About this wall

[basquebromance]

Trump asked Roger Stone to listen in on local radio stations and tell him what the biggest issue was. it was by far: illegal immigration.

Trump turned it into a tangible policy item: THE WALL!

 

[MarathonMike]

"Nobody has the intention of building a wall." - GDR head of state Walter Ulbricht, East Berlin, June 15th 1961


A few month later, in August 1961 he thanked the labour force for erecting this wall.


It’s purpose; protecting eastern Germany from western spies, insurgents and intrusion of undesirable elements.


A wall is always going to have two sides. Perhaps the actual, acute need for a wall, in reality, isn’t that desperate? More like a political trophy of some kind?

You might have a point if Trump wanted to build a wall around California.

 

[bripat9643]

It may not be known how many people made it over the Berlin wall but best estimates put it at about at least 5,000 made it over

Estimates of the wall is 21 billion by Homeland Security

I wonder how much will this add to the budget deficit

2017 a budget deficit of $666 billion,

increase of $80 billion over the previous year with no wall

2018 The deficit jumped to $779 billion
no wall

now there are those who want to spent 21 billion for a wall

for 242 years there has not been a wall

yet ET tell people that they need a wall for border security

Fake news from the master of fake news who can't even tell how fake Putin is

We haven't had a Mexico overpopulated with ignorant impoverished serfs for most of those 242 years, moron,

 

[ErikViking]

I don’t have the energy to over-repeat myself. Please, the Berlin Wall had only local impact. It surrounded West Berlin. We can agree of its purpose, however that was not the open and official stand point of those who built it.

So, with that said - the real practical use of any such installation might be more about sending signals than creating a long term change.

The "wall" (in Berlin) was just a small portion of the border between the eastern and western parts of Germany. The whole border was guarded, protected by double or triple fences, and mined. And yes, it had far more than a symbolic meaning: Before wall and fence were built, the GDR was bleeding folks to the west in numbers threatening the very existence of the GDR. That bleeding was severely reduced, but not even a shoot-to-kill policy at the border could stop it entirely.

Of course, Ulbricht told tall stories about the wall's purpose. No one, literally, believed that nonsense.

Zoom out. The wall had no real strategic impact. It simply didn’t matter, it only isolated West Berlin deep inside the east bloc.

As a symbol, however it was very powerful. It was the symbol of the Cold War, with it’s fall marking the end.

Surely you can see this?

 

[ErikViking]

Purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep people out. Their leaders told them so.

How many were sneaking in versus sneaking out?

Well, it’s a matter of definition now, isn’t it? This wall was built by a communist dictatorship. In to the west or out from the east?

It’s pretty obvious today. But no free democratic country was advocating for that wall to be built.

It was “sold” as a protective measure by those who built it.

Point here is that e v e n if a wall serve a purpose you have to take in to account the signal it sends. And then weight it’s practical value to that.

isn
Dozens of border walls have been built in this world, and the only one you douchebags focus on is the Berlin wall. You're obviously not interested in objectivity. You're just spewing propaganda.

Even the Berlin wall was effective. Proves our commie regressives liars.

.

Effective locally. The Berlin Wall didn’t keep nuclear submarines from the Bering stretch or the ICBM looming over us. But it sent a clear political message.

Reagan demanded that wall to be teared down. The US president brought up a wall, surrounding half a city in no mans land - of no strategic value - to end the cold war.

How shall I put it? That wall didn’t really serve it’s master well.

"It was effective locally?" A wall is only meant to be effective locally, dumbass. The wall accomplished it's purpose, and it did it very effectively. It was a sinister purpose, but it did what was intended. Tearing down the wall isn't what ended the cold war. It was already over by the time the wall came down. Economic collapse is what ended the cold war.

Douchebags like you like to compare Trump's wall to the Berlin wall because you want to smear everyone who supports the wall. You're a sleazy lying douchebag scumbag who is beneath contempt.

I haven’t compared anything. “Trumps Wall”. The thing doesn’t exist yet and it’s already a powerful symbol. With a meaning far beyond what it can practically deliver. Your choice of words, inability to take a step back and fanatism is very telling.

I haven’t even said anything about building the wall except it seems to be more of a political trophy than anything else.

 

[basquebromance]

Donald "I Shall Exterminate Everything Around Me That Keeps Me From Being The Master" Trump must be impeached! IMPEACHED!

IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45! IMPEACH 45!

 

[Leo123]

Mexico will pay for the wall because illegal aliens will no longer send American $$$ back to Mexico.

 

[ErikViking]

You don't understand just how much the final cost of the wall is going to be.

It's estimated for a final cost up to $70B according to ...Fox Noise: Trump's border wall -- how much it will actually cost according to a statistician

And guess what idiot? The misery and murders in Central America will continue and expand and then guess who's going to have to go in and fix it because they're going to start using tunnels and boats to get here?

You have never known desperation and fear for your life, you lily-livered pussy.

So you think a fucking fence is going to fix the problem.

.
.
.

So you're admitting the wall will work and force the illegals to use alternative methods to try to get here. BTW even the 70 billion is less than illegals are costing us every year.

.

No idea about those numbers - but let’s say it does. Then perhaps the wall should be constructed. But it seems right now to be very exaggerated (the stress, like n o w before Christmas). Right now it seems to be more of a symbol than that of practical value.

All expenditures, federal, State and local total almost 140 billion a year. Illegals are almost twice as likely to us the social safety net as citizens or legal immigrants. You can't have open borders and huge social programs at the same time. Europe is learning that lesson the hard way and we're starting to. Of course the commies never include the cost to the country when calculating the cost of the wall. That doesn't take into account the human costs.

.

Europe has no plan for immigration, I... well subject for another thread maybe.

But the focus on the concept of a wall? Prone to fail, the longer the worse. Why not enforce strong points where needed? Keep flexible? This wall is gaining too much attention duento it’s symbolic value.

The commies won't fund the manpower to do that either. Their border security talk is all bullshit, they have no interest in securing the border. Personally I don't think you have a clue what it takes to secure a 2000 mile border. I'm assuming you have no military experience.

.

By commies you mean Trumps opposition? Perhaps it’s easier to get them along with funding those sort of actions?

And it will leave you with some depth in the fight too, in this case depth isn’t actual depth on the battlefield but rather more complex.

Let’s say you can cut down most immigration from the border, focusing on the worst elements and also start shutting down other means of intrusion with the same funding?

More flexibility and more bang for the buck. The wall keeps getting such high attention. Just because it’s that, a wall, an object you can measure and understand.

 

[Olde Europe]

Zoom out. The wall had no real strategic impact. It simply didn’t matter, it only isolated West Berlin deep inside the east bloc.

As a symbol, however it was very powerful. It was the symbol of the Cold War, with it’s fall marking the end.

Surely you can see this?

I haven't denied it was a symbol. Arguably, what was really marking the end was Hungary letting folks travel to the West in 1989. That was when the wall became pointless. Politicians may have been hyperventilating about "the wall fell", but that was just the ratification of what happened earlier. Photogenic, and welcome news, but no longer that important.

Arguably, the wall / fence, locking the population in the east in, added at least 20 years to the GDR's life. A generation. I don't really give a damn whether you call that a "real strategic impact". It profoundly affected the lives of a whole generation, of millions of people. And no, it didn't secure the regime forever. Gorbachev saw to that.

 

[bripat9643]

I don’t have the energy to over-repeat myself. Please, the Berlin Wall had only local impact. It surrounded West Berlin. We can agree of its purpose, however that was not the open and official stand point of those who built it.

So, with that said - the real practical use of any such installation might be more about sending signals than creating a long term change.

The "wall" (in Berlin) was just a small portion of the border between the eastern and western parts of Germany. The whole border was guarded, protected by double or triple fences, and mined. And yes, it had far more than a symbolic meaning: Before wall and fence were built, the GDR was bleeding folks to the west in numbers threatening the very existence of the GDR. That bleeding was severely reduced, but not even a shoot-to-kill policy at the border could stop it entirely.

Of course, Ulbricht told tall stories about the wall's purpose. No one, literally, believed that nonsense.

Zoom out. The wall had no real strategic impact. It simply didn’t matter, it only isolated West Berlin deep inside the east bloc.

As a symbol, however it was very powerful. It was the symbol of the Cold War, with it’s fall marking the end.

Surely you can see this?

What's your point, moron. The wall wasn't built to have "strategic impact." It was built to keep the population of East Germany from escaping to the West, and it did that job very effectively.

 

[ErikViking]

Zoom out. The wall had no real strategic impact. It simply didn’t matter, it only isolated West Berlin deep inside the east bloc.

As a symbol, however it was very powerful. It was the symbol of the Cold War, with it’s fall marking the end.

Surely you can see this?

I haven't denied it was a symbol. Arguably, what was really marking the end was Hungary letting folks travel to the West in 1989. That was when the wall became pointless. Politicians may have been hyperventilating about "the wall fell", but that was just the ratification of what happened earlier. Photogenic, and welcome news, but no longer that important.

Arguably, the wall / fence, locking the population in the east in, added at least 20 years to the GDR's life. A generation. I don't really give a damn whether you call that a "real strategic impact". It profoundly affected the lives of a whole generation, of millions of people. And no, it didn't secure the regime forever. Gorbachev saw to that.

Exactly, wouldn’t you agree that the recent binary wall or no wall = secure or totally overrun is a bit exaggerated? This wall is already serving as a symbol than anything else?

 

[bripat9643]

Well, it’s a matter of definition now, isn’t it? This wall was built by a communist dictatorship. In to the west or out from the east?

It’s pretty obvious today. But no free democratic country was advocating for that wall to be built.

It was “sold” as a protective measure by those who built it.

Point here is that e v e n if a wall serve a purpose you have to take in to account the signal it sends. And then weight it’s practical value to that.

isn
Dozens of border walls have been built in this world, and the only one you douchebags focus on is the Berlin wall. You're obviously not interested in objectivity. You're just spewing propaganda.

Even the Berlin wall was effective. Proves our commie regressives liars.

.

Effective locally. The Berlin Wall didn’t keep nuclear submarines from the Bering stretch or the ICBM looming over us. But it sent a clear political message.

Reagan demanded that wall to be teared down. The US president brought up a wall, surrounding half a city in no mans land - of no strategic value - to end the cold war.

How shall I put it? That wall didn’t really serve it’s master well.

"It was effective locally?" A wall is only meant to be effective locally, dumbass. The wall accomplished it's purpose, and it did it very effectively. It was a sinister purpose, but it did what was intended. Tearing down the wall isn't what ended the cold war. It was already over by the time the wall came down. Economic collapse is what ended the cold war.

Douchebags like you like to compare Trump's wall to the Berlin wall because you want to smear everyone who supports the wall. You're a sleazy lying douchebag scumbag who is beneath contempt.

I haven’t compared anything. “Trumps Wall”. The thing doesn’t exist yet and it’s already a powerful symbol. With a meaning far beyond what it can practically deliver. Your choice of words, inability to take a step back and fanatism is very telling.

I haven’t even said anything about building the wall except it seems to be more of a political trophy than anything else.

First you chastise me because Trump's wall doesn't exist, and then you start talking about it as if it does.

Douchebags like you want to turn the wall into a symbol, but the people who support it simply want to control immigration. They don't give a damn about the symbolism.

You're a moron who thinks he's a policy genius.

 

[bripat9643]

Zoom out. The wall had no real strategic impact. It simply didn’t matter, it only isolated West Berlin deep inside the east bloc.

As a symbol, however it was very powerful. It was the symbol of the Cold War, with it’s fall marking the end.

Surely you can see this?

I haven't denied it was a symbol. Arguably, what was really marking the end was Hungary letting folks travel to the West in 1989. That was when the wall became pointless. Politicians may have been hyperventilating about "the wall fell", but that was just the ratification of what happened earlier. Photogenic, and welcome news, but no longer that important.

Arguably, the wall / fence, locking the population in the east in, added at least 20 years to the GDR's life. A generation. I don't really give a damn whether you call that a "real strategic impact". It profoundly affected the lives of a whole generation, of millions of people. And no, it didn't secure the regime forever. Gorbachev saw to that.

Exactly, wouldn’t you agree that the recent binary wall or no wall = secure or totally overrun is a bit exaggerated? This wall is already serving as a symbol than anything else?

How can it serve as anything else if it hasn't been built? You should stop posting before everyone discovers that you're an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're admitting the wall will work and force the illegals to use alternative methods to try to get here. BTW even the 70 billion is less than illegals are costing us every year.

.

No idea about those numbers - but let’s say it does. Then perhaps the wall should be constructed. But it seems right now to be very exaggerated (the stress, like n o w before Christmas). Right now it seems to be more of a symbol than that of practical value.

All expenditures, federal, State and local total almost 140 billion a year. Illegals are almost twice as likely to us the social safety net as citizens or legal immigrants. You can't have open borders and huge social programs at the same time. Europe is learning that lesson the hard way and we're starting to. Of course the commies never include the cost to the country when calculating the cost of the wall. That doesn't take into account the human costs.

.

Europe has no plan for immigration, I... well subject for another thread maybe.

But the focus on the concept of a wall? Prone to fail, the longer the worse. Why not enforce strong points where needed? Keep flexible? This wall is gaining too much attention duento it’s symbolic value.

The commies won't fund the manpower to do that either. Their border security talk is all bullshit, they have no interest in securing the border. Personally I don't think you have a clue what it takes to secure a 2000 mile border. I'm assuming you have no military experience.

.

By commies you mean Trumps opposition? Perhaps it’s easier to get them along with funding those sort of actions?

And it will leave you with some depth in the fight too, in this case depth isn’t actual depth on the battlefield but rather more complex.

Let’s say you can cut down most immigration from the border, focusing on the worst elements and also start shutting down other means of intrusion with the same funding?

More flexibility and more bang for the buck. The wall keeps getting such high attention. Just because it’s that, a wall, an object you can measure and understand.

The wall gives the most bang for the buck, moron. That's why we want it. The idea that deploying additional manpower is cost effective doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[Olde Europe]

Exactly, wouldn’t you agree that the recent binary wall or no wall = secure or totally overrun is a bit exaggerated? This wall is already serving as a symbol than anything else?

Net migration to the U.S. through the Southern border has been negative since the Great Recession. So, "secure or totally overrun" isn't exaggerated, it's a lie. It also seems you're hooked to the word "symbol". I find that term somewhat overused.

Here is what I've written upstream:

The Trump Wall is an atrocity, a boondoggle, a political ploy playing to the racists and xenophobes that are Trump's deplorable "base", and what we're seeing right now is the starting shot of Trump's 2020 campaign. Trump pretends to "protect" Americans against the "darkies", while it's plain as day he doesn't give a shit. And yes, that stupid wall will be defeated; just the costs for travel to the U.S. will rise, and the servitude of those making the journey will exacerbate.​

So, maybe, when you are talking about a "symbol", and I am describing Trump's campaign antics at taxpayers' expense, we're talking about the same thing, maybe just viewing it from different angles?

 

[Mac1958]

A wall is always going to have two sides. Perhaps the actual, acute need for a wall, in reality, isn’t that desperate? More like a political trophy of some kind?

Yep. It's a simplistic response to a complicated problem, and it fits on a bumper sticker. In contemporary American politics, that's enough.
.

 

[gtopa1]

Exactly, wouldn’t you agree that the recent binary wall or no wall = secure or totally overrun is a bit exaggerated? This wall is already serving as a symbol than anything else?

Net migration to the U.S. through the Southern border has been negative since the Great Recession. So, "secure or totally overrun" isn't exaggerated, it's a lie. It also seems you're hooked to the word "symbol". I find that term somewhat overused.

Here is what I've written upstream:

The Trump Wall is an atrocity, a boondoggle, a political ploy playing to the racists and xenophobes that are Trump's deplorable "base", and what we're seeing right now is the starting shot of Trump's 2020 campaign. Trump pretends to "protect" Americans against the "darkies", while it's plain as day he doesn't give a shit. And yes, that stupid wall will be defeated; just the costs for travel to the U.S. will rise, and the servitude of those making the journey will exacerbate.​

So, maybe, when you are talking about a "symbol", and I am describing Trump's campaign antics at taxpayers' expense, we're talking about the same thing, maybe just viewing it from different angles?

If having no wall for Germany is so great then why is Merkel on Political Life Support??

In May 2017, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel and newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron met for the first time, many hoped for a renewal of vows. Crowds of pro-European well-wishers urged them on. Macron, the fresh-faced reformer, seemed to have a Midas-like political touch. And Merkel was at the height of her power on the international stage, having been deemed the new “leader of the free world,” supplanting the “very stable genius” in the White House, Donald Trump.

Quoting the German author Hermann Hesse, Merkel observed that, “There is magic in every beginning,” but added a caveat: “The magic lasts only when there are results.” Eighteen months later, the magic most certainly has not lasted. Merkel has now handed over the leadership of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and will not seek another term as chancellor. And Macron, far from walking on water, has been trying not to drown in a sea of yellow-vested protesters.

As both leaders’ political stars have waned, so, too, have the prospects for a renewed Franco-German relationship. Just when Macron was placing his hopes in Merkel’s power to lead at the European level, her grip on domestic power was slipping. After the German federal election in September 2017, Merkel struggled for six months to form a government. She did not want to form a minority government, and the remaining opposition parties didn’t particularly want to govern with her.

But the real damage to Merkel’s power came from within. Leading politicians in the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), have attacked Merkel’s decision to welcome Syrian refugees in 2015, and even cozied up to some of her sworn enemies, not least Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, and Matteo Salvini, the Italian deputy prime minister and interior minister. These populists and their CSU sympathizers have used immigration as a wedge issue to attack Merkel.

Macron, meanwhile, has sought to make French renewal synonymous with European renewal. Since coming to power, he has pursued a new grand bargain with Germany. In exchange for France finally getting a grip on its finances and reforming its public sector and labor market, Germany would back Macron’s proposals to deepen EU and eurozone integration, including a joint eurozone budget, an EU finance ministry, and more unified foreign and defense policies.



Though Merkel recently agreed to a joint budget in principle, many in France now suspect that Macron has been duped. Early in his presidency, he introduced a series of unpopular measures, slashing the wealth tax and cutting social benefits. More recently, he rolled out a fuel-tax increase to keep this year’s deficit below 3% of GDP, in the process unleashing the sea of yellow vests now laying siege to his administration.

In response, Germany has offered Macron essentially nothing. It has dragged its feet on completing a banking union and introducing eurozone investment bonds, and has paid only lip service to the idea of a joint budget. Even on defense policy, which could serve as a stand-in for meaningful economic reforms, Germany has put up resistance, watering down EU proposals for an “avant-garde” grouping and balking at Macron’s proposed European Intervention Initiative (EI2).

The Coming Franco-German Bust-Up | by Mark Leonard

Germany has a million "legal" Syrians; the US has 22MILLION ILLEGALS!!! I would suggest that most Germans are now pro-Walll!!! You want another 10 million refugees???

Greg

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why oh why dew DemonRats want illegal rats stealing into this country? The fucking Berlin Wall kept people in! Escaping was hard. How many DemonRats want to escape the USA?

The Berlin Wall is a fraction of what Trump wants to build .

Building a wall at the populated areas is fine . Building a wall in the middle of nowhere is a waste .

/-----/ Uhhh, Brainiac - the invaders will simply walk to where the wall ain't and cross over. Duhhhhh

 

[SweetSue92]

Purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep people out. Their leaders told them so.

How many were sneaking in versus sneaking out?

Well, it’s a matter of definition now, isn’t it? This wall was built by a communist dictatorship. In to the west or out from the east?

It’s pretty obvious today. But no free democratic country was advocating for that wall to be built.

It was “sold” as a protective measure by those who built it.

Point here is that e v e n if a wall serve a purpose you have to take in to account the signal it sends. And then weight it’s practical value to that.

It was built to stop East Germans from escaping to freedom.
No one, other than a few idiots, wanted to go from freedom to communist slavery.

Alright.
I don’t know if this is worth it.

The wall served a purpose. Pretty obvious too. But it wasn’t presented as that, get it? They didn’t tell East Germans that they would be kept inside. They said this wall was - protection.

We know history. It’s not that. The wall went to pure symbolic action- it was all it did. The number of people, the drama, suffering is utterly marginal. That wall had no effect at all on a grand scale, order than that of symbol. An iron curtain.

It was more than symbolic - if the Berlin Wall had not been built, East Germans would have left in droves. They risked getting shot to get out of there and many of them died trying, and it sure as hell wasn't to keep anybody out. Our proposed wall is the reverse, it is only one part of an overall solution to reduce illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs and anything else into the US. What makes this whole thing so vexing is that the democrats voted for that wall 12 years ago, but now that Trump wants it they're voting against it.

I don’t have the energy to over-repeat myself. Please, the Berlin Wall had only local impact. It surrounded West Berlin. We can agree of its purpose, however that was not the open and official stand point of those who built it.

So, with that said - the real practical use of any such installation might be more about sending signals than creating a long term change.

You have to marvel at the utter irony of a poster from Stockholm Sweden named Erik the Viking who is all but CRYING about a foreign nation wanting to defend its own borders with a wall. From foreign invaders.

Has anyone but me let this sink in? Because here we are at the close of 2018: Erik THE VIKING is crying about a foreign nation defending its borders from foreign invaders with a wall.

Just....I need all the GIFs for this one, Erik the Viking.

 

[K9Buck]

The wall could cost $1 and Democrats would refuse to fund it. They want open borders and unlimited immigration.