Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


OTOH, voting for Johnson, particularly in a Trump loss, sends a very clear message to the GOP that you want less populism, and more libertarianism in your GOP.

This, right here, is my sincere hope.

We'll see if it turns out that way...

Unless you're also voting for other libertarians down the ballot, then you're just pissing in the wind. You might as well write in Zombie Reagan for all the difference it will matter to the party leadership. They've already written off the third party protest votes for the presidential election as exactly that, and they've already spent the millions in analyzing polling data to prove it.

I disagree with you.

I think record vote counts (by, pure numbers or percentage) impacting Presidential elections have far more impact in pushing the two big parties.

Until there's serious money AND movement at the 3rd party level, this is our only option. Simply going "all in" on 3rd party candidates at every level is "pissing in the wind".

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

It's really unclear how Trump would govern, actually. And yes, the last GOP president expanded government in more than few ways. The GOP has also changed remarkably since 2000. The most powerful republicans in congress seem perfectly happy to burn the government down, so we'll see.

The question is that, even with Trump being a bit of a wild card, there still some fundamentals. I didn't say that Trump would shrink government or repeal regulations. But Clinton will continue to try to expand government, virtually guaranteed.

In many ways, it'd be tough to see what any republican would do. The platform for 8 years has been little more than being against Obama.

skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Current Republicans want to and have expanded government. Just look at the rash of bathroom laws, voter id laws, anti-gay attempts, and anti-union laws.

And those are fairly recent. Republicans have the myth that they are small government, but that is all it is...a myth.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

Either way, the sentence after the underlined is completely true.

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

 skyth wrote:
Current Republicans want to and have expanded government. Just look at the rash of bathroom laws, voter id laws, anti-gay attempts, and anti-union laws.

And those are fairly recent. Republicans have the myth that they are small government, but that is all it is...a myth.

Good thing Republicans <> Conservatives.

Conservatives want smaller government.

Most Republicans (and Democrats) like big government because it provides opportunity for grafts.

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

It really just depends on your worldview:

Democrats want bigger government to help minorities/workers/children/poor vs Democrats want bigger government to hurt Christians/business owners/rich people.
Republicans want bigger government to help business owners/Christians/land owners vs Republicans want bigger government to hurt minorities/children/poor people.

The only lie is that the GOP is the party of small government because it's impossible to be the party of morality without increasing the size of government to enforce that morality. And that's just ignoring all the laws and protections passed for groups that are important to the GOP.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

And it is true.

Look at the major issues and the rhetoric that goes along with it...

Gay/Trans rights- Republicans want to hurt gay/trans people and deny them rights.

Abortion-Republicans are pro Birth to punish women for having sex. You can't say they are pro life because they are anti-helping the women and children out.

Government assistance-Democrats are pro this to help people out. Contrast with the Republican Rhetoric of people being lazy and generally picturing them as minorities...

Gun Control- The intent is to make the nation safer. Too bad they can't figure out a way that actually works.

Voter ID - Republicans have admitted that the intent of the laws is to lower the ability of people that would vote Democrat to vote.

Unions - Republicans have been passing laws restricting unions' ability to bargain. The point is to hurt unions.

Church/State seperation - Republicans want to give special priveleges to Christianity while denying that to other religions.

Crime - Democrats want to prevent people from being so desperate that they feel the need to commit crimes. Republicans want to hammer anyone who gets out of line.

I could go on and on...but the policies and the intent behind those policies are pretty clear.

Sometimes the implememtation of the policies is not the best, and some times they go too far, but the intent to help is there for Democrats.

 skyth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

And it is true.

Look at the major issues and the rhetoric that goes along with it...

Gay/Trans rights- Republicans want to hurt gay/trans people and deny them rights.

Abortion-Republicans are pro Birth to punish women for having sex. You can't say they are pro life because they are anti-helping the women and children out.

Government assistance-Democrats are pro this to help people out. Contrast with the Republican Rhetoric of people being lazy and generally picturing them as minorities...

Gun Control- The intent is to make the nation safer. Too bad they can't figure out a way that actually works.

Voter ID - Republicans have admitted that the intent of the laws is to lower the ability of people that would vote Democrat to vote.

Unions - Republicans have been passing laws restricting unions' ability to bargain. The point is to hurt unions.

Church/State seperation - Republicans want to give special priveleges to Christianity while denying that to other religions.

Crime - Democrats want to prevent people from being so desperate that they feel the need to commit crimes. Republicans want to hammer anyone who gets out of line.

I could go on and on...but the policies and the intent behind those policies are pretty clear.

Sometimes the implememtation of the policies is not the best, and some times they go too far, but the intent to help is there for Democrats.

Just because the road to hell is paved with good intentions doesn't mean it's a path worth taking.

By it's very nature, conservatism is about keeping power in the hands of those that already have it, or those that can earn it/take it. Whether a monarch, a landed aristocracy, or modern corporate interests, what separates conservatives from liberals is the question of if people that don't have power on their own should have a say in how the nation is run. There are some oddities on the margins, but for the most part, conservatives are about the status quo, which emphasis power staying with those that already have it.

So yes, it's easy to make a compelling case that conservative policies are often made with, at best, a callous disregard for the hurt they cause to those with little influence. And liberal policies are generally made to improve the quality of life of those that have little means.

Look at voter ID laws, which are wildly popular with conservatives. They check a nearly non-existent problem, while making it more difficult for many on the margins of society to vote. the reaction is generally a shrug. Even if not enacted for political gain (doubtful), they show a callous disregard for effectively disenfranchising others for no real gain.

Look at a flip side liberal hobby horse: background checks to buy guns. They are meant to check a substantial problem, albeit probably ineffectively. Proponents understand that it will make firearm transactions more difficult, but are willing to work on improved systems to speed up the checks. And those effected are those with the means and desire to purchase firearms, or disproportionately that segment of society that can handle a few hours of inconvenience.

Neither policy is what I'd call great, but one is pointless and harmful, the other is pointless and benign.

 skyth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

And it is true.

Look at the major issues and the rhetoric that goes along with it...

Gay/Trans rights- Republicans want to hurt gay/trans people and deny them rights.

Republicans want to help people by protecting them from assault and protecting businesses from having to spend money to build X different versions of bathrooms.

Abortion-Republicans are pro Birth to punish women for having sex. You can't say they are pro life because they are anti-helping the women and children out.

Republicans want to help unborn children stay alive.

Government assistance-Democrats are pro this to help people out. Contrast with the Republican Rhetoric of people being lazy and generally picturing them as minorities...

Democrats want to hurt rich people and businesses by taking money away from them. Contrast that with the Republicans who want to enable business and people to help people on their own.

Gun Control- The intent is to make the nation safer. Too bad they can't figure out a way that actually works.

Republicans want to allow people to help themselves, Democrats want to take the private property of people away and let them get hurt by criminals.

Voter ID - Republicans have admitted that the intent of the laws is to lower the ability of people that would vote Democrat to vote.

Can't counter that one

Unions - Republicans have been passing laws restricting unions' ability to bargain. The point is to hurt unions.

Republicans have been passing laws allowing businesses to function and negotiate freely and to allow business owners to run their business in the best way for them. Democrats want to hurt private businesses by passing legislation that weakens their bargaining power.

Church/State seperation - Republicans want to give special priveleges to Christianity while denying that to other religions.

Democrats want to take protections away from religions, Republicans want to let religions make their own choices.

Crime - Democrats want to prevent people from being so desperate that they feel the need to commit crimes. Republicans want to hammer anyone who gets out of line.

Democrats want to pay people to not commit crime and lower the ability of everybody else to defend themselves, Republicans want to enforce the laws that are on the books.

I could go on and on...but the policies and the intent behind those policies are pretty clear.

The intent is to help people, it's just different people that the Democrats want to help.

Sometimes the implememtation of the policies is not the best, and some times they go too far, but the intent to help is there for Democrats.

Or you could look at it as Democrats wanting to hurt the people that Republicans want to help.

Now, I don't agree with hardly any of the things that I posted here. I just don't agree that the GOP is automatically the party of malice.

 skyth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
skyth is good little democrat foot soldier on the other side of the coin as whembly. Read their posts through their respective lenses and they make sense.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. I find their platform morally abhorrent. So I will go out and vote against them for the person that has the best chance of defeating the Republican.

They lines you trot out, you play a pretty convincing role as a Democrat. Doing it to help people. That was rich.

And it is true.

Look at the major issues and the rhetoric that goes along with it...

Gay/Trans rights- Republicans want to hurt gay/trans people and deny them rights.

Abortion-Republicans are pro Birth to punish women for having sex. You can't say they are pro life because they are anti-helping the women and children out.

Government assistance-Democrats are pro this to help people out. Contrast with the Republican Rhetoric of people being lazy and generally picturing them as minorities...

Gun Control- The intent is to make the nation safer. Too bad they can't figure out a way that actually works.

Voter ID - Republicans have admitted that the intent of the laws is to lower the ability of people that would vote Democrat to vote.

Unions - Republicans have been passing laws restricting unions' ability to bargain. The point is to hurt unions.

Church/State seperation - Republicans want to give special priveleges to Christianity while denying that to other religions.

Crime - Democrats want to prevent people from being so desperate that they feel the need to commit crimes. Republicans want to hammer anyone who gets out of line.

I could go on and on...but the policies and the intent behind those policies are pretty clear.

Sometimes the implememtation of the policies is not the best, and some times they go too far, but the intent to help is there for Democrats.

Those are extremely shallow representations of your opponent's positions. I'll give an example of such a shallow representation instead given from the other side regarding the left. Note that these are NOT my personal beliefs on my opposition's positions, but just examples of how I would classify my opponents with the same accuracy and depth as you did with your comment.

Left:
Gay/trans Rights: Wanting to confuse and corrupt youth into fantasies.

Abortion: Hating Babies and wanting to murder them.

Government Assistance: Only providing aid to those who are lazy.

Gun Control: Hate guns and the ability for people to protect themselves and their family.

Voter ID: Democrats just want to extend voting rights to illegitimate minorities that the democrats grovel towards in order to gain votes.

Unions: Want to give the Unions further control and power so they can dominate and control other legit businesses.

Church/State Separation: Democrats want to restrict Christianity and Christians while bending backwards for everything Islam.

Crime: Democrats want to just forgive people of their crimes or legalize something so they don't have to punish perpetrators of said crime.


There is no much point in debating with a person who does not put in the time to actually learn about their opponents viewpoints and understand them, even though they may not agree with them.

I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

Abortion appears at first to be a counter example, because what's lower in status than a fetus? The reality is that abortion rights empower lower status women, who would otherwise have to carry pregnancies, even if young, poor, the victim of sexual abuse, or in an abusive relationship with the father. Conservatism upholds the family ideal, including male led households, and so is naturally against anything that increases women sexual and economic freedom. Keep in mind that middle and upper class women have always and will continue to have ample access to abortion, either through travel or private doctors.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

Abortion appears at first to be a counter example, because what's lower in status than a fetus? The reality is that abortion rights empower lower status women, who would otherwise have to carry pregnancies, even if young, poor, the victim of sexual abuse, or in an abusive relationship with the father. Conservatism upholds the family ideal, including male led households, and so is naturally against anything that increases women sexual and economic freedom. Keep in mind that middle and upper class women have always and will continue to have ample access to abortion, either through travel or private doctors.

That's an awfully wide brush Polonius... and I'm not going to get into the discussions over abortions since we'll know it'll derail this thread.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.

Abortion appears at first to be a counter example, because what's lower in status than a fetus? The reality is that abortion rights empower lower status women, who would otherwise have to carry pregnancies, even if young, poor, the victim of sexual abuse, or in an abusive relationship with the father. Conservatism upholds the family ideal, including male led households, and so is naturally against anything that increases women sexual and economic freedom. Keep in mind that middle and upper class women have always and will continue to have ample access to abortion, either through travel or private doctors.

It's impossible to punish a woman with a baby because there is no law that prohibits women from giving up their babies. Even if by some means Republicans took over control of the federal govt and restocked SCotUS with likeminded judges and struck down federal laws and SCotUS precedents in order to get abortion made completely illegal there still wouldn't be any law that prohibits mothers of newborns from giving up their babies. Of course in that crazy extremist scenario Republicans could pass new laws that criminalize giving babies up for adoption but that even farther beyond the realm of reasonable possibilities than their act of getting abortion banned.

It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

The mother doesn't have to fend for the child at all. Baby pops out and mother renounces parental rights or abandons baby at a fire station or post office. Whatever your position is on abortion there is no law in the US that prohibits mothers from giving up their babies. We have close family friends that adopted children and that's a wonderful thing that is possible because we allow mothers to give up their babies. If you don't want the baby you're not required to keep him/her.

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

That is confusing two issues. It is a strawman to suggest that because someone is against abortion, they are in favor of a mother and a child living in poverty or such. Adoption is always a possibility as well. Does the adoption system need much more work? You bet! But that's an entirely different issue.

But yes, the pro life movement is about protecting babies as people in pro life believe that every stage of a baby is a human that has equal worth as other humans. After all even the zygote, the earliest stage of human development resulted from an egg and sperm, is a unique organism composed of human DNA from both the father and the mother. The zygote contains all of the genetic information to form an individual like us.

We were all zygotes at one point.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

The mother doesn't have to fend for the child at all.

Except for those pesky months of pregnancy of course.

Whatever your position is on abortion there is no law in the US that prohibits mothers from giving up their babies. We have close family friends that adopted children and that's a wonderful thing that is possible because we allow mothers to give up their babies. If you don't want the baby you're not required to keep him/her

So since nobody is forced to abort a child, nothing about your scenario changes at all and adoption is completely irrelevant to the legal status of abortion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

That is confusing two issues. It is a strawman to suggest that because someone is against abortion, they are all in favor of a mother and a child living in poverty or such.

The opposite common strawman often encountered is the assumption that somebody that is pro-choice is also in favor of a mother aborting a child.

There are plenty of pro-choice folks like me who want abortion to be legal, and who want mothers to choose options other than abortions.

 d-usa wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

That is confusing two issues. It is a strawman to suggest that because someone is against abortion, they are all in favor of a mother and a child living in poverty or such.

The opposite common strawman often encountered is the assumption that somebody that is pro-choice is also in favor of a mother aborting a child.

There are plenty of pro-choice folks like me who want abortion to be legal, and who want mothers to choose options other than abortions.

Agreed, that would indeed be a strawman. However I did not claim that.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

The mother doesn't have to fend for the child at all.

Except for those pesky months of pregnancy of course.

Whatever your position is on abortion there is no law in the US that prohibits mothers from giving up their babies. We have close family friends that adopted children and that's a wonderful thing that is possible because we allow mothers to give up their babies. If you don't want the baby you're not required to keep him/her

So since nobody is forced to abort a child, nothing about your scenario changes at all and adoption is completely irrelevant to the legal status of abortion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's not about protecting babies...It's about punishing women. You can't, with a straight face say you want to protect babies but then make the mother and child fend for themselves. It's all about forcing the woman to give birth.

That is confusing two issues. It is a strawman to suggest that because someone is against abortion, they are all in favor of a mother and a child living in poverty or such.

The opposite common strawman often encountered is the assumption that somebody that is pro-choice is also in favor of a mother aborting a child.

There are plenty of pro-choice folks like me who want abortion to be legal, and who want mothers to choose options other than abortions.

It has no bearing on the legality of abortion but I wasn't claiming that it did. I was using it to show that limitations on abortion, such as the ones currently in place in the US and EU, don't punish women because no woman is forced to keep their babies. Prenatal care can be subsidized by the state and currently is and isn't difficult to get. I'm not arguing that abortion should be banned, simply that restrictions on abortion aren't inherently or deliberately about punishing anyone.

This will just end up with the usual conversation about bodily autonomy regarding pregnancy and the ability to choose medications and surgical procedures and the government not being able to force you to undergo medical treatments for the benefits of others, so we are better off dropping the tangent before a MOD tells us to drop it anyway.

My intent when talking about the republican position on abortion wasn't on it being restrictive. It was that it can be viewed as being pro-something rather than simply being an "anti-women" position. Now I don't agree with the GOP position on abortion, but I don't think it needs to be painted as being born out of a motivation to punish women. I didn't mean to make it a discussion about the actual policy on abortion itself.

 d-usa wrote:
This will just end up with the usual conversation about bodily autonomy regarding pregnancy and the ability to choose medications and surgical procedures and the government not being able to force you to undergo medical treatments for the benefits of others, so we are better off dropping the tangent before a MOD tells us to drop it anyway.

My intent when talking about the republican position on abortion wasn't on it being restrictive. It was that it can be viewed as being pro-something rather than simply being an "anti-women" position.

Agreed. Pretty much every position taken by a political party isn't altruistic but is intended to promote or pander to a given demographic or agenda.

Saying 'agenda' makes it sound sinister. Helping the underdogs and the trod upon is technically an agenda and 'pandering' to a demographic or agenda.

It's also having empathy and good morals.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

I thought Trump planned to get the US government into the wall building business in a really yuuuge way, and make the best wall, 100%. Has he gone back on that plan?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that unless your core issues are completely off the typical left-right spectrum, it's not really that hard to pick between the two.

Clinton will look to generally expand the role of government,

You act like Trump won't expand the role of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats do that, though on different issues. Democrats, though, are doing it to help people. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing it to hurt people. Please don't continue the 'Big Lie' of Republicans being small government...

skyth... that's a really outrageous statement.

I thought Trump planned to get the US government into the wall building business in a really yuuuge way, and make the best wall, 100%. Has he gone back on that plan?

And don't forget giving less rights to a group of people because of their "religious" values in a secular government