No… (AI satisfying words here)
372 trips i think.
6 Likes
Two days ago, the caravan was “yards from the border” in Tijuana.
So he waited until the caravan got there, and then pulled out the troops?
4 Likes
I suppose there is just enough of a razor-fine line between those two statements that in debate club one could argue that they are not contradictory. This is not debate club.
You are describing a feudal society, pretty much the polar opposite of a socialist one. You can’t make words mean their opposite just by saying so.
13 Likes
You know that “conservative” and “Republican” aren’t interchangeable terms, right?
The Republican Party of the 19th and early 20th Centuries was the more progressive of the two major parties.
11 Likes
Exactly so, up to the (thoroughly successful) implementation of the Southern Strategy by the GOP and total, slavish surrender to the Christians (namely, the Protestants, especially the Evangelicals and Falwell’s “Moral Majority”) ^^’.
At the risk of sounding like I support Trump (I don’t, not that it matters), I’d like to give a different perspective. If you consider the “mission” to be be “set up tents, infrastructure, food storage, etc. to support 10,000 people expected to arrive late Nov/2018”, then the deployment might be “Mission Accomplished”. Even the concertina wire could be just part of crowd control ('course, less menacing to use less pointy fencing, but the Army tends to have the pointy stuff on hand).
If the above is true, then now might be the right time for many of them to go home, perhaps leaving a small contingent to maintain things. Does anyone know the types of units that were deployed? Mostly engineers and service/supply units, then the above makes sense. But if infantry or other direct fighting units, it’s 100% scam.
I’m ex-infantry, Canadian. The vast majority of what we did was pretending to do the job we’re paid to. Over and over. So I’m not doubting the characterization of this exercise as valuable training. It is
I don’t doubt Trump used this to scare voters before the mid-terms. He’s a scumbag. I doubt he even realizes that he did it… simply not worth remembering last week, with so much to F%$k up this week.
Optics. If this were truly what they were doing, why not frame it this way? Not “zomg we’re preparing for an invasion!!~!1!”
6 Likes
“Support people” is an interesting way to describe the establishment of concentration camps.
14 Likes
When I was growing up, the word trump was used rather than saying “fart”.
1 Like
I’m confused on how it managed to cost that much, ~ $33k per soldier.
I mean, they need to be transported, but transported through friendly territory. They were not landing on foreign soil or storming a beach under covering fire. I assume it doesn’t include costs already covered (i.e. would have been spent anyway) like salaries and the like.
I’ve never seen evidence to this effect.
9 Likes
For further cosideration, think about all the people who need to be supported in Tijuana, Mexicali, etc. as they wait their turn to get through the checkpoints. A lot of selfless Mexican folks are giving up a large portion of their already strained personal budgets to assist the caravan folk.
A lot of true “support” is happening on the Mexico side, because they limit numbers to be processed at the checkpoint.
11 Likes
And to have the taxpayers pay him for the accommodation and meals of himself and his entourage, including Secret Service, while he’s there for golfing (and surfing porn).
1 Like
If you choose to misinterpret my words even after I clarify, that would remind me exactly of debate club. I was saying the LAW being applied equally to all was a conservative value. “Equlity for all” was someone elses interpretation of that statement and not at all what I was saying.
Second point, I was much less clear on. I agree that the conservatives are not socialist, but still say that they could be more socialist than the liberals. I wasn’t comparing Conservatives to socialists, I was comparing them to Liberals. I’m thinking of the roots of the two sides, not their present incarnations. As this isn’t debate club, I’m often a bit loosy-goosy with my ideas and statements.
I feel (and I’m not talking about you) that there is a tendency these days to stick to ones own definitions and use that as a refutation of someones idea who is using the word differently. That way you get to avoid addressing the ideas being presented and reduce the debate to semantics.
One that’s clearly not relevant to conservatives today, just look at the prison population.
6 Likes
Conservativism, almost by definition, resists radical social change.
If you look at pretty much any point in American history when some oppressed group fought for equal treatment under the law (abolition, women’s suffrage, ending segregation, same sex marriage, etc) you’ll find that conservatives were firmly planted in the “NO!” side.
8 Likes
Keep in mind that outside of the states, the Republican party would be considered liberals. We say Neo-liberal to describe their policies. What I’ve been trying to express, however badly, is that the root of conservative values wasn’t as horrible as what we are seeing now, and some memory of that root is partly what keeps so many people supporting the party despite what it has become.
No. Just no. Over here the republicans would be a hard right party with no semblance of what we call liberalism.
10 Likes
I think you’ll find both parties were pretty firmly on the ‘No’ side. Change has come from the bottom up, with few exceptions.
