It is about as difficult to sink a business without debt as it is to sink a ship without holes.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 15
Trumpedo is summarily executing folks on boats -- kill 'em all -- while also granting pardons to some of the world's most notorious drug lords, like Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who is serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US on drug trafficking and weapons charges.
TRUMPEDO:
“I will be granting a Full and Complete Pardon to Former President Juan Orlando Hernandez who has been, according to many people that I greatly respect, treated very harshly and unfairly.”Umm, the guy “paved a cocaine superhighway to the United States” and helped bring over 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.
Trumpedo doesn't give two sh!ts about drugs coming into the United States, as evidenced by his pardons of drug. He just loves murdering brown people in boats and the idea of invading another country.
That's a lot of death, corruption, and war criming to avoid releasing the Epstein files and showing how buddy-buddy he was with the world's biggest pedophile.
From the cover version by Jackson Browne:
Late last night about a quarter past four
Ladanyi come knockin' down my hotel room door
Where's the cocaine
It's runnin' all 'round my brain
I was talking to my doctor down at the hospital
He said, "Son, it says here you're twenty-seven,
But that's impossible
Cocaine you look like you could be forty-five
Now I'm losing touch with reality and I'm almost out of blow
It's such a fine line I hate to see it go
Cocaine, runnin' all 'round my brainhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/28/tr...
No. of Recommendations: 12
Seriously, how can the deluded MAGA hoard and the complicit GOP cravens in Congress possibly defend this? What say you Lindsey Graham? Some quip about Biden weaponizing the DOJ perhaps? And you, John Barrasso, what will your excuse be? How about "Trump won every swing state in a landslide!"? And Mike Johnson, are you gonna use your standard "I haven't heard about this yet" dodge? Or will it be the ever-reliable "The president is allowed to pardon anyone he wants" retort? Can I please hear from someone with principles? Anyone? Bueller?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Well, if the American people, as a whole, disagree with Trump's policies, re: Venezuela or anything else, then obviously the mid terms are coming up shortly at which time the People can elect a Democrat Congress.
Should that happen, we can pretty much be certain that a Democrat House will again serially impeach Trump at a minimum until 2028 when he leaves office. We know they will surely do that because they got nothing else except trying to turn the country full Monty Socialist/Communist which won't fly among the general population even if the Dems are strongly in favor of it.
As far as your not liking the "murder of brown people," I guess you're in agreement that Trump sending in the National Guard to places like D.C., Chicago, Charlotte, etc. was the right thing to do, since black people killing other black people seems to be a chronic issue in blue urban areas.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It's too bad it isn't going to work. We are trashing our reputation world wide so Trump can make illusory points with his base. His base doesn't care if it will accomplish anything on the drug trade. And we've know for a couple of decades our big problem is Mexico. But bombing Mexico is also subject to the balloon effect.
"The "balloon effect" in the context of drugs refers to the phenomenon where drug eradication efforts in one area simply shift production to another, just as squeezing a balloon causes the air to move elsewhere. It is a criticism of drug policies that focus on eliminating production in specific regions, suggesting that these efforts are ineffective because the problem is displaced, not solved."
No. of Recommendations: 3
Good point, Lambo, on the balloon effect.
Stopping the problem in one geographic location simply causes it to go elsewhere.
That's fine with me re:/narcotics.
But now that you mention it, it's also quite acceptable in terms of the invasion of the U.S. by hordes of unvetted migrants who have no wish to assimilate into Western culture.
I'm glad Trump is trying to squeeze the particular balloon just as hard as he possibly can.
With any luck they all end up in Antarctica, although it's going to be hard to convince the penguins to accept mass migration of undesirable deplorable third world migrants.
I'm sure Western Europe can handle the balloon though.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And we've know for a couple of decades our big problem is Mexico. But bombing Mexico is also subject to the balloon effect
There is little profit in attacking Mexico. Venezuela has a lot more oil than Mexico.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
There is little profit in attacking Mexico. Venezuela has a lot more oil than Mexico.
The Confederacy wanted to take Mexico. If we took Mexico we could build a shorter wall at the border. :) A bargain!
Just negotiate a deal where the oil companies get more than their fair share and no invasion.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Confederacy wanted to take Mexico. If we took Mexico we could build a shorter wall at the border. :) A bargain!
But then there would be another 130M brown people to deport from ShinyWhite America.
I have read that was the dilemma the Berlin Brownies found themselves in, in 1939. They had been forcing "undesirables" out of Germany for years. Then they invaded the countries where the people they forced out had moved to.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
But then there would be another 130M brown people to deport from ShinyWhite America.:) Exactly. And Trump could bring back peonage. Another populist in Peru copying Trump...
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — President José Jerí of Peru said his government on Friday would declare a state of emergency along the country’s southern border and deploy more armed forces to the area as a large number of Venezuelan migrants venture north from Chile, where anti-immigrant sentiment has surged during a fraught presidential campaign.
Hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing crises in their home countries or seeking better opportunities abroad long have traversed the continent and the Peruvian border to build new lives in Chile, one of Latin America’s most stable and prosperous nations.
But scores of people without legal status in Chile — mostly Venezuelans who abandoned their country’s economic ruin and authoritarian rule in recent years — are now also headed in the other direction as Chile prepares to harden its stance against immigration.
The favorite to win Chile’s presidential runoff on Dec. 14, ultraconservative lawyer José Antonio Kast, has built his campaign around popular fears over immigration from Venezuela and a rise in organized crime. He filmed a campaign video at Chile’s porous desert border with Peru last week, warning immigrants without formal status to get out of the country while they still can.
https://apnews.com/article/chile-peru-jose-jari-ga...
No. of Recommendations: 3
When do drug addicted Americans start taking at least a little bit of the blame ?
If America didn't have the most consumers of illegal drugs of any Country in the World, the drug cartels would look for new markets.
How much has the War On Drugs cost the American taxpayer ? A quick google query comes
back with $1 Trillion since the 1970's. That's a lot of money. Does anybody
think that $1 Trillion spent on The War On Drugs has made a difference ? It sure
seems like America is getting its butt whipped in this War.
Maybe we should focus on the end-user more than the supplier.
The War On Drugs feels like it is just a political football that conservatives
kick around constantly. No results, but their base sure eats it up.
And judging by the Opioid Crisis that hit America, the end users are majority
white and rural. Urban areas also have drug abuse problems, no doubt about it,
but the meth heads and the opioid addicts seem to be majority white, just like me.
If America was serious about stopping drug abuse, America would focus on the
end user of drugs.
No. of Recommendations: 6
If America didn't have the most consumers of illegal drugs of any Country in the World, the drug cartels would look for new markets.Presidents of Mexico have been saying, for as long as I can remember, if the US addressed it's drug use problems, the drug cartels that are such a problem in Mexico, would not have such a lucrative market.
Interesting map at this link. High rates of illicit drug use correlate with speaking English. The countries with the highest rate of drug use, in order, from #1 are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings...I can't even speculate on the correlation between speaking English and drug use.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
If America was serious about stopping drug abuse, America would focus on the
end user of drugs
Well, Portugal isn't doing as well as it used to. I don't think MAGA would cooperate on that. Doesn't fit in with personal responsibility for darker skinned folks.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If America was serious about stopping drug abuse, America would focus on the
end user of drugs.
A good mental health care system would be a fine start. And since mental health is the poor step child of our insane health care system, I suspect very few would complain if it were nationalized and made available on a more sane basis.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Typical liberal platitudes don't cut it.
A good mental health care system means what, exactly?
We tell people drugs are the answer to all their problems, from Budweiser to scotch to THC to viagra to prozac to ozempic to smart phones and social media.
We are like rats in that experiment pressing the lever for the dopamine hits until we starve to death.
Our society doesn't try to build character which is now considered a Western colonialist racist old white men kind of thing.
No. of Recommendations: 2
A good mental health care system means what, exactly?
One that doesn’t limit mental health visits to 2 or 3 or 4 dozen a year. And one that doesn’t require copays for every visit. One that doesn’t limit inpatient care to 2 or 3 months a year.
Controversially, one that includes some carefully monitored ability to involuntarily commit someone to inpatient care.
Most importantly, one that does not ration care by the ability to pay, but will cover all legal residents.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Peter,
Thanks for your response. It's a productive attempt at a possible solution.
More concretely, is the first part of your suggestion part of the current Democratic Party platform, i.e., is essentially unlimited free mental health care included in whatever Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer (current Dem legislative minority leaders) are fighting for as part of their efforts to save enhanced ACA subsidies?
If what you desire is not part of the Democratic Party's health care platform, do you understand that it's not going to happen?
It's just a progressive pipe dream?
Second part: Involuntary commitment is a hot button issue with both the right and the left. It is a civil liberties issue. What is your party's position on involuntary commitment? Is it even on the table?
No. of Recommendations: 4
More concretely, is the first part of your suggestion part of the current Democratic Party platform
Beats me. You asked what I thought, not what was in some political platform statement.
Do I think any of that will happen? Nope. Not unless I am somehow made Emperor of America. And that’s extremely unlikely.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ptheland,
The premise of my line of discussion was to ask for people on the left to supply practical, achievable goals that they thought the Dems actually might be able to put into effect if they played their cards right.
Now you're telling me your answer constitutes a wish-fulfillment fantasy, not a realistic political objective that you would like your party to pursue.
I don't think you understood the question.
No. of Recommendations: 11
I don't think you understood the question
That’s because your questions were not honest questions, but were merely openings for you to say what you’d already decided to say.
Asking questions and then discarding or distorting the answers you get is more than enough proof that you aren’t serious about having a dialogue.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Reverenz Z,
No, that's not true at all. I didn't change anything. Peter responded to my question by advocating a policy which he subsequently explained was pure fantasy, a Progressive's wet dream.
I had asked several times for discussion about realistic, possibly acheivable Dem or Progressive agenda goals, not leftist wet dream fantasies.
I guess that explains why you waste so much time and energy with "TRUMP SUXQ!!!"
No. of Recommendations: 7
The premise of my line of discussion was to ask for people on the left to supply practical, achievable goals that they thought the Dems actually might be able to put into effect if they played their cards right.
That’s not what you asked.
A good mental health care system means what, exactly?
This is the question you asked. And I answered it.
—Peter
