2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Polish Leppy 22]

If it's not cheaper than than an equally effective measure then why in the hell would we build it?

For being the smartest guy on IE, I don't know how many times I can spell it out for you:

I. Did. Not. Say. It. Would. Be. Cheaper. I said it's an idea worthy of further research. What we're doing now (Trump is right here) is friggin dumb and it's costing us big time.

Still waiting on your answer as to which option would cost us less as a nation: building a wall or continuing with status quo as we are now? It's only been about 24 hours.

 

[wizards8507]

[/B]

and you think that is bad advice?

Yes, that's terrible advice. The most support a Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten from Hispanics is 44%. Mitt Romney could have gotten 70% of the Hispanic vote and he still would have lost. 70%! The path to victory for Republicans is not to pander to various factions. That's the Democrat strategy. Free college for the students, free condoms for the sluts and those who bone them, amnesty for the Hispanics, and on and on. For a Republican to win, he or she needs to win in the arena of ideas, not by pandering to constituent groups.

 

[Buster Bluth]

SIAP but did anyone mention here or in the debate that there aren't people flocking over the border right now?

We're going to build a multi-billion dollar fence that won't work to stop a problem that doesn't exist? That's not to say illegal immigrants in this country don't stress systems, but this is about new illegals. All things considered, it seems like a pretty fucking stupid idea to me.

How about we see if we can't do something to help Mexico out so it's a more prosperous place to live and so people don't feel the need to come here? Why don't we look and see if any of our policies negatively impact Mexico by, say, empowering cartels? Oooh there's that damn War on Drugs again!

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, that's terrible advice. The most support a Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten from Hispanics is 44%. Mitt Romney could have gotten 70% of the Hispanic vote and he still would have lost. 70%! The path to victory for Republicans is not to pander to various factions. That's the Democrat strategy. Free college for the students, free condoms for the sluts and those who bone them, amnesty for the Hispanics, and on and on. For a Republican to win, he or she needs to win in the arena of ideas, not by pandering to constituent groups.

Ok, but they need a bare minimum of 30% to even stand a chance of winning, and nothing you want to happen is going to happen if they don't win. Aren't you guys a little tired of playing defense from way behind? Gotta make a big play to get attention ... And it never works. Stand on political principle if you want, but if you don't open the tent to some new ideas and viewpoints, you are in for a frustrating couple of decades.

 

[Cackalacky]

Whoa, sounds like a conservative idea.

The wall: we don't know how successful or unsuccessful it will be. It's a huge unknown, but wouldn't you agree it would be better than what we have? And here is what we DO know.

Does it cost more to keep unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. -- or deport them? - Fortune

And according to a 2011 report by FAIR, undocumented immigrants cost U.S. and state governments $113 billion a year in welfare programs. The report argues that immigrants use more welfare programs than people born in the United States.

Our infrastructure is crumbling yet people want to build a 2000 mile long wall. That would be a fairly large civil engineering project but what would the benefits be?. Then we could expect the expansion of some law enforcement agency probably Border Patrol or DHS. This would become a heavily armed area with massive resources being required to house and feed and train and arm enough people to monitor the border with the sole purpose of ensuring no one crosses the wall either over, it through it or under it or around it.

113 billion wouldn't cover the construction costs. In addition to all the above over say ten years you are looking at trillions of dollars.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The path to victory for Republicans is not to pander to various factions. That's the Democrat strategy. Free college for the students, free condoms for the sluts and those who bone them, amnesty for the Hispanics, and on and on. For a Republican to win, he or she needs to win in the arena of ideas, not by pandering to constituent groups.

 

[GoIrish41]

GoIrish is fine. Just impassioned. No one is locking the thread, and no one is at any risk of getting warned/banned.

In a week I'll probably read this back and feel like a dummy and apologize....

Maybe

Class move ... Reps LAX!

 

[woolybug25]

For being the smartest guy on IE, I don't know how many times I can spell it out for you:

I. Did. Not. Say. It. Would. Be. Cheaper. I said it's an idea worthy of further research. What we're doing now (Trump is right here) is friggin dumb and it's costing us big time.

Still waiting on your answer as to which option would cost us less as a nation: building a wall or continuing with status quo as we are now? It's only been about 24 hours.

I never said 1) that you said it was cheaper or 2) that I knew the answer. I just said you didn't know very much about the topic (which you haven't proved incorrect) and that a wall wouldn't work nor be cheap.

But please... Continue your diatribe...

 

[wizards8507]

Ok, but they need a bare minimum of 30% to even stand a chance of winning, and nothing you want to happen is going to happen if they don't win. Aren't you guys a little tired of playing defense from way behind? Gotta make a big play to get attention ... And it never works. Stand on political principle if you want, but if you don't open the tent to some new ideas and viewpoints, you are in for a frustrating couple of decades.

When Ronald Reagan won 489 and 525 electoral votes in consecutive elections, he didn't do so by moving to the center. He did so by moving the country to the right. He didn't abandon conservatism, he explained it and sold it to the independents and many Democrats. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have so perverted the idea of conservatism that many voters reject it on its face for no reason beyond misunderstanding what conservatism actually means.

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

Voters don't want Republicans to "reach across the aisle" and help Democrats implement a slightly modified version of the progressive agenda. If that's what they wanted, they'd just elect Democrats in the first place.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I wonder why Iran-Contra wasn't brought up with all of the Reagan worship last night. And St. Ronald's amnesty for millions.

 

[ACamp1900]

His amnesty was discussed a couple of times that I can remember....

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Our infrastructure is crumbling yet people want to build a 2000 mile long wall. That would be a fairly large civil engineering project but what would the benefits be?. Then we could expect the expansion of some law enforcement agency probably Border Patrol or DHS. This would become a heavily armed area with massive resources being required to house and feed and train and arm enough people to monitor the border with the sole purpose of ensuring no one crosses the wall either over, it through it or under it or around it.

113 billion wouldn't cover the construction costs. In addition to all the above over say ten years you are looking at trillions of dollars.

Curious...how do you know what the construction costs would be for a project like this? Let me remind all the critics on here (especially those who supported Obamacare): a wall may not solve all the problems, but would it not put us in a better situation than we are in now with our border?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

His amnesty was discussed a couple of times that I can remember....

I recall the word amnesty being used, but not the fact that Reagan supported it. Maybe I'm turning into Reagan.

 

[ACamp1900]

They discussed 'Reagans approach' ... Those who favor reform cited it, those who want massive deportation rebuked it... I'm not sure anyone said 'Reagan amnesty' but it was clear what they were all saying.

 

[woolybug25]

Curious...how do you know what the construction costs would be for a project like this? Let me remind all the critics on here (especially those who supported Obamacare): a wall may not solve all the problems, but would it not put us in a better situation than we are in now with our border?

Maybe before you expect the rest of the board to respond to your constant spin, you could enlighten us by responding to these two responses?

SIAP but did anyone mention here or in the debate that there aren't people flocking over the border right now?

We're going to build a multi-billion dollar fence that won't work to stop a problem that doesn't exist? That's not to say illegal immigrants in this country don't stress systems, but this is about new illegals. All things considered, it seems like a pretty fucking stupid idea to me.

How about we see if we can't do something to help Mexico out so it's a more prosperous place to live and so people don't feel the need to come here? Why don't we look and see if any of our policies negatively impact Mexico by, say, empowering cartels? Oooh there's that damn War on Drugs again!

And this...

Our infrastructure is crumbling yet people want to build a 2000 mile long wall. That would be a fairly large civil engineering project but what would the benefits be?. Then we could expect the expansion of some law enforcement agency probably Border Patrol or DHS. This would become a heavily armed area with massive resources being required to house and feed and train and arm enough people to monitor the border with the sole purpose of ensuring no one crosses the wall either over, it through it or under it or around it.

113 billion wouldn't cover the construction costs. In addition to all the above over say ten years you are looking at trillions of dollars.

 

[GoIrish41]

When Ronald Reagan won 489 and 525 electoral votes in consecutive elections, he didn't do so by moving to the center. He did so by moving the country to the right. He didn't abandon conservatism, he explained it and sold it to the independents and many Democrats. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have so perverted the idea of conservatism that many voters reject it on its face for no reason beyond misunderstanding what conservatism actually means.

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

Voters don't want Republicans to "reach across the aisle" and help Democrats implement a slightly modified version of the progressive agenda. If that's what they wanted, they'd just elect Democrats in the first place.

Dutch ain't around to help you out and your bench of charismatic smart guys is really thin. Stick to your guns, my friend. It's all good with me.

 

[pumpdog20]

That's NOT absolutely correct. It can be accurate in some circumstances, but I would say it is not the norm. When you enlist, you sign a contract. If you score a point or two above "dead rotting corpse" on the tests, you can generally have a plethora of jobs that you contract to go into. The higher you score, the more jobs are available to you. In some(but not all) of those cases, if you cannot be put into the job that you contracted for; you can select another job that you are qualified for, or you can allow the service to just pick a job for you, or you can terminate your service without prejudice. I'm not tapped into the Recruiting Commands, but I would venture to say that probably less than 3% of the people who enlist, do so without some kind of "guaranteed" training. I use quotes on "guaranteed" because that training COULD be taken away. Some of the reasons why it might be taken away include getting into a serious disciplinary situation before you have completed said training; failing a required physical test for said training, or being denied a requisite security clearance for said training.

It's called "Needs of the Army". You can have what ever contract you want, it's one sided in favor of the Army. It is very much the norm.

 

[Cackalacky]

Curious...how do you know what the construction costs would be for a project like this? Let me remind all the critics on here (especially those who supported Obamacare): a wall may not solve all the problems, but would it not put us in a better situation than we are in now with our border?

Well...... professionally and educationally I have over 16 years in the civil engineering field. I have seen a lot of things get built. I have designed some of them my self. I have to bid, price, and propose on projects for all kinds of Fed, state local governments. Construction is just one piece of the pie. There will have to geotechnical engineers, project manager, multiple contractors and subs, purchasing of rights of way. I can go on.....but you get my point.

The nuts and bolts of it are obviously fluid like will it be a chain link fence? Probably not? Reinforced concrete driven sheet piles? Maybe... Better. Reinforced concrete wall too thick to dig through, too high to climb and too deep the go under... best. Likely.....nope. So assuming it will be something like what Israel has. Concrete sheet panels that can be breached and crossed anyway.

Now what about some of the areas where the land sucks....we are gonna need a better designed wall here with improvements to the soil. Do we put walls in the areas that are not easily crossed or present natural geographic barriers? Can't have any holes in if you are gonna do it right. Gotta have surveyors and civil guys plot out the path and identify the route of the Wall.

What about DHS staff stations? How many? How far from the wall? Infrastructure to support these stations? Gotta have food water, plumbing, training rooms, surveillance rooms, it infrastructure (secured). I am betting there is little or insufficient infrastructure along the border except at the few large cities along the border. So now.we have to build a new system or bring in New pipes attached to older ones from far away. We will have to take care of all the people needed to run this operation.

What's the point of what chain link fence in open dessert? Not really one at all. Total waste of money. Are we gonna monitor the fence line with men or drones? Both? IR cameras? Video? Routine patrols by foot and.car.... massive manpower?

 

[woolybug25]

.

 

[kmoose]

Ok, but they need a bare minimum of 30% to even stand a chance of winning, and nothing you want to happen is going to happen if they don't win. Aren't you guys a little tired of playing defense from way behind? Gotta make a big play to get attention ... And it never works. Stand on political principle if you want, but if you don't open the tent to some new ideas and viewpoints, you are in for a frustrating couple of decades.

The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination are a maverick billionaire and a neurosurgeon. The two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are both career politicians. Who needs to open the tent to new ideas and viewpoints again?

 

[Bluto]

Perfect. Half italics.


I'd rather have a wall in 2036 than never. Also, we're working with a lot more than medieval technology.


We're not trying to keep out an army, we're trying to keep out individual invaders. Further, the Ming dynasty didn't have drone surveillance.

By 2036 your grandkids are all gonna be half Mexican and you'll feel pretty stupid about this post. Lol.

 

[pkt77242]

The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination are a maverick billionaire and a neurosurgeon. The two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are both career politicians. Who needs to open the tent to new ideas and viewpoints again?

That has nothing to do with new ideas. If outsiders run on the same ideas as everyone else, it doesn't mater that they are "outsiders". I agree that Clinton doesn't show new ideas, but Sanders definitely does (Trump does for Republicans but I am not sure if that is good or bad).


Also taking one year as a generalization is generally a very bad idea.

 

[kmoose]

It's called "Needs of the Army". You can have what ever contract you want, it's one sided in favor of the Army. It is very much the norm.

You don't contract to be a electronics technician, and then just get tossed into 11B AIT. That was my point. That doesn't mean that electronics technicians cannot find themselves standing a post in a combat zone, or maybe even filling in on patrols.

 

[kmoose]

Well...... professionally and educationally I have over 16 years in the civil engineering field. I have seen a lot of things get built. I have designed some of them my self. I have to bid, price, and propose on projects for all kinds of Fed, state local governments. Construction is just one piece of the pie. There will have to geotechnical engineers, project manager, multiple contractors and subs, purchasing of rights of way. I can go on.....but you get my point.

The nuts and bolts of it are obviously fluid like will it be a chain link fence? Probably not? Reinforced concrete driven sheet piles? Maybe... Better. Reinforced concrete wall too thick to dig through, too high to climb and too deep the go under... best. Likely.....nope. So assuming it will be something like what Israel has. Concrete sheet panels that can be breached and crossed anyway.

Now what about some of the areas where the land sucks....we are gonna need a better designed wall here with improvements to the soil. Do we put walls in the areas that are not easily crossed or present natural geographic barriers? Can't have any holes in if you are gonna do it right. Gotta have surveyors and civil guys plot out the path and identify the route of the Wall.

What about DHS staff stations? How many? How far from the wall? Infrastructure to support these stations? Gotta have food water, plumbing, training rooms, surveillance rooms, it infrastructure (secured). I am betting there is little or insufficient infrastructure along the border except at the few large cities along the border. So now.we have to build a new system or bring in New pipes attached to older ones from far away. We will have to take care of all the people needed to run this operation.

What's the point of what chain link fence in open dessert? Not really one at all. Total waste of money. Are we gonna monitor the fence line with men or drones? Both? IR cameras? Video? Routine patrols by foot and.car.... massive manpower?

150,000 VAC... produced by the oil that we steal from Venezuela, after other people's sons and daughters shed blood there in a neverending quest for fossil fuel profits.

 

[Cackalacky]

150,000 VAC... produced by the oil that we steal from Venezuela, after other people's sons and daughters shed blood there in a neverending quest for fossil fuel profits.

Haha. #Murica.
President Camacho approves!

 

[kmoose]

SIAP but did anyone mention here or in the debate that there aren't people flocking over the border right now?

We're going to build a multi-billion dollar fence that won't work to stop a problem that doesn't exist? That's not to say illegal immigrants in this country don't stress systems, but this is about new illegals. All things considered, it seems like a pretty fucking stupid idea to me.

How about we see if we can't do something to help Mexico out so it's a more prosperous place to live and so people don't feel the need to come here? Why don't we look and see if any of our policies negatively impact Mexico by, say, empowering cartels? Oooh there's that damn War on Drugs again!

It's been a long week with little sleep for me, so I am a little bleary eyed, but it looks to me like there has been an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants that entered the country between 2010 and 2012. That's 200,000 a year, or 16,666 a month, or 3,846 a week, or 549 a day. Over 500 people a day enter the country illegally!! And you think that's NOT problem?

The idea of sealing off our Southern border(that one in particular, but all of them in the long run) is, mostly, to keep some terrorist from just walking across the border with a WMD of some type. Or to at least make it hard enough that only the most sophisticated groups can accomplish it. That would mean that law enforcement would not be overly burdened by trying to monitor every movement of every group that might have enough funds to purchase something. They could focus their efforts on (though not solely concentrate on) those groups that have the resources to accomplish it.

I highly doubt that the lock on the front door of your home would keep out anyone who was determined to get into your home; but I bet you lock your doors.

 

[EddytoNow]

The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination are a maverick billionaire and a neurosurgeon. The two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are both career politicians. Who needs to open the tent to new ideas and viewpoints again?

I think you are missing GoIrish 41's point. He suggested the Republicans open up to new ideas, and you cited two non-politicians that are touting the same old ideas. Trump just shouts those old ideas louder than everyone else. Carson is quieter and more humble, but the ideas are the same. The only Republican nominee with different ideas is Rand Paul, and he is barely registering in the polls.

 

[EddytoNow]

It's been a long week with little sleep for me, so I am a little bleary eyed, but it looks to me like there has been an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants that entered the country between 2010 and 2012. That's 200,000 a year, or 16,666 a month, or 3,846 a week, or 549 a day. Over 500 people a day enter the country illegally!! And you think that's NOT problem?

The idea of sealing off our Southern border(that one in particular, but all of them in the long run) is, mostly, to keep some terrorist from just walking across the border with a WMD of some type. Or to at least make it hard enough that only the most sophisticated groups can accomplish it. That would mean that law enforcement would not be overly burdened by trying to monitor every movement of every group that might have enough funds to purchase something. They could focus their efforts on (though not solely concentrate on) those groups that have the resources to accomplish it.

I highly doubt that the lock on the front door of your home would keep out anyone who was determined to get into your home; but I bet you lock your doors.

Exactly how many Hispanic terrorists have crossed our border with Mexico and attacked the United States?

 

[kmoose]

Exactly how many Hispanic terrorists have crossed our border with Mexico and attacked the United States?

None. And no one is really worried about Mexican terrorists. What they are (rightly) worried about is some Iranian Quds force, or some North Korean Spec Ops team, or some ISIS group, contracting with one of the coyote groups to bring someone(s) across.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Maybe before you expect the rest of the board to respond to your constant spin, you could enlighten us by responding to these two responses?



And this...

I'll get on that right after you answer my question from 2 days ago you're still dodging.