3 Mexican companies want to work onTrump's border wall

[Clementine]

That was not my claim. The other member childishly made the claim that it's "money well spent," not I. He made the claim; he needs to back it up. Ask him if he thinks it's a good financial use of our national treasure. Maybe he will share with you the case that makes it be money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I like how it's described as "patriotism" in Mexico, but anything patriotic in America is described as "nationalism" by liberals.

Mexicans can call it whatever they want. The bulk of them who are illegally in the U.S. didn't enter the country by traipsing through the wilderness to cross the border. The majority of illegals come to the U.S. legally and overstay their visas, but Trump wants to build a wall to stem the least prevalent means of illegal immigration. (How many Mexicans actually cross the border illegally?) A wall isn't going to do a damn thing to curtail that form of illegal migration to the U.S. If I were a Mexican business owner, I'd probably know that; thus I'd be more than happy to help build Trump's wall, and I could call it patriotic or anything else someone wanted me to call it so long as I get paid.

It will do little to stem illegals crossing the border as well. A billion dollar wall can be defeated by a 100 dollar ladder...

Strictly speaking, I have to agree with you, at least in principle/theory. LOL

Practically speaking, I would hope the wall be monitored well enough that a ladder leaned against it, indeed the people approaching the wall with said ladder, would attract the attention of border guards who could get to the place in question before the climbers can abscond successfully.

I certainly think the wall idea is a dumbass idea from the get-go. I'll grant that a wall sounds like a good idea, but I know better than to think it actually is one. Frankly, I think lots of cactus, quicksand, alligators and other dangerous animals, supplemented by a force of drones are a better strategy than is a wall. Even in broad daylight, a camouflaged rattler is very hard to spot, and you still don't want to step on one.

Remeber back in the day obie said pretty much what you're calling for as stupid?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Seriously? Mr. Buy American is going to outsource the wall construction to MEXICAN companies,

on our tax dollar?

How unsurprising.

Who the **** said that you moron.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Mexican nationalists are angry at these Mexican businesses:

Mexican construction firms under fire over Trump wall

Mexico City (AFP) - Juicy contracts or patriotic pride?

That was the dilemma facing Mexican construction firms Thursday as conservative lawmakers ramped up the pressure on companies tempted to help build US President Donald Trump's planned border wall.

Senator Gabriela Cuevas of the opposition National Action Party was due to introduce a bill barring the government from doing business with any Mexican firm that participates in building the wall, a deeply reviled project in Mexico.

"It's essential that government purchases, at all levels of government, exclude any kind of contract with any company that participates in building the wall," she told AFP.

Cuevas, the head of the Senate foreign relations committee, said negotiations were also under way to amend existing laws on public works projects and government purchases to exert similar pressure...

 

[usmbguest5318]

That was not my claim. The other member childishly made the claim that it's "money well spent," not I. He made the claim; he needs to back it up. Ask him if he thinks it's a good financial use of our national treasure. Maybe he will share with you the case that makes it be money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

As a matter of fact, yes, spending money to keep me alive is money well spent because so far, I've paid far more in income, property, sales and other taxes, along with the business revenue/profits I've generated for my own firm and my clients' firms, to more than justify my being kept alive, working and contributing to the national GDP and government coffers. So, yes, there're very significant financial returns from spending money on my medical care. The same can be said of my children. My wife died ages ago, but the same was so of her 'til the day she passed though the charitable trust established in her name continues to provide economic returns and benefits its beneficiaries in the community.

So, seeing as rather than present an actual economically meritorious and rigorous defense of the claim the other member made (admittedly it's his claim to defend, not yours), and seeing as you won't exhibit the intellectual integrity of demanding the other member defend his claim, you want to make the matter personal....yes, there is a very fine business case for saving my life.

There have been a positive case for doing so from the first year I opened my own firm in the late '80s and showed a first year profit of just under $1M. I grew my firm annually thereafter into a 50 person organization that over the course of ~30 years produced handsome returns for me, my partners, my staff, my clients, the other firms with which I partnered on various projects, and the taxing jurisdictions to whom we all paid various forms of tax. That track record continued unbroken right up through the most recent decade of my life whereupon I sold my firm to a larger competitor and joined the ranks of its senior partners. The value of my contributions to my community and country continue the present even as I've taken on a part-time role in anticipation of retiring soon.
Though upon my full retirement the business case will diminish somewhat, I'll still be among the segment of society that pays the most taxes and contributes the most to the nation's GDP. I doubt that will not be so for the rest of my life. It would take my suffering a catastrophic and very prolonged illness for it ever to be so that there is no positive business case for keeping me alive.

Does any of that make me the most important person around? Of course not. It merely makes me be someone who knows quite well what I have contributed to my family, my city, my community of friends and associates and to my country. It makes me someone who knows damn well that I am no burden on society, and it makes me someone who has a legitimate and material stake in our society. Because I do have such a place in American society, I actually give a damn about what people think of the U.S., and it makes me give a damn when I see my countrymen making pitiably specious claims based on BS they just happen to think is so, but that they can't back up with one bit of credible evidence, i.e., a sound case for their belief. It makes me someone who has the right to expect that when someone has something to say they know what they are talking about or that they sit down, shut up and take notes while people who do know what they are talking about have a mature and substantive discussion.

You see, public policy and discussions about it are not matters of blind faith as is religious belief. It's about how a polity manages its affairs, their own affairs and those of their countrymen, the affairs of people's lives. If one lacks the will or wherewithal to develop very well informed views that one can substantiate with a rigorous case, then one should at the very least simply have the decency to demure from the discussion rather than contribute to an echo chamber of lies, falsehoods, half-truths and misunderstandings. If one isn't willing to step up and in some small way -- even that of just participating in a adult and intellectually and discursively responsible way in the discussions on USMB -- in some small way to be part of the solution, then at least refrain from being part of the problem by either keeping one's unfounded conjecture to oneself or admitting that one doesn't really have any sound basis for the thoughts one expresses, for the mere popularity of an idea, the quantity of "likes" or laughs one receives, is no indicator of whether it's any good.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Now as goes the line of discussion that other member introduced......If the government is going to spend my money, your money and everyone else's, there'd better be a positive economic case for doing so. I asked the member to present his case for his thoughts, and the fact is that he has none. He has only what he believes. Well, that's nice, but sound public policy does not derive from beliefs, it derives from strong economic cases that have highly plausible bases for it not being a waste of taxpayer resources.

I can't tell you why the member doesn't have a case he can present in support of his claim. I suspect it's because he's made no real effort to truly understand the matter. I can tell you that I've not seen any strong arguments showing there to be actual economic benefits associated with building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It may be that the other member has seen such a case, but I doubt it as he's not shared any such thing.
I doubt, however, that he'll develop his own or find someone else's credible economic case for building such a wall for both liberal and conservative thinkers (hear also: David Bier discusses President Trump's border wall proposal on WWL’s First News with Tommy Tucker) and economists have resoundingly shown the wall is an absurdly bad use of yours, my and other taxpayers' money it the interest of stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Even a U.S. Major in his master's thesis wrote/found,

The US-Mexico border fence has only a limited deterrent effect against a terrorist, and that deterrent effect appears to be fleeting, even against illegal immigrants motivated solely by economic conditions and opportunities. Additionally, the fence does not have a significant defeat effect against a terrorist....Apprehension data from the US-Mexico border and simulated border crossings indicate that a border fence would not deter terrorists attempting to cross the border; they would only be influenced in deciding where to cross.​

Quite simply, the case isn't there, but in the interest of giving the other member an opportunity to present one, I asked for one, only to be met with childishness. As a result, I don't have anything more to say to him; he has ceased to exist as far as I'm concerned.

Oh....and lest I forget, get personal with me again, and it'll be the last I see of you.

 

[Correll]

Mexico won't be paying for the wall; Americans will; and it won't be built with American labor or material. Trump knows it; Congressional Republicans know it; everybody knows it except for Trump's ignorant and blind supporters.

At this point Mexico should WANT to pay for it, to make up for all their sins against US.

Yeah America is so perfect

Nice strawman.

My point stands.


At this point Mexico should WANT to pay for it, to make up for all their sins against US.

 

[J.E.D]

Mexico won't be paying for the wall; Americans will; and it won't be built with American labor or material. Trump knows it; Congressional Republicans know it; everybody knows it except for Trump's ignorant and blind supporters.

At this point Mexico should WANT to pay for it, to make up for all their sins against US.

Yeah America is so perfect

Nice strawman.

My point stands.


At this point Mexico should WANT to pay for it, to make up for all their sins against US.

Cool story bro

 

[FA_Q2]

I like how it's described as "patriotism" in Mexico, but anything patriotic in America is described as "nationalism" by liberals.

Mexicans can call it whatever they want. The bulk of them who are illegally in the U.S. didn't enter the country by traipsing through the wilderness to cross the border. The majority of illegals come to the U.S. legally and overstay their visas, but Trump wants to build a wall to stem the least prevalent means of illegal immigration. (How many Mexicans actually cross the border illegally?) A wall isn't going to do a damn thing to curtail that form of illegal migration to the U.S. If I were a Mexican business owner, I'd probably know that; thus I'd be more than happy to help build Trump's wall, and I could call it patriotic or anything else someone wanted me to call it so long as I get paid.

It will do little to stem illegals crossing the border as well. A billion dollar wall can be defeated by a 100 dollar ladder...

Strictly speaking, I have to agree with you, at least in principle/theory. LOL

Practically speaking, I would hope the wall be monitored well enough that a ladder leaned against it, indeed the people approaching the wall with said ladder, would attract the attention of border guards who could get to the place in question before the climbers can abscond successfully.

I certainly think the wall idea is a dumbass idea from the get-go. I'll grant that a wall sounds like a good idea, but I know better than to think it actually is one. Frankly, I think lots of cactus, quicksand, alligators and other dangerous animals, supplemented by a force of drones are a better strategy than is a wall. Even in broad daylight, a camouflaged rattler is very hard to spot, and you still don't want to step on one.

The thing is though, the type of surveillance and sensors that would make such a wall practical would work without the wall in the first place. I actually support adding monitoring along the border that would catch people crossing as many are also doing so for other illegal reasons like drug trafficking.

Sensors are even better without a wall that will announce their presence.

There's no reason we can't have both. Have a wall with sensors and other monitors and also have hundreds of feet of monitoring behind the wall.

Of course we can have both. The point was that one does not add any real security because the other can do it better. Sensors will be FAR cheaper and do the job just as well as adding the wall.

The wall will not remove or lessen the need for agents.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Mexicans can call it whatever they want. The bulk of them who are illegally in the U.S. didn't enter the country by traipsing through the wilderness to cross the border. The majority of illegals come to the U.S. legally and overstay their visas, but Trump wants to build a wall to stem the least prevalent means of illegal immigration. (How many Mexicans actually cross the border illegally?) A wall isn't going to do a damn thing to curtail that form of illegal migration to the U.S. If I were a Mexican business owner, I'd probably know that; thus I'd be more than happy to help build Trump's wall, and I could call it patriotic or anything else someone wanted me to call it so long as I get paid.

It will do little to stem illegals crossing the border as well. A billion dollar wall can be defeated by a 100 dollar ladder...

Strictly speaking, I have to agree with you, at least in principle/theory. LOL

Practically speaking, I would hope the wall be monitored well enough that a ladder leaned against it, indeed the people approaching the wall with said ladder, would attract the attention of border guards who could get to the place in question before the climbers can abscond successfully.

I certainly think the wall idea is a dumbass idea from the get-go. I'll grant that a wall sounds like a good idea, but I know better than to think it actually is one. Frankly, I think lots of cactus, quicksand, alligators and other dangerous animals, supplemented by a force of drones are a better strategy than is a wall. Even in broad daylight, a camouflaged rattler is very hard to spot, and you still don't want to step on one.

The thing is though, the type of surveillance and sensors that would make such a wall practical would work without the wall in the first place. I actually support adding monitoring along the border that would catch people crossing as many are also doing so for other illegal reasons like drug trafficking.

Sensors are even better without a wall that will announce their presence.

There's no reason we can't have both. Have a wall with sensors and other monitors and also have hundreds of feet of monitoring behind the wall.

Of course we can have both. The point was that one does not add any real security because the other can do it better. Sensors will be FAR cheaper and do the job just as well as adding the wall.

The wall will not remove or lessen the need for agents.

No one advocated removing or lessening the need for agents.

 

[Clementine]

That was not my claim. The other member childishly made the claim that it's "money well spent," not I. He made the claim; he needs to back it up. Ask him if he thinks it's a good financial use of our national treasure. Maybe he will share with you the case that makes it be money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

As a matter of fact, yes, spending money to keep me alive is money well spent because so far, I've paid far more in income, property, sales and other taxes, along with the business revenue/profits I've generated for my own firm and my clients' firms, to more than justify my being kept alive, working and contributing to the national GDP and government coffers. So, yes, there're very significant financial returns from spending money on my medical care. The same can be said of my children. My wife died ages ago, but the same was so of her 'til the day she passed though the charitable trust established in her name continues to provide economic returns and benefits its beneficiaries in the community.

So, seeing as rather than present an actual economically meritorious and rigorous defense of the claim the other member made (admittedly it's his claim to defend, not yours), and seeing as you won't exhibit the intellectual integrity of demanding the other member defend his claim, you want to make the matter personal....yes, there is a very fine business case for saving my life.

There have been a positive case for doing so from the first year I opened my own firm in the late '80s and showed a first year profit of just under $1M. I grew my firm annually thereafter into a 50 person organization that over the course of ~30 years produced handsome returns for me, my partners, my staff, my clients, the other firms with which I partnered on various projects, and the taxing jurisdictions to whom we all paid various forms of tax. That track record continued unbroken right up through the most recent decade of my life whereupon I sold my firm to a larger competitor and joined the ranks of its senior partners. The value of my contributions to my community and country continue the present even as I've taken on a part-time role in anticipation of retiring soon.
Though upon my full retirement the business case will diminish somewhat, I'll still be among the segment of society that pays the most taxes and contributes the most to the nation's GDP. I doubt that will not be so for the rest of my life. It would take my suffering a catastrophic and very prolonged illness for it ever to be so that there is no positive business case for keeping me alive.

Does any of that make me the most important person around? Of course not. It merely makes me be someone who knows quite well what I have contributed to my family, my city, my community of friends and associates and to my country. It makes me someone who knows damn well that I am no burden on society, and it makes me someone who has a legitimate and material stake in our society. Because I do have such a place in American society, I actually give a damn about what people think of the U.S., and it makes me give a damn when I see my countrymen making pitiably specious claims based on BS they just happen to think is so, but that they can't back up with one bit of credible evidence, i.e., a sound case for their belief. It makes me someone who has the right to expect that when someone has something to say they know what they are talking about or that they sit down, shut up and take notes while people who do know what they are talking about have a mature and substantive discussion.

You see, public policy and discussions about it are not matters of blind faith as is religious belief. It's about how a polity manages its affairs, their own affairs and those of their countrymen, the affairs of people's lives. If one lacks the will or wherewithal to develop very well informed views that one can substantiate with a rigorous case, then one should at the very least simply have the decency to demure from the discussion rather than contribute to an echo chamber of lies, falsehoods, half-truths and misunderstandings. If one isn't willing to step up and in some small way -- even that of just participating in a adult and intellectually and discursively responsible way in the discussions on USMB -- in some small way to be part of the solution, then at least refrain from being part of the problem by either keeping one's unfounded conjecture to oneself or admitting that one doesn't really have any sound basis for the thoughts one expresses, for the mere popularity of an idea, the quantity of "likes" or laughs one receives, is no indicator of whether it's any good.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Now as goes the line of discussion that other member introduced......If the government is going to spend my money, your money and everyone else's, there'd better be a positive economic case for doing so. I asked the member to present his case for his thoughts, and the fact is that he has none. He has only what he believes. Well, that's nice, but sound public policy does not derive from beliefs, it derives from strong economic cases that have highly plausible bases for it not being a waste of taxpayer resources.

I can't tell you why the member doesn't have a case he can present in support of his claim. I suspect it's because he's made no real effort to truly understand the matter. I can tell you that I've not seen any strong arguments showing there to be actual economic benefits associated with building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It may be that the other member has seen such a case, but I doubt it as he's not shared any such thing.
I doubt, however, that he'll develop his own or find someone else's credible economic case for building such a wall for both liberal and conservative thinkers (hear also: David Bier discusses President Trump's border wall proposal on WWL’s First News with Tommy Tucker) and economists have resoundingly shown the wall is an absurdly bad use of yours, my and other taxpayers' money it the interest of stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Even a U.S. Major in his master's thesis wrote/found,

The US-Mexico border fence has only a limited deterrent effect against a terrorist, and that deterrent effect appears to be fleeting, even against illegal immigrants motivated solely by economic conditions and opportunities. Additionally, the fence does not have a significant defeat effect against a terrorist....Apprehension data from the US-Mexico border and simulated border crossings indicate that a border fence would not deter terrorists attempting to cross the border; they would only be influenced in deciding where to cross.​

Quite simply, the case isn't there, but in the interest of giving the other member an opportunity to present one, I asked for one, only to be met with childishness. As a result, I don't have anything more to say to him; he has ceased to exist as far as I'm concerned.

Oh....and lest I forget, get personal with me again, and it'll be the last I see of you.

Again, you go to financial returns to justify the money being well spent. By your logic, it's a waste of money to help anyone unless there is a financial return.

Money well spent means that whatever you spent it on is worth it. Whether you made money or whether it prevented bad things from happening, it's well-spent because the rewards were worth the cost.

Money spent to keep people safe is money well spent. You can't put a price on life.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That was not my claim. The other member childishly made the claim that it's "money well spent," not I. He made the claim; he needs to back it up. Ask him if he thinks it's a good financial use of our national treasure. Maybe he will share with you the case that makes it be money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

Is spending money on medical care well spent when it saves your life or the life of ones you love? No financial returns but damn sure money well spent.

As a matter of fact, yes, spending money to keep me alive is money well spent because so far, I've paid far more in income, property, sales and other taxes, along with the business revenue/profits I've generated for my own firm and my clients' firms, to more than justify my being kept alive, working and contributing to the national GDP and government coffers. So, yes, there're very significant financial returns from spending money on my medical care. The same can be said of my children. My wife died ages ago, but the same was so of her 'til the day she passed though the charitable trust established in her name continues to provide economic returns and benefits its beneficiaries in the community.

So, seeing as rather than present an actual economically meritorious and rigorous defense of the claim the other member made (admittedly it's his claim to defend, not yours), and seeing as you won't exhibit the intellectual integrity of demanding the other member defend his claim, you want to make the matter personal....yes, there is a very fine business case for saving my life.

There have been a positive case for doing so from the first year I opened my own firm in the late '80s and showed a first year profit of just under $1M. I grew my firm annually thereafter into a 50 person organization that over the course of ~30 years produced handsome returns for me, my partners, my staff, my clients, the other firms with which I partnered on various projects, and the taxing jurisdictions to whom we all paid various forms of tax. That track record continued unbroken right up through the most recent decade of my life whereupon I sold my firm to a larger competitor and joined the ranks of its senior partners. The value of my contributions to my community and country continue the present even as I've taken on a part-time role in anticipation of retiring soon.
Though upon my full retirement the business case will diminish somewhat, I'll still be among the segment of society that pays the most taxes and contributes the most to the nation's GDP. I doubt that will not be so for the rest of my life. It would take my suffering a catastrophic and very prolonged illness for it ever to be so that there is no positive business case for keeping me alive.

Does any of that make me the most important person around? Of course not. It merely makes me be someone who knows quite well what I have contributed to my family, my city, my community of friends and associates and to my country. It makes me someone who knows damn well that I am no burden on society, and it makes me someone who has a legitimate and material stake in our society. Because I do have such a place in American society, I actually give a damn about what people think of the U.S., and it makes me give a damn when I see my countrymen making pitiably specious claims based on BS they just happen to think is so, but that they can't back up with one bit of credible evidence, i.e., a sound case for their belief. It makes me someone who has the right to expect that when someone has something to say they know what they are talking about or that they sit down, shut up and take notes while people who do know what they are talking about have a mature and substantive discussion.

You see, public policy and discussions about it are not matters of blind faith as is religious belief. It's about how a polity manages its affairs, their own affairs and those of their countrymen, the affairs of people's lives. If one lacks the will or wherewithal to develop very well informed views that one can substantiate with a rigorous case, then one should at the very least simply have the decency to demure from the discussion rather than contribute to an echo chamber of lies, falsehoods, half-truths and misunderstandings. If one isn't willing to step up and in some small way -- even that of just participating in a adult and intellectually and discursively responsible way in the discussions on USMB -- in some small way to be part of the solution, then at least refrain from being part of the problem by either keeping one's unfounded conjecture to oneself or admitting that one doesn't really have any sound basis for the thoughts one expresses, for the mere popularity of an idea, the quantity of "likes" or laughs one receives, is no indicator of whether it's any good.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Now as goes the line of discussion that other member introduced......If the government is going to spend my money, your money and everyone else's, there'd better be a positive economic case for doing so. I asked the member to present his case for his thoughts, and the fact is that he has none. He has only what he believes. Well, that's nice, but sound public policy does not derive from beliefs, it derives from strong economic cases that have highly plausible bases for it not being a waste of taxpayer resources.

I can't tell you why the member doesn't have a case he can present in support of his claim. I suspect it's because he's made no real effort to truly understand the matter. I can tell you that I've not seen any strong arguments showing there to be actual economic benefits associated with building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It may be that the other member has seen such a case, but I doubt it as he's not shared any such thing.
I doubt, however, that he'll develop his own or find someone else's credible economic case for building such a wall for both liberal and conservative thinkers (hear also: David Bier discusses President Trump's border wall proposal on WWL’s First News with Tommy Tucker) and economists have resoundingly shown the wall is an absurdly bad use of yours, my and other taxpayers' money it the interest of stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Even a U.S. Major in his master's thesis wrote/found,

The US-Mexico border fence has only a limited deterrent effect against a terrorist, and that deterrent effect appears to be fleeting, even against illegal immigrants motivated solely by economic conditions and opportunities. Additionally, the fence does not have a significant defeat effect against a terrorist....Apprehension data from the US-Mexico border and simulated border crossings indicate that a border fence would not deter terrorists attempting to cross the border; they would only be influenced in deciding where to cross.​

Quite simply, the case isn't there, but in the interest of giving the other member an opportunity to present one, I asked for one, only to be met with childishness. As a result, I don't have anything more to say to him; he has ceased to exist as far as I'm concerned.

Oh....and lest I forget, get personal with me again, and it'll be the last I see of you.

Again, you go to financial returns to justify the money being well spent. By your logic, it's a waste of money to help anyone unless there is a financial return.

Money well spent means that whatever you spent it on is worth it. Whether you made money or whether it prevented bad things from happening, it's well-spent because the rewards were worth the cost.

Money spent to keep people safe is money well spent. You can't put a price on life.

[

Money well spent means that whatever you spent it on is worth it.

"Worth it" is a term that requires one quantify the value of that which consumes one's resources so the "worth it" aspect can be measured and compared objectively and comprehensively with alternative uses of resources consumed. Neither you nor the other member has presented the case that does so; you've merely claimed that it is worth it, but you've not shown your claim to be so.

You can't put a price on life.

Oh, yes, one can. Surely you aren't so naive as to think that insurance companies and governments do not. (Click the links below; read the content found there.)

• Human Life Value Calculator | Life Happens
  
• Human Life Value Approach :: Insurance Literacy Institute
  
• How to calculate the human life value?
  
• Human Life Value (HLV) Calculator by HDFC Life
  
• The Cost of a Human Life, Statistically Speaking - The Globalist
  
• What's the Dollar Value of a Human Life?
  
• A Human Life Is Worth $7.4 Million
  
• THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE: A REVIEW OF THE MODELS

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Berkeley plans to boycott any company that works on the border wall:


And the rest of America will embrace those companies.