The General Political Thread

[William]

More then likely that Trump will be impeached but not trialed by the senate, meaning the house will vote yes, but the senate will vote no. Examples are Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton

[DaMonkey]

I'm really not sure that's a certainty. I would assume some Democrats in more conservative/toss-up districts would nay or abstain, additionally some of the more mainline Democrats may be opposed simply because the successor is Mike Pence, who is considerably more conservative than Trump is, and wouldn't likely result in any real political change in their favor while conversely maybe even making future elections more difficult.

While I wouldn't bet against it, I certainly don't think it would be the wisest use of their limited political capital.

Edit The impeachment process, rather it succeeds or fails, would probably have pretty bad electoral consequences for State-level Democrats in most States; it would also put the Democratic Governor of Louisiana at risk of losing reelection - that State being one of three having their gubernatorial race in 2019. This would all be frankly worse for Democrats than losing a few Congressional seats as a consequence, as in 2020 the State Legislatures will be able to control redistricting following reapportionment, reapportionment which already is leaning towards favoring Republican-leaning States.

[Duuring]

It's probably just easier to try to defeat Trump in 2020.

[DaMonkey]

It's easier and frankly electorally smarter. Rather or not that is the route they pursue is anyone's guess, the DNC have had a recent trend of [electorally] self-destructive actions.

[Sgt.Winters]

Yeah. Beating Trump outright in 2020 looks far better for the Dems than impeachment.

[StevenChilton]

But to be fair, I am not sure you can expect Trump to back away from this ridiculous idea.

The idea of a wall isn't ridiculous. It's relatively cheap, very feasible to construct and already exists in places along the border.

[Riddlez]

Except it won't work. 'The Wall'  already excists in the places where smuggling is at its highest. It does not stop people from crossing the border and it won't stop them if it were to extend it over the entire length of the border. Smugglers and refugees are already busting the myth a wall will stop them.

A tactical golden rule is that there are two types of obstacles: slowing and stopping.
Another golden rule is that in order for an obstacle to become stopping, it needs to be under eyes.

The U.S. already tried to put more eyes on the border line with heat-seeking and motion sensors. It hasn't gone terribly great thus far because the area, even with its natural obstacles such a mountains or deserts, is not stopping anybody.
Unless they are going to put a border guard wih a sniper rifle along the wall, shooting everyone trying to cross it, the wall will fail.

EDIT: as far as they "Yes but every bit helps"-argument, yes normally it would make sense but as I mentioned, border security is already at its practical maximum at the places where the smuggling happens and it hasn't changed anything. Building a wall in places there is no wall yet does not make one singel bit of sense, because nobody is going there anyway.

[Svensson]

How do you expect to stop people coming illegally into the country from the south without a big-ass wall in their path?

[William]

There's always the solution of simplifying the immigration code so more people have an incentive to do it legally and not have to empower drug cartels to smuggle them. However, illegal immigration will always exist. A wall might have the effect of lowering it, but considering the prevalence of tunnels, I'm not sure how effective it will be.

[HaroldW]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calling-all-snowflakes-your-country-needs-you-7g3tv2gqm?

[Olafson]

A border "wall" has been done before with relatively high effectiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border

I think minefields work pretty well to stop people from crossing the border.
Sure, the Mexico US border is twice as long, but the US also has like 2012038120380 billion more citizens, soldiers and money than the GDR ever had.


So I wouldn't say its impossible.

[StevenChilton]

No wall is 100% effective, but will it significantly cut down illegal land crossings? Yes.

I don't see how you can logically argue it won't work given they do everywhere else. Even Obama had one built for his own home (which for some reason the media are claiming isn't a wall, yet clearly is).

[Olafson]

I mean, builing a wall around your home and building a wall along a border to stop mass immigration are two different things, but yes. It just needs to be properly done.

[Sgt.Winters]

Minefields would never be accepted as an alternative here. Although, if it is a form of sonic weaponry and not explosive with temporary side-effects, than maybe it could get past Congress, but even then it's a stretch. Another thing to take into account is that many people see using tear gas to stop immigrants rushing a fence and tearing it down as barbaric. If that is seen as a bridge too far, I can't imagine the reaction to mines being littered across the border being any better.

[Riddlez]

And that is still ignoring the fact AP-mines are illegal =P

Sonic weaponry to temporarily decapacitate people would be shot down too, considering the natural environment in the area, people would die of heat exposure, dehydration or fall prey to wild animals (if there are any). Even with experienced smugglers the death toll of the crossing is considerable.

A border "wall" has been done before with relatively high effectiveness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border

I think minefields work pretty well to stop people from crossing the border.
Sure, the Mexico US border is twice as long, but the US also has like 2012038120380 billion more citizens, soldiers and money than the GDR ever had.


So I wouldn't say its impossible.

Maybe not but that wall was also notorious in the fact that you'd be shot on sight being seen to cross it. That's a fear factor you couldn't ignore.