MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Thuzbekistan]

California, by itself, has spent $77 billion on a train to nowhere. You telling me the Federal Government cannot scrounge up a measly $10 Billion?

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

Removing the wall from the budget isnt a compromise. Providing only enough money for repairs to the wall or upgrade to existing sections would be a compromise.

[Kowani]

The issue is that the wall would cost in excess of $10 billion. That's a huge waste of money on something that wouldn't change anything in the grand scheme of things.

California, by itself, has spent $77 billion on a train to nowhere. You telling me the Federal Government cannot scrounge up a measly $10 Billion?

Since when did California and the Federal Government draw everything from the same pot?

[Vassenor]

So why is the wall so important to everyone? Given that we've already explained how it won't actually do anything except be a substitute for Trump's shrinking genitals.

[Galloism]

So why is the wall so important to everyone? Given that we've already explained how it won't actually do anything except be a substitute for Trump's shrinking genitals.

Let’s not gender shame the president please.

There are better non sexist ways to make your point.

[Vassenor]

So why is the wall so important to everyone? Given that we've already explained how it won't actually do anything except be a substitute for Trump's shrinking genitals.

Let’s not gender shame the president please.

There are better non sexist ways to make your point.

Of course you'd go for that to try and terminate what I said rather than actually addressing the point.

[Valrifell]

Let’s not gender shame the president please.

There are better non sexist ways to make your point.

Of course you'd go for that to try and terminate what I said rather than actually addressing the point.

May as well discuss how some of the anti-Trump stuff is a tad problematic other than retreading old wall-ground.

[Galloism]

Let’s not gender shame the president please.

There are better non sexist ways to make your point.

Of course you'd go for that to try and terminate what I said rather than actually addressing the point.

I’m trying to help you improve your argumentative style so that it doesn’t involve gender based slurs. It does you no favors in getting your point across, as you’ve just observed. The wall is pointless and stupid, but now you have to defend your sexist post instead of arguing about the wall. You undermined your own post by slipping reflexively into a sexist smear.

Try again without the sexism. Your argument might get further.

[Kowani]

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

Removing the wall from the budget isnt a compromise. Providing only enough money for repairs to the wall or upgrade to existing sections would be a compromise.

...But the wall isn’t built yet.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Of course you'd go for that to try and terminate what I said rather than actually addressing the point.

May as well discuss how some of the anti-Trump stuff is a tad problematic other than retreading old wall-ground.

Are you sure you don’t want to help us beat the horse more? I hear that there are still further acres across which its putrefying remains could be spread.

[Valrifell]

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

Removing the wall from the budget isnt a compromise. Providing only enough money for repairs to the wall or upgrade to existing sections would be a compromise.

They provided the cash to secure and, in some parts, even upgrade the existing border fence. So, in actuality, they've already done what you've suggested.

It's just that there won't be a pointless eyesore on the US-Mexico border.

[Thuzbekistan]

Removing the wall from the budget isnt a compromise. Providing only enough money for repairs to the wall or upgrade to existing sections would be a compromise.

They provided the cash to secure and, in some parts, even upgrade the existing border fence. So, in actuality, they've already done what you've suggested.

It's just that there won't be a pointless eyesore on the US-Mexico border.

Ah ok. Nvm

[Tarsonis]

California, by itself, has spent $77 billion on a train to nowhere. You telling me the Federal Government cannot scrounge up a measly $10 Billion?

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

[Vassenor]

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

Why do they need to fund the wall?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

In what world is infrastructure a bad idea but suggesting we build a cheaper and arguably more effective means of border control then a concrete wall a dumb idea?

[Cannot think of a name]

Party of fiscal responsibility.

Besides, I thought you were gung-ho about compromise? Well, they came to one. One that doesn't include a wall, of course. I expected you to be thrilled, you know, given prior conversations on compromise.

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

I find the 'what's $10 billion' argument hard to swallow when $445 million for PBS is supposed to be bleeding our country dry.

[Tarsonis]

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

I find the 'what's $10 billion' argument hard to swallow when $445 million for PBS is supposed to be bleeding our country dry.

Yeah that’s also a dumb one

[Telconi]

California, by itself, has spent $77 billion on a train to nowhere. You telling me the Federal Government cannot scrounge up a measly $10 Billion?

Since when did California and the Federal Government draw everything from the same pot?

Well the feds did toss money in to the train project.

[Vassenor]

1. The point was the wall isn’t that expensive when you really consider it compared to projects around the country. The Train to nowhere is a pointless public works project that costs 7 times more than the projected cost of the wall, and has less purpose, on less of a budget, but somehow nobody really cares about that on the left. The Wall isn’t expensive in the big scheme of things.

2. Compromise is good, but I’ve only said this compromise feels weird to me. Democrats will give them everything but the Wall? They’ll even give fences but not a wall. Why? I mean Reps should take the deal but I’m still gonna smh

I find the 'what's $10 billion' argument hard to swallow when $445 million for PBS is supposed to be bleeding our country dry.

Clearly the GOP found Theresa May's Magic Money Tree.

[Neutraligon]

Instead of spending that money on the wall, it would be better to spend it on other infrastructure projects, like maybe on out aging electrical grid. I mean I basically see the current state of our grid as a national security issue.

[Valrifell]

Instead of spending that money on the wall, it would be better to spend it on other infrastructure projects, like maybe on out aging electrical grid. I mean I basically see the current state of our grid as a national security issue.

Ignore that, focus on brown people.

[Outer Heaven]

Instead of spending that money on the wall, it would be better to spend it on other infrastructure projects, like maybe on out aging electrical grid. I mean I basically see the current state of our grid as a national security issue.

Why not both? It's funny how quickly people morph into fiscal conservatives any time the Wall is mentioned.

[Juristonia]

Instead of spending that money on the wall, it would be better to spend it on other infrastructure projects, like maybe on out aging electrical grid. I mean I basically see the current state of our grid as a national security issue.

Why not both? It's funny how quickly people morph into fiscal conservatives any time the Wall is mentioned.

Because one is actually necessary, and the other a completely useless vanity project.

[Outer Heaven]

Why not both? It's funny how quickly people morph into fiscal conservatives any time the Wall is mentioned.

Because one is actually necessary, and the other a completely useless vanity project.

A pretty significant portion of the populace want the Wall built. Does that not invalidate your classification of it as a vanity project?

[Valrifell]

Instead of spending that money on the wall, it would be better to spend it on other infrastructure projects, like maybe on out aging electrical grid. I mean I basically see the current state of our grid as a national security issue.

Why not both? It's funny how quickly people morph into fiscal conservatives any time the Wall is mentioned.

I want you to understand the wall will literally do nothing to curb illegal immigration to the United States, infrastructure upgrades will allow for more reliable and more secure services throughout the states.

They aren't equal and shouldn't be looked at as such.

[Valrifell]

Because one is actually necessary, and the other a completely useless vanity project.

A pretty significant portion of the populace want the Wall built. Does that not invalidate your classification of it as a vanity project?

No they don't and no it doesn't.