Why Romney Lost

digitalbeachbum's picture

I found this article http://t.news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost and thought it was worth the read.

The GOP has completely lost it and while this hijacking has been slowly taking place over the last twenty years, it has reach a point of either turning back toward the middle and dumping radicals/tea party idiots.

There is no place that the GOP can survive unless they return to the middle. No matter how much money the Koch brothers invest, radicalism eventually leads to the destruction of the country and the people. If that is what they want, then they should be considered enemies of the state.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I found this article http://t.news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost and thought it was worth the read.

The GOP has completely lost it and while this hijacking has been slowly taking place over the last twenty years, it has reach a point of either turning back toward the middle and dumping radicals/tea party idiots.

There is no place that the GOP can survive unless they return to the middle. No matter how much money the Koch brothers invest, radicalism eventually leads to the destruction of the country and the people. If that is what they want, then they should be considered enemies of the state.

Do not use dangerous talk like "enemies of the state" that is exactly the fuel the cooporate welfare queens want to use against us to divide us. It is not a matter of retuning to the center. It is a matter of us telling the truth about the CLIMATE, not individuals, but the climate.

We need to beat the Koch brothers at their own game with the truth. What needs to be weeded out has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with vulture capitalism. I am socially left on social issues such as stay off my body and out of my bedroom. But I am not against the free makret, just an extraction market.

 

The Republcain party when they hear "enimies of the state" are going to turn arround and paint us as communists and I refuse to allow them to continue to get away with that bullshitI

I am not against wealth, just the the John Wayne school of wild west economics . If it were the Republican party of WW2 that invested in the building of our highways and electric grid and we had less of a pay gap and stable jobs, I most certainly would be a republican, but todays republicans are not those republicans. Today's republicans use the dirty tactic of dividing us on religious and economic issues do maintain the status quo where income stagnates or falls and the goal is to model this country like India and China's slave wage market.

The Koch brothers do not represent all wealthy people. Nic Hanour gets it, that billionair recognizes that when we do better in pay and stability the entire market gets better because WE create the demand, he accepts that and he says that he doesn't create jobs and wont hire one more person than he has to so the only way that happens is when demand forces him to.

So please refrain from that kind of talk because I most certainly do not hate all wealthy people nor do I want to end the free market. This is not a left or right issue, but an issue of ethics and tactics and that is the class war that the Koch brothers started to pad their pockets and they use the republcian party to do it.

Instead those on the left and right need to stay focused on demanding better pay, lower cost of living, and INVESTMENT here in the states, through the cooperation of BOTH the government and the private sector.

Wealth is not the enemy of the state, abuse of power and monopoly of ANY KIND OF POWER is the enemy of the state. A plutocracy is what the Koch brothers want, but that is a climate issue not a wealth issue.

If we can get enough wealthy people like Nic Hanour to convince those in that class to stop downsizing and invest directly in the worker and build things here and fix things here that demand that big bussiness needs and we all rightfully want including the rich, then we all can do better.

Again, that is not a party issue or a center issue, that is wallet issue and a condition issue and I refuse to allow anyone to feed the trap they set that distracts you to the point of missing what it really going on.

You and I want the same thing. We want business to thrive here and it needs to thrive here for all of us to do better. So don't let them sell fear by giving them the fuel to sell their fear.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

digitalbeachbum's picture

The US Intelligence

The US Intelligence community as well, the US military uses the term all the time. It isn't exclusive to a communist nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:The US

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The US Intelligence community as well, the US military uses the term all the time. It isn't exclusive to a communist nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

 

The military uses it for people they intend to kill or jail for life. Are you saying I should be killed? Because I disagree with you philosophically? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The US Intelligence community as well, the US military uses the term all the time. It isn't exclusive to a communist nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

 

The military uses it for people they intend to kill or jail for life. Are you saying I should be killed? Because I disagree with you philosophically? 

I think you need to go back and read what I posted again. The answer would be 'no'.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

digitalbeachbum's picture

I found this and I think it

I found this and I think it is a very well written article:

In 1992, Democratic strategist James Carville immortalized the phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid,” making the point that in the end, most presidential elections come down to something pretty simple.

And as we wade through all the post-mortem analyses about what went wrong for Republicans this year – They've permanently marginalized themselves as a party of old white men! They got schooled by the high-tech Obama turnout operation! They were sunk by the loony-tunes gaffes of tea party types! – well, we just keep coming back to something much more basic: “It was the candidate, stupid.”

(read the rest of it here)

http://news.yahoo.com/why-romney-lost-candidate-problem-193231303.html

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The US Intelligence community as well, the US military uses the term all the time. It isn't exclusive to a communist nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_state

 

The military uses it for people they intend to kill or jail for life. Are you saying I should be killed? Because I disagree with you philosophically? 

I think you need to go back and read what I posted again. The answer would be 'no'.

You said 

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There is no place that the GOP can survive unless they return to the middle. No matter how much money the Koch brothers invest, radicalism eventually leads to the destruction of the country and the people. If that is what they want, then they should be considered enemies of the state.

 

I left the GOP because I am far more radical and don't consider it nearly radical enough. I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. So what conclusion can I draw other than you think that my beliefs will lead to the destruction of the country and that I am therefore an "enemy of the state"?

My beef with the Koch brothers is that they are too centrist...so if they are "enemies of the state" I must be even more so...

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving wrote:I see

Beyond Saving wrote:

I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. 

 

Uhm....okay, I normally stay out of these discussions about American politics, as I know next to nothing about it, but whenever you guys use the words "left", "leftist", etc...it just makes my head hurt.


 

So out of curiosity, and to try and place you on a more global scale of the political spectrum, what would be, for example, the most "radical" social policy you'd like to see implemented ? 

 

Not looking for a long discussion or a fight here, just curious. 

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:I left

Beyond Saving wrote:

I left the GOP because I am far more radical and don't consider it nearly radical enough. I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. So what conclusion can I draw other than you think that my beliefs will lead to the destruction of the country and that I am therefore an "enemy of the state"?

My beef with the Koch brothers is that they are too centrist...so if they are "enemies of the state" I must be even more so...

I was speaking about the GOP. I never mentioned you.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

digitalbeachbum's picture

Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:
Uhm....okay, I normally stay out of these discussions about American politics, as I know next to nothing about it, but whenever you guys use the words "left", "leftist", etc...it just makes my head hurt.

So out of curiosity, and to try and place you on a more global scale of the political spectrum, what would be, for example, the most "radical" social policy you'd like to see implemented ? 

Not looking for a long discussion or a fight here, just curious. 

I'm totally with you on this subject as I started a thread about it. Leftist is a completely wrong term to use to describe Liberals or Democrats in America. It's a misnomer. People in America don't really understand what a Leftist is; they have no clue beyond the borders of this political system.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

Anonymouse wrote:Beyond

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. 

 

Uhm....okay, I normally stay out of these discussions about American politics, as I know next to nothing about it, but whenever you guys use the words "left", "leftist", etc...it just makes my head hurt.


 

So out of curiosity, and to try and place you on a more global scale of the political spectrum, what would be, for example, the most "radical" social policy you'd like to see implemented ? 

 

Not looking for a long discussion or a fight here, just curious. 

I support the near elimination of the federal government. Hard to pick which would be considered the most radical but for starters I support eliminating the federal reserve, social security, all forms of federal welfare, medicare, cutting the military at least in half if not more, eliminating the BATF, the department of energy, department of education, elimination of the progressive income tax, elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (agencies that provide subsidies for purchasing houses), complete legalization of all drugs, and an absolute ban on government "investment" or bailouts of private companies. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 

Any form of social program should be handled at the state or local level and even there I prefer a much more restrained government than apparently 99% of people. Imo the main role of government is to referee contracts, make sure we don't kill and steal from each other, and when necessary protect us from external military threats.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I left the GOP because I am far more radical and don't consider it nearly radical enough. I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. So what conclusion can I draw other than you think that my beliefs will lead to the destruction of the country and that I am therefore an "enemy of the state"?

My beef with the Koch brothers is that they are too centrist...so if they are "enemies of the state" I must be even more so...

I was speaking about the GOP. I never mentioned you.

 

Well sure you didn't mention me by name. You did mention to Koch brothers by name, so are they enemies of the state that should be killed or locked up? Mitt Romney? George W. Bush? 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I left the GOP because I am far more radical and don't consider it nearly radical enough. I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. So what conclusion can I draw other than you think that my beliefs will lead to the destruction of the country and that I am therefore an "enemy of the state"?

My beef with the Koch brothers is that they are too centrist...so if they are "enemies of the state" I must be even more so...

I was speaking about the GOP. I never mentioned you.

 

Well sure you didn't mention me by name. You did mention to Koch brothers by name, so are they enemies of the state that should be killed or locked up? Mitt Romney? George W. Bush? 

 

Bush will never be brought to justice, nor Cheney.

Romney? Why, he never got past Governor.

As for the Koch bros? I think they are at the point where they should be considered enemies. Their purpose is not to better the whole of the country. Their purpose is to sacrifice all others to make the country in their vision. These are two guys so rich and powerful that they have nothing better to do than play chess with the United States using the people as pawns.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I left the GOP because I am far more radical and don't consider it nearly radical enough. I see the GOP as nothing other than a slightly less leftist movement than the democrats. So what conclusion can I draw other than you think that my beliefs will lead to the destruction of the country and that I am therefore an "enemy of the state"?

My beef with the Koch brothers is that they are too centrist...so if they are "enemies of the state" I must be even more so...

I was speaking about the GOP. I never mentioned you.

 

Well sure you didn't mention me by name. You did mention to Koch brothers by name, so are they enemies of the state that should be killed or locked up? Mitt Romney? George W. Bush? 

 

Bush will never be brought to justice, nor Cheney.

Romney? Why, he never got past Governor.

As for the Koch bros? I think they are at the point where they should be considered enemies. Their purpose is not to better the whole of the country. Their purpose is to sacrifice all others to make the country in their vision. These are two guys so rich and powerful that they have nothing better to do than play chess with the United States using the people as pawns.

 

 

Well if you are going to shoot or arrest them for being dissidents because they are donating money to political causes you disagree with you better plan on shooting me as well. 

It is really pathetic that you feel a need to suggest using physical force to shut up your opposition. Especially in light of the fact that your side just won an election pretty convincingly. I hope that your kind of thinking is in a minority, although you are not the first person I have seen make such suggestions. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Well if

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well if you are going to shoot or arrest them for being dissidents because they are donating money to political causes you disagree with you better plan on shooting me as well. 

It is really pathetic that you feel a need to suggest using physical force to shut up your opposition. Especially in light of the fact that your side just won an election pretty convincingly. I hope that your kind of thinking is in a minority, although you are not the first person I have seen make such suggestions. 

Don't compare yourself to them. You aren't even close to the power or the amount of influence they wield; and this isn't about donating money to a political cause. It's about the manipulation to make this country in to their "vision".

They have been involved with spending money at the local level and recently were involved here in Florida with trying to get rid of the three Democrat Justices. They also have total control over the Missouri State Government by getting rid of moderate Republicans and putting Fundamentalists. They have been involved with California and several positions there with the same purpose, get rid of Moderates.

Look, I know it's perfectly legal to spend your money on elections, but when some one has so much power and influence it stops being a democracy. I even heard that they donated $100 million to Romney's SuperPAC to have Ryan picked as VP.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Don't

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Don't compare yourself to them. You aren't even close to the power or the amount of influence they wield; and this isn't about donating money to a political cause. It's about the manipulation to make this country in to their "vision".

So we should only kill the super rich people who disagree with you? If I had their kind of money I would probably be spending it in a very similar way except I would have probably thrown $500 million at Gary Johnson instead of at Romney because Romney is too moderate for my tastes. You are still a fucking douche and if you start jailing or killing people based on their peaceful political activism then you better include me too because I am on their side and I don't care who they are. I don't care if you are talking about declaring George Soros an enemy of the state, for the first time in my life I would be on his side. You are a fucking intolerant backward uncivilized asshole. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

They have been involved with spending money at the local level and recently were involved here in Florida with trying to get rid of the three Democrat Justices. They also have total control over the Missouri State Government by getting rid of moderate Republicans and putting Fundamentalists. They have been involved with California and several positions there with the same purpose, get rid of Moderates.

Look, I know it's perfectly legal to spend your money on elections, but when some one has so much power and influence it stops being a democracy. I even heard that they donated $100 million to Romney's SuperPAC to have Ryan picked as VP.

So what? Yeah, they sink a lot of money into a lot of political races, obviously it didn't stop democracy from working because despite all their supposed power their candidates mostly lost. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:So we

Beyond Saving wrote:
So we should only kill the super rich people who disagree with you? If I had their kind of money I would probably be spending it in a very similar way except I would have probably thrown $500 million at Gary Johnson instead of at Romney because Romney is too moderate for my tastes. You are still a fucking douche and if you start jailing or killing people based on their peaceful political activism then you better include me too because I am on their side and I don't care who they are. I don't care if you are talking about declaring George Soros an enemy of the state, for the first time in my life I would be on his side. You are a fucking intolerant backward uncivilized asshole. 

So what? Yeah, they sink a lot of money into a lot of political races, obviously it didn't stop democracy from working because despite all their supposed power their candidates mostly lost. 

Spending money on campaigns is not illegal, "buying elections" is illegal. Either way, if you got caught doing it nothing would happen to you. Nothing will happen to the Koch brothers either.

But yeah, it bothers me that this shit happens and if you did it I would feel the same way about you. Thank goodness you aren't super fucking rich. I wouldn't want to dislike you for buying elections.

LMAO. Sticks and stones may break my bones but your name calling makes you immature, douche, hahahaha.

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving wrote:I

Beyond Saving wrote:

I support the near elimination of the federal government. Hard to pick which would be considered the most radical but for starters I support eliminating the federal reserve, social security, all forms of federal welfare, medicare, cutting the military at least in half if not more, eliminating the BATF, the department of energy, department of education, elimination of the progressive income tax, elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (agencies that provide subsidies for purchasing houses), complete legalization of all drugs, and an absolute ban on government "investment" or bailouts of private companies. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 

 

I'm not sure if doing all that in the US would result in something you would be happy with, but yeah, I get the idea. Thanks.


 

 

 

ProzacDeathWish's picture

 Beyond Saving wrote:I

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I support the near elimination of the federal government. Hard to pick which would be considered the most radical but for starters I support eliminating the federal reserve, social security, all forms of federal welfare, medicare, cutting the military at least in half if not more, eliminating the BATF, the department of energy, department of education, elimination of the progressive income tax, elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (agencies that provide subsidies for purchasing houses), complete legalization of all drugs, and an absolute ban on government "investment" or bailouts of private companies. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 

 

 

                 Beyond, I understand that you identify closely with the Libertarian Party platform.  Although there is wide range of opinions even within the L party ( I used to be a card carrying member, myself ) do you agree with their open borders stance on immigration ?  I think it's insanity.

 


 

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.

Beyond Saving's picture

ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

                 Beyond, I understand that you identify closely with the Libertarian Party platform.  Although there is wide range of opinions even within the L party ( I used to be a card carrying member, myself ) do you agree with their open borders stance on immigration ?  I think it's insanity.

Completely open borders is insanity but I have a difficult time with the issue. My brother lives down in Mexico so I have spent quite a bit of time down there and if I was one of those poor suckers born down in that cesspool I would probably come across the border too. So emotionally I have a hard time getting all worked up over people coming over the border and I couldn't live with myself if I was border patrol or INS preventing people from coming across or shipping them back to a life of certain poverty and violence. That being said, one of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens and their property and there is no question that uncontrolled borders jeopardizes both. 

The problem is that I don't see an obvious solution. Most of the proposed solutions do nothing, like the stupid wall that costs a fortune and slows the average border crosser down by 60 seconds. Amnesty obviously just encourages the practice and attempting to prevent the employment of illegals leads to subjective and inconsistent enforcement which I am not sure the limited benefit is worth the costs. 

The best solution would be to loosen the drug cartels hold on the Mexican government so that law and order can be restored in Mexico reducing violence and poverty and thereby reducing the number of people who desire to cross the border illegally. I believe that legalizing drugs and have domestic producers here in the US would go a long way towards reducing the power of the cartels since most of their money comes from selling marijuana, cocaine and meth across the border.

Another possible solution would be to arm the common population. What happens in those small towns is that groups of cartel thugs, usually 20 something year old males, will come through town armed and take whatever the fuck they want. No one has any weapons to do anything about it, the nearest police are fifty+ miles away, there is no way to contact them and even if you could they probably wouldn't do anything anyway. Usually the thugs just steal money, goods and food- occasionally they decide to slaughter a few people for kicks and giggles. 

Realistically, that probably isn't going to happen in my lifetime so I don't really spend a lot of time worrying about the issue. I don't see any realistic solution on the macro level so I just do what I can on the micro level and improve the lives of a handful of people by helping my brother who is crazy enough to live down there voluntarily. I'm not going to support cracking down on illegals and throwing them out of the country, but neither am I going to try to stop it because as unpleasant as I find it I can see the need for it.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

ProzacDeathWish's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:My

Beyond Saving wrote:

My brother lives down in Mexico so I have spent quite a bit of time down there and if I was one of those poor suckers born down in that cesspool I would probably come across the border too. So emotionally I have a hard time getting all worked up over people coming over the border and I couldn't live with myself if I was border patrol or INS preventing people from coming across or shipping them back to a life of certain poverty and violence.

 

  What disgusts me about the immigration from Mexico itself is that the Mexican government has its own extremely harsh no immigration policy that treats immigrants from Central America and beyond with absolutely no leniency.  Mexico's attitude is basically to say "Fuck you, go home" to the Honduran immigrant who is only seeking the same relief that his Mexican counterpart desires.  That's utterly ruthless and hypocritical.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
That being said, one of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens and their property and there is no question that uncontrolled borders jeopardizes both.

 

   I agree.

Beyong Saving wrote:
... Most of the proposed solutions do nothing, like the stupid wall that costs a fortune and slows the average border crosser down by 60 seconds.

 

   Surely a nation as technically advanced as the US could implement a system that is capable of securing a boundary ?  Yes, it's a large scale project but is it actually beyond our capabilities ?  It could be a system that uses layers of technology.  Physical barriers that force the trespassers into choke points which could then be kept under surveillance, etc.   Perhaps there are even other technologies that could be utilized that could make the trek just too labor intensive, too physically draining for a human body to attempt.  Hell, even something as mighty as a modern Main Battle Tank can be stopped if something as simple as a pit is properly constructed.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Amnesty obviously just encourages the practice and attempting to prevent the employment of illegals leads to subjective and inconsistent enforcement which I am not sure the limited benefit is worth the costs.

 

    Then stop being selective.   Pass Federal legislation ( Yeah, I know ) that absolutely prohibits the hiring of illegals no matter where they're from.  Make the penalties hurt.    Forfeiture of business assets from those who repeatedly hire ineligible workers.   The penalties must be something that a dishonest business owner would truly fear.  No half measures.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The best solution would be to loosen the drug cartels hold on the Mexican government so that law and order can be restored in Mexico reducing violence and poverty and thereby reducing the number of people who desire to cross the border illegally. I believe that legalizing drugs and have domestic producers here in the US would go a long way towards reducing the power of the cartels since most of their money comes from selling marijuana, cocaine and meth across the border.

 

    Makes sense to me.   I love pot.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Another possible solution would be to arm the common population. What happens in those small towns is that groups of cartel thugs, usually 20 something year old males, will come through town armed and take whatever the fuck they want. No one has any weapons to do anything about it, the nearest police are fifty+ miles away, there is no way to contact them and even if you could they probably wouldn't do anything anyway. Usually the thugs just steal money, goods and food- occasionally they decide to slaughter a few people for kicks and giggles.

 

 

    If you're interested here's a website that pulls back the curtain on the shit that is going on down south.  http://www.borderlandbeat.com/      As far as successful vigilante justice against the cartels being perpetuated, well the precedent has already been established in Colombia by the group known as Los Pepes.  It was a combined effort between differing factions ( some unsavory ) and even US involvement, nevertheless it ended the bloody reign of Pablo Escobar, one of the most powerful drug king pins the world had ever seen.

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.

Beyond Saving's picture

ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   Surely a nation as technically advanced as the US could implement a system that is capable of securing a boundary ?  Yes, it's a large scale project but is it actually beyond our capabilities ?  It could be a system that uses layers of technology.  Physical barriers that force the trespassers into choke points which could then be kept under surveillance, etc.   Perhaps there are even other technologies that could be utilized that could make the trek just too labor intensive, too physically draining for a human body to attempt.  Hell, even something as mighty as a modern Main Battle Tank can be stopped if something as simple as a pit is properly constructed.

You would think so but at the end of the day it boils down to people who have nothing and are willing to risk their lives to get here. The only thing that will stop them is killing them and are you really willing to kill them? Because if you stop them and send them home they are just going to try next month. 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

    Then stop being selective.   Pass Federal legislation ( Yeah, I know ) that absolutely prohibits the hiring of illegals no matter where they're from.  Make the penalties hurt.    Forfeiture of business assets from those who repeatedly hire ineligible workers.   The penalties must be something that a dishonest business owner would truly fear.  No half measures.

 

And what you end up with is companies between a rock and a hard place. They are threatened if they hire illegals but if they refuse to hire someone that provides a valid social security number they run the risk of being sued for discriminating by race. From  the companies POV they run into legal trouble for hiring the illegal, but also could face legal trouble for refusing to hire them. And social security numbers are really easy to purchase. I don't see how you effectively separate the dishonest business owners from those who believe they are hiring legal citizens of Mexican descent without at least a few perfectly innocent people being caught in the crossfire. 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

    Makes sense to me.   I love pot.

 

Me too, I try to make sure I am purchasing California kush even though it costs a few extra bucks because I don't like to support the Mexican cartels.  

 

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

    If you're interested here's a website that pulls back the curtain on the shit that is going on down south.  http://www.borderlandbeat.com/      As far as successful vigilante justice against the cartels being perpetuated, well the precedent has already been established in Colombia by the group known as Los Pepes.  It was a combined effort between differing factions ( some unsavory ) and even US involvement, nevertheless it ended the bloody reign of Pablo Escobar, one of the most powerful drug king pins the world had ever seen.

If there were ever some fuckers who deserved to experience some lead between their eyes. It is unfortunate that the US gave up active military participation against drug cartels in the 90's. I know we were pretty active against drug cartels through the 80's but by the time I was in in the late 90's covert US action against drug cartels was pretty much over. The only thing those fuckers understand is brute violence and the Mexican government is incapable of providing sufficient firepower. Without active assistance from a military power like the US, I think Mexico's most logical solution is to provide their honest citizens with weaponry and set up a system similar to the US Marshal service in the 1800's where a single Marshall can deputize and grant legal authority to arrest or kill offenders in areas too rural to have a regular police force.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson