161

They’ll have to prove it. Ain’t no way congress will sign off on any invasion of Mexico. A bunch of American politicians depend entirely on Mexican-Americans voting for them. A new American-Mexican war would really piss off that demographic. The political logistics aren’t there.

162

Another good Agenda 47 hit… gather homeless people into mass tent cities on inexpensive parcels of land by banning urban camping and arresting people who are homeless.

That one is cool.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-ending-the-nightmare-of-the-homeless-drug-addicts-and-dangerously-deranged

163

Protecting our border is smart. Use the military. I’m down.

164

Stuff like this has been out there for at least as long as anyone on this board has been a voter. Both liberal and conservative. Satellite groups put out manifestos like this all the time. They end up being a waste of paper (or pixels.)

And the fearmongering over this one is clearly working on the weak minded.

1 Like
165

Why shouldn’t cartels be treated the same as terrorists? They use the same tactics.

1 Like
166

On our side of the border, go for it.

Invading Mexico is a bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons. And it’s not like we haven’t tried it before. Pershing spent the better part of a year chasing Pancho Villa through northern Mexico and never got close.

167

Because turning a law enforcement issue into a military issue comes with some bull ■■■■ I don’t think we are ready to get into so soon after the War on Terror. America needs a post-Vietnam style rebuilding period before we go off adventuring again.

168

No, post the entire conversation where that little snip you like to trot out was used.

This shouldn’t be hard.

169

Yeah that’s just dumb. But it’s how we handle homelessness. On both sides of the debate. We criminalize it. Rather than trying to look at why it happens. It’s a symptom that home priced and rents are completely out of control in many parts of this country and no one has proposed any real way to deal with it.

170

That’s obvious based on who’s here spouting it.

171

And abide by the Constitution under which abortion is one of those objects retained by the States and people therein under the Tenth Amendment. Do you have a problem with that?

Madison informs us, in Federalist No. 45, that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Additionally, the Tenth Amendment declares:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
.

Seems to me you object to adhereing to the text and legislative intent of our Constitution and prefer the Humpt Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

172

Did you not live through the 80’s?

173

I was born in the late 80s. The Berlin Wall was literally coming down when I was born. I was a toddler when the USSR collapsed.

So I’m not really a Cold Warrior. That’s before my time.

174

Just say what you are looking for and please don’t make me guess.

175

I was talking about the cartels and our involvement during that time.

176

Dictator from day one. Context. Post the conversation.

177

Ramping up the criminalization of homelessness and forcing them into tent cities.

Seems like a logical plan

178

You are thinking of someone else.

179

Oh. Well it didn’t do too much good since the cocaine market expanded as the 80s wore on rather than being diminished.

The war on drugs is a waste of lives and resources. Humans like to get ■■■■■■ up. Always have and always will. By overly criminalizing it, we entice people like the Narcos to get into the business. Because it makes big money.

The war on drugs makes them even richer by complicating the supply, allowing them to charge more. But the supply will always get through because the demand will never ever decrease.

1 Like
180

California says hello.