QuakerOats;1834351 wrote:Well, we know terrorists cross the border along with criminals and drug dealers.

Yeah, its defense.

Terrorists? Name one that came from the southern border....
Crime and drugs, especially black tar heroin, yes, I agree.

like_that;1834411 wrote:Do explain then. Tell us how Trump will bypass federal contracting procedures. I will wait.

Magic. He will wave his little tiny hands and make all the procedures go away.
Screw the FAR.

Commander of Awesome;1834412 wrote:Thinking more about Trump's wall plan, I am trying to understand the economics behind this. Doesn't that just make things more expensive for us/we pay for the wall? For example, Mexico sells an avocado to the US for $1, grocer sells it for $2. With 20% tariff, Mexico sells it to us for $1.20, grocer either sells it to us for $2 and makes $0.20 less or sells it to us for $2.20. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yeah, I tried to explain this on election night or shortly before or after (I don't recall).
No one wins in trade wars. All the costs ultimately come back to the consumer.

I mean if this happens, I will make a serious run at the liquer store to stock up on tequilla and mezcal....

ptown_trojans_1;1834476 wrote:

Magic. He will wave his little tiny hands and make all the procedures go away.
Screw the FAR.

This actually doesn't sound so bad [emoji848].

ptown_trojans_1;1834477 wrote:Yeah, I tried to explain this on election night or shortly before or after (I don't recall).
No one wins in trade wars. All the costs ultimately come back to the consumer.

I'm not so sure about this, from a nationalistic perspective.

Global trade makes the pie bigger, no question. Except while it's a bigger pie, your share is now growing more slowly and after a while you wonder why you don't have as much pie as you thought you would.

The protectionist play is higher cost to the consumer, but net winning because of higher wages. The problem with globalization is it probably takes at least 1-2 generations for those benefactors to become global consumers, and that's a real loss for those 1-2 generations in the outsourcing country.

It's a great thing when your country is creating more jobs than it is workers (assuming your workforce is continuing to grow). Seems the only solution so far has been to print money to capture that consumer surplus and redistribute it as entitlements.

Someone needs to have the guts to finally enforce the law...all of our laws. Our government shouldn't get to pick and choose which laws they ultimately want to enforce.

The wall is also good for Mexico, as much of the drug smuggling begins in Central and South America, and runs north. I am sure Mexico is sick and tired of being the go-between to a large extent. So if there is a major deterrent on Mexico's northern border, it only makes sense that Mexico will benefit as the flow recedes. We need to solve our problems first, and let the chips fall where they fall. We have been getting our ass kicked in the trade war and the drug war; most of us are sick of it.

The March for Life is Saturday in D.C. ..................look for about 1 million ..........Sleeper maybe ??

QuakerOats;1834536 wrote:The March for Life is Saturday in D.C. ..................look for about 1 million ..........Sleeper maybe ??

I thought it was today?

QuakerOats;1834532 wrote:The wall is also good for Mexico, as much of the drug smuggling begins in Central and South America, and runs north. I am sure Mexico is sick and tired of being the go-between to a large extent. So if there is a major deterrent on Mexico's northern border, it only makes sense that Mexico will benefit as the flow recedes. We need to solve our problems first, and let the chips fall where they fall. We have been getting our ass kicked in the trade war and the drug war; most of us are sick of it.

Well, the drug was stupid as fuck and a drain on resources to begin with. A good early place for cost-cutting if lowering the budget is an actual priority.

BGFalcons82;1834445 wrote:Did you know the Eisenhower Interstate System was designed and built for possible military use? Yes, Defense was very integral in the construction of roads.

One example of infrastructure being built so it can double for military use doesn't grant all infrastructure projects defense purposes. So, I suppose I'm curious what your point is.

majorspark;1834137 wrote:its obvious he has been advised to make peace in order to limit road blocks.

I'm not sure I buy this. Given the seeming fact that he was pretty chummy with the Clintons prior to his active presence in politics, I think all his blustering against her in the election was a show.

And Donald closes the week with orders for extreme vetting ......what a week.

Tooooo much winning this week; I can't take it.

O-Trap;1834615 wrote:One example of infrastructure being built so it can double for military use doesn't grant all infrastructure projects defense purposes. So, I suppose I'm curious what your point is.

You are a pretty sharp poster, so I'm not sure why you need clarification. Therefore, I'm treading lightly.

You claimed walls couldn't be classified for Defense. I wrote that roads had a Defense purpose, and a large one at that. Therefore, things that appear on the surface to be non-Defense related can definitey be classified as such and I gave you the best example I could think of. The Trump wall also serves as a drug-running obstacle, a large "keep-out" sign, as well as an impediment for those who wish to wander in here to do us (or U.S.) harm.

it most certainly be classified as a Defense appropriation.

QuakerOats;1834629 wrote:And Donald closes the week with orders for extreme vetting ......what a week.

Tooooo much winning this week; I can't take it.

AND Shialaw Lebootsicle got arrested. Now, if there is video of the Secret Service shaking down that whore, Madonna, then it could be the week of the year!!

BGFalcons82;1834643 wrote:Now, if there is video of the Secret Service shaking down that whore, Madonna, then it could be the week of the year!!

They probably did, but she plea bargained down to a blow job.

BGFalcons82;1834641 wrote:You are a pretty sharp poster, so I'm not sure why you need clarification. Therefore, I'm treading lightly.

You claimed walls couldn't be classified for Defense. I wrote that roads had a Defense purpose, and a large one at that. Therefore, things that appear on the surface to be non-Defense related can definitey be classified as such and I gave you the best example I could think of. The Trump wall also serves as a drug-running obstacle, a large "keep-out" sign, as well as an impediment for those who wish to wander in here to do us (or U.S.) harm.

it most certainly be classified as a Defense appropriation.

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your thoughtful clarification.

I do still think we have a disconnect, though. I'm not suggesting that "walls" cannot be classified for defense. I fully acknowledge that they might have that capacity.

However, I've not seen or heard this wall being built to double for that purpose. If you have, I'd be interested in hearing or reading about it.

Actual defense requires an aggressor, or a potential aggressor. I don't think immigrants who do not seek to destroy anything having to do with the US would qualify.

Now, I'm not suggesting that someone opposed to that level of immigration might not see it as a concern, so my argument here is not that it shouldn't be addressed. Merely that it doesn't seem like it should be categorized as defense, unless there is reason to believe it might have to be used for that purpose.

O-Trap;1834348 wrote:Defense handles enemies.

I really don't think you can call a wall "to keep out the illegals" defense.

anything that is established to create a perimeter for the purpose to protect and secure the area or situation is a defense. Maybe you'll be more comfortable calling the wall a shield, to deflect unlawful intruders that would be less extreme sounding.
Build a wall an put a public rife range on it ever 1/2 mile....

O-Trap;1834656 wrote:I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your thoughtful clarification.

I do still think we have a disconnect, though. I'm not suggesting that "walls" cannot be classified for defense. I fully acknowledge that they might have that capacity.

However, I've not seen or heard this wall being built to double for that purpose. If you have, I'd be interested in hearing or reading about it.

Actual defense requires an aggressor, or a potential aggressor. I don't think immigrants who do not seek to destroy anything having to do with the US would qualify.

Now, I'm not suggesting that someone opposed to that level of immigration might not see it as a concern, so my argument here is not that it shouldn't be addressed. Merely that it doesn't seem like it should be categorized as defense, unless there is reason to believe it might have to be used for that purpose.

How about this:

The Great Wall of China was built:
A) To be a tremendous tourist attraction.
B) To provide an Olympic training facility.
C) To show the world they had fantastic engineers who could build something nobody else could.
D) To provide a way to defend their thousands of miles of unattended border.

If I missed your answer, please provide, but the truth is 'D'...for Defense.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444373/donald-trump-refugees-critics-wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

O-Trap;1834616 wrote:I'm not sure I buy this. Given the seeming fact that he was pretty chummy with the Clintons prior to his active presence in politics, I think all his blustering against her in the election was a show.

Their chumminess was formal rather than intimate. In other words quite shallow. Imagine the media frenzy over a Trump administration investigating and prosecuting his opponent for POTUS and former FLOTUS. It would consume his administration and the nation. See President Ford's statement on Nixon pardon. Not to mention the Clinton foundation attracted some very influential "contributors" who will make every effort to ensure there is no investigation.

BGFalcons82;1834766 wrote:How about this:

The Great Wall of China was built:
A) To be a tremendous tourist attraction.
B) To provide an Olympic training facility.
C) To show the world they had fantastic engineers who could build something nobody else could.
D) To provide a way to defend their thousands of miles of unattended border.

If I missed your answer, please provide, but the truth is 'D'...for Defense.

And ultimately failed.

O-Trap;1834656 wrote:Actual defense requires an aggressor, or a potential aggressor. I don't think immigrants who do not seek to destroy anything having to do with the US would qualify.

Walls have been since ancient times a defense. Nearly every major population center had a wall. In the past they served as a defense of the civilian population against organized enemy armies. In modern times physical walls are not an effective defense against any modern nation states military capabilities. Walls in the past were not just to defend against foreign invaders and not to keep people out who wanted to engage in commerce but to control the ports of entry. Non conventional enemies have existed throughout history 9/11 was just a modern manifestation of it.

Anyone not a citizen entering the USA outside of a port of entry is not immigrating they are invading. That said I am indifferent to this wall. If necessary for control as a last resort ok but don't believe the cost (not just monetary) would merit it. I would rather see more liberal but secure immigration polices that direct those on our southern border to seek legal ports of entry rather than illegal.

Guys....stop....and realize you're arguing for a useless fucking wall;.

Until a better solution is put into place to eliminate illegal entrance into the country, I'll support the wall. Enforce the law.

[h=3]Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) · Twitter
[/h]https://twitter.com/netanyahu



President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea ��������




Thank you.