Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    15 Feb '19 05:21
    According to the gingermaster himself, it will be easier to scale Mount Everest than his border wall.

    Holy crap!
    I really think he dreams of a Game of Thrones like contraption!
    Which, ad everyone knows, was built to keep those warring humans out of Scotland.

    That’s probably why he thinks it’s a national emergency! Damn! Yes, he thinks English zombies are trying to steal deep-fried Mars bars in batter and Irn Bru!

    The bastards!!!

    Build the wall!
    Build the wall!
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:18
    @shavixmir

    With about 300 Americans dying every day from drugs coming across the border, he can reasonably argue the emergency part.

    The only question now is, who has the most stooges in the court system, the Dims or GOP to offset the inevitable law suits?
  3. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    528115
    15 Feb '19 14:27
    @whodey said
    @shavixmir

    With about 300 Americans dying every day from drugs coming across the border, he can reasonably argue the emergency part.

    The only question now is, who has the most stooges in the court system, the Dims or GOP to offset the inevitable law suits?
    If you really think any kind of wall will make an impact on drug availability you have a serious problem.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:32
    @ponderable said
    If you really think any kind of wall will make an impact on drug availability you have a serious problem.
    He's aware it won't:

    But traffickers don't tend to send their products over the border along the places where Trump would build a wall, as Pacific Standard's Jack Herrera previously reported.

    Instead, they mostly drive drugs over, in personal vehicles, through official ports of entry or Border Patrol checkpoints, as the Drug Enforcement Administration outlines in its National Drug Threat Assessment for 2017. Only a "small percentage" of heroin, for example, was seized along the U.S.–Mexico land border between ports of entry in 2017, the DEA reports. Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine were all most often found in personal vehicles, or tractor-trailers carrying legal goods, at ports of entry. U.S. officials also intercepted more than 200,000 pounds of cocaine as it was being shipped over the Pacific Ocean from South America, where it was produced, in 2017.


    Fentanyl, the drug linked to the most overdose deaths in the U.S.—nearly 30,000 in 2017—mostly comes from Mexico and China. Traffickers drive it over from Mexico, again through ports of entry, or mail it from China.

    These trends suggest that more resources for spotting drugs at ports of entry and in the postal system might help prevent some of these substances from entering the country, but that a more robust wall won't make much of a difference.

    https://psmag.com/news/how-drugs-pour-into-the-us-from-mexico

    Naturally, he exaggerates the number of drug deaths (70,000 by the latest figures https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/biggest-jump-drug-overdoses-was-among-middle-aged-women-n957211) and absurdly claims that every single one was caused by drugs crossing the border.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:362 edits
    @no1marauder said
    He's aware it won't:

    But traffickers don't tend to send their products over the border along the places where Trump would build a wall, as Pacific Standard's Jack Herrera previously reported.

    Instead, they mostly drive drugs over, in personal vehicles, through official ports of entry or Border Patrol checkpoints, as the Drug Enforcement Administration outlines in it ...[text shortened]... ed-women-n957211) and absurdly claims that every single one was caused by drugs crossing the border.
    IF they know where all the drugs are coming in and do nothing about it, that makes little sense to me.

    No, this is pure speculation, unless you wish to say that the authorities are accomplices by letting the known drugs in. They merely say that "X" number of drug busts have occurred at ports of entry but not at other places along the wall, so they all must be coming through the ports of entry.

    Pure hogwash and speculation.

    For the sake of argument though, let's assume that this is right. Then if they secure the ports of entry, where are they going to try next?

    Hmm?
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:37
    @ponderable said
    If you really think any kind of wall will make an impact on drug availability you have a serious problem.
    No attempt at keeping drugs out will work 100% of the time.

    So why try? Right?
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:40
    @whodey said
    @shavixmir

    With about 300 Americans dying every day from drugs coming across the border, he can reasonably argue the emergency part.

    The only question now is, who has the most stooges in the court system, the Dims or GOP to offset the inevitable law suits?
    IF Truman couldn't seize the steel mills during wartime, I don't see how any court could authorize Trump concocting a non-existent "national emergency" in order to pay for something that Congress refuses to.

    This applies to the Donald, too:

    7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

    This isn't Trump Enterprises; the US Treasury isn't a slush fund that the Donald can reach into whenever he pleases.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:411 edit
    @no1marauder said
    IF Truman couldn't seize the steel mills during wartime, I don't see how any court could authorize Trump concocting a non-existent "national emergency" in order to pay for something that Congress refuses to.

    This applies to the Donald, too:

    7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

    US Constitution, Article I, S ...[text shortened]... Enterprises; the US Treasury isn't a slush fund that the Donald can reach into whenever he pleases.
    We don't even know all the details yet.

    So no matter the details, your position is that it is not Constitutional

    Well I have to say, I'm shocked!

    Naturally, 300 American being murdered a day is not a national emergency in the mind of a liberal. Hell, they have taken the lives of over 60 million unborn humans and they don't even flinch, so why would it be?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:44
    @whodey said
    IF they know where all the drugs are coming in and do nothing about it, that makes little sense to me.

    No, this is pure speculation, unless you wish to say that the authorities are accomplices by letting the known drugs in. They merely say that "X" number of drug busts have occurred at ports of entry but not at other places along the wall, so they all must be coming throug ...[text shortened]... at this is right. Then if they secure the ports of entry, where are they going to try next?

    Hmm?
    You are arguing policy choices and it is up to the Congress to decide that. The President isn't a dictator: drugs have been being used and coming in from other countries since its founding - there is no sudden "emergency". Even Trump knows this; he only declared the "emergency" AFTER Congress wouldn't do what he wanted it to do - in real emergencies you don't sit around and wait.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:461 edit
    @no1marauder said
    You are arguing policy choices and it is up to the Congress to decide that. The President isn't a dictator: drugs have been being used and coming in from other countries since its founding - there is no sudden "emergency". Even Trump knows this; he only declared the "emergency" AFTER Congress wouldn't do what he wanted it to do - in real emergencies you don't sit around and wait.
    Try telling that to the American people. Nearly everyone, including myself, have lost someone because of this epidemic you say is not an emergency.

    Good luck.

    From what I hear, more Americans die every year from these drugs than all Americans who died in Vietnam, yet the reaction is different in many ways.

    Perhaps you are right, people categorize death and process it differently, so perhaps people are really OK with 300 "junkies" dying every day rather than brave fighting men in Vietnam.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:46
    @whodey said
    We don't even know all the details yet.

    So no matter the details, your position is that it is not Constitutional

    Well I have to say, I'm shocked!

    Naturally, 300 American being murdered a day is not a national emergency in the mind of a liberal. Hell, they have taken the lives of over 60 million unborn humans and they don't even flinch, so why would it be?
    The abortion BS again.

    Sorry, Trump doesn't get to be a dictator just because you right wing fanatics don't get to be dictators over women's reproductive choices.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:48
    @no1marauder said
    The abortion BS again.

    Sorry, Trump doesn't get to be a dictator just because you right wing fanatics don't get to be dictators over women's reproductive choices.
    Yes, including viable infants now thanks to places like New York as the legislators applaud themselves.

    Yes, we know.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:50
    @whodey said
    Try telling that to the American people. Nearly everyone, including myself, have lost someone because of this epidemic you say is not an emergency.

    Good luck.
    What a crock; you couldn't care less about drug overdoses in the US. It's been noticeably absent in your posting until it became an excuse for a Republican President to circumvent the will of Congress and of the People and build something neither want.

    You want 20 million+ less people to have health insurance in the US but are overly concerned with mortality rates? Give me a break.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Feb '19 14:50
    @whodey said
    Yes, including viable infants now thanks to places like New York as the legislators applaud themselves.

    Yes, we know.
    You know that is a lie.

    Why do you keep repeating it?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Feb '19 14:53
    @no1marauder said
    You know that is a lie.

    Why do you keep repeating it?
    So you are saying it is a lie that the bill can let a viable infant die?
Back to Top