National Emergency

thaiboxerken said:
To Trump loyalists, there is an invasion happening. It's been happening for decades. They see their white privileged, culture threatened by a multicultural society that accepts people of all sizes, races, cultures, genders, and sexual orientation. This is what their wall is about, this is their national emergency.
Click to expand...


There was a comic strip I saw recently, using crude stick figures. I'll see if I can reproduce it with Alt-Codes.

☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺-Acceptable
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☻-Forced diversity
☺☺☺☺☺☺☻☻-White genocide
 
phiwum said:
I said I don't disagree with the expressed sentiment. Geez Louise.
Click to expand...

It's hard to express anything simply enough on this forum to avoid having it twisted -- "screwed up" is a telling Britishism -- into a monkey's head knot by one or more of our career objectors.

Trumb's wall? A crude boondoggle, meant only to shovel money into his pals' pockets, and his. They won't even bother with laundering it.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
The term "NIMBY" is usually used for something that will benefit others while potentially harming you if you are close to it. Doesn't really apply here.
Click to expand...


Eminent Domain property seizure could certainly be viewed as a form of harm, especially when the one whose property is being seized is doing the viewing.

I don't think NIMBY is all that far fetched.
 
Last edited:
Most (at least 3/4ths from eyeballing the map, I didn't bother to count) border counties went Blue in the Presidential election of 2018 and of the border states one is going to go Democratic outside of some outside the even most insane realm of speculation and the other is going to go Republican outside of some outside the even most insane realm of speculation so basically from Trump's perspective the only political capital that isn't pure "talking point" being put at risk by "The Wall" are a few low population counties in Arizona and New Mexico.
 
beren said:
Who thinks that? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

I believe I've seen a couple of posts to the effect that open borders are a good thing here on ISF, but I couldn't produce links to them or remember who the poster was. It's a very minority view, supported by no national politician I could name, and I've no reason to think that Skeptic Ginger is in that camp.

Perhaps Chris is asking an innocent question to clarify SG's position. It does seem like a leap, given the post which prompted the question (she merely pointed out that those on the Texas/Mexico border are opposed to the wall and it seems she is too), but it's harmless enough on its own. Better to ask such a question than to presume anyone opposed to the wall is opposed to all border security, I suppose.
 
Since the Schegan is a thing I think we can safely assume the "Somebody somewhere thinks open borders are a thing that probably exists" variable.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
These People: https://noborderwalls.org/

Chris B.
Click to expand...

At a quick glance, I see no evidence on that site that supports your claim that "Some think the borders should be removed."

Opposing the building of a wall does not equate to removing the border itself.

1. Stopping something from happening is not removing it.
2. Borders and walls are not the same thing anyway.
 
phiwum said:
I believe I've seen a couple of posts to the effect that open borders are a good thing here on ISF, but I couldn't produce links to them or remember who the poster was. It's a very minority view, supported by no national politician I could name, and I've no reason to think that Skeptic Ginger is in that camp.

Perhaps Chris is asking an innocent question to clarify SG's position. It does seem like a leap, given the post which prompted the question (she merely pointed out that those on the Texas/Mexico border are opposed to the wall and it seems she is too), but it's harmless enough on its own. Better to ask such a question than to presume anyone opposed to the wall is opposed to all border security, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in fact, I have made posts that are close to what he describes. In a perfect world I see no purpose for borders, but I also realize we are not in a perfect world and they are a necessity.

That said, he has no idea what he is talking about, and your point about SG and National Politicians is exactly what I was hoping to get at.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
These People: https://noborderwalls.org/

Chris B.
Click to expand...

That site seems to oppose a border wall. I didn't see any indication they are opposed to border security in toto.

Given this response, I guess I have to withdraw my previous semi-defense of Chris's question. He seems to think that there are two alternatives: Trump's wall or no border security at all. If you're opposed to the wall, then you're opposed to border security.

He's welcome to correct me, but that link sure does suggest this interpretation.
 
phiwum said:
I said I don't disagree with the expressed sentiment. Geez Louise.
Click to expand...
You don't disagree but you still labeled it NIMBY.

I don't think NIMBY is the issue. That implies it is only the location that is the problem: yes we need a wall, just not here.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You don't disagree but you still labeled it NIMBY.

I don't think NIMBY is the issue. That implies it is only the location that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Oh, for God's sake, I labeled it NIMBY because it is a literal case of "Not In My Back Yard". I was explicitly not using NIMBY in the traditional, pejorative sense.

Give it a rest. Save your righteous indignation for appropriate targets.

ETA: Of course location is not the only problem. Duh. There are many good reasons for opposing Trump's wall. I have said so repeatedly, though not in the post that pulled your hair trigger because that post was just a simple, innocent observation that land owners are objecting, in part, to the construction of a wall on their property, loosely, their back yards.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
It's hard to express anything simply enough on this forum to avoid having it twisted -- "screwed up" is a telling Britishism -- into a monkey's head knot by one or more of our career objectors.
Click to expand...
Am I supposed to be one of the career objectors? :rolleyes:

I explained my objection, care to address the explanation rather than the "twisted" version of it?


sackett said:
Trumb's wall? A crude boondoggle, meant only to shovel money into his pals' pockets, and his. They won't even bother with laundering it.
Click to expand...
I don't object to this, I think it's about right. I think we need to see who Trump is paying for said wall and make it public.
 
sackett said:
It's hard to express anything simply enough on this forum to avoid having it twisted -- "screwed up" is a telling Britishism -- into a monkey's head knot by one or more of our career objectors.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
phiwum said:
I believe I've seen a couple of posts to the effect that open borders are a good thing here on ISF, but I couldn't produce links to them or remember who the poster was. It's a very minority view, supported by no national politician I could name, and I've no reason to think that Skeptic Ginger is in that camp.

Perhaps Chris is asking an innocent question to clarify SG's position. It does seem like a leap, given the post which prompted the question (she merely pointed out that those on the Texas/Mexico border are opposed to the wall and it seems she is too), but it's harmless enough on its own. Better to ask such a question than to presume anyone opposed to the wall is opposed to all border security, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I was appalled that Democratic Representative Gutierrez was for open borders. I believe he is the only one I saw with that POV.

Obviously it is not the common view of the Democrats but the right-wing, including Trump, have been repeating the lie so often they believe it no matter how many times it is refuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom