4 ms·
It's funny, people against the wall keep bringing up the cost/effectiveness of the wall, as if Democrats would support the wall if it was only more fiscally res
by jquery 8y ago
It's funny, people against the wall keep bringing up the cost/effectiveness of the wall, as if Democrats would support the wall if it was only more fiscally responsible or effective, meanwhile people who support the wall would probably be willing to spend 5-10x the estimated cost, they'd be willing to spend $50-100B if that's what it took.
So, if walls don't work, isn't that an even better argument for Democrats to just give Trump his wall money? After all, it won't have any substantial effect on Americans, but this shutdown sure will if it keeps going. Or are Democrats more concerned about being the party of anti-Trump than being the adults in the room? After all, every right-thinking person knows Trump is the child throwing a tantrum in this shutdown. So wouldn't we be better served by Democrats taking care of Americans by ending the shutdown than teaching Trump a lesson in the minutiae of wall effectiveness per dollar spent?
- asdff 8y agoBeing the adults in the room is not setting 5.6 billion dollars (and the projections for the entire project are well north of that in total) on fire to appease a mob. The project is a shakedown, that 5.6 billion dollars will go straight into a private contractors pocket for absolutely no reason other than to appeal to bigoted logic. How much will Trump and private sector lobbies ask for next year? Do you pay ransomeware?
- jquery 8y agoWhatever the cost, be it $5B or $25B, it's a rounding error in the federal budget. And what you call a "mob", some might call the central promise Trump was elected to carry out. You say a wall is "bigoted" but Democrats keep insisting the wall won't work so who is harmed? I've never been the victim of ransomware but I assume I'd pay it if the alternative was to lose pictures of my child growing up.