Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who do you prefer in the Republican and Democrat camp? Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    May I ask why building a wall is "nutty"?
    People have already given appropriate reasons.

    Essentially though it would be much easier simply to employ more border control officers and arm them. It's also a far better plan to break the cartels.

    One understands his motivation but it's a too simplistic idea designed to appeal to simplistic people.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Evidence?



    Evidence?
    Mexico: What Trump has stated is that Mexico will pay "one way or another" - what he means by that is that the US would take the payment for the wall out of the billions of dollars of state aid that the US gives Mexico every year.

    Walls: Walls work, and they always have done. Look at Israel at how walls help to keep people out of a certain area. These are not garden walls, they are walls that can go deep deep underground with a variety of apparatus that checks and listens for digging.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    People have already given appropriate reasons.

    Essentially though it would be much easier simply to employ more border control officers and arm them. It's also a far better plan to break the cartels.

    One understands his motivation but it's a too simplistic idea designed to appeal to simplistic people.
    See my comment above.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Mexico: What Trump has stated is that Mexico will pay "one way or another" - what he means by that is that the US would take the payment for the wall out of the billions of dollars of state aid that the US gives Mexico every year.
    I don't see how withholding aid is the same as 'making Mexico pay for it' -- sounds like empty rhetoric.

    Walls: Walls work, and they always have done. Look at Israel at how walls help to keep people out of a certain area. These are not garden walls, they are walls that can go deep deep underground with a variety of apparatus that checks and listens for digging.
    Israel's most recent war in Gaza was (officially) the reaction to an elaborate tunnel system dug under the walls by Hamas, who were apparently using them to launch terrorist attacks in Israel. If you're going to argue that walls work, that's hardly the example to use.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Bernie > Trump > Robert Mugabe > Clinton.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't see how withholding aid is the same as 'making Mexico pay for it' -- sounds like empty rhetoric.



    Israel's most recent war in Gaza was (officially) the reaction to an elaborate tunnel system dug under the walls by Hamas, who were apparently using them to launch terrorist attacks in Israel. If you're going to argue that walls work, that's hardly the example to use.
    So Mexico would in fact pay for it, money that Mexico would have had would be used, therefore Mexico would in essence be paying for the wall.

    Look at the number of terrorist attacks occurring in Israel, suicide bombers etc. before and after the wall was built. You will see a huge drop in attacks post-wall, it is a good example to use. Also, the location of the Mexico border is an area that is much harder to build a tunnel, compared to the Israel wall that goes through urban areas.

    If the GOP win the election, and the wall is built, I can guarantee that the number of illegals and drugs entering the country will be greatly reduced.
    Walls work. I take it prisons should take down all of their wall right? As apparently they don't work.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    May I ask why building a wall is "nutty"?
    There's an article which costed Trump's wall as a wall not a fence and the raw materials cost approximately 1 year of NASA or 34 of Planned Parenthood. This was fairly rudimentary materials costing and the actual cost is likely to far exceed the $18Bn estimated there.

    Here's another to tell you why it's a terrible idea: http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engin...o-implausible/

    There's no way Mexico will pay for it, it's for USA's benefit so the bill would be theirs to pay even if they tried to sanction Mexico to fund it with increased visa fees etc. the US economy would pay for it and in a way that made the wall even more expensive.

    It would also get tunnelled the crap out of by cartels because their US drug money is important to them and no wall will stem that flow. El Chapo tunnelled out of prison for heavens sake. A wall with foundations of >8 feet? Pffft.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In the Republican camp, it used to be Rand Paul by a mile, as he's by far the most level headed, intelligent and rational of all candidates on either side. His proposals would by far be the best for America going forward. Now that he's dropped out, I'd stand with Trump; while he does have some kooky ideas, he generally tends to be more moderate than most of the hard right war hawk Bible thumpers (and will likely move more to the centre if he gets the nom and has to get Democrats onboard).

    Among Democrats, I'd pick Sanders over Clinton. Though some of his dumb socialist ideas are the last thing America needs, I admire his honesty and integrity, and most of his far left proposals will be blocked by Congress. In other areas apart from the economic aspect, he is quite sensible on the whole. Clinton is cancer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Clinton is cancer.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    There's an article which costed Trump's wall as a wall not a fence and the raw materials cost approximately 1 year of NASA or 34 of Planned Parenthood. This was fairly rudimentary materials costing and the actual cost is likely to far exceed the $18Bn estimated there.

    Here's another to tell you why it's a terrible idea: http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engin...o-implausible/

    There's no way Mexico will pay for it, it's for USA's benefit so the bill would be theirs to pay even if they tried to sanction Mexico to fund it with increased visa fees etc. the US economy would pay for it and in a way that made the wall even more expensive.

    It would also get tunnelled the crap out of by cartels because their US drug money is important to them and no wall will stem that flow. El Chapo tunnelled out of prison for heavens sake. A wall with foundations of >8 feet? Pffft.
    I explained how Mexico would pay for the wall above. Mexico would most likely pay by having money withdrawn from annual state aid.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    In the Republican camp, it used to be Rand Paul by a mile, as he's by far the most level headed, intelligent and rational of all candidates on either side. His proposals would by far be the best for America going forward. Now that he's dropped out, I'd stand with Trump; while he does have some kooky ideas, he generally tends to be more moderate than most of the hard right war hawk Bible thumpers (and will likely move more to the centre if he gets the nom and has to get Democrats onboard).

    Among Democrats, I'd pick Sanders over Clinton. Though some of his dumb socialist ideas are the last thing America needs, I admire his honesty and integrity, and most of his far left proposals will be blocked by Congress. In other areas apart from the economic aspect, he is quite sensible on the whole. Clinton is cancer.
    I actually think that Trump is the most likely to win during a national election. My reasoning for this belief is that he is somewhat moderate and not a traditional Republican, therefore will be at an advantage when trying to gain votes from independents and democrat leaning voters.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I explained how Mexico would pay for the wall above. Mexico would most likely pay by having money withdrawn from annual state aid.
    Mexico recieved less than $600M in foreign aid in 2013. I don't have figures for more recent times but at $600M assuming the US provides Mexico's entire foreign aid budget using the $18bn raw materials costs that's 30 years of Mexico receiving no foreign aid budget, in the meantime the USA will have to make up the substantial deficit. I've already said that raw materials cost is primitive and the actual cost is likely to be higher. That said, the amount of Foreign Aid Mexico receives is also likely to increase so a minimum of 30 years may not be a bad estimate for the amount of time it would take for Mexico to pay for the wall. That doesn't represent value to anyone involved, particularly the US taxpayer.

    Wall debunked as a fantasy thought up by a lunatic.

    EDIT: You just called Trump a moderate? Just because he's not an evangelical Christian does not make him a moderate! He's at least partly responsible for driving the establishment candidates in the field to take up ultra right-wing positions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Democrats: Sanders

    Republicans: Bush
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    Mexico recieved less than $600M in foreign aid in 2013. I don't have figures for more recent times but at $600M assuming the US provides Mexico's entire foreign aid budget using the $18bn raw materials costs that's 30 years of Mexico receiving no foreign aid budget, in the meantime the USA will have to make up the substantial deficit. I've already said that raw materials cost is primitive and the actual cost is likely to be higher. That said, the amount of Foreign Aid Mexico receives is also likely to increase so a minimum of 30 years may not be a bad estimate for the amount of time it would take for Mexico to pay for the wall. That doesn't represent value to anyone involved, particularly the US taxpayer.

    Wall debunked as a fantasy thought up by a lunatic.

    EDIT: You just called Trump a moderate? Just because he's not an evangelical Christian does not make him a moderate! He's at least partly responsible for driving the establishment candidates in the field to take up ultra right-wing positions.
    You have made up the £18 billion figure, no price has been agreed upon yet, it would be a lot less than that.

    It seems that you are some what unaware of what and how traditional GOP members behave and the policies they believe in. Trump does not represent a traditional Republican, his recent calls on the Iraq War evidence that. You need to remember that traditionally GOP members believe in small government etc. however Trump, if you listen to him, does not particularly believe in small government, he states that the government is just stupid at what it does, not that the government should not be involved.

    Mexico receives a heck of a lot more than $600 million a year (if you add up official aid and a host of additional programmes that are not classified as aid as they fall under different programmes but act in a similar fashion.) Trump himself has quoted a price of $8 billion, less than half of your stated figure (although nobody can say for sure what the price would be).

    Time will tell.
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    Mexico recieved less than $600M in foreign aid in 2013. I don't have figures for more recent times but at $600M assuming the US provides Mexico's entire foreign aid budget using the $18bn raw materials costs that's 30 years of Mexico receiving no foreign aid budget, in the meantime the USA will have to make up the substantial deficit.
    I've found two sets of data for US assistance, one from the government and one third party, that provide largely similar figures;

    2012: $413million
    2013: $265million
    2014: $207million
    2015: $165million
    2016: $142million

    http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/explore
    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44113.pdf (page 8)

    But yeah, you're right- the idea that siphoning funds from aid to Mexico could feasibly pay for the wall is insane.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    For the Democrats, I prefer Sanders, I think. His campaign seems like an incredible breath of fresh air and is addressing the most important issues facing the US political system at the moment. I am really impressed by the movement he has built, and when you compare the way in which his campaign is being funded (over 3m donations averaging $27 apiece), it is really quite incredible. At the same time, I think his rhetoric is starting to become a little repetitive and tiresome - he seems to be trying to bring everything back to Citizens United, corruption and massive wealth inequality. Those are obviously massive issues, but in recent debates he seems to be shying away from actually answering varied questions by going back to his taglines on these areas.

    Not sure what I think about Hillary Clinton, she seems to really polarise people outside of the Republican Party. Obviously some of the smears and campaigns against her led by the GOP are stupid and unfair, but at the same time, I have noticed how smooth a political operator she is - and when I do spot it, it just makes her come across like a bit of a slimy politician to me. And the fact she's flip-flopped on important things and seems to be very cosy with Wall Street and special interest groups settles very uneasy with me. Can't work out if these issues are overstated, because she is incredibly experienced and a good politician so in some respects I do think she would be able to implement progressive policies better than Sanders would.



    On the Republican side, the field is just laughable for the most part. I was never that interested in US politics until I saw Trump's announcement and realised he wasn't trolling, but now I see why lots of people are hooked. If I had to pick one (really do not see myself wanting to vote for any of these candidates if I could), maybe Kaisch. He seems actually pretty reasonable to me and has a bipartisan track record which suggests he would actually try to get things done by reaching out to the Democrats. That said, I've heard his record as Ohio governor has actually had some very conservative aspects, particularly in terms of heavily restricting abortion access.

    The GOP establishment is so blatantly gunning for Rubio. I'm not actually sure this is helping him given the massive anti-establishment sentiment that is propelling Trump and Cruz. In the last debate the audience was so obviously biased in favour of Rubio - he could have been making seal noises and they'd still have cheered him on. I found it irritating, so those watching at home supporting Trump or Cruz were probably more alienated from voting for him as a result.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    You have made up the £18 billion figure, no price has been agreed upon yet, it would be a lot less than that.

    It seems that you are some what unaware of what and how traditional GOP members behave and the policies they believe in. Trump does not represent a traditional Republican, his recent calls on the Iraq War evidence that. You need to remember that traditionally GOP members believe in small government etc. however Trump, if you listen to him, does not particularly believe in small government, he states that the government is just stupid at what it does, not that the government should not be involved.

    Mexico receives a heck of a lot more than $600 million a year (if you add up official aid and a host of additional programmes that are not classified as aid as they fall under different programmes but act in a similar fashion.) Trump himself has quoted a price of $8 billion, less than half of your stated figure (although nobody can say for sure what the price would be).

    Time will tell.
    A structural engineer costed the wall in materials. There's no way a wall can be cheaper than the cost of its materials. A fence would be but Trump said he wanted a wall so it's a wall that's been budgeted for. Using Gofre's figures which are the correct ones for US aid the wall gets paid off in over 100 years. That sort of time isn't viable. I'll say nothing more on the issue, you, like Trump, think it's okay to pluck numbers from the sky.

    Here's the cost calculations http://m.imgur.com/gallery/KVdSb
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Trump gets elected, I quit trying to understand America. He has been lying 24/7, he has been bankrupt 4 times and said he's never been, he hits on his daughters, he's a bigoted racist and wants to overturn the gay marriage law. So seriously, why would you trust a man like that? He's just paid his way through the elections. When he was 2nd in the primaries of Iowa he said someone rigged them... His ego is bigger that America in its entirety.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    A structural engineer costed the wall in materials. There's no way a wall can be cheaper than the cost of its materials. A fence would be but Trump said he wanted a wall so it's a wall that's been budgeted for. Using Gofre's figures which are the correct ones for US aid the wall gets paid off in over 100 years. That sort of time isn't viable. I'll say nothing more on the issue, you, like Trump, think it's okay to pluck numbers from the sky.

    Here's the cost calculations http://m.imgur.com/gallery/KVdSb
    "Pluck numbers from the sky" - says the person who gives material costs for a wall with as of now an unspecified length and height - yeah, great figures...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.