Current Events > President Trump: Mexico ranked 2nd most dangerous

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Mexico was just ranked the second most deadly country in the world, after only Syria. Drug trade is largely the cause. We will BUILD THE WALL."

-President Trump, via social media
---

is this a real quote

Are you sure that isn't a quote from the Fact Sphere in Portal 2?
---

It's on Facebook. I would post a photo shot, but I don't want yall backwards-searching who I am.
---

our president is stupid as fuck

what a dumbass
---

source: his wrinkly, sagging orange ass

southcoast09 posted...

It's on Facebook. I would post a photo shot, but I don't want yall backwards-searching who I am.

Can confirm it's real.
---

southcoast09 posted...

It's on Facebook. I would post a photo shot, but I don't want yall backwards-searching who I am.

how do you look? anything to be ashamed of?

ask your parents
---

based trump
---

Metua posted...

Are you sure that isn't a quote from the Fact Sphere in Portal 2?

Fact Sphere would be a better president than Donald Trump.
---

MarkIngramTD posted...

southcoast09 posted...

It's on Facebook. I would post a photo shot, but I don't want yall backwards-searching who I am.

how do you look? anything to be ashamed of?

ask your parents

That doesn't even make sense.
---

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-mexicos-2016-murder-tally-exceeds-those-of-many-countries-at-war-study-2017-5

Mexico had the second-highest number of murders last year among countries considered in "armed conflict," according to a report published on Tuesday.

I'm not seeing a problem with his statement...?
---

President Trump:

"I am very supportive of the Senate #HealthCareBill. Look forward to making it really special! Remember, Obamacare is dead."
---

Mal_Fet posted...

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-mexicos-2016-murder-tally-exceeds-those-of-many-countries-at-war-study-2017-5

Mexico had the second-highest number of murders last year among countries considered in "armed conflict," according to a report published on Tuesday.

I'm not seeing a problem with his statement...?

If for no other reason, a wall would be ineffective and grossly inefficient.
---

Mexico has always been dangerous in the drug trade but its not like they are gonna hop the border and starting shooting american citizens.

Plus that stupid wall isnt going to stop illegal drugs coming over and the US will not stop selling guns to Mexico
---

I4NRulez posted...

Mexico has always been dangerous in the drug trade but its not like they are gonna hop the border and starting shooting american citizens.

Plus that stupid wall isnt going to stop illegal drugs coming over and the US will not stop selling guns to Mexico

Uhh yeah, that's kinda the idea. It's the drugs flowing in through this come-and-go-as-you-please atmosphere. The border security is undermanned and not allowed (under obama) to locate the tunnels being used for the drugs and human traffic. The vast majority of all drugs coming in are from Mexico. Fact.
---

EnragedSlith posted...

If for no other reason, a wall would be ineffective and grossly inefficient.

So why does Mexico have a southern border wall?
---

southcoast09 posted...

Uhh yeah, that's kinda the idea. It's the drugs flowing in through this come-and-go-as-you-please atmosphere. The border security is undermanned and not allowed (under obama) to locate the tunnels being used for the drugs and human traffic. The vast majority of all drugs coming in are from Mexico. Fact.

There's no come and go attitude to the Mexico/US border, if you've never crossed it then you have no idea.

Also the wall wont do anything to stop the drug trade. The better option would be to use the money from the wall to beef up the border patrol.
---

The border is impossible to protect completely without the physical structure. We would need more people than possible to effectively guard it, otherwise.

They have tunnels, paths, they use boats, etc. Meanwhile, the border security now is practically unable to do anything other than check passports coming in and out.
---

The obvious solution is to lax drug laws and allow a standard market to form that would dry up and eventually destroy the black market fueling drug cartels. A wall isn't inherently stupid, but it doesn't address the actual problem, and the inevitable collusion between cartels & border patrol would render the wall useless, between the fallibility of people when enticed by money, between the prominence of underground tunnels, and the sheer length of the border.

Mal_Fet posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

If for no other reason, a wall would be ineffective and grossly inefficient.

So why does Mexico have a southern border wall?

#1: Is it effective?

#2: The U.S. Mexico border is significantly larger to the extent that we would not have the resources to secure it in any sort of totality.

Libertarian thought prevails on this issue.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

If for no other reason, a wall would be ineffective and grossly inefficient.

So why does Mexico have a southern border wall?

I know you're a troll but you're really trying to draw a comparison between 2 countries with vastly different situations on the southern border.
---

southcoast09 posted...

The border is impossible to protect completely without the physical structure. We would need more people than possible to effectively guard it, otherwise.

A physical structure would not keep heavily armed cartel gangs out of the country if it wasn't manned. Beyond the fact that you can dig and the fact that ladders exist, they're just as happy flinging or using using drones to carry over supplies across the border. A wall prevents none of this unmanned, and by your own admission, we do not have the people required to man it across 2000 miles.

It's a waste of time, money, and effort when the better solution is to take away their funding by giving currently illegal substances to the hands of business and American markets.
---

I4NRulez posted...

its not like they are gonna hop the border and starting shooting american citizens.

They did it once, they'll do it again.

Remember the Alamo.

No I'm not being serious
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

southcoast09 posted...

The border is impossible to protect completely without the physical structure. We would need more people than possible to effectively guard it, otherwise.

A physical structure would not keep heavily armed cartel gangs out of the country if it wasn't manned. Beyond the fact that you can dig and the fact that ladders exist, they're just as happy flinging or using using drones to carry over supplies across the border. A wall prevents none of this unmanned, and by your own admission, we do not have the people required to man it across 2000 miles.

It's a waste of time, money, and effort when the better solution is to take away their funding by giving currently illegal substances to the hands of business and American markets.

Also it would make more sense to hire more border guards than building a wall if the problem is we don't have enough guards.
---

Basically: Trump is a moron. Anybody who has a basic grasp on reality should understand that he's a shit President. You don't need CNN's overindulgence, Russian conspiracies, or obsessing over Trump's gaffes to understand that his policy is shit, he's a hypocrite, and he's a shitty president. I don't think any informed person with intellectual integrity could possibly defend him after he signed off on giving money to Saudi Arabia and Qatar after spending his campaign talking about the dangers of Islamic terrorism.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

#1: Is it effective?

Well since around 60% of illegal aliens come into the US by land, even assuming as many as half of them would find another way, that represents a gigantic chunk of the illegal immigration coming into the US.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

#2: The U.S. Mexico border is significantly larger to the extent that we would not have the resources to secure it in any sort of totality.

Oh please, CNN's figures for the wall are 15 billion and even that high-balled estimate is minuscule than the 113 billion that illegal immigration costs us every year.

It's amazing how Leftists suddenly become libertarians when it comes to paying for something they don't like.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform.html
---

GeneralZhao posted...

I know you're a troll but you're really trying to draw a comparison between 2 countries with vastly different situations on the southern border.

Yeah, the country south of us has a way higher murder rate than the country south of Mexico.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So why does Mexico have a southern border wall?

The Southern wall is as much of a wall as we have now and it still doesnt work.
---

Last I checked, Guatemala is even worse than Mexico and is known as the murder capital of the world, and is also part of North America.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

#1: Is it effective?

Well since around 60% of illegal aliens come into the US by land, even assuming as many as half of them would find another way, that represents a gigantic chunk of the illegal immigration coming into the US.

No, I'm asking if the border wall at the Southern Mexican Border is effective. Never mind the fact that our border wall would be nearly four times as long and thus much harder to defend. Besides, this is about the threat that drug cartels present to the U.S. - not illegal immigration. The latter is related to the subject of a wall, but Trump is explicitly referring to drug cartels here. I have my own ideas to solve illegal immigration.

Oh please, CNN's figures for the wall are 15 billion and even that high-balled estimate is minuscule than the 113 billion that illegal immigration costs us every year.

It's amazing how Leftists suddenly become libertarians when it comes to paying for something they don't like.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform.html

Mal, it's not about the cost of the border wall, it's about our number of border patrol agents and how unmanned sections of the wall would not be effective, and how spreading border patrol thin would make sections of that border patrol more likely to be compromised by bribing from either the Mexican government or cartel groups.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

southcoast09 posted...

The border is impossible to protect completely without the physical structure. We would need more people than possible to effectively guard it, otherwise.

A physical structure would not keep heavily armed cartel gangs out of the country if it wasn't manned. Beyond the fact that you can dig and the fact that ladders exist, they're just as happy flinging or using using drones to carry over supplies across the border. A wall prevents none of this unmanned, and by your own admission, we do not have the people required to man it across 2000 miles.

It's a waste of time, money, and effort when the better solution is to take away their funding by giving currently illegal substances to the hands of business and American markets.

Also it would make more sense to hire more border guards than building a wall if the problem is we don't have enough guards.

Has this ever been brought up along with better tech? >__>
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

No, I'm asking if the border wall at the Southern Mexican Border is effective.

May as well ask if the Israeli border wall works.

Of-fucking course it does. Why the hell wouldn't it?
---

People are just mad about his issue because Trump brought it up.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

<
May as well ask if the Israeli border wall works.

Of-fucking course it does. Why the hell wouldn't it?

Citations needed, etc. Collusion, inadequate security, poor infrastructure, etc. are a number of reasons a border wall may not function properly. Even still, the lengths of the borders we're discussing make comparisons pointless to the U.S.-Mexico border.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Mal, it's not about the cost of the border wall, it's about our number of border patrol agents and how unmanned sections of the wall would not be effective, and how spreading border patrol thin would make sections of that border patrol more likely to be compromised by bribing from either the Mexican government or cartel groups.

The cost of more border guards would also be way less than the annual cost of illegal immigration.
---

southcoast09 posted...

People are just mad about his issue because Trump brought it up.

Notice how they completely shut up about his quote when I posted the statistic he was citing?

just lol
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The cost of more border guards would also be way less than the annual cost of illegal immigration.

Why are you stuck on illegal immigration? This is about the danger and influence of drug cartels, as the murder rates in Mexico are due to the vast influence cartels have over police and the Mexican government. Illegal immigration is a side effect of Mexico's current situation. The goal is to kill the thing that gives cartels power, and that's their money.

Of course, reality isn't Tower Defense, either - you can't will border patrol agents into existence.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Why are you stuck on illegal immigration? This is about the danger and influence of drug cartels, as the murder rates in Mexico are due to the vast influence cartels have over police and the Mexican government. Illegal immigration is a side effect of Mexico's current situation. The goal is to kill the thing that gives cartels power, and that's their money.

Why can't we quell illegal immigration AND prevent drugs from coming over?

I mean, in both cases we need more border security, right?
---

Essentially - the war is being fought over a resource. One side deems it valuable due to its monetary value caused by its demand, and the other deems it illegal due to moral reasons. The consequences of this have resulted in:

-Gang culture in the United States and Mexico by providing a resource that gives money.

-Illegal immigration by reducing the stability of our neighbor to the south, leading either families or people participating in gangs to illegally immigrate.

Illegal immigration is a problem because the U.S. needs all the money it can get to fund domestic programs, and illegal immigrants - i.e., citizens of another nation - are entering the country taking resources of the native citizens. I oppose this. I don't take issue with amnesty for illegal immigrants who have stayed for long periods of time, but the general message should be sovereignty. I'm economically nationalist. I hate Trump because he is a fake nationalist. He is, in fact, an oligarch. He does not care about the common man despite running an entire campaign claiming to care.

Trump's solution: Poorly manned wall with strained effectiveness, Mexico remains unstable, cartels remain rich, gangs in U.S. exist.

My solution: Reduced illegal immigration, Mexico has a change of gaining stability in the next 1-2 decades, cartels are drained of funds, and gangs in U.S. no longer have the funding to operate.

The main concern of mass drug legalization is the potential for addiction epidemics, but this seems to have not afflicted other countries that legalized illicit substances. Ergo, we take the leap, because increased drug addiction is still preferable to the all-ends-assfucking we're receiving right now under our current drug policy. Same went with the prohibition. The acceptable losses are the consequences of freedom - people doing what they will with their own bodies - rather than the government funding an ineffective war causing a pile of national problems that both Democrats and Republicans seem to recognize, even if they don't agree on what the particular important one is.

This probably illustrates my viewpoint better.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Essentially - the war is being fought over a resource. One side deems it valuable due to its monetary value caused by its demand, and the other deems it illegal due to moral reasons. The consequences of this have resulted in:

You're not going to get an argument from me over ending the drug war.

But nothing you said proves the wall would be ineffective. You just claim it will be poorly-maintained and under-staffed. I see no reason to believe these are valid concerns, given the amount of money a maintained wall would save us in the long run.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

#1: Is it effective?

Well since around 60% of illegal aliens come into the US by land, even assuming as many as half of them would find another way, that represents a gigantic chunk of the illegal immigration coming into the US.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

#2: The U.S. Mexico border is significantly larger to the extent that we would not have the resources to secure it in any sort of totality.

Oh please, CNN's figures for the wall are 15 billion and even that high-balled estimate is minuscule than the 113 billion that illegal immigration costs us every year.

It's amazing how Leftists suddenly become libertarians when it comes to paying for something they don't like.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform.html

What a shitty source. Fox News doesn't even act like it reliable.

FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

---

Mal_Fet posted...

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-mexicos-2016-murder-tally-exceeds-those-of-many-countries-at-war-study-2017-5

Mexico had the second-highest number of murders last year among countries considered in "armed conflict," according to a report published on Tuesday.

I'm not seeing a problem with his statement...?

The problem is saying a country is the second deadliest based on the fact it has the second most murders of countries in armed conflict is pretty stupid. How do they compare when you take into account population size? What about countries that aren't in armed conflict.

Of-fucking course it does. Why the hell wouldn't it?

Because their "wall" is the same as the current US one which apparently doesn't work.

I love how the guy knows that he's under intense scrutiny, yet will still shamelessly make shit up on the cuff and post it on twitter with no fucks given.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

southcoast09 posted...

People are just mad about his issue because Trump brought it up.

Notice how they completely shut up about his quote when I posted the statistic he was citing?

just lol

I know. Statistics are the opposition's main weakness! Way to shut them down!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Notice how they completely shut up about his quote when I posted the statistic he was citing?

just lol

The problem isnt the statistic, the problem is that the wall isnt a good idea
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

I love how the guy knows that he's under intense scrutiny, yet will still shamelessly make shit up on the cuff and post it on twitter with no fucks given.

So, you think Trump proposing a border wall is a new thing? Wow. The 51% who spoke for trump (because when you take away the illegal, dead, duplicate, etc. votes, he won the popular vote.) have a right to have a voice without being mocked.
---

southcoast09 posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I love how the guy knows that he's under intense scrutiny, yet will still shamelessly make shit up on the cuff and post it on twitter with no fucks given.

So, you think Trump proposing a border wall is a new thing? Wow. The 51% who spoke for trump (because when you take away the illegal, dead, duplicate, etc. votes, he won the popular vote.) have a right to have a voice without being mocked.

They clearly deserve to be mocked when they quote partisan bullshit and lie tanks like Mal_Fet's FAIR group.
---

Best Trump quote of the week is when he proposed to add solar panels to the border wall so he could make it cheaper for Mexico to pay for it...
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I love how the guy knows that he's under intense scrutiny, yet will still shamelessly make shit up on the cuff and post it on twitter with no fucks given.

So, you think Trump proposing a border wall is a new thing? Wow. The 51% who spoke for trump (because when you take away the illegal, dead, duplicate, etc. votes, he won the popular vote.) have a right to have a voice without being mocked.

They clearly deserve to be mocked when they quote partisan bullshit and lie tanks like Mal_Fet's FAIR group.

So, who is bipartisan? Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders?

Don't make me laugh. We literally have the left sawing off the country's nose to spite the 51%. They are (not everybody, but the politicians and many individuals) childishly mutinous. Stomping their feet and digging in their heels, just as a child who didn't want to leave the pool may do.

Years 1-4 are fun and games. He's literally letting them pretend they have more say than they do. Why else, you may ask, has he not just done what obama did every time the voice of reason spoke, and issue an executive order?

Day one of year five we are going to see the executive orders come into the picture. Until then, just enjoy the calls for impeachment over his portions of ice cream. Bernie Sanders is doing the right thing and trying to rejuvenate the democratic party by splitting it again. More power to him. The incumbent usually wins, so you can take your money to Vegas on this one, if Sanders proceeds with this.
---