• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

If Trump builds a wall, should the next president tear it down?

Oct 27, 2017
1,580
#1
Let's say it happens. Either because the Democrats became cowards or Trump forced it with a national emergency. Both seem unlikely but let's say it happens. Now tearing down a wall that is mostly just a useless ugly thing seems like a waste of money. Not as much as the wall still, I assume. But as a metaphor, I kind of love it. Any thing that hurts a Trump legacy feels good.
 

C.Mongler

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,116
Washington, DC
#4
I can’t even imagine a scenario where the thing gets built and completed in Trump’s remaining 2 or, god-forbid, 6 years. The thing’s going to take a decade or more to plan, contract, and actually build.
 
Oct 26, 2017
973
Northern VA
#7
i already have a piece of the berlin wall so getting another wall piece from my home country would be sort of neat
i'd prefer to break it myself this time around though
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,729
#8
part of the complaint about the wall is how big of a waste of money and other resources it is. Since Trump will never get any significant portion of his wall up, a better solution would be to just not maintain this steel slats and let them fall naturally. It'd be cheaper and the concept of his wall just withering away over time is more poetically beautiful IMO.
 

ZealousD

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,651
#11
It's not like the Wall is going to have murals of Trump painted on the side or anything.

Ask yourself, really. Are you against the wall because it's a pointless waste of money, or are you against it because Trump wants it?

If you're against the wall because it's a pointless waste of money and accomplishes nothing, then spending the time and effort to tear it all down is also a pointless waste of money that accomplishes nothing. If you are just trying to spite Trump... I mean I kind of get it but that's also just a really petty way to live your life.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,449
#14
If he got his wall, as in, a fully constructed and completed barrier spanning the entire US-Mexican border? No, unless there is popular support to do so. The money to do so is better spent elsewhere.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,404
#15
i would like it to be like all the other infrastructure we should've spent the money on - allowed to fall into complete disrepair.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,045
#17
Yes but they likely wouldn’t even start in earnest before Trump is gone
This is the most hilarious thing about this entire thing. The only way the wall would be successfully construction to completion is if the GOP manages to hold on to control for it's entire run. There's zero chance anyone would continue to approve the budget.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,411
#22
No point. People would be more annoyed by the fact that it was torn down for no reason other than spiting the previous president. They would just see it as more wasted money for petty reasons.

The better solution would to just not fund any repairs and upkeep on it and wait until it's useless and tear it down then. As much as I'd love them tearing it down just to see the look on Trump's face, it'd just add to the wasted money by tearing it down out of spite.
 
Oct 26, 2017
764
#24
Top Places To Urinate 2028

"I Peed On Trump's Wall" T shirts, bumper stickers and hats

100% of profits to immigrant families
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,651
#28
It’s not going to get built. A ton of American citizens own property on the border, and getting them to give up land is going to take years of court battles and cost millions of dollars. It’s not even worth entertaining the possibility, other than to recognize the combination of sheer idiocy and overt prejudice for what it is.

Edit: And yes, the next president should tear it down and use the materials to build shelters for less fortunate areas in need of housing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
968
#29
not even the great wall of china could keep the mongols out, and that was before airports were a thing.
if it existed, it would be inconsequential, apart from the money.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,760
#30
It's not like the Wall is going to have murals of Trump painted on the side or anything.

Ask yourself, really. Are you against the wall because it's a pointless waste of money, or are you against it because Trump wants it?

If you're against the wall because it's a pointless waste of money and accomplishes nothing, then spending the time and effort to tear it all down is also a pointless waste of money that accomplishes nothing. If you are just trying to spite Trump... I mean I kind of get it but that's also just a really petty way to live your life.
When it comes to Trump, pettiness is a virtue
 

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,041
#34
Even if the wall was to happen, at this point it wouldn't start construction until 2020 and Trump will be out of office
 

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
1,573
#36
I think it will simply fall into disrepair and decay like the wall on the California border with Mexico built in the 90's and like that "wall" everyone will just forget about it.

people desperate enough to cross vast deserts and entire countries will find ways in. They won't just say "oh shit, a wall. let's turn around." it's in no way the same as keeping your house's front door unlocked as I saw someone say on Twitter last night. These are not opportunistic criminals. They are desperate people risking their lives for something better.
 
Oct 28, 2017
12,157
#37
People seem confused why Democrats dont want the wall. They are against it because it's not going to do what Trump says it will. It's a waste of money. They're not against it because it makes illegal crossing harder.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,370
#38
I'm sure it would get canceled, but if it is actually funded and construction starts, I would assume they would either start building it in the easiest areas or the areas with the most traffic, and I feel like they wouldn't bother tearing them down there unless they were branded with Trump's name.
 
Oct 25, 2017
149
Earth
#40
Even if Trump somehow gets the money for his stupid wall it would take years of planning before they would even start construction. The next President could just stop it before it ever even starts to be built unless Trump tries to rush it, which would actually be likely, and end up a huge clusterfuck.
 

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
1,573
#43
People seem confused why Democrats dont want the wall. They are against it because it's not going to do what Trump says it will. It's a waste of money. They're not against it because it makes illegal crossing harder.
Exactly. It's just throwing money away and at the same time a monument of xenophobia.

It still going to cost a lot to maintain.
lol we're not gonna maintain it.
 
Apr 19, 2018
3,237
#44
Of course not. That would be throwing good money after bad.

That would be a wore waste of money than the wall itself.
 
Nov 6, 2017
2,180
#48
Put Trump's name on it. Make the unfinished, shoddy made obelisk his "legacy".
Trump wants this to be his legacy. That's why he's being so pigheaded about it. Nobody is going to build a statue of him so he wants his wall to be his "look what I've done for America" tribute. The Great Wall of Trump is going to be his glorious achievement. That's why tearing it down would be so sweet.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,975
Ontario
#49
Trump wants this to be his legacy. That's why he's being so pigheaded about it. Nobody is going to build a statue of him so he wants his wall to be his "look what I've done for America" tribute. The Great Wall of Trump is going to be his glorious achievement. That's why tearing it down would be so sweet.
I'm imaging this wall being maybe 1 mile wide. A tribute to his many many many (many) failures.

Many.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,710
Washington
#50
No. If they waste teh money putting it up it's already up and now will cost money to take down... at that point is there some sort of harm that hasn't already been done that it will erase by taking ti down? If at that point the harm cannot be undone, why spend the mmoney taking it down. Just don't maintain it at that point and don't waste more money on it.