AZ Indian Tribe That Controls 75 Miles of Border Won’t Allow TRUMP WALL on their Land

#80

Splendid.
But it's not just the wall.

Trump is hedging on one outlandish campaign promise after another.

Trump went from stop all Muslim immigration "until we can figure out what the %$#@ is going on!"
A short time later it's "extreme vetting".

This is a man that's breaking campaign promises months before his inauguration.

Has there been any other U.S. president in history that's done that? None that I can think of.
 
sear said:
#80

Splendid.
But it's not just the wall.

Trump is hedging on one outlandish campaign promise after another.

Trump went from stop all Muslim immigration "until we can figure out what the %$#@ is going on!"
A short time later it's "extreme vetting".

This is a man that's breaking campaign promises months before his inauguration.

Has there been any other U.S. president in history that's done that? None that I can think of.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the reason for all my anti-trump posts. I can't think of any of his promises that are going to remain as they were during the campaign. Maybe someone will update me if I'm wrong.
 
c9 #82

Well, let's skip the double-standard.
Senator Obama campaigned against Senator McCain promising to close Gitmo his first year in office.

It's his last year /8th year in office; and Gitmo is still going (albeit with diminished prisoner population).

For me the difference is:
I believe Obama promised to close Gitmo based upon law and economic merit. The cost to incarcerate one prisoner in the lower 48 is about 10% of our cost to incarcerate them in Cuba. But Republicans in congress weren't interested in cutting those costs by 90%.

OTO I believe Trump made alarming campaign promises for the free publicity; which he got to the tune of $Billions, according to some estimates.
 
sear said:
c9 #82

Well, let's skip the double-standard.
Senator Obama campaigned against Senator McCain promising to close Gitmo his first year in office.

It's his last year /8th year in office; and Gitmo is still going (albeit with diminished prisoner population).

For me the difference is:
I believe Obama promised to close Gitmo based upon law and economic merit. The cost to incarcerate one prisoner in the lower 48 is about 10% of our cost to incarcerate them in Cuba. But Republicans in congress weren't interested in cutting those costs by 90%.

OTO I believe Trump made alarming campaign promises for the free publicity; which he got to the tune of $Billions, according to some estimates.
Click to expand...

I'm not a blind Obama supporter. I don't like that Gitmo is still open, or his droning and other hawkish moves. And I wish he could have done something about the gun issue.
 
christiefan915 said:
No, trump was talking like the great wall of China built with modern equipment.

"During his Super Tuesday press conference in Florida, Trump repeated his promise to build a wall of his own along the US-Mexico border—something he famously wants Mexico to pay for. Trump described this task as "easy."

"The Great Wall of China, built 2,000 years ago, is 13,000 miles, folks, and they didn't have Caterpillar tractors!" Trump told the country. "They didn't have cranes, they didn't have excavation equipment."

"We have all of the materials," he said. "We can do that so beautifully."
Click to expand...

Isn't a capitalist supposed to have Capital plans not Social plans. How much is this going to cost and should we implement a War on Illegals tax?
 
sear said:
#77

Let us please be unambiguously clear on this point.
It's a bit confusing, because candidate Trump campaigned so much without a teleprompter, until he got his foot caught in his mouth, and his campaign manager forced him into it.
So there are various iterations of Trump's great wall.

BUT !!

Trump clearly specified the purpose of the wall was to solve the illegal immigration problem of undocumented persons streaming into the U.S. from South of our border; and that Trump's wall would stretch from coast to coast.

For it to solve this illegal immigration avenue, it would have to be virtually impenetrable to desperate persons willing to emigrate illegally.

A stack of rocks three feet high isn't gunna cut it.
And in fact a wall as tall as the Great Wall might not be enough.

If built in Trump's most lavish description (not the scaled back characterizations he's provided since) adequate to the task Trump designated; it would be an extremely expensive infrastructure project.
And the irony of that is; the cure may be worse than the disease. Meaning, whatever economic detriment illegal aliens cause might cost $less than the cost to build the wall.

Does it really make sense to spend $100.oo to lock up your $50.oo $bill?
If it all went as promised: - Mexico is gunna pay for it -
it might make economic sense for the U.S.

I don't think Mexico could pay for it, even if it wanted to. And it surely does NOT want to; because so much of what illegal aliens earn is sent back to their native nations; to the benefit of those native nations.
Click to expand...

sounds like a social plan, regardless of the bottom line.
 
christiefan915 said:
It's not about what the wall is made of, it's about how all of trump's campaign promises are being broken.

Here's what he said first. Trump told MSNBC: "What we’re doing is we have 2,000 miles, right? 2,000 miles. It’s long but not 13,000 miles like they have in China. Of the 2,000, we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers … and I’m taking it price per square foot and a price per square, you know, per mile."

But yesterday in an interview with Brandon Judd: "... up to an additional 15% more should be built, totaling around 200 or 300 miles of additional reinforcement, he said Thursday."

So this 1000-mile wall that trump promised is now whittled down to 200 miles. I doubt that any trump broken promises matter to you, though.
Click to expand...

Sales involves pandering to your "constituents". It is why, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.
 
sear said:
#80

Splendid.
But it's not just the wall.

Trump is hedging on one outlandish campaign promise after another.

Trump went from stop all Muslim immigration "until we can figure out what the %$#@ is going on!"
A short time later it's "extreme vetting".

This is a man that's breaking campaign promises months before his inauguration.

Has there been any other U.S. president in history that's done that? None that I can think of.
Click to expand...

Just the right willing to indulge right wing fantasy because they won the election.
 
danielpalos said:
Like what?

The right refuses to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.
Click to expand...

Like some of these that Congress stonewalled.

"Over just the past five years, lawmakers have introduced more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress, since Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

Not one of them has been passed into law, and very few of the proposals even made it to the House or Senate floor."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-gun-control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/
 
christiefan915 said:
Like some of these that Congress stonewalled.

"Over just the past five years, lawmakers have introduced more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress, since Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

Not one of them has been passed into law, and very few of the proposals even made it to the House or Senate floor."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-gun-control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/
Click to expand...

We already have Ten Commandments; more laws instead of morals, is not going to help. It is why we need, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.
 
sear said:
What an excellent expression of partisan perspective.

But here's a reality check.
- Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - frequently attributed to Lord Acton
But the quotation is:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
*writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka Bookshelf '98)

Therefore:
Was it a conspiratorial partisan effort?
Or was it the power hungry that expanded authority by their own precedent?
" It's populists and leftists who fashioned a powerful executive. "
Click to expand...
The Traditionalists don't favor a powerful Congress primarily out of fear of corrupting power in an executive, although they recognize that reality. It's more about how they view this republic - whose institutions are epitomized by the legislature, rather than by the courts, the executive, the military, etc.

Keep in mind that what separated conservative Federalists from liberal DRs in the early years was that conservatives believed the Constitution gave great powers to the presidency, and so Washington and Adams went about using them when they saw necessary, in effect establishing precedent. Liberals like Jefferson simply didn't believe the presidency was so empowered, and sought to restrain it when he ran for the office. Ultimately, he caved to his predecessors vision in some major decisions.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
nobody is suggesting suspending welfare benefits or building a wall on their land......I believe the suggestion, and its a good one, is to simply add a couple corners and build the wall around their land......
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Give them a choice:
a) build the wall straight along the Mexican border and the Pima have access to the U.S.
b) build the wall around the perimeter of the Pima reservation and they have access to Mexico

pima.jpg
 
T #95

Yes. Tensions between exec. and legislature has been a theme on Earth for millennia (the Roman senate, etc).

Legislatures are deliberative, and thus intrinsically slower. For the ship of State, that can be a good thing. It didn't take congress too long to declare War on Japan after Pearl Harbor, considering the pace of war in that era. In the Stuxnet era, it may be a different story.

Sea vessels typically have an exec.
Trying to captain a ship with a deliberative body would just end up running more boats aground, etc.

BUT !!

Perhaps interestingly (or perhaps not, I'm a bit geeky) the now retired NASA shuttle fleet were piloted by a parliament of computers; four IBM PC w/ 8088 microprocessors iirc.

- Each shuttle was fly-by-wire. A human couldn't fly one otherwise.

- The electronic parliament would receive a human pilot input command (turn left), and the 4 computers would each independently calculate a way to execute the pilot command. Then they'd all vote. If it was a consensus, they'd execute their mutually agreed upon plan: fire retro-rocket #6, or left rudder, or whatever.

BUT !!

- If three of the computers agreed, but one did not; that one computer's vote was then automatically electronically revoked, and the remaining 3 computers would continue to pilot the shuttle for the remainder of the flight.

I doubt we'll ever see a parliament of humans captaining a sea ship, or an air ship. We're just too slow, and analog.
 
#99

End the Drug War before Sunday breakfast.

The best control is self-control.

We had fewer drug problems before Drug War. Drug War is not the solution. It merely compounds the problem.

And the sanity check that I'm right?

- You tell me. What is the wording of the law that prevents YOU from main-lining heroin? Which law?

- What is the wording of the law that fails to prevent the heroin addict geographically nearest to you from main-lining heroin?

Drug War doesn't work. It doesn't work on you. It doesn't work on him. And if Drug War did work, why did they repeal Prohibition? Why haven't they criminalized tobacco possession?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top