Wtf, I'm voting for Trump now

wtf, I'm voting for Trump now

Other urls found in this thread:

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Immigrants,_2014_(per_1_000_inhabitants)_YB16.png
twitter.com/AnonBabble

WTF? i hate CIA now

I think what the film was trying to achieve is that regardless of who you elect/support/scorn there's going to be relentless vast crime syndicates that need the overreaching and """""immoral""""" intervention of government agencies. Obviously legislation doesn't work in these cases so it becomes critical to stoop down to their level; it's all they know and the only way you'll ever deal with such sordid fucks.

i don't think they have these kinds of problems in 99% white countries like Norway

No of course not, they're not bordered but an overpopulated 3rd world state. The 1 millimetre border that Russia and Norway share doesn't count, that's comparing apples and bowling balls. In the case for the US, these kinds of acts are necessary. Latin America is a literal cancer on the face of this earth.

>No of course not, they're not bordered but an overpopulated 3rd world state.

Give Sweden 10 years and that's exactly what they'll be

Are you fucking retarded?

The whole point of the film is to condemn that kind of immoral, interventionistic and extrajudicial government actions. In the end we see that the government's attempt to fix the market and install one cartel as a monopoly does not lead to order and stability.

Essentially it is Ron Paul: The Movie.

I didn't reach that conclusion

>In the end we see that the government's attempt to fix the market and install one cartel as a monopoly does not lead to order and stability.

We do?

Regardless, we're discussing the border of the US and Mexico, not utopian Europe singing its swan song.
It's two sides of the same coin, it raises the question "where do you draw the line?". Yeah, the direct intervention was to maintain direct control over the drug trafficking but Brolin's character summed it up best:
>And until somebody finds a way to convince 20% of the population to stop snorting and smoking that shit, order's the best we can hope for
It's a moral judgement but to what end?

At the end the corrupt Mexican cop's kid was playing football(soccer) and an explosion went off in the distance. This scene implies that the violence continued unabated even after one cartel supposedly became a monopoly. The film's certainly not endorsing the idea of "stooping down to their level." Nothing in the film suggests the government's "immoral" intervention worked. Brolin's character is consistently portrayed to be a rent-seeking scum through and through. How anyone can think the film's saying that he's a hero and we need more of him to win the war on drugs is beyond me.

I get the feeling that the ultimate message here is right-libertarianism: simply to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law. Solving the drug problem is beyond the film's scope.

>In the end we see that the government's attempt to fix the market and install one cartel as a monopoly does not lead to order and stability.
That's not what the US was doing at all bro. It was a real shitty analogue of OPECfor the narco dollar world. Narcos attempt to adjust the prices in their favor. CIA went in to create a power vacuum that inevitably caused the prices to be more manageable thus the CIA makes more profit for its black bag budget.
There is no benefit to having a monopoly, it's just someone you'll eventually have to depose whether it's due to your administration change or the Narco gets too uppity.

>if you ever point a gun at me again, I'll kill you
>points gun at him

I don't understand how others don't see this.

The movie is portraying Blunt's view as the ideal one, albeit not one she has the power to enforce outside of the DEA. The entire reason the lead is female is because the writer believed a woman would be more likely to stand by her moral convictions in a situation like this, where the government is knowingly breaking the law and stooping to low criminal tactics. She was always the one we were supposed to empathise with.

Nigger it was literally the next day. Do you really think criminal elements will dissolve after 12 hours?

Yeah but the lack of violence after an installation of a monopoly it's assumed by the movie, to be honest.

No it wasn't, it didn't show the aftermath of Medellín's actions or if it even worked. It didn't criticize nor did it praise the plan of the CIA.
Everytime this movie is discussed I see people projecting certain opinions into the film, whether their own or those against their own.
The only thing the movie does is show the ruthlessness of the Agencies. It decides that the viewers should decide if they are doing the right or wrong thing in the right or wrong way, but also that something HAS to be done. What exactly that is up to the viewer

Do you think getting rid of the head of ONE cartel boss would establish the monopoly, and in 12 hours? I believe we saw one the first steps of many to do that in the film. And to assume the violence would stop even if the monopoly was established is naive at best.

How can you tell it was literally the next day? For all we know it could've been a month later.
?
A few edgelords get the wrong message. They think it's about necessary evil or some shit.

>voting for Trump now
That is alright, go on.
Regardless of your voting decision it should be noted though, that crime in Juarez peaked in 2010 and is rapidly going down ever since.
Mexican government and citizens have put up massive resistance against the cartels.

>a stabilizing Mexico
Feds won't like when their honor badge printing project strays too far from the shit pile they need it to be. Blood bath, soon.

Not OP, butIt is not about how this is necessary evil nor how their actions are soo bad.
It is about the US government getting desperate and having to rely on extreme measures because they don't see any other possibilities

>they're not bordered
lol its current year you dont have to be bordered by savages to be invaded by them.

BECAUSE THE DAD TALKS ABOUT ATTENDING THAT SOCCER GAME YOU DUMB CUNT. HOLY SHIT, LEARN TO FUCKING READ SUBTITLES.

This has been true since before current year, you know.
It's amazing how people are so ignorant about the last 4000 years.

>"savages" will drive their boat around europe all the way to Norway, instead of just landing on southern europe
There is no reason let alone a realistic way for this happening.

More like cuckold leaders will import rapists for ez voting base.

but you already knew that mr redditor

They land in southern europe and then they start travelling north into countries like Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway and France to get better welfare. The open borders in europe means they won't be stopped along the way.

Of course they don't take the boats to Norway, you're just being irrational on purpose.

How do you know it's THAT football game the next day. If the kid regularly plays football it could've been a game a month later.

I think you should check your shit. These routes were closed months ago and migration rates have been significantly reduced.

>reduced
Yeah so now it's tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands flooding in each week. That means all the problems have disappeared! And let's just forget about all the millions who are already in europe illegally.

Just because they tightened the security doesn't mean that all of those people have just vanished or decided to go home.

No, but
>open borders
is simply wrong, mowrong

Some limited border controls in certain places doesn't mean that it's not easy as fuck to travel between different european countries. I'm not denying the existance of border controls but in practice they're so easy to circumvent that they hardly matter ,especially in continental europe.

I am not American but it's kind of sad that since John Gotti there hasn't been a really famous crime boss in the United States.
I hope El Chapo and the rest of the cartels give us some more action to cheer for.

Great, I'm just trying to be precise.

Just wait for Mexico to make a deal with the US to use their drones like they've been used on isis. Bye bye cartels not on my fucking planet you're not.

No, you're trying to nitpick pointless details in order to distract from the topic at hand which is that migrants arrive in southern europe and then with very little hinder travel north. But those 0.01% of the migrants that actually get stopped in some police control is all you seem to focus on. Why? It's negligible.

She spends the entire movie being ignored, pushed around, and used by Matt and Medellin, and is literally tossed aside when she starts to become an inconvenience. She accomplishes literally nothing in the movie except being a pawn for the operation. Her whole storyline is that idealism, even if morally correct, doesn't mean fuck all in the real world.

Watch the movie again before making retarded posts.

>the US attacking its assets
The narco dollar props up our intelligence agency, no one in their right mind would actually fuck with the cartels.

Pointless? No.
And these things get repeated in this fucking echo chamber until they are believed as """facts""", and afterwards they start making up more stuff.
Just because your fucking ego is hurt doesn't mean I get off correcting little foreign faggots and this is of no use.

inb4
>echo chamber
>what a lib lebbit cuck

I think it's because his name is Ahmed.

Are Blunt and Krasinkski the most based conservative couple?

You didn't hurt my ego you moron. I just think it's baffling how you try to steer the discussion into being about trivial details when the origin of the discussion was some moron claiming that "lol migrants don't take their boats that far north they go to southern europe".

While that is true they still just travel north on land basically unhindered until they hit a choke point like the Calais tunnel or the Oresund bridge. But that means they're already in northern europe. And many of them still find ways to cross the water into the UK or Sweden even with these limited border controls which they can legally only implement temporarily since they violate the open border principle in europe.

...

You're just telling yourself what you want to hear. Del Toro killing the boss obviously wouldn't stop all violence on a dime.

Holy shit, a whole month? Fuck outta here.

The current number and proportion of foreigners going into western countries has absolutely no precedent in recorded history. It is only similar to conquested countries and invasions. This is uncharted territory and all european leaders is pretend everything is going to solve itself and call dissenters racist.

This. And her being a woman had its desired effect. Yes maybe she would be more inclined to stand by her morals, but also more prone to being naive and blue eyed.

A lot of good a wall's going to do with tunnels.

You better redefine foreigners in order to move the goalposts because what's now spain, france and uk got their shit pushed in quite damn hard for centuries by foreigners from northern and southern societies.

will Villeneuve literally ever make a bad movie? By that I mean enjoyed by very few. You can dislike one or two of his films but he's got to be one of the most consistent directors working today

First traveling north is unhindered in central europe for the most part. But not on the Balkans, the main route.
Second we have countries all over controling their borders. And even if the EU says "b-but border controls aren't what we are about" those countries know they can get away with it for the future, because the EU has too many problems to get down on them. That includes Sweden and Britain

Close. The US is always indirectly involved with anti-drug shit abroad, as well as other shit involving foreign friendly governments.

As for the narco situation, I blame Reagan and the war on drugs. What the fuck do people expect, that magically the public will stop using drugs if they're outlawed? If you make something illegal the price just gets higher and makes it more desirable. Combine that with an extremely high poorfag population and you get the cartels. Crime pays VERY well, and that is more desirable than being a poorfag when it comes to feeding your kids.

>got their shit pushed in quite damn hard for centuries by foreigners from northern and southern societies.
What part of "it is only similar to conquest and invasions" you don't understand? Current numbers are not comparable to anything that happened in peaceful times.

Order must be maintained. This is why I support Clinton, backing a dumbass non-politician or an ineffectual socialist is retarded when it comes to the biggest economy on earth. Kids don't understand that. Anyways, the ends do justify the means. I had to get my greencard through Ciudad Juarez and it is worse than depicted in the movie. EVERY home has a fence, and it's a daily occurence of deaths. If you can somehow lower the conflict by any means I say go for it. You can make all drugs legal and fix the thing but that won't happen so a monopoly where conflict is lessened is the next best thing.

Almost none of the top 10 european countries in terms of immigrants by population are from the south. Richer and safer countries tend to be more lax with immigration, and so get flooded more.

One second in google:
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Immigrants,_2014_(per_1_000_inhabitants)_YB16.png

WHERE GONNA MAKE IT BROS

>emily blunt will NEVER step on your balls
just die in my sleep already
( ._.) ( ;_;)

>non-argument

>2014
That's old data for the refugee crisis which effectively started in 2014. Back then we did have open borders because central europe didn't want to admit they had to close the borders.

The question remains if the border policies have an effect

Can I ask where you are from?

The film was about how it doesn't matter how we take out the cartel or how many we shoot down. Mexican culture is the issue and they need to be exterminated like rats or have their culture destroyed and reworked from the ground up.

...

>lol its current year you dont have to be bordered by savages to be invaded by them
The original post of the chain (not mine btw). The point of the conversation was immigration, not just the refugee crisis, and it is entirely true that southern countries act as gateways for migrants to move further north thanks to Schengen.

As for refugees, the border policies have an effect for sure. Both Sweden and Germany have turned much harsher with refugees now but it was only after getting completely overwhelmed to the point of absolute saturation, with elected officials crying on TV after seeing it was impossible to cope. Northern countries ALSO hold the top 10 of refugees per capita, with Sweden being at the head. Not sure what your point is.

>Give Sweden 10 years and that's exactly what they'll be

Fuck, I might laugh, but I hope based Norway will be okay. Sweden fucking blows.

Except I felt bad for the Mexicans they caught crossing the border and were rounding up to send back. The conflict and violence in the film is exactly the kind of shit they're trying to escape.

And of course that doesn't mean overpopulating the US and expecting it to support them is good solution. It's quite possibly one of the worst, and more often then not ends up in actually poorer living conditions albeit being technically safer.

But fuck if I wouldn't try the same thing. How can you honestly say you would act any differently.

but he's right

That's not what this film is about. Don't you see so many people with different viewpoints talking about the film is and isn't?
I believe this film is very neutral and it is just everyone who projects a different opinion into it

>football(soccer)
I don't follow...

if your CIA and general population was't such fan of cocaine things would be different

>Emily Blunt will never shave you against your will

This scene should be always viewed together with the scene before for the genius editing.

That bomb goes off and the whole scene fills with dust, Blunt get's up and slowly wanders around, you barely see anything with the camera moving slow and at the last moment you see a decapitated arm on the floor and immediately a jump cut to this shower scene with the blood flowing from her head.

It's almost like a jumpscare of sorts, very effective.

The film is neutral to the extent that libertarianism is neutral For a truly neutral film on the war on drugs see Traffic.

...

so spoopy

Sup Forums: Socially alienated and isolated permavirgin manchildren whose experience and knowledge of the world comes from youtube videos and hollywood movies which in turn ironically and munurously causes them to act above it all as if they possess secret knowledge and perspective lost to the masses, while they spend their days going on rants about things "we" should do to fix everything as they hide and cower from the world afraid of a face to face conversation from their crippling social anxiety

DUDE THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND LMAO

And then it bites us in the ass.

is this post /notourguy/?

wow wow slow down there, you almost actually started to discuss the actual movie

Kek, yeah I'll believe those monkey numbers

Spoken like someone who has never been to Northern Europe. The ONLY places worth visiting here are Stockholm and Copenhagen.

>UK
>foreigners from the north
wut?

>reworked from the ground up.
But user, Mexico is as America built it to be.
From the Texas revolution, the Mexican-American war + the radicalized Catholic State, l'decena tragica, when America assassinated a progressive Mexican president attempting to structure the government to weed out paths of corruption and attempting to nationalize its petroleum reserve (literally a war for oil) which completely destabilized what little stability Mexico manage to obtain in the previous decade, and other motions that the US utilized to further place Mexico into a beaten wife position.
All the drugs and the petroleum theft that the cartels engage in are to the benefit of the US.
Mexico is never going to truly be functional state, if it did our agencies wouldn't get to use it to grind out honors, divert federal funding to their operations budgets, serve as PR fodder for the eyes of the world when we do something nice in the region, etc.

We've got officers of multiple cartels being given free pass into our borders, state funded McMansions, and taxes diverted to higher learning for their family members. The Cartels and the narco dollar that revolves around them is the prize pet of the CIA. If we clean Mexico up, the entire intelligence structure will collapse from the steep drop in funds that its grazes from that fucked up country. Do you think the US is going to survive without the CIA continuously maintaining a stranglehold on our allies?