Expert implies wall is a no-deal brain-dead idea

Democrats think that a wall would be "immoral." Even if it was 1000 feet tall (therefore kept people out for certain) and FREE to build, wouldn't we still be left with the laughable "immoral" argument?

 

You put the ball in your court when you said.

It is now up to you to show where I don't think using scientific methods.

 

We’ll give Trump one dollar, to go along with the one plus billion he was given last year and hasn’t spent yet.

 

Count from a walls perspective, not THIS wall perspective! Again, has she seen any documentation relating to the plan? Is a lawyer an expert on EVERY legal case, to which they don't have the details?

What if it was free? Are you one of these insane people who think that a wall is 'racist?'

 

Nope. It’s the SCIENTIST you’re pretending to be that has to do the proof. . If you were, you’d know that too. You’re 0-2 .

 

If you knew anything about it at all, you would not have used the word "consensus". You pretend to know something about it. But you know nothing about the scientific method.

 

What should he have spent that on? The wall? What use would 1 billion be? Trump needs to know that a proper wall can be built and that can't be done with one fifth of the money that is required. And no comment on the belief that walls are immoral?

 

I have posted those links a dozen times so far, I won't be kept busy by every dingus that's to lazy to look. Grow up and go back through the thread or pee up a rope.

 

I don’t need to show anything. I don’t claim to be a scientist. I just claim to trust the institutional science we’ve used for two hundred years. You’re the braggart.

 

Not likely.

 

The rope's over there.

 

Ahh, probably because I didn’t say it. Walls are inanimate.

 

Grow a forehead.

 

I could tell any wild story I wanted about my qualifications. You would not be able to disprove any of it. However, you have chose to say I am not a scientist based on what I have written here. All you have is what I have written here. And yet you are not capable of showing one specific example. Not one.

 

I don’t need to. I’m not claiming to be a scientist.

 

You're the one who can't prove his claim. Grow some synapsis.

 

But you are the one claiming I am not. I don't question any of your qualifications. You owe me the same courtesy unless you have some proof. Which you don't.

 

No, but any honest person who believed in institutional science could tell a lot. You’re far from proving anything, yet. I have a history of boringly repeating what I believe in here, science and math and the institutions that support them. The truth is found there, not from the mouths of any individual, especially Trump, not me and certainly not you. .

 

Since you are unable to come up with anything, trying to convince you of anything is not worth the effort.

 

But not immoral? And nothing on what Trump should've spent the 1 billion on? I mean, you questioned the fact that he didn't spend it didn't you?

 

Kriman, qualify yourself or shut up.

 

Deleted

 

Inder BernieCare having a job is not manditory

And lazy people will take full advantage of that

 

You trying to convince a science supporter of dribble doesn’t work. Go lie with the orange traitor. If you support the truth, you don’t have to convince anyone of anything. There is only one truth but a “ pack of lies”.

 

You do rattle on without actually saying anything.