Who is supporting the immigrant caravan?

[MDlaxfan76]

The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

[runrussellrun]

The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

please stop using that term, its a personna that served NO useful purpose other than pestering. RRR comments are cogent and fertile

[runrussellrun]

The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

Do you mean hospitals like the Auroa, COlorado one? Guess you missed THAT story as well. $21 billion in unused DoD funds. And, what part of "nation building" isn't under the purvey of the State Dept. ? Didn't the 10,000 armed "diplomats" funding for Iraq come out of States budget? exactly

You all have NO clue. Military housing? What military. Private contractors are living in these homes, NOT uniformed personnel. Just ask Kelly Ann COnways family

[old salt]

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.

They're already built. They'll just have to be maintained rather than be replaced by new "greener" buildings.

One of the MilCon projects on the block is for the massive (underutilized) hospital at Landstuhl, Germany.
The wards were less than 10% occupied when when my wife was medevaced there in 1990.
It's there for the mass casualties from the Cold War invasion that never happened.
Why are we building the largest military hospital outside the US in Germany ?
...right next door to the existing one at Landstuhl. Price tag = $990m.

[Trinity]

Any ideas?

[old salt]

Any ideas?

about what ?

[Trinity]

The extra military hospital in Germany.

[old salt]

The extra military hospital in Germany.

Rehab/update the portions of Landstuhl necessary to meet the everyday needs of current force levels in Europe (& family) with the ability to treat/stabilize downrange casualties enroute to the US.

Maintain the rest, structurally, so it could be reactivated rapidly in case we surge forces to NATO. Properly maintained austere 1950's Army style structures are adequate for a surge capability. Plenty of room on the Landstuhl campus for replacement with newer buildings for the portions needed for constant use when rehab of older structures is not cost effective.

Given the current state of NATO burden sharing, I would rehab existing infrastructure, rather than building new.
We'be been drawing down in Europe since "91. No indication that trend will change.

[Trinity]

I’m with you. We’re broke.

[MDlaxfan76]

The funds to build the wall have already been allocated to the DoD.

That stands for the Department of Defense. Billions from the "construction" allocation.

Guess that new SIGNET "station" in Tuvalu will have to wait until next year to be built. Built by "whom"

hmmm........the TAATS are calling for investigations into the DoD "construction" billions.

Guess the SeaBees don't exist anymore, nor the Corps of Engineers.....gotta hire a company that COngress own stock in.

You do have a quite cynical perspective, fatty, but I generally agree with you on: follow the $.

But the more relevant matter is that military housing, commissaries, hospitals etc won't get repaired or built.
That's the trade-off for Trump's "Wall".

please stop using that term, its a personna that served NO useful purpose other than pestering. RRR comments are cogent and fertile

ok, we can dump your prior persona moniker.

But cogent and fertile?

fertile???

peace, brother.

[runrussellrun]

Any ideas?

Literally......the most important ten hits of the keyboard that you have ever righten. clap clap.

Seeking SOLUTIONS

[Trinity]

Said the troll from under the bridge.

[old salt]

I’m with you. We’re broke.

Except the new hospital in Germany is probably too far along to stop.

At least our NATO allies should find it reassuring, in that it's further evidence that we're not puilling out.

The Ramstein air hub & Kaiserslauten military community remain a massive investment in our ability to get to Europe & project power downrange.

[Trinity]

That’s good to know. The world only ends once.

[youthathletics]

Great friggen idea. https://roy.house.gov/media/press-relea ... error-list

Reps. Chip Roy and Mark Green Request Drug Cartels Be Added To Terror List

[runrussellrun]

Said the troll from under the bridge.

enough with the personnel attacks..........typical pretend.

always love by Nada Surf....learn it love it live it

[youthathletics]

Great friggen idea. https://roy.house.gov/media/press-relea ... error-list

Reps. Chip Roy and Mark Green Request Drug Cartels Be Added To Terror List

More from Chip Roy...

Why do these specific cartels qualify as a Foreign Terrorist Organizations? They:

- are a foreign organization.
- meet the definition of ‘terrorism’ and engage in terrorist activity as defined by (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)) and (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)) of the U.S. code.

[youthathletics]

Additionally, do your homework, and tell us how much fentanyl will fit in a few backpacks vs the amount of people that quantity can kill and put a price on it. Hint: 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered deadly.

Yup. Shipment sizes for fentanyl are quite small, so many come through the mail. Often from China.

A physical wall around every Post Office and Fed Ex office is gonna take a lot of time and money to build.

Look for the forest ggait. I get it, you guys do not want or believe a wall will work, fine. But to argue your case about the simplicity of "shipping" drugs via mail is shortsighted.

For instance, as TLD likes to add, treat the demand. Sure, we can educate and rehabilitate till we are blue in the face, but these drugs are for more addictive and deadly....attend any rehab place that treats the big drugs like Heroin, Meth, Opiods, etc....they give those recovering a bit over a 50% chance of staying clean, not to mention the price has dropped significantly. Now, the drugs are simply deadly....first use, or if you are lucky you get another chance.

If more and more drugs are seized at ports of entry after more barriers are installed, that clearly means new ways of drug flow has to take place with higher volumes of product, which makes it harder to disguise in small packages, which makes scanning packages much simpler. The barriers, coupled with funneling traffic flow....treats the demand, because the supply is not there. The only fear is robberies and thefts will likely go up as addicts will be searching for the their next fix. I bet we would see a rise in drug issues in Canada and across the pond if the barriers go up along the border.

I think you have this backward, cradle. me and craddle are different people.

Step up technology and manpower for detection of drugs through the mail, shipped in bulk via truck or shipping container at ports, or on rail cars through tunnels. Make it really, really difficult to come in through the current low cost means, and sure, the drug traffickers will eventually turn to trying to cross the desert with it. Use technology to detect them and nail'em. If you need some more fencing to make that easier, that's when you spend $ for that. But not until you've addressed where most of the drugs are coming in.

In other words, let's spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, get the most bang for the buck.

On the other hand, I think this will always be a losing battle until we decriminalize drug use and put our efforts into prevention and rehabilitation instead of policing and incarceration of users and their non-drug trafficking crimes done to feed their costly addiction.

Take the profit out of it for the drug traffickers.

Focus the policing on any remaining black market. Be very, very tough on black marketers, especially any who use weapons in any way.

Personally, I've managed to avoid all criminal drug use all my life except a bit of underage drinking as a teenager. But I have lots of family who have been badly addicted to alcohol, and one to both alcohol and illegal substances (sober now for more than a decade) and one who remains in desperate shape with opioids and heroin. Addiction needs to be seen as a serious disease, not a criminal activity.

We are saying darned near the same thing mdlax. The only rub is the barrier aspect. The wall is much more than drugs, and I would think you would be for barriers, primarily for the human trafficking element that would decline, set aside the drug aspect if that is the roadblock you are stuck on. There can be no more (or very little) paid coyote caravans that lead to wall with no impasse, this also funnels legit traffic towards legal ports of entry.

sorry, didn't mean to confuse you guys! my bad

Yes, I was speaking primarily about drugs. More fences should be very low on the priority list of how to spend money efficiently in that regard.

By human trafficking, do you mean sex trafficking ? or do you just mean economic migrants and actual asylum seekers?
I'm all for nailing those who exploit others.

If it's a question of wanting to control the numbers of people here in the US without proper documentation, let's focus first on those who over stay their visas. I want to make it a lot easier to be here with up to date documentation, but I also want to make it tougher to exploit them. Implement e-verify.

But I really don't see spending enormous sums for fences to be a wise investment. There are too many other investments that should be done first.
Now, using technology to detect illegal crossings could well be an efficient spend.

Article on drug trafficking outside of ports of entry. https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... migration/

[MDlaxfan76]

Additionally, do your homework, and tell us how much fentanyl will fit in a few backpacks vs the amount of people that quantity can kill and put a price on it. Hint: 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered deadly.

Yup. Shipment sizes for fentanyl are quite small, so many come through the mail. Often from China.

A physical wall around every Post Office and Fed Ex office is gonna take a lot of time and money to build.

Look for the forest ggait. I get it, you guys do not want or believe a wall will work, fine. But to argue your case about the simplicity of "shipping" drugs via mail is shortsighted.

For instance, as TLD likes to add, treat the demand. Sure, we can educate and rehabilitate till we are blue in the face, but these drugs are for more addictive and deadly....attend any rehab place that treats the big drugs like Heroin, Meth, Opiods, etc....they give those recovering a bit over a 50% chance of staying clean, not to mention the price has dropped significantly. Now, the drugs are simply deadly....first use, or if you are lucky you get another chance.

If more and more drugs are seized at ports of entry after more barriers are installed, that clearly means new ways of drug flow has to take place with higher volumes of product, which makes it harder to disguise in small packages, which makes scanning packages much simpler. The barriers, coupled with funneling traffic flow....treats the demand, because the supply is not there. The only fear is robberies and thefts will likely go up as addicts will be searching for the their next fix. I bet we would see a rise in drug issues in Canada and across the pond if the barriers go up along the border.

I think you have this backward, cradle. me and craddle are different people.

Step up technology and manpower for detection of drugs through the mail, shipped in bulk via truck or shipping container at ports, or on rail cars through tunnels. Make it really, really difficult to come in through the current low cost means, and sure, the drug traffickers will eventually turn to trying to cross the desert with it. Use technology to detect them and nail'em. If you need some more fencing to make that easier, that's when you spend $ for that. But not until you've addressed where most of the drugs are coming in.

In other words, let's spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible, get the most bang for the buck.

On the other hand, I think this will always be a losing battle until we decriminalize drug use and put our efforts into prevention and rehabilitation instead of policing and incarceration of users and their non-drug trafficking crimes done to feed their costly addiction.

Take the profit out of it for the drug traffickers.

Focus the policing on any remaining black market. Be very, very tough on black marketers, especially any who use weapons in any way.

Personally, I've managed to avoid all criminal drug use all my life except a bit of underage drinking as a teenager. But I have lots of family who have been badly addicted to alcohol, and one to both alcohol and illegal substances (sober now for more than a decade) and one who remains in desperate shape with opioids and heroin. Addiction needs to be seen as a serious disease, not a criminal activity.

We are saying darned near the same thing mdlax. The only rub is the barrier aspect. The wall is much more than drugs, and I would think you would be for barriers, primarily for the human trafficking element that would decline, set aside the drug aspect if that is the roadblock you are stuck on. There can be no more (or very little) paid coyote caravans that lead to wall with no impasse, this also funnels legit traffic towards legal ports of entry.

sorry, didn't mean to confuse you guys! my bad

Yes, I was speaking primarily about drugs. More fences should be very low on the priority list of how to spend money efficiently in that regard.

By human trafficking, do you mean sex trafficking ? or do you just mean economic migrants and actual asylum seekers?
I'm all for nailing those who exploit others.

If it's a question of wanting to control the numbers of people here in the US without proper documentation, let's focus first on those who over stay their visas. I want to make it a lot easier to be here with up to date documentation, but I also want to make it tougher to exploit them. Implement e-verify.

But I really don't see spending enormous sums for fences to be a wise investment. There are too many other investments that should be done first.
Now, using technology to detect illegal crossings could well be an efficient spend.

Article on drug trafficking outside of ports of entry. https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... migration/

Youth, is that supposed to be an "article" or a fact-free right wing screed?
Daniel Horowitz is not exactly an unbiased 'reporter' of 'fact'.

Maybe you have difficulty seeing how he sets up his argument with red herrings like pretending that anyone thinks that "ALL" illegal drugs come in from legal ports of entry, but it's not really that hard to see through that BS. No one thinks 100% of drugs come in through legal ports of entry, just that the vast majority do. Finding examples where it came in elsewhere in no way refutes the fundamental facts, yet Horowitz and others with his real agenda want you to think so.

It's a bogus argument right from the get go.

And the real agenda is much uglier.

[foreverlax]

Trump better get this right - fair number of his base are impacted.