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.
Sure, and take the money from expanded Medicaid to build it while millions of Americans are deprived of medical care.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.
Or just halt the half a billion in foreign aid we give Mexico a year.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.Sure, and take the money from expanded Medicaid to build it while millions of Americans are deprived of medical care.
Yeah, because that should really lower the number of mexicans trying to get across...Or just halt the half a billion in foreign aid we give Mexico a year.
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.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.
Probably should be cut anyway. I don't even know what it is for. This country needs to be a little more austere.Yeah, because that should really lower the number of mexicans trying to get across...
What has been spent in the past for something else doesn't address border security.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.
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.What has been spent in the past for something else doesn't address border security.
I think there's a dangerous precedent in deploying troops for domestic enforcement.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!
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.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.
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.I think there's a dangerous precedent in deploying troops for domestic enforcement.
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.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.
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.)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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.