What makes it impossible for them to understand: C and P from a couple of sources.. Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

LostAggie66 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX (Shire of Seawinds)

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

You have made some good points permafrost.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

Is that how you came over? On an airplane? How else would you know? By the news? I mean you are as far away from the border as possible. Why do the illegall aliens end up in texas before getting sent elsewhere if they don't come over the border? Can you answer at least most of the questions? I mean you thought up an interesting theory. Just explain!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

Valid points...

Query.
Why has the Border Patrol given a number of 2,200,000 for apprehensions and expulsions if the majority of i******s are visa overstays ???
I'm also curious how the visa overstays got to the number of 11+ million??

https://www.statista.com/topics/3454/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/

As for the Ukraine, the aid includes cash as well as military equipment and humanitarian aid... And the cash amount is not insignificant...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-much-aid-the-u-s-has-sent-to-ukraine-in-6-charts

Liberty Tree

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

Total BS spin

archie bunker Loc: Texas

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

Do you really buy this garbage? Really??

Liberty Tree

archie bunker wrote:

Do you really buy this garbage? Really??

The wall has never been given a chance.

Lily

permafrost wrote:

C and P from a couple of sources..

Why did Democrats say that the US can't afford a $12B wall to defend our own border before giving $300B to Ukraine to defend the Ukraine-Russia border?
We don’t say we can’t afford it, we say it’s a waste of money. There’s a difference. The wall doesn’t do what the Republicans think it does.

This is a classic example of being trapped in a narrative. We tell stories to understand the world, then we mistake those stories for the world. Republicans hear “i*****l i*******t” and a story pops into their head of a Mexican creeping across the border in the dead of night. That happens every now and then, but it isn’t common. Most i*****l i*******ts drive through a checkpoint or fly in to the US, get their passports stamped, then never leave when their visa expires.

Walls won’t stop that.

But Republican’s can’t tell the difference between the story in their head—the Mexican sneaking across the border—and the reality of what happens. So they are literally, not metaphorically but literally, incapable of understanding the argument that walls don’t work. They cannot cognitively process it. They cannot jump outside the story in their head long enough to grasp it.

Ukraine is another example. Republicans talk about “the US spending money to support Ukraine,” and they imagine, I don’t know, a C-130 loaded with pallets of $100 bills.

That’s not what’s happening.

We’re sending them old military equipment that was, in most cases, slated to be destroyed and replaced anyway. The “dollar value” is the cost of replacing it…which we were going to do anyway.

But again, those words mean nothing. They’re just gibberish, because in order to understand the argument, you have to let go of the story in oyur head about pallets of cash, and Republicans can’t do that.

I’m not just busting on Republicans. We all, to some extent, see the world through narratives. But in those particular examples, the Republican narrative is firmly entrenched and Republicans seem cognitively incapable of seeing the world any other way.

C and P from a couple of sources.. br br Why did... (show quote)

If walls are so ineffective why do over 60 countries worldwide utilize them effectively?

Liberty Tree

Lily wrote:

If walls are so ineffective why do over 60 countries worldwide utilize them effectively?

When Democrats say walls do not work they mean walls do not work in helping them bring in more i******s.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

XXX wrote:

Is that how you came over? On an airplane? How else would you know? By the news? I mean you are as far away from the border as possible. Why do the illegall aliens end up in texas before getting sent elsewhere if they don't come over the border? Can you answer at least most of the questions? I mean you thought up an interesting theory. Just explain!

Obviously what I posted was current.. back in the day, I was stationed in San Diego and slipped over to TJ often.. as Marines, we would chit chat with the BP at the crossing and even back then, they later half of the 60s, it was mentioned that checking cars and other t***sportation was key to finding drugs and contraband.. I read about that fact now and then during other border concerns over the years.. So I would say the overwhelming movement of drugs and people has been via the mentioned plains and buses and cars, then overstaying.. the movement of slipping over the border does of course happen but does not account for the numbers so often mentioned , not only on OPP but also the media.. The overstaying idea also seems logical.. easy and painless for the most part..

Turns out twin cities has a modest ongoing problem with i******s,, a writer , John Sandford , does the "Pray" series, did one novel about the gangs from Mexico coming to the area.. darn good writer ...

Why Texas.. I am not sure about that,, but to me it seems that from memory a lot of patrolling in California, Arizona nd New Mexico, to me are both harsh desert lands and would be last resorts for crossing.. Texas has a lot of border cities and crossing areas, legally. a good deal of Mexican culture and so seems a logical area to hang out and not be conspicuous.. Only been to Texas a half dozen times and most of that far from the border.. so I could be wrong about that.. but is has the taste of logic to the idea.. if not, let me know..

As for sending the true illigals elsewhere, I think it is foolish.. as the border has been in various state of turmoil from the time mexico built the first border fence in the 1800s it would seem normal to have developed some structure to deal with those extra people.. while one can say the northern states should also bear the part of the task, logic made the nearest area the target area and that should have developed some kind of infrastructure to deal with it.

Just as a point of interest, once,a number of years ago.. about early 21st century time, I was at the twin city airport putting my grandson off to Job Corps for the safety of himself. and a plain load of what looked like Mexicans unloaded to stay locally.. of course it is an international airport and maybe they were from elsewhere.. but I think that on occasion we northerners have had Immigrants delivered to our area before the current influx..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Valid points... br br Query. br Why has the Bord... (show quote)

I find a number of odd things about the BP when I take the time to look a little..

On Ukraine, I am so biased for Ukraine, knowing a few from my old high school days.. that I simply back anything that will seemingly help them and let it all flow down the stream of time..

But you may have seen me post a plot line that Hamas was inspired by Putin to spread disorder to more of the world.. Yes,, I seem to be a lone champion for that plot..

yes, I looked at that 6 chart article also..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

archie bunker wrote:

Do you really buy this garbage? Really??

Archie,, to me it seems very logical.. I posted a few answers to XXX if you care to look..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Lily wrote:

If walls are so ineffective why do over 60 countries worldwide utilize them effectively?

Depending on the geography, a wall could be more effective than on our mexican border... but the most casual of looks shows the ineffectiveness of a wall on our southern border.. Even now, the border is tunneled under in 100s of places.. Kids climb over it on ladders to fool around on the US side and go back when they wish..

To be effective, it would have to be constantly manned a bout every city block or so.. even the great wall of China wound up needing that. and as a last gasp hired the mongols to man the wall to keep them out..

Other country walls... just to point out the wall Israel built is manned nearly every yard of it.. Not knowledgeable about any other wall at the moment...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Liberty Tree wrote:

When Democrats say walls do not work they mean walls do not work in helping them bring in more i******s.

Historically the republicans have been constant supporters of a loose border and a constant supply of cheap labor..

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

permafrost wrote:

Obviously what I posted was current.. back in the day, I was stationed in San Diego and slipped over to TJ often.. as Marines, we would chit chat with the BP at the crossing and even back then, they later half of the 60s, it was mentioned that checking cars and other t***sportation was key to finding drugs and contraband.. I read about that fact now and then during other border concerns over the years.. So I would say the overwhelming movement of drugs and people has been via the mentioned plains and buses and cars, then overstaying.. the movement of slipping over the border does of course happen but does not account for the numbers so often mentioned , not only on OPP but also the media.. The overstaying idea also seems logical.. easy and painless for the most part..

Turns out twin cities has a modest ongoing problem with i******s,, a writer , John Sandford , does the "Pray" series, did one novel about the gangs from Mexico coming to the area.. darn good writer ...

Why Texas.. I am not sure about that,, but to me it seems that from memory a lot of patrolling in California, Arizona nd New Mexico, to me are both harsh desert lands and would be last resorts for crossing.. Texas has a lot of border cities and crossing areas, legally. a good deal of Mexican culture and so seems a logical area to hang out and not be conspicuous.. Only been to Texas a half dozen times and most of that far from the border.. so I could be wrong about that.. but is has the taste of logic to the idea.. if not, let me know..

As for sending the true illigals elsewhere, I think it is foolish.. as the border has been in various state of turmoil from the time mexico built the first border fence in the 1800s it would seem normal to have developed some structure to deal with those extra people.. while one can say the northern states should also bear the part of the task, logic made the nearest area the target area and that should have developed some kind of infrastructure to deal with it.

Just as a point of interest, once,a number of years ago.. about early 21st century time, I was at the twin city airport putting my grandson off to Job Corps for the safety of himself. and a plain load of what looked like Mexicans unloaded to stay locally.. of course it is an international airport and maybe they were from elsewhere.. but I think that on occasion we northerners have had Immigrants delivered to our area before the current influx..

Obviously what I posted was current.. back in the ... (show quote)

Thanks for the answers. I still think a wall would be a start at the problem. If not what then?