I don't hate or oppose him myself, neither do I support him. Trump had decided to shut the government down until he gets his funding for the border wall. So my main question to those who see this and are highly interested in this topic, what are your thoughts on the government shutdown? Are you against it? Do you support it?
“Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker
"It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem." |
Bob Barr
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
A barrier of sorts should have been there before the 1990's arrived.
This way, the current border wall situation wouldn't have become the situation that it has grown into with a government shutdown in tow, and the current POTUS mentioning it at the same time?
Originally, former President Reagan legalized the 2.7 million illegal immigrants that came here illegally, and they were given amnesty for coming to the United States illegally.
Is the above past action, from a former President, what the current 11-22 million illegal immigrants are maybe hoping for now, hypothetically speaking after 2020, or 2024 election cycles?
They to, are looking to get that same amnesty being given to them?
Maybe the idea behind a (sanctuary city, or cities) is a bad one?
In a country of laws, how does this or that city get to create a sanctuary city in any state in the country, and it's done in the face of the laws in the United States?
Illegal immigrants are being given sanctuary, in a city where law abiding citizens live in those same cities at the same time?
Isn't that maybe, a blatant conflict of interest?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 31%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is the evidence to support your below claims?
"Now he wants the American taxpayer to pay for what Mexico considers a waste of money, as do most of U.S. taxpayers. Since the last conservative POTUS left office, immigration across that border is a tiny percentage of what it was in 2006. There is NO evidence of ANY terrorists crossing that border (lies).
FYI, there are GoFundMe pages that are raising money/ funds from the US citizens themselves, to help with the border wall.
Those 200 GoFundMe pages, they were mentioned in the news recently.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
The illegal immigrants, and they coming into the United States illegally and continuesly, since the late 1980's, couldn't they be viewed as the reason for the current government shutdown?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 71%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.98  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here's an argument based on the current climate in regards to the border wall.
The illegal immigrants, and they coming into the United States illegally and continuesly, since the late 1980's, couldn't they be viewed as the reason for the current government shutdown?
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
In an effective political climate, it would be presumed that we would be seeing a lack of government shutdowns. Both Democrats and Republicans could be considered to share the blame. You'll find both parties playing the blame game and such should simply not be the case, regardless of specifics (https://globalnews.ca/news/4801381/trump-democrats-partial-government-shutdown/). It is a politician's duty to make compromise for the greater good of their country. I do not see one man, ideology, or party responsible for this but a collective failure of all ends of the US government, opposition and incumbent alike who can simply not deviate from a "My Way or the Highway" approach. This should not be a matter of determining who caused it, but finding how to avert the current shutdown for the greater good of the American people.
Thank you.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let’s try some truth, there is no government shut down, Congressional and Senatorial representatives are of state united state government, sent to the Federal Government. This doesn’t change when the Federal Congressional Hall is closed for any reason they work from there state office. The obligation by Oath shared by President and State Representatives is to the United States Constitution. Attention, attention, and attention.
Basic Principle question. How many states in the union have walls around them? If Mexicans citizens were to vote to become a Constitutional United State, or three, where does this leave the Wall?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And yes I wrote “there” state office not “their” state office. Think about it.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you retarded? Here let me help you out since you lack clear vision, In quote by @Nathaniel_B:
Do you see it? Did I say all of this? Either your computer is having problems, you're under the influence, or your eyes are playing tricks on you.
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I am proud to shut down the government for border security ... I will be the one to shut [the government] down. I'm not going to blame you for it ... I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down."
Of course, he has since done everything he can to foist this on the Democrats. Doubtless, Trump does not want the blame for ensuring that so many people are either furloughed or working for no pay, and now that it's a reality and he's the one in charge, it doesn't make him look too good. That's why he keeps claiming that federal workers are willing to sacrifice for the wall, a claim he's never supported with any evidence.
So, we can sit here and argue about the wall and its potential harms/benefits, but it doesn't erase the fact that Trump is the main figure standing in the way of returning funding to 800,000 federal employees. Even if you see the wall as a benefit eclipsing that harm, I see no way to argue that anyone else is more responsible than him for this shutdown. He said it himself. Give him the mantle.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why is he keeping them out of a job even he can fix this easily? All just to make the Democrats look bad or to show they are unreasonable?
It's like being a parent with kids that are dying from poisoning and it's standard that your partner goes out and brings you the cure to give to the kids. Except you can just call 911 to bring it to you instead but you want to let your kids suffer because your partner is refusing to go get the antidote
Plus believing illegal immigration is a problem, and believing a wall is a sound and effective investment are miles apart so that poll really means nothing here
Like I think the border wall is a waste of money and no new money should be allotted to it, but if Trump can just end the shutdown tonight by using funds already in the military to build in then I say build the wall.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
The most ironic part of this whole thing is now you have ICE, border patrol, TSA, and DHS employees all working without pay. TSA agents are calling off. How long until ICE and border patrol agents quit going to work? The immigration courts are stalled by this so illegal immigrants that were detained and released to await their trial are getting to stay even longer now. The shutdown is in the name of border security but it's actively weakening the departments responsible for securing our borders. They could be funded as well as a wall tonight but I guess to you a moment of decreased security is worth it to make a political point?
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you are telling me you wouldn't support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Of course I'd support Trump declaring a national emergency to build the wall, but only as a last resort. We're still in the negotiation stage."
The illegaI immigrants have been coming illegally into the country, since and before 1987, a year after then POTUS Reagen signed into law the IRCA act.
"The Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. Wikipedia"
Granting the original 2.7 illegaI immigrants, who were in the United States, then amnesty.
So the negotiating was and has already been done.
So it would appear now, that current 11-22 million illegal immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, and are maybe lounging about, in one 300 sanctuary cities, throughout the country, and I guess, maybe hoping for another Amnesty bill to be written up for them as well?
While the list, for some of the liberals who are planning to make a run at becoming the next POTUS of the United States in 2020 is slowly picking up, at the same time?
Their efforts are fresh in the news, free medical care: 100 million dollars worth, that I'm guessing that the tax payers are paying for?
And I wonder, how many us citizens, have a wall or a fence, around the dwelling that they live in, as we speak?
But some of those citizens, seem to disagree with a wall or fence being used to protect the southern border of the country, but at the same time, they have a wall or a fence being utilized to provide protection for their individual properties?
So how are some supposed to view the above?
As a conflict of interest?
A wall or a fence, around their properties, makes sense to them when it comes to their properties?
But a fence along the southern border, is a no, no?
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
Setting aside the questions on amnesty and medical care, are you really justifying the wall on the basis that many houses have walls/fences around them? People individually choosing to pay for a structure to be built on their property is a little different than a country deciding to build a several hundred mile long wall at taxpayer expense. Beyond that, I don't see how your argument justifies a wall. Walls or fences around dwellings serve a number of purposes, including security, yes, but also privacy, aesthetics, and restricting movement of small children or animals, among others. Much as Trump keeps calling it a "big beautiful wall," by far the greatest purpose of a wall on our southern border would be security. So I disagree that there is a "conflict of interest" (I think you mean hypocrisy - not sure where the conflict of interest would be) because these walls/fences have substantially different functionality. Also, while we're on the subject of personal property, it's rather clear that the wall/fence would have to go through some of that down near the border. I can see how property owners would find that problematic.
But all of this aside, I don't see how any amount of hypocrisy on the part of people who have walls/fences around their property justifies the building of more barriers at our southern border. If you want to justify it, bring forth evidence that shows that a wall would be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration, and that no other border security measure would be as or more effective. Your post assumes its effectiveness, so why not support that view?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's curious, an immigrant has a few choices in how they mindfully pick to come into the United States, either legally, or illegally?
Why can't they mindfully utilize their own thinking capacities, that are residing in their own selves?
The wall wont work, just like how some offenders and criminals, ignore a families property, and commits a crime via breaking and entering, and stealing whatever they want, and maybe even hurting or killing innocent people in the process?
An illegaI immigrant, breaking the laws of the country, isn't much different, from an offender or criminal breaking and entering into a families home, and taking what they want, or hurting or killing innocent people in the process, is there?
I guess a wall or a fence, being viewed as being ineffective, is about as apparently ineffective as some the laws, making breaking and entering, stealing, and assualt and battery illegal as well, apparently?
So, apparently, some of those individuals who are maybe, pro illegal immigrant oriented, don't see those same illegal immigrants, as having done nothing wrong, by having come to the country illegally?
They come here illegally, because some sanctuary, has been created for them?
They come here, and their medical care is going to be paid for the by the very citizens who live in the United States?
I wonder, if there have been any conducted polls, studies, or surveys done in those 300 sanctuary cities, asking the legal citizens in those same cities, how they feel about, those illegal immigrants being given sanctuary, in a country that is based on laws?
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Interesting that you never once justify how or why a wall/fence is effective. I know it's kind of your thing to just ask questions as though it's some probing evaluation of my argument, but the vast majority of what you've posted here has no relation to my argument whatsoever. I set aside issues of amnesty and medical care, basically granting you those points for the sake of narrowing down the discussion to one key issue, but you can't seem to stop bringing them up.
In fact, this is your only point that applies at all to what I've said:
"I guess a wall or a fence, being viewed as being ineffective, is about as apparently ineffective as some the laws, making breaking and entering, stealing, and assualt and battery illegal as well, apparently?"
And, sadly, what this argument basically amounts to is "whether it's effective or not, we should do it to curb bad behavior." I should note two things. One, there's a reason why illegal immigration is... illegal. I'm not arguing that we remove the status of illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants, just as I wouldn't argue that assault and battery shouldn't be illegal simply because it still happens. I'm arguing that this specific policy aimed at curbing their entry into the country is largely ineffective, particularly as the cost is so high to both build and maintain a wall. To use your comparison, going against the wall is like going against stop and frisk laws: both are ineffective and generally do more harm than good in their implementation.
Two, I can be against a wall solely for the reason that I don't believe it's as effective of a deterrent as other border security measures we could take. There are alternatives that could be explored for far less cost and with a potentially greater effectiveness. As long as any of those is a reasonable alternative, I don't see how your argument applies. The wall has to be both an effective deterrent and more effective than alternatives that do not incur similar harms. I've provided an example of such alternatives below.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/us/politics/border-patrol-trump-brandon-judd-fox.html
What I'm looking for in an expert opinion is clear data and facts, not just an opinion based on personal experience. And there's plenty of that. It's quite clear, even from reports delivered by Republicans, that a wall is not a catch-all solution. It doesn't resolve problems in many parts of the border, including several hundred mile stretches, including the Big Bend border section in Texas. And, much as you say that persistence is a major benefit, that ignores the costs of basic maintenance of the wall. It's permanent, but that doesn't mean it's permanently effective.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-says-walls-work-its-much-more-complicated
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
Applesauce
Zombieguy
All three of the above names, seem to have an issue with questions being asked, when people ask questions about any topic?
I ask questions, that I feel that any member of the public, who may arrive at this forum, or other forums, should be able to be educated on both sides of any forum, regardless of what any of the forum topics are.
My view is this, if the author of any forum, can't be fair and equal to the other participants who show up to educate themselves on the theme of any forum, because the author of a forum, decides to be one sided, or only argues from their own narratives or points of view, then why take the time to create a forum, if not to be fair and equal with and to the theme of any forum then?
How does any member of the public, to gain an education, and if the forum, that they may go about participating in, and the author goes about displaying a bias towards others, who may not jump on the bandwagon to any forum, and take up a side with the author, rather than to debate both sides of the theme to any forum?
If any forum was created to be educational, why be one sided with the debate, if a forum was really created to platform an individuals point of view, rather than to have an inpartial, fair, and equal debate in regards to the theme of any forum, then what's the point to authoring a debate theme, when the hidden intent was to create a platform to push a narrative to begin with?
That's why I ask questions, I believe in being educated.
To the other participants of the other forums, don't you like being educated on the theme of any forum?
Or maybe, being educated on the various forums authored by whomever, isn't the point of creating, any of the forums?
And maybe, the actual hidden point, is to create a forum, to platform a narrative, and then to promote said narratives, with the individuals own talking points?
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
You ask questions that are more than a little biased, largely based on your perceptions of illegal immigrants, their effects on the economy, and how the political machine aims to deal with them. Even if I set aside the fact that you clearly have a narrative you’re baking into these questions (I wouldn’t say that’s particularly fair and equal), I would argue that debate isn’t supposed to be an exercise in equity. Equity of voice, perhaps, but not equity of points. Some points will be stronger, some sides will be better supported. I don’t see how approaching an issue logically by answering outstanding questions that are essential to our perception of the issue is at all negative or harmful to public understanding. I don’t see how providing data, support for arguments, or building a clear case is harmful to education. If you’re saying it creates some kind of barrier to entry, I don’t see why. If anything, I would argue that points that invite debate by providing clear stances and obliging others to respond with their own is the essence of a good discussion.
On top of that, I would disagree that education is somehow garnered by simply asking questions. Asking questions is an entry point. It doesn’t continue the conversation meaningfully, it just opens it up on certain issues. It utterly fails in addressing specific concerns (if anything, it only adds to them), and it often leads to red herrings where you’re addressing issues not specific to the topic at hand. Take, for example, this forum. The issue is whether the government shutdown is good or bad, given the circumstances. Making it an issue of immigration in general and it’s effects on the US, as you have been attempting to do, seems largely tangential. I’m not arguing that illegal immigration is good, but your argument largely assumes that the issue of whether or not we should have a wall is entirely based in illegal immigration being a bad thing.
It’s a complex question: does a wall substantially affect illegal immigration negatively, and is it net beneficial? @CYDdharta may not be lending his side the best support, but at least he’s trying to justify the wall, specifically. All you’ve done is argue that a wall is fine because we place it around our houses, which says nothing of it’s solvency nor does it respond to negative effects of building it. You’re ignoring the issue by posing a series of questions that do nothing but distract from it. If you’re just going to assume the solvency of the wall, then why bother having this discussion? All that’s left is to argue about whether it’s worth having a shutdown over, and if you’re solving for all of illegal immigration, it probably is. Hell, Democrats and Republicans mostly agree that illegal immigration is bad, so I don’t even get why you’re doubling down on that. “How bad is illegal immigration” may be an important question, but it has little to nothing to do with this impasse.
Perhaps most importantly, though, what I find problematic in your posts is not that you ask questions. Everyone does it and should. It’s that asking questions is all you do. You don’t address points, you don’t care to engage with the debate at hand, you just keep putting the ball back into other people’s courts, refusing to uphold your side in any meaningful way. You say you want to be fair and equal, but you refuse to play any role in the debate beyond what you assume is stimulating discussion. I’ll tell you now: most of your questions do nothing of the sort.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
But the sources you're providing really don't support the use of a wall as well as you seem to think they do. Mr. Morgan does not cite any data, again, simply referring to his experience and knowledge pool without any validation. Similarly, simply appealing to the popularity of a given view among Border Patrol line agents doesn't accomplish anything in terms of showing that such a wall would be effective. It's similar to me arguing that the vast majority of residents and lawmakers on the border oppose the wall on the basis, except that they have data regarding the economic and political effects of the wall to support their views.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump’s-wall-proposal/ar-BBS44f5
Even if I assume that the wall would have some meaningful effect on illegal immigration, there is still the question of whether that gain is worth the losses.
You also refer to former presidents who supported various stages of a wall at various times in their careers. First off, again, you're committing the same ad populum fallacy. Just because many people have supported building a wall over various stretches of the border doesn't mean that there's valid support for doing so. Second, you're oversimplifying their support. That support was for a much more limited and tactical scope of a wall when Democrats were using these policies as a means to compromise with a Republican plan.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/democrats-support-border-wall/
As for your New York Post article (which, by the way, is the only thing you've included in here that provides any evidence in support of your claim), it's correlation, not causation. More importantly, it's not supported by any broad studies of immigration over time. Note that everything in that article covers the effects in El Paso, not the broader effects on illegal immigration. What's worse, there appears to be no implemented way to actually assess that effectiveness because the issue is so complex.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/gao-border-wall/
It's made all the more difficult by the fact that the border walls that we do have are so often circumvented. They find ways over, under and around the wall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/02/shocking-video-shows-suspected-drug-smugglers-easily-crossing-u-s-mexico-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.128bbb463121
http://shapleigh.org/news/2676-border-fence-project-hits-a-snag
These problems are further complicated by additional violence caused by disrupting the drug trade and sparking conflicts at the border.
http://www.benjamin-laughlin.com/border_wall.pdf
In terms of who I consider to be an expert, it's anyone who can present data sufficient to examine the total effect of a border wall. It can be a Border Patrol agent, so long as they're not just speaking of their personal experience. Studies have more weight than anecdotes.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.18  
  Sources: 13  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I would argue that debate isn’t supposed to be an exercise in equity. Equity of voice, perhaps, but not equity of points.
If any of the participants hypothetically speaking, were making an attempt to run and campaign to run for a public office, and be responsible for the public living within the confines of their individual localities, one would be hoping that when they are reiterating their talking points before the public at large, that their individual arguments are as fair and equal as possible, when it comes to a voter, voting for that particular representative, running for a public office, or by stating a similar position in a forum?
The public deserves to be educated in a fair and equal way, via the content found, in any debate forum.
Like presenting an article, along with some excerpts from the article.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
So Mexico, funding the border wall, and it not happening, pretty much isn't an issue, if there are US citizens who have gone out of their way to create GoFundMe pages, to generate funds to pay for the border wall itself, so, in a sense, addresses the border wall not being funded by Mexico, almost single handedly by itself.
And some of the various political representatives who are apparently anti border wall oriented, apparently like to lament before the news media cameras, about Trump's words being expressed about Mexico paying for the border wall, kind of shows the public, how some are apparently, playing their political card games, by what they choose to verbally lament on, in comparison to what they quietly choose to not lament on?
For example, when certain political representatives, express certain dialogues, in regards to the "border wall" funding, "security funding," and or the words "illegal immigrant, or illegal immigration," or anything about the IRCA law signed by former POTUS Ronald Reagan, the public is listening, to what the various political representatives are politically willing to lament over, verses what they are quietly not lamenting over?
So the above public observation, over the individual political dialogue choice's, educates the public, just as much as the political messages, that they choose to lament over, the spotlight of the news media outlet cameras.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://time.com/5497569/donald-trump-oval-office-address-transcript/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss
So the objections to funding the wall are almost entirely politicians trying to score political points. Noted, and thanx for the assist.
The GAO report is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The purpose of the report was to identify "Additional Actions [that are] Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps". It doesn't assess the effectiveness of a border wall at all.
Which illustrates why border fencing is inadequate and proves the need for a border wall. Once again, and thanx for the assist.
Which is yet another reason to build the wall. You're getting good at proving the president's position.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.1  
  Sources: 13  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.
"In the 80's the border started changing. 300 illegal immigrants a month, coming across the border illegally, and then in the 90's it became 300 illegal immigrants a day, stole stuff, broke stuff, trucks stolen, cars stolen, saddles, horses stolen.""Since the 2000's, the cartels took over the human trade, as well as the drug trade. that's what the border is about now, money, it's not about, immigration, but smuggling."
And in the video, they mention, that the smugglers, aren't someone that should be messed with.
And apparently on this ranchers property, 6 people have been killed.
And there is a tree on the property as well, that has a nickname attached to it, and the nickname is sad and sickening.
So, if some who are anti border wall, check out this video, because some of the us citizens who live along the border because of their properties, have seen and experienced some ugly things because of what's been happening along the border, since the 1980's.
And because of the conversations, and the history about the border, being experienced by the ranchers, it makes you wonder, where some of the anti border individuals, go about developing talking points, that fail to include the ranchers perspectives, from what they have seen, and experienced at the border for years now?
This video has been around for a while now, yet when the anti border wall individuals expess themselves, they seem to be lacking in the narratives of the us citizens living along the border?
And instead, reiterate only their individual anti border wall narratives?
I'm waiting to see if anyone mentions creating a (Department, of the Border Wall and Border Security Office)?
Create a Department like that together, and the border wall, has the proper manpower to provide the proper security along the wall?
There should have been a wall, or a steel fence of some type, and a security detail provided for, and along the border, years ago.
Something like the (DHS)?
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
However, I don't see what this has to do with your initial point at all. If your argument is that we need to educate people, there are plenty of news-based resources available that are supposed to fulfill that purpose. And yes, they should present all of the facts without a clear bias. They should be fair and equal, in a sense. I say "in a sense" because if one side does have more support, I do not think it's the duty of news media to present both sides with the same amount of support. The evidence should speak for itself, however much there is on either side. I don't think it can ever be fully fair and equal, as you keep proclaiming.
But all of this is besides the point. My issue is with how you, specifically, respond to arguments posted in here and with how you perceive the effectiveness of a post based on the number of question marks included. I agree, presenting an article (particularly one with evidence) can be very helpful. I haven't seen you doing that. I haven't seen you doing more than providing abbreviated, perfunctory questions that hardly address the points I'm making and actively seek to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. If you call that education, then we are clearly not on the same page.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
"If I was running a campaign for public office, my goal would not be to make sure that everyone knows both sides of every issue equally. My goal would be to convince them that the views I'm bringing to the table are the most correct, explain why, and explain how I plan to execute on them. It's not a politician's role to educate the public, it's a politician's role to get elected and pass legislation."
So you think that it's a politician's role, is to campaign to the public on half truths, and one sided story telling talking points, to get the public in general to vote for you?
So you via your campaign style, you'd have to have a platoon of journalists, to do some fact checking on the one sided talking points that you'd be using to give a platform to your campaign bid then right?
Maybe because, basically those votes would be viewed, as more important, than taking care of the constituent's who voted for you post election day then right?
Is that how your hypothetical campaign strategy might work?
Maybe the above is why some of the citizens in the United States, who have pondered running for a public office, but the notion gets outweighed by how some manage, their political mud and dirt, and instead of campaigning to work for the public, maybe some just run for a public office, to work in a sense basically for themselves?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
See, you're doing a really great job explaining just why posing questions doesn't always provide anyone with additional information or further the conversation, mainly because you're using those same questions to massively mischaracterize my points and further distance yourself from the topic and issues with your own posts.
I didn't say that a politician's role is to lie or skew the truth in their favor. I said it's a politician's role to get elected and pass legislation. Delivering information to the public, providing the means to know what's going on with an issue many don't necessarily understand, may be part of that. It could be fair and impartial, but this is politics we're talking about. This is a world of political parties, particularly in the US, and messaging often leads to the use of bias or hyperbole. It happens all the time. If you want to proclaim that they should hold themselves to a higher standard, that's up to you, but that's not the role nor can it be their role. Unless we take campaigning entirely out of the picture, we have to contend with the fact that these things will continue to exist and be broadly employed. That's the nature of politics, just as it should be the nature of news to deliver information without those biases or hyperbolic language.
If I was running for political office, you can bet I would be fact checking my opponent and trying to dismiss similar problems with my platform. I am not a politician, nor do I want to be, but if I did and wanted to be successful, I'd have little choice but to bend to the system that lies before me. This isn't how a hypothetical campaign strategy works - this is how pretty much every single campaign strategy actually works.
However, I think your biggest mischaracterization is that, by engaging in this kind of behavior, I would fundamentally function against my constituents. The way this system is supposed to function (and I'll fully admit, it doesn't do this as well as it should) is that the politicians that win are representing positions people generally agree with. They can, and often do, present those positions with a heap of bias and hyperbole, but that usually solidifies views. It doesn't often alter perceptions on a given problem. If a politician is using these to actively frighten people into voting for them, I'd agree, that's bad. However, if a politician is presenting viewpoints that represent their constituents, I see no harm in that at all. Hell, if a politician represents viewpoints that cause their constituents to shift their stance on a number of issues, I don't see that as bad either, so long as the case they're presenting is not a fabrication.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've been looking for some of the liberal political representatives to mention anything in regards to the below story, or stories similar to ones like them, when they are expressing their individual dialogues about the border?
So to a certain degree, information wise, here's what I have been hearing: Trump can get funds for border security, but no funding for the border wall, and that the government shutdown is his fault?
Am I correct, or incorrect in that observation?
Trump's dialogue, has been about funding for both the border wall, and border security?
So given the information in the below video, wouldn't funding for both the border wall, along with the funding for border security, both be fair and equal ideas, for security along the southern border by enhancing both?
When some watch the below via video about the border, they may start to ponder on a particular question: (Why hasn't, with the given and continuous issues, with the border wall, why haven't those issues, been remedied way before now?)
Here you go:
A story on the Border, told by the United States citizens, who live on, or near the border because of their properties.
"The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.
"In the 80's the border started changing. 300 illegal immigrants a month, coming across the border illegally, and then in the 90's it became 300 illegal immigrants a day, stole stuff, broke stuff, trucks stolen, cars stolen, saddles, horses stolen.""Since the 2000's, the cartels took over the human trade, as well as the drug trade. that's what the border is about now, money, it's not about, immigration, but smuggling."
And in the video, they mention, that the smugglers, aren't someone that should be messed with.
And apparently on this ranchers property, 6 people have been killed.
And there is a tree on the property as well, that has a nickname attached to it, and the nickname is sad and sickening.
So, if some who are anti border wall, check out this video, because some of the us citizens who live along the border because of their properties, have seen and experienced some ugly things because of what's been happening along the border, since the 1980's.
And because of the conversations, and the history about the border, being experienced by the ranchers, it makes you wonder, where some of the anti border individuals, go about developing talking points, that fail to include the ranchers perspectives, from what they have seen, and experienced at the border for years now?
This video has been around for a while now, yet when the anti border wall individuals expess themselves, they seem to be lacking in the narratives of the us citizens living along the border?
And instead, reiterate only their individual anti border wall narratives?
I'm waiting to see if anyone mentions creating a (Department, of the Border Wall and Border Security Office)?
Create a Department like that together, and the border wall, has the proper manpower to provide the proper security along the wall?
There should have been a wall, or a steel fence of some type, and a security detail provided for, and along the border, years ago.
Something like the (DHS)?
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra