@Nicholas_Mitchell I am curious why the wall is such an important matter to you, since you live in New Zealand.
Speaking of New Zealand, you know what is effective as a wall? Thousands of miles of ocean. It's startling how dramatic the difference was in what happened to the Maori native people in NZ compared to the native peoples in Europe and America... in a good way! Since the boat trip to get to New Zealand was so long,
nobody fewer people survived long enough with a serious disease to communicate it to New Zealand. Additionally, by the mid 1800s western society was beginning to develop a concept of social rights such that "kill 'em all" was no longer viewed as a .. morally acceptable .. way to deal with native people occupying lands you wished to claim in the name of a distant country.
Back to the wall, consider the data:
But the origin countries of unauthorized immigrants have shifted, with the number from Mexico declining since 2009 and the number from elsewhere rising
We may need to build a wall that goes around the entire perimeter of the US to make this effective. And it'll need to be airplane height. Be sure to adjust your budget estimates accordingly Nicholas!
There is "iron manning" a discussion, where you have to be able to make viable pro and con arguments on a topic before you are allowed to discuss it. It's not a bad idea. For example @giorgiog seems super concerned by drone strikes, and there are undeniably pros and cons:
It is good to understand both the pros and cons of any contentious issue. If it is hard, it is never clear cut what the "right" answer is.
Every war involves killing. If you are concerned, ask Trump to call off the war on terror we're currently waging, and have been waging since 9/11:
since the United States began conducting drone strikes abroad following the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, civilians are roughly 8-17% of all deaths from US drones. In World War II, civilian deaths, as a percentage of total war fatalities, are estimated at 40 to 67%. In the Korean, Vietnam, and Balkan Wars, the percentages are approximately 70%, 31%, and 45% respectively.
If this is actually important to you, versus a rote talking point to "make Obama look bad" then call for peace, not war. And for the record I think every president will use drone strikes, and justifiably so, because a) technology marches on and b) the death of american servicemen is far more damaging to them politically than the death of anonymous people in other countries who are working for groups that we are technically at war with.
War. The word you are looking for is war. We are literally at war with these groups. So you are saying "I don't believe war should involve death". Well, good luck with that, @benjol.
As I said earlier, it's a call to action that any citizen can use to make their voice heard. Read the bottom 1/3 of the blog post and look for the bullet points.
So the solution is to elect a billionaire elite? This is nonsensical.
I agree that a lot of people hated Clinton's guts, for sure. And probably the only positive thing about the Trump campaign is that it definitively killed off both the Bush and Clinton "dynasties" in american politics. But the cost of Trump is too high, when on day nine we are issuing religious bans on people entering the country even when they hold a green card.
I agree that both parties are not really working, which is why I called for a third party. If things get bad enough under Trump, and it looks that way so far, I hope we can harness the energy in that turmoil to make a third party viable again.
Indeed, we all have the freedom to die.