I pretty much completely agree with you, but to play devil's advocate:

"Wasting resources and alienating our neighbors and allies with no tangible benefit." -- Stopping or even reducing illegal immigration would be a tangible benefit. I personally have no problems with immigrants, refugees, etc. coming in to the US, working (legally) and getting benefits like emergency and other health care, etc. But illegal / undocumented immigration can be a real problem.

I don't think the wall is a reasonable answer to that real problem, but it is part of the package that Trump sold to voters to get them to vote for him. As a result, he pretty much has to at least pretend like he's going to try to actually build it.


"I wish Republicans (since they have the purse strings) who bemoan the state of the country, would put fixing it first." -- A bunch of the people who voted for Trump consider illegal immigration to be a very important issue. Not all for racist reasons, either. Anyway, those people see the wall as Trump attempting to fix that issue -- something that other politicians haven't done.


I'd massively prefer Trump creating a giant jobs program by repairing interstates, railroads, and other transportation, building lots of solar and/or nuclear power plants to meet future demands with cleaner energy, etc. But Trump didn't run on those kinds of promises; one of the few concrete things he ran on was the border wall.


I really don't mean to defend the idea of a border wall, which I agree is extremely problematic for many many reasons. However, it wouldn't be the most egregious and pointless waste of taxpayer dollars. We spend *way* too much money on the Military-Industrial Complex, although that isn't entirely a waste (merely 75% wasteful ). And the TSA, which I mentioned in the previous post, is set to cost us $7.6 billion in 2017 alone -- half to a third of what people suggest the wall would cost to build in total. And the TSA sets the bar for pointless, in my opinion. Absolutely nothing of value would be lost if it was eliminated, and actual travel security would probably get better by simply reverting to how things worked before Bush inflicted it on us.

First up, bring back the old quoting system!

"I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents."

Agreed.

"That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt."

Which one has campaigned for a law that flagrantly violates the first amendment? Which one has called an entire demographic of US citizens rapists and murderers?

" I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core..."

The American political system is a complete clusterfuck. You have a two party monopoly, the electoral college is a disaster and then there's Citizens United.

"The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary."

Completely agree. Instead of the excitement of a Bernie running, you have the "ugh, Hillary, I guess" attitude.

"So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em."

And here we have the major issue. I have NO IDEA how people think electing Trump will somehow bring down the system. "Screw 'em"?? As in the dems and the gop? It won't bother them in the slightest.

But it will bother Mexicans, Muslims, LGBT people and em.... damnit, there was another demographic that the Republicans want to fuck over.... oh yeah... women.

Forget Trump. As much of an unconscionable arsehole as he is, look at the GOP platform for 2016:
- tax cuts for the rich
- repeal environmental protections
- an anti-abortion amendment
- oppose stem cell research
- prop up the electoral college
- ignore climate change agreements
- repeal obamacare
- abolish net neutrality
- oppose same-sex marriage
- abstinence-based sex education
- increase military spending
- the ridiculous and wasteful border wall

and finally, appoint a new Supreme Court Judge to push all this through. And THAT is the real reason Trump can't be allowed to be President. Say what you want about Hillary, but at least she won't choose a complete loon for the supreme court. Trump might pick David Duke, for all we know.

It turns out when congress members need to spend up to 50% each day ringing up rich individuals and corporations for donations to stay competitive in their elections - things like corporate subsidies and selectively lowering tax rates for those individuals tends to be where the money goes.

Lead paint is far down the list especially when most will not appreciate that it's silently harming their health. Besides, you can turn out the vote of so called 'single issue voters' by distracting them with social issues that have virtually no consequence on their lives (banning Sharia law, legislating gun carry laws, building ineffective border walls).

If brown folks bother you, just say it.

The position is one of law enforcement. The only relevant factor is 'legal' or 'illegal'. It is pretty weak when the only argument is to toss the race card and ignore the germaine issue of law enforcement.

...tyrannical overreach of government, but now assert ... this Arizona law that empowers the police to shake down anyone for documentation on mere suspicion, and arrest people who can't prove their citizenship on the spot.

The opposition to health care has always been discussed as the tyrannical overreach of the FEDERAL government. I've always stated that the state, county, and municipal level is where government should primarily be vested with Federal authority being limited to oversight & regulation. I know the left generally distrusts an approach that isn't centrally planned though. Let a STATE decide what is best for itself? The horror!

That's the hardest thing about this bill is that it seems to be doing some good, when in reality it is not

I tend to agree, but for different reasons. I can only shake my head at the left's attempt to paint this as a race issue. That seems like unfounded race baiting based only on presumption. But on the other hand, Arizona's law is a bandaid on a sword stroke. There are a lot of illegals of all shapes & sizes and they exist all over the country. Even if Arizona manages to clamp down, the illegals will just go somewhere else. The US has an OK - if cumbersome - student, temp worker, and immigration program. What we don't have is an effective system to deport illegals when they are identified.

The first step is to cut off the influx. Build the border wall. Walls work. Walls are effective. Ask the Huns, East Germans, and Palestinians. The US built the Panama Canal. Building an effective border wall is child's play by comparison.

Next, we have to require citizenship ID in order to obtain essential services. Renting or owning property, utilities, phones, education, bank accounts, cash by wire, employment, credit cards, driver permits, insurance, medical care and other key functions should all require ID. If you cannot supply the ID, then you get flagged for review and if you are an illegal you get deported. And yes, any time a cop pulls you over or picks you up - no matter who you are - you should be identified. If the police find they have an illegal, then the illegal gets remanded and deported.

I see no racism or malice in the sensible enforcement of immigration policy. Illegals are - by definition - illegal. I don't get why there are people who think that enforcing the law is racist. The accusation of racism seems to be a politically motivated red herring to me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do we need to make the correlating list of Muslim leaders who demonstrate just as much racism, and far more willingness to kill? As I said before - this is not a one sided issue. People like AL wouldn't be voted into power if Isreal wasn't being forced to discuss "peace" terms with guys like Arafat, Abbas, & other terrorists masquarading as politicians.

Agreed, not a one sided issue at all. Still talking with the butcher Sharon might not have been much fun for them either.


The Isreali's elected a guy do deal with the situation as it exists. I don't applaud it, but I can at least intellectually understand it and even sympathize to a degree. Isreal's security has improved tremendously by adopting hard-line positions. Before they were getting bombings regularly. Once they built walls and established buffer zones in Gaza, the Palestinians were reduced to blindly lobbing rockets at random. From the point of view of the average Isreali, the increase in security would be well worth it.

Is it possible these hardline policies have made Israel less safe in the long run?


Other nations take that kind of security for granted. Once it is obtained, then a society has the luxury of generating citizens who are safe enough to have the liesure and idleness required to stew in their own guilty consciences over the 'price' of security. What we have here are a bunch of buttinskys wagging their fingers at Isreal from the safety of their armchairs.

Ummm... more Americans have died in terrorist attacks in the last decade than Israelis.


The Palestinians have it tough - no question. Isreal is really turning the screws and it makes life hard for them. What are Isreal's options? 1. They can give the Palestinians what they want (which is never enough parenthetically) and go back to daily bombings.

To be fair, they never tried option 1. It's not that those mean palestinians always want more, Israel never conceded anything. Even when they did on paper, they never actually did it. They continually built more settlements, and annexed more territory. In fact your wall may just be the most egregious example.


2. They can maintain their stance and keep thier people safe. Hmmm - agree with the people who want to KILL us or defend ourselves...? Not a very tough choice really.

There were more attacks on Israeli soil under Sharon than under Rabin. Who's policies kept Israel safer?

The false premise here is that for some reason Isreal is always held 100% 'responsible' for the Palestinian plight. Uh uh. There are at least three seats at the table. The Pals need to be far more aggressive at stomping out their extremist factions and behaving like a peace-seeking people. Then Isreal will have cause to believe that providing them territory will not result in security comprimises.

So instead you are suggesting that the Palestinians are 100% responsible. Why are the Palestinians the only ones who need to show good faith here? The problem is that neither side trusts the other side to follow through on their promises... both with good reason. Hamas receives support because it is the only organization that actually provides infrastructure to the Palestinians. They are the only ones building roads, schools, hospitals, providing aid, etc... Perhaps if Israel showed some good faith by doing those things, Hamas would struggle to recruit.


And (most critically) the REST OF THE FREAKING ARAB WORLD needs to stop pretending they are innocent bystanders in all this mess. Yeah - it sucked that the Palestinians got shafted after WW2. But the Pals wouldn't be in so much trouble if guys like Egypt, Syria, Lybia, and everyone else was willing to cut them some slack as opposed to expecting Isreal to just go away.

Well, I'd just as soon the rest of the Arab world quit pursuing their present course of action, which is less innocent bystander, and more aspiring nuclear annihilator. I don't think the little border wall is going to protect anyone from that.

You trans-global America-haters, I beg you, WALL US IN! Help remove the 40 million illegals from America and repatriate them to their countries of origin. Help end American immigration: kill anyone who tries to leave your glorious countries for rotten America. Send us money so we can build border walls 200 feet high. Send us a portion of your oil so we don't have to invade other countries. It's all about the oil, isn't it? Surely 120 other nations can band together and send us oil "charity" to keep your eternal peace and harmony intact!

Since we're the only global villain, it's worth it for you to keep us in our place. Then you won't need to build up your own armies against one another; with an isolated America "paid off" other nations may finally live in peace, with $0 spent on defense.

Help make this dream a reality. Your Muslim future depends on it.

The solution to this is easy. Gas the passenger cabin. The main mistake that the pilots made on 9/11 is that they opened the cockpit doors. Obviously we have preventative measures for that now, ie. reinforced, locked throughout trip, etc.

I'd rather wake up with a headache, knowing that they got the extremist assholes in custody, then be dead. And if they're going to blow up the plane in midflight, you're screwed anyways. At least they won't be able to take down the Sears Tower, etc.

Besides, the next attack I'm sure will be a dirty bomb. Mark my words. It will happen unfortunately; it's just a matter of when. Then all the Republicans can ride the bandwagon about setting up a border wall and we can all live in East Germany.