Trump's wall is about ego and having a politically efficacious talking point, not border security

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Dec 22, 2018.

  1. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    What you're on about are policy differences you have with Reagan. Reagan's policies, though suboptimal IMO, were at least viable and not ruinous to the country and the world. Also, Reagan wasn't a full-on reprobate. Lastly, one could actually rely enough on what Reagan said that one could act on it and be confident he wasn't going to do or say the exact opposite at some point.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He got cozy with Saudi Arabia, leading to 9/11. Define "adversary".
    He flat out betrayed the intelligence operations associated with Valerie Plame, including whatever of our allies were involved. The Germans and some of the English and French guys associated with intelligence said things that indicated serious mistrust of W's operations was widespread, especially in the wake of the Iraq invasion and occupation. They did not appreciate being lied to, at such a cost.
    And he continued the tariffs and other aspects of Reagan's protection of US car makers from the Japanese (cost me about 3000 dollars, buying Toyota pickups), as well as the economic impositions of NAFTA et al on Mexico et al. Plus he deregulated and protected the US financial industry, turning it loose on not only the US citizenry but foreign governments - leading to international economic disaster.
    No, he wasn't. He appointed bigots, fuckwits, and rigid ideological fools to positions of great influence and responsibility. He had James Watt running Interior, Anne Gorsuch running the EPA, William Bennet running Education. He had a jingoistic wingnut running a terrorism and cocaine smuggling operation out of the White House under the guise of "anticommunism" , that touched off one of the most damaging drug epidemics any country has ever experienced in the US - the big cities in the US are still recovering from it.

    When he did have a more reasonable guy at hand - Richard Schweiker, say - he apparently did not take advice, but demanded loyalty and support for his preset policies and agenda - when he wasn't simply ignoring them: Wiki
    And so forth. Republican is Trump, Trump is Republican, same old same since 1980 at least.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, they weren't.
    Supply side tax policy and economics, for example, was ruinous garbage.
    So was support for scumbag rightwing dictators and their paramilitary terrorism over democratically elected heads of State in South and Central American countries.
    So was banking deregulation.
    So was NAFTA and similar unleashings of predatory corporate power on Mexico.

    That the ruin they brought sometimes came to full fruition only many years later should not hide their origins.
    You weren't?
    Others were. W, in particular, was only survived by some resilience Clinton had managed to restore and some quickly interjected sanity by Obama - and that may have been temporary: the damage W did is still coming around, still looming in its effects.

    The crash of '08 was actually more severe of a drop than the crash of '29 - the New Deal provisions softened its blow, but the final outcome is still in doubt. And with another shit-for-brains Republican administration taking over before any real recovery could take hold, trying to pin the blame on Trump's personality is fooling yourself.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    I know that: he's the denoument they've been working toward since Nixon. Even some of the same evil minds behind the scenes still.
    So far, whatever damage they inflicted on the country and the world was mitigated and even to some degree repaired by in incoming Democrat - in spite of the Repugs best efforts to thwart them. This time, I'm not sure there is a competent or half-way trustworthy Democrat strong enough to even begin cleaning up the mess. It may be time to dissolve both of those monoliths; break them down into the 52 or so registered parties that already exist and let them duke it out on a level field.

    Every journey has a terminal; every performance, however self-consistent, has a final curtain. If Trump isn't their last... uh... fanfare, gasp....
    well, I just hope not to be here for the grand finale.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Have to agree. "W" was pretty lousy: the neocons and Cheney led him by the nose, but The Orange One is in a different league entirely. He doesn't even try to listen to his advisers or make any plans - or not any that one can discern, at least. He just makes up anything that seems, to him, like a good idea on the day. And he has a naked preference for dealing with autocrats rather than heads of representative democracies - typical of the 3rd rate, autocratic businessman he has been all his life. Trump is the product of the US worship of business and businessmen. He has got where he is by being on TV and supposedly talking "tough", in a sort of abrasive pastiche of a real businessman: telling-it-how-it-isn't, in fact. Anyone how has made a career in real estate is not going to have the moral compass for public office. I would not be at all surprised if he were to end up behind bars.

    This is nothing like any previous president in the last 100 years.
     
    Xelor likes this.
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Didn't Gibbon document all this in 1776?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    In style. In personality. In the public nature of the embarrassment.

    Otherwise, he's familiar as an old shoe to an American with a functioning memory. Limbaugh hit his stride in 1992.

    In substance he's basically Reagan x Limbaugh installed into W's legacy. His administration has acted as a direct continuation of Reagan's and W's, right down the same road - some of the same people, even. Certainly the same voting base, policies, reflexive reactions, media cooperation, etc.

    So did W. So did Reagan. So did HW, for that matter. Veneered.

    This guy is simply the Republican Party with the veneer removed, Rush Limbaugh elected to office. So far, nothing he's done personally (giving the ruination of the Federal Judiciary to the Republican Congress) is as flat out evil and destructive as the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses and the auspices of terminal corruption - which W had launched by this stage of his Presidency, let us not forget. So his character flaws may actually be some protection, if not for the US maybe for others. He's wrecking the US from the inside, after all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    So, in conclusion, here is my last, best argument against the great wall of Mexico:
    Aside from the original estimate of $25 billion (the first five is just to buy out the landowners and relocate US citizens) ,
    and the inevitable delays, unforeseen problems, misappropriations, labourer mutinies, supply snafus and other cost-overruns,
    Trump would requisition another $billion for the neon lights to spell out his name,
    and he would insist on putting them on the north side, where he could see it,
    whereupon Texas would turn bright blue.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
  13. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Borders (tangible and non tangible borders) are reasonable. The law is the border from me stealing your, say, TV. So if you don't like borders, then have open borders and just give me your TV. The right wingers like borders because they're conscientious at every level, so they like to keep things distinct. So we have borders and that's what dialogue is for because they need constant moving about. You can't live without borders otherwise we would live in chaos.

    So those who would want to tear down the US / Mexico border, want to live in the chaos that that would bring or they're too foolish to know that their pursuit would do that. So borders are a good thing and wanting them does not make you bigot or racist.

    Does the US / Mexico border need strengthend to the tune of $5bn? Trump believes so, and yes, there's a cost the American tax payer has to foot each year due to effects of illegal immigration. The type of guy that Trump is, yes, ego could be a part of it but I wouldn't claim this to be the only reason for the funding. The GAO's stats ended in 2009, at that time, America had 10.8 million illegal aliens, that's including illegal entry and those over staying their visa. These illegals commit murders at higher rates than US inhabitants, as much as 3 to 10 times more.

    So as the GAO figures stopped in 2009, when Obama appeared, America could be suffering more or less illegal immigration problems and cost and therefore the boarder needs or doesn't need strengthend. So without this data, it's a case of seeing if Trump wins or loses his $5bn bid.

    http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Agreed.
    Laws are not borders. You can park your car on a public street with no border anywhere near it. It is still illegal to steal it.
    Most Americans live quite far from borders, and they have no problem doing so.
    1) I don't know anyone on either side who wants to tear down the border.
    2) Border is not the opposite of chaos.
    3) Wanting borders do not make you a racist. Wanting to keep out people from some countries but not others (say, Mexico vs Canada) makes you a racist.
    Yep. And we get the benefits of illegal immigration. For example, illegal immigrants commit crimes in the US at a rate less than the average populace - so costs for law enforcement go down. In addition, they work the jobs that Americans don't want, and thus support our agriculture industry. (During years of big immigration crackdowns, some states saw entire crops rot in the fields.) They pay taxes as well - $11 billion a year in sales, personal income and property taxes.
    Nope. From the right leaning Cato institute:

    "The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans."
     
  15. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Thank you but you don't seem to understand borders. Laws are also borders, they're an intangible border. What line, what border should/would you cross? As a kid, how far would you push your parents. People get stuck with the concept that a border has to be something physical, that's the wrong mind set. When you try to implement or maintain an intangible border, a physical hard border, CCTV etc.. also needs implemented and maintained.

    The GAO link, these are America's stats until Obama took office. The murder rates from immigrants are higher.

    More often than enough, the population increase from immigration is slightly above the increase in GDP, meaning immigration marginally doesn't pay for itself. I don't know America's stats since the GAO stopped collating them.

    Immigration reduces low wages and increase high end wages thus fueling the gap between the rich and poor.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    No. A border is a geographical demarcation that outlines an area or political unit. Laws are not borders. Laws are laws. You can make laws about borders, of course.
    I agree there. CCTV works well. In fact, it's generally more effective than a physical wall, since physical walls don't slow down people wanting to cross illegally.
    Nope. The study doesn't say that. It just lists totals of illegal immigrants in jail and their crimes. It does not compare crime rates between citizens and noncitizens.
    Agreed there. This keeps inflation in check.
    Disagree there. Immigrants create 25% of the new companies in the US, and generally new companies pay very little (although certainly more than farm labor) until they are established.

    http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/05/02/immigrants-founding-new-businesses/
     
  17. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    I'm just going by the UK governments report, immigration suppresses the low end wages and forces the higher end up. Immigration is not the really fantastic and illegal immigrants gration is bad.

    As with borders, I can only go with what psychologists claim what borders are and I have to agree with them.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    ?? And a book enthusiast might hear "borders" and think "oh yeah, that's a great book store." And they are just as "right."

    But we were talking about international borders, right? Not bookstores or psychological issues.
     
  19. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Like I said, borders are borders, tangible and intangible. Call them barriers, boundaries and borders; but they're borders nonetheless.

    Trump wants to increase the physical US/Mexico border and the Dems are furious. Has any 'official' agency been down to see if it requires $5bn spent on it?
     
  20. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Of course they have! The last estimate I heard for the whole insane project was $25+ billion. You know the rule of thumb for construction projects? Calculate all the costs, add 10% for error, tot up the result, then double it, then pray.
    Meanwhile civil infrastructure is crumbling; sorely needed resources would be diverted from necessary projects.
    That's not even the biggest problem. The proposed wall is also an ecological disaster and would cause all kinds of dislocation and disruption to local agriculture, landowners and residents.
    And it wouldn't work.
     
  21. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    The way construction contracts work in the government is -

    The government project manger needs the border wall strengthen.

    A Texas company goes down, measures it and they report back with a quote of $25bn, $20bn materials and $5bn labour.

    A Florida company goes down, measures it and they report back with a quote of $20bn, $15bn materials and $5bn labour.

    A Californian company says to the project manger, "$50bn". The project manger, "Hang on, how did you get to that figure, you didn't even measure up?". The Californian company said, "$15bn for you, $15bn for me and we get the Florida company to do it for $20bn".

    The project manager shook their hand and said, "The contract is yours".
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    OK. And if Trump wants to expand psychological borders I am all for it. I'm just against building an ineffective and expensive wall.
    He doesn't want to expand the border; that will remain as is. He wants to build a wall on it.

    I am against government waste (which this would be) and I'm against the attitude that we should keep people out that have a legal right to petition for entry (refugees.) I am fine with a border, though.
    Yep. And any agency directed by Trump thinks there needs to be $5bn spent on it. If they don't say that, they get fired, like anyone who disagrees with Trump in any way. Those not under Trump's command think it would be far more expensive - and still ineffective.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    We are seeing a much simpler scam.

    Trump arrives on the scene. He tells everyone "the Mexican government will pay for a big, beautiful wall. I promise you."
    "Yay!" everyone says, and gets to work.

    Meanwhile, Trump tells the US Congress "you have to pay for this. The Democrats, specifically." He gets a few billion. He diverts that to his properties. For "official expenses" of course, like security, golf, salaries for illegal aliens and MAGA hats.

    The contractors ask for their money. "Sorry, the shutdown and all. It's the Democrat's fault."

    Then the government reopens. "Yeah, well, with the deficit and recession and all, that money just went somewhere. No one knows where! Sorry. It's the Democrat's fault."

    And we end up with 12 miles of wall built, new construction roads that illegal immigrants can use to double their speed - and Trump laughs all the way to the bank, carrying your money.
     

Share This Page