Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Mexico border wall: Trump defends emergency

710 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa
On 2/18/2019 at 10:33 AM, RavenHawk said:

Let’s say we spend the money to stop all the drugs and contraband at the Ports of Entry.  OK so far?  Where will the drugs go next?

Ok, if you stop all drugs and contraband at ports of entry, then they will move to lesser protected areas, makes total sense.  I am in favor of border security.  That includes preventing illegal entry of drugs and people. So OK, build all necessary barriers, everything you think is necessary.  So do you beef up ports of entry first, second, or never?

Will you be able to provide some facts and statistics next year or the year after about its effectiveness?  If you are right, we prosper.  If you are wrong, we spent a little money and didn't accomplish much.  Not the first such government project.  I am OK even if it fails to completely stop the flow if it is reduced,, then we try something else.  What does not sit well with me are the arguments like "Of course walls work." without seeing some improvement in our situation.  It is really not about walls or checkpoints, those are methods.  It is about results.   Try the wall method.  own the results. 

Is the 2020 campaign going to be based on facts of success or lies and exaggerations?

Edited by Tatetopa
corrected spelling error.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 2/19/2019 at 12:53 PM, Katniss said:

What about the demand? How do you stop the demand? As long as there is a demand, somebody somewhere is going to find a way to supply the demand.

That’s not the direction I was thinking but between ‘demand’ and ‘greed’ poses other issues.  Nothing will stop either 100% but you can do things that slow it down.  No amount of cameras and sensors will stop someone from crossing and Progs know it.  They are willing to waste money for a false panacea to fool the people.  but having to defeat a wall takes time and they must expose themselves.  getting over a 30’ wall with a 31’ ladder is not as easy as it may seem, especially with larger groups.  A ladder that tall is not the most stable there is.  A wall with camera/sensor support will give manned patrols time to respond.  A wall will require fewer boots on the ground.  Augmenting that with drone swarms that focus in on movement until that movement is confirmed as not a threat.  A wall is better than having nothing at all.  Having drones harass illegals on ladders, make crossing even more difficult.  While a dozen drones harass them, thousands could be circling overhead like vultures.  Instead of thousands of illegals crossing, there’d only be a few individuals here and there brave enough, fast enough, strong enough to do it.  And for those that do, they’ll have a dozen drones locked onto them.

 

As far as the internal threat goes, most agents are motivated by duty to country.  But it does take only one corrupt agent to tarnish the group.  There needs to be checks and balances and those to watch the watchers.  The Founding Fathers had an eloquent solution by not trying to reprogram human nature but to harness it.  One way would be to increase the composition of the Border Patrol.  This is where my pet project could work.  Bringing in an updated version of the Peace Corps and it’ll be filled with those on the Selective Service list.  High school grads will offer a two-year service to the country.  A portion of their time will be to patrol the border.  There are about 3 million grads each year.  Have a new group of 50k every 3 months take their turn on the border.  The sense of accomplishment and volunteerism this will create a patriotic sense which will overwhelm that of corruption.  That’s just one possibility.

 

One other issue in this group should also be Eminent Domain.  I’m sure that most affected landowners would welcome giving up a portion of their land for a wall.  Most of it is open range and once the wall and supporting buildings are up, they’ll be able to use that land for cattle or whatever again.  We’d have to get down to the Plat map level to see who owns what.  This is clearly ED and the landowners should receive more than adequate compensation for the land for it’s need.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Ok, if you stop all drugs and contraband at ports of entry, then they will move to lesser protected areas, makes total sense.

Which is almost 2000 miles of border.

 

I am in favor of border security.  That includes preventing illegal entry of drugs and people. So OK, build all necessary barriers, everything you think is necessary.  So do you beef up ports of entry first, second, or never?

I would prefer doing both because it is integrated, but if it needs to be done sequentially, the wall is more vital.  And I’m not talking about building the wall and then maybe 30 years later let’s think about the Ports of Entry.  It’s build the wall and then the next day do the PoE.  Then add more cameras/sensors, drone swarms, support buildings, more boots on the ground, patrols and maintenance parties.  And anything else that we might come up with.

 

Will you be able to provide some facts and statistics next year or the year after about its effectiveness? 

I’m sure the stats will reveal that.  They have everywhere else.  How is this border any different?

 

If you are right, we prosper.  If you are wrong, we spent a little money and didn't accomplish much. 

It’s a no brainer that we will prosper.  But if we are wrong, then we are back to stopping all the drugs and contraband at the PoE and nowhere else.

 

Not the first such government project. 

Very few government projects do.

 

I am OK even if it fails to completely stop the flow if it is reduced,, then we try something else. 

I don’t think anybody that is thinking clearly and not being affected by the noise from the Progs ever thought it would completely stop it all.  But what would that something else be other than posting bounties?  We could organize militias for night-fire exercises.

 

What does not sit well with me are the arguments like "Of course walls work."

That *IS* the argument.  History has shown that they do.  There are notable examples of them working (Caesar and the siege of Alesia) and examples of them not (Genghis Khan and the Great Wall of China, Hitler and the Maginot Line).  But Alesia is closer to our situation than the other two.  At Alesia, the walls were in constant control of the Roman Legions.  The other two were defeated by basically doing an end-run and sweeping away the defenders.  Unless our society completely collapses, this wall at the southern border cannot be end-runned.

 

without seeing some improvement in our situation.  It is really not about walls or checkpoints, those are methods.  It is about results.   Try the wall method.  own the results. 

Well, ultimately, the wall will not be totally effective until we have the political will to see it through.  That will ensure the results.  Trump alone presents the political will.  If he gets a 2nd term, you will see those results.

 

Is the 2020 campaign going to be based on facts of success or lies and exaggerations?

Trump will run on results.  All the Progs have are lies and exaggerations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

There is a simple reason why it only works in theory. Socialism doesn't have safe guards for natural human tendencies like tribalism and greed which is why it always ends up the same way: the people are persuaded to practice Socialism while the elite class controls the resources and Lords over them. That's not because of Socialism, that always happens in spite of Socialism. We have natural hierarchies embedded in us that can't be ignored and someone will always be there to fill that alpha position. Socialist countries seem to use violence to restore the power balance between classes because I don't think there is any other way to do it under that system. If all the people agree to share wealth evenly but the elites and the oligarchs suddenly refuse to give up their share, what do you do now? The people are equally poor and the elites get to tell them how great Socialism is. If there was no such thing as greed or lust for power, I would say let's make this bish Socialist tomorrow. But that's just not the world we live in.

The beauty of free market capitalism is that it doesn't matter what your alpha tendencies are, every one has the same opportunity to become wealthy and powerful. The resources aren't given to a bigger body to distribute, the resources are just laying on the ground waiting to be picked up by hard working individuals. The rich and the elite will still be there but guess what: now you have the chance to join them one day. You don't see many entrepreneurs driving Lamborghinis under Socialism. Capitalism is the best we can do with the caveman DNA we still have. IMO, anyway.

 

As I've said before in other threads, pure Socialism is utopia in this day and age, so I agree.  But Socialist traits are part of western democracy (Universal Healthcare and other Social benefits), it's not all about comparing Socialism to the Soviet Union.  That would be unfair and it would be similar to comparing modern day Right wing politics to Nazism.  So while western democracies have political parties that represent Socialist traits in their manifestos and many of these have been in power through democratic elections, so do Dictatorships like Venezuela.  This doesn't mean western countries are true Socialists, nor does it mean Venezuela is. 

The problem with Capitalism is that it needs the poor and the second problem is that the gap continues to widen.  While a futuristic Socialist system is far out of reach for our generation and probably many to come, the question is how far can the elastic band stretch before it breaks.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
36 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Trump will run on results. 

The dems will be running on Trump's results as well :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katniss
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s not the direction I was thinking but between ‘demand’ and ‘greed’ poses other issues.  Nothing will stop either 100% but you can do things that slow it down.  No amount of cameras and sensors will stop someone from crossing and Progs know it.  They are willing to waste money for a false panacea to fool the people.  but having to defeat a wall takes time and they must expose themselves.  getting over a 30’ wall with a 31’ ladder is not as easy as it may seem, especially with larger groups.  A ladder that tall is not the most stable there is.  A wall with camera/sensor support will give manned patrols time to respond.  A wall will require fewer boots on the ground.  Augmenting that with drone swarms that focus in on movement until that movement is confirmed as not a threat.  A wall is better than having nothing at all.  Having drones harass illegals on ladders, make crossing even more difficult.  While a dozen drones harass them, thousands could be circling overhead like vultures.  Instead of thousands of illegals crossing, there’d only be a few individuals here and there brave enough, fast enough, strong enough to do it.  And for those that do, they’ll have a dozen drones locked onto them.

As far as the internal threat goes, most agents are motivated by duty to country.  But it does take only one corrupt agent to tarnish the group.  There needs to be checks and balances and those to watch the watchers.  The Founding Fathers had an eloquent solution by not trying to reprogram human nature but to harness it.  One way would be to increase the composition of the Border Patrol.  This is where my pet project could work.  Bringing in an updated version of the Peace Corps and it’ll be filled with those on the Selective Service list.  High school grads will offer a two-year service to the country.  A portion of their time will be to patrol the border.  There are about 3 million grads each year.  Have a new group of 50k every 3 months take their turn on the border.  The sense of accomplishment and volunteerism this will create a patriotic sense which will overwhelm that of corruption.  That’s just one possibility.

One other issue in this group should also be Eminent Domain.  I’m sure that most affected landowners would welcome giving up a portion of their land for a wall.  Most of it is open range and once the wall and supporting buildings are up, they’ll be able to use that land for cattle or whatever again.  We’d have to get down to the Plat map level to see who owns what.  This is clearly ED and the landowners should receive more than adequate compensation for the land for it’s need.

 

I think I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been, when I typed that. But I think using "the flow of drugs across the border" as one of the reasons to build a wall is really a weak argument for building a wall. It really sounds like a tacked on excuse more then anything. Because it seems people are not taking in the fact about supply and demand when it comes to drugs, that coincides with our failed "war on drugs". We've seen for many years, no matter who's in charge and tries to stop it, people are going to get their drugs no matter what, wherever they can and the black market will always be there to meet their addictions or demand. We would need a force field covering all of this country to stop the flow of drugs from getting in, from anywhere, not just the Southern border. And that's not possible yet.

But don't misunderstand me, I actually support the wall. It obvious it won't stop planes and boat loads of people, but it will at least stop illegal foot traffic in great numbers on that side of our country. But I would like to see the cartels pay for it instead of U.S. taxpayers, since they are the biggest cause of the problem. I think that is an excellent idea. That would be poetic justice.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

The dems will be running on Trump's results as well :lol:

EXACTLY!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Katniss said:

I think I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been, when I typed that. But I think using "the flow of drugs across the border" as one of the reasons to build a wall is really a weak argument for building a wall.

It is one of the main reasons.  That is hardly weak.  It’s not just drugs or the flow of drugs or whatever, but also illegals, who bring poverty, disease, and crime, and also human trafficking (slavery), and terrorists.  Not all of those are supply and demand.

 

It really sounds like a tacked on excuse more then anything. Because it seems people are not taking in the fact about supply and demand when it comes to drugs, that coincides with our failed "war on drugs".

Supply and demand *IS* the flow of drugs.  I don’t see how that is ‘tacked on’??

 

We've seen for many years, no matter who's in charge and tries to stop it, people are going to get their drugs no matter what, wherever they can and the black market will always be there to meet their addictions or demand.

Well, it’s been run pretty poorly.  Those that have been running it has forgotten a basic truth the Founding Fathers knew.  You can’t reprogram human nature.  That is why Socialism never works for long.  Going after the user is the wrong thing to be doing.  We shouldn’t be throwing people in jail for drug use.  You need to focus on distribution.  Leave it up to one’s employer and drug tests to set the rules.  If you do drugs, you can’t work here.

 

We would need a force field covering all of this country to stop the flow of drugs from getting in, from anywhere, not just the Southern border. And that's not possible yet.

The wall is the foundation of a ‘force field’.  It has to start somewhere.  The wall is as good as anyplace.

 

But don't misunderstand me, I actually support the wall. It obvious it won't stop planes and boat loads of people, but it will at least stop illegal foot traffic in great numbers on that side of our country. But I would like to see the cartels pay for it instead of U.S. taxpayers, since they are the biggest cause of the problem. I think that is an excellent idea. That would be poetic justice.

Mexico has already paid for the wall or at least when they ratify the new trade deal.  It is just a starting point.  Erecting the wall reduces the overall problem to something a bit more manageable than before.  After the wall and Ports of Entry are secure, then build up the Coast Guard and auxiliaries.  Then work on non-contiguous states and territories, then a wall on the northern border, and keep on ticking off problem areas until we are secure from these threats.  Instead of playing victimhood and say that the problem is too big, we need to have the will to defend our way of life.  We tackle it as a challenge.  We adapt and overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It is one of the main reasons. 

Sure it is.....as long as you have Trump's super secret mystery statistics to back up his position :lol:

Trump suggests he’s privy to secret stats proving immigrants are violent criminals

 

Grown ups without imaginary friends to tell us magical things we want to hear depend on actual statistics from the professionals and they say that the vast majority of drugs entering our nation do so via legal ports of entry

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Grown ups without imaginary friends to tell us magical things we want to hear depend on actual statistics from the professionals...

If you are referring to Religious people... Trump was pretty much a-religious till he was running for office. At a photo-op in 2015 he didn't know what a Collection Plate was. He had no idea if was for tithe/offerings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If you are referring to Religious people... Trump was pretty much a-religious till he was running for office. At a photo-op in 2015 he didn't know what a Collection Plate was. He had no idea if was for tithe/offerings.

No i wasnt...yeah until 2016 noone ever confused him for a pious man LOL

I was referring to his ramblings during his emergency announcement where he claimed he didnt use statistics provided by the US government (what a weird speech BTW) . Trump suggests he’s privy to secret stats proving immigrants are violent criminals

I guess McCabe might have tipped us off as to who Trump is getting his info from though :mellow:

Quote

“Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses,” said McCabe in the interview. “To which the president replied, ‘I don’t care. I believe Putin.’”

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That *IS* the argument. 

I am not satisfied with an , but facts would do nicely.

 

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

But Alesia is closer to our situation than the other two.  At Alesia, the walls were in constant control of the Roman Legions. 

Those are facts, that seems to show that wall worked I think do walls work to some extent. .  There are two years left in the President's first term.surely we can see some tangible results in two years. 

For one thing, if the wall controls the place most of the drugs came through, then we may see a rise in detections at the Ports of Entry.. Also if it reduces the number of illegal crossings observed, that too would be a result.  Does anybody measure these things?

This is too important for America to rely on arm waving.

If I Hear from President Trump that the wall has protected Americans and reduced the flow of drugs without any data to back it up, I won't believe it any more than when he said we have made great strides in protecting students from shootings.  There have been 113 people killed in schools in 2018. That not the issue in this thread, I only bring it up because the president is prone to making statements unsupported by facts. .

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

.....

As far as the internal threat goes, most agents are motivated by duty to country.  But it does take only one corrupt agent to tarnish the group.  There needs to be checks and balances and those to watch the watchers.  The Founding Fathers had an eloquent solution by not trying to reprogram human nature but to harness it.  One way would be to increase the composition of the Border Patrol.  This is where my pet project could work.  Bringing in an updated version of the Peace Corps and it’ll be filled with those on the Selective Service list.  High school grads will offer a two-year service to the country.  A portion of their time will be to patrol the border.  There are about 3 million grads each year.  Have a new group of 50k every 3 months take their turn on the border.  The sense of accomplishment and volunteerism this will create a patriotic sense which will overwhelm that of corruption.  That’s just one possibility.

 

hmm.. an intriguing concept, RavenHawk. 

The only potential problem I can see is the left-wing propaganda that seems to be on the rise in many schools.  Would people emerging from such schools be suitable for such 'peace corps' work, or would their indoctrination lead them to corrupting the mission, and deliberately letting immigrants (and drug smugglers) go free ? 

You couldn't screen them out, as this would be contrary to their Human Rights ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
9 hours ago, Katniss said:

But don't misunderstand me, I actually support the wall. It obvious it won't stop planes and boat loads of people, but it will at least stop illegal foot traffic in great numbers on that side of our country. But I would like to see the cartels pay for it instead of U.S. taxpayers, since they are the biggest cause of the problem. I think that is an excellent idea. That would be poetic justice.

 

They won't, unless the US joins in with the Mexican Govt to bring down the cartels altogether.  Then again, it depends on whether the Mexican Govt officials really want to take on the cartels.  Unfortunately I think there is a lot of corruption going on south of the border.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
16 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

As I've said before in other threads, pure Socialism is utopia in this day and age, so I agree.  But Socialist traits are part of western democracy (Universal Healthcare and other Social benefits), it's not all about comparing Socialism to the Soviet Union.  That would be unfair and it would be similar to comparing modern day Right wing politics to Nazism.  So while western democracies have political parties that represent Socialist traits in their manifestos and many of these have been in power through democratic elections, so do Dictatorships like Venezuela.  This doesn't mean western countries are true Socialists, nor does it mean Venezuela is. 

Well said. Most Western nations are using a hybrid socialist/capitalist system...I think that's the best way to go, personally.

Quote

The problem with Capitalism is that it needs the poor and the second problem is that the gap continues to widen. 

"Poor" is a relative term. If I make a million dollars but you make a BILLION dollars, I'm the poor one by comparison. Under capitalism, there will be some people who excel and become the elite class but that doesn't automatically mean everyone else is poor. They are just employed in "less lucrative" work. There is nothing wrong with being middle class - it's a comfortable life. Thankfully, free market capitalism allows the growth of a middle class. A man used to be able to work a blue collar job and by house, a car and feed his family. Corruption squashed all of that.

Quote

While a futuristic Socialist system is far out of reach for our generation and probably many to come, the question is how far can the elastic band stretch before it breaks.

Once the elastic band breaks, we'll be fighting each other with pointy sticks to get the scraps. It's going to be yuuge. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katniss
13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It is one of the main reasons.  That is hardly weak.  It’s not just drugs or the flow of drugs or whatever, but also illegals, who bring poverty, disease, and crime, and also human trafficking (slavery), and terrorists.  Not all of those are supply and demand.

No I think it's more like a small side effect and the real main reason or the biggest argument people have always had for years, is that some immigrants are entering this country illegally, unfairly, or they're cheating the system. Really all the other stuff you are talking about are small side effects from some of the illegal immigrants entering this country.

Quote

Supply and demand *IS* the flow of drugs.  I don’t see how that is ‘tacked on’??

But not all from across the Southern border. That *IS* an exaggeration.

Quote

The wall is the foundation of a ‘force field’.  It has to start somewhere.  The wall is as good as anyplace.

Um, are we even on the same page here? I was talking about a force field covering the entire country like an invisible shield, so nothing can get through. Like Sci-Fi tech in Star Trek. But that would be funny to see a primitive concrete foundation or a concrete wall surround the Enterprise? Lol.

Quote

Mexico has already paid for the wall or at least when they ratify the new trade deal.  It is just a starting point.  Erecting the wall reduces the overall problem to something a bit more manageable than before.  After the wall and Ports of Entry are secure, then build up the Coast Guard and auxiliaries.  Then work on non-contiguous states and territories, then a wall on the northern border, and keep on ticking off problem areas until we are secure from these threats.  Instead of playing victimhood and say that the problem is too big, we need to have the will to defend our way of life.  We tackle it as a challenge.  We adapt and overcome.

Well when I see it, then I'll believe it. But until that truly happens, you know what they say - talk is cheap. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katniss
10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

They won't, unless the US joins in with the Mexican Govt to bring down the cartels altogether.  Then again, it depends on whether the Mexican Govt officials really want to take on the cartels.  Unfortunately I think there is a lot of corruption going on south of the border.

You're probably right. :( Still, it would be so nice. The cartels should lose everything they gained from all the harm they've caused. :angry:

Edited by Katniss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure it is.....as long as you have Trump's super secret mystery statistics to back up his position :lol:

As President he has access to many more sources than you or I will ever have.  Trump is a people person.  I believe that he puts far more weight in the intel he can see on the ground, i.e. from the people directly effected, than reports by analysts from datapoints gathered hundreds to thousands of miles away.  Most commanders in the field would give their right-arm for that kind of intel all the time.

 

The typical talking points, devoid of any truth…

 

(1)Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. (2)The vast majority of drugs smuggled into the country through the southern border come through ports of entry. (3)The construction of a border wall in El Paso did not reduce violent crime.

 

(1) So if crime by illegals were greater than native-born, then it would be important to deal with?  But because it isn’t, we can just ignore it.  Right?  Did it ever dawn on you that if you remove the illegals that almost half of the total crime would be eliminated?

 

(2) Wrong.  The vast majority of drugs interdicted come through PoE.  The only indicator we really have of the amount that actually gets in is in the fact that the cartels are increasing their profits.  I’m pretty confident that the majority of drugs that go through PoE are being seized therefore, the majority of the cartel’s profit is making it through the unprotected border.

 

(3) It may not have reduced violent crime but it has prevented it from spilling over into El Paso, like it has in other parts of Texas.  Growing up here in Albuquerque, I’ve been to El Paso perhaps a dozen times over the past 40 years and maybe 100 to Las Cruses.  Between here and there since the 1960’s, the word on the street was ‘don’t go to El Paso because of the crime from the other side of the border’.  I don't hear that much anymore (especially since their wall went up).

 

My favorite part was when Acosta was twisting some question as usual and Trump handed it over to the Angel Mom and she put Acosta in his place.  Progs and the MSM do not care about the plight of other people because they do not fit into their statistics.

 

Grown ups without imaginary friends to tell us magical things we want to hear depend on actual statistics from the professionals and they say that the vast majority of drugs entering our nation do so via legal ports of entry

I think that is what you are missing, some imaginary friend so you can work our your TDS issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

As President he has access to many more sources than you or I will ever have.  Trump is a people person.  I believe that he puts far more weight in the intel he can see on the ground, i.e. from the people directly effected, than reports by analysts from datapoints gathered hundreds to thousands of miles away.  Most commanders in the field would give their right-arm for that kind of intel all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

The typical talking points, devoid of any truth…

 

 

 

(1)Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. (2)The vast majority of drugs smuggled into the country through the southern border come through ports of entry. (3)The construction of a border wall in El Paso did not reduce violent crime.

 

 

 

(1) So if crime by illegals were greater than native-born, then it would be important to deal with?  But because it isn’t, we can just ignore it.  Right?  Did it ever dawn on you that if you remove the illegals that almost half of the total crime would be eliminated?

 

 

 

(2) Wrong.  The vast majority of drugs interdicted come through PoE.  The only indicator we really have of the amount that actually gets in is in the fact that the cartels are increasing their profits.  I’m pretty confident that the majority of drugs that go through PoE are being seized therefore, the majority of the cartel’s profit is making it through the unprotected border.

 

 

 

(3) It may not have reduced violent crime but it has prevented it from spilling over into El Paso, like it has in other parts of Texas.  Growing up here in Albuquerque, I’ve been to El Paso perhaps a dozen times over the past 40 years and maybe 100 to Las Cruses.  Between here and there since the 1960’s, the word on the street was ‘don’t go to El Paso because of the crime from the other side of the border’.  I don't hear that much anymore (especially since their wall went up).

 

 

 

My favorite part was when Acosta was twisting some question as usual and Trump handed it over to the Angel Mom and she put Acosta in his place.  Progs and the MSM do not care about the plight of other people because they do not fit into their statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that is what you are missing, some imaginary friend so you can work our your TDS issues.

 

 

So let me get this straight:

If we deport the 3% of our population that is illegal then our crime will be cut in half?

Because we catch 80% of our drugs at ports of entry (where they only check a fraction of traffic) the drugs must be coming across the desert over the border?

And El Paso (where ICE drops of hundreds of illegals every day) is one of the most dangerous cities in America?

Eh, you might want to google some of your claims there.....

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 2/20/2019 at 12:08 PM, Ellapennella said:

I'd like to understand what  you  are confused about?

eta

Is it in reference to China's surveillance ?  

That’s a “sad” emojicon .  I’m sad because I like your post.  I’m sad because this is what the Progs eventually want here.  Minority Report is just around the corner.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
6 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

 

"Poor" is a relative term. If I make a million dollars but you make a BILLION dollars, I'm the poor one by comparison. Under capitalism, there will be some people who excel and become the elite class but that doesn't automatically mean everyone else is poor. They are just employed in "less lucrative" work. There is nothing wrong with being middle class - it's a comfortable life. Thankfully, free market capitalism allows the growth of a middle class. A man used to be able to work a blue collar job and by house, a car and feed his family. Corruption squashed all of that.

 

True, poor is relative and in my discussion not intended to be only for people living below the poverty line but people in conditions you couldn't classify as middle class.  We saw it in China in the last couple of decades, as their Economy grew so did their middle class, but it grew thanks to the 100's of millions working in their manufacturing businesses for peanuts.  Obvious the west isn't China and businesses paying workers below legislative wages would end up paying hefty fines, which is also the reason why we have products 'made in China', 'made in Thailand' etc. and assembled in Indonesia, for example and can't compete with their costs.  Also, the middle class have it good when the economy flows, but many live on a razor edge with their mortgages etc. and if/when the economy  hits dire straits they're the first to fall.

Capitalism is good for some and prospers thanks to others but it's not the final solution IMO and it definitely means nothing to the 2.1 billion in the world living on less than $3.10 a day. link

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
10 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

"Poor" is a relative term. If I make a million dollars but you make a BILLION dollars, I'm the poor one by comparison. Under capitalism, there will be some people who excel and become the elite class but that doesn't automatically mean everyone else is poor. They are just employed in "less lucrative" work. There is nothing wrong with being middle class - it's a comfortable life. Thankfully, free market capitalism allows the growth of a middle class. A man used to be able to work a blue collar job and by house, a car and feed his family. Corruption squashed all of that.

I have a long term friend who worked for Wells Fargo Bank for about 10 years before he moved on.  He started as a teller, became asst. branch manager and teller supervisor back when a branch bank had 15-20 tellers. He told me his grandfather worked for Wells Fargo as well pre-1940 in a similar level job.  His grandmother never worked, they had a nice large house with 4 kids.  Every year they piled in the car for a two week road trip vacation.  By contrast, he works, his wife works, and their house is modest compared to the grandparents. 

Times changed for the middle class.  I am not sure it was corruption that changed all that, but a changes in the  free market might be a clue   In his case, banks consolidated.  Local and regional banks got bought out, branches were closed and staff got let go.  Now there are even automatic teller machines that further cut the ranks.  Consolidation and mergers have continued in all industries.  White collar jobs have taken a cut.  Automation and production efficiency has done the same to blue collar jobs.

 

I would be interested in your views on corruption and how it has affected the labor market.  

Regards.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

.  I believe that he puts far more weight in the intel he can see on the ground, i.e. from the people directly effected, than reports by analysts from datapoints gathered hundreds to thousands of miles away. 

Yeah what you're talking about are called anecdotes and what you and Trump are both doing is literally pleading for and applauding ignorance. Its the 21st century, this whole anti science thing has gone from embarrassing for y'all to dangerous for the rest of us.  Knock it off

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

 ‘Time for a Plan B’: New report says Trump may have botched his ‘national emergency’ — a big chunk of his wall money has already been spent

Quote

President Donald Trump now plans to build his border wall under the guise of a “national emergency.” The declaration, announced last Friday, will theoretically empower the president to divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects, $2.5 billion from federal counternarcotics programs, and $600 billion from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund to start constructing a barrier at the southern border, on top of the $1.35 billion that was allocated for border construction in the compromise bill passed by Congress to avert another shutdown.

 

There’s a problem, though: Trump probably can’t spend all that money. That’s because, according to Congressional Quarterly writer John Donnelly, more than a third of that money has already been spent!

 

I imagine department heads all around the nation are running to spend their budgets as quickly as possible :lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 2/21/2019 at 4:25 PM, Farmer77 said:

Sure it is.....as long as you have Trump's super secret mystery statistics to back up his position :lol:

Trump suggests he’s privy to secret stats proving immigrants are violent criminals

 

Grown ups without imaginary friends to tell us magical things we want to hear depend on actual statistics from the professionals and they say that the vast majority of drugs entering our nation do so via legal ports of entry

 

515LzT+6RsL.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.