MovieChat Forums > Politics > The Wall alone was enough reason to not ...

The Wall alone was enough reason to not re-elect the donald

posted 4 years ago by snepts (11123)
32 replies | jump to latest

What a catastrophe. Environmental degradation, including interrupting centuries old migration patterns. An antiquated response in a sophisticated world. (No way to treat a neighbor !)
Mexico isn't paying for it as promised, (and where in the hell did that notion even come from?). Now contractors are scrambling to get as much $$ as they can knowing the whole effort will be quickly undone, (the American Way, right? Grab the cash regardless if it's the right thing).
Only the donald could come up with such a colossally bad idea, (although Cheney and his WMDs is also in the running).
Anyone really wonder why this clown wasn't re-elected?

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

He was counting on leveraging the frustration of a lot of Americans over the floods of immigrants coming in here. A lot of even people in the Left ( myself included ) think that immigration is out of control and it hurts the country to have too many foreign people at one time entering ... and have had that for many years ... decades. It got him a lot of attention and votes. The thing is that he just played at it, and played those folks who voted for him.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Also, it's frustrating when some agitator claims, "the Left wants Open Borders," and it's not true at all.
We want Compassion. We want Opportunity to mean something. We want the advantages of a prosperous economy to extend to other people and other countries, and especially to our own citizens, and even this isn't happening.
This America First chant makes people feel it's a competition we need to win, not a cooperative effort that includes the rest of the world.
And no, it's not simple, and that's my point. We need to seriously consider how to maintain the integrity and stability of the country without becoming isolated and suspicious and angry. Neither should we be naive, and remain vigilant about foreign threats. But we should stick to our best ideals and not succumb to Nationalism and Me First rationales for selfish, ugly, destructive policies.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

Most reasonable people on the Left, which I count myself part of, want managed immigration. Our immigration today is about 3 times what it used to be, and there is too much social chaos these days. There is not American culture, no melting pot anymore, just a bunch of isolated groups that hate each other, except on TV where we are all given these fake models of everyone getting along.

I don't want to go nationalist, and I never would, but that doesn't mean I do not believe in America. In many places we should be America first, like with dictator countries ... Saudi Arabia, China, Russia. I think the media takes it narratives from some central source - both sides, left and right. There is a lot of ultra right wing stuff ... but never anything from even the moderate left.

Also, the right always rants against socialism ... because really, socialism is democracy. Socialism is democracy in society and democracy in the economy - and the right-wing absolutely cannot tolerate that - but it is going to change soon, it has to. Democracy in capitalism means protections for citizens and workers. Democracy developed because ordinary citizens were so abused and exploited they had to fight to get rights. Same with economic rights ... there is no rights without economic rights.

[–] brucewayne (319) 4 years ago

I honestly dont get why a few thousand drones cant monitor the border. wouldn't it be far more efficient and effective? similar to the US army scout drones with thermal imagining, listening equipment and high resolution cameras?

.... isnt it tactics 101? scout the "enemy" and send in pin point groups there to intercept them?

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

You may be right. I don't feel really comfortable with drone tech and I don't like jobs being replaced by tech but sure, if drones and the support structure can be made to work. go for it.
But building a physical wall between us and our closest Southern neighbor in the 21st century seems like posturing and grand standing rather than a serious look at what the real problem is. I thought we were smarter that that.

[–] brucewayne (319) 4 years ago

"You may be right. I don't feel really comfortable with drone tech and I don't like jobs being replaced by tech but sure, if drones and the support structure can be made to work. go for it."

this is one case I do support a loss of jobs because maybe they save lots of money and we could spend that on schools or actually helping the American people! but I know that won't be the case I just wish it was.

"But building a physical wall between us and our closest Southern neighbor in the 21st century seems like posturing and grand standing rather than a serious look at what the real problem is. I thought we were smarter that that."

meh half the country is. the other half lives in fear of hordes of people of other colours coming to the USA. some due to fabricated security concerns, some due to racism, some for legit reasons.

[–] user111 (358) 4 years ago

How would drones prevent illegals from entering? By bombing them into oblivion? If so then it's hard to support senseless slaughter as a sensible solution though I can see that as appealing to right wingers.

[–] brucewayne (319) 4 years ago

im not super knowledgeable on drone tech, like us military level ones. but I mean one just like scouting back and forth a certain segment. and if they detect something send the closest detachment to intercept them. obviously no weapons just surveillance equipment. the global hawk for instance flys at 60 thousand feet and can stay airborne for 31 hours.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

But a physical Wall ? Flipping pub Saint Reagan famously said Tear Down This Wall.
And now this d-head rump wants to build one? What madness is this? Just a make work project so we can fund digging a hole just to fill it in?
Tax dollars at work, and brought to you by anti-tax pubs versus the supposedly tax profligate Dems. Shit, both parties should be frugal with the public dime, but nope.

[–] brucewayne (319) 4 years ago

I mean maybe in some segments where its deemed nessecary. like highly populated border towns hell even canada has fencing on the border with the US at certain parts

I agree but then how would both parties reward their military contractor and large building donors for make work projects in their states?

who would dare increase funding for teachers or provide healthcare, when you can just help some big corporation in your state make millions in some bogus contract then get paid when you leave office as a "consultant"

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

High five? Fist bump? "bwoosh?" That's what I'm hearing. Good on you.

[–] chilidoggg (13398) 4 years ago

Trump's wall's only 2.5 miles long so the environmental damage is minimal

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

I hope this is true, but the unintended consequences of erecting a physical barrier along the Southern border makes the whole endeavor seem like an impulsive gesture not well thought out.
And I have heard of the dynamiting of rock walls, etc., which seems so wrong when the whole thing is going to be discarded, and for good reason. Such a sad and futile effort to address a problem that needs thoughtful solutions, not a bigger hammer.

[–] ultravioletx (10222) 4 years ago

They never got a wall and look how upset they are he lost. More proof the wall was never what they cared about. Nothing Trump promised in 2016 is what they cared about. They just wanted their authoritarian cult leader.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The idea alone of the wall slowed down the floods of people. Which is good. But what was more effective was Trump making deals with Mexico to stop the floods of migrants at their own southern boarder.

Also not allowing them in to apply for asylum made sense too.

If they're fleeing some problem in Honduras, they can hang out in Mexico until the American Immigration System determines whether or not they have a right to seek sanctuary in the United States.

My problem with the lationization of America is that many latinos import their third world mindset. A race to the bottom as latinos undercut one another and Americans to do work as cheap as possible.

They sell food on the street (illegally), denying American businesses of income as people go to street vendors.

So where Latinos populate the bricks and mortar businesses go OUT of business. I lived in a part of Los Angeles that was becoming very latino in 2011. Sadly I recently did a google street view of the area and saw how SO MANY more businesses had shut up. The image updates from a well kept business to a fenced off business with graffiti and homeless people in tents out front. It's like seeing a dystopian future and it's very saddening. You increase poor people and areas become poor.

[–] Thespear (134) 4 years ago

...So says a person whose ancestors probably came from another continent to steal this land from the people who owned it; who also stole millions of people and benefited from stolen free labor of others not to talk about the horrors they perpetrated during slavery. Boy, while you theorize about immigration understand this: neither you nor your offspring will escape the justice of history!

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

The Left (like me) is not Deaf to your Concerns. It's not a pretty and clean process to accommodate change and fairness, but making a connect-the-dots argument that some area has been devalued because of supposed Latinization is not taking into account a lot of other factors. Are they being given the same Loan opportunities? Are wages supporting the market demands in the area? Are immigrants being targeted and taken advantage of economically? Goodness knows white folks will often do unscrupulous things to disadvantaged white folks in the quest for profit, so certainly they will do the same for immigrants.
It's just not simply that Latins are ruining a neighborhood.
And maybe it is, but we sure have to look at it closely and not jump to conclusions because we don't like Latins.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Whites will hire illegals and are part of the problem.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

True. That's why I emphasize it's a complex problem and when people come up with easy solutions, they are mistaken.
I don't want Analysis Paralysis, but building a wall has got to be the dumbest response to a national problem in the last 20 years, at least.

[–] chilidoggg (13398) 4 years ago

Not to hijack the thread, but the "dumbest response" was sending the military into Afghanistan and Iraq, (even if we had undeniable evidence that they were behind 9/11 - which they weren't) as 3,000 years of history shows that that part of the world cannot be controlled with Western brains.

[–] brucewayne (319) 4 years ago

"Sadly I recently did a google street view of the area and saw how SO MANY more businesses had shut up"

um you are aware theres a global pandemic closing businesses right ?!?!

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

These were taken before the pandemic.

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

I support now there immigrations as it will delay any kind of you have to have a electric car if you want to drive. Nobody from Mexico can afford one so they won't vote for that law.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Is this supposed to be helpful?

[–] JoWilli (16837) 4 years ago

"including interrupting centuries old migration patterns."

birds cant fly over a 20 foot fence? lol

[–] Redsfan001 (6049) 4 years ago

When NAFTA was passed in the early 1990's the thought was that industry in Mexico would EVENTUALLY increase wages to that of American union workers.

This did not happen, a auto worker in Mexico earns at best $5 an hour in 2020.

Why? Over 85% of Mexican workers work for a "firm" that has less than 7 employees, this creates incredible lack of productivity in Mexico that keep wages low.

The few very large companies in Mexico DO NOT WANT COMPETITON, they rigged the Mexican Constitution to keep it that way. The owners of the firms have bought off key members in the government to create monopolies.

This is why Mexicans still make just $3 hr on average.

A wall is like a bandaid on a open sore caused by cancer. Until the cancer is addressed (why Mexicans still earn $3 hr)the sore (illegal immigration) will persist.