Chip off the old blockhead... its so easy to be inhumane when you dehumanize others... Donald Trump Jr. compares border wall to zoo fences that hold animals in Instagram post https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-border-wall-zoo-instagram-post/2523385002/
You are intentionally trying to miss the point though. It doesn't take a caravan, there are tens of thousands of people caught walking into the country every month, you'd all but eliminate that by finishing the job started with support of Democrats in 2006. There's honestly no reason to be against it and certainly no reason to call it "immoral" as is the current DNC talking points, it's just not an issue you are going to win on. If Democrats were smart, they'd just fund the damn thing and move on to issues where they win.
Asha Rangappa ✔@AshaRangappa_ As I’ve said before, he has zero confidence in his own ability, conviction, or decisions. If it’s not a vague reference to “many other people” (or former presidents who apparently visit him in dreams), it’s answer-a-question-with-a-question. How. Is. He. The. President. A question may require these. ?????
You did see the caravan violently push into Mexico, did you not? I think they are potentially (and maybe actually) quite "bad and scary."
I wouldn't post Stefan Molyneux's opinion honestly, he's gone way too far into "race realism" and other BS like that. He may say that he's not alt-right, but he shares FAR too much in common with them for my taste.
1. Most people aren't coming in illegally at remote unguarded unwalled places. They are coming in at airports. 2. Sure people do sneak in where there are remote areas. A wall won't stop that.
1. Is that relevant? Are tens of thousands still coming in illegally at remote unguarded unwalled places every month? Yes....and that's the problem they are looking to solve. Just because other problems exist it's no reason to ignore problems. 2. Yeah, it really would, or would make the numbers drop from tens of thousands a year to maybe hundreds per year while making the job of patrolling the border easier and cheaper especially if that wall or other border structure was equipped with surveillance equipment.
Well yeah, the talking points get out and everyone is expected to parrot them. We even hear them here.
They were as sneaking as more than a thousand people walking en masse with daily press coverage can be.
Of all of the gum slapping that Trump has done, he has never really articulated the details of what he wants to do with the $5B. Likewise with the trade war on China, Trump has been light on factual details ... while the talking heads lead with Intellectual Property as the primary issue to solve ... filling in the blanks as best they can.
It is comical they forget Trump offered DACA for a wall and they refused for no other reason than it was Trump. Heck, he offered more than what they ever asked for and they refused just because of Trump. While the right can be hypocritical at times, it is standard operating procedure for the left.
You and Bobby have it reversed. The Democrats didn't refuse, Trump did. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/daca-rejected-deals-trump/index.html You can see it right around January "January 19: House before a government funding deadline, Schumer and Trump meet for lunch at the White House. Schumer offered Trump the upwards of $20 billion he wanted for his border wall in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for the eligible immigrant population. The deal is rejected, and government shuts down at midnight." The Democrats were more than willing to get DACA in exchange for Wall Funding but Trump never did it because every time he was close to his base would yell and scream AMNESTY! and he'd back down. Just him saying the word makes Ann Coulter shriek.
While the right can be hypocritical at times, it is standard operating procedure for the left.[/QUOTE] That didn't happen. I know it's already been pointed out to you, but an inaccurate alternate history should be pointed out again. It was Trump that refused.
Are we so sure that "race realism" isn't a real thing? If we think "race realism" is "bad," or at least if we don't give it a fair listen, then are we not succumbing to the very PC perspective that we deplore? And, to be fair to Molyneaux, I think he has said that most or all ethnic differences are environmental, but that includes genetic differences as well. And, there are genetic differences. We are ignoring the obvious if we say there are not. (Sickle cell disease, one could go on.) I have my differences with Molyneaux (mostly that he's a tradcon), but the "race realism" stuff doesn't bother me too much. You can poke holes in the theory, of course. As with any posting or posted video, no one has to read or watch.
