You literally asked what would Chuck say? And I illustrated an answer that would have embarrassed Trump while remaining consistent with opinions that he (Schumer) has expressed in the past.
You yourself are âattempting to speak for Chuckâ in this argument. Chuck Schumer never saidâas you imply that he did-- âborder security depends on the construction of a big beautiful contiguous wall (not a fence, a wall!).â <âThat is Donald Trumpâs position. Schumer has advocated for âvery good border securityâ he even mentioned this in the meeting in the oval office. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is a sales technique known as a âmonkey paw.â Instead of trying to get your client to agree to a big commitment, you sell them on an initial phase, a pilot project, or a proof of concept project. That project is one step closer to closing the big expensive deal. Once the client has bought into the first phase, itâs hard for them to avoid moving on to phase 2 and beyond.
Because nobody has asked Chuck why he was in of a wall before he was against it. Nice folks such as yourself have been happy to answer for him. But I would prefer he speak for himself.
We have physical barriers at the border and high-traffic areas. Trump campaigned on a 30-foot wall across the entire border. Your assertion in the OP is that they supported what Trump is pushing for prior to him becoming POTUS. Show your work.
I donât care. I wasnât asking for multiple answers. I was wondering why nobody has bothered to ask Chuck why he was in favor of the wall before he was opposed. Iâm really not interested in anyone answering this question for him. Yâall seem incredibly opposed to Chuck speaking for himself. If you prefer then, we can call it a barrier or an enhanced fence. Call it what you will. But Chuck is opposed to any physical barrier now. Before he was in favor. Why?
How about this then? "Hey Chuck, before Trump, you were in favor of a strong, enhanced, physical barrier to reduce illegal entry. Why are you opposed to it now? Would such phrasing satisfy your needs?
Okay. I would be happy to compromise then. How bout dis? "Hey Chuck, before Trump, you were in favor of a strong, enhanced, physical barrier to reduce illegal entry. Why are you opposed to it now? Would such phrasing satisfy your needs?