Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Jan 2017, 12:19 pm

sass
In fairness, the walls of Constantinople stood for centuries before they were eventually overcome

1) they were eventually overcome. (By canons)
2) although they protected the city, the protection of Constantinople didn't slow down the Turks in the Balkans... You cannot project power very far from behind a wall.And you need to feed your populace, which comes from beyond the wall.
Even the Hospitallers for at Krak de Chevalliers had to be abandoned, because it had no support. And it was a truly magnificent defence for its time.

There are lessons from the history of walls for the US.
Walls have limited effects. even the most successful. And the cost of building and maintaining a barrier has to be gauged against alternatives.
Even the Great Wall of China was an expensive failure. Security was often found in other ways than manning the wall.
http://gbtimes.com/life/failure-great-wall

fate
Do tell us about how they pay for the tunnels. Have you done that kind of work, or are you a drug lord? You clearly have some expertise. How did you obtain it?

I read. Stuff other than Hot Air and Breitbart...

Here's an interesting article on how they keep their labor cost down.... and why there are so proficient at creating their networks of tunnels.

Fernando never heard back from Mama Mia. Eventually, desperate for work, he called the stranger’s number and met him at the strip mall. The man offered good money—twelve hundred pesos (about seventy-five dollars) a week—and Fernando agreed to go with him to look at the job site. From the strip mall, a highway leads north, past the graffiti-covered concrete walls surrounding the Tijuana Airport to the pitted roads of Garita de Otay, where convoys of eighteen-wheelers stir up dust that never quite settles. The warehouses, bland and beige, resemble cardboard boxes.
They stopped in front of a structure with no identifying marks except the street address, stencilled in black. Inside, behind a rolling gate, was a loading bay big enough to accommodate a dump truck. Inside was a storage room with cinder-block walls. Fernando didn’t see anyone else in the storage room—just a deep hole and sacks of dirt. The man told Fernando that things had changed: he would be digging a tunnel, not cleaning a store. If he tried to leave, he and his family would be killed.

I guess you could say, sometimes they offer powerful incentives to their labor...

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... monte-reel

You want to get rid of the illegal market for drugs? Legalize its sale through specific regulated locations and keep those prices low.
You want to get rid of illegal immigration. Make it virtually impossible to find someone who will give illegals a job. As it is there are industries that rely on illegal immigrants.
A $14 billion dollar wall, will quickly become a $30 billion dollar boondoggle. And by the time its finished the cartels will have dozens, if not hundreds of ways past it.
But it will be one more place Trump can plaster his name... in big gold letters. The Great Trump Wall

fate
Don't worry about our "avacados" (sic). That tariff won't happen. It's negotiating.

If this is negotiating he's really stupid negotiating. All of the cost, and all of the damage will be taken on by American consumers. Its shooting ones self in the foot.
By the way, 80% of America's avocados come from Mexico. You don't like guacamole?
The Mexicans can always find other markets too.
China has potential to become huge avocado market

Mexico started sending avocados to Japan around 15 years ago, which has made it one of the most developed markets in Asia. However, with increased education and recent clearance to China, the established market in Japan has become a good template for the great potential of the up and coming Chinese market.

http://www.freshplaza.com/article/15675 ... ado-market
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 12:21 pm

I realise this conversation is something of a tangent, but I should point out that the Byzantine Empire existed for about 1300 years during which time the city of Constantinople was besieged by the Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoths Arabs and others. Had any one of those armies successfully taken the city that would have been the end of the empire as we knew it. I'd say those walls served a purpose for a surprisingly long time all things considered.

Or to put it another way, if walls served no purpose then why did people keep building them ?

This is not to say that I think Trump's wall is likely to serve a meaningful purpose, I don't, but nevertheless it's a bit much to try to argue that every wall that's ever been built was a waste of time just because they were eventually breached.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 3:39 pm

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:Don't we have an example already of one of Trump's EOs being executive overreach, with a judge ruling against one of the effects of the changes on immigration?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ce-america


Yes; several judges. Terrible policy, terrible process.

And it seems that the government agencies are ignoring the stays, and individuals are being detained.


IF that is the case . . . then the judge should hold the offending parties in contempt and have them arrested.

The madness and hysteria of the Democrats is just getting warmed up.

They're already saying they will filibuster the SC nominee--and they don't even know who it is.

I say let's just have the civil war the Left is clamoring for and be done with it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 3:47 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Do tell us about how they pay for the tunnels. Have you done that kind of work, or are you a drug lord? You clearly have some expertise. How did you obtain it?

I read. Stuff other than Hot Air and Breitbart...


You know what? You're a real piece of work. I only follow links to Breitbart. Hotair happens to comment on news from a conservative perspective. However, it is 1000% more informative than your opinion.

So, there's that.

You want to get rid of the illegal market for drugs? Legalize its sale through specific regulated locations and keep those prices low.


Because we don't have enough trouble with heroin. Brilliant.

You want to get rid of illegal immigration. Make it virtually impossible to find someone who will give illegals a job. As it is there are industries that rely on illegal immigrants.


I'm all for that.

But, why stop there? Why should illegals get driver's licenses, welfare, and housing? It should be both--massive fines for hiring illegals and tamper-proof ID with biometric info. No ID, no work.

A $14 billion dollar wall, will quickly become a $30 billion dollar boondoggle. And by the time its finished the cartels will have dozens, if not hundreds of ways past it.


Nope. Trump would supervise it himself if he had to in order to have it on time and under budget.

fate
Don't worry about our "avacados" (sic). That tariff won't happen. It's negotiating.

If this is negotiating he's really stupid negotiating. All of the cost, and all of the damage will be taken on by American consumers. Its shooting ones self in the foot.


I'm trying to be nice. You make it difficult.

"That tariff won't happen" means any potential cost to American consumers "won't happen."

Do I need to translate that into French?

By the way, 80% of America's avocados come from Mexico. You don't like guacamole?
The Mexicans can always find other markets too.


I'm not afraid of what Mexico's options are. I'm not worried at all.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 3:51 pm

Sassenach wrote:I realise this conversation is something of a tangent, but I should point out that the Byzantine Empire existed for about 1300 years during which time the city of Constantinople was besieged by the Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoths Arabs and others. Had any one of those armies successfully taken the city that would have been the end of the empire as we knew it. I'd say those walls served a purpose for a surprisingly long time all things considered.

Or to put it another way, if walls served no purpose then why did people keep building them ?

This is not to say that I think Trump's wall is likely to serve a meaningful purpose, I don't, but nevertheless it's a bit much to try to argue that every wall that's ever been built was a waste of time just because they were eventually breached.


And, here's a clue: if it eliminates some from entering the US (and it will) then it's having an impact.

Plus, the Wall is only part of a comprehensive strategy.

Here's something for rickyp and his ilk to consider: what did Obama do to solve our immigration problem?

Answer: nothing. He made it worse. He invited children from Central America to risk their lives to enter the US. He promised those who made it here they would get to stay. He punished the pitiful people of Cuba. He raised the costs to American taxpayers without getting anything resolved.

Thanks Obama!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 6:59 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:Don't we have an example already of one of Trump's EOs being executive overreach, with a judge ruling against one of the effects of the changes on immigration?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ce-america


Yes; several judges. Terrible policy, terrible process.

And it seems that the government agencies are ignoring the stays, and individuals are being detained.


IF that is the case . . . then the judge should hold the offending parties in contempt and have them arrested.

The madness and hysteria of the Democrats is just getting warmed up.

They're already saying they will filibuster the SC nominee--and they don't even know who it is.

I say let's just have the civil war the Left is clamoring for and be done with it.


Yes, the left is hysterical. On Facebook, a friend of mine linked to an opinion piece suggesting that Trump is getting ready for a coup. Get ready for him to burn the Reichstag. However, it is fair to say that the immigration ban has been done very poorly. It was not adequately vetted within the cabinet and agencies and it seems like they missed several important points. I don't see the Koch brothers or the Wall Street Journal as part of the left, but both have been very critical. From today's lead editorial in the WSJ:

Mr. Trump campaigned on a promise of “extreme vetting” for refugees from countries with a history of terrorism, and his focus on protecting Americans has popular support. But his refugee ban is so blunderbuss and broad, and so poorly explained and prepared for, that it has produced confusion and fear at airports, an immediate legal defeat, and political fury at home and abroad. Governing is more complicated than a campaign rally.
Start with the rollout late Friday with barely an explanation for the public, or apparently even for border agents or customs officials. The order immediately suspended entry for nationals from seven countries for 90 days, except for exceptions authorized by the secretaries of State or Homeland Security. It also banned refugee entries from Syria indefinitely.

The airwaves were suddenly full of stories of scientists, business travelers and even approved visa holders detained at the airport and denied entry to the U.S. Tech companies immediately recalled employees for fear that they may not be able to return.
Even some green-card holders—who have permanent legal residence in the U.S.—were swept up in the border confusion. The White House scrambled Sunday to say green-card holders are exempt from the order, but that should have been made clear from the start.
The White House legal review was also slipshod. The President has wide discretion over refugee policies, and the overall Trump order is no doubt legal. But surely someone in the executive branch knew that anyone who touches down on U.S. soil is entitled to some due process before summary removal.
Opponents of the policy pounced to sue in several jurisdictions, and no fewer than four judges have rebuked the order in some way. One government lawyer who had to defend the White House position couldn’t explain why those detained were a security threat or why they weren’t at risk if they were sent back to their native countries.
The larger problem with the order is its breadth. Contrary to much bad media coverage, the order is not a “Muslim ban.” But by suspending all entries from seven Muslim-majority nations, it lets the jihadists portray the order as applying to all Muslims even though it does not.


There's always going to be a tension between the different factions that supported Trump. However, by deferring too heavily to Bannon, and not enough to Ryan, he is running some real risks for his presidency and the country.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 8:30 pm

P.S. It took Nixon a whole lot longer to fire his attorney general.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 4:20 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:Don't we have an example already of one of Trump's EOs being executive overreach, with a judge ruling against one of the effects of the changes on immigration?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ce-america


Yes; several judges. Terrible policy, terrible process.

And it seems that the government agencies are ignoring the stays, and individuals are being detained.


IF that is the case . . . then the judge should hold the offending parties in contempt and have them arrested.

The madness and hysteria of the Democrats is just getting warmed up.
And the Republicans who are condemning the Executive Order and process?

They're already saying they will filibuster the SC nominee--and they don't even know who it is.
Where could they possibly have got that idea from? I wonder why it is there is still a vacancy when Scalia died almost a year ago?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 7:43 am

Ray Jay wrote:P.S. It took Nixon a whole lot longer to fire his attorney general.


Agreed. However, she was not willing to do her job. That's the end of that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 8:01 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:The madness and hysteria of the Democrats is just getting warmed up.
And the Republicans who are condemning the Executive Order and process?


They are not hysterical. They are not blathering about the Statue of Liberty crying, unlike Schumer and Pelosi. The Republicans are not speaking in eschatological terms.

They're already saying they will filibuster the SC nominee--and they don't even know who it is.
Where could they possibly have got that idea from? I wonder why it is there is still a vacancy when Scalia died almost a year ago?


That wasn't a filibuster. It was a huge political gamble. Had Clinton won, she would have put another legislator on the bench, someone much worse than Garland.

The truth is that IF the Democrats filibuster it will just bring an end to the filibuster. They (under Reid) damaged it. If they filibuster a SC nominee, the GOP will go nuclear and that will be the end of it. Period.

It's probably time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 8:58 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:P.S. It took Nixon a whole lot longer to fire his attorney general.


Agreed. However, she was not willing to do her job. That's the end of that.
Depends. Is it not part of her job to determine whether or not something is lawful/constitutional as part of deciding whether to fight a case? By the way "just" in context would seem to include whether or not it conformed to the Constitution to me, and could even include US law below that.

Now, she was fired for not following the White House line on the EO. And it seems that, frankly, the process to create the EO was flawed in that key Hill figures and Administration figures were not consulted or in some cases even given a copy until during or after the signing. And perhaps had there been more consultation, the text and accompanying interpretation by the White House might have been different. There will be court cases, and they may go up to SCOTUS, and then we will see if it was all Constitutional or not.

But this does seem to have not just enraged Democrats, but created an awkward position for Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/t ... der-234392

On the SCOTUS thing, the filibuster part is not the issue, so much as that Republicans - and leadership Republicans - were on record saying they would block whoever Obama nominated, before Garland was named, and refused to convene the nominations hearings when he was.

The effect was the same as if a minority had filibustered - saying (before anyone is even nominated) that whoever is put forward will be blocked through the means they had at their disposal. Both parties have now done that. Neither can claim to be angels on it. I am sure people will claim that there is some difference which makes their side fine to declare a total block but not the other, but frankly that is just partisan bull.

Whatever happens with the filibuster, the divide is opening up.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 9:08 am

The left wing narrative right now is that the US is descending into autocracy. Although there may be some parallels, overall the narrative seems over the top to me. But I could see it happening over the next couple of years depending on what happens. For example, moderate/libertarian/pro-business Republicans disavow trump ... civil rights get derailed ... congress talks about impeachment ... press freedom gets restricted in fact or in law ...

What's the best analogy for what the US is going through right now? Although it is tempting to compare to the fascist powers in Europe in the 30's, that doesn't quite fit because the US has been a Democracy for so long and our civil institutions, although weakening, are relatively strong. For the same reason, I don't think comparison to today's Russia or Turkey are apt. Thoughts?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 9:22 am

what did Obama do to solve our immigration problem?

There were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014, a total unchanged from 2009 and accounting for 3.5% of the nation’s population. The number of unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million, when this group was 4% of the U.S. population.


Since the number of illegals seems to be going down...

But here's more
Obama signed a $600 million bill to fund some 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and law enforcement officials along the border, as well as pay for two more unmanned drones.Additionally, he ordered some 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border to help with security

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders,


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-d ... d=41715661

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... n-the-u-s/
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 9:50 am

fate
Because we don't have enough trouble with heroin. Brilliant.

Because years of jailing users and dealers has been so successful at reducing use or crime rates?
The biggest problem in the US is prescription painkillers. And that came about primarily by over prescribing and a misunderstanding of the extreme addictive nature of oxycotin and other opiods...These people were getting hooked legally.

But if you're actually curious of other ways of doing things, you might try to read about Switzerlands success...
Lower crime rates (property crimes etc) , lower rate of new users,
the analysis of police records suggests that program participants also tend strongly to reduce cocaine and cannabis use probably because program participants dramatically reduced their contacts with the drug scene when entering the program (Uchtenhagen et al., 1999) and were thus less exposed to opportunities to buy drugs. Consequently, their need for money is not only reduced with regard to heroin but also to other substances. Accordingly, the drop in acquisitive crime, such as drug selling or property crime, is also remarkable and related to all kinds of thefts like shoplifting, vehicle theft, burglary, etc. Detailed analyses indicated that the drop found is related to a true diminution in criminal activity rather than a more lenient recording practice of police officers towards program participants.

http://www.drug-rehabs.org/research/swi ... ug-use.htm

Portugal too.
If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty.
Fourteen years after decriminalization, Portugal has not been run into the ground by a nation of drug addicts. In fact, by many measures, it's doing far better than it was before.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-year ... .Vm72pxtF6
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 9:58 am

ray
What's the best analogy for what the US is going through right now?


Here's Stephen Kings metaphor..
“Imagine a hooligan pouring sugar into the gas tank of an expensive and well-maintained car. Trump is that hooligan. America is that car.”


What historical analogy fits best, will depend on when Republican support for Trump begins to erode. As it must. Nixon comes to mind.