Off Topic - Donald Trump and US politics - Forum

Since Obama doesn't have the good grace that most ex-POTUSes do, and persists in remaining in the political limelight, he's still fair game: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photos-obama-lectures-cant-hide-behind-wall-behind-wall/ “In this new world that we live in we can’t isolate ourselves,” Obama said. “We can’t hide behind a wall.” -Indonesian ex-pat Barry Soetoro The images from the event seem to belie his lofty message. =^[.]^= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/ whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =[.]= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie	Posted by Raycheetah#7060 on May 25, 2017, 10:29:49 PM Alpha Member Quote this Post
That message was, I believe, more about the isolationism of Trump rather than his idea of building a wall. I could be wrong. Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y IGN: Poltun	Posted by faerwin#5850 on May 25, 2017, 10:54:49 PM Alpha Member Quote this Post
" faerwin wrote: That message was, I believe, more about the isolationism of Trump rather than his idea of building a wall. I could be wrong. You don't get irony, do you? =^[.]^= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/ whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =[.]= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie	Posted by Raycheetah#7060 on May 25, 2017, 11:29:59 PM Alpha Member Quote this Post
" Raycheetah wrote: " faerwin wrote: That message was, I believe, more about the isolationism of Trump rather than his idea of building a wall. I could be wrong. You don't get irony, do you? =^[.]^= Yes, I do. I do get the irony of a Trumpist laughing at Obama for doing something that's a contradiction to his message. Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y IGN: Poltun	Posted by faerwin#5850 on May 26, 2017, 12:43:50 AM Alpha Member Quote this Post
What is it with presidents, that they hate walls so much. As long as he didn´t say, Ickrr bin eine Nussecke. And DTrump like, Yes We Can.	Posted by Pwnzors87#5366 on May 26, 2017, 2:46:27 AM Quote this Post
" Pwnzors87 wrote: What is it with presidents, that they hate walls so much. As long as he didn´t say, Ickrr bin eine Nussecke. And DTrump like, Yes We Can. Well, from a technical point, a wall that's impossible to defend is useless (and with the size of mexico, it's the case). So it's a huge waste of money right there. From a political point, it's essentially saying "screw everyone else". From a utilitarian point, it doesn't even try to address the root of the problem, just trying to divert it. From a military point, lol... Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y IGN: Poltun	Posted by faerwin#5850 on May 26, 2017, 4:38:21 AM Alpha Member Quote this Post
" faerwin wrote: " Pwnzors87 wrote: What is it with presidents, that they hate walls so much. As long as he didn´t say, Ickrr bin eine Nussecke. And DTrump like, Yes We Can. Well, from a technical point, a wall that's impossible to defend is useless (and with the size of mexico, it's the case). So it's a huge waste of money right there. From a political point, it's essentially saying "screw everyone else". From a utilitarian point, it doesn't even try to address the root of the problem, just trying to divert it. From a military point, lol... Technical: everything is, on some level, impossible to reactively defend. Defense inevitability rests upon the proactive principle of deterrence; that is, increasing the opportunity cost of undesirable behaviors using the threat of, rather than the actual application of, force. A wall can prove considerably more effective than open ground in this regard, in respect to behaviors where circumventing the wall would be considerably more hastle than walking through open terrain. This mostly pertains to drug, human, and various other smuggling. I will readily admit that walls are not effective at combatting the most common forms of illegal immigration. But I'm more worried about criminal cartels and Mexicans with known priors than I am about some normie overstaying their visa. Politically, Mexico isn't everyone. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 26, 2017, 10:52:23 AM	Posted by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 26, 2017, 5:44:03 AM Quote this Post
" faerwin wrote: Well, from a technical point, a wall that's impossible to defend is useless (and with the size of mexico, it's the case). So it's a huge waste of money right there. Can't we just drone the guys? -first woman who won the popular vote GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion#3432 on May 26, 2017, 9:40:12 AM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: " faerwin wrote: " Pwnzors87 wrote: What is it with presidents, that they hate walls so much. As long as he didn´t say, Ickrr bin eine Nussecke. And DTrump like, Yes We Can. Well, from a technical point, a wall that's impossible to defend is useless (and with the size of mexico, it's the case). So it's a huge waste of money right there. From a political point, it's essentially saying "screw everyone else". From a utilitarian point, it doesn't even try to address the root of the problem, just trying to divert it. From a military point, lol... Technical: everything is, on some level, impossible to reactively defend. Defense inevitability rests upon the proactive principle of deterrence; that is, increasing the opportunity cost of undesirable behaviors using the threat of, rather than the actual application of, force. A wall can prove considerably more effective than open ground in this regard, in respect to behaviors where circumventing the wall would be considerably more hastle than walking through open terrain. This mostly pertains to drug, human, and various other smuggling. I will readily admit that walls are not effective at combatting the most common forms of illegal immigration. But I'm more worried about criminal cartels and Mexicans with known priors than I am about some normie overstaying their visa. Politically, Mexico isn't everyone. Drug cartels are already digging tunnels to cross your borders, this won't change much in that regard. It would be a far wiser move in my opinion to have some military aid to help Mexico take down the drug cartels. You'd at the very least significantly lower the amount of drugs that come from the mexican border, you'd improve relations with Mexico and mexicans would be less interested in doing illegal immigration. That would be a much better things to do than waging war in the middle east... N.B. I'm not saying it should be free intervention. Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y IGN: Poltun	Posted by faerwin#5850 on May 26, 2017, 11:51:59 AM Alpha Member Quote this Post
Egypt Coptic Christians killed in bus attack http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40059307 This is the third attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt since December. Around 100 people were killed overall. GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion#3432 on May 26, 2017, 12:15:33 PM Quote this Post