Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Mexican Cartels: The Fallout of El Chapo" video.

@ThePrikly William F. Buckley tells the story of being booked by his agent to speak at a small college. He arrived on a private flight, at a small nondescript private airport. He gave his speech and flew home again, never knowing where he had spoken.
12
He misses the connection between increased immigration and increased human trafficking, though. Take a huge anti-Trump and pro-Establishment bias into account, when you're listening to him.
5
@Matt_from_Florida Drug smuggling (and, it should be noted, a massive drug trade) existed in China in the 19th century, leading to massive social problems. It was subsequently suppressed. We should take note, and follow suit.
3
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out if Peter's anti-Trump bias is part of his character, or just something he does to keep himself ingratiated with the Establishment.
2
@kevinwelsh7490 Peter is presenting a fairly novel set of ideas based on factual data. It's close enough to what people have observed before and know to be true that it's going to be believed, and there's enough of a distinction between his conclusions and conventional wisdom, that it's going to make a difference. What that difference will be -- what typhoons, if any, are spawned by the flapping of his jaws -- remains to be seen.
2
@Matt_from_Florida It's certainly possible to persuade a given group of people not to engage in the drug trade. The cartels do it all the time. Imagine a single cartel suppressing all the others. Then imagine that cartel getting suppressed, themselves. It's not impossible at all.
2
@Matt_from_Florida No, I'm getting bored with the argument because you are making claims that are demonstrably untrue. You should stop doing that.
2
@mlaw1123 Peter seems to be honest enough with his inside scoop the rest of the time, that it might be more worthwhile to listen to his take on specific issues with Trump. Instead Peter seems to confine himself to respectable (predictable) name-calling most of the time, unfortunately.
1
@robertduluth8994 The sheer amount of pants-sh**ting I see in the archaic media over Trump and the prospect of his running and winning in 2024.
1
@robertduluth8994 That's the thing, you don't have to advocate for a policy to be influential. A lot of the time that even hurts your influence, as those opposed to your policies work directly against you. Peter's introduction of demographic and geographic data to the discussion frames the debate, and shapes what policies people are going to think of and accept. Resistance to some policies will grow, resistance to other policies will fade, as people follow their common sense. It's nice to have that common sense informed by data, for a change.
1
@kevinwelsh7490 I've seen people with influence change their minds based on Peter's analysis. We'll see where that goes.
1
With sufficient pressure, people will leave that money on the table. With lessened pressure, the problem only gets worse.
1
@badmexican333 The more Americans die from fentanyl, the closer we get to that situation. If Hunter Biden (just to name a figure we all know) fell into this category, we might see it happen overnight.
1
@Matt_from_Florida Um, I'm pointing out a situation where it did in fact work. Your devotion to your point in the face of contrary evidence is an ideological denial of reality. Insisting on it is not very bright. I could speculate about what motivates your "reasoning", but it's probably something boring, like your enjoying being on drugs yourself.
1
@JM-kv2kn I have a better idea of what the US military is capable of, than you do.
1
@Matt_from_Florida We'll see if Sinaloa (with its rapport with the locals) gets taken down. The only thing the US military (or at least, public support for the US military) isn't particularly good at handling, is a restive population. If the local populations turn against the cartels because they rule by fear and violence, whenever there is political will in Washington (which happens from time to time), it's a matter of a few weeks at most for an unleashed US military to wipe out whatever organization they're pointed at. I suppose you could fall back to the position that this political will would never materialize (although you would be wrong), but that gives lie to your position that it would be somehow physically impossible. That's a childish ideological position, not supported by facts. You really should be embarrassed to hold it.
1
@Matt_from_Florida Why do you think Sinaloa is pursuing the strategy of befriending the local population, looking legit, and often cooperating with the US? It's not out of the kindness of their hearts, it's a matter of self-preservation. A cartel without that strategy, dooms itself. You're incredibly naive for thinking that stopping the drug trade is somehow physically impossible. You should probably stop taking drugs, it's stunted your intelligence.
1
@kchall5 Power and riches aren't much good to dead people. You're upset that your drug habits will be disrupted by an effective interdiction policy. Too bad.
1
@cesarakacees See: Operation Enduring Freedom. The Iraqi army, the finest in the region, fell within weeks -- and that was on the opposite side of the world, not just a short drive from Fort Bliss. Judging relative military power is objective, not ideological. In fact, it's arguably the most objective thing in the world.
1
"All Trump cared about was stopping immigration ... with Biden, human trafficking is back on the agenda" Mostly because without immigration, you don't have human trafficking. Peter, you're giving Biden WAY too much of a pass here. Biden is incompetent, and our open border is a disaster.
1