Politics 2017 part V

[Gromnir]

This endless impeachment talk is getting really tiresome. This used to be a word never heard outside the beltway of Sodom-on-the-Potomac. The only two times it's been used has been for Presidents who did violate the law but removal from office would have been excessive.The one time it would have been appropriate the President resigned and fled to California. But since Clinton it gets rolled out after every single election by the opposition party because they are not happy with how the election turned out. And it is getting very old. 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article149758184.html

calls for impeachment following nixon has actual been de rigueur.  ford faced widespread calls for impeachment by pardoning nixon. carter faced calls for impeachment, though based on our reading, "cartergate" always seemed more o' a lunatic fringe kinda movement. iran-contra inspired loud calls for impeachment o' reagan. clinton?  'nuff said. you will find numerous articles 'bout attempts to generate impeachment for george w. bush, and is claims o' obama refusal to enforce syrian red-line policy were 'cause gop senators had threatened impeachment if american soldiers died 'cause o' syria. 

 

andrew johnson and john tyler faced serious attempts to bring 'bout impeachment, but fdr also had a vocal minority dogged making claims o' presidential excess requiring impeachment to clarify. there were calls for lincoln impeachment, but he dealt with such by throwing journalists in prison, so might not be an ideal example.  

 

regardless, am thinking a post nixon president who do not hear for impeachment beyond mere whispers is gonna be the exception.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

If a guy is deported 15 times, that shows a major problem with how both the US and Mexico are handling these repeat offenders. A wall isn't going to stop a person like that, instead we need an effective justice system that works in conjunction with Mexico.

 

edit: Think of it this way, if the guy was not illegal, but had simply been in an out of jail 15 times over the last 15 years, is it any less tragic?

Of course a secure border would've stopped him. Right now he can just walk back over any portion of the border that has no security at all. What would you do, ask him nicely not to come back?

[Guard Dog]

I remember Iran Contra pretty well. I believe that was the birthplace of the expressions "what did you know and when did you now it" and "it's not the weight of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge that matters" 

 

I also recall the attempts of GWB and Obama that were laughable. I seem to remember posting in this very forum "incompetence is not grounds for impeachment". 

 

Bringing it up again and again only reinforces the notion that we have no political leadership. Only two tribes of monkeys screaming and throwing great handfuls of s--t at each other.

 

And not a nickel's worth of actual difference between them. One tribe oppresses some liberties while championing others and vice versa. No matter who wins government grows, liberty shrinks, and bombs fall in places that have zero to do with actual US national interest and kill people who have nothing to do with anything. Didn't Trump just expend nearly a billion dollars in cruise missiles? And more actual terrorists were killed by hogs than by missiles.

 

In 2018 and 2020 we'll have an election but unless a differing political philosophy is finally heard from the winners will be a tribe of screaming s--t throwing monkeys. It's pretty depressing really.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

given the negative backlash resulting from the firing o' comey, we assume the new fbi director is gonna need be somebody beyond reproach to avoid seeming impropriety

...Avoiding impropriety? This is Trump we're talking about: I'll be surprised if he doesn't initially try one of his sons, Michael Flynn, Alex Jones, or even Putin himself.

Alex Jones in charge of the FBI would be awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D10mHOqSfd8

 

The music, Joe's reaction, everything.

Man Alexander Brandon is talented.

[Gromnir]

laughable or not, the cries for impeachment is nothing new.  

 

 

part o' the problem is the Constitution itself which makes it less than easy for even scholars to say with certainty when impeachment is appropriate.  doesn't bother us when a handful o' Congressmen cry for impeachment.  would bother us if such Congressmen were too afraid to voice concerns.  let the fringe-dwellers throw their p00p at each other.

 

still, 'cause o' the increased polarization o' US political parties, the fringe has become a far more densely populated place.

 

that being said, while the idea o' weaponizing pigs or bees or cattle or dogs appeals to our sense o' whimsy, am suspecting being able to deliver swine to predictable and efficient take out targets o' opportunity would likely cost more than $1 billion.  wilbur's wreckers, a sounder o' 50 elite warpigs, is dropped into IS held territory where they deliver terrible carnage 'pon terrorists... and dumpsters.  as appealing as we find such a concept, am suspecting cruise missiles remain a cheaper option.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps shouldn't need repeating but the missile strike in syria were clear never intended to cause casualties. the strike were an object lesson in relative power.  syrians and russians were given advanced warning o' an hour, and the target were a military airfield.  such a target, accompanied by warnings, made the possibility o' casualties, particular civilian casualties, near non existent.   cruise missiles ain't meant to destroy airfields, but using such weapon were a powerful message.

 

USA: in one hour i am going to send +50 cruise missiles to one of your airbases, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.  not only do you have no choice but to sit and wait for me to punch you in the face, but you aren't going to do anything to retaliate. oh, and you are about to see just how powerful an ally you have in russia, because they won't lift a finger to help you, not that they could help if they wanted to.  

 

btw, in case it isn't clear, those cruise missiles could just as easily have targeted the homes of every command officer you have left. 

 

have a nice day. 

 

syria: *soft whimpering*

 

russia: hey now, we can spin this.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

 

Of course a secure border would've stopped him. Right now he can just walk back over any portion of the border that has no security at all. What would you do, ask him nicely not to come back?

 

 

Ah yes, that 2,000 mile stretch of land just needs a better wall. That will protect us from the bad people. 

 

I mean, personally I'd rather see us effectively treating people that are clearly societal problems, whether it is mental illness, substance abuse, etc. But I suppose that is a silly use of resources. Let's build a big wall instead!

[Gfted1]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

[Gromnir]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok?  unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible, but we could understand wanting such a thing if tijuana were lobbing rockets into san diego and mexican suicide bombers were sneaking 'cross the unfenced portions o' the border. such ain't the case.  

 

the majority o' drugs will continue to make their way into the US via trucks/planes. large numbers o' illegal aliens will make their way into the country via similar transportation.  as such, building a largely symbolic multi-billion dollar wall strikes us as, y'know, squandering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind we ain't one o' those granola-munching californians who see any kinda immigration reform as evil.  a teary-eyed Gromnir, wringing his hands, "why can't we help those poor people instead of deporting them?" nope.  never gonna happen.  we got little sympathy for many illegals who is placing great burdens on our health and education systems. build bridges, not walls. bah.  even so, our recognition o' needed immigration reform don't blind us to the silliness and expense o' the wall.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Chilloutman]

 

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok?  unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible

 

China probably didn't get the memo

[Hurlshort]

Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.

 

According to Trump, 1 million people cross that border legally every day. We do half a trillion dollars worth of business with Mexico. The wall is certainly not going to work, at least not against the type of person that has been deported 15 times. I'd rather us work with Mexico to treat societal problems. Maybe that is just as fantastical as the idea that a wall will solve our problems, but at least it has the chance of benefiting our own society, and is likely a fraction of the cost.

[Gfted1]

so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok?  unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible, but we could understand wanting such a thing if tijuana were lobbing rockets into san diego and mexican suicide bombers were sneaking 'cross the unfenced portions o' the border. such ain't the case.  

 

the majority o' drugs will continue to make their way into the US via trucks/planes. large numbers o' illegal aliens will make their way into the country via similar transportation.  as such, building a largely symbolic multi-billion dollar wall strikes us as, y'know, squandering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind we ain't one o' those granola-munching californians who see any kinda immigration reform as evil.  a teary-eyed Gromnir, wringing his hands, "why can't we help those poor people instead of deporting them?" nope.  never gonna happen.  we got little sympathy for many illegals who is placing great burdens on our health and education systems. build bridges, not walls. bah.  even so, our recognition o' needed immigration reform don't blind us to the silliness and expense o' the wall.

I never addressed immigration reform, Im for full unrestricted immigration. I was specifically addressing Hurlshot's statement of; "I mean, personally I'd rather see us effectively treating people that are clearly societal problems, whether it is mental illness, substance abuse, etc. But I suppose that is a silly use of resources."

 

For me, I don't see any value in (or even how to accomplish) dealing with other countries societal problems. Not our job.

[Gfted1]

According to Trump, 1 million people cross that border legally every day. We do half a trillion dollars worth of business with Mexico. The wall is certainly not going to work, at least not against the type of person that has been deported 15 times. I'd rather us work with Mexico to treat societal problems. Maybe that is just as fantastical as the idea that a wall will solve our problems, but at least it has the chance of benefiting our own society, and is likely a fraction of the cost.

/not sure if serious...

 

Iyo, the lifetime costs to dealing with Mexico's "societal problems", the very same problems that Mexico itself cant fix, would be less than the one time cost of a wall?

[ShadySands]

Let's just conquer Mexico so my flights to Cancun can be domestic

[Guard Dog]

Well, that 700' wall of ice didn't keep the wildlings out of Westeros. Just sayin'

 

I say we legalize the drugs and shut down the free government goodies and that problem solves itself for the most part.

 

But as any s--t throwing monkey from either tribe would agree its better to be seen doing something that actually solving a problem. A wall is a waste of money but it is a tangible thing they can point to and tell the voters "we did this ooo-ooo-ahh-ahh". The US is in debt to the tune of $117T give or take right? Not like they have a lot of respect for the taxpayers hard earned or any regard for squandering it.

[Gromnir]

 I was specifically addressing Hurlshot's statement of; "I mean, personally I'd rather see us effectively treating people that are clearly societal problems, whether it is mental illness, substance abuse, etc. But I suppose that is a silly use of resources."

 

 

and Gromnir were addressing your preference for a wall.  while politically we don't see investing in mexican infrastructure as a sound strategy for dealing with illegal immigration, it does make more sense than a wall.  mexican illegal immigration has actual decreased in recent years and the decrease coincided with improvements in the mexican economy.  help strengthen mexico as a trading partner is a win-win, but political untenable as a solution to illegal immigration.  is particular a problem as the current majority o' illegals coming 'cross the border ain't even mexican but is from other parts o' central/south america.

 

invest in all of central america would be impractical and political suicide, but in terms o' roi, it makes more sense.  create stronger trading partners while decreasing illegal immigration makes sense.  ain't practical.

 

wall is symbolic.  folks is tired o' doing nothing, so they need do something.  wall won't stop folks on expired visas.  won't stop considerable boats.  won't stop trucks or planes. won't be as uncrossable as claimed as is simple too much terrain, and the country is too rough.  is water issues.  is private owned real property issues.  wall is too expensive for a largely symbolic gesture.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

 

According to Trump, 1 million people cross that border legally every day. We do half a trillion dollars worth of business with Mexico. The wall is certainly not going to work, at least not against the type of person that has been deported 15 times. I'd rather us work with Mexico to treat societal problems. Maybe that is just as fantastical as the idea that a wall will solve our problems, but at least it has the chance of benefiting our own society, and is likely a fraction of the cost.

/not sure if serious...

 

Iyo, the lifetime costs to dealing with Mexico's "societal problems", the very same problems that Mexico itself cant fix, would be less than the one time cost of a wall?

 

 

I wasn't talking about dealing with all of Mexico's societal problems, I was talking about a very specific case where we had a guy in custody 15 times and we failed to treat him in any way (that I know of). We just keep tossing him back over the border, despite the clear evidence that it was not working. The end result was he ended up injuring a child in a tragic car accident. WoD blamed the lack of a strong border wall for this. I consider that to be fairly far down the list of problems with the situation.

 

In the end I would rather see money spent on improving our treatment for mental illness, substance abuse, etc. than a wall. These two things may not seem related, but I'm not the one that keeps citing stories where repeat offenders do something terrible as a reason to build a wall.

[Gfted1]

I don't actually have a preference for a wall, I was just making a binary choice between "wall vs bottomless hole of societal problem fixing".

I did almost blow a snot bubble snorting to the fact that, somehow, someway, it has already been determined that Trump’s Wall Threatens Thousands of Plant and Animal Species on the U.S.–Mexico Border. Wont someone think of the "SEVEN THOUSAND SPECIES" that may possibly be affected.

[Gfted1]

I wasn't talking about dealing with all of Mexico's societal problems, I was talking about a very specific case where we had a guy in custody 15 times and we failed to treat him in any way (that I know of). We just keep tossing him back over the border, despite the clear evidence that it was not working. The end result was he ended up injuring a child in a tragic car accident. WoD blamed the lack of a strong border wall for this. I consider that to be fairly far down the list of problems with the situation.

 

In the end I would rather see money spent on improving our treatment for mental illness, substance abuse, etc. than a wall. These two things may not seem related, but I'm not the one that keeps citing stories where repeat offenders do something terrible as a reason to build a wall.

Ah, were dealing in "concepts". Now that's something I can get on board with. In my perfect conceptual country there's no: hunger, poverty, or crime and everyone accepts everyone elses racial, sexual and gender differences. Free medical, dental, vision and psychological services for all. Just imagine all our physical and mental needs are catered to, probably by robots, while humans spend their time thinking of stuff.

[Malcador]

Eventually you'll try prevention

[Chilloutman]

Eventually you'll try prevention

 

for few seconds I was confused as I read it as perversion...

[Hurlshort]

Well it isn't entirely conceptual, treatment has long been considered less expensive than incarceration. This guy that was deported 15 times is now going to be incarcerated in the US, most likely, because of the severity of the crime. I'm not saying treatment is always going to work, but it seems like we can put more resources into it, at the least.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Gfted1]

Well it isn't entirely conceptual, treatment has long been considered less expensive than incarceration. This guy that was deported 15 times is now going to be incarcerated in the US, most likely, because of the severity of the crime. I'm not saying treatment is always going to work, but it seems like we can put more resources into it, at the least.

I wonder, what if a "wall" had kept him out even one time, would it have had a butterfly effect where the entire time flow is slightly changed, thus making his accident with this family avoidable? Follow up question, if I look over a wall and see an illegal immigrant, did I just create them by seeing them?

[Hurlshort]

If you look over the wall to see them, they are neither illegal nor an immigrant.  

[Volourn]

Why do Mexicans hate Mexico so much? This wouldn't be an issue otherwise/. i mean we don't see  abunch of Amerikans rushing into Kanada illegally because they hate their country so much. Not even anti Trump liberals. LMAO

Edited May 11, 2017 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

I remember Iran Contra pretty well. I believe that was the birthplace of the expressions "what did you know and when did you now it" and "it's not the weight of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge that matters"

"What did the President know and when did he know it" is what James Howard Baker said during the Watergate hearings. (edited the name)

 

 

Well it isn't entirely conceptual, treatment has long been considered less expensive than incarceration. This guy that was deported 15 times is now going to be incarcerated in the US, most likely, because of the severity of the crime. I'm not saying treatment is always going to work, but it seems like we can put more resources into it, at the least.

You're living in a fantasy world. You can't "cure" someone from being a criminal. You have to incarcerate/deport/execute them. As far as wall being symbolic, tell it to the Israelis, a wall on the Egyptian border cut illegal immigration to virtually nothing. And even in our own case, border crossings are down 70% once we gave the impression that laws are actually being enforced again.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon