Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-17-2019, 02:05 PM   #1
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Trump’s Emergency

Trump has now decided that he needs to declare an Emergency.
I expect the House to pass legislation denying his emergency.
McConnell then is required to put it to a vote, no if ands or buts. If the Republican majority in the Senate ignores the Constitution and fails to pass it they will have ceded the power of the purse to the President and set a very dangerous precedent, that will be repeated in the future. Of course it won’t be over at that point, Trump would most likely veto it and then we would really find out if the executive branch controls all of Government.
All of us heard plenty of wailing about Obama’s overreaches on DACA and Libya to know that for the Republicans to not act on this is hypocritical at best.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 03:21 PM   #2
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,591
Fascists love a dictator
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 04:24 PM   #3
Raider Ronnie
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Raider Ronnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On my boat
Posts: 9,698
Send a message via AIM to Raider Ronnie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Fascists love a dictator
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Raider Ronnie is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 08:14 PM   #4
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie View Post
Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
= brainwashed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 08:38 PM   #5
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie View Post
Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I have several times though none have been killed by illegal immigrants, several have had drug issues, luckily so far all have made it thru to date. I’m sorry for your loss but a wall won’t stop drugs. There’s too much money involved. We need to make it so Suboxone is less than opiates and make sure it’s available to addicts.
I also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 08:53 PM   #6
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Murder committed by American citizens is a crime that is addressed at the state level. It is not a federal government responsibility to solve the problem. The President cannot invoke his emergency powers to stop the murders by citizens that happen in the various states.

Last edited by detbuch; 02-17-2019 at 09:51 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:50 AM   #7
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
II also know people that have lost family members to gun violence which claims 100+ victims daily in this country, which is far more than murders by illegal immigrants and that’s not an emergency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Stupid argument. No one is saying that all crime is committed by illegals. But we can't kick out American citizens who are would-be criminals, and send them to Mexico. The federal government certainly can deport all those who are here illegally, and many feel they should. Before Trump was POTUS, we heard Obama, Pelosi, Hilary talk about the downside of illegal immigration and porous borders.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 12:51 PM   #8
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Stupid argument. No one is saying that all crime is committed by illegals. But we can't kick out American citizens who are would-be criminals, and send them to Mexico. The federal government possibly could deport all those who are here illegally, and some feel they should. Before Trump was POTUS, we heard Obama, Pelosi, Hilary talk about the downside of illegal immigration and porous borders.
fixed it for you
Stupid reason for the reallocation of resources.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 01:24 PM   #9
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The federal government certainly can deport all those who are here illegally, and many feel they should.
How exactly do you deport 12 million people, many with families containing minor US citizens?
spence is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 11:15 PM   #10
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie View Post
Maybe after you experience a family member get hooked on the drugs that are and have been flooding in from Mexico and they overdose & die, then you change your tune.
Maybe you need a family member killed by an illegal to change your tune.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last I heard the opiate crisis was supplied by American pharmasutical companies.

Thanks for your well wishes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:50 AM   #11
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Last I heard the opiate crisis was supplied by American pharmasutical companies.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not heroin.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:28 AM   #12
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Not heroin.



Heroine is easier and cheaper to get for people hooked on Oxy.

Fentanyl is cheaper and easier for drug dealers to use to screw over people wanting heroine.

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 05:21 PM   #13
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Trump has now decided that he needs to declare an Emergency.
I expect the House to pass legislation denying his emergency.
McConnell then is required to put it to a vote, no if ands or buts. If the Republican majority in the Senate ignores the Constitution and fails to pass it they will have ceded the power of the purse to the President and set a very dangerous precedent, that will be repeated in the future. Of course it won’t be over at that point, Trump would most likely veto it and then we would really find out if the executive branch controls all of Government.
All of us heard plenty of wailing about Obama’s overreaches on DACA and Libya to know that for the Republicans to not act on this is hypocritical at best.
Nothing you have said here indicates that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent.

Use of emergency power spending does not cede the congressional power of the purse to the President. Congress can deny the money, unless it has already been designated and a majority does not revoke that. If Trump can find already allocated funds, and Congress does not deny his use of them, he can constitutionally use the money.

It can eventually go to the Supreme Court to decide. I'm sure you would have no issue with how the Court would decide it since you approve of the judicial right to "interpret" on the basis of personal opinion on what is right.
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 02:04 PM   #14
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Nothing you have said here indicates that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent.

Use of emergency power spending does not cede the congressional power of the purse to the President. Congress can deny the money, unless it has already been designated and a majority does not revoke that. If Trump can find already allocated funds, and Congress does not deny his use of them, he can constitutionally use the money.

It can eventually go to the Supreme Court to decide. I'm sure you would have no issue with how the Court would decide it since you approve of the judicial right to "interpret" on the basis of personal opinion on what is right.
Name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the president has then invoked national emergency powers to get the money anyway.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 02:37 PM   #15
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the president has then invoked national emergency powers to get the money anyway.
I don't offhand know of such a case. Nor do I wish to research it. It is irrelevant to what I said. Do you know that there never was such a case? Why does that matter? If this was the first time it ever happened, does that mean it is improper, or somehow set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent?

If there were no "first time" for anything, nothing would exist. Being the first time does not make something unconstitutional nor make it a dangerous precedent. I pointed out that nothing you said indicated that Trump's invoking of his emergency power would set a dangerous or anti-Constitutional precedent. That is still true, regardless if it had ever happened before or not.
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-17-2019, 06:43 PM   #16
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
Sure he can take the money earmarked to get some of our military families out of the run down, mold invested sh*tholes they are living in to solve a national emergency that even he admits doesn’t really exist. Or he can steal the money earmarked to make our elections safe from foreign governments, we certainly don’t need either of those things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 09:59 AM   #17
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:23 AM   #18
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Two things that make me wonder about the use of the "most" meme.

First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?

Second, what is "most" and why must that mean that the "least" should not also be stopped as well as possible? And is the ratio of the "most/least" a 51/49 or 60/40 or 70/30 or 90/10, etc.? A nebulous notion of "most" is not persuasive in this case in regards to a solution.

So what would be the method of smuggling if the air/sea combination is solved? Would that just mean that "the most" would be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border?
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 01:31 PM   #19
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?
This is pretty convoluted, it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.
spence is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 01:35 PM   #20
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
.

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.
If the DEA says most drugs don't come across the porous border he wants to wall off, no one should claim otherwise. I sthat fair enough?

Now here's a question for you...if you are so confident in relying on the "experts at the DEA" to conclude that the wall won't help put a huge dent in the drug smuggling...how come you're equally quick to dismiss the "experts at the Border Patrol (including the guy Obama picked to head the entire border patrol), who say that a wall will certainly help with a host of problems?

Looks to me, like you instantly agree with one set of experts, and instantly dismiss another set of experts. Depends on whether those experts agree with Trump or not, is that your criteria?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 01:38 PM   #21
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Now here's a question for you...if you are so confident in relying on the "experts at the DEA" to conclude that the wall won't help put a huge dent in the drug smuggling...how come you're equally quick to dismiss the "experts at the Border Patrol (including the guy Obama picked to head the entire border patrol), who say that a wall will certainly help with a host of problems?
I don't believe that's the case.
spence is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:26 AM   #22
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 35,134
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Fascists love a dictator
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stoners love to call everyone fascists



Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Can’t fight the base with facts, they can’t believe the CDC’s stats that deaths can be attributed to 40% prescription opioids, 37% heroin and 46% fentanyl. Blame doctors and the US Pharmas for the first, the Mexican cartels for heroin and China for fentanyl. The DEA says most of the Mexican heroin is coming in by air and sea, but these facts don’t matter, this is and always has been all about a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you put up barriers (like a wall) you can move more resources to other areas. The problem is that both sides have reduced this argument to a brick wall and a stick to beat each other.

The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:27 AM   #23
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.
If something cannot be solved, it is not an emergency. It is a fait accompli.
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:51 AM   #24
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post

The real National Emergency is the National Effing Debt.
You got that right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 12:12 PM   #25
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
You got that right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Applying the "most" meme as a critical factor in how Congress will prioritize it's responsibilities, what do you think is "most" likely to occur, a solution to border problems or to eliminating the national debt? Not that we can depend on it doing anything meaningful in either case.
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 02:16 PM   #26
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
And here's what the head of the BP union had to say...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-patrol-union/

And here, a union survey of 600 agent sin two of the southern border's busiest areas, 89% support the wall.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 03:45 PM   #27
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
And here's what the head of the BP union had to say...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-patrol-union/

And here, a union survey of 600 agent sin two of the southern border's busiest areas, 89% support the wall.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/
And when the current head of the BP union got elected he immediately cozied up to Trump and changed the BP union position on the wall. (Jim, I thought you disliked unions) I posted the link to that previously.
Here is the text
The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

Walls and fences are only a speed bump. People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.

Now show me the survey, not some reporters opinion of what it said.
Surveys are all about the question, not the number of yes or no answers.
I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 07:19 PM   #28
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
And when the current head of the BP union got elected he immediately cozied up to Trump and changed the BP union position on the wall. (Jim, I thought you disliked unions) I posted the link to that previously.
Here is the text
The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

Walls and fences are only a speed bump. People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.

Now show me the survey, not some reporters opinion of what it said.
Surveys are all about the question, not the number of yes or no answers.
I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.
pete, i dislike unions because of their demands for compensation. i never said they are ignorant about what works. 89 % of agents surveyed said a wall would benefit, as did obama’s head of the entire patrol. somehow you know better than they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 03:29 PM   #29
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
This is pretty convoluted,

What's so convoluted about "First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?"

Three simple and related questions. One straightforward statement. No convolution. Sometimes, I think you just like to use certain words. Like "convoluted."


it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.

Now, here you are skirting the borders of convolution, becoming "extremely complex and difficult to follow." Is there some scuttlebutt about whether pineapples are smuggled here more by air and sea than by land? I'm not following your comparison. Exactly what point are you referring to?

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.
Have these "experts" explained how they arrived at their conclusion? That shouldn't be difficult to lay out in order to convince us that their figures are correct. Oh . . . have the experts actually discovered some numbers/ratios about how much comes across the border and how much comes by air and sea? Can you point out what numbers they came up with?

Or do you just take their word, and, as Jim in CT pointed out, do you dismiss the words of other "experts."

And, if the smuggling of narcotics by the air/sea combination is stopped, would that mean that "the most" would then be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border, not even by land? What is the relevant point being made by claiming one method smuggles more than another?
detbuch is offline  
Old 02-18-2019, 04:02 PM   #30
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Have these "experts" explained how they arrived at their conclusion? That shouldn't be difficult to lay out in order to convince us that their figures are correct. Oh . . . have the experts actually discovered some numbers/ratios about how much comes across the border and how much comes by air and sea? Can you point out what numbers they came up with?

Or do you just take their word, and, as Jim in CT pointed out, do you dismiss the words of other "experts."

And, if the smuggling of narcotics by the air/sea combination is stopped, would that mean that "the most" would then be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border, not even by land? What is the relevant point being made by claiming one method smuggles more than another?
Border Patrol and DEA seize about 775 tons of illegal drugs on the southern border and they say the great majority come thru ports of entry. I assume they know what they are talking about at least about where they apprehend the traffickers.
Assuming a human can carry 15 kilos which is a heavy load and likely means they could carry no water or food, it would take 60 people to carry each ton and a large number would be apprehended if any significant amount was moved that way. Border patrol and DEA would certainly be able to determine if that was happening, would they not?

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com