President Trump Thread...

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Now Trump wants the American tax payer to pay for his stupid fucking wall with assurances that Mexico will reimburse us. :lol
 

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
Jesus Christ. Bulld the wall worry about it later. It is basically us and India that can't secure our borders. The rest of the world seems to have figured it out

Only in the U.S. are millions of people illegally crossing the border some silly thing for racist to worry about. How stupid is that position.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Jesus Christ. Bulld the wall worry about it later. It is basically us and India that can't secure our borders. The rest of the world seems to have figured it out

Only in the U.S. are millions of people illegally crossing the border some silly thing for racist to worry about. How stupid is that position.
Sure, and take the money from expanded Medicaid to build it while millions of Americans are deprived of medical care.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
Sure, and take the money from expanded Medicaid to build it while millions of Americans are deprived of medical care.
Or just halt the half a billion in foreign aid we give Mexico a year.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Sure, and take the money from expanded Medicaid to build it while millions of Americans are deprived of medical care.
Always spinning on controversial issues without knowing the complete picture. I seriously doubt the wall will get built and they will beef up security with additional personnel. In the unlikely event a wall is built or begun perhaps it will get started, but probably won't get finished because his term will expire.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Jesus Christ. Bulld the wall worry about it later. It is basically us and India that can't secure our borders. The rest of the world seems to have figured it out

Only in the U.S. are millions of people illegally crossing the border some silly thing for racist to worry about. How stupid is that position.
Because a wall wouldn't help, at all. It would be an enduring 50 billion dollar (plus maintenance costs that would exceed that very quickly) symbol of American ineptitude.

BTW we've only spent 200 billion in 30 years of cancer research. So I'm glad we're focusing on what really matters here.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Yeah, because that should really lower the number of mexicans trying to get across...:picard
Probably should be cut anyway. I don't even know what it is for. This country needs to be a little more austere.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Because a wall wouldn't help, at all. It would be an enduring 50 billion dollar (plus maintenance costs that would exceed that very quickly) symbol of American ineptitude.

BTW we've only spent 200 billion in 30 years of cancer research. So I'm glad we're focusing on what really matters here.
What has been spent in the past for something else doesn't address border security.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
What has been spent in the past for something else doesn't address border security.
It addresses things that we could have spent money on that would actually help people. If we spent all the money that would be wasted on a 2000 mile money pit on something useful, like curing fucking cancer, people could actually be helped by their govt, and their tax dollars would actually be working for them.

Frankly if we wanted more border security we should be investing in drones not bricks, since anyone can climb over a wall, tunnel under a wall, or most likely, fly in legally and overstay their visa. Because we already had a border fence and learned how completely ineffective it was.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
My play would be to forego the wall in favor of putting the majority of the US military's weight behind border protection.

A nation's military directly defending its borders. I know, crazy!
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
My play would be to forego the wall in favor of putting the majority of the US military's weight behind border protection.

A nation's military directly defending its borders. I know, crazy!
I think there's a dangerous precedent in deploying troops for domestic enforcement.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It addresses things that we could have spent money on that would actually help people. If we spent all the money that would be wasted on a 2000 mile money pit on something useful, like curing fucking cancer, people could actually be helped by their govt, and their tax dollars would actually be working for them.

Frankly if we wanted more border security we should be investing in drones not bricks, since anyone can climb over a wall, tunnel under a wall, or most likely, fly in legally and overstay their visa. Because we already had a border fence and learned how completely ineffective it was.
Well then start a topic about what budget money should be spent for. The topic I addressed pertained to border security and building a wall.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I think there's a dangerous precedent in deploying troops for domestic enforcement.
Why is that? Having troops defending the country from foreign invaders seems to make perfect logical sense. Even if those foreign invaders might be sneaking in for non threatening purposes.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
It addresses things that we could have spent money on that would actually help people. If we spent all the money that would be wasted on a 2000 mile money pit on something useful, like curing fucking cancer, people could actually be helped by their govt, and their tax dollars would actually be working for them.

Frankly if we wanted more border security we should be investing in drones not bricks, since anyone can climb over a wall, tunnel under a wall, or most likely, fly in legally and overstay their visa. Because we already had a border fence and learned how completely ineffective it was.
We also spent a small fortune on a total joke of a jet that will never be used. What was it, 400 billion on the F-35? If you're looking for government waste there are offenses far worse then an actual physical border as opposed to an imaginary one.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
We also spent a small fortune on a total joke of a jet that will never be used. What was it, 400 billion on the F-35? If you're looking for government waste there are offenses far worse then an actual physical border as opposed to an imaginary one.
Oh, I'm no fan of the absurd waste in the military industrial complex (though as a citizen of Fort Worth I probably indirectly benefit from the F-35 money pit.)

I think there's plenty we could do to reign in military spending. But I highly doubt any of that gets done in the next 4 years. In fact most Trump voters I've spoken with want more military spending.

That's the point, for all the so called fiscal conservatism republicans pretend to preach, they only want to cut purse strings to comparatively cheap social programs, they've never seen a deficit they didn't want to inflate.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Why is that? Having troops defending the country from foreign invaders seems to make perfect logical sense. Even if those foreign invaders might be sneaking in for non threatening purposes.
There's a fine line between border enforcement and martial law. Normalizing military presence and authority among civilian population sneaks a toe over the line, military isn't law enforcement and law enforcement isn't the military, the more those lines blur the closer you come to authoritarianism.

Rights of citizens not withstanding, it's a bad decision to put combatants in place to enforce a border, this isn't the battle of the bulge. Maybe some specialized forces to hunt down cartel operatives, but if we find ourselves using Pvt. Pyle to maintain our border security it will end badly.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
There's a fine line between border enforcement and martial law. Normalizing military presence and authority among civilian population sneaks a toe over the line, military isn't law enforcement and law enforcement isn't the military, the more those lines blur the closer you come to authoritarianism.

Rights of citizens not withstanding, it's a bad decision to put combatants in place to enforce a border, this isn't the battle of the bulge. Maybe some specialized forces to hunt down cartel operatives, but if we find ourselves using Pvt. Pyle to maintain our border security it will end badly.
While I agree that the circumstances you outline is cause to be concerned, it would be a greater waste to have military troops who are not engaged just sitting on the dock of the bay wasting time . Perhaps a special circumstance deployment could be devised to temporarily assign military troops to the supervision of civil agencies for border security.

They would be under someone else's command for a certain amount of time with certain and specialized duties. In other words a TDY status. When I worked for the Government, Task Force groups were created for certain specialized duties and various agencies were asked to commit Human Resources to the task. The personnel were put on assignment and reported to the person and agency in charge to utilize at their direction.

Simply because a person is classified as military doesn't mean that they cannot be utilized for domestic security.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
While I agree that the circumstances you outline is cause to be concerned, it would be a greater waste to have military troops who are not engaged just sitting on the dock of the bay wasting time . Perhaps a special circumstance deployment could be devised to temporarily assign military troops to the supervision of civil agencies for border security.

They would be under someone else's command for a certain amount of time with certain and specialized duties. In other words a TDY status. When I worked for the Government, Task Force groups were created for certain specialized duties and various agencies were asked to commit Human Resources to the task. The personnel were put on assignment and reported to the person and agency in charge to utilize at their direction.

Simply because a person is classified as military doesn't mean that they cannot be utilized for domestic security.
I can agree with that. If they're assigned under a completely different chain of command, where they are directly under civilian authority, and it's just a redistribution of man power that would be less concerning. I just don't want an occupation force sitting in Laredo, with more or less the same organizational structure as it had would have in Falluja.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,730
Can someone explain why the President Elect is tweeting about feeling judged by Meryl Streep?
 
Top Bottom