2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Thats "operating" on US soil, slightly different from securing the border, much of which would involve the creation of a buffer zone on mexican territory.

You think Mexico is just going to let us appropriate a "neutral zone" in their territory just to create a loophole in the military's centuries long restriction on policing domestic affairs? :rolleyes:

Its not "awfully expensive", the troops are already hired, all the equipment already paid for. Eg: "As of January 2014, the U.S. military operates a large number of unmanned aerial systems: 7,362 RQ-11 Ravens; 990 AeroVironment Wasp IIIs; 1,137 AeroVironment RQ-20 Pumas; and 306 RQ-16 T-Hawk small UAS systems and 246 Predators and MQ-1C Grey Eagles; 126 MQ-9 Reapers; 491 RQ-7 Shadows; and 33 RQ-4 Global Hawk large systems

All of which are in use, doing other roles. If you take a carrier group and park it off the Gulf of Mexico, sure "we HAVE the carrier" but now it's not operating in the Sea of Japan, or the Arabian Sea, doing ostensibly way more important things. The personnel you transfer to this role have to have their previous roles replaced. It's not difficult logic to follow. Fun fact for example: an F-35A (Air Force Variant, supercruise) requires a bucket load of money just to get off the ground, not just in fuel and logistics and mission planning, but in maintenance and labor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/151303/a-look-at-f_35%E2%80%99s-true-o%26s-cost.html

So you [statistical average] fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, [...]. (That's hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)

So yeah, while you HAVE the hardware, and you HAVE the personell, and you PUT them somewhere, you THEN have to pay the expenses associated with having them actually DO things.

You grossly underestimate the associated costs here. I yank the F35 numbers because I've been doing a research credit on the program.

So the role of the US military is fighting foreign wars?:rolleyes: The role of every military is to serve the people, to defend the Nation, to protect vital national interests, and to fulfill national military responsibilities. Pretending there is some massive, legal or otherwise, impediment, is utterly false, its in national security interests to have a secure border. A stroke of a pen is all thats necessary.

"The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.Some may argue that Chapter 18, Section 375 of Title 10 US Code prevents military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement. However, defending US borders from foreign invaders is not law enforcement, it’s the basic purpose of the US military. While defending these United States from invasion, civilian law enforcement may be called upon to assist the US military. Does anyone believe the Border Patrol must operate fighter aircraft because the US Air Force can’t intercept aircraft crossing into the US because that’s “law enforcement”?

Not a strawman, and I quote "the fact is you cannot stop the flow of illegal immigration", I contend you can, quite easily, it just requires willpower, same as in the Mediterranean.

Yeah, wondered when that changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

The National Security Act of 1947 was a major restructuring of the United States government's military and intelligence agencies following World War II. The majority of the provisions of the Act took effect on September 18, 1947, the day after the Senate confirmed James Forrestal as the first Secretary of Defense.[1] His power was initially limited and it was difficult for him to exercise the authority to make his office effective. This was later changed in the amendment to the act in 1949, creating what was to be the Department of Defense.[2]

The Act merged the Department of War (renamed as the Department of the Army) and the Department of the Navy into the National Military Establishment (NME), headed by the Secretary of Defense. It also created the Department of the Air Force, which separated the Army Air Forces into its own service. Initially, each of the three service secretaries maintained quasi-cabinet status, but the act was amended on August 10, 1949, to ensure their subordination to the Secretary of Defense. At the same time, the NME was renamed as the Department of Defense. The purpose was to unify the Army, Navy, and Air Force into a federated structure.[3]

Aside from the military reorganization, the act established the National Security Council, a central place of coordination for national security policy in the executive branch, and the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S.'s first peacetime intelligence agency. The council's function was to advise the president on domestic, foreign, and military policies, and to ensure cooperation between the various military and intelligence agencies.[3]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff was officially established under Title II, Section 211 of the original National Security Act of 1947 before Sections 209–214 of Title II were repealed by the law enacting Title 10[4] and Title 32,[5] United States Code (Act of August 10, 1956, 70A Stat. 676) to replace them.

The act and its changes, along with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, were major components of the Truman administration's Cold War strategy.

The bill signing took place aboard Truman's VC-54C presidential aircraft Sacred Cow, the first aircraft used for the role of Air Force One.[6]

Oh: and again, nobody said they CANT operate on the soil or I should at least re-phrase, they have a long history of that. But it takes an Act of Congress to make it happen beyond basic rules of engagement (eg. incoming strike). Until there is a congressional or presidential mandate to assume Mexicans as an invading military force or some such, you won't be seeing the marines rolling around with Tanks on the border any time soon.

Overheal

Christy42 wrote: »

Illegal immigrants are not invaders. The logic to get there is mind boggling.

Correct, a lot of undocumented immigration is defacto sanctioned. Big Ag depends on seasonal migrant labor

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Arkady

Trump is going to clean up. Should be interesting times ahead.

maryishere

Christy42 wrote: »

Illegal immigrants are not invaders.

It can be job of theU.S. army / security services to keep out millions of people swarming from central and south America. In the eyes of many Americans, illegial immigrants are invaders, taking their jobs, and changing the ethnicity of the America they knew decades before. I am not necessarily saying they are right, but that is how many ordinary Americans see it now.

Manach

Given the long and proud history of the Mexican state (they still honour soldiers fallen in the 1846(?) war) then from their PoV, "Illegal immigrants are not invaders" would be a policy they have might wished to have pursued prior to the Texan annexation.

K-9

Manach wrote: »

It could be argued that too much state intervention also has a root in the Flint water issue. I've read some books on the Detroit region, which Flint seems to be related as part of the same governmental structures. Post 1960s the growth of the state was marked in that area, but the tax base remained stagnant and then shrank. A large portion of the tax went to dubious projects, not core infrastructure, as a means to reward specific voter stakeholders and not the general community. In Detroit by Lebuff, this is chronicled with the main example being the skeletal fire department striving to fullfill its duties despite of the large government and its practices.

Indeed, I just don't know enough about it to have an idea of who to blame, I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go round. Unless somebody has a logic to why "big Government was at fault" saying smaller Government would have avoided it just sounds like propaganda.

Overheal

Manach wrote: »

Given the long and proud history of the Mexican state (they still honour soldiers fallen in the 1846(?) war) then from their PoV, "Illegal immigrants are not invaders" would be a policy they have might wished to have pursued prior to the Texan annexation.

That's the war that coined the term Civil Disobedience. That was probably the first "unjust" war the US fought.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/walden/Essays/civil.html

K-9

Manach wrote: »

An interesting piece by the noted conservative writer David Brooks on the rise of Trump. He differentiates between the Candidate (who the author does not support and casts as dishonest at a fundamental level) and his supporter base ( which has been ignore by the elites in both parties and are not gaining from the anemic economic recovery "voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else.".
This would seem a mirror image of those who support Sanders (in that both share a wish to make their voices known in an electoral system that has failed). A societal alienation.
Link
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html?_r=2

Kind of reminds me of the London Riots a few years ago, we know loads of people are pissed off, we just don't really know why exactly. To quote Peter Finch in Network: "I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXqs02lNQMM

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

Illegal immigrants are not invaders. The logic to get there is mind boggling. Do you accuse people of assault because they walk up to you? No serious definition of the word invaders can be used to describe unarmed and unorganised civilians sneaking into your country.

A buffer zone in Mexico is an invasion. You are going into Mexico with armed soldiers to create that zone. Weren't you anti war? I mean sure Mexico probably won't resist purely because they would be destroyed if they tried but it is an invasion. That is complete bully boy tactics right there and incredibly immoral. Added to this the fact that individual Mexicans may organise themselves to resist (and I wouldn't blame them).

Also if there won't be an actual wall what is Trump expecting Mexico to pay for? Also why can't I hear about these details from Donald Trump. Pretty
sure he never said anything about a buffer zone.

Trump would be doing Mexico a favour if he took on the cartels by stopping the human trafficking. The Coyote's are exploiting the American and Mexican gvts.

Manach

Overheal wrote: »

That's the war that coined the term Civil Disobedience. That was probably the first "unjust" war* the US fought.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/walden/Essays/civil.html

*1 Being truly conservative, I would posit that darn colonials unjustly rebelled against their rightful lord, his Glorious Majesty George III.

*2 Being a bit of history buff, I might include the various Indian wars (especially the seminole massarces), the XYZ affair, counter-slave insurgency operations, the land-grab war of 1812 ...

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump would be doing Mexico a favour if he took on the cartels by stopping the human trafficking. The Coyote's are exploiting the American and Mexican gvts.

He has no interest in doing that though.

maryishere

Overheal wrote: »

He has no interest in doing that though.

building the wall is a step in that direction

K-9

:rolleyes:

maryishere wrote: »

A wall done a lot to stop Eastern Europeans getting to the west, until it was taken down. Technically, it is possible.

That was to keep people in, not people out. When nobody wants to go to East Berlin barring Spies, academics and some idealistic Socialists, it isn't a difficult task.

Some Trump business failures:
gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188

Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Trump mortgage Co. in 2006! A vitamin supplement company.

Best has to be taken over a no frills airline in 89 and putting in faux gold taps and wood veneer floors. Michael O'Leary he ain't!

The American football team and the cycling Tour deTrump gives you an idea of the man.

Most of these seem to be vanity projects really.

K-9

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair the national debt in the US has no partisan lines at all. Both Republican and Democratic administrations going back to Regan who doubled the debt during his 8 years in office have been guilty in this regard.

Indeed, it is noticeable Clinton was the only presidency to run surpluses, yet he gets attacked and Bush airbrushed from history by some.

The Clinton administration was far from perfect but Democrats are the only party to have s track record of running surpluses in the last 4 decades. For some reason Reagen gets the adulation instead.

Manach

My understanding (AFAIR)from the period of Clinton I, was that the Republican Congress of Gingrich had a part to play in the economic stability of that era. That is when both sides (D/R) at least then tried to talk to and make deals instead of issuing soundbites.

K-9

Hande hoche! wrote: »

"Since October, officials have deported 28,808 Central Americans and 128,000 Mexicans"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-immigration-children-families-20160308-story.html

So there are plenty of deportations. If Trump said he'd improve and provide extra funds to the current system, fine.

Instead he talks about walls.

Support of Trump is based on demagoguery, there's no substance to it.

That's all fine in Republican primaries but in actual Presidential debates he'll be laughed of the stage.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds awfully expensive.eh... Manic Moran's turf really, but you're wrong here.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/Posse-Comitatus-Act-The-Military-On-The-Border.htm

The USMC, USAF, Army, and Navy cannot act on US soil in domestic matters (including Border enforcement) without an Act of Congress, which has not been given. Certainly calling it "their main job" is entirely incorrect and misleading.Strawman Argument: nobody ever said that it could not be secured. What the argument is, is that it is neither politically or socioeconomically expedient to do so.

Excellent post, I can't imagine how Trump could changes passed. The big Government conspiracies would go into overdrive, Government wants to take over my land, the army wants to put us in death camps.

Sounds mad but the likes of Ron Paul egg on people like that, the Tea part base would go mad. They like the rights to own guns but get very tetchy at big Government introducing "martial law" and all that. Back to Peter Finch and Network again, it's all fine and well being mad and angry, but if there's no rhyme or reason to it, it's just the mad ravings of lunatics!

Overheal

Oh yeah, Hillary Clinton is still running. Man, for a lady supposed to be the supposed nominee you don't hear a lot of day to day coverage about her, do you? What's she saying out there on the trail?

Like, Hillary, you have ONE job to do...

Akrasia

Christy42 wrote: »

So he wants to increase the number of Mexican's trying to get into America illegally?

Mexico isn't paying for that wall and Trump knows it. I also think it is cute that people think a wall will do very much.

Exactly. A wall a thousand miles long won't stop immigration. Look at Palestine and Israel, The most patrolled border on earth and there are tunnels everywhere that get past the border. The only way Israel can shut them down is to bomb them every few years.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Thats "operating" on US soil, slightly different from securing the border, much of which would involve the creation of a buffer zone on mexican territory.

So you're saying you want the U.S. to invade mexico??????

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump would be doing Mexico a favour if he took on the cartels by stopping the human trafficking. The Coyote's are exploiting the American and Mexican gvts.

Human Traffickers benefit when tougher anti-immigration measures are implemented.

Human traffickers control access to resources that allow people to get past border security. They've bribed officials, they control tunnels, they have boats and smuggling routes that ordinary immigrants won't have access to.

It turns immigration from the natural migration of people from one place to another (which has been happening since humans evolved a million years ago) into organised crime. The war on drugs was not won by better border patrols. It just puts the profits into the hands of the most ruthless and most highly organised criminal syndicates.

And even if the land border was fully secure, desperate people will try to cross by boat, and civilised people in a civilised country can not stand aside and watch the dead bodies of infants getting washed up on their beaches.

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, it is noticeable Clinton was the only presidency to run surpluses, yet he gets attacked and Bush airbrushed from history by some.

The Clinton administration was far from perfect but Democrats are the only party to have s track record of running surpluses in the last 4 decades. For some reason Reagen gets the adulation instead.

It really is an exercise in cognitive dissonance that the Republicans can blame Clinton for increasing the deficit and Obama for running budget deficits, when Clinton Inherited a big deficit from Bush but turned it around to a balanced budget, and Obama inherited an economic collapse from Bush 2. He inherited a 1.4 trillion budget deficit when he took office and managed to weather the storm and has reduced it by 1 trillion dollars.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/the_gops_entire_identity_is_based_on_a_lie_how_the_obama_presidency_exposed_republican_deficit_delusions/

The last 4 presidents of America were Republicans cutting taxes and starting wars, and then handing over the mess they made to the Democrats to fix.

Overheal

Oliver laughs his way through not just the financial realities but the legal and practical and historic realities of building border walls and fences

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/john-oliver-absolutely-destroys-donald-trump-with-deep-dive-on-border-wall/

Overheal

Akrasia wrote: »

It really is an exercise in cognitive dissonance that the Republicans can blame Clinton for increasing the deficit and Obama for running budget deficits, when Clinton Inherited a big deficit from Bush but turned it around to a balanced budget, and Obama inherited an economic collapse from Bush 2. He inherited a 1.4 trillion budget deficit when he took office and managed to weather the storm and has reduced it by 1 trillion dollars.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/the_gops_entire_identity_is_based_on_a_lie_how_the_obama_presidency_exposed_republican_deficit_delusions/

The last 4 presidents of America were Republicans cutting taxes and starting wars, and then handing over the mess they made to the Democrats to fix.

It's not dissonance its calculated. They say oh well his name was on it. They know they put him in that position, same thing with obstructing the congress at every turn. They do it so they can point the finger

Akrasia

Overheal wrote: »

Oliver laughs his way through not just the financial realities but the legal and practical and historic realities of building border walls and fences

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/john-oliver-absolutely-destroys-donald-trump-with-deep-dive-on-border-wall/

I love the clip of trump figuring out in real time that people could climb the wall with a ladder, and then use a rope to climb down the other side.

It had obviously just occurred to him.

Akrasia

Overheal wrote: »

It's not dissonance its calculated. They say oh well his name was on it. They know they put him in that position, same thing with obstructing the congress at every turn. They do it so they can point the finger

It's calculated by the party strategists, but the ordinary people on the street are the ones who need to have the cognitive dissonance of knowing that Bush presided over the 8 years immediately prior to the 2008 market crash, while still believing that it was the democratic Obama who is responsible for the recession.

And knowing that the republican controlled congress and senate deliberately refused to cooperate with Obama and blocked everything he tried to do, while still believing that Obama was weak and ineffectual as president because he passed fewer laws than others have.

KingBrian2

To go back to the point about why the GOP pillories Clinton. He was the President responsibly for NAFTA enlargement and like all trade blocks the ensuing outsourcing of jobs across the border. Mexico is too poor to complain about US prejudice towards them unlike other countries Trump can say all he likes about Mexicans and the president of Mexico says nothing and neither do politicians in DC. Why is Trump allowed get away with saying what he is saying if politicians in DC don't provide him with tactic support? The reality on the ground is thus Trump has gained the trust of the grassroots and has also gained significant support in areas you would not continence. New York, Michigan and Mississippi.

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

It's calculated by the party strategists, but the ordinary people on the street are the ones who need to have the cognitive dissonance of knowing that Bush presided over the 8 years immediately prior to the 2008 market crash, while still believing that it was the democratic Obama who is responsible for the recession.

And knowing that the republican controlled congress and senate deliberately refused to cooperate with Obama and blocked everything he tried to do, while still believing that Obama was weak and ineffectual as president because he passed fewer laws than others have.

Obama has been a very good president working in extremely difficult circumstances.

However, and I say this as a liberal, the seeds of the Financial crash were sown under Clinton. Yes regulation during 2000 - 2007 was too lax and yes the Bush appointed key government players such as Paulsen et al responded poorly under pressure in 2007 / 8 in terms of who to bailout, why and how. But key deregulating legislation that produced the financial climate for the crash were passed under Clinton. And Obama's legislation to rebaseline the industry from a regulatory perspective was toothless despite a strong mandate and opportunity to solve the issue.

The bottom line is that unprecedented Republican obstructionism in the joint houses needs to be highlighted and articulated to the electorate. But efforts to portray Democrats as less in the pockets of financial lobbyists is not supported by the facts imo.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Thats "operating" on US soil, slightly different from securing the border, much of which would involve the creation of a buffer zone on mexican territory.

Where does Trump advocate creating "a buffer zone on Mexican Territory" with the US military? Links?

Does Trump believe that Mexico will surrender its national sovereignty and allow a foreign military (USA) to create and occupy 1,989 miles of its border to create this "buffer zone" in Mexico? To create this "buffer zone" in Mexican territory, what will happen to the thousands of Mexican homes, businesses, and industrial facilities that currently occupy this area right up to the existing Mexico-US border in several border cities? Is this the type of irresponsible, over-simplistic, and ludicrous thinking we can expect from Trump, should he become president and CIC of the US military 20 January 2017?

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

Where does Trump advocate creating "a buffer zone on Mexican Territory" with the US military? Links?

Does Trump believe that Mexico will surrender its national sovereignty and allow a foreign military (USA) to create and occupy 1,989 miles of its border to create this "buffer zone" in Mexico? To create this "buffer zone" in Mexican territory, what will happen to the thousands of Mexican homes, businesses, and industrial facilities that currently occupy this area right up to the existing Mexico-US border in several border cities? Is this the type of irresponsible, over-simplistic, and ludicrous thinking we can expect from Trump, should he become president and CIC of the US military 20 January 2017?

If Mexico refuses to police its own side of the border with the construction of drug tunnels etc, of course the US is entitled to destroy those tunnels and clear the area of any further dig opportunities, as any sovereign nation is. No one is tlaking about 2k miles of buffer zone, you would use it when necessary and then withdraw.