(March 20, 2016 at 10:23 am)Divinity Wrote: Easier way to stop the drug cartels.  Legalize drugs.

Yes exactly, and if immigration is such a dire issue we could easily police the borders with the amount of military personnel and technology we have.

(March 20, 2016 at 10:23 am)Divinity Wrote: Easier way to stop the drug cartels. Legalize drugs.

I'm all for that but it will never happen.

(March 20, 2016 at 10:33 am)KUSA Wrote:

(March 20, 2016 at 10:23 am)Divinity Wrote: Easier way to stop the drug cartels.  Legalize drugs.

I'm all for that but it will never happen.

I am not for legalizing all drugs. Pot yes. I am for however, not treating non violent drug users like murderers no matter what they use. The problem is not just drug use, but criminalizing poverty. Lack of livable wages and over the top fines for anything, even a traffic ticket are crippling to the poor. 

The dealers not the end users. Those who sell in bulk and are willing to get violent to defend their turf don't deserve any sympathy. But the non violent user should not be dumped on the street like trash or put in a violent prison to the point when they get out they end up worse off.

But those who don't live in poverty long term, even with gangs, have no clue that it isn't as simple of blaming everyone who lives there. CONDITIONS lead to desperation and unless you address those conditions at an economic scale, all the blaming in the world wont change shit.

(March 20, 2016 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am not for legalizing all drugs.

Why not?

(March 20, 2016 at 11:09 am)KUSA Wrote:

(March 20, 2016 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am not for legalizing all drugs.

Why not?

Because some drugs like meth and crack and even bath salts have a very addictive property that affect the part of the brain severely that affect their neurology that causes the user's brain to lose control over their reasoning. Those drugs don't simply make you mellow and want to eat food. Those addictions can lead people to become violent.

Now alcohol does the same, but unless you can create a clinic like location, that control's the user's intake, these users are not doctors, nor are the sellers, and on the street, just like prostitution, those unregulated conditions are dangerous.

So if you can come up with ideas of how to regulate to make both the sale legal and a safe environment for the user it is simply not enough to make it legal. Regulations have to go along with the legalization, just like pot. Just like alcohol. Legalization with "no rules" is simply anarchy.

Just like surgery, and eating at a food joint, you don't simply make it legal and trust society never to fuck up. This is the problem with GOP/Libertarian logic. 

And just like guns and religion. FINE don't just fucking offer me up a platitude, give me the details of your evidence and the details of HOW you would make this work. "Just do it" is a fucking platitude.

I will give you the answer to more stability, but you are too stuck on the rich selling you utopias.

1. The uber rich 1% CAN afford to pay more taxes, it is a bullshit lie and simply blackmail on their part.

2. LIVABLE WAGES that meet cost of living, WITHOUT cutting jobs or creating more part time jobs. AND stop raising costs every time the wages go up.

3. SINGLE PAYER HEATH CARE

4. Investment in mental health care and addiction programs.

5. Investing directly here instead of competing globally for cheap labor.

THEN AND ONLY THEN could what you say be done and even then, it would still require REGULATION TO BE DONE SAFELY. But as long as you keep blaming the poor and criminalizing poverty you are not going to solve a damned thing with legalizing anything.

The more stable a an individual is or a family is, the less likely they will get desperate or end up addicted.

(March 19, 2016 at 11:17 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Regarding the Mexican border wall, I did a number-crunching exercise on Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for it. I'm on my phone right now, but when I get home I'll copy and link it so that the good folks reading this thread can decide for themselves who has the facts on his side.

From TTA:

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

Vosur Wrote:You're wrong. Trump does say how he intends to make Mexico pay for the wall on his website. You'll find a lot of information about his policies in general there.

Actually, that's exactly where I went to make sure I got my reply right. Here's what he says there:

Trump Wrote:Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

None of those methods will assure that Mexico pays for any wall. He wants to "impound" illegal remittances? How, exactly, will he have the government determine their legality? He doesn't say how much he expects that measure to net. How much money comes from fees for border-crossing cards? Taking Trump's figures of 1 million issued to Mexico multiplied by $160 per card we get $160 million. Temporary visas, for Mexican CEOs and NAFTA workers $190 each, can't be bringing in very much money -- maximum $190 million assuming every border-crossing card issued per above goes to one of these catgories; and diplomats are not charged that fee at all [see previous link]. Tariffs against Mexico are illegal per the NAFTA agreement, which has the force of law under the US Constitution, meaning that if he wishes to impose them he will have to denounce that treay, with the foreign-policy ramifications such a measure entails (this includes Canada). And cutting foreign aid to Mexico, which goes to help fight narcotraficantes, will only increase the instability of our southern neighbor, which will almost certainly drive up the numbers attempting to flee here.

CNN estimates that the wall he proposes would cost between $15 and $25 billion. Trump doesn't say how much he would boost these fees, nor does he say how he'd get Congress to denounce NAFTA, nor how he would ascertain the legality of outgoing remittances.

So as you can see, he put together a list of actions that he'd take to finance his wall, but we see upon further inspection that this is horseshit. It takes a little digging to look past the smoke-and-mirrors, and I certainly don't expect you to take the time to do it given that you're not a citizen or resident of the US, but if you're going to go around plumping for this guy, it's best to do a little research. Talking points do not a sound policy make.

Even if Trump doubled all immigration fees, and illegally started charging them to diplomats, and denounced NAFTA (which means he'd have to get the Senate to go along with it), and stopped the $200 million in foreign aid we give Mexico, and explains how he would determine whether the money being wired was earnt at a legal job by a legal worker -- we've got ... wait for it ... 5% of the funding the wall will need.

Smoke and mirrors, people.

(March 20, 2016 at 11:26 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 20, 2016 at 11:09 am)KUSA Wrote: Why not?

Because some drugs like meth and crack and even bath salts have a very addictive property that affect the part of the brain severely that affect their neurology that causes the user's brain to lose control over their reasoning. Those drugs don't simply make you mellow and want to eat food. Those addictions can lead people to become violent.

Now alcohol does the same, but unless you can create a clinic like location, that control's the user's intake, these users are not doctors, nor are the sellers, and on the street, just like prostitution, those unregulated conditions are dangerous.

So if you can come up with ideas of how to regulate to make both the sale legal and a safe environment for the user it is simply not enough to make it legal. Regulations have to go along with the legalization, just like pot. Just like alcohol. Legalization with "no rules" is simply anarchy.

Just like surgery, and eating at a food joint, you don't simply make it legal and trust society never to fuck up. This is the problem with GOP/Libertarian logic. 

And just like guns and religion. FINE don't just fucking offer me up a platitude, give me the details of your evidence and the details of HOW you would make this work. "Just do it" is a fucking platitude.

So you agree with the war on drugs. It has been very effective at keeping people off the hard stuff.

(March 20, 2016 at 10:33 am)KUSA Wrote: I'm all for that but it will never happen.

Well, one redeeming factor. But why not work for that instead of creaming over a wall? Legalizing drugs would at least have some social impact, while the other just costs money.

Trump University alone is enough of a reason for me not to want to vote for him. He created an 'educational' institute designed to scam people out of their money. That suggests what he thinks of the education system. It's an easy way to make money off of 'suckers'. Oh and of course he's pro-voucher. Which means taking money away from public schools, and giving them to private schools who can deny students entry for whatever reasons they like.

He's also anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and thinks that we need to 'build a wall and deport them all' which isn't feasible. Building a wall wouldn't keep illegals out in the first place. No, you have to go after the companies that are exploiting these people. Only when you kill the reasons people come here illegally will you limit illegal immigration. He's also pro-death penalty. I can only imagine the types of judges he would appoint to SCOTUS.

Trump is abrasive. Can you imagine him dealing with foreign leaders? Consulting first with his favorite expert--his brain.

There's many reasons not to vote for Donald Trump. I really hope that he doesn't get it. Of course he may not even get the Republican nomination. That, I think, would be the best scenario. Though Ted Cruz is not a better option for the Republicans to run. He's just as unlikable as Trump.