ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

1. The unemployement rate is at 4%
2. Not even half of the US population is in employment

Both of these statements are true at the same time. Statistics!

I think you meant semantics instead of statistics, but 2 is incorrect according to the data. ~63% participation. 4% of 63 is about 2.5%. 37+2.5 = 39.5% of people are not employed.

Nah, 2 is correct, since less than half of the US population is even considered to be part of the labor force.

"

... the remaining 140 km (85 miles) along the border with Serbia will be finished in just two months, built largely by 700 prison inmates.

Now that's how you make Mexicans pay for it. Round up all those MS-13 & reccuring invaders and give them something to work, at the pace of La Cucaracha. Arrrribaaa....

But more important than fences are laws. With proper laws and strict enforcement, you can save on walls & fences.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

1. The unemployement rate is at 4%
2. Not even half of the US population is in employment

Both of these statements are true at the same time. Statistics!

I think you meant semantics instead of statistics, but 2 is incorrect according to the data. ~63% participation. 4% of 63 is about 2.5%. 37+2.5 = 39.5% of people are not employed.

Nah, 2 is correct, since less than half of the US population is even considered to be part of the labor force.

Facts disagree with your position here. 63% is more than 50%.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Facts disagree with your position here. 63% is more than 50%.

Trying to get in the way of political rant with facts is an interesting approach. How often does that work around here? :-)

"

morbo wrote:

"

... the remaining 140 km (85 miles) along the border with Serbia will be finished in just two months, built largely by 700 prison inmates.

Now that's how you make Mexicans pay for it. Round up all those MS-13 & reccuring invaders and give them something to work, at the pace of La Cucaracha. Arrrribaaa....

But more important than fences are laws. With proper laws and strict enforcement, you can save on walls & fences.

That's a good idea if you want something made with incredibly poor quality.

Thats sounds pretty racist. What you you dont think Salvadorians can build good walls? Trust me I have a few on payroll they build great retaining walls.... anyway I've said it before that immigration is no issue so I dont believe in walls but screening the individuals. I know democrats want as many Latino as possible to bring about a socialist revolution for their loser lives but I'm not worried those socalist never last. People want to be free and if you give them such they will be republicans for life. Issue is the criminals. We need strongg screening and to accept people that understand the American experiment. Freedom. Economic and social. So I have zero issue with detention. Basically you have to add human element. Walls are BS.

Has Trump failed at ISIS? Taken at face value, the US government is saying ISIS has the same number of fighters in Iraq and Syria today as when the bombing campaign began by Obama aka 30K or so

"

https://www.voanews.com/a/far-from-dead-tens-of-thousands-of-is-fighters-linger-in-iraq-syria/4527452.html

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Has Trump failed at ISIS? Taken at face value, the US government is saying ISIS has the same number of fighters in Iraq and Syria today as when the bombing campaign began by Obama aka 30K or so

"

https://www.voanews.com/a/far-from-dead-tens-of-thousands-of-is-fighters-linger-in-iraq-syria/4527452.html

I think it's BS. Remember that the military-industrial complex needs threats to legitimize its presence abroad. It's obvious that at their peak in 2014-2015, ISIS had far more capability & control than it has today. Today they are only present in remote & sparsely populated desert areas in both Syria & Iraq and their capability of doing offensives is practically null. They are resorting back to terrorism only.

And while Syrians with the help of Russia cleaned up almost all of the jihadi enclaves in the past year or so, US & Kurds were doing almost nothing in their zone of control east of Euphrates. Whatever geopolitical game the US deep state is playing in Syria, it needs some ISIS presence to legitimize the continued military involvement.

I don't think Trump has much control over what's going on anyway. CIA / Pentagon or whoever is really in charge seem to be doing things on their own. In any case, Trump cannot do anything but continue with the commitment. If he pulls out, he'll be attacked from both left & right and blamed for all possible future problems. It's a loose-loose situation, so might aswell sit there and count the taxdollars being wasted to provide air-conditioning to the desert...

Trump has close to no involvement with the military other than wanting to spend more on it.

"

faerwin wrote:

Trump has close to no involvement with the military other than wanting to spend more on it.

You are correct that for the most part Trump is hands off on the US military. It isn't his area of expertise, and so long as he trusts the right advisors, he will make far better decisions in this area.

The US military has been on economic life support ever since Rumsfeld started hacking away at their budgets. We went from being able to handle 2 major theater wars and a small theater war to barely being able to handle a small theater war. The plan was intentional and over multiple administrations capability was allowed to wither. The idea was that the US needed to become a smaller more nimble reactive force.

Unfortunately, that meant the US became a toothless cowering dog in the eyes of China, Russia and many of our adversaries. Trump's goal isn't to get the US military into combat again. His goal is to rebuild their capability to do so wherever needed, so that we can avoid combat.

"Peace through Strength" works. When US leaders see that strength as some kind of economic leverage tool is when problems and violence occur. Some of this is the inconsistency brought about every time we change presidents. The US Senate should be a stabilizing force, but it isn't. Unfortunately, the US Senate is filled with far too many people who don't think international issues are worth more than an occasional glance.

The US shouldn't have to be the world's policeman. Regional coalitions should be handling the issues in their own backyards. Until such time as other nations step up to the plate and remain vigilant, the US will continue to spend far more on its military than we should have to.