President Camacho vs President Trump, who will preform better?

[xul]

Idiocracy is a 2006 American Sci-Fi movie.

Idiocracy

Idiocracy Trailer on YouTube

The plot is:

A plain US Army solider Corporal "Average Joe" Bauers and a prostitute Rita are selected for a suspended animation experiment. Somehow the experiment goes wrong and when they wake up 500 years later, they find the IQ of men has gone down so low that people elected a rock star Camacho as president. The president and his cabinet know nothing about how to manage a country. The only thing they can do well is their f**king business. So, President Camacho has to count on Average Joe, the smartest citizen of his nation, to save the USA....

My point is:

In the 500 years future, President Camacho does have saved the world, with little help from Average Joe.

But in next 4 years, who will come from the future or past to help President Trump to save USA?

 

[betsy]

1 hour ago, xul said:

Idiocracy is a 2006 American Sci-Fi movie.

Idiocracy

Idiocracy Trailer on YouTube

The plot is:

A plain US Army solider Corporal "Average Joe" Bauers and a prostitute Rita are selected for a suspended animation experiment. Somehow the experiment goes wrong and when they wake up 500 years later, they find the IQ of men has gone down so low that people elected a rock star Camacho as president. The president and his cabinet know nothing about how to manage a country. The only thing they can do well is their f**king business. So, President Camacho has to count on Average Joe, the smartest citizen of his nation, to save the USA....

My point is:

In the 500 years future, President Camacho does have saved the world, with little help from Average Joe.

But in next 4 years, who will come from the future or past to help President Trump to save USA?

 

 

You need not look to 500 years in the future.  It happened already!  The USA has just been saved from .....

 

 

Quote

a dystopian society where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism have run rampant,

 

and is devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights.

 

The masterminds and their cronies were above the law.  Human rights was a farce - they're killing the innocents!  They're selling off the nation, and they don't care about its people.

The country was like the land of the lotus-eaters, half the population walking around like mindless sleep-walkers, and  medicated experiment lab parrots -  brainwashed by the rock star media - they're all repeating the same mindless cliche! 

 It was the"average Joe".....the "basket of deplorables,  and rednecks, and Evangelicals, women and Latinos, and other everyday folks,  who preferred to remain anonymous and un-reached by the deployed polls".........that  had all come out to help Trump. 

Imagine the monster cancer called corruption, eating its way all the way to the core, had the masterminds given another 4 years to wreak more havoc. 

 

  Now, there's a new challenge.  Somebody has to come up with a miracle cure to get that sleepwalking mindless half  back to normal.                                                It's code-named:  Mission Impossible.

That classified information is not on a public server.

 

 

Talk about life imitating fiction.......or the other way around.

Edited November 10, 2016 by betsy

[August1991]

Make no mistake: Unlike Bush Jnr or Clinton (or our Justin Trudeau), Trump (at age 70) has nothing to prove to anyone.

My call.

======

Note to Leftists: Comparisons of Trump (rich guy, 70 arriving at power) and Hitler (poor guy, 50 arriving at power) make no sense. Rather, if you're desperate, compare Trump to Berlusconi.

Edited November 11, 2016 by August1991

[xul]

I bet President Trump will lose the competition, fail his voters

because:

1.President Camacho's IQ is low, but all the people of the nation are also as low as him, so teaming up with Average Joe----the smartest person of the nation, makes the IQ of the ruling party far above the IQ of anybody in the nation. 

President Trump's IQ isn't as low as President Camacho, but if you think this will make him a better President than Camacho you are wrong. Unfortunately there are many people of the nation whose IQ are above President Trump----I mean, the CEOs and MBAs of multinational corporations, bankers of Wall Street, lawyers of all sort of interest groups, and of course,  his rival politicians. Against all of these, do you real think he could stand a chance to make any real change which he promised his voters?

 

2. Maybe President Camacho is stupid, but you can not deny that he truthfully wants to solve all the problems in his nation.

But, do you really think President Trump was truthful, when he told his voters that he would build a wall around the boarder? or he had a secret strategy to win the unwinnable wars? or Americans could draw the jobs back by simply creating trade barriers against other countries?

If he wasn't truthful, just like Rhett Butler (Gone with the Wind) joining in the Confederate Army for stealing its gold won't help the Confederate to win the war, how could Trump's voters expect him to do anything good for them?

Edited November 11, 2016 by xul

[betsy]

2 hours ago, xul said:

I bet President Trump will lose the competition, fail his voters

because:

1.President Camacho's IQ is low, but all the people of the nation are also as low as him, so teaming up with Average Joe----the smartest person of the nation, makes the IQ of the ruling party far above the IQ of anybody in the nation. 

President Trump's IQ isn't as low as President Camacho, but if you think this will make him a better President than Camacho you are wrong. Unfortunately there are many people of the nation whose IQ are above President Trump----I mean, the CEOs and MBAs of multinational corporations, bankers of Wall Street, lawyers of all sort of interest groups, and of course,  his rival politicians. Against all of these, do you real think he could stand a chance to make any real change which he promised his voters?

 

2. Maybe President Camacho is stupid, but you can not deny that he truthfully wants to solve all the problems in his nation.

But, do you really think President Trump was truthful, when he told his voters that he would build a wall around the boarder? or he had a secret strategy to win the unwinnable wars? or Americans could draw the jobs back by simply creating trade barriers against other countries?

If he wasn't truthful, just like Rhett Butler (Gone with the Wind) joining in the Confederate Army for stealing its gold won't help the Confederate to win the war, how could Trump's voters expect him to do anything good for them?

 

 

Well, you'll just have to wait and see.  He's got about 4 years  to do what he's promised.....and he hasn't started day 1 yet.

 

Anyway, even if he do only a fraction of his promises, he's still way better than the alternative Hillary.

Heck, just getting rid of Hillary, is good reason enough for me - the best thing to happen to America -  even if he doesn't do anything else.  But of course, he'll make some changes.

It's another playbook. So, there.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by betsy

[segnosaur]

Love the movie Idiocracy. Have it in my DVD collection.

Anways, the winner would be: Camacho. The reason: for all his failings, Camancho was at least able to pick the "smartest person on the planet".

On the other hand, Trump has a reputation for... not picking the best people. When he started his mortgage company (and promptly saw it fail), he blamed the failure on the people he hired to run the company. And when he "hand picked" the people to teach at Trump University, he selected a child molester and a bunch of people who had no experience in real estate.

So yeah, at least Camancho can pick the right people.

 

[August1991]

According to Krugman, Trump's election will be a disaster in the long-term

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/thoughts-for-the-horrified.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

=====

I recall similar comments (in the US) about Reagan's election in 1980. And yet, after Reagan, China and Russia changed.

As it happens, I had the chance to travel to China and Russia in the early 1980s. I started then to realise that someone like Ronald Reagan has a better understanding of human behaviour than any John Kenneth Galbraith or a less literate Paul Krugman.

Krugman vs Trump?

I bet on America. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by August1991

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

I recall similar comments (in the US) about Reagan's election in 1980. And yet, after Reagan, China and Russia changed.

 

While it is certainly reasonable to credit Reagan's influence on some of the change in Russia, or more appropriately the Soviet Union, I don't see how he had any significant effect in China. Yes, the post-Mao China is vastly different today but Reagan had little influence there. China's economic evolution happened in many phases, some of them pre-dating the Reagan years and some after. China's political transformation has been far slower and less pronounced than its economic transformation. 

[xul]

On 11/11/2016 at 10:16 AM, segnosaur said:

Love the movie Idiocracy. Have it in my DVD collection.

Anways, the winner would be: Camacho. The reason: for all his failings, Camancho was at least able to pick the "smartest person on the planet".

On the other hand, Trump has a reputation for... not picking the best people. When he started his mortgage company (and promptly saw it fail), he blamed the failure on the people he hired to run the company. And when he "hand picked" the people to teach at Trump University, he selected a child molester and a bunch of people who had no experience in real estate.

So yeah, at least Camancho can pick the right people.

 

I also love the movie and it's in my DVD collection too.

You made a good point. Camacho can choose right people working for him, so he still makes a wise boss.

As for Trump, though there were cases in which he made poor choices as you have pointed out, I'm sure as a successful business man, in most cases he used to pick up the right men-----the cheap underpaid illegal immigrant construction labours.

How on earth could his voters expect this guy to stop illegal immigrants when he used to exploit them to make his way to success?

Donald Trump

The building occupies the former site of the architecturally significant Bonwit Teller flagship store. Its demolition in 1980 was controversial due to the destruction of valuable Art Deco bas-relief sculptures on its facade,^[46][47] as well as a contractor's use of some 200 undocumented Polish immigrant workers, who were reportedly paid 4–5 dollars per hour for work in 12-hour shifts.^[48][49] Trump testified in 1990 that he rarely visited the site and was unaware of the illegal workers.

 

[xul]

On 11/11/2016 at 9:37 AM, betsy said:

 

 

Well, you'll just have to wait and see.  He's got about 4 years  to do what he's promised.....and he hasn't started day 1 yet.

 

Anyway, even if he do only a fraction of his promises, he's still way better than the alternative Hillary.

Heck, just getting rid of Hillary, is good reason enough for me - the best thing to happen to America -  even if he doesn't do anything else.  But of course, he'll make some changes.

It's another playbook. So, there.

 

 

I'm not sure how many day has left to his day 1 in White House, but it seems like he has already begun to back off from his promises.

Trump says Mexico border wall could be fence in 'certain areas' in 60 Minutes interview

Donald Trump Just Said He Might Be Willing to Keep Parts of Obamacare

Trump hasn't revealed his secret plans to win the unwinnable wars----I wish it would not be as simple as using F-35s instead of F-16s to drop bombs everywhere around the world.

If he becomes Obama the Second----I mean he promised to change but can't change anything, I can imagine how frustrated his voters will be, and can not imagine how far they would will to go to release the frustration after President Trump has failed them. It will be no good thing to America, unless you think that the president next to President Trump is President Hitler or President Stalin is the best thing of America.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, xul said:

I'm not sure how many day has left to his day 1 in White House, but it seems like he has already begun to back off from his promises.

Trump says Mexico border wall could be fence in 'certain areas' in 60 Minutes interview

Donald Trump Just Said He Might Be Willing to Keep Parts of Obamacare

 

Keeping parts of the ACA were always part of Republican bills to replace Obamacare (e.g. pre-existing conditions and children coverage until age 26).

Nothing new with Trump's comments. 

[Bryan]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Keeping parts of the ACA were always part of Republican bills to replace Obamacare (e.g. pre-existing conditions and children coverage until age 26).

Nothing new with Trump's comments. 

Yes, that's why his campaign laid out a plan that involved 10 pieces of legislation to replace the ACA. Simply cancelling it outright was never what he was proposing.

 

[segnosaur]

4 hours ago, Bryan said:

Keeping parts of the ACA were always part of Republican bills to replace Obamacare (e.g. pre-existing conditions and children coverage until age 26).

Nothing new with Trump's comments. 

Yes, that's why his campaign laid out a plan that involved 10 pieces of legislation to replace the ACA. Simply cancelling it outright was never what he was proposing.

 

From: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

Notice the wording? Actually used "full repeal". Sounds to me like his original plan was to cancel it. Of course this could all be an evil media plan to distort Trump's actual plans. 

As for his "new" plan to keep parts of Obamacare (e.g. preexisting conditions, etc.), you can't just pick and choose specific pieces of a plan like the Affordable Care Act. Its a complex piece of legislation with various interdependencies. Its all fine and good to say "Our plan will handle preexisting conditions", but unless an actual full and complete plan is presented (which hasn't been done by either Trump or the Republicans) its an empty promise.

 

[segnosaur]

8 hours ago, xul said:

Trump hasn't revealed his secret plans to win the unwinnable wars-

But he did. He'll fire all the generals. And ask them to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. But it doesn't matter because he's smarter than the generals. 

He's also suggested committing war crimes (killing the families of terrorists, even when they are not themselves engaged in terrorist activity) and using bullets dipped in pigs blood.

I wish it would not be as simple as using F-35s instead of F-16s to drop bombs everywhere around the world.

Trump has suggested he might cancel the F35.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/29/trump-wants-fire-f-35/74800906/

[betsy]

10 hours ago, xul said:

I'm not sure how many day has left to his day 1 in White House, but it seems like he has already begun to back off from his promises.

Trump says Mexico border wall could be fence in 'certain areas' in 60 Minutes interview

Donald Trump Just Said He Might Be Willing to Keep Parts of Obamacare

Trump hasn't revealed his secret plans to win the unwinnable wars----I wish it would not be as simple as using F-35s instead of F-16s to drop bombs everywhere around the world.

If he becomes Obama the Second----I mean he promised to change but can't change anything, I can imagine how frustrated his voters will be, and can not imagine how far they would will to go to release the frustration after President Trump has failed them. It will be no good thing to America, unless you think that the president next to President Trump is President Hitler or President Stalin is the best thing of America.

 

What's wrong with a fence?  You don't have to take years to build it.....you can put it up in days!  Austria is building one on the border with Italy. 

 

Maybe he's trying to be diplomatic with Mexico.  A solid wall all the way is too expensive for Mexico. And maybe, hiring more border patrols is also part of creating jobs!  

Instead of the USA spending billions in trials and incarceration of illegals - they're better off to hire more border patrols to stem the flow.  Surely you're not too naive to think no one will try to scale the fence or wall, do you?  All those regions along the border - think of the jobs that'll be created!   On top of that, these border patrols can become additional defense unit, if needed.  Two birds with one stone!

 

Yoo-hoo.  Wakey-wakey.  FYI, the most important change has already happened:  The Clintons are gone! 

Of course, he can't change EVERYTHING.  To have that expectation is..... childish.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by betsy

[segnosaur]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

What's wrong with a fence?  You don't have to take years to build it.....you can put it up in days! 
 

Well, how about the fact that it would be a pretty much useless endeavor. Most illegal aliens did not get into the U.S. by sneaking across the border... most are in the country on expired Visas. And even if some crossed the border, neither a wall nor fence are likely to stop them.

And even if a fence can be built faster/cheaper than a wall, its still going to cost millions/billions.

And then there are all the other side effects: The harm to wildlife (both a fence and a wall would interfere with migration patterns of various species in the area. The annoyance to those who live in the area. (Since neither a fence nor a wall can go exactly along the border, some American land has to be used for it. The existing fences has caused problems for residents in the area, as they often have seen property divided by the existing fence. They have to sometimes go through border control just to get to other parts of of the U.S.)

Both Obama and Clinton had supported the previous work to build the fence. Both seem to have realized it was a mistake. On the other hand, Trump is doubling down on the stupidity, taking what was a bad idea and expanding on it.

Oh, and there's yet another reason... it was a broken election promise by Trump. Trump promised a wall. Not a fence. His supporters should be annoyed if they don't get their wall. But then most of them are too dumb to realize it.

Maybe he's trying to be diplomatic with Mexico.  A solid wall all the way is too expensive for Mexico.

Only a complete and total idiot would think that Mexico would be paying for an American wall.

Which explains why Trump supporters would think its a possibility.

 

[eyeball]

He didn't just promise a wall he promised a "great great border wall" (Trump's words).  Google up great wall and you get pretty much the same image that automatically comes to most minds.  Only a complete idiot would argue he really just meant a great great fence.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Well, how about the fact that it would be a pretty much useless endeavor. Most illegal aliens did not get into the U.S. by sneaking across the border... most are in the country on expired Visas.

 

Correct.....Canadian illegals lead the world in U.S. visa overstays according to U.S. Homeland Security.

[betsy]

3 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Well, how about the fact that it would be a pretty much useless endeavor.

 

You're speculating that it'll be useless.    Austria is using a fence.

Furthermore....

He's not saying that the whole border will all be fenced. 

 

Quote

segnosaur:

Most illegal aliens did not get into the U.S. by sneaking across the border... most are in the country on expired Visas. And even if some crossed the border, neither a wall nor fence are likely to stop them.

    More speculations.  Cite.  You don't know what you're talking about, I bet.

 

 

Quote

Even as border apprehensions dropped, deportations of Mexican immigrants reached a record high in 2013 of 314,904, up from 169,031 in 2005. This is due in part to a 2005 shift in policy that has increased the chances of being deported following  apprehension in the border region, instead of just being sent back without an order of removal.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

 

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that applicants will be more scrutinized before being issued visa. 

 

BTW, the wall was not only meant for stopping Mexicans!

 

Quote

More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in 2014, the first time on record this has happened. In fiscal 2014, 229,178 Mexicans were apprehended, a sharp drop from a peak of 1.6 million apprehended in 2000.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

 

 

[segnosaur]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Re: use of border fence...

You're speculating that it'll be useless.    Austria is using a fence.
 

It will be useless because 1) As I said, most illegal immigrants don't sneak across the US/Mexican border, and 2) The ones who do can easily get around a wall or fence.

As for Austria building a fence... so what? They don't have it in place now. There are European countries that have built fences, but for the most part it just means refugees end up using smugglers, or going around the fences, or finding other ways though.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-fences-insight-idUSKCN0X10U7

in the short term at least, they have not stopped people trying to come. Instead, they have diverted them, often to longer, more dangerous routes... As a solution, some migrants and refugees buy fake papers. Others stow away in vehicles. Or they turn to people-smugglers.

Quote

He's not saying that the whole border will all be fenced.

So, what's your point?

If you're suggesting the unfenced part will be walled, then the cost is increased. If you're suggesting the unfenced parts will be left with nothing, then you end up with a gap so that people can go around the barriers.

Quote

Re: Illegal immigrants overstaying visas more often than illegally crossing border

More speculations.  Cite.  You don't know what you're talking about, I bet.

 

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424879/visa-overstays-todays-immigration-crisis-mark-krikorian

2012, when nearly 60 percent of new illegal immigrants are believed to have entered legally on some sort of visa (or visa-waiver status, if they’re from a developed country) and then just stayed on after their time expired.

And of course there are also the people who have entered the U.S. on sham marriages, or illegally cross the border at crossings by hiding in cars (i.e. the type of things that a wall or fence won't stop.)

By the way, I notice you ignored 2 issues that I raised earlier...

1) That any wall or fence will significantly harm wildlife in the area

From: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/environmental-impact-us-mexico-border-wall-426310.html

Species with small populations and specialized habitats have suffered the most from the disruption, says Jesse Lasky, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State. He co-authored a 2011 study reporting that the barrier reduced the range for some species by as much as 75 percent. Small range size is associated with a higher risk of extinction

2) That those that live near the border fence often end up with problems, such as having land expropriated to build the fence, or having their property divided. Given the fact that Trump and the republicans are supposed to be defending the little guy against big bad government, it seems ironic that Trump would want to use government to squash people's property rights.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/oliver-dumps-trump-wall-plans-week-tonight-article-1.2571670

Edited November 14, 2016 by segnosaur
fix to tags

[betsy]

14 hours ago, segnosaur said:

It will be useless because 1) As I said, most illegal immigrants don't sneak across the US/Mexican border, and 2) The ones who do can easily get around a wall or fence.

As for Austria building a fence... so what? They don't have it in place now. There are European countries that have built fences, but for the most part it just means refugees end up using smugglers, or going around the fences, or finding other ways though.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-fences-insight-idUSKCN0X10U7

in the short term at least, they have not stopped people trying to come. Instead, they have diverted them, often to longer, more dangerous routes... As a solution, some migrants and refugees buy fake papers. Others stow away in vehicles. Or they turn to people-smugglers.

So, what's your point?

If you're suggesting the unfenced part will be walled, then the cost is increased. If you're suggesting the unfenced parts will be left with nothing, then you end up with a gap so that people can go around the barriers.

 

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424879/visa-overstays-todays-immigration-crisis-mark-krikorian

2012, when nearly 60 percent of new illegal immigrants are believed to have entered legally on some sort of visa (or visa-waiver status, if they’re from a developed country) and then just stayed on after their time expired.

And of course there are also the people who have entered the U.S. on sham marriages, or illegally cross the border at crossings by hiding in cars (i.e. the type of things that a wall or fence won't stop.)

By the way, I notice you ignored 2 issues that I raised earlier...

1) That any wall or fence will significantly harm wildlife in the area

From: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/environmental-impact-us-mexico-border-wall-426310.html

Species with small populations and specialized habitats have suffered the most from the disruption, says Jesse Lasky, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State. He co-authored a 2011 study reporting that the barrier reduced the range for some species by as much as 75 percent. Small range size is associated with a higher risk of extinction

2) That those that live near the border fence often end up with problems, such as having land expropriated to build the fence, or having their property divided. Given the fact that Trump and the republicans are supposed to be defending the little guy against big bad government, it seems ironic that Trump would want to use government to squash people's property rights.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/oliver-dumps-trump-wall-plans-week-tonight-article-1.2571670

 You don't think that the wall or the fence would mean that there will be no more illegal immigrants, do you? 

You're not naive as to think that Trump is going to stop all illegal immigration, are you?

 

You think those that live near the border wouldn't welcome some form of barrier between them, and the illegals, especially the criminal element?  You think they welcome rapists or the drug cartel-related illegals going through their property?  You feel any security for your family at all, if you're living near the border?  What stops any undesirables from pillaging and raping....and running across the border again?  What stops them from snatching women and kids,  and carrying them across the border to Mexico for human trafficking?  Do you know there's human trafficking going on?  You think that's not happening?

The fact that Trump won, indicates that majority like the idea of a wall!

 

It's meant as a deterrent, Segnosaur.  Instead of a flow -  tsunami, more like it with the Dems - it should be just a trickle.

 

Anyway, all your blather is meaningless right now.  We'll have to wait and see.

Edited November 15, 2016 by betsy

[xul]

On 13/11/2016 at 8:38 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Keeping parts of the ACA were always part of Republican bills to replace Obamacare (e.g. pre-existing conditions and children coverage until age 26).

Nothing new with Trump's comments. 

President or not, Trump has not been and will not be a Republican tame pet. I think you has already know that he has never been and will never be a traditional politician.

If Trump had the power which Hitler, Stalin or Deng Xiaoping had, he would succeed to achieve what the most of his voters want.

Since he hadn't the power, in the next 4 years, he will waste most his time on arguing with his cabinet,  with Republicans, with Democrats,  with CEOs, bankers, lawyers, Pentagon generals.....and American allies. Even if he genuinely wanted to make some change, he would have little time to do it.

Edited November 16, 2016 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, xul said:

Since he hadn't the power, in the next 4 years, he will waste most his time on arguing with his cabinet,  with Republicans, with Democrats,  with CEOs, bankers, lawyers, Pentagon generals.....and American allies. Even if he genuinely wanted to make some change, he would have little time to do it.

 

This is exactly what should be expected.   This was just another U.S. election.  I don't know why it is being blown out of proportion compared to previous elections.

[DogOnPorch]

That's why "the first 100 days" talk...

[segnosaur]

On 11/15/2016 at 7:02 AM, betsy said:

 You don't think that the wall or the fence would mean that there will be no more illegal immigrants, do you? 
 

No I don't. In fact that was the point I was making.... that the wall would be mostly ineffective in doing anything to stop illegal immigration, especially when compared to the costs.

Not really sure what your point is here. I've been claiming the wall will be pretty much ineffective. Now it seems you're agreeing with me. So why are you suggesting its still a good thing?

You're not naive as to think that Trump is going to stop all illegal immigration, are you?

Trump's exact words: This election is our last chance to secure the border, stop illegal immigration, and reform our laws to make your life better. (from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-immigration-speech/)

Notice the use of the word "stop"? Trump didn't promise to slow down illegal immigration. He said he would stop it. Which, to a person familiar with the english language, would mean ended. Terminated. No more.

So Trump certainly made a claim that illegal immigration would be stopped. Many of his supporters foolishly assumed he would do so.

You think those that live near the border wouldn't welcome some form of barrier between

them, and the illegals, especially the criminal element?

No, I don't think they would. I've already pointed out the various problems with the wall and the effect that it has on the people that live there... many people have their land seized, property gets subdivided, American territory gets left on the Mexican side of the fence. These are all negative effects. And, lets face it, its an eyesore.

As for the "criminal element"... From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/

... incarceration rates for males between 18 and 39, since most crimes are committed by males in that age range. Using data from the 2010 Census, the report found that 1.6% of foreign-born males are in jail, compared with 3.3% of the native-born population... studies conducted in recent decades. In each case, they found evidence to show that undocumented immigrants were less likely to commit violent crimes than their native-born neighbors.

So those illegal immigrants crossing the border may actually be less of a threat to people living on the border than native born Americans.

So why would people living on the border want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being spent in order to have the government grab their land and put up an ugly wall or fence that won't stop illegal immigrants, who for the most part are less of a threat to the people living there than people who were actually born in the U.S.?

The fact that Trump won, indicates that majority like the idea of a wall!

The fact that a majority of people believe a foolish thing doesn't necessarily mean that the thing they believe in is not foolish.

It's meant as a deterrent, Segnosaur.  Instead of a

flow -  tsunami, more like it with the Dems - it should be just a trickle.

Except its not a tsunami. In fact, illegal immigration is actually down over the past few years.

Nor will the wall do anything to affect that flow, because as I pointed out, border crossings do not constitute a majority of illegal immigrants.

Anyway, all your blather is meaningless right now.  We'll have to wait and see.

My "blather" is based on actual facts, for which I have provided numerous references. You on the other hand have engaged in the empty, factless hysterics that seem to have fueled Trump's campaign.

Nobody is suggesting the issue of illegal immigration should be ignored. But its a complex subject, with significant social and economic repercussions. The empty-headed mantra of "build a wall" illustrates emotion over reason, hysteria over facts.