Sincere ? on walls

[wdmso]

well just paint the wall black they will get to Hot to Climb ..

that's the Logic with this POTUS and his Base

And jim in yuma and arizona yes the Wall has reduced crossing so have thousands other things in conjunction those... wall are not the sole reason U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade But in the minds of Trump's and base that's the reason




Ghost stick shads work in the Canal Mac color Sp minnows or Savage Jigs kill the bass there.. .... Doesn't mean they are As effective anywhere else .... thats the answers you have been given Multiple Times
its just not the one you want ...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So I'll ask you then, did walls work in San Diego, Yuma, and El Paso?

If the remaining terrain is so un-fit for expanded walls, why did dems approve it, in 2006 and in 2013?

Those questions have been answered a few times. No one claims walls aren't effective in some places - that is why they put flood control walls in Ansonia and Derby but walls for beacon falls were not approved (or even suggested).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Those questions have been answered a few times. No one claims walls aren't effective in some places - that is why they put flood control walls in Ansonia and Derby but walls for beacon falls were not approved (or even suggested).

many people are claiming thatbwalls don’t work even in some places, and are claiming they are immoral to boot. and, naturally, they are racist.

if the areas not currently walled have terrain not lending itself to extended walls, why did all the democrats support expanding the walls in 2006 and 2013? and why are so many border patrol professionals, including Obama’s head of the Border Patrol, insisting more walls will work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Go back and look at the other threads you started about this exact same subject.

Why did they put flood control walls in Ansonia and Derby but walls for beacon falls were not approved (or even suggested).

[Sea Dangles]

Paul,human beings(Mexicans) are smarter than water. I get your point but the comparison you are making is apples and oranges as far as dams are concerned. If there are walls in some areas and not walls in other areas,where do you think they cross? Even Mexicans are capable of critical thinking so give credit where due. Are dams going to be at the top of the hill,no. And it can’t will itself to go there. People have a little more ingenuity...maybe Mexicans will use fish ladders to get upstream.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Go back and look at the other threads you started about this exact same subject.

Why did they put flood control walls in Ansonia and Derby but walls for beacon falls were not approved (or even suggested).

why did the democrats support the wall expansion? is it because they are too dumb to understand the desperate attempt you are making to compare to dams?

you don’t need dams, for instance, where there are no rivers. i get that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

You don't have the amount of attempts to cross the border in the hills, mountains, desert, etc. that you do in the city. So a wall is not necessary there and you might be able to get by with something that is just as effective at much less the cost.

I'm not talking about dams. There are tall walls like 15 feet high lining the river for miles on both sides. In other areas there are rock rip raps (hills of rocks) and in other areas the water just overflows the banks and spreads out on land that is not used for anything. So they looked at what made sense for each location and didn't treat a downtown area the same as a rural area.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why did the democrats support the wall expansion? is it because they are too dumb to understand the desperate attempt you are making to compare to dams?

you don’t need dams, for instance, where there are no rivers. i get that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say dams once? So who is the dumb one?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did I say dams once? So who is the dumb one?

i am.

once again, why did all the leading democrats support expanding the wall in 2006 and 2013? i keep asking, i keep hearing crickets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Go back and look at the other threads you started as that was answered a few times.

Why did they put flood control walls in Ansonia and Derby but walls for beacon falls were not approved (or even suggested).

[Sea Dangles]

Paul, cool it on the dams. You said you’re smarter than that. It’s a really poor analogy. They are not going to put dams where water will never be a threat. Personally, I feel any Mexican worth his salt can scale most walls but at least it will slow them down long enough to get sent back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

nothing to do with dams. They are walls. 1 is walls to keep water away from property and 1 is to put walls up to keep people from coming across the border. And they put them only in spots it made sense. Not along the full river.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nothing to do with dams. They are walls. 1 is walls to keep water away from property and 1 is to put walls up to keep people from coming across the border. And they put them only in spots it made sense. Not along the full river.

“not along the full river.”

trump isn’t proposing a wall from coast to
coast either, just in stretches. so your analogy seems to support Trumps plan. Unless you are saying thatmin the specific areas where he wants to build the walls, aren’t conducive to barriers. not sure how you’d know that when border patrol agents aren’t saying that, but i’m willing to listen.

but trump agrees with you, barriers don’t work across the whole
space. only in certain sections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

He said he is proposing 1,000 miles and he has said that numerous times. Although he keeps changing his story on the length, height and who and how it will get paid . And he down plays any other solution than a "wall".

So what changed between 2013 and now where 6 years ago the Repub. weren't screaming we needed more walls? Why didn't the Dems. hate the country and want border security then like Trump is constantly screaming now?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He said he is proposing 1,000 miles and he has said that numerous times. Although he keeps changing his story on the length, height and who and how it will get paid . And he down plays any other solution than a "wall".

He has said many times that the wall would not be coast to coast but only where needed AND YOU KNOW THAT, but, worse than downplaying that, you totally ignore it.

He has said that the wall is not the total solution AND YOU KNOW THAT, but you claim that he "downplays" other solutions. But the "other" solutions are agreed on by everyone including the Dems so he doesn't have to "up-play" them, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

Yet you carry on with your ridiculous narrative.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He said he is proposing 1,000 miles and he has said that numerous times. Although he keeps changing his story on the length, height and who and how it will get paid . And he down plays any other solution than a "wall".

So what changed between 2013 and now where 6 years ago the Repub. weren't screaming we needed more walls? Why didn't the Dems. hate the country and want border security then like Trump is constantly screaming now?

"He said he is proposing 1,000 miles and he has said that numerous times. Although he keeps changing his story on the length, height and who and how it will get paid "

True, and this is an annoying trait of his. But he isn't proposing a wall from coast to coast. Only where the agents are telling him a wall will help. So stop saying that there might be areas where a wall doesn't make sense, no one is saying otherwise.

"And he down plays any other solution than a "wall". "

He harps on the wall, because that's the source of disagreement. he always is sure to talk about more agents and better technology.

"So what changed between 2013 and now where 6 years ago the Repub. weren't screaming we needed more walls?"

Here is the difference between you and I. I asked 3-4 times what changed since democrats favored the wall, and you chose not to answer. You asked me once what changed on the GOP side, and I will answer.

In 2006, Bush was President, and he wasn't as serious about the issue as Trump. In 2013, Obama was President, and he also wasn't as militant on the issue as Trump is. Today, the Republicans see that this issue was a huge reason why Trump got elected, and they don't want to be seen as soft. So sure, some of it is purely political posturing.

Now, how many times do I have to ask why the dems flip-flopped on this issue, before you'll answer?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

He has said many times that the wall would not be coast to coast but only where needed AND YOU KNOW THAT, but, worse than downplaying that, you totally ignore it.

He has said that the wall is not the total solution AND YOU KNOW THAT, but you claim that he "downplays" other solutions. But the "other" solutions are agreed on by everyone including the Dems so he doesn't have to "up-play" them, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

Yet you carry on with your ridiculous narrative.

I thought I said he is proposing 1,000 miles? How did you miss that? Unless you choose to ignore it and instead say something ridiculous AND YOU KNOW THAT.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And he down plays any other solution than a "wall". "

He harps on the wall, because that's the source of disagreement. he always is sure to talk about more agents and better technologyI don't hear him. It always a "Big beautiful wall".

"So what changed between 2013 and now where 6 years ago the Repub. weren't screaming we needed more walls?"

Here is the difference between you and I. I asked 3-4 times what changed since democrats favored the wall, and you chose not to answer. bc it has been discussed numerous times in other threadsYou asked me once what changed on the GOP side, and I will answer.

In 2006, Bush was President, and he wasn't as serious about the issue as Trump. In 2013, Obama was President, and he also wasn't as militant on the issue as Trump is. Today, the Republicans see that this issue was a huge reason why Trump got elected, and they don't want to be seen as soft. So sure, some of it is purely political posturing.

Now, how many times do I have to ask why the dems flip-flopped on this issue, before you'll answer?

the senate passed the immigration reform act of 2013 (or whatever the name was) which included fencing, techn., guards and included immigration reform. The house never took it up. Trump just wants $ for a wall. He won't compromise where he takes some $ for more security and gives up something on immigration reform. Something like that will likely be agreed to and he might sign it bc he'll realize he is in a no win situation but he certainly won't propose it and he will be miserable. So the Dems will agree to more $ for security and some fences and some walls and more guards in exchange for some immigration reform. They have been saying that all along.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I thought I said he is proposing 1,000 miles? How did you miss that? Unless you choose to ignore it and instead say something ridiculous AND YOU KNOW THAT.

He has said several things. Some are ridiculous. It would be ridiculous to say how many miles the wall (or walls since there would be gaps) the wall would be. 1000 miles sounds like a rounded off number. The border between the US and Mexico is around 2000 miles. So even taking his speculative 1000 miles, it would not be coast to coast.

I know you think Trump is stupid. So, maybe you think he ls not aware that a 1000 mile wall would be way to short to be coast to coast? Or, maybe, you're not aware that a 1000 mile wall would be way short of being coast to coast?

Or, maybe you just want to keep up your ridiculous narrative.