Board 8 > Supreme court allows Trump to use military funds to build the wall

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ohhh baby its finally happening
---

So is Trump giving control of our military to Mexico or what because otherwise I dont see how Mexico is paying for it lol

PerfectChaosZ posted...

So is Trump giving control of our military to Mexico or what because otherwise I dont see how Mexico is paying for it lol

If America sends million upon millions in donations or help to Mexico in various forms every year we simply scale that way back. We also use taxes and tariffs on stuff they import/export from us.
---

If I stop giving someone money that isn't them paying for something, and paying slightly more for something unrelated isn't either. Do you honestly believe a tax will cover a fifth of the wall?

I'm pretty sure most people have no idea who pays tariffs on imports.

(hint: its not Mexico)

the excuses people come up with to rationalize that "mexico is paying for the wall" are always so dumb
---

Note that they did not actually say that what Trump did was legal (it wasnt); they ruled that the plaintiffs didnt have standing to sue.
---

Trump supporters are the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.
Mod me.
---

MMXcalibur posted...

Trump supporters are the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.
Mod me.

I dont like lots of things trump does or says but I have a hard time when people hate on his "supporters". You're lumping a majority of the entire country into a box. Some people voted for him simply because they hated Hillary or what she stood for. I understand the vocal crowd look the worst but the same can be said for anything eith a userbase from video games to religions.

Here in Canada we are close to a federal election with a great chance at a new PM and yet we get more daily Trump news than our own political stuff.

LadyVyxx posted...

MMXcalibur posted...

Trump supporters are the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.
Mod me.

I dont like lots of things trump does or says but I have a hard time when people hate on his "supporters". You're lumping a majority of the entire country into a box. Some people voted for him simply because they hated Hillary or what she stood for. I understand the vocal crowd look the worst but the same can be said for anything eith a userbase from video games to religions.

Here in Canada we are close to a federal election with a great chance at a new PM and yet we get more daily Trump news than our own political stuff.

also canadian here

you just described a bunch of morons
---

LadyVyxx posted...

a majority of the entire country

Nope
---

the racism monument sucks, but I can get behind a dismantling of US imperialism, no matter how small
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

a majority of the entire country

Nope

So he just got elected based on swagger and toupee arrangements

LadyVyxx posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

a majority of the entire country

Nope

So he just got elected based on swagger and toupee arrangements

And a minority of the voters, yes.
---

Inviso posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

a majority of the entire country

Nope

So he just got elected based on swagger and toupee arrangements

And a minority of the voters, yes.

I understand the popular vote system vs electoral one but that's the rules. I'm counting it as the majority liked him seeing as only 55.7% of eligible voters cast a vote so the other 44.3% didnt bother to vote so you cant tell me they disliked him when they couldn't be bothered to vote against him in such a tight election

LadyVyxx posted...

Inviso posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

a majority of the entire country

Nope

So he just got elected based on swagger and toupee arrangements

And a minority of the voters, yes.

I understand the popular vote system vs electoral one but that's the rules. I'm counting it as the majority liked him seeing as only 55.7% of eligible voters cast a vote so the other 44.3% didnt bother to vote so you cant tell me they disliked him when they couldn't be bothered to vote against him in such a tight election

But you can say definitively that a "majority of the entire country" when the only actual numbers we have is not a majority?

If they liked him, why couldn't they be bothered to vote for him in such a tight election?
---

Also it wasnt supposed to be a tight election by most predictions
---

Like, if you were eligible to vote for Trump and you didnt, I wouldnt count you as a Trump supporter

At best you are Trump-neutral
---

LadyVyxx posted...

I understand the popular vote system vs electoral one but that's the rules. I'm counting it as the majority liked him seeing as only 55.7% of eligible voters cast a vote so the other 44.3% didnt bother to vote so you cant tell me they disliked him when they couldn't be bothered to vote against him in such a tight election

That's not how it works

And his approval rating leading up to the election was below 40%. A large number of the people who voted for him disliked him too.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also it wasnt supposed to be a tight election by most predictions

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Jakyl25 posted...

Like, if you were eligible to vote for Trump and you didnt, I wouldnt count you as a Trump supporter

At best you are Trump-neutral

You're right, I just feel like people will vote against someone if they detest them enough. The tru o neutral folk who didnt vote are surely a massive number.

Again I'm canadian so I have no horse in this race I'm just observing. Not sure if I was American I could vote for either and there is no smaller party that has ever stood a chance. In canada we have quite a few parties that have held office although in the end they all make huge mistakes.

Our upcoming election I'll be voting Green Party probably

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Oh.
---

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Imagine being stupid enough to think this is how any of this works.

The polls were incredibly accurate for the 2016 Presidential Election btw

LadyVyxx posted...

MMXcalibur posted...

Trump supporters are the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.
Mod me.

I dont like lots of things trump does or says but I have a hard time when people hate on his "supporters". You're lumping a majority of the entire country into a box. Some people voted for him simply because they hated Hillary or what she stood for. I understand the vocal crowd look the worst but the same can be said for anything eith a userbase from video games to religions.

Here in Canada we are close to a federal election with a great chance at a new PM and yet we get more daily Trump news than our own political stuff.

He didn't say trump voters, he said trump supporters. Big difference imo.

Anyway what happens when Trump is kicked out next year, does the next pres just cancel it? Lol
---

I imagine they would honor the contracts Trump agreed to, or at least they should
---

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Imagine being stupid enough to think this is how any of this works.

The polls were incredibly accurate for the 2016 Presidential Election btw

Are you telling me news stations owned by Dem supporters wouldn't do everything in their power to try and pull for Hillary

Yes but thats handled in editorial segments. All of the polls were roughly the same, even conservative ones like Fox
---

"I don't even like Trump"

"Fake news!"

thinkingFaceEmoji
---

StealThisSheen posted...

"I don't even like Trump"

"Fake news!"

thinkingFaceEmoji

Hillary never gets the credit for introducing the term to the race :-(
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I imagine they would honor the contracts Trump agreed to, or at least they should

They would presumably still make promised payments but cancel the work
---

LadyVyxx posted...

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Imagine being stupid enough to think this is how any of this works.

The polls were incredibly accurate for the 2016 Presidential Election btw

Are you telling me news stations owned by Dem supporters wouldn't do everything in their power to try and pull for Hillary

I'm telling you that those literally don't exist, and you are literally a victim of propaganda if you think they do. Aside from Fox News (which is literally and demonstrably in the tank for the Republican Party), 99% of US media cares far more about profits than which party holds power.

Hell, the guy in charge of CBS literally said that Trump and his campaign "May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS"

Yes the news stations that just a few days ago focused on the "optics" of the Mueller hearing instead of the fact that there were multiple clearly impeachable offenses described are totally in the tank for the Dems
---

Yeah, despite constant scandals, underhanded dealings, general incompetence, and racism...the media still made equal coverage out of "but her e-mails", making it seem like the ONE black spot against Hillary was something far worst than all the little things Trump had under his belt.
---

Inviso posted...

Yeah, despite constant scandals, underhanded dealings, general incompetence, and racism...the media still made equal coverage out of "but her e-mails", making it seem like the ONE black spot against Hillary was something far worst than all the little things Trump had under his belt.

Now including, ironically, staffers using private email and WhatsApp for government purposes
---

This is something I've been wondering for a while. Let's say there really was a campaign to try and mislead voters into believing the election would not be close when in fact it was expected to be close. A lot of voters won't show up if the side they support will obviously lose but a lot of voters won't show up if the side they support will obviously win. How would the people behind the campaign even know which side benefits more?
---

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Imagine being stupid enough to think this is how any of this works.

The polls were incredibly accurate for the 2016 Presidential Election btw

Are you telling me news stations owned by Dem supporters wouldn't do everything in their power to try and pull for Hillary

I'm telling you that those literally don't exist, and you are literally a victim of propaganda if you think they do. Aside from Fox News (which is literally and demonstrably in the tank for the Republican Party), 99% of US media cares far more about profits than which party holds power.

Hell, the guy in charge of CBS literally said that Trump and his campaign "May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS"

Well if I'm wrong I'm wrong, thanks for giving me food for thought.

LadyVyxx posted...

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Reg posted...

LadyVyxx posted...

Yeah that Democrat strategy worked out well with the fake polls and news stations telling trump supporters not to bother

Imagine being stupid enough to think this is how any of this works.

The polls were incredibly accurate for the 2016 Presidential Election btw

Are you telling me news stations owned by Dem supporters wouldn't do everything in their power to try and pull for Hillary

I'm telling you that those literally don't exist, and you are literally a victim of propaganda if you think they do. Aside from Fox News (which is literally and demonstrably in the tank for the Republican Party), 99% of US media cares far more about profits than which party holds power.

Hell, the guy in charge of CBS literally said that Trump and his campaign "May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS"

Well if I'm wrong I'm wrong, thanks for giving me food for thought.

I will be the first to freely admit that the pursuit of profit at all costs seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon in the media specifically (As far as I can tell, at least. Could be wrong), so if you're unfamiliar with that I can see why you'd think that the media is outright partisan.

It's just... not. Aside from Fox. If I had to assign a political leaning to the US Media as a whole it'd be heavily Corporatist far more than left or right/Republican or Democrat.

Which is why none of them like Bernie.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Which is why none of them like Bernie.

Yes, this is a good point. If you were to put corporatism on the left/right spectrum in the US, it'd be a mostly right-wing thing while also heavily overlapping with the center/center-left. Especially because the right is generally all-in on it at this point, while what passes for the left in the US has a small-but-growing anti-corporatism sentiment which is epitomized by the movement around Sanders. The right has no such movement that I've seen/been made aware of beyond their occasional bitching about social media platforms when somebody gets banned for spewing hateful rhetoric.

Special shoutouts to the "Libertarian" movement for being a "We want the right to get completely fucked over by megacorps without government intervention or any recourse of our own" ideology.

(This also requires non-US people to understand that what passes as "Far Left" in the US would be at most centrist or slightly center-left worldwide)

The personal political views of most mainstream journalists are not the things driving their coverage. Most of them try to be "fair to both sides," which results in them easily being gamed by the Republicans using bad faith accusations of bias. That's why you end up with a fucking private email server being given equivalent coverage to like fifty Trump scandals; that way the media gets to feel like they're being fair despite the fact that they're actually massively biasing things towards Trump (despite the fact that that's not their intention).
---

mainstream media has definitely acclimated to using "Racially charged" in place of "racist".

They play right into Trump's hands because they are so afraid of alienating any sort of viewership.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The personal political views of most mainstream journalists are not the things driving their coverage. Most of them try to be "fair to both sides," which results in them easily being gamed by the Republicans using bad faith accusations of bias. That's why you end up with a fucking private email server being given equivalent coverage to like fifty Trump scandals; that way the media gets to feel like they're being fair despite the fact that they're actually massively biasing things towards Trump (despite the fact that that's not their intention).

Yeah, that's another thing to be clear on. We're not talking individual reporter (or pundit) scale. We're talking corporate-wide (and multi-corporation) scales here.

Which individual reporters will usually fall in line with, because the alternative is usually being out of a job

Let's all just take a moment to remember that we only vehemently oppose the wall because Trump wants it.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Let's all just take a moment to remember that we only vehemently oppose the wall because Trump wants it.

no, we vehemently oppose the wall because it's a fucking stupid idea that doesn't solve anything
---

Why doesn't it solve anything?
---

why can't illegal immigrants use ladders to climb over the wall?

why can't they go around in boats?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

why can't illegal immigrants use ladders to climb over the wall?

why can't they go around in boats?

You are making ridiculous deflections here.

The point of a wall is that it makes crossing it more difficult. This allows less manpower on the border itself. Which frees up manpower to stop other types of illegal immigration.

I mean the fact you are simply gonna say something like "hurr durr they can just go around the wall on a boat" is just dumb. The wall would help stop more illegal immigration of all types due to lessening manpower needed on the border itself allowing it to focus on other areas moreso.

The common illegal immigrant also isn't hauling boats around with them also.

There is a huge clog in our processing of illegal immigrants due to the overwhelming numbers. It is safe to say that measures must be taken in order to help alleviate this process. There have been other options besides a wall to help alleviate this that Democrats have blocked as well.
---

Corrik7 posted...

The point of a wall is that it makes crossing it more difficult. This allows less manpower on the border itself. Which frees up manpower to stop other types of illegal immigration.

this is nice argument, but it's not the one trump's using. he's just constantly going "WALLS WORK," as if the illegal immigrants would have absolutely no way of entering the US if they were confronted with a wall.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik7 posted...

The point of a wall is that it makes crossing it more difficult. This allows less manpower on the border itself. Which frees up manpower to stop other types of illegal immigration.

this is nice argument, but it's not the one trump's using. he's just constantly going "WALLS WORK," as if the illegal immigrants would have absolutely no way of entering the US if they were confronted with a wall.

The walls they are trying to build are no different than the walling that Obama and others have created along the border in certain areas. They do this to help ease enforcement of this area and to funnel it into smaller areas for the common illegal immigrant. Creating a border wall would be again funneling it greatly off the border and into areas such as overseas, which is less accessible to the average illegal immigrant and that can be enforced much greater with less of a burden on the very large land border.
---

Like, I don't know of a single President in maybe the last 50 years who wasn't really against strengthening the southern border from illegal immigration. JFK possibly being the one who maybe was over 50 years ago.

Hell, from this clearly liberal source...

"The final immigration law on the books is one which physically, socially, economically, and ethically affects our nations immigrants, citizens, and borderlands. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, supported by President Bush and, sadly, both Democratic candidates Obama and Clinton, paved the way for a 700-mile fence along our 2,000-mile southern border. This secure fence would reroute extralegal immigrants to the most dangerous desert sections of our border; it would be an affront to American immigrants past, present, and future; it would be a tremendous waste what some estimate to be $5 billion while border communities such as Brownsville and Hidalgo County continue to be the poorest in the nation; it would serve as a severe distraction from the necessity for comprehensive, compassionate immigration reform; it would strand extralegal residents on this side of the border; it would separate loved ones; it would cripple border economies which thrive on the influx of international business; it would destroy precious and rare ecosystems and wildlife which cannot be found anywhere else; and it would cause our young nation of immigrants to wall ourselves off from our neighbors and the globalizing world at large. "
---