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.

 

Is Donald Trump using Colorado and other recent loses just to fire up his base?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




As history has shown it is a rather stupid idea, fixed fortifications are moronic, ask the French with the Maginot Line and the Chinese with the Great Wall, both were circumvented and/or overrun.


The Great Wall predates the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) and is over 13,000 miles long. The Maginot isn't even close to being a wall, but was a rather weak attempt of defense culminating into an epic French failure. Both those walls were built to protect against invading military armies not hordes of benefit beggars. Completely different concepts unless your fearing Santa Anna rising from the grave screaming viva la revolucion as he storms the border. With a standing army at the wall using 21st century technology it's a whole different situation compared to nearly a century ago, much less ancient history.



I am not questioning the use of Executive Orders. I am questioning them when they are used to circumvent the other branches of government as you are suggesting should occur.


Huh? I'm not suggesting anything, I'm bringing you up to speed of the realities of how government works these days. It doesn't make it right, but that's the way it it is, like it or not. Also, it isn't any new revelation the EO's are issued to circumvent congress, many times citing "national security". It doesn't make it right, but unfortunately it's just the way it is.

edit on 18-4-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
The Great Wall predates the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) and is over 13,000 miles long.


Wah? 13,000 miles is more than the diameter of the earth. The current one dates from the Ming Dynasty and has 3,800 miles of actual wall.


The Maginot isn't even close to being a wall, but was a rather weak attempt of defense culminating into an epic French failure. Both those walls were built to protect against invading military armies not hordes of benefit beggars. Completely different concepts...


Actually, they are not. The point is a fixed fortification is easily circumvented. We have a fence in many of the critical areas now and it is tunneled under, climbed over and holed through.

Either way, Dorito Man cannot secure funding for it without Congress. Kinda sad how people fall for his bulls*** and do not even understand how the budgetary process functions.





edit on 18-4-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Wah? 13,000 miles is more than the diameter of the earth. The current one dates from the Ming Dynasty and has 3,800 miles of actual wall.


Please read and pay particular attention to the text in red:

The Great Wall stretches from Dandong in the east, to Lop Lake in the west, along an arc that roughly delineates the southern edge of Inner Mongolia. A comprehensive archaeological survey, using advanced technologies, has concluded that the Ming walls measure 8,850 km (5,500 mi). This is made up of 6,259 km (3,889 mi) sections of actual wall, 359 km (223 mi) of trenches and 2,232 km (1,387 mi) of natural defensive barriers such as hills and rivers. Another archaeological survey found that the entire wall with all of its branches measure out to be 21,196 km (13,171 mi).

The point being our border is far shorter and easier to manage than 13,000 miles worth of wall.



Actually, they are not. The point is a fixed fortification is easily circumvented. We have a fence in many of the critical areas now and it is tunneled under, climbed over and holed through.


What is standing now is Swiss cheese compared to what would be built. It's easily circumvented because the current administration is tying the hands of the vastly undermanned border patrol. You need a serious effort with actual government support down there before we can go spouting off about how easily it's circumvented.

What it amounts to down there right now is a complete joke, and like it or not, you can't ignore the never ending pleas from Arizona of "DO SOMETHING!" Between the lack of any help, outright subversion from the Obama administration, the patchwork quilt excuse for a wall, and the obvious and dangerous under-manning of the border patrol it doesn't take rocket science to see how it could be circumvented.

edit on 18-4-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
A comprehensive archaeological survey, using advanced technologies, has concluded that the Ming walls measure 8,850 km (5,500 mi). This is made up of 6,259 km (3,889 mi) sections of actual wall).


Which is what I said. When people discuss the Great Wall they are talking about the Ming Dynasty construction and not earthen berms from a thousand years before.



What is standing now is Swiss cheese compared to what would be built. It's easily circumvented because the current administration is tying the hands of the vastly undermanned border patrol. You need a serious effort with actual government support down there before we can go spouting off about how easily it's circumvented.


Ah, so besides a wall you are going to need resources to man it because an unmanned wall is pretty damn useless. Still waiting for you to explain how President Camacho Dorito gets the funding from Congress for this.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Ah, so besides a wall you are going to need resources to man it because an unmanned wall is pretty damn useless. Still waiting for you to explain how President Camacho Dorito gets the funding from Congress for this.


Of course you need resources to man it, but we're already doing it right now with the Border Patrol. This is already being funded, so it just needs additional funding and manpower. Manpower is easily attained by pulling overseas deployed troops back here where they should be to protect the U.S. directly. These additional border guards would already have funding since their already being paid through their military service. There would still be additional costs involved, but the additional cost compared to the long term savings of not having illegals on the U.S. taxpayers dime would alone make it well worth it.

The wall is being circumvented because the current administration is tying the hands of the vastly undermanned border patrol. I'll restate my point: You need a serious effort with actual federal government support down there before we can go spouting off about how easily it's circumvented. Even you have to admit that the border would be far more secure with a real wall that's properly manned compared to what basically amounts right now to paper mache being guarded by a turnstile.



edit on 19-4-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
This is already being funded, so it just needs additional funding and manpower.


'It is already being funded but it needs more funding'? I see irony is not your strong suit. Where do the extra funds come from, Donny's bank account or Congress?


Manpower is easily attained by pulling overseas deployed troops back here where they should be to protect the U.S. directly.


I guess you were unaware that the United States uniformed military has been prohibited by Federal law since 1878 from deploying domestically, right? Guess who makes Federal law.


Even you have to admit that the border would be far more secure with a real wall that's properly manned compared to what basically amounts right now to paper mache being guarded by a turnstile.


Actually, I am pro-legal immigration. We need to make it easier for all non-criminals to come to the United States. Immigration is good for the economy and the country's future. Xenophobia is for idiots.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



'It is already being funded but it needs more funding'? I see irony is not your strong suit. Where do the extra funds come from, Donny's bank account or Congress?


I'll spoon feed you this one since your not seeing the obvious. If we use currently deployed troops to man the wall that means they would come home. Deploying troops and operating bases overseas cost huge sums of money. If your not doing this anymore with some bases and troops it would be a huge savings. THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY WOULD COME FROM. Hello!



I guess you were unaware that the United States uniformed military has been prohibited by Federal law since 1878 from deploying domestically, right? Guess who makes Federal law.


Posse Comitatus? Sorry, but you're way wrong. With matters of national security the military can be deployed domestically whether you'd like to think so or not.



Actually, I am pro-legal immigration. We need to make it easier for all non-criminals to come to the United States. Immigration is good for the economy and the country's future. Xenophobia is for idiots.


No surprise there, but you know the greatest thing in the world? You don't speak for everybody. What may be great for you doesn't apply to everyone else. Sorry to rain on your immigration parade, but it's way too easy for the criminals to come over too.

Also feel free to carry on with calling people who don't agree with you idiots. It's certainly not xenophobia, but really nice try at clouding the issue with empty rhetoric. I and millions of other Americans are sick of paying for the millions of free benefit banditos.

Desperation always rears it's ugly head in the form of (in this case) thinly veiled personal attacks. Pretty weak, but if that's what toots your horn, have at it. We can all clearly see what your all about, oh and don't forget your "super secret society handshake".



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
I'll spoon feed you this one since your not seeing the obvious. If we use currently deployed troops to man the wall that means they would come home.

...

Posse Comitatus? Sorry, but you're way wrong. With matters of national security the military can be deployed domestically whether you'd like to think so or not.


Incorrect. Federal law prevents uniformed military personnel from being deployed domestically despite whatever Trump wet dream his supporters may be having. Give me one example where troop were deployed domestically in any capacity similar to what you are implying. No need to look, it never happened.



No surprise there, but you know the greatest thing in the world? You don't speak for everybody.


Considering the United States is a nation of immigrants I think I speak for more of them then the xenophobes do.



Also feel free to carry on with calling people who don't agree with you idiots. It's certainly not xenophobia, but really nice try at clouding the issue with empty rhetoric. I and millions of other Americans are sick of paying for the millions of free benefit banditos.


People who can emigrate legally contribute more than those who do not, this is a fact and contribution to the system is what we require.


Desperation always rears it's ugly head in the form of (in this case) thinly veiled personal attacks. Pretty weak, but if that's what toots your horn, have at it. We can all clearly see what your all about, oh and don't forget your "super secret society handshake".


History proves it is idiotic from the Know Nothings to all the waves of anti-immigrant rhetoric that has assaulted each group that came to this country. Immigration is what made this country great.

Oh, and while I am doing my super secret handshake I can watch all the modern Know Nothings use their hands for a giant circle jerk which was doomed to fail before it even started.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Give me one example where troop were deployed domestically in any capacity similar to what you are implying. No need to look, it never happened.


Wrong again.

Federal military personnel have a long history of domestic roles, including the occupation of secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.

On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions"
.


Is documented evidence of it happening previously enough for you? Or do you require another example?




Oh, and while I am doing my super secret handshake I can watch all the modern Know Nothings use their hands for a giant circle jerk which was doomed to fail before it even started.


If being labeled a "modern know nothing" means I'm not a Freemason deceived into worshiping Lucifer under the guise of the "Great Architect of the Universe" then I'm in great shape. Good luck with your membership at Club Satan.
edit on 20-4-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
Wrong again.

Federal military personnel have a long history of domestic roles, including the occupation of secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction.


And when did the Federal law pass preventing troops from being deployed domestically? Before or after reconstruction? No need to answer, that was rhetorical.


On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions"


Glad you cited evidence which proves that troops would not be legally permitted to patrol domestically as they were in violation for simply working a homicide scene.

I guess Generalisimo Naranja will have to walk the border alone since uniformed personnel cannot be deployed there.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Give me one example where troop were deployed domestically in any capacity similar to what you are implying. No need to look, it never happened.


I gave you more than one example where it happened. Even though you claimed in never did. You were wrong.


I'll ask this just once:

Can you read? If so, please read red text.

Federal military personnel have a long history of domestic roles, including the occupation of secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.

Defending the wall is a homeland defense role.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
I gave you more than one example where it happened. Even though you claimed in never did. You were wrong.


Stop being obtuse, you well knew that it was a request for after the Federal law was passed and the best you had were some troops that took it upon themselves to police a homicide scene which they were then reprimanded for doing. Not exactly supporting your point now, is it?



Defending the wall is a homeland defense role.


Is it? Legal precedent and Federal law says 'no'.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
SO. looks like the people spoke in NY. He is not at 955 and there are multiple states he will take next week. There are over 200 unbound delegates. It is a done deal...




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join