The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Marcus]

Gotcha.

What do you mean gotcha? Lol? How?

That means "I understand your point."

You do understand that "migrants," can be here either legally with a work visa, student visa, or a O1 visa, I hav eno idea how many types of visa's there are. And from most any country in the world, like say Lionel Messi, Shohei Ohtani, or Hugh Jackman....or hard working across that country that did things right. Or a migrant could be one that is here illegally,.

I started this thread and I give you permission to answer my question. Immigration issues are not off the table at all in this thread, Lol, as the author, I make that decree.

Oh thank you! But no, I'd rather stick with the OP topic.

There are illegal immigrants that smuggle fentanyl across the border everyday. Keep in mind that 1000's of Americans die each year because of this.

That you'll have to back up w facts. So far, The facts have shown that 80% of fentanyl-related smuggling is by US citizens.

So if you want to have a two way conversation answer my question please...."what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

My goodness! You even quoted me!

If you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions-fighting the battle from the demand side-

I don't recall, where? what post? Time and date please. I have 5 or 6 people posting to me with limited time, so I certainly might have missed it or it did not resonate.

YOU. QUOTED. MY. POST. Here is the rest of it:

Now that immigration issues are off the table, if you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions--fighting the battle from the demand side--and asked your opinion about that. Do you have one?

[Jersey Girl]

Let go or be dragged.

[Markk]

What do you mean gotcha? Lol? How?

That means "I understand your point."

You do understand that "migrants," can be here either legally with a work visa, student visa, or a O1 visa, I hav eno idea how many types of visa's there are. And from most any country in the world, like say Lionel Messi, Shohei Ohtani, or Hugh Jackman....or hard working across that country that did things right. Or a migrant could be one that is here illegally,.

I started this thread and I give you permission to answer my question. Immigration issues are not off the table at all in this thread, Lol, as the author, I make that decree.

Oh thank you! But no, I'd rather stick with the OP topic.

There are illegal immigrants that smuggle fentanyl across the border everyday. Keep in mind that 1000's of Americans die each year because of this.

That you'll have to back up w facts. So far, The facts have shown that 80% of fentanyl-related smuggling is by US citizens.

So if you want to have a two way conversation answer my question please...."what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

My goodness! You even quoted me!

If you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions-fighting the battle from the demand side-

I don't recall, where? what post? Time and date please. I have 5 or 6 people posting to me with limited time, so I certainly might have missed it or it did not resonate.

YOU. QUOTED. MY. POST. Here is the rest of it:

Now that immigration issues are off the table, if you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions--fighting the battle from the demand side--and asked your opinion about that. Do you have one?

Where are these more efficient ways? I am asking you where they are?

It is 80-85% of those caught, we have no idea the real numbers since most probably gets over.

But using your number, If it is 80% coming across in by mules that are US citizens, then that leaves a high percentage of illegals trafficking also. But in all reality it is a straw-man in that it is cartel drugs, and once it gets across it goes right back into the cartel network.

Refusing to answer these simple questions suggest you have no opinions, which is fine, but don't criticize others who do. Marcus we are just two hacks on an internet site, talking about difficult realities, and trying to figure it out. If you can't present an opposing position, while criticizing mine, what is the point? I am not interested playing 20 questions with you.

[Gadianton]

To answer both Marcus and Markk:

This the 'the fentanyl crisis thread', right?

If you we referring to the thread I quoted Markk from, then no. Markk also wanted me to tell him the context of his own comment, and so I'll answer both. This was Jersey Girl's Mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=159333&hilit=fentanyl

He ties the connection of his comments in that thread securely to illegal immigration by stating "in context with the OP." Yes, Markk is right that it was Nov 18th, not Dec. 14th, and I was wrong about that. Markk is now trying to claim there was all kinds of other stuff he was thinking about in that post, but what we're primarily interested in, is the continuation of the topic of mass deportations, that Jersey Girl started, and that Markk linked Fentanyl to in a very clear way. Markk fantasizes that none of us are concerned about fentanyl and only he is taking it seriously. This is not true, the main problem I have, at least, is that he dishonestly represented Trump's plan as one that would go after criminals first. Since this post, after clearly misrepresenting Trump's plan, he says that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Was this dishonesty on the part of Markk?

Yes. a whole lot of dishonesty. Had Markk looked around and found the data on Clinton in November, it's possible that he would have owned Trump's plans for work site raids and not tried to tie mass deporations to Fentanyl. He very likely knew that Trump planned the most draconian of measures -- they are draconian independent of whether Clinton also tried them -- and knew that it was a major point of his cheering peers to make them as draconian as possible, but instead misrepresented the plan as something that liberals would have some sympathy for. Surely liberals wouldn't be against ejecting Fentanyl dealers, would they? No, not in principal, as with all things there is theory and reality, and that would require a topic of its own, such as this one. That could be discussed here. The problem is, Markk started this thread as a red herring, as a way to escape his ties of Fentanyl to the necessity of mass deportation. That's what he's been doing since he brought it up the first time.

Now that he's discovered Clinton, he has a new excuse. Instead of, "Mass deportation cuz' fentanyl", it's "Mass deportation because Clinton did it too!"
this is the mark of a broken moral compass. Apologetics that shift to whatever they need to be to support Trump, his dictator.

Lets talk about Clinton for just one second. How well did the 90s reforms and Clinton's raids "fix the problem"? Apparently, it didn't fix the problem because here we are. If there was a president who was a hero of immigration, it was the unlikely painter, George W. Bush. If Markk is right, that "Clinton did it too!" then the entire Trump plan is to repeat history with something that won't work. George W. at least tried to make legal immigration more viable, something his fellow republicans have consistently refused to do and Democrats haven't succeeded in doing. George W. realized the problem wasn't getting fixed by draconian measures. Look, history is replete with bad things the US has done. Maybe Markk will suggest next that Trump should test nuclear bombs on islands of indigenous people because we've done it before. Or maybe we should claim somebody has weapons of mass destruction who doesn't and go wipe them out. In Trump world, the draconian measures aren't just the means, it's the rally cry, and that is surely going to lead to worse abuses. I see two possible outcomes here:

1) Republican messaging and support for openly being as cruel as possible will lead to historic human rights abuses.
2) The messaging will work as a scare tactic, and illegals will voluntarily leave in masses, which will still involve abuses but not as bad as mass detentions. If Clinton is the measure, a lot depends on what they are exiting voluntarily to face on the outside world. In this case, the best possible outcome is doing something we know doesn't work just to be cruel and the long-term problem remains as "bad" as ever.

[Markk]

To answer both Marcus and Markk:

This the 'the fentanyl crisis thread', right?

If you we referring to the thread I quoted Markk from, then no. Markk also wanted me to tell him the context of his own comment, and so I'll answer both. This was Jersey Girl's Mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=159333&hilit=fentanyl

He ties the connection of his comments in that thread securely to illegal immigration by stating "in context with the OP." Yes, Markk is right that it was Nov 18th, not Dec. 14th, and I was wrong about that. Markk is now trying to claim there was all kinds of other stuff he was thinking about in that post, but what we're primarily interested in, is the continuation of the topic of mass deportations, that Jersey Girl started, and that Markk linked Fentanyl to in a very clear way. Markk fantasizes that none of us are concerned about fentanyl and only he is taking it seriously. This is not true, the main problem I have, at least, is that he dishonestly represented Trump's plan as one that would go after criminals first. Since this post, after clearly misrepresenting Trump's plan, he says that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Was this dishonesty on the part of Markk?

Yes. a whole lot of dishonesty. Had Markk looked around and found the data on Clinton in November, it's possible that he would have owned Trump's plans for work site raids and not tried to tie mass deporations to Fentanyl. He very likely knew that Trump planned the most draconian of measures -- they are draconian independent of whether Clinton also tried them -- and knew that it was a major point of his cheering peers to make them as draconian as possible, but instead misrepresented the plan as something that liberals would have some sympathy for. Surely liberals wouldn't be against ejecting Fentanyl dealers, would they? No, not in principal, as with all things there is theory and reality, and that would require a topic of its own, such as this one. That could be discussed here. The problem is, Markk started this thread as a red herring, as a way to escape his ties of Fentanyl to the necessity of mass deportation. That's what he's been doing since he brought it up the first time.

Now that he's discovered Clinton, he has a new excuse. Instead of, "Mass deportation cuz' fentanyl", it's "Mass deportation because Clinton did it too!"
this is the mark of a broken moral compass. Apologetics that shift to whatever they need to be to support Trump, his dictator.

Lets talk about Clinton for just one second. How well did the 90s reforms and Clinton's raids "fix the problem"? Apparently, it didn't fix the problem because here we are. If there was a president who was a hero of immigration, it was the unlikely painter, George W. Bush. If Markk is right, that "Clinton did it too!" then the entire Trump plan is to repeat history with something that won't work. George W. at least tried to make legal immigration more viable, something his fellow republicans have consistently refused to do and Democrats haven't succeeded in doing. George W. realized the problem wasn't getting fixed by draconian measures. Look, history is replete with bad things the US has done. Maybe Markk will suggest next that Trump should test nuclear bombs on islands of indigenous people because we've done it before. Or maybe we should claim somebody has weapons of mass destruction who doesn't and go wipe them out. In Trump world, the draconian measures aren't just the means, it's the rally cry, and that is surely going to lead to worse abuses. I see two possible outcomes here:

1) Republican messaging and support for openly being as cruel as possible will lead to historic human rights abuses.
2) The messaging will work as a scare tactic, and illegals will voluntarily leave in masses, which will still involve abuses but not as bad as mass detentions. If Clinton is the measure, a lot depends on what they are exiting voluntarily to face on the outside world. In this case, the best possible outcome is doing something we know doesn't work just to be cruel and the long-term problem remains as "bad" as ever.

Just another weird rant .

You stated that Trump was violating (and I justifying that) their human rights of illegal immigrants, present tense, then when I pointed out the previous other four presidents collectively and individually deported far more illegal immigrants than Trump did in his first term you moved away from your original claim.

You came up with some weird formula and unhinged bigoted theory, that while those other presidents violated their human rights, it was justifiable because they weren't show boating with "a bunch of wicked and deranged google-eyed Christians crying for blood." and because he will be sending several to Guantanamo, and other facilities "out of view." I guess you believe prisons, jails, and detention camps should be in view....I am curious, how?

Focus, Clinton is not the measure, I guess that is your latest straw-man. Previous presidents deporting illegal immigrants, and whether or not that violates their human rights, and by default demanding they have US civil rights, is the question context. Which by the way begs the question that having borders is morally wrong for all human beings; a question I often ask here that is like pulling teeth to get an answer, in that it is an obvious catch 22.

More later off to Palm Springs for brunch, sorry to those in the cold.

[canpakes]

.
Markk, I searched the White House web site for all mentions of the word, ‘fentanyl’, and reviewed each document for details on the Trump Administration’s plans to address this crisis:


* Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China

Fact Sheets February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border

Presidential Actions February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Imposing Duties to Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China

Presidential Actions February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares a National Emergency at the Southern Border

Fact Sheets January 22, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* America First Trade Policy

Presidential Actions January 20, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Imposing Duties to Address the Situation at Our Southern Border

Presidential Actions February 1, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Remarks by President Trump at Executive Order Signing

Remarks January 23, 2025

Proposed solution: Tariffs!

* Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

Briefings & Statements January 29, 2025

Proposed solution: Mostly confused gibberish, somewhat related to tariffs.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/?s=Fentanyl

I’m getting the distinct impression that Trump either doesn’t know how to address the problem in any sort of multifaceted way, or simply doesn’t care.

Maybe that’ll change down the road ..?

[Gadianton]

it was justifiable because they weren't show boating

I did NOT say it was justifiable. People should be shocked by the use of detention centers then, and the human rights violations that happened as a matter of course. That should inform us better for the future. With Trump, the starting point is advertising "Guantanamo Bay", which is the poster child for human rights violations, and THAT is the sales pitch that you folks are standing behind. That will likely lead to unprecedented human rights violations, as I said. You also seem to be confused about something: plotting a murder is immoral (and illegal) even if the murder hasn't taken place yet.

a bunch of wicked and deranged google-eyed Christians crying for blood." and because he will be sending several to Guantanamo, and other facilities "out of view."

Indeed. I stand behind this comment and once again note your broken moral compass and call you to repentance. But at least you're owning up to reality here. Instead of hiding behind a fake plea to fight fentanyl, you're admitting you are aware that mass deportation will require sending large numbers of people to holding facilities that are "out of view" where they could be crammed into tiny spaces and starved. And these aren't hardened criminals, but people just working a job like you are.

I guess you believe prisons, jails, and detention camps should be in view....I am curious, how?

You're starting to own your message. That's a step in the right direction. They CAN'T be "in view," Markk. Here is what I'm trying to tell you: mass deportation isn't possible, it's unrealistic, it will only happen with severe abuses if it can happen at all. There is absolutely no way to detain hundreds of thousands or more of illegals humanely. I note again, Guantanamo Bay is the symbol from you folks BECAUSE it's historically a place of massive abuse, and that is what you're selling to your team of good Christian people. The inhumanity is the feature, not the problem, Markk. Hitler would sure be jealous of Trump for how easy Trump's base would have made Hitler's job. Hitler also underestimated the difficulty of mass deportations. The original plan wasn't to kill millions of people.

Focus, Clinton is not the measure

I'll give you credit for finding that web page. Other right-wingers here wouldn't have found it. It could definitely be material for a productive conversation. The pulling teeth is the other way around: it's like pulling teeth trying to get you to admit what Trump's plan really is. If you were more forthright, you would have answered Jersey Girl with something other than a red herring about fentanyl that you're three months into doubling down on. The problem you have now is justifying that plan. What is so dire about the border situation that you need to conduct mass deportations, mostly of working people, along with housing them inhumanely in detention facilities? Trump has an answer. His answer is that the working people he's deporting are criminals and psychos. What's your answer? If you can answer that, I'll answer any question about the border you want.

[canpakes]

I note again, Guantanamo Bay is the symbol from you folks BECAUSE it's historically a place of massive abuse, and that is what you're selling to your team of good Christian people.

I just can’t get in bed with the idea of using human suffering for spectacle and amusement.

[Marcus]

To answer both Marcus and Markk:

This the 'the fentanyl crisis thread', right?

If you we referring to the thread I quoted Markk from, then no. Markk also wanted me to tell him the context of his own comment, and so I'll answer both. This was Jersey Girl's Mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=159333&hilit=fentanyl

He ties the connection of his comments in that thread securely to illegal immigration by stating "in context with the OP." Yes, Markk is right that it was Nov 18th, not Dec. 14th, and I was wrong about that. Markk is now trying to claim there was all kinds of other stuff he was thinking about in that post, but what we're primarily interested in, is the continuation of the topic of mass deportations, that Jersey Girl started, and that Markk linked Fentanyl to in a very clear way. Markk fantasizes that none of us are concerned about fentanyl and only he is taking it seriously. This is not true, the main problem I have, at least, is that he dishonestly represented Trump's plan as one that would go after criminals first. Since this post, after clearly misrepresenting Trump's plan, he says that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Was this dishonesty on the part of Markk?

Yes. a whole lot of dishonesty. Had Markk looked around and found the data on Clinton in November, it's possible that he would have owned Trump's plans for work site raids and not tried to tie mass deporations to Fentanyl. He very likely knew that Trump planned the most draconian of measures -- they are draconian independent of whether Clinton also tried them -- and knew that it was a major point of his cheering peers to make them as draconian as possible, but instead misrepresented the plan as something that liberals would have some sympathy for. Surely liberals wouldn't be against ejecting Fentanyl dealers, would they? No, not in principal, as with all things there is theory and reality, and that would require a topic of its own, such as this one. That could be discussed here. The problem is, Markk started this thread as a red herring, as a way to escape his ties of Fentanyl to the necessity of mass deportation. That's what he's been doing since he brought it up the first time.

Now that he's discovered Clinton, he has a new excuse. Instead of, "Mass deportation cuz' fentanyl", it's "Mass deportation because Clinton did it too!"
this is the mark of a broken moral compass. Apologetics that shift to whatever they need to be to support Trump, his dictator.

Lets talk about Clinton for just one second. How well did the 90s reforms and Clinton's raids "fix the problem"? Apparently, it didn't fix the problem because here we are. If there was a president who was a hero of immigration, it was the unlikely painter, George W. Bush. If Markk is right, that "Clinton did it too!" then the entire Trump plan is to repeat history with something that won't work. George W. at least tried to make legal immigration more viable, something his fellow republicans have consistently refused to do and Democrats haven't succeeded in doing. George W. realized the problem wasn't getting fixed by draconian measures. Look, history is replete with bad things the US has done. Maybe Markk will suggest next that Trump should test nuclear bombs on islands of indigenous people because we've done it before. Or maybe we should claim somebody has weapons of mass destruction who doesn't and go wipe them out. In Trump world, the draconian measures aren't just the means, it's the rally cry, and that is surely going to lead to worse abuses. I see two possible outcomes here:

1) Republican messaging and support for openly being as cruel as possible will lead to historic human rights abuses.
2) The messaging will work as a scare tactic, and illegals will voluntarily leave in masses, which will still involve abuses but not as bad as mass detentions. If Clinton is the measure, a lot depends on what they are exiting voluntarily to face on the outside world. In this case, the best possible outcome is doing something we know doesn't work just to be cruel and the long-term problem remains as "bad" as ever.

Thanks for the background Gad, and I agree, he's using the fentanyl thing as a red herring to keep harping on Trump's messes. That was my point with my sentence you quoted, I didn't mean to call you out on it, sorry about that! But, you unmasked his red herring, which I suspect is why he refuses to comment on demand side intervention.

Reading this was especially amusing:

...But using your number, If it is 80% coming across in by mules that are US citizens, then that leaves a high percentage of illegals trafficking also...

80% is a high percentage, but 20% is a high percentage also! Oh hell, let's just say it Markk, all percentages are high! Everyone gets a high percentage designation!!!!!! Lol.

[Gadianton]

I just can’t get in bed with the idea of using human suffering for spectacle and amusement.

If you find it disturbing, then I highly recommend that you don't go to Rumble and watch the celebrations over Guantanamo Bay there. "Democrats are furious, LOL!"

I'm actually surprised Markk didn't react the way of the typical Rumbler, which only shows the extent to which that compass of his is broken into pieces. A typical response is, Trump just sent 10 hardcore gang-criminals there as the first arrivals, why do Democrats want to protect these bad people? I'm surprised Markk didn't object to my comments and tell me that I'm misrepresenting the plan, that Guantanamo is reserved for the worst of the worst. It sounds like he's okay with it being used for illegals in general.

Here are a couple selections for those with the stomach for Christianity as it's practiced today:

https://rumble.com/v6g4sxj-kristi-noem- ... anamo.html
https://rumble.com/v6gtee7-gutfeld-guan ... rings.html

The first video is our dog killer in chief who states that it's for criminals but then when pressed, won't rule out its use for children and families. A big problem with Guantanamo even for criminals is the same issue Obama had when he ran ICE campaigns targeting criminals. You just aren't going to get the big numbers required for a "mass" deportation, by focusing on the worst of the worst. Obama ended up nabbing people with modest records from decades in the past just to get 2500 or so "criminals". Here's a quote from the nypost:

Trump-ordered raids have netted thousands of arrests of illegal migrants across the country, including dozens of Tren de Aragua gangbangers

dozens eh? it's going to take a long time to get to 30,000 seats at this rate. If the numbers are approximately a thousand to twelve, then as facilities get hard pressed for space, the capacity will be needed for those taken in by the thousands, not the twelves. You need the twelves to sell the idea and move the Overton Window before you start sending families.

The other link is Fox's Gutfeld, one of the greatest morons of our day, in other words, a good example of a Christian today. Of course, immediately one of the boys says to send Faucci there. None of these Christians are going to feel the least bit bad about it for various reasons. One of the guys explains that sanctuary cities wouldn't give up criminals, and so now they will be punished. "You didn't want to give back the green crayon, so now we'll take all your crayons!"