Lindsey Graham Compromised - Dems accuse his sexuality the root

#59
#59
82_VOL_83 said:
Pretty sure you don't represent the entire party either.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified when I made the statement. I was only speaking for myself when I used the pronoun “I”.

I have not been authorized to speak on anyone’s behalf.
 
#60
#60
VolStrom said:
If Lindsay Graham had a hint of being compromised I guarantee the secret service is aware of it and it's not a secret that he's gay to the ones that matter. This is just smear tactics.
Click to expand...

This, too ... from CNN no less; seems like a lot of padded stories out ... again. Pelosi's probably really ticked about not being able to claim she was shot at while in Afghanistan.

Mueller's office disputes BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roustabout
#61
#61
0nelilreb said:
Nothing should seem odd anymore . All core party values are suspended if and when need be , everything no matter how insane it may seem at the time is now fair game , the end now openly justifies the means , whatever it takes . This is a direct byproduct of squeezing out moderates , when there’s no middle ground to stand on any longer people only have one extreme or the other to choose. The place in the middle where sane people use to stand and go “meh it doesn’t bother me so much one way or another “ is almost non existent .
Click to expand...
There you have it. Which leaves most people with a couple brain cells to reason through issues under a wall of idiocy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496 and Weezer
#62
#62
Mick said:
The middle ground is there but 37% of the population took a hard right turn and now believe a wall all along the southern border is going to make them "safe". The polar opposite view is open borders. I'm not hearing the saber rattling from that side. The middle ground that most agree is border security. Most of america is waiting for that 37% to be reasonable with respect to border security. Secure our ports of entry and work our way out.
Click to expand...
We have areas now that are 100% open border. Others where there is little to no barrier. Border agents consistently say that a wall would improve their ability to do their job. 98% of the heroin is coming across the southern border and not through our ports. Why?

There are sophisticated teams that work to move drugs and people across our southern border.
You can secure ports and the southern border at the same time. If you had a neighbor with pets that kept coming over and pooping in your yard, you want to tell me that a fence would deter or prevent that from happening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#63
#63
Roustabout said:
We have areas now that are 100% open border. Others where there is little to no barrier. Border agents consistently say that a wall would improve their ability to do their job. 98% of the heroin is coming across the southern border and not through our ports. Why?

There are sophisticated teams that work to move drugs and people across our southern border.
You can secure ports and the southern border at the same time. If you had a neighbor with pets that kept coming over and pooping in your yard, you want to tell me that a fence would deter or prevent that from happening?
Click to expand...

98% percent of heroin does not come from people transporting between legal ports of entry. I suppose if you were to say ports, as in boats and planes, you might be closer to the truth. But a small percentage of heroin is seized from over land crossings between ports of entry.
 
Last edited:
#64
#64
Stew Cook said:
98% percent of heroin does not come from people transporting between legal ports of entry. I suppose if you were to say ports, as in boats and planes, you might be closer to the truth. But a small percentage of heroin is seized from over land crossings between ports of entry.
Click to expand...

Think about what you just said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tumscalcium
#66
#66
Stew Cook said:
It's what the DEA says.. What do you mean, a wall would have prevented the heroin?
Click to expand...
I mean that a report of how little they catch at the border isn't a report of how much gets through. You're arguing against your desired effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#67
#67
Orange_Crush said:
I mean that a report of how little they catch at the border isn't a report of how much gets through. You're arguing against your desired effect.
Click to expand...

So, if the majority is seized at the ports, the real problem is where it is not seized?

I was correcting a false or misleading assertion. If you want to infer something, just say it. It's more efficient.
 
#68
#68
Stew Cook said:
So, if the majority is seized at the ports, the real problem is where it is not seized?

I was correcting a false or misleading assertion. If you want to infer something, just say it. It's more efficient.
Click to expand...
I'm not inferring. I'm telling. Roust never made one comment about how much heroine is stopped at the southern border. You posted a stat about how much is stopped at the southern border, and now you're somehow claiming to have corrected him.

If we have a heroine epidemic in America, and if it's not produced in America, and if the ports are closed down, and if very little is intercepted at the Southern border...

What argument did you actually make?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#69
#69
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not inferring. I'm telling. Roust never made one comment about how much heroine is stopped at the southern border. You posted a stat about how much is stopped at the southern border, and now you're somehow claiming to have corrected him.

If we have a heroine epidemic in America, and if it's not produced in America, and if the ports are closed down, and if very little is intercepted at the Southern border...

What argument did you actually make?
Click to expand...

"98% of the heroin is coming across the southern border and not through our ports. Why?" False
 
#70
#70
Stew Cook said:
"98% of the heroin is coming across the southern border and not through our ports. Why? False
Click to expand...
You haven't shown it to be false. You've shown only that the current state of the southern border isn't catching much heroine. Feel free to show his statement as false; you just haven't and it's surprising that you don't see the illogical leap you took in trying to.

Again... Listing how little is stopped at the border is not the same as reporting how much gets through.

Now the 2015 DEA National Drug Threat Assessment says that Mexico is the US's primary supplier of Heroin and that Central American drug cartels are America's number one criminal drug threat. They also said that Mexican labs are the number one producer and smuggler of Fentanyl into America.

Homeland Security secretary said that the heroin and fentanyl come in primarily "by land" and not by sea. A 2015 Washington Post investigation estimated the drug seizing rate at the southern border at ~ 1.5%. That would put the rate of flow at around 98.5% for those keeping score at home, and show the irrational nature of using the low percent of seizure as proof of how "little" floods over the border.

You can agree or disagree with any of that, and set your illogical leaps as more of a standard, but it won't change the fact that your correction wasn't a correction, and your argument was illogical.

And to answer your other question, I do believe a wall would vastly improve defenses against drug traffic into the US from South and Central America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Obsessed
#71
#71
Orange_Crush said:
You haven't shown it to be false. You've shown only that the current state of the southern border isn't catching much heroine. Feel free to show his statement as false; you just haven't and it's surprising that you don't see the illogical leap you took in trying to.

Again... Listing how little is stopped at the border is not the same as reporting how much gets through.

Now the 2015 DEA National Drug Threat Assessment says that Mexico is the US's primary supplier of Heroin and that Central American drug cartels are America's number one criminal drug threat. They also said that Mexican labs are the number one producer and smuggler of Fentanyl into America.

Homeland Security secretary said that the heroin and fentanyl come in primarily "by land" and not by sea. A 2015 Washington Post investigation estimated the drug seizing rate at the southern border at ~ 1.5%. That would put the rate of flow at around 98.5% for those keeping score at home, and show the irrational nature of using the low percent of seizure as proof of how "little" floods over the border.

You can agree or disagree with any of that, and set your illogical leaps as more of a standard, but it won't change the fact that your correction wasn't a correction, and your argument was illogical.

And to answer your other question, I do believe a wall would vastly improve defenses against drug traffic into the US from South and Central America.
Click to expand...

Ok, just for the sake trying imagine what is possible. I suppose its possible that 98% of heroin comes from Mexico, over land, and not through the Ports of Entry from Mexico. But it can't really be quantified because we didn't catch them, so that 98% could be between 000.1 to 99.99%

Oh, and there is always the chance that talking points are intended to be purposely misleading by using ambiguous terminology.
 
#72
#72
Stew Cook said:
Ok, just for the sake trying imagine what is possible. I suppose its possible that 98% of heroin comes from Mexico, over land, and not through the Ports of Entry from Mexico. But it can't really be quantified because we didn't catch them, so that 98% could be between 000.1 to 99.99%

Oh, and there is always the chance that talking points are intended to be purposely misleading by using ambiguous terminology.
Click to expand...

Well, you've apparently agreed that "% stopped" is the opposite stat of "% that came into the country", so we've made huge strides, I think.

Feel free to dig in and figure out what methods Homeland Security used.

I don't think anyone is saying that 98% is coming through American/Mexican "ports of entry". I think they're saying it comes through hundreds of miles of unsecured border. In its strictest sense, unsecured borders aren't "ports of entry".

Oh, and... If the southern border were as easy as Homeland Security indicates to smuggle drugs through, and the ports of entry were hard/dangerous, it makes perfect sense that an incredibly high percentage of the entry would be across the easiest to come in, no matter where it was produces. You logic is equivalent to saying:

Ok, just for the sake trying imagine what is possible. I suppose its possible that 98% of blood would leave the body through cuts, stabs, scratches and any other path of least resistance, as opposed a statistically similar amount of loss across the human body's healthy skin, which is designed to keep blood in.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#73
#73
Orange_Crush said:
Well, you've apparently agreed that "% stopped" is the opposite stat of "% that came into the country", so we've made huge strides, I think.

Feel free to dig in and figure out what methods Homeland Security used.

I don't think anyone is saying that 98% is coming through American/Mexican "ports of entry". I think they're saying it comes through hundreds of miles of unsecured border. In its strictest sense, unsecured borders aren't "ports of entry".

Oh, and... If the southern border were as easy as Homeland Security indicates to smuggle drugs through, and the ports of entry were hard/dangerous, it makes perfect sense that an incredibly high percentage of the entry would be across the easiest to come in, no matter where it was produces. You logic is equivalent to saying:
Click to expand...

This is the assertion that I am disputing. The DEA says a small percentage is seized between ports of entry of the Mexican border, i.e. between legal ports of entry.. over under fences etc..

Here is the data:

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf
 
#74
#74
Stew Cook said:
This is the assertion that I am disputing. The DEA says a small percentage is seized between ports of entry of the Mexican border, i.e. between legal ports of entry.. over under fences etc..

Here is the data:

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about hurling elephants. A 150 page document. Feel free to quote the pertinent details if you want to dispute the assertion.

You never once mentioned any data except the % captures as proof of % not captured. That was the assertion I successfully disputed, so I'm cool with my argument.

It's interesting that you just said that the amount that slips through can't be quantified and now it seems you want to post something to quantify it. Weird. More logical contradiction.

Quote whatever data you feel supports your argument. I'm not reading 150 pages. Congratulations on recognizing your mistake and switching arguments. It's an improvement. Don't bother thanking me. It's not necessary. I do it for love of people and society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#75
#75
Orange_Crush said:
Wow, talk about hurling elephants. A 150 page document. Feel free to quote the pertinent details if you want to dispute the assertion.

You never once mentioned any data except the % captures as proof of % not captured. That was the assertion I successfully disputed, so I'm cool with my argument.

It's interesting that you just said that the amount that slips through can't be quantified and now it seems you want to post something to quantify it. Weird. More logical contradiction.

Quote whatever data you feel supports your argument. I'm not reading 150 pages. Congratulations on recognizing your mistake and switching arguments. It's an improvement. Don't bother thanking me. It's not necessary. I do it for love of people and society.
Click to expand...
It's a good read, Heroin starts on page 23
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top