ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

The_Reporter wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All the experts say that a wall across the whole border is stupid and wouldn't work.

Rule of thumb: the experts are rarely unanimous. To just automatically assume all the experts agree with you is silly.

A border-long wall would stop 10-30% of illegal immigration, and be even more effective against the smuggling of drugs, previously deported aliens, and kidnapped persons. That's worth the modest price tag, even if it admittedly is not in itself a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration.

Drugs come via air/water/legal crossings, mainly the northern border.

Liar.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

All the experts say that a wall across the whole border is stupid and wouldn't work.

Rule of thumb: the experts are rarely unanimous. To just automatically assume all the experts agree with you is silly.

A border-long wall would stop 10-30% of illegal immigration, and be even more effective against the smuggling of drugs, previously deported aliens, and kidnapped persons. That's worth the modest price tag, even if it admittedly is not in itself a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration.

Drugs come via air/water/legal crossings, mainly the northern border.

Not exclusively. Some do come through air/water/legal crossings. Some (more than 10-30% of the total, hence "more effective") come across open border.

Also, I didn't edit fast enough for you: I don't actually care about preventing the smuggling of drugs. The War on Drugs is a losing proposition. But even just for preventing small amounts of illegal immigration and human smuggling, it's a relatively cheap, cost-effective solution.

There's no way a wall could live up to the hype at this point — it won't fix everything — but it's nevertheless sensible.

Trump building a Trump Tower in Pyongyang soon. Impeach?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Also, I didn't edit fast enough for you: I don't actually care about preventing the smuggling of drugs. The War on Drugs is a losing proposition. But even just for preventing small amounts of illegal immigration and human smuggling, it's a relatively cheap, cost-effective solution.

The War on Drugs, which, by the way, costs a lot of taxpayer money every year.

The War on Drugs, which, by the way, caused the need for drugs to be smuggled into America, which, ironically, is quite capable of producing most of the drugs consumed in country. I can guarantee if some dealer offered me a good price on some "Mexican weed", I would just say thanks, but no thanks. Honest truth? Mexican weed made sense when nobody was growing in America because of the police state's obsession with illegal drugs. Ohm and it tended to be garbage, whether bad seed stock, poor growing conditions, improper curing, or it just lost potency in the smuggling process.

With a sensible drug policy, we could eliminate most of the societal ills of drugs, make a lot of tax money (some of funneled into drug treatment for those who want it), and open up the police to solving real crimes against real people and real property. And save a bunch of money that has been going up in smoke since the Nixon administration.

But I guess DEA agents need their government pensions, too
/rolleyes

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Spoiler

=^[.]^=

That image is funny. Nicely played.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Question for Trump supporters/cultists:

Would you still loyally worship him if it were discovered he had some involvement in murder(s)?

Coming from the party which embraces infanticide. Ironic!

"

The_Reporter wrote:

You know you're repeating Russian propaganda, right?

Straight from the Media Matters handbook. Are they at least paying you well?