News $20 million raised in GoFundMe for Trump border wall to be refunded. Kolfage changed the description in a con to keep the funds.

[pcgeek11]

That is why you should only donate to known persons or charities that are known to use the money for its intended purpose. Many take 90% for running the charity and pennies on the dollar for the recipients of the charity.

 

[Greenman]

Am I the only one hear that read the part about the description being changed from 100% to building the wall, to setting up a nonprofit?

 

[Engineer]

Am I the only one hear that read the part about the description being changed from 100% to building the wall, to setting up a nonprofit?

Do you mean from the article or OP? It's in the OP.

 

[Jhhnn]

I read that part of this gofundme crap experiment wasn't truly to fund a wall, it was to harvest email addresses, etc. And I read they harvested millions in this....potentially more lucrative than actual money.

All the little bits of cash coming in just add to the effect & keep a jingle in their pockets. It's a great racket, because it's perfectly legal. They'll keep a nice chunk of change from the donations already received which was their intention all along.

 

[Jhhnn]

Am I the only one hear that read the part about the description being changed from 100% to building the wall, to setting up a nonprofit?

No. I noticed the attempted switcheroo, as well.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think it's a bit much to proclaim that the non-profit is a fraud... before it actually did anything fraudulent.

I mainly say that - because REGARDLESS of the change in language..... How were they supposed to fund the wall? Just donate it to Uncle Sam and say "I trust that you know we want you to use this"?

Obviously it wasn't enough to pay for the wall on its own, so my main message is don't go proclaiming corruption before corruption is even possible to occur.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Am I the only one hear that read the part about the description being changed from 100% to building the wall, to setting up a nonprofit?

Nope

 

[Greenman]

Isn't that the point of the entire thread? The fellow tried to change the terms after collecting the money and was stopped. How does that make the folks that donated stupid?

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't that the point of the entire thread? The fellow tried to change the terms after collecting the money and was stopped. How does that make the folks that donated stupid?

I mean they were donating money to further a plan that had a zero percent chance of success. Even if they raised the entire cost of the wall it still wouldn’t be built without congressional approval.

That seems pretty stupid.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Isn't that the point of the entire thread? The fellow tried to change the terms after collecting the money and was stopped. How does that make the folks that donated stupid?

It makes them Gullible this was predicted when the go fund me started.
We all want to support stuff we believe in, I’m not calling any donor stupid.

When you think of the mechanics of the original idea it’s silly. Even if I had $5.6 billion to donate o the Government for a wall, I can’t just give them the money. That would go into the general budget then I’d have to hope it gets dedicated to building a wall.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It makes them Gullible this was predicted when the go fund me started.
We all want to support stuff we believe in, I’m not calling any donor stupid.

When you think of the mechanics of the original idea it’s silly. Even if I had $5.6 billion to donate o the Government for a wall, I can’t just give them the money. That would go into the general budget then I’d have to hope it gets dedicated to building a wall.

Well I mostly agree, the idiots dont think that far ahead, or at all it seems. It's about their feels, which Trump and co. has been capitalizing on for quite a while now.

 

[Greenman]

I mean they were donating money to further a plan that had a zero percent chance of success. Even if they raised the entire cost of the wall it still wouldn’t be built without congressional approval.

That seems pretty stupid.

I still don't under all the hoopla over the wall. As part of a layered approach to controlling the border it's not a bad idea. The fifty billion price tag amounts to about six months worth of services for illegals. I don't see talk about that cost on the news every night, so I assume that not many really care about it.
What really boggles me is that we've been talking about this for thirty years, and never taken any decisive action. The only thing that made any difference at all was a major recession after the housing bubble popped, probably not a solution we want to use again.

 

[IronWing]

I still don't under all the hoopla over the wall. As part of a layered approach to controlling the border it's not a bad idea. The fifty billion price tag amounts to about six months worth of services for illegals. I don't see talk about that cost on the news every night, so I assume that not many really care about it.
What really boggles me is that we've been talking about this for thirty years, and never taken any decisive action. The only thing that made any difference at all was a major recession after the housing bubble popped, probably not a solution we want to use again.

We could replicate the effect of the bubble popping on illegal immigration by throwing employers' butts in jail. Also fining them sufficiently to cover the socialized costs of their criminal activity.

 

[Jhhnn]

The fifty billion price tag amounts to about six months worth of services for illegals.

Mere assertion. I'm sure you can quote anti-immigrant sources for that bullshit, but it's still bullshit. The only time illegals get much of anything at all from the govt is at the emergency room or if they have American citizen children.

Illegals have basically the highest employment rate of any group in this country simply for that reason.

http://time.com/money/4268940/illegal-immigrants-work/

Many of them have a more traditional family structure where the women stay home & take care of the children, cooking from scratch most of the time. They get by on nearly nothing & bless every day they're in this country.

We touched on the subject at our family thanksgiving dinner, you know, about people who walk 2000 miles dragging their little kids to get into America. My niece's husband, Latino himself, said "Man, I wish i could figure out how to get those people working for me!" and he was right, of course.

 

[WelshBloke]

I read that part of this gofundme crap experiment wasn't truly to fund a wall, it was to harvest email addresses, etc. And I read they harvested millions in this....potentially more lucrative than actual money.

Shush! The Soros funded kill squads haven't done their rounds yet!

 

[fskimospy]

I still don't under all the hoopla over the wall. As part of a layered approach to controlling the border it's not a bad idea. The fifty billion price tag amounts to about six months worth of services for illegals. I don't see talk about that cost on the news every night, so I assume that not many really care about it.

It’s a bad idea. The government’s own research into previous wall projects showed they are ineffective at limiting illegal immigration.

As for that cost, even if a wall weren’t ineffective it would only limit illegal entry for a tiny fraction of the ~11 million illegals in the US so if we do reference those numbers it would need to be emphasized that any savings from a wall would be a tiny fraction of that number.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33659.pdf

While the San Diego fence, combined with an increase in agents and other resources in the USBP’s San Diego sector, has proven effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in that sector, there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has adapted to this enforcement posture and has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert. Nationally, the USBP made 1.2 million apprehensions in 1992 and again in 2004, suggesting that the increased enforcement in San Diego sector has had little impact on overall apprehensions.

So generally people don’t want to build a wall because it’s expensive and ineffective. Seems reasonable, no?

What really boggles me is that we've been talking about this for thirty years, and never taken any decisive action. The only thing that made any difference at all was a major recession after the housing bubble popped, probably not a solution we want to use again.

The reason is 100% due to conservatives that have repeatedly torpedoed immigration reform that would have addressed this problem long ago. Under Obama the senate drafted and passed comprehensive immigration reform he was ready to sign. Conservatives refused to let it come up for a vote in the House because they knew it would pass.

What are we supposed to do when conservatives steadfastly refuse to address the problem?

 

[zinfamous]

Well, I'd love to mock these very fine people, but I'm gonna rock the boat instead. I find it very encouraging that out of 62 million people who fell for a lying sack of shits artisan bullshit, only 300k coughed up money for this grift.

Just another example of who Trump is and who he associates with. Maybe it will stick in people's minds this time, but I don't want to overestimate my fellow Americans again.

It's a pretty good data point of the actual number of people that give a fucking shit about Donald's bullshit Nazi promise to build this symbol to hubris: essentially the population of an easily-forgotten midwestern hamlet.

And yet, Trumpists want us to believe that the idea is popular. That it is some "majority" of the republic LOL--until these shitheads provide some other data, the actual data that exists is that 300k Americans actually want the wall.

300k.

This is who Trump is holding the government hostage for: 300k simpletons that probably read at a 1st grade level. 300k people. That is the support. Only 300k people. Three Hundred thousand people want to see a wall built on our southern border. No more. Only 300 thousand people. LoL. that's insane.


That's a town that probably only has volunteer firefighters.

 

[Greenman]

It’s a bad idea. The government’s own research into previous wall projects showed they are ineffective at limiting illegal immigration.

As for that cost, even if a wall weren’t ineffective it would only limit illegal entry for a tiny fraction of the ~11 million illegals in the US so if we do reference those numbers it would need to be emphasized that any savings from a wall would be a tiny fraction of that number.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33659.pdf



So generally people don’t want to build a wall because it’s expensive and ineffective. Seems reasonable, no?



The reason is 100% due to conservatives that have repeatedly torpedoed immigration reform that would have addressed this problem long ago. Under Obama the senate drafted and passed comprehensive immigration reform he was ready to sign. Conservatives refused to let it come up for a vote in the House because they knew it would pass.

What are we supposed to do when conservatives steadfastly refuse to address the problem?

Your first paragraph of quoted text says the San Diego fence worked.

I think the issue is actually that so many seem to think we build a big fence and go home, problem solved. That's simply not the case at all. The wall or fence, is simply a defendable barrier.
The other argument that seems to be gaining popularity is referring to it as "thirteenth century technology for a twenty first century problem". A nice slogan, but completely inaccurate.

This is actually a very straight forward issue that's well understood by many people. We either want to control unauthorized border crossings or we don't. It really is an a or b question. If we want to control border crossings, the next question is lethal or nonlethal? Nonlethal is going to be the popular answer. So the next step is to ask the experts in this sort of thing how to do it. Those experts will say a defendable barrier is the first step. That can be a mountain range, a river, a canyon, or a fence. That barrier will be part of a layered deterrent system, and those systems work.
The other easy method of border control is to simply make it uncomfortable for illegals to be in the country, but there is no way we'll do that, and rightly so, it would be unbelievably cruel.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a pretty good data point of the actual number of people that give a fucking shit about Donald's bullshit Nazi promise to build this symbol to hubris: essentially the population of an easily-forgotten midwestern hamlet.

And yet, Trumpists want us to believe that the idea is popular. That it is some "majority" of the republic LOL--until these shitheads provide some other data, the actual data that exists is that 300k Americans actually want the wall.

300k.

This is who Trump is holding the government hostage for: 300k simpletons that probably read at a 1st grade level. 300k people. That is the support. Only 300k people. Three Hundred thousand people want to see a wall built on our southern border. No more. Only 300 thousand people. LoL. that's insane.


That's a town that probably only has volunteer firefighters.

The 300k represent the 1% of Republicans causing 90 percent of the problems either directly or indirectly. Some days punishment by exile seems attractive.

 

[fskimospy]

Your first paragraph of quoted text says the San Diego fence worked.

Huh? It says the exact opposite.

It says increased enforcement in the San Diego sector had little effect on overall apprehensions. The purpose of walls and fencing is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants into the country, not shift where they come in at. The report is not equivocal there, it said the walls were ineffective.

I think the issue is actually that so many seem to think we build a big fence and go home, problem solved. That's simply not the case at all. The wall or fence, is simply a defendable barrier.
The other argument that seems to be gaining popularity is referring to it as "thirteenth century technology for a twenty first century problem". A nice slogan, but completely inaccurate.

This is actually a very straight forward issue that's well understood by many people. We either want to control unauthorized border crossings or we don't. It really is an a or b question.

Oh come on this is absolute nonsense. There are few things in this world that are more obviously NOT an 'a or b' than this. The question now, as always, is how many illegal border crossings we are willing to accept vs. how much we are willing to pay to stop them. Basically everyone in the US wants to control border crossings and we already spend enormous sums on this. If anything I think there's a good argument that we already spend far too much.

So I am someone who wants to control unauthorized border crossings but also wants to cut funds from border enforcement. Which am I, a or b?

If we want to control border crossings, the next question is lethal or nonlethal? Nonlethal is going to be the popular answer. So the next step is to ask the experts in this sort of thing how to do it. Those experts will say a defendable barrier is the first step. That can be a mountain range, a river, a canyon, or a fence. That barrier will be part of a layered deterrent system, and those systems work.
The other easy method of border control is to simply make it uncomfortable for illegals to be in the country, but there is no way we'll do that, and rightly so, it would be unbelievably cruel.

I would suggest looking at what actual experts on this say. They say a border wall is a waste. Does that change your mind?

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trumps-border-wall-could-be-costly-ineffective-experts-say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...mps-border-wall-they-find-its-bad-investment/

It's a bad investment. I'm against wasting money and I hope you are too so let's both agree to not waste any more money on this nonsense.

 

[Greenman]

While the San Diego fence, combined with an increase in agents and other resources in the USBP’s San Diego sector, has proven effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in that sector, there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has adapted to this enforcement posture and has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert.

That says there were fewer attempted crossings. That's going to be the case wherever enforcement is stepped up.

You claim a defendable barrier won't have any effect, what will? I'd love to see an idea that doesn't cost a hundred billion a year. In a perfect world the border with Mexico would be like the Canadian border, a mowed strip of land and a sign every hundred feet.

 

[fskimospy]

While the San Diego fence, combined with an increase in agents and other resources in the USBP’s San Diego sector, has proven effective in reducing the number of apprehensions made in that sector, there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has adapted to this enforcement posture and has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert.

That says there were fewer attempted crossings. That's going to be the case wherever enforcement is stepped up.

The very next sentence:

Nationally, the USBP made 1.2 million apprehensions in 1992 and again in 2004, suggesting that the increased enforcement in San Diego sector has had little impact on overall apprehensions.

We are not going to staff a 2,000 mile border with the heavy concentration of officers that the San Diego/San Ysidro area has as the costs would be astronomical. All these walls do is change where illegal immigration occurs, pushing it towards more rural areas. That's a waste of money.

You claim a defendable barrier won't have any effect, what will? I'd love to see an idea that doesn't cost a hundred billion a year. In a perfect world the border with Mexico would be like the Canadian border, a mowed strip of land and a sign every hundred feet.

Make it so the people don't need to immigrate here illegally in the first place. We should have a gigantic guest worker program that would allow non-citizens from central and South America to come work in the US. It would provide a credible avenue for legal work, would give these workers some protections from abuse, and would allow us to keep track of people way better.

 

[soundforbjt]

The very next sentence:



We are not going to staff a 2,000 mile border with the heavy concentration of officers that the San Diego/San Ysidro area has as the costs would be astronomical. All these walls do is change where illegal immigration occurs, pushing it towards more rural areas. That's a waste of money.



Make it so the people don't need to immigrate here illegally in the first place. We should have a gigantic guest worker program that would allow non-citizens from central and South America to come work in the US. It would provide a credible avenue for legal work, would give these workers some protections from abuse, and would allow us to keep track of people way better.

But then the Job Creators wouldn't benefit as much off the cheap labor, won't someone think of the Job Creators?

 

[Jhhnn]

Your first paragraph of quoted text says the San Diego fence worked.

I think the issue is actually that so many seem to think we build a big fence and go home, problem solved. That's simply not the case at all. The wall or fence, is simply a defendable barrier.
The other argument that seems to be gaining popularity is referring to it as "thirteenth century technology for a twenty first century problem". A nice slogan, but completely inaccurate.

This is actually a very straight forward issue that's well understood by many people. We either want to control unauthorized border crossings or we don't. It really is an a or b question. If we want to control border crossings, the next question is lethal or nonlethal? Nonlethal is going to be the popular answer. So the next step is to ask the experts in this sort of thing how to do it. Those experts will say a defendable barrier is the first step. That can be a mountain range, a river, a canyon, or a fence. That barrier will be part of a layered deterrent system, and those systems work.
The other easy method of border control is to simply make it uncomfortable for illegals to be in the country, but there is no way we'll do that, and rightly so, it would be unbelievably cruel.

While you are equivocating as to what constitutes a defensible barrier Trump is not. Honest border security has nothing to do with what Trump wants. He'll erect mile after mile of 30 ft tall steel slats marching across utterly inhospitable country where nobody in their right mind would try to cross the border. He'd wall off texas from the Rio Grande, too, all to provide a security blanket to Steve King's constituency & his own. And he'll keep them all frothed up in a semi rational state to do so.

 

[Sonikku]

Can you blame them though? It was either spend 20 mil on trying to build a wall or giving that money to something stupid over the holidays like charity.