Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Who claims the win on the wall?

the bit you highlighted was sarcasm - the point has been made here that we don't need a wall on the entire border, which I believe everyone including Trump agree with - I think the point was made in a post by Gulo himself so I'm not sure what the point of the questions are.


It's not like any stretch of land is the same, strategically, as another. I'm asking questions because I don't understand the point being made here. If the Democrats wanted some stretch to have a barrier, either it got built, so it's not hypocrisy to not want some other stretch of border walled off, or it didn't get built, and in that case, I'm wondering who stopped the Democrats from building the wall they wanted?
 
Caravan marched up to existing wall, didn't it?

Couldn?t say if all did wasn?t there, plenty coming across areas with no walls though based on various reports, if I had to guess once they get to the boarder and cant get in they slowly disperse looking for weak spots and whatnot idk but all these migrant invasions arent working out so well for Europe, really don?t want all those problems coming here next which is likely what will occur under the open boarder libtard agenda would much rather see the discussion move to how to best end the war on drugs and help improve conditions there so many won?t feel the strong need to escape the shit holes and come here, neither party is having that conversion though which is unfortunate
 
Last edited:
It's not like any stretch of land is the same, strategically, as another. I'm asking questions because I don't understand the point being made here. If the Democrats wanted some stretch to have a barrier, either it got built, so it's not hypocrisy to not want some other stretch of border walled off, or it didn't get built, and in that case, I'm wondering who stopped the Democrats from building the wall they wanted?

Agreed and that's why everyone understands that we don't need and can't possibly build barriers on all ~2k miles of border. But how is it no hypocrisy to fund barriers for one president then not for another? I don't think a single Dem has said all the parts of the border that need a barrier have one - quite the opposite, since it became Trump's priority Nancy Pelosi has publicly stated that she thinks walls are an immorality. I'd love to hear the explanation for how Obama's walls aren't immoral but Trump's are. They're hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
But how is it no hypocrisy to fund barriers for one president then not for another?


Depends on whether or not it's the same location and whether or not conditions have changed. I've yet to see a report that doesn't suggest border crossings are relatively low now.


If they built the walls where they were needed, then why not resist building them somewhere else, where they may not be needed?


Calling them immoral in a general sense after you've been voting for them - that's hypocrisy. I haven't seen much of that, but I think Pelosi said it. Not sure what the context was. If she was specific enough, maybe she's in the clear, but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
So if Trump gets his way here with this emergency declaration, our military is going to pay for the wall.
 
So if Trump gets his way here with this emergency declaration, our military is going to pay for the wall.

they have all our money to begin with.

on twitter someone posted Trump's itinerary for the weekend, and noted that he's declaring a state of emergency, then golfing for the rest of the time.

Fiddlin' while Rome burns!
 
This racist tirade of lies that's been going on for about 10 minutes now ...


INVADED!!
GANGS ..MURDERERS!!
DRUGS ..FLOWING OVER BORDER!!




Jesus the guy has fucking tiny hands.
 
This racist tirade of lies that's been going on for about 10 minutes now ...


INVADED!!
GANGS ..MURDERERS!!
DRUGS ..FLOWING OVER BORDER!!




Jesus the guy has fucking tiny hands.

*after reading your post, I burst into tears at my keyboard*



NOOO! HES RIGHT, AND YOU JUST HATE HIM! YOUR JEALOUS OF HIM.

TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!!!111
 
Depends on whether or not it's the same location and whether or not conditions have changed. I've yet to see a report that doesn't suggest border crossings are relatively low now.


If they built the walls where they were needed, then why not resist building them somewhere else, where they may not be needed?


Calling them immoral in a general sense after you've been voting for them - that's hypocrisy. I haven't seen much of that, but I think Pelosi said it. Not sure what the context was. If she was specific enough, maybe she's in the clear, but I doubt it.

OK, if trump wants to build a wall where there is a perfectly functioning wall - then I'm against that. Is that what you think is going on here?

and so what if they're relatively low if they're still a problem? It's not a relative issue. There are still over 400k arrests for illegal crossings every year, that's a big number and illegal family crossings are at record highs. Also, it's spiked a great deal recently - there were almost 51k in October and 52k in November of 2018.

There isn't much of it to see - if they call them immoral once which they clearly did, and base their fight on that and not on anything like redundancy or topography, which they clearly are, then they're hypocrites. What you actually haven't seen much of (by much, I mean any) is anyone making the points you've brought up here when arguing against the funding Trump asked for. No one has said we already have a wall where Trump wants to put a wall nor have I heard anyone say anything about the topography of where these funds will be spent on a wall - I doubt any of these people fighting it even know any more about it than the amount of money sought.
 
Last edited:
This racist tirade of lies that's been going on for about 10 minutes now ...


INVADED!!
GANGS ..MURDERERS!!
DRUGS ..FLOWING OVER BORDER!!




Jesus the guy has fucking tiny hands.

first, prove it wrong then explain how any of it is racist...
 
that OSU loss - more accurately the WAY we lost - at the end of the season, and then the bowl result... man, those really took the wind out of my sails.


I didn't respond to this in a reasonable amount of time because the wind is out of my sails too.


Not the loss, but how we lost.
 
OK, if trump wants to build a wall where there is a perfectly functioning wall - then I'm against that. Is that what you think is going on here?

and so what if they're relatively low if they're still a problem? It's not a relative issue. There are still over 400k arrests for illegal crossings every year, that's a big number and illegal family crossings are at record highs. Also, it's spiked a great deal recently - there were almost 51k in October and 52k in November of 2018.

There isn't much of it to see - if they call them immoral once which they clearly did, and base their fight on that and not on anything like redundancy or topography, which they clearly are, then they're hypocrites. What you actually haven't seen much of (by much, I mean any) is anyone making the points you've brought up here when arguing against the funding Trump asked for. No one has said we already have a wall where Trump wants to put a wall nor have I heard anyone say anything about the topography of where these funds will be spent on a wall - I doubt any of these people fighting it even know any more about it than the amount of money sought.


Wild! Do you think it might be political posturing by the dems?!?!
 
Last edited:
Wild! Do you think it might be political posturing by the dems?!?!

you don't seem to think that - you keep bringing up different ideas they might have but aren't publicly expressing that could legitimize what by all accounts appears to be blatant hypocrisy.
 
you don't seem to think that - you keep bringing up different ideas they might have but aren't publicly expressing that could legitimize what by all accounts appears to be blatant hypocrisy.


I completely do. Thought I'd already said it. Both sides are 100% in it for the political points they hope to score and nobody gives a rat's ass about any particular stretch of border and what the most appropriate border protection spending would be for that location. Either side would agree to a plan that would give more to the other side if in exchange it would be reported as more of a win for them.
 
I completely do. Thought I'd already said it. Both sides are 100% in it for the political points they hope to score and nobody gives a rat's ass about any particular stretch of border and what the most appropriate border protection spending would be for that location. Either side would agree to a plan that would give more to the other side if in exchange it would be reported as more of a win for them.

I agree with this 100% - I'm just making the point that they all agreed on it not too long ago when it was someone else's idea. It wasn't even a little bit controversial. The division, in my opinion is due to partisan hypocrisy from the left, not substantive disagreements about location or feasibility or anything else - purely partisan bickering to score points with their base and idiots who believe Trump wants to build a wall for racial reasons.
 
Last edited:
[people] who believe Trump wants to build a wall for racial reasons.


These people exist entirely because of the Trump's wall rhetoric from his campaign though. It served as a political dog-whistle and it was hugely effective getting him through the republican primary.
 
Back
Top