone (he sure can Tweet like a 12 year old)
You want to talk about a wall Mr. President? Let’s look at the facts.
Bone’s “So” rule strikes again!
I feel like you’ve missed most of the discussion in this thread. Maybe you should go read it and then come back to posting in it.
I thought his “applause light” comment was very important. Especially after you posted a survey of border patrol agents which essentially asked if certain strategic points on the border should have a barrier (a negative answer meaning that we should not have barriers at strategic points on the barrier).
I’m sorry if I misrepresented your position. Are you against the wall? If so, have you written to your congressman demanding that they end this stupid shutdown? 
Again, I urge you to read the thread. This has already been covered.
Given how you’re not giving me a straight answer here, I’m afraid that I’m going to read five pages and still be back here thinking, “Gosh, now what does Ditka actually think?” And I’m gonna be honest, I’d rather not be in that position.
I’ll give you a hint: If you start reading at post #183 and continue to the end, you’ll probably get most of the relevant bits and only have to read a couple of pages. It might save you from writing more foolish posts.
Hints? Why not make it into a crossword puzzle or a Word Jumble or a Word Seek Puzzle?
Better yet, why not just give a straight answer to a simple question?
Because I already responded to those arguments yesterday. If he can’t be bothered to read that, I don’t want to write another 10 posts repeating what I said (again, JUST YESTERDAY), and be back in the position where BPC once again didn’t read what I wrote. “I’d rather not be in that position.”
This was almost funny enough to not make me regret going back through the whole thing. Then I reached this:
And I just got sad again, because I realized that Ancient Erudite doesn’t see this as a problem. (In case you’re still reading: it’s a really fucking big problem!)
And then I read this:
And I got mad, because it’s maddening nonsense that gets the positions of both parties wrong, ignoring context and what either side actually has to say on the matter.
But my prediction:
Was in fact falsified. I know what you think now! It makes no sense and is based entirely on ignoring everything Trump has had to say about the wall since the shutdown began, but hey - now we know. You are:
- Against a 2000-mile wall at the border
- In favor of what Trump proposes, except that you don’t seem to realize that what Trump proposes is a 2000-mile wall at the border
- In favor of a series of fences and walls at strategic points at the border
- Against what we have right now, except that you don’t seem to realize that what we have right now is a series of fences and walls at strategic points at the border and that every time someone has said, “Trump means this when he talks about the wall” Trump has responded by saying “no I don’t, I mean a 2000-mile wall at the border” and oh my I’ve gone cross-eyed again haven’t I.
So hey, your position is clear. It’s utter nonsense, but it’s at least coherent.
Great, so that’s one of us. What can possibly save you?