How about we let the engineers/experts tell us the best solutions for each segment of the border? Politicians acting like engineers gets us a closed government. Engineers acting like engineers gets you the best solution within budget constraints. #Engineersareawesomehttps://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1089644908858785792 …
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Muddled Thinking. Politicians (must) define what's "best" (=desired outcome), first. Engineers will execute accordingly, *afterwards*.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ron_GER_
In the business world, you start with specs. In the political world, the budget is going to settle in the "few billion" range regardless of specs. So engineers need to design the most cost-effective way to prevent the most illegal immigration within the budget.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
You've already defined the desired outcome (minimize illegal immigration) - it's not clear whether this is unilaterally agreed upon in Washington. Even if: What's the acceptable fail rate? Thwart 75% of crossing attempts? 95%? 99.99? Not as easy as you make it out to be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ron_GER_
In this case the budget will be constrained by politics. Engineers will recommend what gives the best bang for the buck. It's what they do.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Strikes me as muddled. Trump's funding request is the *result* of engineer's estimate for a wall based on his predetermined specifications. Dems disagree with the funding amount, because they disagree with the specs. No agreement on objectives/specs - no agreement on anyth/.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ron_GER_
The process is and should be iterative. Engineers estimate roughly what things cost, then politicians see how much budget they can get, then engineers optimize within the budget. It isn't a linear process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Yes. But the *first* iteration NEEDS to be (politically decided) objectives and related specifications. There is no consensus on those. Therefore the iterative process doesn't get off the ground.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ron_GER_
There is agreement on both sides that "border security" is important. Then you iterate.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
This is not about the (lofty) concept of border security, but a wall. The 2019 Dem position on a wall is: -amoral -useless to increase border security (I.e. "No wall") This is not a starting point for the engineers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Among the experts, they have always known the solution was a variety of things in different places.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
All agreed. Has nothing to do with the *political* dispute over wall funding, though. A dispute that can't be resolved by including (additional) engineers. Not as long as one side principally objects to any kind of wall (in whatever name).
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.