Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, is there any way the U.S. could give the Mexican authorities a bit of help in rooting the cartels out?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Also, is there any way the U.S. could give the Mexican authorities a bit of help in rooting the cartels out?

We do. Us law enforcement (namely the DEA) and even military intelligence agencies get involved in these things, but it's not a very glamorous line of work.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border... only that, walls + manpower can effectively keep people out (or in). Only thing that remains is political-will power and $$$.

Unfortunately, you're not in Congress. Someone who is (Steve King), however, actually does want a solid wall, with additional fences on each side to establish a literal "no man's land".

Good God.

Do your politicians not know history well enough to know the horrors of the war where the term "No Man's Land" originated enough to realize that maybe if that's the thing they're looking to recreate, it's probably a god damned bad idea on moral grounds?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Also, is there any way the U.S. could give the Mexican authorities a bit of help in rooting the cartels out?

We do. Us law enforcement (namely the DEA) and even military intelligence agencies get involved in these things, but it's not a very glamorous line of work.

Yeah.

I recall hearing that US law enforcement and their military were very, very helpful, if not instrumental, in taking down the infamous Pablo Escobar.

So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border...

Then why are you arguing for one?

Puncy said the Berlin Wall didn't work.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

I'm pretty sure the US government is very well-motivated in taking out the Mexican drug cartels. I mean, consider that they operate in the USA too, not just Mexico. They are definitely a problem for America too, not just Mexico.

I just kinda assume that they're the experts who have way, WAY more information on the subject than I do, and apparently they haven't come up with a viable solution yet, so I kinda figure I probably won't think of any ideas that haven't already been considered and either found too problematic to try, or tried and just not worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border...

Then why are you arguing for one?

Puncy said the Berlin Wall didn't work.

Agreed. Your argument was that in some ways, it did stop people from emigrating, not that it was a good idea that should be repeated. You were not advocating for it, merely stating facts.

Plus, you have to remember the ecological effects of building a massive barrier across the US/Mexico boarder.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Plus, you have to remember the ecological effects of building a massive barrier across the US/Mexico boarder.

Yeah.

That's gonna disrupt a lot of species' normal habits. Probably some species would end up going extinct (that's never stopped humans from doing anything before, though).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Plus, you have to remember the ecological effects of building a massive barrier across the US/Mexico boarder.

Indeed.

The absolute, most impactful way to stop illegal immigration is to hammer the employers HARD for encouraging this.

You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

I think Whembly's just incapable of referring to anyone by their actual name, really.

:p

 Spinner wrote:
I think Whembly's just incapable of referring to anyone by their actual name, really.

:p

I've heard worse nicknames for Trump in other places, actually.

I'm sure; there's plenty to call him. I usually just call him President-elect, and then I throw up in my mouth a little.

Probably gonna escalate to full-on Linda Blair-ing next month.

 Spinner wrote:
I'm sure; there's plenty to call him. I usually just call him President-elect, and then I throw up in my mouth a little.

Probably gonna escalate to full-on Linda Blair-ing next month.

Yup.

Buckle up, America, the next 4 years of Trump being President are gonna get rough. You finally have your first President who has never held any government office, nor served in the military, and he acts like a lunatic to boot. Hope you make it through his Presidency intact. I really mean that, because there's a lot of you who I really like, and even more of you who I'm absolutely certain didn't do anything to deserve any sort of suffering.

I'm pretty sure that after 4 years of Trump's rule, America will absolutely not elect him for a second term. I've been wrong about whether America would elect Trump before, though...

Trump being President was a funny joke a few years ago. It's the kind of funny joke that stops being funny when it actually happens for real, though.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

I'm pretty sure the US government is very well-motivated in taking out the Mexican drug cartels. I mean, consider that they operate in the USA too, not just Mexico. They are definitely a problem for America too, not just Mexico.

I just kinda assume that they're the experts who have way, WAY more information on the subject than I do, and apparently they haven't come up with a viable solution yet, so I kinda figure I probably won't think of any ideas that haven't already been considered and either found too problematic to try, or tried and just not worked.

I wouldn't really consider the DEA experts in anything, especially drugs. These are the guys who scheduled CBD oil as a schedule 1 drug, despite it having no THC in it.

They are not good at their jobs.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

I'm pretty sure the US government is very well-motivated in taking out the Mexican drug cartels. I mean, consider that they operate in the USA too, not just Mexico. They are definitely a problem for America too, not just Mexico.

I just kinda assume that they're the experts who have way, WAY more information on the subject than I do, and apparently they haven't come up with a viable solution yet, so I kinda figure I probably won't think of any ideas that haven't already been considered and either found too problematic to try, or tried and just not worked.

I wouldn't really consider the DEA experts in anything, especially drugs. These are the guys who scheduled CBD oil as a schedule 1 drug, despite it having no THC in it.

They are not good at their jobs.

Why have they not been sacked and replaced then?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

I'm pretty sure the US government is very well-motivated in taking out the Mexican drug cartels. I mean, consider that they operate in the USA too, not just Mexico. They are definitely a problem for America too, not just Mexico.

I just kinda assume that they're the experts who have way, WAY more information on the subject than I do, and apparently they haven't come up with a viable solution yet, so I kinda figure I probably won't think of any ideas that haven't already been considered and either found too problematic to try, or tried and just not worked.

I wouldn't really consider the DEA experts in anything, especially drugs. These are the guys who scheduled CBD oil as a schedule 1 drug, despite it having no THC in it.

They are not good at their jobs.

Why have they not been sacked and replaced then?

Why is Damon Lindelof still allowed to work on movies?

 Spinner wrote:
Why is Damon Lindelof still allowed to work on movies?

I'm gonna assume he's the equivalent of Uwe Boll for your favorite movies.

To which I must answer: Because making a terrible movie is not actually punishable in any way. Being completely incompetent is a valid reason to replace someone in the government though.

I think that the GOP has a vested interest in keeping quite a few agencies alive while also preventing them from actually being effective at their job. That way they can point to them as an example of "look how bad government is at doing anything".

 d-usa wrote:
I think that the GOP has a vested interest in keeping quite a few agencies alive while also preventing them from actually being effective at their job. That way they can point to them as an example of "look how bad government is at doing anything".

Is the GOP aware that their own jobs are also part of the government?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Why is Damon Lindelof still allowed to work on movies?

I'm gonna assume he's the equivalent of Uwe Boll for your favorite movies.

To which I must answer: Because making a terrible movie is not actually punishable in any way. Being completely incompetent is a valid reason to replace someone in the government though.

You really haven't looked at our incumbency rating, have you? We can't even get rid of a county clerk who won't hand out marriage licenses.

Turning the Alien: Engineers script into Prometheus SHOULD have been punishable...

 Spinner wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Why is Damon Lindelof still allowed to work on movies?

I'm gonna assume he's the equivalent of Uwe Boll for your favorite movies.

To which I must answer: Because making a terrible movie is not actually punishable in any way. Being completely incompetent is a valid reason to replace someone in the government though.

You really haven't looked at our incumbency rating, have you? We can't even get rid of a county clerk who won't hand out marriage licenses.

Turning the Alien: Engineers script into Prometheus SHOULD have been punishable...

Not really, no. But I know you do have some one-termers in your country's history, so there's always hope.

Regarding Prometheus, remember Independence Day, when aliens capable of interstellar travel armed their fightercraft with plasma weapons human pilots can dodge instead of some sort of hypervelocity projectile weapon that would be even more destructive and powerful along with traveling fast enough a pilot in a dogfight can't even know it's been fired at him before his plane explodes? Sci-fi movies are just bullcrap all around, that's not unique to Prometheus.

If you're gonna say plasma weapons are better than projectile weapons, uh, that's just flat-out wrong. Kinetic energy weapons are some of the most powerful and easy-to-power weapons that are theoretically possible. It's scientifically possible to make a projectile weapon that would one-shot a soldier in power armor that can easily take a nuclear blast at point-blank-range with the soldier and his armor behind flung into a mountain hard enough to knock him unconscious (but not kill him).

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

You should bear in mind, though, that Jesus was quite unpopular because he told people things they did not want to hear, he wasn't hesitant about kicking a few tables over and using the whip, or that at least one of his Apostles packed a sword.

Relapse wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

You should bear in mind, though, that Jesus was quite unpopular because he told people things they did not want to hear.

That's true of literally anyone who expresses an opinion to anyone who doesn't agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
he wasn't hesitant about kicking a few tables over and using the whip,

I'm absolutely certain that he would adjust to the modern era and avoid kicking over tables, and he would probably stop the whole whip thing whenever it became less of a torture instrument and more of an iconic symbol of the BDSM fetish.

or that at least one of his Apostles packed a sword.

So you're saying that Jesus would be okay with open-carry permits for self-defence purposes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, Jesus would NEVER be allowed to be the President of the USA.

Because he was born 2,000 years ago, in Nazareth, which is in the Middle East. There's no possible way he'd be a natural-born citizen of the USA, there's no possible loopholes that would let you get around THOSE circumstances.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

The Berlin Wall did work pretty well, but it was under 4 miles long and the guards were prepared to shoot to kill.

It doesn't seem realistic that a 2,000 mile long wall without deadly force would work as well, especially when you consider that 11 million people have managed to cross the existing 700 mile wall and a desert.

But whatever, it's only a campaign promise by Trump, blah di blah.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Why is Damon Lindelof still allowed to work on movies?

I'm gonna assume he's the equivalent of Uwe Boll for your favorite movies.

To which I must answer: Because making a terrible movie is not actually punishable in any way. Being completely incompetent is a valid reason to replace someone in the government though.

You really haven't looked at our incumbency rating, have you? We can't even get rid of a county clerk who won't hand out marriage licenses.

Turning the Alien: Engineers script into Prometheus SHOULD have been punishable...

Not really, no. But I know you do have some one-termers in your country's history, so there's always hope.

Regarding Prometheus, remember Independence Day, when aliens capable of interstellar travel armed their fightercraft with plasma weapons human pilots can dodge instead of some sort of hypervelocity projectile weapon that would be even more destructive and powerful along with traveling fast enough a pilot in a dogfight can't even know it's been fired at him before his plane explodes? Sci-fi movies are just bullcrap all around, that's not unique to Prometheus.

If you're gonna say plasma weapons are better than projectile weapons, uh, that's just flat-out wrong. Kinetic energy weapons are some of the most powerful and easy-to-power weapons that are theoretically possible. It's scientifically possible to make a projectile weapon that would one-shot a soldier in power armor that can easily take a nuclear blast at point-blank-range with the soldier and his armor behind flung into a mountain hard enough to knock him unconscious (but not kill him).

Independence Day was a fun popcorn movie with good one-liners; Prometheus' greatest sin is that it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. The original script just made more sense and filled all of the plot holes in the final product. I don't demand that my sci-fi stories make real-world sense; I want them to make sense after my suspension of disbelief is applied.

But none of that is particularly on-topic. I suggest you take a look at how hard it is to shift people out of an incumbency.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So there is cooperation. That's good. I still think legalising the drugs the cartels deal in would help immensely too. The current policies aren't working so something else is needed. And again, I'm talking about other places beside the U.S. as well.

I'm pretty sure the US government is very well-motivated in taking out the Mexican drug cartels. I mean, consider that they operate in the USA too, not just Mexico. They are definitely a problem for America too, not just Mexico.

I just kinda assume that they're the experts who have way, WAY more information on the subject than I do, and apparently they haven't come up with a viable solution yet, so I kinda figure I probably won't think of any ideas that haven't already been considered and either found too problematic to try, or tried and just not worked.

I wouldn't really consider the DEA experts in anything, especially drugs. These are the guys who scheduled CBD oil as a schedule 1 drug, despite it having no THC in it.

They are not good at their jobs.

Why have they not been sacked and replaced then?

Because that would be a sign of weakness. When you live in a country where everybody wants to be tough on crime, surrendering a war against crime is the worst possible move. I believe that the problem lies with the population and not congress, many baby boomers are not convinced that the war on drugs is unwinnable or absurd. Remember, many of these people listen to Michelle Bachman. This is where the GOP gets a lot of votes.

These are the people who still think Marijuana is a gateway drug and just as bad as heroin. These are the same people who call their stoned grandson because they cant figure out how to get on the internet.

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

Dude... that's dripping in sarcasm...

He had several bad spray-on tans & he has fans that adores to the nth degree.

Yeah, Cheeto Jesus is not a positive term.

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You just know Cheeto Jesus isn't going to do that...

You guys have a very, VERY wide variety of unflattering nicknames for your next President.

Though comparing him to Jesus is incorrect. Jesus preached love for all humans, forgiveness of all sins (literally his death absolved all humans, past, present and future of their sins), and he opposed the death penalty to the point he intervened in a stoning in a very well-known part (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.)

If you guys were to have a President who was like Jesus, I'm pretty sure I'd love you guys for electing such a person.

Dude... that's dripping in sarcasm...

He had several bad spray-on tans & he has fans that adores to the nth degree.

Why not compare him to a lunatic cult leader then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
But none of that is particularly on-topic. I suggest you take a look at how hard it is to shift people out of an incumbency.

Fair point. It was an off-hand remark in response to another off-hand remark, anyways.

And really, I don't care how difficult it is. It is not literally impossible, thus it can and in fact does happen on occasion. And since I believe Trump will be literally the worst President the USA has ever had (if you judge the previous ones by the standards of their time, not modern-day standards), I am pretty sure that Trump will be worse than previous Presidents who have failed to attain a second term in the oval office, so I believe that it is possible that Trump will be ousted.

Because when you tell me that, "The last time that happened was X decades ago," you are literally telling me exactly when it HAS happened.