Trump's Wall -- It won't be and it won't go coast to coast and it won't be beautiful

[usmbguest5318]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

Is it better than what we have now?

 

[norwegen]

If it's an uninterrupted concrete structure, how will the elephants and rhinoceroses migrate?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

Is it better than what we have now?

Did you watch the video linked in the OP? You wouldn't have asked that question if you had.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If it's an uninterrupted concrete structure, how will the elephants and rhinoceroses migrate?

Nobody's talking or worrying about that, except you. Do you have a solution proposal to deal with that challenge?

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

Is it better than what we have now?

Did you watch the video linked in the OP? You wouldn't have asked that question if you had.

Well looks like we're going to figure out what it will do. Not what the Left theorizes it will do.

 

[Corky]

Is it better than what we have now?

Mexico will pay !!!!!!!!!!



LOL

 

[norwegen]

If it's an uninterrupted concrete structure, how will the elephants and rhinoceroses migrate?

Nobody's talking or worrying about that, except you. Do you have a solution proposal to deal with that challenge?

Okay, sure. . .

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Is it better than what we have now?

Mexico will pay !!!!!!!!!!



LOL

Damn right they will. Every dollar that is prevented from being electronically sent to Mexico will lessen our national debt.

 

[12icer]

More stupid shit. When are we going to see some type of substance from liberal posters, The wall contracts are being drawn, and the specs have to be printed before they can let the contracts. Stupid liberal shit think they can just get some idiots to go form up a free standing wall and it will stand there all by itself.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If it's an uninterrupted concrete structure, how will the elephants and rhinoceroses migrate?

Amazingly I saw an article concerned about the butterfly migration if a wall is built.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If it's an uninterrupted concrete structure, how will the elephants and rhinoceroses migrate?

Nobody's talking or worrying about that, except you. Do you have a solution proposal to deal with that challenge?

Wait a minute. Did you think elephants and rhinoceroses actually migrate from Mexico to the US and vice versa?

 

[owebo]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

I can't wait until it gets done....from what I've seen on the engineering, it's going to be awesome....

 

[koshergrl]

 

[kyzr]

I'd take the money withheld from the sanctuary cities to pay for the wall, then take 10% from all money transfers to Mexico to actually pay for it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

You idiots actually think we cared what it was made of? As if it wasn't some massive concrete barrier the full length we'd be pissed off? It's common sense. Some places need walls like that. Others need better fencing. Some will need electronic monitoring. I didn't expect some massive concrete 50 foot wall border to border. What I did expect and think we will get is a decent barrier with the resources to defend our country from these illegals and a government that enforces the damn law.

 

[usmbguest5318]

More stupid shit. When are we going to see some type of substance from liberal posters, The wall contracts are being drawn, and the specs have to be printed before they can let the contracts. Stupid liberal shit think they can just get some idiots to go form up a free standing wall and it will stand there all by itself.

Okay, so we can tell that you don't care whether Trump sticks to his campaign promise about building a wall. A lot of people, Trumpkins in particular, do. That they do is why they supported Trump. At any rate, now that we know you don't care about it, you're dismissed.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

More stupid shit. When are we going to see some type of substance from liberal posters, The wall contracts are being drawn, and the specs have to be printed before they can let the contracts. Stupid liberal shit think they can just get some idiots to go form up a free standing wall and it will stand there all by itself.

Okay, so we can tell that you don't care whether Trump sticks to his campaign promise about building a wall. A lot of people, Trumpkins in particular, do. That they do is why they supported Trump. At any rate, now that we know you don't care about it, you're dismissed.

Have you seen this one?

Mexican woman fearing deportation takes refuge at Denver church

I want her gone. I want her to be an example for all other illegals to get the fuck out now. You have a chance to leave on your own terms but when it comes down to it you will be gone. Raid that church and drag her ass out. Nothing would bring me greater happiness than a caravan of illegal's crossing the Border South.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

Is it better than what we have now?

Go ahead and be part of the rhetorically partisan "echo chamber." I don't see you advancing the merit of your own position on the matter by putting forth:

• A cost-benefit analysis that shows how Trump's wall will be worth it.
• Any metrics that show how Trump's wall will yield greater border security than will a fence.
• Anything that indicates Trump knew what he was talking about by insisting on a wall rather than a fence.
• Anything showing that it's not a waste of resources to realign people's expectations re: the wall.

All I see is your asking an absurd rhetorical question that asks in the present tense about the qualitative superiority of an object that has yet to be built. In other words, all I see from you is incoherence.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Even on his signature campaign promise -- buiding "2000-mile big beautiful wall", the prettiest one you've ever seen -- it's unlikely that is going to happen. DHS Secretary John Kelly has already begun, in testimony before Congress, referring to it as a "barrier," presumably as the first part of the "spin" campaign to alterTrumpkins' expectations of the government building a wall on the southern border.

• It's not likely to be a wall at all. At best, it'll be a fence. "After the experts convince Trump the wall will not work and it will be a fence, "the White House will just have to figure out a way to spin it [to the public.]...all but one of the more than two dozen sources ...agreed that a concrete wall is not a good idea."
  • Trump's promises and executive order:
    • "On the fence -- it's not a fence. It's a wall. We're going to build a wall."
    • "'Wall' shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."
    • "It's going to be made of hardened concrete, and it's going to be made out of rebar, and steel,"
• It's not going to be uninterrupted.
• A wall is not even a good common sense idea.

Now I don't care what the heck he builds on the border. For me the question is whether there is a positive and material cost-benefit case for building anything more, and supplementing it with more personnel, mechanized surveillance, and support personnel, administration and infrastructure. I have yet to see any such cost-benefit analysis. Is there any that's credible?

What I do care about, what I cared about during the election season, is that the stupidity of building a wall was not foreseen by Trump or Trumpkins PRIOR to his making the proposal. Literally tens of thousands of people all over the country hollered, "Build that wall." At the same time, experts all over said that's a ridiculous idea, and neither Trump nor his sycophantic Trumpkins would listen to them.

Now, the Trump Admin., and border physical-security experts have to, among other things, (1) undertake the process of convincing Trump that a fence is better and (2) "spinning" a fence, something that wastes resources and that really wouldn't have to happen had Trump in the first place actually been knowledgeable about border security and immigration, before he started on about a damned wall.

Were he just a little bit knowledgable, what might he have used as a mantra? Something as simple as "good fences make good neighbors," or something similar that at least aligns with what makes some damn sense to actually build on the border, would have done just fine. Of course, Trump was more focused on his greatness and his conviction that he knows more than everyone else and that he's infallible. In his mind, it should be a wall.

What concerns me is that during the campaign it was profoundly obvious that of nearly everything that man spoke about, he didn't at all know the subject well, and he wouldn't listen to people who did. Neither would the Trumpkins. Quite simply, knowing what you're talking about before you start talking about it is not a liberal or conservative "thing." It's just a behavior broadly intelligent people exhibit, and it's a trait Trump rarely exhibits. If that means they can't talk about something until they do know it well, well, then it just does, and they just don't.

(I write "rarely" only to allow for the off chance that he may have spoken about something on which he's highly knowledgeable.)

Is it better than what we have now?

Go ahead and be part of the rhetorically partisan "echo chamber." I don't see you advancing the merit of your own position on the matter by putting forth:

• A cost-benefit analysis that shows how Trump's wall will be worth it.
• Any metrics that show how Trump's wall will yield greater border security than will a fence.
• Anything that indicates Trump knew what he was talking about by insisting on a wall rather than a fence.
• Anything showing that it's not a waste of resources to realign people's expectations re: the wall.

All I see is your asking an absurd rhetorical question that asks in the present tense about the qualitative superiority of an object that has yet to be built. In other words, all I see from you is incoherence.

I agree ANALYSIS: Border Wall Only Needs To Stop 9-12% Of Illegal Crossings To Pay For Itself