Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

By Vacamion, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

desertfox2

desertfox2

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think you're confusing him with someone else, though he was given some credit for information given to Mueller.

 

His lawyer hints there is a lot more to come out:

 

'Lanny Davis, who says he is now an adviser to Cohen after today's sentencing, says on ABC, "Michael Cohen is now released to tell the full truth. After Mr. Mueller makes his findings and issues his report, you will see more of Michael Cohen telling the truth about Donald Trump." '

Yeah I think that's Flynn Carl the Llama was thinking of. Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn because of his "substantial assistance" Not looking good for the Donald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

 

we need the same level of investigation into the conservative party and brexit

 

you'd need more fingers and toes to count the number of politicians in the UK who've 'sold their country out'.

 

treason indeed. 

With respect lifted, I believe the situations to be rather different (with the exception that there could have been meddling from the same set of actors in both scenarios).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46609628

 

Judge pulling no punches then.

This is actually wonderful. I love that a judge puts his own nation and it's sovereign rules over anything else.

 

Here our politicians give away the jurisdiction of our courts and the right to trade independently and they still somehow retain the confidence of the people at the ballot box  (until Brexit)

 

Give that judge British citizenship and get him over here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

we need the same level of investigation into the conservative party and brexit

 

you'd need more fingers and toes to count the number of politicians in the UK who've 'sold their country out'.

 

treason indeed. 

Damn right - start with Heath and end with May - let's get them all to explain this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is actually wonderful. I love that a judge puts his own nation and it's sovereign rules over anything else.

 

Here our politicians give away the jurisdiction of our courts and the right to trade independently and they still somehow retain the confidence of the people at the ballot box  (until Brexit)

 

Give that judge British citizenship and get him over here!

Wait, so you think the judges idea based on Russian collusion (or at least lies about contacts that might imply it) is reasonable now, then?

 

I thought you thought the election was totally legit, or did you have your own suspicions? Curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Wait, so you think the judges idea based on Russian collusion (or at least lies about contacts that might imply it) is reasonable now, then?

 

I thought you thought the election was totally legit, or did you have your own suspicions? Curious.

Definitely, but I still have no doubt Trump was elected with legitimacy, the reason Clinton lost was because Donald spoke to those left behind in states he needed to win - Hillary not even bothering to fly to Wisconsin to campaign is pertinent to that. 

 

I love the judge as he seems to upholds his own constitution. 

 

The argument Russia affected it is as stupid as it is here, one minute it's old relics voting to blame, then when it's convenient it's young people manipulated on Twitter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely, but I still have no doubt Trump was elected with legitimacy, the reason Clinton lost was because Donald spoke to those left behind in states he needed to win - Hillary not even bothering to fly to Wisconsin to campaign is pertinent to that. 

 

I love the judge as he seems to upholds his own constitution. 

 

The argument Russia affected it is as stupid as it is here, one minute it's old relics voting to blame, then when it's convenient it's young people manipulated on Twitter. 

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification - just seemed a little inconsistent that one could praise this judge for giving Flynn an earful about possible Russian contacts (or lying about them at least) and then at the same time be sure that Russia didn't have a hand in what Flynn was part of.

 

I mean, I think it's entirely plausible that Russia dipped its toes in in the name of destabilisation (and ensuring another addition to the brotherhood of "strongmen" in charge), but thinking that and actually proving it are two completely different matters.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Read a fantastic rebuttal to the idea of the border wall today. Quoted here in full:

 

"Let's say we build this wall.

Let's say we give Trump the money and we build a wall 30 feet tall, 2000 miles long. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter what it costs, don't worry about the details.

Just go ahead and build the wall, right?

No. No. Don't roll your eyes. It's not a trap. This isn't me doing that thing where I seem to ask a provocatively obnoxious question, but I'm REALLY fishing for something else entirely. Nope. Not that.

I'm saying: we build Trump's wall. 30 feet high, 2000 miles long.

Now, bear with me here:

The US/Mexico border is 1954 miles long. Currently, about 700 miles is fenced in some fashion.

Meaning a bit more than 1200 miles isn't.

Why?

Well, because most of the border is remote, away from urban development, in rugged territory, deserts, etc.

So, if you build this wall, 30 feet high, 2000 miles long, 1200+ miles of it would STILL traverse remote territory. Follow?

Now, people being people, it won't matter how high the wall is, or how thick, or whatever passive systems (such as spikes or concertina wire, etc) you include. Given enough time and resources, human ingenuity will find a way over, under, or through your wall in short order.

Particularly in remote areas, outside of full time observation. In our case, that's about 1200 miles worth of remote territory.

You don't need to take my word for this, you can research the effectiveness of such barriers from the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall, from Hadrian's Wall to the West Bank Barrier...

What?

What's that?

Oh, right. The West Bank Barrier, the wall which divides Israel from Palestine.

Yes?

It WORKS, you say.

It does. BUT it's not just a wall, it's a multi-layered defense system. Barbed wire, anti-sniper concrete wall over part of its length, vehicle ditches, electronic systems, patrols. It's monitored over its full length 24 hours a day, every day. It is patrolled over its full length 24 hours a day, every day. The cost to Israel (and Palestine) is high. It works. Yes it does. It keeps people penned up, keeps them apart, keeps people out, maybe keeps them from killing each other. Just as it was designed to do and a number of American conservatives look to that Israeli model as an example.

The American version would have to be 3 times as long and vastly more expensive.

That barrier was designed, rightly or wrongly, to separate nations and people at WAR.

And the ONLY way a such a barrier works is with constant monitoring, constant patrolling. Because otherwise, as I mentioned up above, all you need to defeat it is a ladder and some quiet time. This is true of the West Bank Barrier. And it was true of Hadrian's Wall. And the Great Wall of China. The Maginot Line, the Berlin Wall, Saddam's line. Etc. They ALL had to be monitored and patrolled. Or they were no more an impediment to movement than any natural barrier, any river, or hill.

Up above, I mentioned the Maginot Line.

The French spent enormous resources to fortify their border. But once in place, those resources were fixed. They could not move or be used elsewhere.

When the Nazis did a rapid end run around the fortifications through the Ardennes Forest, all the enormous resources of the Line were immediately rendered moot, left behind in their fixed, immobile positions. It's still there today, rotting, rusting, useless.

By its very nature, a wall is fixed in position. Meaning, the defenses and resources of a wall are only useful AT THE WALL.

At the wall.

Walls are good for small, limited, controlled areas where the wall is part of a larger system, and continuously monitored, protected, and maintained. Where those manning the wall have a SIGNIFICANT advantage over those the wall is designed to control.

Like a prison. Or a fort in hostile territory.

For Trump's wall, 2000 miles long, to work, you will HAVE to monitor it in real-time along every inch. You will have to install cameras and sensors, fly drones and aircraft, and put out daily patrols. The wall will be constantly probed. Constantly tested. Constantly watched by those we're trying to keep out. There isn't any way to hide it. 2000 miles long, 30 feet high, and visible in orbit. We become anchored to our wall, constantly trying to find any weakness before the adversary does. Any moment of inattention, any blind spot, any weakness, will be found -- and exploited. The odds are with the attacker, not the defender, especially over that distance.

Because that is human nature, ask any prison guard.

Of course, the people of the US and Central America are not at war.

Those seeking refuge in the US are unlikely to storm the border with a Blitzkrieg of tanks and dive bombers -- and if they were, WE WOULDN'T BUILD A WALL ANYWAY because the US military doesn't fight from fixed positions.

Those who build walls in the desert often die on them. As Saddam's army learned -- or didn't actually, given how the second war with the US went.

Again, walls are useful for certain limited applications. But they are utterly impractical over thousands of miles. Your assets become fixed, inflexible, unable to adapt, and if bypassed they're useless.

You will NEVER get a return on your investment.

If you have to have eyes on the border ANYWAY

if you have to patrol the entire length in real time ANYWAY

if you have to monitor the cameras and sensors and drones ANYWAY

if you have to counter any breach anywhere anytime ANYWAY

THEN YOU DON'T NEED A PHYSICAL WALL.

For a wall to work, to DO what Trump promises, it CAN'T be a simple barrier, no matter how long, no matter how high.

Like the West Bank Barrier, or the Great Wall of China, it would have to be a complex system of technology and human beings where the physical wall itself is the LEAST part, its defenses fixed and inflexible, unable to adapt to changing circumstance.

And here's the thing: Once you implement the supporting systems and personnel you need to secure the wall, YOU NO LONGER NEED THE WALL outside of a few small areas.

And without a wall, those security systems become much more flexible, mobile, unpredictable, and adaptable. They then have the advantage.

And it is cheaper. Vastly cheaper.

History, our own military strategy, and our national security policies learned over two painful centuries, demonstrate just how useless and ill advised a fixed defense is.

A simple wall is a simple solution for simple minds and worthless for anything else."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Read a fantastic rebuttal to the idea of the border wall today. Quoted here in full:

 

"Let's say we build this wall.

Let's say we give Trump the money and we build a wall 30 feet tall, 2000 miles long. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter what it costs, don't worry about the details.

[...]

THEN YOU DON'T NEED A PHYSICAL WALL.

For a wall to work, to DO what Trump promises, it CAN'T be a simple barrier, no matter how long, no matter how high.

Like the West Bank Barrier, or the Great Wall of China, it would have to be a complex system of technology and human beings where the physical wall itself is the LEAST part, its defenses fixed and inflexible, unable to adapt to changing circumstance.

And here's the thing: Once you implement the supporting systems and personnel you need to secure the wall, YOU NO LONGER NEED THE WALL outside of a few small areas.

And without a wall, those security systems become much more flexible, mobile, unpredictable, and adaptable. They then have the advantage.

And it is cheaper. Vastly cheaper.

History, our own military strategy, and our national security policies learned over two painful centuries, demonstrate just how useless and ill advised a fixed defense is.

A simple wall is a simple solution for simple minds and worthless for anything else."

 

Interesting stuff.

 

However, such a wall being worthless in practical terms doesn't mean that it's politically worthless to Trump.

 

It would be visible (in person - or via TV screens in most cases), it would be symbolic and it would have an emotional impact on the people whose support he seeks to retain or win.

 

If the media reported that it was a massive waste of money or that it was not preventing illegal immigration (assuming they just build the wall without high-tech, labour-intensive surveillance along 2000 miles), would his target voters believe that?

Or would they be happy that Trump was visibly "preventing all those illegals getting in"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Should decisions promised be implemented or not? The answer is actually obvious.

 

Of course the wall should be built - that's what the people voted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Should decisions promised be implemented or not? The answer is actually obvious.

 

Of course the wall should be built - that's what the people voted for.

 

No, it's what a minority of people voted for.

 

The American system is even less democratic than our FPTP system.

Edited by Buce
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
Just now, Buce said:

No, it's what a minority of people voted for.

 

The American system is even less democratic than our FPTP system.

Under the rules it is what the people voted for. 

 

A country like America probably wouldn't hold together without the electoral college, those who want to change it should think very deeply about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MattP said:

Should decisions promised be implemented or not? The answer is actually obvious.

 

Of course the wall should be built - that's what the people voted for.

Even if a better, cheaper, more effective, less damaging to the environment solution is available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Any aspect of the wall border that Mr. Trump has requested can be successfully be cut through (be it via small bomb explosions, arson etc); considering that it will be massively long and also be unlikely in that US officials can monitor any location of the wall area at all times.

Edited by Wymeswold fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...