Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

C'mon bro ZNP. Did Sandy Hook happen because we don't have a border wall? How about the Las Vegas mass shooting, and all the others, that are domestic terrorism, that the wall has nothing to do with whatsoever.

And stats show that crime among the illegal immigrants is lower that American citizens.

So your crazy "facts" are nonsense.

Just tell us whether you support the wall or not, and be done with it.

Great irrelevant points. Would body armor on cops have prevented Sandy hook? No, then why have them?

Do I support the wall? Wow. You mean the existing border security fence that runs through El Paso. No one ever asked me. So the real question was would I support tearing it down. No. I don't live in El Paso and I respect their city and the decision of either the US, Texas or El Paso to put up a fence.

Or do you mean do I support adding to the existing "wall" (fence, barrier, whatever). Yes, I do. I have hiked through the desert and know it is extremely difficult to do that in the dark. I also know that an extra 5 or 10 miles walking around the fence can mean an extra day for women, children and anybody but the fittest hikers. So I can easily see how extending the fence in the areas where they are getting the most illegals could save manpower and resources in rounding them up.

The reason I don't see this as my own suggestion is that the wall is extremely limited in its effectiveness on crime in the US. I do see that over a 25 year period it could easily reduce violent crime enough to pay for itself. But the biggest impact on reducing gun violence, imo, is to require liability insurance for all gun owners. That would have a direct impact on every single crime committed with a gun in the US, that would immediately enlist a major lobbyist to finally get legislation passed that would have an impact.

Second I consider education a much more effective solution to getting poor people out of poverty which in turns means they are much more valuable as taxpayers. That high school kid killed by gang violence could have been a taxpayer for 45 years. Government lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue. $5 billion goes a very long way to doing that. In NYC free meals (kids call them "freefree") and subway cards improve attendance a lot.

So in conclusion I like that someone is doing something other than spewing angst. Not what I would have chosen but it might be a good step in a strategy of cutting the gangs off from the cartels.

[awareness]

“Never ever give up,” he [Trump] urged graduates at Wagner College on New York’s Staten Island:

“Don’t give up. Don’t allow it to happen. If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it, but get to the other side of that wall.” Trump 2004.

Go to minute 12:35.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQqjSPsvA0E

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great irrelevant points. Would body armor on cops have prevented Sandy hook? No, then why have them?

Do I support the wall? Wow. You mean the existing border security fence that runs through El Paso. No one ever asked me. So the real question was would I support tearing it down. No. I don't live in El Paso and I respect their city and the decision of either the US, Texas or El Paso to put up a fence.

Zero Lawmakers Representing Border Districts Support Donald Trump’s Wall

The nine House members representing border districts from California to Texas voted in favor of reopening the government without additional money for the wall.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-...ding-2019-1-8/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Zero Lawmakers Representing Border Districts Support Donald Trump’s Wall

The nine House members representing border districts from California to Texas voted in favor of reopening the government without additional money for the wall.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-...ding-2019-1-8/

These are separate questions. I feel like I am talking to flat stanley who cannot see 3 dimensions.

In my posts when I describe this brouhaha as being like a huge marital spat over a wife wanting to spend $50 on a lock for the front door for a family that spends $100,000 every year that is an indication that I also do not support the shutdown. Nor do I think this shutdown is over this, but rather this was simply the latest straw they can fight over.

Likewise when I say that I blame the Democrats for the shutdown that implies to most people who read this that I don't support the shutdown. Your question did not ask "do I support shutting the govt down over the wall". Obviously (to those who can see 3 dimensions) I don't. Hence, I blame the Democrats for this. Why don't I blame the Republicans? Because they campaigned on this issue, they were elected and they are simply doing what they were elected to do and I support the US constitution and the idea of democracy. I view the Democrats as extremely hypocritical on this. They portray themselves as very much for gun legislation and yet this one proposal will actually have an impact, small though it may be, on gun violence and they are pretending outrage. Why, what have they proposed?

This has become a very partisan battle, so all Democrats are on one side, all Republicans are on the other. However, congressmen and some Senators who are up for election in less than 2 years are in the crosshairs of this and all of them have to support getting those furloughed paid. Think of how absurd this whole "shutting the government" down is. They aren't actually shutting it down, they are simply requiring people to work without getting paid. It is an outrage and a completely different issue from the "barrier".

In my opinion the government has to do something about gun violence, since they are afraid of the NRA and the 2nd amendment their only recourse is to go after those who are not protected by it, the illegal immigrants. When you look at the illegal immigrants in gangs who are violent offenders you discover that they have already been deported multiple times so that is a big joke of a solution. So they have done the only option left, make it harder to get into the country illegally.

As I have already said I don't view this as anything more than a baby step. IMO enlisting a bigger, badder lobbyist to your side, the Insurance industry is not only a much bigger and better step, it is also a much more cost effective step (doesn't even cost the taxpayers).