ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

You know what I meant. Many more would be dying without us putting leech on Saudi since they don't exactly subscribe to geneva and other interational regs on human rights. Yes it's a mistake overall and I'm down with your ideas about staying at home but I understand the predients and his military advisors rationale is all.

And a Wall would do nothing it's huge boondoggle and red meat for right. Total symbolism over substance

It wont stop the conditions in South america that cause refugees and asylum seekers. Have to go to DC for that;) The Drug war. The CIA Coups.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

ISIS didnt "emerge" we stopped bribing them billions of dollars to stop attacking us which was unsustainable. ISIS was just same guys who were AQ and Saddam's army which Bush foolishly disbanded.

As far as kill them to save them morals you have it's sick a twisted, not to mention supremacist and illegal. Then creates worse situations that you went in for in the first place. See how large global jihad movement is today vs 911 or places like Lybia which are Jihadi playgrounds.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=armenian+genocide

Those new age jihadi movements. Should i put a "let me google that for you ottoman empire massacres" aswell?

Want me to link the jihad section of the hadith-al-boekhari for you? Or do you think the morals and ways of warfare are some new feat they discovered themselves?

Btw i never mentioned killing, that's a conclusion you drew yourself.

I said dethrone the regime, which can be achieved in multiple ways, invasion being only one of them.

Give me some data on the bribe argument because now it's a loose claim. And "emerging" doesn't negate in any way shape or form that they where not present in that region, in fact it's the opposite. They emerged because America was required to pull out before the mission completed, which was exactly my previous point.

Peace,

-Boem-

I didnt draw conclusion. I've seen reports up to million dead Iraqis from Iraq war and sactions regime before. Killing them to save them. Bad idea to kill more than Saddam did.

As far as bribing them to stop attacking us that happened too and once money ran out they went right back into insurgency mode under ISIS.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/us-government-paying-former-insurgents/

Iraq is a war you could never hope to win. You lose all moral authority when you invade someone and the resistance would continue forever like Afghanistan which is slipping away. In meantime you go broke. You say dems bretrayed those troops? I say guys who sent them in on a illegal fools errand did and dems became responsible after all the lies came out. No WMDs, No ties to terror in fact Saddam buried salafi jihadis because they posed threat this his secular regime. No greeted as liberators. Would pay for itself. ALL LIES And sunk costs is the worst argument ever for continuing to dig a dry well.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

And a Wall would do nothing it's huge boondoggle and red meat for right. Total symbolism over substance.

It's not a boondoggle, it's merely overhyped. A southern border wall is kind of like an aspirin — relatively cheap and moderately useful, but not a panacea that will solve all problems related to illegal immigration. I'm for it, but I'm not of the opinion that it's the most important thing in the world.

That is, cheap if done right. I say "big and beautiful" ironically (it's hard to resist the troll factor). Cost controls are actually very important on such a project. It ain't for looks.

It would be a nice start on actually paying attention to domestic issues, but hopefully not the end of it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

And a Wall would do nothing it's huge boondoggle and red meat for right. Total symbolism over substance.

It's not a boondoggle, it's merely overhyped. A southern border wall is kind of like an aspirin — relatively cheap and moderately useful, but not a panacea that will solve all problems related to illegal immigration. I'm for it, but I'm not of the opinion that it's the most important thing in the world.

It would be a nice start on actually paying attention to domestic issues, but hopefully not the end of it.

It's a gimmick/symbolism for at least 3 reasons

The are international laws and US laws you can't just turn people away. They have right to heard.

Most walk/fly/sail right in on visitor visa and just stay

Walls you can dig under and climb over. Especially that 1000s miles span, This is not little israel.

I don't think it would make a lick of differnce, if republicans truly wanted to curb immigration they'd look into why people are immigrating and remove those conditions.

1. The coups installing corporate/wall street friendly regimes. Honduras was last one Hillary did. No accident tones from Honduras as of late.

2. The drug war which turned whole regions into gangster infested playgrounds because those with little opportunity see that as only way of of poverty or leave.

3. The Welfare state.

Another thing about immigration this is the greatest country in the world. Private property rights, limited gov, mostly merit based, and many freedoms other nations people South of the Border do not enjoy (although all slipping here too thanks to statists). We should foster that not the opposite.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

And a Wall would do nothing it's huge boondoggle and red meat for right. Total symbolism over substance.

It's not a boondoggle, it's merely overhyped. A southern border wall is kind of like an aspirin — relatively cheap and moderately useful, but not a panacea that will solve all problems related to illegal immigration. I'm for it, but I'm not of the opinion that it's the most important thing in the world.

It would be a nice start on actually paying attention to domestic issues, but hopefully not the end of it.

Spoiler

It's a gimmick/symbolism for at least 3 reasons

The are international laws and US laws you can't just turn people away. They have right to heard.

Most walk/fly/sail right in on visitor visa and just stay

Walls you can dig under and climb over. Especially that 1000s miles span, This is not little israel.

I don't think it would make a lick of differnce,

if republicans truly wanted to curb immigration they'd look into why people are immigrating and remove those conditions.

That's why I said it wouldn't be a panacea that fixes illegal immigration. A wall would be more effective than nothing against illegal entry, which is best thought of as a separate issue from illegal immigration. It would indeed do nothing against legal entry overstays. However, illegal entry allows repeat deportees to re-enter and (re-)entry of fugitives from the US government, as well as smuggling (human, drugs, weapons, etc). These are problems worthy of solving.

Regarding tunnels, there is technology to detect such things. And right now smugglers don't even need to build a tunnel — they can just stroll over.

I will gladly grant you that the actual benefits of a wall are a far cry from what President Trump has been selling to his base. It wouldn't have the effects many Trump supporters hope and believe it would have on illegal immigration. To some extent Trump is a snake oil salesman in this regard (notable exception: the "Angel Moms" campaign; a wall would be effective against previously deported violent criminals). However, this particular snake oil is not without some practical uses. It's still worth it if the price is right.

Trump didn't push for a wall when Republicans controlled the House and Senate. For him to get approval for his wall now would require him to deal with Democrats in a way that he's never seemed inclined or able to do. The way Trump seems to try to make a deal is to usually just demand that everyone gives him what he wants then every once in a while he switches instead to saying I'll agree to what you want but then backs out of the deal a few days later.

It appears to me that he's much more interested in making the wall a political issue rather than actually building a wall.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Trump didn't push for a wall when Republicans controlled the House and Senate. For him to get approval for his wall now would require him to deal with Democrats in a way that he's never seemed inclined or able to do. The way Trump seems to try to make a deal is to usually just demand that everyone gives him what he wants then every once in a while he switches instead to saying I'll agree to what you want but then backs out of the deal a few days later.

It appears to me that he's much more interested in making the wall a political issue rather than actually building a wall.

I said that months ago when there noise about wall was in news. He had two years with full control. Did nothing. He actually signed a amnesty bill for some reason no one talking about. He wants more Hb1s and other foreign workers. As I said red meat for his base sliding into 2020 because they didnt much of anything else he talked about like his massive infrastructure projects or other populist stuff in 60 min interview.


Mandate is gone which I like (can buy an indemnity plan w/o penalty which is perfect for someone healthy), Corporate both subchapter S and C taxes are cut is good for small and large businesses alike has trickled down into larger economy but in general he's been pretty ineffective

Doesnt mean I wont vote for him. Straight ticket R don't even have to look at name voter here because in general they are not statits like dems and still believe in private property, small gov, low tax, and individual liberty.

@ScrotieMcB

On reentry you may have a good point. I'm not up on how they track that. I mean what if someone shows up to port of entry using a different name every time they are denied only to repeat whole application process again? What do they do Iris scans? So they are forced to use illegal crossings?