Ted Cruz introduces the El Chapo Act

[Machismo]

Nah, not buying it. There's another option entirely. Destroy them, and their trade. There shouldn't be a drug market.

Conservatives support freedom for themselves and their fellow citizens, not for criminals and certainly not for criminals in another country who are actively working to harm their country. Sorry to break your Universalist bubble.

And as long as there is a demand, someone will be there to supply it. That's how it works. We tried that during Prohibition, how did that work out?

So, you support freedom, unless someone is doing something you don't like... then you want to fucking murder the shit out of them. Is that conservatism? Of course, this is dependent on what the person in charge thinks is "harmful." Yeah, you don't give a shit about freedom, you just want to be the one doing the oppressing.

[Endus]

Nah, not buying it. There's another option entirely. Destroy them, and their trade. There shouldn't be a drug market.

Yeah. And let's get everyone to stop hurting each other, and sing Kumbaya around the campfire.

As long as we're talking about impossible dreams.

As long as 1> there are drugs that are illegal, and 2> there are people who want to use those drugs but aren't allowed to, there will be an illegal drug market. There's no way to "destroy their trade". At best, you shut down the cartels you know about, and give rise to a host of new cartels you don't know about.

Hell, the US has been down this road, and should know better. That's exactly what happened with Prohibition.

Conservatives support freedom for themselves and their fellow citizens, not for criminals and certainly not for criminals in another country who are actively working to harm their country. Sorry to break your Universalist bubble.

This isn't even political. You're wrong here because you're talking about a delusional, impossible fantasy.

[Damajin]

While the bill's language dances around it pretty hard, this is effectively a bill of attainder - something that is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution; and while it may technically be legal (due to the aforementioned dancing), Americans should consider good and hard what it means when your government is working really hard in order to make legal something your founding document explicitly forbids it from doing.

It's a fair point, though of course he will go to trial at some point making this concern moot.

- - - Updated - - -

And as long as there is a demand, someone will be there to supply it. That's how it works. We tried that during Prohibition, how did that work out?

So, you support freedom, unless someone is doing something you don't like... then you want to fucking murder the shit out of them. Is that conservatism? Of course, this is dependent on what the person in charge thinks is "harmful." Yeah, you don't give a shit about freedom, you just want to be the one doing the oppressing.

Again, false equivalency. "Something I don't like" in this sense is quite a bit worse than someone listening to music I don't enjoy or reading a book I don't happen to like. Your flat evaluation of actions here is really telling.

Yeah. And let's get everyone to stop hurting each other, and sing Kumbaya around the campfire.

As long as we're talking about impossible dreams.

As long as 1> there are drugs that are illegal, and 2> there are people who want to use those drugs but aren't allowed to, there will be an illegal drug market. There's no way to "destroy their trade". At best, you shut down the cartels you know about, and give rise to a host of new cartels you don't know about.

Hell, the US has been down this road, and should know better. That's exactly what happened with Prohibition.



This isn't even political. You're wrong here because you're talking about a delusional, impossible fantasy.

Destroying the cartels is much more likely to happen than that other stupid shit you mentioned, because it actually is a real, tangible goal with definition.

Yeah at best, then you shut down those ones as well.

Nah I'm not talking about a delusional, impossible fantasy but of all the people on this board I expect such a response from you.

[Thage]

Why not legalize it? If someone wants to get high, let him. he can be as stoned as he wants, because that action doesn't cause any harm to others. Prohibition does not get rid of the demand, it only limits those willing to supply the product. The cartels are mroe than willing to control the marketplace, because that is exactly what the prohibitionists are asking for.

You'd think people would've learned from, well, Prohibition. Take out organized crime's footholds in neighborhoods and it starts getting pretty easy to take them down--when's the last time an Italian or Irish crime family rose to prominence ever since their primary means of making money and getting blackmail on people was pulled out from under them?

[Sky High]

Destroying the cartels is much more likely to happen than that other stupid shit you mentioned, because it actually is a real, tangible goal with definition.

how many years has the Drug war been going on now? you think coming in and smashing a few bad guys isn't going to convince more to replace them? because when you get rid of the distributors, that's all you do, you take the supply away, the demand doesn't just disappear, it's still there! I mean we went into countries like Columbia and "took out" the drug lords, fast forward a few decades and what's changed? noooooothing.

[Endus]

Destroying the cartels is much more likely to happen than that other stupid shit you mentioned, because it actually is a real, tangible goal with definition.

It's an impossible goal. At best, you cut off some of the leadership, and it splits apart into multiple smaller cartels, harder to track. Even if you somehow managed to eliminate their entire crew and their infrastructure in one fell swoop (which involves a heck of a lot more than a drone strike; we're talking a multinational operation with thousands of men involved), then all you've done is clean the slate for some new organization to fill the void you've created.

Yeah at best, then you shut down those ones as well.

Congratulations, you've just reached the exact point the USA has been at since Prohibition. All you're doing is talking about throwing even more money at a problem that can't be solved that way. It's fiscally irresponsible, diplomatically suicidal, and will accomplish nothing in the long run.

[Prokne]

Yeah that's pretty much it, rather than argue about who is going to pay for the damn wall they can just take that out of the equation and essentially end the entire heat of the argument.

Or we could not waste the money on a wall that won't do anything stop anyone. There already is a wall in some places and smugglers just go over, under, around, or through it.

BTW we already seize drug money and use it to fund the DEA and other anti-drug organizations. Maybe not this much, but the point is that the wall is a waste of money. Law enforcement money would be better spent helping people with drug addition and health care.

[Thage]

Congratulations, you've just reached the exact point the USA has been at since Prohibition. All you're doing is talking about throwing even more money at a problem that can't be solved that way. It's fiscally irresponsible, diplomatically suicidal, and will accomplish nothing in the long run.

It's treading water and claiming to be doing a record-breaking breaststroke. We've been doing this song and dance since the days when people thought War of the Worlds was a legitimate radio broadcast and some folks seem hell-bent on thinking, this time it'll work. This time headbutting a tree rather than taking it out at the roots will kill the tree.

[wunksta]

Destroying the cartels is much more likely to happen than that other stupid shit you mentioned, because it actually is a real, tangible goal with definition.

We have been destroying cartels and their farm land or confiscating the drugs. All this does is create a dip in the supply and prices skyrocket and leads to other people willing to take risks and profit.

This hasn't really solved anything.

[Machismo]

It's a fair point, though of course he will go to trial at some point making this concern moot.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, false equivalency. "Something I don't like" in this sense is quite a bit worse than someone listening to music I don't enjoy or reading a book I don't happen to like. Your flat evaluation of actions here is really telling.



Destroying the cartels is much more likely to happen than that other stupid shit you mentioned, because it actually is a real, tangible goal with definition.

Yeah at best, then you shut down those ones as well.

Nah I'm not talking about a delusional, impossible fantasy but of all the people on this board I expect such a response from you.

Then what metric are you using in determining a justification for taking away the freedoms of others? Simply being a criminal is ridiculous, since almost all adults are criminals. What consistent metric do you use in determining who is worthy of freedom, and who is not? Mine is rather simple, focus on any action which causes actual harm. Restricting any other action, is a reduction in the most possible freedom, and therefore, should be avoided.

[callipygoustp]

You realize that without the host country's permission, this is literally an act of war, right?

Its only Mexico. What are they going to do?

[Endus]

Its only Mexico. What are they going to do?

It's not "only Mexico". It's pretty much the entire developed world, who are not going to take it lightly when the USA commits an act of aggression against not just a sovereign nation, but a close ally.

[Berengil]

Your entire rhetoric sounds like an America hunting for who to target as their Poland. It's not just objectively wrong on the facts, it's wildly dangerous.

Godwin'ed by a mod. There must be an award for that.

Endus, do you seriously contend that China, or Britain, or Russia, or who ever in the Eastern Hemisphere is going to give 2 shts about how the US cleans up its own back yard?

Or much less, be able to do anything about it? Someone in the EU, or Africa, or wherever starts sticking their nose into it: " Monroe Doctrine. F off."

I do consider them terrorists. Their goal is to make money; Al-Qaeda's was to spread an ideology. They are both scum and filth who dare f with the US. The cartels' actions directly lead to deaths on US soil, so f them. And f anyone who thinks they are going to come into our backyard and do something about it.

No one wants that fight. No one.

[Barnabas]

If they took out the wall, I'd be down with it, since it only seems to be mostly about this one guy. Funny that he cites serving Texas as a rational for doing this despite the fact a lot of people there don't want a wall.

Make Mexico drug lords pay for the wall. Obama's wall had zero controversy and they spent billions on a high tech one also that got cancelled. The one they ended up actually doing is the one that should be finished. It's like 2 or 3 billion to do that. The Dept Of Homeland Security and the agencies like it so why not?

[Machismo]

Godwin'ed by a mod. There must be an award for that.

Endus, do you seriously contend that China, or Britain, or Russia, or who ever in the Eastern Hemisphere is going to give 2 shts about how the US cleans up its own back yard?

Or much less, be able to do anything about it? Someone in the EU, or Africa, or wherever starts sticking their nose into it: " Monroe Doctrine. F off."

I do consider them terrorists. Their goal is to make money; Al-Qaeda's was to spread an ideology. They are both scum and filth who dare f with the US. The cartels' actions directly lead to deaths on US soil, so f them. And f anyone who thinks they are going to come into our backyard and do something about it.

No one wants that fight. No one.

Now you sound like North Korea.

[breadisfunny]

You realize that without the host country's permission, this is literally an act of war, right?

and what exactly quite frankly is mexico going to do about it? because mexico is mostly propped up by the u.s.

[triplesdsu]

Well if Ted gets a primary challenger, he won't have the police unions behind him

Have no issue with it but sure won't be popular with police

I'm sure this wont have any effect on his popularity with the police. Most of the comments from the various LE groups I'm part are all for it. Even if civil forfeiture was as big an issue as you seem to assume to think it is, the bill seems to only mention those seized by federal agents anyway, so it wouldn't have any affect on local police anyway.

[Berengil]

Jeez, the false equivalency never stops around here, does it?

If NK were strong enough to get what they wanted ( they're not, we could glass them fast) then they would deserve to have it.

And don't think I missed that cute reference to Hitler a little back. You know how I know he was wrong?

He lost.

[Endus]

Godwin'ed by a mod. There must be an award for that.

Endus, do you seriously contend that China, or Britain, or Russia, or who ever in the Eastern Hemisphere is going to give 2 shts about how the US cleans up its own back yard?

You aren't talking about "your own back yard". You're explicitly talking about someone else's.

Or much less, be able to do anything about it? Someone in the EU, or Africa, or wherever starts sticking their nose into it: " Monroe Doctrine. F off."

Not "someone". The developed world. Collectively. This is literally why we have the United Nations, because we saw how a superpower getting belligerent can lead to atrocious horrors, in World War II. This is exactly why that system exists.

Even if the opposition wasn't military, it would absolutely be economic and diplomatic.

I do consider them terrorists. Their goal is to make money; Al-Qaeda's was to spread an ideology. They are both scum and filth who dare f with the US. The cartels' actions directly lead to deaths on US soil, so f them. And f anyone who thinks they are going to come into our backyard and do something about it.

Again, not your backyard. Ohio is your backyard. Not Mexico. That's Mexico's yard.

And you're just objectively wrong when you call them terrorists. Being obstinate about it isn't an argument. They aren't terrorists, and using that word as an appeal to emotions is just suggests you know how unconvincing your argument is on its own merits.

No one wants that fight. No one.

Of course they don't.

What you don't understand is, the USA would be the one starting it.

[Kujako]

Funny part is even if they do everything they can, legal or otherwise, to get funding, they'll still not be able to build the wall due to a treaty with Mexico that says anything that effects the water flow of the Rio Grande has to be agreed to by both countries. Something tells me a 30 foot wall going down 6 feet into the ground MIGHT effect water runoff.