Fox and Friends

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I can say the same exact things about doors. But the idiot who wrote this piece, still has a door on his house that he closes every single night. There's a reason for that. The reason is, while the door isn't perfect, it's not a guarantee, it still helps. It can be penetrated by a hurricane or by human action. Yet still, having a door makes us more secure than we'd be without the door. TRY MAKING THAT WRONG.

The "wall" is not the same thing as a door or a lock. The wall is the same thing as a wall around my house. In the 17th century I'd put a moat around my house. In the 18th century I'd put a wall around my house. In the 19th century, I'd put a piece of wood across the inside of my door. In the 20th century, I'd put a lock on my door. In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it.

Walls still have a place in defense but they may not be appropriate (or needed) everywhere. No single solution works for every instance. And that is why there are walls in some spots along the border and not in all spots and why people have supported walls on the border in the past for some sections and don't support putting a wall along the full border.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The "wall" is not the same thing as a door or a lock. The wall is the same thing as a wall around my house. In the 17th century I'd put a moat around my house. In the 18th century I'd put a wall around my house. In the 19th century, I'd put a piece of wood across the inside of my door. In the 20th century, I'd put a lock on my door. In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it.

Walls still have a place in defense but they may not be appropriate (or needed) everywhere. No single solution works for every instance. And that is why there are walls in some spots along the border and not in all spots and why people have supported walls on the border in the past for some sections and don't support putting a wall along the full border.

"In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it."

Almost all of us still use metal locks. But whatever. Just as a door isn't the same as a wall, your house doesn't have 2,000 miles of lateral frontage with which one can enter. You need to secure a much smaller linear area in your house, much easier to do with electronic surveillance.

Paul, if your young children slept in a guest house which was 10 miles away from the house in which you slept, would you be satisfied with electronic locks and cameras to alert you if a murderer was sneaking into their room? No. Because by the time you got there, it would be too late. Right? You'd have guards and a barrier. Right?

On a 2,000 mile border, drones and cameras might be effective at telling us that people are crossing, and where. I'm not sure I see how it helps us stop them, unless they all happen to cross within 100 yards of where the nearest border security personnel are. A camera might allow us to get a better count of how many are coming in, how does it help us prevent them from coming in, on a 2,000 mile border?

That's a sincere question. Not trying to be a wise azz.

Don't we already use drones and cameras?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it."

Almost all of us still use metal locks. But whatever. Just as a door isn't the same as a wall, your house doesn't have 2,000 miles of lateral frontage with which one can enter. You need to secure a much smaller linear area in your house, much easier to do with electronic surveillance.

Paul, if your young children slept in a guest house which was 10 miles away from the house in which you slept, would you be satisfied with electronic locks and cameras to alert you if a murderer was sneaking into their room? No. Because by the time you got there, it would be too late. Right? You'd have guards and a barrier. Right?

On a 2,000 mile border, drones and cameras might be effective at telling us that people are crossing, and where. I'm not sure I see how it helps us stop them, unless they all happen to cross within 100 yards of where the nearest border security personnel are. A camera might allow us to get a better count of how many are coming in, how does it help us prevent them from coming in, on a 2,000 mile border?

That's a sincere question. Not trying to be a wise azz.

Don't we already use drones and cameras?

We do already use drones and cameras and people in certain spots. but some of the areas Trump wants the walls are very remote and get very very few people going through bc it is mountainous or in the desert so a wall is a waste. In San Diego a wall makes sense but in the hot desert w/no people walking through it makes less sense. Also, the guards say a concrete wall is not preferred as they want to see what is on the other side.

Plus you have the issue of much of the land is privately held.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We do already use drones and cameras and people in certain spots. but some of the areas Trump wants the walls are very remote and get very very few people going through bc it is mountainous or in the desert so a wall is a waste. In San Diego a wall makes sense but in the hot desert w/no people walking through it makes less sense. Also, the guards say a concrete wall is not preferred as they want to see what is on the other side.

Plus you have the issue of much of the land is privately held.

Trump isn't suggesting we wall the whole border, just sections. I presume, he's talking about the places most used by the 1,000 - 3,000 who cross every day.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump isn't suggesting we wall the whole border, just sections. I presume, he's talking about the places most used by the 1,000 - 3,000 who cross every day.

He has gone back and forth with saying the full length. I think recently (last year or so) he hasn't said "the full length". At this point I don't know how long he is proposing. If he were to say that it is just filing in areas these and those area I could support that but I don't think so.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He has gone back and forth with saying the full length. I think recently (last year or so) he hasn't said "the full length". At this point I don't know how long he is proposing. If he were to say that it is just filing in areas these and those area I could support that but I don't think so.

I don't think he really knows or cares what would get built, it's all about riling up the base and being able to declare total victory, probably, like has never been seen in this or any other nation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think he really knows or cares what would get built, it's all about riling up the base and being able to declare total victory, probably, like has never been seen in this or any other nation.

This is pure opinion, not an argument. It amounts to a slick tactical lie. It ignores the mirror image of Pelosi and Schumer being all about riling up their base and declaring the defeat of Trump. And it is spiced with an uncorroborated and patently untrue notion that nothing like this has ever been seen in this or any other nation. Your seriously of the opinion that no politician in the history of the world has ever wanted to get something done in order to declare victory?