Could somebody address this issue with 'the wall'?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Greenleft, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Let me begin by saying border security in itself is not a bad thing. My issue here one specific problem nobody on the right wants to address. If you build a wall along the border, you cannot build it next to the Rio Grande. Why not? Because riverbanks are known to shift from time to time and that would damage the wall. That's common sense.

    What you need to do is build in further inland. The problem emerges that it will cut through private property and create a giant no man's land. Let me point out the obvious: disregard for property rights (eminent domain, It's legal. I get it) and loss of territory.

    My question to supporters of the wall is this: Most of you are very supportive of property rights. On top of that, is not your sense of national pride being hurt at the loss of United States territory? Are you going to say on this specific occasion "Yes, sacrifices need to be made"? If you agree to the statement, I have no issue with you. If on the other hand all you say is "We need border security! Build the wall!", then you are not being honest about sacrifices being made.

    Finally, if you know something I don't about the border wall not needing sacrifices to be made, please enlighten me.
     
  2. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Somebody posted a thread asking why people oppose the wall. This thread is my answer. It's not that I'm against security in itself, it's that it's unrealistic UNLESS you on the right admit that sacrifices need to be made.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wtf is the problem here!? So in THOSE areas you use other security methods. The methods they claim are sooooo good that a wall isnt even needed.
    Quit your BS and admit it outloud "we dont care about security..we care about more votes and bigger government"
     
    garyd, Chester_Murphy and Dayton3 like this.
  4. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Then say specifically "A wall from San Diego to El Paso" Once you hit the river, there will be no wall.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Slap a bridge on that part and make it a port of entry
     
    gorfias and Chester_Murphy like this.
  6. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,143
    Likes Received:
    1,406
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    immanent domain laws would have to used in the construction of any structure along the border. Though I have not heard any Democrat or Republican saying that a border structure would be continues across the entire border. After all border security is a combination of multiple things and a wall/fence is just a part.
     
    Ddyad and Chester_Murphy like this.
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    5,656
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First off, the $5B is for roughly 1/4 of the wall. It will be built first where it is needed most. Some parts of the border get little traffic- legal or illegal, and don't need a wall. Its my hope that once the critical sections of the border are secure, we can stop building. Much of the sacrifices you mention can be avoided by not building a wall in certain, non-critical locations.

    Obviously, some of the problems you mention will be in critical locations...

    I don't oppose imminent domain, but I think its use needs to be slanted far more heavily against the government. For example, if instead of just paying fair market value for seized land, the owner should be given property elsewhere of equal or greater market value plus any unforeseen market increase in the seized property over the next ten years (to prevent crony prospecting and developing), as well as reimbursement for all costs associated with relocation- basically it should be as expensive and as p-i-t-a on the part of government as possible to ensure it really needs to be done, and the owner should come out way ahead instead of just technically equal. I would support critical portions of the wall to be seized by these means if necessary, thought I can't see it being a huge deal most of the time to compensate someone for a 30-or-so foot strip on the edge of their property, and often an easement would likely be more appropriate than seizure. Ultimately, however, it would be preferable to just skip the sections where property owners refuse to cooperate and patrol/surveil those sections more heavily until a better solution can be agreed upon, and focus on the building wall elsewhere.

    Walls can be built walls along riverbanks. There's no such thing as a wall that lasts forever, and anything we build will require some maintenance whether we built it along the Rio Grande or not.. We don't have to sacrifice any of our sovereign land to build the wall- we'll build it along the river and repair it as necessary.

    flood-defence-wall-along-river-wye-hereford-barrier-herefordshire-.jpg
    mrio_04c.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  8. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As most Leftists do, OP fails to reference facts, quantify or engage in basic cost-benefit analysis, preferring nebulous abstractions instead. HOW MUCH land and WHERE are you claiming will be devalued or "sacrificed" due to eminent domain for example? What, specifically, are the engineering issues associated with a Southern Border Wall?

    Rio Grande is a particularly silly red herring. All manner of structures the world over are successfully engineered around changes in the Earth's topography over periods of geologic time. In a world crammed full of engineering marvels surmounting far more difficult terrain and geographic issues than a Southern Border Wall would face, anyone claiming this or that special "geographically insurmountable" case has a high burden to meet in specifically describing the issues, else it is a hollow talking point.

    Eminent domain is also a red herring absent significant context. Although the process is overused and abused across the country, primary controversies almost always involve valuable urban land or land with significant mineral or other rare resources, not raw, rural land unsuitable for most agriculture and most of anything else. The Federal Government owns as custodian for the citizenry ~650 million acres of land across the country, ~25% of the whole U.S. territory, particularly in the West, SW and Alaska, that no one at all is in any rush to develop, settle, buy or claim. Anyone appealing to excesses of eminent domain along the Border Wall has a high burden to meet in evidencing and quantifying them else it is a hollow talking point.

    Any complaints about eminent domain with respect to the Border Wall should be raised by those who have standing to raise them, affected landowners, and curiously, I haven't seen too much of that with respect to the Wall.

    "Hurt national pride at the loss of United States territory?" Really? "national pride?" REALLY? Lulz. No further response needed but will give a couple anyway: a) "WTF I LOVE NATIONALISM NOW!" and b) how would a Wall and more secure border, currently porous to drugs, criminals, child abuse, sexual abuse, outright slavery do anything other than -bolster- "national pride" and a sense of security in the citizenry?

    As we all know, LW-Democrat-Complex resistance to the Wall is NOT about rivers, eminent domain, efficacy, costs, "national pride" or any other ostensible talking points they raise. It is about pulling out all stops to prevent a measure that cannot be easily rolled back or loopholed around in the future towards keeping the permanent underclass Democrat vote farms up and growing. That's the real issue. Do you agree with the political tactic of importing more and more unskilled, uneducated, non English speaking or learning people (not to mention criminals) AT CATASTROPHIC EXPENSE towards farming votes and power for the central government and its many subsidiaries or do you not? It's really that simple.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    undertheice and Hotdogr like this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???

    It's the administration that is proposing a wall.

    If you want facts about the wall, THEY are the ones that are supposed to be providing that information.

    So far, there is NO justification or serious plan being proposed.

    imo, the major point here is that there are serious known problems with building walls and this administration has not answered them.

    Perhaps more importantly, there is no cost justification for this expenditure. We're already spending more than $4B/year on that border. And, even just the basic reasons Trump cites are FALSE!!

    He claims it's about drugs (it absolutely is not), about terrorism (it absolutely is not), about crime (but, our undocumented population has a lower crime rate than that of citizens), etc.

    We deserve far more truthful argument and some actual specifics from anyone proposing to blow billions more tax dollars on any project such as this one.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [QUOTE="WillReadmore, post: 1070082650, member: 64140]
    If you want facts about the wall, THEY are the ones that are supposed to be providing that information.
    [/QUOTE]

    This thread is about OP's unquantified, unqualified objections to the Wall, not the well-documented, factual reasons for having it covered extensively in other threads.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    Sahba* and Dayton3 like this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, cite Trump's quantified justification for the wall he wants.

    The problem here is that Trump doesn't have that.

    AND, his sweeping statements concerning crime, drugs, terrorism, etc., etc. are far to often outed as just plain lies - lies repeated over and over again.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  12. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, that is not the topic of the thread. Moreover, Trump quantified ALL those things last night in his national address. So do you have a -topical- post to make or not?
     
    Sahba* likes this.
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense.

    This thread is predicated on having some notion of how important a wall might be. Any discussion of trade offs or compromises is nonsense without having a shared understanding of importance.

    Today, not even that level of justification exists.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every thread on this forum is not about every topic you want just because you say so. This thread is titled "Could somebody address this issue with the wall"? and the issues are specifically listed in the OP, do NOT include reasons -for- building the Wall, but reasons -against- it. So reread the OP and again, do you have anything topical to add to this thread?
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YOU are the one that brought up the connection to cost in post #8 when you said:
    So, which of your two versions am I supposed to accept - the one where you blame the left for ignoring cost-benefit or the one where you're upset that I blame Trump for ignoring cost-benefit justification??

    And, how am I supposed to provide a cost-benefit based argument when the president, whose idea this is, can't do that when he has the executive branch of the USA behind him???
     
    Phyxius and Bowerbird like this.
  16. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My post was crystal clear and reference to "cost-benefit" was solely in response to OP's claims about the Rio Grande, eminent domain, and "national pride," the three reasons against the Wall posted in the OP. Your monomaniacal intent to keep blabbering off-topic is noted.

    Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I AGREED with you.

    We need a cost benefit analysis, like you stated.

    Anyone can read your post #8.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  18. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,343
    Likes Received:
    3,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm for a wall because it's much cheaper and safer than my idea of interlocking machine gun banks and landmines.

    If democrats don't want a wall, then I guess we'll have to go with the alternative...
     
    Sahba* likes this.
  19. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    14,202
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stating the -absence- of quantified cost benefit analysis in OP's claims about rivers, eminent domain and national pride does not make this a thread about cost-benefit analysis of ALL aspects of the Wall. For the third time, do you have anything to say about THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD OR NOT?
     
  20. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,202
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    27,834
    Likes Received:
    4,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I absolutely do.

    And, that is that discussing the OP really requires there being an actual plan that comes with a cost benefit analysis.

    How can one make wise tradeoffs such as those in the OP without that kind of information?

    How can we justify taking property under eminent domain, block access to the river and/or lake, etc., without knowing what's to be gained?
     
    Phyxius and Bowerbird like this.
  22. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,202
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Block access to the river? You don't live near one, I suppose. Oh boy, I'm starting to understand. Folks have trouble figuring out what can be done and so believe what they are told. This nation is in deep trouble.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  23. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Returning to this thread upon further understanding of the issue and on the construction of the wall.

    OK so I was mistaken about exactly why you cannot build along the river. It's not erosion damage but rather the problem of access to the river.

    Eminent domain aside, building further inland from the river means ceding land to Mexico. Nobody so far has assured me that that won't be the case. Will the wall be next to the river or further inland? Enlighten me.

    Honest followup question: If the wall will be built further inland, will you flag waving patriots happily give US territory to another country? You may be rewarded with more security, but are you really willing to give up LAND?
     
    FreshAir and Bowerbird like this.
  24. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    11,846
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Has Mexico already sent the money for the wall? Mexico is paying for it, right?
     
  25. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't plan and discuss every detail of the geography for a wall on this forum. You can be for the wall or against the wall for what ever reason you want. But believe me, we can put up a wall anyplace we want. The designers and engineers will plan the wall inch-by-inch. If I want to know the time don't ask me how a watch works.
     

Share This Page