Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Okay, construction isn't my strongest point, but I do have a very tiny amount of boundary construction experience... I notice the video linked to suggests a foundation depth of 5' for a 20' wall to prevent digging, but that's a blanket statement, and doesn't even sound like a good foundation for the wall itself, never mind anyone trying to tunnel under (there's a video on that news website talking about smuggling tunnels going as deep as 70' underground; while 70' is rare, the 5' explored in the first video's scenario really isn't much of a barrier unless the terrain is basically undiggable).
Even short walls need knowledge of what type of ground is being covered because so much is dependent on that - foundation depth, foundation type, wall height, wall type, etc. Given the length of this wall, there's no way a single type of wall is going to work - the terrain will be too variable. I remember a 5' wall still needed a 1' foundation and that was on good, solid ground.
My point is that even with my incredibly limited knowledge of construction, the project submission time frame doesn't sound feasible. It sounds more like Trump already knows who he wants to give the contract to, and is setting up such a short time frame to stack the deck against competition.
edited 18th Mar '17 11:46:05 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Granted, the US currently has some of the strictest procurement laws in the world (its hard to sole source, you need to hold a competition) so Trump doesn't have total control to choose the prime developer(s), let alone all the subcontractors. And if Trump is trying to rig the competition, he's about to get the US government sued.
Granted, the pool of companies capable of leading such a project is rather small.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.They'll also need good lawyers. Lots of the land isn't government owned. Some landowners would end up on the other side of the wall. Constructing a wall inside of the Rio Grande - also the Colorado, but that river doesn't reach the border anymore, mostly - is hard. In California the wall has to cross several dormant faults.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe moment after the wall is built, someone's liable to sound the Horn of Winter (obligatory Game Of Thrones reference), and we'll end up with a billion-dollar pile of rubble.
Which is pretty indicative of the entire infrastructure scheme. Boston (among other cities) got offered a billion dollars to complete a construction project extending one portion of our subway line. That's great for the short-term, but it doesn't provide any long-term groth, and avoids the many other areas where improvement is much more critical.
And construction is, for better or worse, often seen as a hotspot for corruption, which means most of that billion dollars won't actually be given to the Commonwealth.
Oddly enough, the political reaction I've seen is mostly to take the money, since you don't come across $1B every day, and refusing it would be taken as a slight (and cause to turn down other Federal funding.) But of course, other requests might get refused anyway, if we take the money. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
Like a lot of municipal, state and Federal expenditures, money tends to get ear-marked for projects, meaning it can't be transferred to other uses (including, sometimes, being used to pay off debt, or being allowed to collect interest, which wouldn't be as encumbered.) Depends how the allocations are worded.
That's good in my opinion; it shows hope for the Future of America. These people just need to vote in 2018 and 2020.
Regardless of whether they did that or not...
Are you really willing to risk another 4 years of Trump?
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
![]()
Not getting what you wanted, for whatever reason, never excuses stepping aside for the greatest evil.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Mmhmm. Keep doing Breitbart's work for them.
The DNC might have pulled some underhanded moves on Sanders (and its not like his campaign was totally clean either), and they certainly thought about it.
But that didn't make a difference, he was never in a position to defeat Clinton, which is probably why her campaign told the DNC to knock it off.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
x6 THIS. This right here. This is the kind of crap that gave the paranoid old man the election. It shouldn't have mattered whatever crap the Dems may or may not have pulled on Bernie; what mattered was making sure the paranoid old man didn't get into the White House. This was the time to put aside your political leanings and preferences and just vote for whoever was opposing the paranoid old man, and because half of the country didn't realize or refused to acknowledge this, we now have a legit paranoid old man running rampant in the White House, with the only ones to oppose him being We the People (TM) and his own incompetence. But if weren't for such sh— ...ahem, objectionable statements as presented here, we might have been celebrating Hilary's latest tax increase for the rich instead of dreading a looming tax cut for the rich, among many other myriad things.
edited 18th Mar '17 2:36:41 PM by kkhohoho
Trump browbeat the G20 into dropping its pledge to fight Protectionism.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/18/news/economy/g20-trade-protectionism-trump-germany/index.html
The only solace the world can take it is that at least the US will go down with them.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Agreed. I very much believe in voting based on relative merits (which is often called voting for the lesser evil, but this principle applies even if neither of the candidates could be described as "evil"note ).
So unless the Democrats somehow manage to nominate a candidate who is worse then Trump (which would be impressive), I'm voting for the Democratic Party candidate in 2020. Excepting of course the off-chance of a major political realignment that makes the candidate best suited to actually unseating Trump someone other then the Democratic Party nominee.

But cutting the Coast Guard and Airport Security will.
And the local construction industry is going to make a killing, hopefully your auditors are still there so Trump doesn't blatantly use this to launder billions from the US budget.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.