• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Axing Homeland Security

Should the Homeland Security Dept Be Shutdown

  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
cpwill said:
That's sort of the point. It didn't work well - we got Trump. Responding to one group who decides to support an uninformed and hyperbolic bomb-thrower because "he fights" by supporting another uninformed and hyperbolic bomb thrower because "she fights" only ensures that we will be governed by hyperbolic idiots.
Click to expand...

That is why it worked. Hillary was so criminally distasteful the majority preferred Trump because he disrupted everything. He was not a politician (now he is). He was not a Washington insider (now he is). He loved trolling the Democrat media (which he still does). As long as Democrats control mainstream media and illegally influence elections, expect more of these Trump kind of candidates in the future. It ceases to be "freedom of the press" when they commit illegal acts. I'm hoping the Trump FCC demonstrates that in the 2020 General Election by arresting broadcasters who deliberately attempt to illegally influence a national election.
 
cpwill said:
That's sort of the point. It didn't work well - we got Trump. Responding to one group who decides to support an uninformed and hyperbolic bomb-thrower because "he fights" by supporting another uninformed and hyperbolic bomb thrower because "she fights" only ensures that we will be governed by hyperbolic idiots.
Click to expand...

Okay I have to admit that I judged you wrong. I thought you were a dyed in the wool Trump supporter.
 
Glitch said:
I'm hoping the Trump FCC demonstrates that in the 2020 General Election by arresting broadcasters who deliberately attempt to illegally influence a national election.
Click to expand...

Whacky.jpg

TMW2019-05-29color.png
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur? You sure you know what that means? I didn't make a step in an argument, logical or otherwise. I just suggested the next phrase in his sentence. What do you think my response doesn't follow?
 
calamity said:
How old are you?

Except for TSA, all the sub groups under DHS used to be under various other departments.

CBP was under DOJ

ICE was INS and also under DOJ

Coast Guard used to be under Treasury

FPS was under GSA

etc.
Click to expand...

And now they are all part of DHS, which apparently you and AOC want to axe. If that's not it, then what is it that you actually want to axe? Maybe you should be more precise.
 
cpwill said:
Richard Clark did do what he could, but no, the PDB did not contain actionable intelligence.

Here, an example:


"Hezbollah, on Iran's behalf, is considering responding to the recent rise in tension by attacking America with a boat."


Alright, you're the President. You get half a dozen warnings like this every day, how do you stop this attack when you have:

1. No idea who is actually going to be involved
2. Where it's going to occur (or, for that matter, fresh water or salt)
3. If it's actually going to occur, or if it's an intention
4. How far the planning process has gone


Do you just say "NO MORE AMERICANS IN OR NEAR THE WATER, AND I CAN"T TELL YOU WHY, BUT REASONS? ALSO, THE NAVY NEEDS TO SHOOT ANY BOAT THAT COMES NEAR, BECAUSE IT MIGHT GET ATTACKED"

Giving an intention to - maybe - attack at some time, with some thing, isn't really actionable, unless you also have specific individuals involved, that you can find, etc.

Bush was told Bin Laden intended to attack the U.S. (again), and authorized armed drones to go after him. Other than that.... ban Arabs from entering the United States? Nuke Afghanistan in order to make sure we got him?
Click to expand...

I sure as hell would not have ignored it and I sure as hell would not have ignored Clarke upon taking office.
 
calamity said:
How old are you?

Except for TSA, all the sub groups under DHS used to be under various other departments.

CBP was under DOJ

ICE was INS and also under DOJ

Coast Guard used to be under Treasury

FPS was under GSA

etc.
Click to expand...

I had to go looking to see which agencies were "consolidated" under DHS. Most of them, I'd never heard of.

Still don't understand why the Coast Guard...the true guardians of much our of "border" were under Treasury (except that they probably seized a ton of money, lol). I always thought they were a branch of the military and fell under the Joint Chiefs purvey.

Now...the Cajun Coast Guard...my hat's off to 'em. They get it done when it needs to get done. No questions asked. Hope all in Barry's path stay safe.
 
SomeCents said:
I had to go looking to see which agencies were "consolidated" under DHS. Most of them, I'd never heard of.

Still don't understand why the Coast Guard...the true guardians of much our of "border" were under Treasury (except that they probably seized a ton of money, lol). I always thought they were a branch of the military and fell under the Joint Chiefs purvey.

Now...the Cajun Coast Guard...my hat's off to 'em. They get it done when it needs to get done. No questions asked. Hope all in Barry's path stay safe.
Click to expand...

ATF used to be under treasury too. I have no idea why either.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Except the same thing happens at the state level, and the same thing happens in corporations and in business. The justice system as well is rife with politics. DAs doing thigns solely for being elected or political reasons as opposed to what is being done right.

The right likes to think its solely the federal government that is like that, but it infiltrates everything humans have their hands in
Click to expand...

:D On the contrary, my friend, what you are pointing to is one of the greater conservative insights, Public Choice Theory

Economists who study behavior in the private marketplace assume that people are motivated mainly by self-interest. Although most people base some of their actions on their concern for others, the dominant motive in people's actions in the marketplace—whether they are employers, employees, or consumers—is a concern for themselves. Public choice economists make the same assumption—that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-interest. In Buchanan's words the theory "replaces... romantic and illusory... notions about the workings of governments [with]... notions that embody more skepticism." ​


The only things that force state or (more likely) local government to be even slightly better is it's greater proximity to those it screws over, the fact that, given the smaller scale, issues are inherently less complex to begin with, and the fact that rational ignorance plays less of a role, since the immediately impacted local community can have swift impact if it mobilizes.

(same source above):

One of the chief underpinnings of public choice theory is the lack of incentives for voters to monitor government effectively. Anthony Downs, in one of the earliest public choice books, An Economic Theory of Democracy, pointed out that the voter is largely ignorant of political issues and that this ignorance is rational. Even though the result of an election may be very important, an individual's vote rarely decides an election. Thus, the direct impact of casting a well-informed vote is almost nil; the voter has virtually no chance to determine the outcome of the election. So spending time following the issues is not personally worthwhile for the voter. Evidence for this claim is found in the fact that public opinion polls consistently find that less than half of all voting-age Americans can name their own congressional representative.​


It's easy for a Congresscritter to ignore half the country. It's tougher for a city board to ignore their neighbors.


Private industry isn't more efficient and better at innovating because it's full of people who pursue the public good - but because it faces immediate market discipline in the form of competition (excepting in cases where government protects it from competition, and in those cases, private industry does indeed become less efficient, less caring about it's customers, and less able or willing to innovate). Rational Ignorance on the part of the voter/consumer also plays much less of a role, ensuring that that market discipline is much better informed, as well as swifter:

Public choice economists point out that this incentive to be ignorant is rare in the private sector. Someone who buys a car typically wants to be well informed about the car he or she selects. That is because the car buyer's choice is decisive—he or she pays only for the one chosen. If the choice is wise, the buyer will benefit; if it is unwise, the buyer will suffer directly. Voting lacks that kind of direct result. Therefore, most voters are largely ignorant about the positions of the people for whom they vote. Except for a few highly publicized issues, they do not pay a lot of attention to what legislative bodies do, and even when they do pay attention, they have little incentive to gain the background knowledge and analytic skill needed to understand the issues.​




:) Once you learn to maintain a healthy skepticism of the capability of people to reliably pursue the public good over their private good, and recognize that deep flaws and inadequacies will mark any human institution, and that only those institutions where those flaws and inadequacies face swift and informed correction can ever seriously attempt to mitigate them or improve, you have started on the path to the Dark Side, Sampson.


iu
 
Last edited:
Vadinho said:
I sure as hell would not have ignored it and I sure as hell would not have ignored Clarke upon taking office.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden's threat wasn't ignored - Bush authorized a CIA base in Northern Afghanistan to use armed drones (then still pretty new) to hunt him.

The intel available briefed to senior decision-makers simply lacked the specificity necessary to disrupt the 9/11 attacks.
 
These are the agencies of the Department Of Homeland Security:
Transportation Security Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Secret Service
Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce
National Communications System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
Energy Assurance Office of the Department of Energy
Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration
Federal Protective Service
Office of Domestic Preparedness
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Integrated Hazard Information System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBI
Domestic Emergency Support Team of the Department of Justice
Metropolitan Medical Response System of the Department of Health and Human Services
National Disaster Medical System of the Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human Services
Plum Island Animal Disease Center of Department of Agriculture

A freshman Democratic Congresswoman who won on a fluke against a long term Democratic incumbent from the Bronx - previously a barmaid - says the over 200,000 people with the DHS - including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and FBI Communications - to name just 3 - must be eliminated.

It is astonishing to see basically nearly all Democrats responding say YES! Eliminate the Coast Guard and Secret Service!

In my opinion, advocating for the elimination of the Secret Service is the most outrageously radical stance to date of the new corporate-fascist progressive Democratic Party. We all know what that means what some Democrats and in Congress want to cause to happen.
 
joko104 said:
These are the agencies of the Department Of Homeland Security:
Transportation Security Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Secret Service
Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce
National Communications System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
Energy Assurance Office of the Department of Energy
Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration
Federal Protective Service
Office of Domestic Preparedness
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Integrated Hazard Information System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBI
Domestic Emergency Support Team of the Department of Justice
Metropolitan Medical Response System of the Department of Health and Human Services
National Disaster Medical System of the Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human Services
Plum Island Animal Disease Center of Department of Agriculture

A freshman Democratic Congresswoman who won on a fluke against a long term Democratic incumbent from the Bronx - previously a barmaid - says the over 200,000 people with the DHS - including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and FBI Communications - to name just 3 - must be eliminated.

It is astonishing to see basically nearly all Democrats responding say YES! Eliminate the Coast Guard and Secret Service!

In my opinion, advocating for the elimination of the Secret Service is the most outrageously radical stance to date of the new corporate-fascist progressive Democratic Party. We all know what that means what some Democrats and in Congress want to cause to happen.
Click to expand...

The TSA certainly needs to be abolished, as soon as possible. The Coast Guard, however, is another matter. The Coast Guard use to be under the Department of Commerce, before Congress created the DHS. The US has 95,471 miles of coastline and the Coast Guard is the only federal law enforcement agency that covers the coast. If we expect them to enforce federal law they shouldn't be under the Department of Defense because of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, unless you want to combine them with the National Guard somehow.

The Secret Service needs to go back to the Department of the Treasury from whence they originated. They play a vital role in not just protecting the President and his family, but also counterfeiting and bank fraud investigations. I suppose they would not be out of place under the Department of Justice either, but they typically specialize in laws concerning our monetary system.

FEMA should not be under any Department. It should have remained an Independent Agency. FEMA would throw the annual budget of any Department completely out of whack because FEMA's budget will vary considerably depending on the disaster relief that Congress enacts.

Once we move ICE, Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and FEMA out of the DHS, then abolish the entire Department. While we're at it, abolish the Department of Education, Department of Commerce, and Department of Energy as well.
 
Last edited:
I would keep it because the reason why the emotional liberals or the emotional socialist liberals want to cut is borders and customs because they want more people to vote for them. This aoc is crazy if they want the whole department. I mean it would cut down on the waiting time to be clear by tsa but, frankly I think that they are out of control
 
I say dump homeland security and let the components of it go back to being individual agencies like before bush.

All he did was add another layer of bureaucracy that was never needed in the first place.
 
rickc said:
I say dump homeland security and let the components of it go back to being individual agencies like before bush.

All he did was add another layer of bureaucracy that was never needed in the first place.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, except that half of the entities under the Department of Homeland Security are brand new. Not only did Congress increase the scope of the federal government, they also dramatically increased the size of the federal government. Meanwhile a Republican-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate violated the Fourth Amendment rights of every American with their insane Transportation Security Administration. Congress, both Republicans and Democrats alike, truly screwed over Americans in the latter half of 2001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom