It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama smacks down Trump’s border wall plan

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: imjack

Also, if Mexico really is run by drug lords, then a crack down on the drug trade (instead of facilitating it!) could well be a lever to pull.



Another insanely good point, as a wall only increases the supply and demand. It doesn't STOP them, it makes it harder, yet more profitable.


Yeah, would love to see the designs drug lords come up with for a fence.

Wonder how many hidden tunnels they'd put in.


Drug lords and fences... we should probably stick with talking about the Mexican govt and walls.



What part of the Mexican government is drug lords are you missing?


I am rejecting your entire premise.
Why don't you substantiate your claim?




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: imjack

Also, if Mexico really is run by drug lords, then a crack down on the drug trade (instead of facilitating it!) could well be a lever to pull.



Another insanely good point, as a wall only increases the supply and demand. It doesn't STOP them, it makes it harder, yet more profitable.


Yeah, would love to see the designs drug lords come up with for a fence.

Wonder how many hidden tunnels they'd put in.


Drug lords and fences... we should probably stick with talking about the Mexican govt and walls.



What part of the Mexican government is drug lords are you missing?


I am rejecting your entire premise.
Why don't you substantiate your claim?


www.reviewjournal.com...

edition.cnn.com...

Here are two links to support that notion. I am sure there are more. I really don't think it is a stretch to think that some members of the Mexican government have their hands and pockets in the drug trade.
edit on 8-4-2016 by gator2001 because: To add



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: gator2001

I agree. UK even responding to MexGvt=Druglords though is a waste of time. I mean afterall, Mexico's only learnt from The Best.

Btw drug trade means, you know, two parties. You're telling me the Goverment traders are just selling it to citizens? LOL. Do you know how Goverment works? Let's not Google USA dirty laundry though...*twitch* damnit...too interested...


www.thenewamerican.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: gator2001

Thanks gator.

There have been good politicians that have tried to make a difference. But, it's so bad they have little effect.

It's not worth yours or your families lives.

edit on 8-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: gator2001


originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: imjack

Also, if Mexico really is run by drug lords, then a crack down on the drug trade (instead of facilitating it!) could well be a lever to pull.



Another insanely good point, as a wall only increases the supply and demand. It doesn't STOP them, it makes it harder, yet more profitable.


Yeah, would love to see the designs drug lords come up with for a fence.

Wonder how many hidden tunnels they'd put in.


Drug lords and fences... we should probably stick with talking about the Mexican govt and walls.



What part of the Mexican government is drug lords are you missing?


I am rejecting your entire premise.
Why don't you substantiate your claim?


www.reviewjournal.com...

edition.cnn.com...

Here are two links to support that notion. I am sure there are more. I really don't think it is a stretch to think that some members of the Mexican government have their hands and pockets in the drug trade.


There are a few sources that suggest there are ties between the Mexican govt and drug lords. That is very very different from proclaiming that drug lords run the Mexican govt with no evidence of such. With respect, your links say nothing of the sort - they say there are ties, which you have pointed out.

You see I could just as easily say that drug lords run the US Govt - it would be just as silly and lacking the evidence for such a statement.


edit on 8/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I covered your butterfly because you were more less inacurate, but rejecting the whole premise is just wrong too.

1. They have drugs
2. They have corruption

There's some premise there.

The short answer is you're both wrong.
edit on 8-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth
Yes, it doesn't prove it, but does show ties. I stated they support the notion. My personal belief is they have something to do with it.

I don't think I will go there and investigate. Would you? I don't think I would live very long. What do you think? If you wouldn't feel safe, then what does that tell you?

On the flip side...can you prove that the Mexican government is NOT involved in anyway with the drug lords/drug trade.

Like imjack said, we could talk about our own govt, 3 letter agencies, etc about illegal drug trade activities, but I really don't want to go there now.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: UKTruth

I covered your butterfly because you were more less inacurate, but rejecting the whole premise is just wrong too.

1. They have drugs
2. They have corruption

There's some premise there.

The short answer is you're both wrong.


There is no evidence at all that Trump would be negotiating with Mexican drug lords to build a wall (or fence as it was stated) - which is the premise I am rejecting.
edit on 8/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: UKTruth
Yes, it doesn't prove it, but does show ties. I stated they support the notion. My personal belief is they have something to do with it.

I don't think I will go there and investigate. Would you? I don't think I would live very long. What do you think? If you wouldn't feel safe, then what does that tell you?

On the flip side...can you prove that the Mexican government is NOT involved in anyway with the drug lords/drug trade.

Like imjack said, we could talk about our own govt, 3 letter agencies, etc about illegal drug trade activities, but I really don't want to go there now.


I believe that drugs are tied in some way to most govts. Certainly there are countless investigations into the US Govt's involvement in the drug trade. There is no good evidence that drug lords run America though, or Mexico for that matter. I'd speculate they probably do have influence, through coercion or not.
edit on 8/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Why not? Supply and demand is a possible motive, and artificial supply and demand are even bigger these days as I'm sure a wall would stop nothing.

Either way, don't argue with me, my initial comment was Annee's comment was a waste of time to even dispute. Do you disagree?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: UKTruth

Why not? Supply and demand is a possible motive, and artificial supply and demand are even bigger these days as I'm sure a wall would stop nothing.

Either way, don't argue with me, my initial comment was Annee's comment was a waste of time to even dispute. Do you disagree?


I think the initial comment was a waste of time - yes.
Any sweeping statement that is not supported with substantial evidence should be rejected.

I am more interested in discussing how the wall could be paid for by Mexico



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: UKTruth

Why not? Supply and demand is a possible motive, and artificial supply and demand are even bigger these days as I'm sure a wall would stop nothing.

Either way, don't argue with me, my initial comment was Annee's comment was a waste of time to even dispute. Do you disagree?


I am more interested in discussing how the wall could be paid for by Mexico


Wouldn't matter what anyone presented to you, you'd find an excuse.

Yes, please tell me how to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
edit on 8-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: UKTruth

Why not? Supply and demand is a possible motive, and artificial supply and demand are even bigger these days as I'm sure a wall would stop nothing.

Either way, don't argue with me, my initial comment was Annee's comment was a waste of time to even dispute. Do you disagree?


I am more interested in discussing how the wall could be paid for by Mexico


Wouldn't matter what anyone presented to you, you'd find an excuse.

Yes, please tell me how to get Mexico to pay for the wall.


I have already contributed some ideas on that score.
I don't need to find an excuse to reject your guarantee that Mexico won't pay for the wall and that the Mexican govt is run by drug dealers. It is for you to substantiate those claims. Town gossip near the border and some links between drugs and the Mexican govt is not even close to being enough.
So, unless you have proof of what you are claiming, I will assume you were offering an opinion as opposed to a real guarantee or any facts.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011
I am tired of seeing Mexicans in line with welfare card for food.They put a few hundred on it. Then they go to customer service . They get a money order to send back to Mexico. Then they get hurt. Go to our hospitals and get charity care. Unbelievable ! How stupid are we. That is why I am voting Trump , the way I understand lying Cruz Wii not use his God given name of Ralphael Cruz . Do not need a President who lies and is a shame of his name.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Here is an interesting piece on the remittances angle to Trumps plans...

Directo a Mexico Program

Seems Trump was on to something - again.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I bet if the money was actually cut off from going back to people families in Mexico would simply stop all cooperation in patrolling the border.

Forget putting up more walls because the ones that are there now would be torn down. They would just attach some chains to them and drive off to the scrap yard with them.

edit on 8-4-2016 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I bet if the money was actually cut off from going back to people families Mexico would simply stop all cooperation in patrolling the border.

Forget putting up more walls because the ones that are there now would be torn down. They would just attach some chains to them and drive off to the scrap yard with them.


Maybe - but they would risk a lot by what would effectively be an attack on America. They have far more to lose and a much weaker hand. I think this is a good negotiating chip that Trump has identified.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually they have a much stronger hand than you think.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think this is a good negotiating chip that Trump has identified.

Not really.

Ban remittance to Mexico, they will just send it to an intermediary first. Ban remittance to every host nation of intermediaries and you are gonna be awful short on trade partners.

Trump's plan has zero chance of working because it assumes that anything that occurs between the US and Mexico has no bearing on the relationship between the US and any other trade partner, which is far from the reality.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think this is a good negotiating chip that Trump has identified.

Not really.

Ban remittance to Mexico, they will just send it to an intermediary first. Ban remittance to every host nation of intermediaries and you are gonna be awful short on trade partners.

Trump's plan has zero chance of working because it assumes that anything that occurs between the US and Mexico has no bearing on the relationship between the US and any other trade partner, which is far from the reality.


This assumes that the US had no influence on electronic transfers outside its borders on money entering Mexico. There wil of course always be ways around it, but making it difficult is going to cost Mexico. I assume that is why Bush made it easier in the first place , back in 2006?
edit on 8/4/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join