Your post was terriffic! You gave much more clarification on these two men and the heritage they each left to us.
I was not taking a position, only trying to relay my understanding of your earlier post.
Without going in too deeply, or without getting too political, I strongly oppose buidling a wall.
(In fact, I think it's simply nuts - an utter boondoggle!)
As I mentioned almost a year ago, I think the money could be far better spent to combat the "problem" by realistic an practical assistance at the very sources - such as the desperately poor Hondurans of the northern provinces of Honduras (mostly Mayan descendent minorities - who are neglected, mistreated, and almost completely unrepresented by their own government.
(added later - AND HUNGRY!)
And today, there is so much power in the hands of the local gangs, that those people live in nightmares not unlike thoe of Syria and Iraq - only the type of weapons and the scenery are different.
One young congressman has argued that both sides of the "wall issue" should shut up and just go stop the gangs. Worth pondering.
It's my understanding that Honduras, Guatamala, El Slavador, and to a lesser extent, Nicaragua have become such poor, crime-ridden, corrupt, and violent cultures because of generations of our own meddling in their socio-political economic systems. Back in the early 20th century, we let companies like United Fruit Company deal ruthlessly and without regulation in the raping and profiteering of those people for the priviledge of making profits from the banana trade. I beleive we actually assised in assasinations of freely elected leaders (whose only crime was to want their own country), and helped place the control back into the hands of Mafia "Robber Barron" families like the Samozas of Nicaragua - who did nothing more than rape and pillage their own countires - under the guise of being "opposed to Communism".
But as a reaction to that, we have left the door open for the left-wing guerilla movements of those areas, such a s Daniel Ortega, the former Sandanista leader, who, as the present leader of Nicaragua, (who also fought a corrupt and violent right-wing goverment) now poses as a "democrat", but holds power over the entire governemental apperatus.
I have a good friend who is in and investment group that plunged a lot of money into a real estate development in Nicaragua back when peace had "broken out" (when was that? back in the 80's? - the lady in the wheel-chair that got freely elected ??). He tells me how the Ortega Goverment has blocked almost everything they try to do. They have come to a complete standstill and had to lay off hundreds of well-slaried employees. And meanwhile Ortega pays for hundreds of buses to bring the poor people in from the rual villages, feed and house them for a few days during the elections, and surprize, surprize - re-elect him. He has completely strangled the economy, while he resides in a huge mansion in the capital.
In these countries, we see examples both on the left and on the right, all serving themsleves at the expense of their own working class citizens.
It is my opinion that politics and power can be so corrupt - on either side - that merely trusting the so-called "party line" over facts and real solutions, will ultimately lead to more severe division, more government waste, and failure. I have always felt that somewhere between the extremes of "Left" and "Right", exists a hundred small points of truth that might actually be worth trying.
In case you have misunderstood me;
I think I have made myself quite clear in past posts (trying to get away from that topic), I have no respect for, or allegience to, a narcisistic "whore-mongering draft dodger". I may lean somewhat to the conservative side on most issues (not all) - and less so than I once did before a man named Cheney broke my trust. But my fundamental principles of basic morality are not for sale, not even for "thirty pieces of silver".
Not even if it means "winning".
.jpg)
.jpg)
