Donald Trump

"

TheWretch wrote:

See that's the problem with the left right now as far as I see it, denying the problem exists is not helping anyone. It isn't a "subset" it's corrupted all the way to the top levels of government by these criminals.

As if I ever said the government is non corrupted. You read what you want to read. When I said subset, I talked about the whole nation, not a government. Trump measures punish Mexican people first (who else is going to pay it?). And I have my doubts about how effective would be the whole thing.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: it's ok, no need to search stuff for me. I found a guide myself after some google (I have to keep searching for that stuff about how to get around US checks, it would be too blatant to be on paper, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was an unnoficial thing).

Still, even with all this, I wouldn't use solutions that would be paid by the people of Mexico (assuming is possible in the first place because they rely in leverage via trade tariffs and stuff, and I think it won't happen), when there are other solutions available. I don't think a whole nation must be punished for the problems of a subset, unless there are no other alternatives.

I don't think it is a matter of punishing anyone. I just think we need to manage the immigration process instead of letting it run wild. The problems with Mexico's government aren't because everyone in the government doesn't care. A large chunk is concerned about the corruption, but their opponents have been stifling their efforts at reform, sometimes violently/

When you mentioned the War on Drugs source before, I'm guessing you found something similar to this:

http://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/research-policy-papers/TheWarOnMexicanCartels_0.pdf

There was some good information and strategy in here on how the US and Mexico can work together to find some solutions. If it was followed, and worked out as planned, much of the root problem (corruption) in Mexico, would diminish. This would lead to renewed investment in Mexico with more jobs and a better economic situation for everyone. Avoiding unnecessary bloodshed during the interim (of Mexico working on solving its corruption) is a very real concern.

After some of my recent posts, I did see a very raw bit on the feasibility of the wall. I thought for the first few paragraphs that they might have interviewed my source, but no mention was made and the overall piece was too vague and unsubstantiated by reasoning or facts to have from him/her.

Ultimately, if the corruption in Mexico can be mostly remedied (To be no worse than the corruption here in the US or in most countries) I think we will end up with some trans US/Mexican country (not sure if Canada will join in). The economic boom from such a union would be big enough to reinvigorate the global economy for 40-50 years, I'd think. There is just so much potential.

It will happen eventually, just a matter of whether we will live long enough to see it.

Hey, what's your job Dalailama? It seems you know a lot more than the average internet dweller about this.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

See that's the problem with the left right now as far as I see it, denying the problem exists is not helping anyone. It isn't a "subset" it's corrupted all the way to the top levels of government by these criminals.

As if I ever said the government is non corrupted. You read what you want to read. When I said subset, I talked about the whole nation, not a government. Trump measures punish Mexican people first (who else is going to pay it?). And I have my doubts about how effective would be the whole thing.

Your circular logic is baffling. No really it is. What's a government if not a representative entity of the people? You can't call a modern democratic country's government a subset just like you can't say a country with a corrupt government isn't corrupt.

"

TheWretch wrote:

Your circular logic is baffling. No really it is. What's a government if not a representative entity of the people? You can't call a modern democratic country's government a subset just like you can't say a country with a corrupt government isn't corrupt.

A government doesn't necessarily represent their people. Not even in a democracy. No, voting doesn't guarantee that. Sometimes there is not even a good option to choose.

I can call the government a subset of a country because it's true. If you want to say that Mexico as a country is corrupt, ok, but that doesn't make a method right.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

Your circular logic is baffling. No really it is. What's a government if not a representative entity of the people? You can't call a modern democratic country's government a subset just like you can't say a country with a corrupt government isn't corrupt.

A government doesn't necessarily represent their people. Not even in a democracy. No, voting doesn't guarantee that. Sometimes there is not even a good option to choose.

I can call the government a subset of a country because it's true. If you want to say that Mexico as a country is corrupt, ok, but that doesn't make a method right.

How did I know you'd try to split hairs on that one too lol I even tried to specify a modern democratic society apparently that wasn't enough to stop you from going there anyway.

Way to miss the point completely.

E : and no, a democratically elected gov. has a majority vote over the other parties, how can they only be a subset if not the largest subset? Your argument doesn't make any sense

"

TheWretch wrote:

E : and no, a democratically elected gov. has a majority vote over the other parties, how can they only be a subset if not the largest subset? Your argument doesn't make any sense

Subset of what set? Here is where I think we differ talking.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

E : and no, a democratically elected gov. has a majority vote over the other parties, how can they only be a subset if not the largest subset? Your argument doesn't make any sense

Subset of what set? Here is where I think we differ talking.

Dude seriously? This is YOUR argument!

I can't continue this circular discussion with you I feel like i'm talking to a child. Maybe it's the language barrier

FWIW a subset of the people Nero, the people.

"

TheWretch wrote:

You can't call a modern democratic country's government a subset.

Well, that's your words. It seems I can call government a subset of a nation at the end.

The true discussion is about how responsible is a whole nation for its government, and I say, it depends.

If you feel is circular, ok, it doesn't really matter. I'm a random person on the internet.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

You can't call a modern democratic country's government a subset.

Well, that's your words. It seems I can call government a subset of a nation at the end.

Ya, no. Nice try. One page back.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't think a whole nation must be punished for the problems of a subset, unless there are no other alternatives.