I'll try to be open-minded on what these policies might be, but this is what Trump (with some general Republican stances) boils down to me, and I can't find any of it appealing:

1. Shit on immigrants
2. Shit on non-Christians
3. Shit on non-whites
4. Shit on LGBTQ people
5. Shit on allies
6. Breaks for the rich/shit on labor
7. Shit on the environment
8. Enact anything that will benefit me, my donors, my rich friends
9. Cloud EVERYTHING so facts no longer matter
10. Shit on the media (well, this plays into 9)

That's just off the top of my head. Everyone is screwing us, everyone is our enemy.

Yeah, I'd say the Clintons were probably guilty of 8, and to some extent 6. But that's nothing in comparison.

Fear? Most of those points are based in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of losing what you have because everything has to be a zero-sum game and if someone else benefits, that means you lose. Democrat constituents may get worked up, but IMO it's because they in many cases are getting the short end of the stick. Republicans on the other hand have the fear that they *may* wind up in that position if they stop stepping on the throats of the Other. (Even if in reality, they already are getting the short end of the stick by the system set up by those they're politically supporting). THAT is fear.

I think its very important to add the open praise of murderous totalitarians to this list. But otherwise, yeah, pretty much agreed.


Also I think that we see a lot of conservatives on this board who don't agree with democrat policies but who cannot find a way to support Trump himself. If Trump is removed because he is a criminal and possibly guilty of treason, Hillary Clinton does not become president. Mike Pence does. Supporting Trump as everyone around him goes to jail, as his entire cabinet quits on him or gets fired because they aren't loyal enough to him, when you could just freaking have President Mike Pence... its hard for me to reconcile at this point.

Firstly, I don’t agree with your list at all. You’re simplifying each issue, and I don’t see point 1, 2, or 3 at all. I see the optics maybe seeming that way because of his mouth, complete lack of grace and the rabid media coverage. Point 1, I don’t see him shitting on immigrants, I see him trying to secure the border. I don’t see the drawback in that. Other than that, I cant remember him shitting on immigrants. I’m open-minded, and I’d like to see where he did. If what you show me is about the caravan and the potential wall, I probably won’t agree with the basics of immigration and the rule of law with regard to securing borders. I remember he called some country a shithole, but I’m pretty sure just about everyone has said something like that. I also think that there have been tough situations in past presidencies at the border that would have been just as wrenching to see if they had been covered. It is being shown closely now because it is Trump. That isn’t me saying, “Poor Trump”, it just seems obvious to me.

I can see where people can say he isn’t an advocate for LGBTQ. Quite honestly though, that isn’t an issue at the top of my agenda. I voted for gay marriage and love pretty much everyone, but other than the bathroom stuff, I’m not aware of other times he shit on that community. If he did, I’d be interested in seeing it because I DONT agree with everything he does and I don’t think ignorance is bliss.

I was just thinking that I really don’t fit in anywhere. I guarantee that guys like Jon wouldn’t like a lot of my views, so I guess I could get it from all sides. It’s ok though, because I’m not going away. Well, I am right now because I’m starting to make some chili, but I’ll be back!

I agree with your opening point completely. As far as him being a criminal and guilty of treason, where are the facts, the convictions, the final findings of such things. I can see you wanting that to be true and who knows, it might be, but it’s like people have completely left behind reason with regard to the process, made a final conclusion and are sitting on it like a hen on an egg. I guess I’m just waiting for something actually criminal (misdemeanors aside) to be presented with all dots fairly invested, connected and then looking at what’s finally laid out. If the facts show all the things he is accused of show he’s guilty, then get him out. I don’t give a fuck about Trump, or any other politician for that matter (other than Doug LaMalfa, because I know him and his family). I just want to see everything before jumping off the cliff.

Meet the newest Republican talking point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-i...uthorities-say

I don't think your point about CNN and MSNBC is wrong in a vacuum, they're trash news preaching to the choir, but it's hard for me to sympathize with your level of shock without ignoring the conservative media history for all of Obama's reign, including Trump himself continually using those platforms to suggest that the dude shouldn't be president because Donald had never personally seen the President's birth certificate.

Even if we allow that CNN and MSNBC are worse Chicken Littles than their conservative counterparts for the sake of argument, it seems to ignore the massive scale difference of what Trump's been accused. Clinton absolutely perjured himself trying to avoid responsibility for some skeezy sex based on abusing the power of his office, and for all I know/care Obama WASN'T born in this country, but Trump's being accused of compromising our election process for his own personal financial gain, with the help of our largest Cold War enemy. That doesn't move your compass at all?

Does world view count for anything in your view? And I'm not suggesting that it necessarily should, just making the semi-obvious point that beyond CNN and MSNBC the rest of the developed world's press and political leaders also seems pretty united in their appraisal of the dude as dangerous and unhinged.

My own bias is creeping through, but I feel like reading between the lines about policies and threats that your #1 concern is still lowering personal taxes. Is that accurate in any way, or am I just pulling that out of my own butt? That would be easier for my feeble brain to swallow, than the suggestion that Trump isn't all that remarkable.

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics

This was him in campaign mode:


1. Mexico is not our friend
2. Mexicans who are here are not the "best," they bring problems. ("Some" may be good, but the implication here seems to be that most aren't.)
3. It's not only Mexicans who are problems. South Americans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners - also problems.

I don't think his stance has really changed since then. He paints with a broad brush -- people coming over the border are drug dealers, rapists. Any that aren't are drains on the system, and are basically stealing our stuff. Playing taxpayers for saps. To the tune of $200 billion. ANNUALLY.

A wall will somehow magically solve this, because of course a wall is impenetrable. Never mind that more people currently staying here illegally are not here because they snuck in but because they overstayed visas. Or that most drugs come here via air or sea. Oh right - and Mexico is not paying for this solution which doesn't really solve the above problems, nor are they going to pay for its upkeep.

Beyond my belief that a wall wouldn't work, I don't like where I think Trump's sentiment comes from. I think it is a symbol which says "I don't like these people and I want to keep them out."* (Even more because they're sure to become dirty Democrats!) Oh right - and the ones who ARE here, we should maybe change the rules to get rid of them, too.

On LGBTQ issues, I'll defer to Thomkal, even though I have more than a passing interest in this. I don't think his administration is very friendly on these issues, though.


* That's before we get to child separations, kids in cages, deploying troops to the border while suggesting they are cleared to open fire...

Over the last year QQQ has been sporadic with no real gain year to date. QQQ was 156 this time last year. So basically all that gain was in year 1 when Trump wasn't quite so "hands on".

I don’t remember much about that because I really didn’t watch the news back then, so I’ll take your word. Either way, the entertainment direction news is going these days irritates me, regardless of where it’s coming from.


Well I noticed you used the word “accused” in regard to Trump. I think people might be forgetting what “accused” means. Whether a person is the most distasteful, awful, miserable person ever or not, they deserve full due process.

As far as how the world views the US and if I care, the answer is complicated. In a way, I do care....but as I’m typing that, I’m not sure why I care. In one sense, I care about our closest allies, even as incompetent as they seem right now in France, Germany and UK. I think that is mostly loyalty though. I wouldn’t WANT to care if we were to be considered “one of the guys” by certain members of the worlds nations because I think a lot of them run their countries like shit. I don’t care to give those countries the idea that their flawed systems of government are anywhere near acceptable. I’m not talking about whoever is in office, I’m talking about the system as a whole.


Not at all true, but that’s ok. Assuming that a stats nerd on a site like this would be an economic wizard or whatever, is understandable. I’m not an economic expert. I’ve probably given a lot more to the government in taxes than I should have over the years because I didn’t pay enough attention to detail. In fact, I’m on disability for my seizures and mental stuff right now, so amassing money isn’t on my radar. I’m just trying to get by. I’ll be working again soon, so things will get easier. Anyway, I like money. I’d like to get more money. But money has never been my focus. I’m not sure why.

Most of my voting is based on my personal ethics. It’s hard to vote like that, so I’ve mostly voted libertarian because it fit most closely. My views are just all over. I’m against the death penalty. I’m against abortion. I’m pro-environment. I’m not isolationist, but I care more about every single american than I do about the rest of the world (I don’t mean on a human level, but on a practical level). I’m a capitalist. I’m against hate of all kind.

I gotta eat now.

You are talking semantics with due process. Do you honestly think Trump is innocent in everything swirling around him?

Doesn't it bother you literally everyone around him has been implicated in a crime or made a plea deal to avoid charges? Is this really what you want from a leader?

Regarding the worldview. It doesn't bother you that he cozies up to despots? Speaks highly of Putin and Un. Ignores the murder of a journalist because of personal business interests. Leaves the Kurds to be slaughtered. Those things don't bother you?

Let me reword this. He openly supports leaders who will do whatever is necessary to support his own world view. They will fight to protect their power at all costs, and eliminate anyone who dares cross paths. He ignores the exertion of that power if it doesn't directly impact him. He is ok with the suppression of voices that may negatively impact him. He is fine with human rights violations that the US has always been opposed to. He has shown over and over, going back years in his businesses that he will stab contractors in the back, it shouldn't be a surprise that he would be ok with leaving people who have fought to support the US, yet their loss doesn't really impact the US or him at all. In the end, he is still, who we thought he was be 2 years ago. He has introduced a substantial deviation from US policy and that is alarming. To say that this is ok, because it's different, I think fails to recognize that decisions like these do have consequences. They may not come home to roost before 2022, but they will come home. I think it's things like this that come to mind when people think about Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia. Even now, we're still dealing with the fallout from the choices of Bush II. It's hard to support a guy who simply doesn't behave in a way that has lead greatest time of peace the planet has ever known. Those types of change do cause genuine concern.

Sorry, I confused two separate points there. Let take impeachment out of it entirely.

You've been talking about Trump being a better option than a democrat. That was relevant in 2016 during the election, but I don't believe that if you don't actively support Donald Trump then your only other option is to be a democrat. Many conservatives, including some on this board, find Donald Trump to be completely reprehensible and without any merit as a president, these people haven't become liberals, they want a different sort of GOP or a different sort of leader of the conservative party in the United States.

That's not what I'm hearing from you currently. I'm hearing active support for enough of his policies to support Donald Trump, in his current state of being with all the policy and various other things he's said since becoming president. Let me be clear that I am not saying that because of this you therefore support everything he does and says. But I've seen so many other conservatives say that Trump has said and done so many horrible, reprehensible, indefensible things, that they can no longer support or defend him in any way, but are still republicans and still believe in many conservative ideals, and their active goal is to try to heal and repair the republican party.

So I'm kinda saying the same thing as lathum I guess? I've known you for a long time and know you to be a caring, passionate person, so my current feeling is one of surprise that you're able to reconcile so many of the opinions that even a large number of republicans find to be completely reprehensible and offer support to the man.

I understand that to some degree, because I had the same kind of hesitation even as I was typing the question. On the one hand it seems ridiculous to ignore outside opinion of respected leaders and thinkers, let alone the global strategic ramifications, but on the other hand the whole point is that those voices don't even live in the country (and even our politicians struggle to understand the lives of the 'common' American), so how much should you really value outsider's opinions, if you feel your own priorities are being served? I can get that.

I appreciate the response.

Would love your thoughts on the wall Schmidty. It doesn’t bother you that he promised Mexico would pay for it? How about how he is acting about it now?

Considering I know a dozen people who voted for him because Mexico was going to pay for the wall, I'd say yeah, they don't care how it gets done.

I know it's folly to continue to fall for the ongoing mess here, but I sometimes am just too weak to overcome it...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "....The United States looses soooo much money on Trade with Mexico under NAFTA, over 75 Billion Dollars a year (not including Drug Money which would be many times that amount), that I would consider closing the Southern Border a “profit making operation.� We build a Wall or....."

The man genuinely believes that a trade deficit means we are just handing the other country cash. That we are "losing money."

We buy stuff from Mexico because we (American people and companies) WANT the stuff from Mexico more than we want the money. They are not robbing us. They are BENEFITING us.

It is not necessarily a good thing to have a trade deficit with a given country... but it bears absolutely no relationship with the sort of "deal" he seems to think it is. He treats it like we're haggling price over the land for a new hotel... and that it's a pure zero sum game on "who gets the money." Trade isn't anything like that, and thinking about it that way (using that term very loosely) is unbelievably ill-advised (also using the back end of that term very loosely).

I understand that this isn't really even in the top 10 or maybe top 50 of things to really worry about. But it's totally awful.

I’ve read some of the questions posed and I’m thinking about them, although reading some of them, I imagine the questioner grabbing me by the collar, and shoving me against the wall, demanding the answer they want. I don’t know that there is an answer that I can give that will really satisfy anyone unless I simply agree, or change my morals to fit others. I can’t do that.

Trump was the first Replubican I voted for since 2000. I’ve said again and again that I understand that he’s reprehensible in a lot of ways. People keep saying that a lot of Republicans find him unsupportable and I get that too, but I’m not a Republican. I’m not sure what I am, really. To those saying that there is no way that voting for Hilary, or another Democrat would be worse, I pose this question: Would you sacrifice your most important beliefs and vote for someone who is totally out of step with your core view or views, becuse the other option was reprehensible? Maybe you would. I don’t know. I don’t even know if you’d be wrong. I just can’t. I’m not a one issue voter, but I do have core of beliefs that I won’t and can’t betray, because then I truly would be a hypocrite in my own eyes. I don’t think there will ever be someone who fits all of my views, so I have to make tough choices and tolerate the bad with the good when I vote. It’s probably easier for a lot of you to vote because you can vote party line and it fits your conscience fully. I, and others in the middle of the two-party struggle, don’t have that option. Like I said, I have to make tough choices, and then live with them. I will say, that if it is proven without a doubt that he did something more than being reprehensible and deplorable, then of course I say put him in jail and remove him from office. I’m not plugging my ears and yelling “La, la, la, la!” or something. I’m just waiting for full results before I go down that road.

See, this is the kind of post I want to see. Well reasoned, pretty unemotional, filled with info. I don’t know much about trade or economics, so getting more knowledge on the subject is great. I’m not close-minded. I think that the people who want to turn Trump supporters are going about it in the wrong way. Screaming in people’s faces and generally being obnoxiously aggressive is a terrible way to reason with people who have the ability to do so.

I'd definitely put his lack of understanding on international trade in the top 10. His insistence on altering or canceling trade deals without a real knowledge of their details is a major problem for me.

The problem with this statement is there is nothing you can do to turn most Trump supporters.

They take the one or two things that he has done well, the economy being the biggest one, and use that to justify their support in spite of the countless horrible things he has done, the lies he has told, the rants he has gone on, the way he treats people like shit, etc...

They literally refuse to admit his incompetence.

Hell, you aren't even giving us examples of things he has accomplished that make you support him. Maybe I am missing it, but really all I see from you in justifying your support is he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law, and the constant news cycle jumps on anything remotely negative (which is true).

I'm not trying to paint you in to a corner and force an answer, I'm really not, but if people haven't changed their minds about him now nothing he says or does at this point will.

We have an acquaintance in the military, secretive shit, and he finally said, "I'm really over Trump." which was the first inclination ever that he wasn't towing the line for every excuse or spin that has come out. The thing that really set him off? Mattis quitting. I guess the military saw him as a really good leader and this, this is the first chink in the armor for what I view as one of the greatest examples of groupthink in the social media era I've ever seen.

I know the shutdowns piss off a lot of conservative civilian military employees - I know my cousin is one of them. A lot of them (especially those who used to serve) also don't like that Trump was a draft dodger.

The wall thing is just crazy to me. He got elected on a promise of a free wall that someone else was going to pay for. There was never any real plan or concept of how that is going to work, so now he just wants us to pay billions for it. Trump opponents all said that's exactly what was going to happen.

Trump supporters believed him, and, don't care that he suckered them, I guess?

There’s never been an answer to how the wall will work along the Rio Grande. Will we cut off access to the river for Americans or will we steal territory from Mexico?

I'm also pretty flummoxed by the Republican strategy of not negotiating during the shutdown. It's as if there is a belief that leverage will improve when the Dems control the House.

And incidentally, there is some relationship between the wall and the shutdown and the Quik trade post (which I too applaud). Trump has since said that Mexico will pay for the wall through all of the gains we are going to have through new trade deals. So, see the explanation above...

Even if we cut the deficit with Mexico by 20 billion. Dollars a year, the Wall costs 25b post tax dollars(borrowed). So we'd need like, I dunno, 12-15 years of increased revenue vs Mexico taxable here at 20% just to break even?(assuming reducing the trade surplus would have something like 2bn in tax revenue increased on our books here?) I mean it's not just tit for tat, right? Reducing the deficit doesn't just automatically add that much in actual cash, right?

I, for one, never believed Mexico would pay for it but I definitely support the idea of a wall. So no, I don't feel suckered.

I could believe that Trump could negotiate/force a trade deal that would be favorable, save the US money and he could claim that paid for it ... but he never said that and not sure if the new NAFTA deal (or whatever they call it) does "save" money.

I believe many Trump supporters know he was BS'ing about Mexico paying for it but willing to accept it because he was proposing something radical and he wasn't Hillary.

(I, on the other hand, supported it, knew he was BS'ing, and voted for Hillary)

Since Trump thinks tariffs are paid by foreign countries, why doesn’t he come up with a wall tariff that would raise 25 mil in five or ten years?

Obviously it doesn’t work like that, but it would check off all the boxes for Trump.

Why? What will it keep out?

Trump scream it will keep out drugs, criminals, etc...

Do you honestly think there won't be a work around for those people?

I believe they think that their leverage will improve against the House Freedom Party peeps, not the Democrats strangely enough.

Let's assume the $25B or whatever funded a fully built "beautiful wall" and the people, systems behind it. You don't think that will decrease the number of unauthorized immigrants coming thru the border?

What is the Democratic party line to reducing the unauthorized immigrants?

EDIT - I'll toss in I want to also see a holistic immigration reform that included attracting more highly educated (e.g. brain drain the other countries), guest worker programs etc. and not just focused on our southern neighbors. However, I'll take a fully funded wall vs nothing at all.

The "wall money" he wants is for grifting like all the real estate he did for his entire life. That's why McConnell incredibly suggested that we just toss a billion dollars in slush money for the wall a couple weeks ago. You aren't going to get me impressed by any wall, but there's no plan, just "Give me money or I'll burn everything."

The thing is, the wall isn't what got him elected, I don't think.

Nominated? Yeah, that's an easier sell. It was a great campaign line that probably separated him from the rest of the Republican primary pack, because primaries are base elections and the Republican base ate that shit up.

That said, no, Trump supporters don't care that they got suckered. Because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, and for the diehards, when Trump said "I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes," that wasn't a joke. Would they trade Trump for one of the other Republican candidates at this point? Yeah, maybe. Perhaps even "probably" for a non-trivial chunk of his 2016 electorate.

But they don't care that he said "my tax plan is going to cost me money" and then ended up being a giveaway for corporations and the 1%; they don't care that he said "we'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" and now he's throwing a temper tantrum that Democrats aren't willing to fund his grift; they don't care that he's possibly in violation of the Emoluments Clause; they don't care that he was trying to do business with a hostile foreign power at the same time as he was trying to get elected President, and lied about it at the time; they don't care.

They don't care about any of that, because they wanted two things out of this election, and they got them:

1) Hillary Clinton ain't Prez.

2) Republicans got to steal a SCOTUS nomination from Barack Obama and replace a swing vote with, ostensibly, a rock-ribbed conservative (and no, they don't care about the sexual assault allegations, either, no matter how "credible" they found the accuser(s), because the important thing to them was a fifth vote to potentially overturn Roe; anything that served that purpose was going to be okay with his base). Shoot, there's a non-trivial chance he'll get to replace a liberal with a conservative.

Donald Trump could fellate Vladimir Putin on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose votes from that crowd. There is nothing he could do, going forward, that would be a bridge too far after everything we've seen in the last three years. The Rubicon has been crossed repeatedly and his approval levels among Republicans have remain fundamentally stable.

Most experts will tell you there are far more effective ways to use that 25 billion if that's you're goal. The wall would reduce unauthorized immigration but not as well as more manpower, better technology, etc for the same cost.

I think this is a large part of the divide right now - people have this feeling about what may happen, or that they can't make a difference, so they don't talk. They don't answer the questions already posed, or ask the ones they are curious about themselves. And the gap widens.

Probably a function of the social media disconnectivity these days, coupled with the ridiculous talking heads at most of the media outlets.

My biggest concern with the wall, which obviously isn't worth a thought to Trump and his supporters, is environmental. We'd be fucking up a lot migration patterns and access to resources for wildlife and plantlife that has done very well in that area due to federal protection and the absence of human civilization.

I am sure there are better ways to use the $25B. But like everything else, there is no sure thing, things get renegotiated/diluted in Congress etc.

Trump's Wall seemed to be more of a sure thing than holistic immigration reform so lets do something that may/could help reduce 70% vs wait longer on something that may never come to pass that help reduce 90%.

The Senate passed something in 2013 or 2014 which seemed pretty good. Unfortunately, got stuff in House and never voted on.

Do I think it would reduce the number, probably, but not so much that it would be worth the cost. He screams about the wall and gets his base all riled up about the "bad" people. Says they are all drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. Do you honestly think those people won't still get in?

It may reduce it for a bit, but they will find a way. The wall would be nothing but a symbol of victory to Trumps supports.

Yeah, that never factored into my thought process :)

Similar to fracking, I'm will to pay the environmental price to get off the albatross that is ME oil.

Have you tried (metaphorically) just letting go of the albatross? Because, it might not be as heavy as your intuition, or your news source, is suggesting that it is.

Really?

I see our reliance and paying for ME oil as influencing much of our decisions and presence there and OPEC being able to "hurt" us since the 70's.

Why do you think ME oil is not an albatross?

I get frustrated by the immigration argument, because it seems like a bit of a shell game. The GOP has become the party of immigration, but kind of like how "the economy" became a decisive political construct, immigration is a pretty massive term that doesn't mean much on it's own but can appeal to each individual's beliefs by remaining undefined. To one voter "immigration" may mean reducing taxes by reducing undocumented immigrants using public services, to another voter it might be entirely about reducing the likelihood of Muslim terrorists or South American gangsters coming into the country, but by keeping the term nebulous and vague the GOP can appeal to any number of individual concerns without committing to any of them specifically.

Except of course for the promise of a wall, which will be built along exactly one of our borders, which separates us from one other country. If someone is interested in "immigration" specifically targeted at reducing Mexican immigrants for some explicit reason, I can definitely see the appeal, but I fail to see what building a massive, expensive wall against one of our borders offers to any other supporter of immigration reform, other than an extremely expensive baby step in a vaguely supportive direction. I guess in that way it's not unlike gun control bills that are aimed at knocking off very specific tops of very specific icebergs, if only for the purpose of making some notable progress.

From my own contacts within the Latino community, the coyote/desert crossing method of getting here has lost the popularity it had back in the late 90s and early 2000s. For one, it got to be expensive and increasingly dangerous.

How did one of my former employees get her son up here when Nicaragua destabilized even further? She bought him a plane ticket to Miami, which seems to be the best entry point for people that fly here.

I just don't think a coast to coast wall is an effective use of money. I'm fine with a physical barrier in places that make sense, but I don't really believe that there is any true deterrent (short of giving JIMGA free reign in creating border policy) that will effectively stop people from getting here so long as the opportunity to live a vastly improved lifestyle exists here versus their home country.

In the meantime, we need to have an orderly way of bringing people here. Our fertility rate in the United States has been below replacement level since the 1970s. We're going to need more people.

If they blew $25 billion plus an annual budget on a horde of drones watching the border, I'd roll my eyes but probably shrug it off. At least that would probably work.

Because the plentiful availability of domestic and global supply have rendered their dominance in the marketplace to a fraction of what it once was. Neither the Saudis nor OPEC nor "the Middle East" really hold the sway that neocons want to claim, nor that the xenophobic community is committed to believing.

Not saying this is as binary as "important or not at all important." Just suggesting that our investment here is a great deal less when our actual share of imports (not total usage, just imports) from the ME region are maybe a fifth of our total.

It's not like we get 75% of our day-to-day oil usage from middle eastern foreign powers. But that's the implied fact pattern that the hysteria is basically founded on.

That's kind of been my impression as well, which only makes the idea of the wall more suspect. We effectively already have a border and a wall, and all of the organized malevolent forces have already found a way to bypass the whole thing entirely, probably decades ago, to the point that building a slightly better wall just seems like a useless exercise in stopping the least organized individuals, whose threat is minimal. One would have to compltetly and totally ignore the last 50 years of Floridian culture (INSERT JOKE HERE) and history to pretend that hundreds of miles of ocean is any kind of effective deterrent to South American immigration and the importation of drugs and weapons, let alone a new-and-improved wall of pointy sticks.

It would be nothing but a monument to Trump. He knows this. His base doesn't.

Not Trump per se, but this counts for the non-Christian and non-White planks I outlined earlier:

GOP Activists Want To Purge Local Official For Being Muslim

edit: original source article: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...228-story.html

Scott Walker’s parting gift: A corporate welfare deal costing each Wisconsin taxpayer $1,800 | City Pages

The Foxconn deal will be Scott Walker's gift that keeps on giving.

Since 2000 the Dems have bargained at least four immigration packages that include extra money and procedures and all four have been rejected by the GOP. The Dems aren't the problem. The problem is that enough GOP electeds want to reduce all but European immigration, and they won't agree to any compromise.

Ah yes the old "Islam is not a real religion" defense. I had thought that went by the wayside when Michelle Bachman left Congress. Example #infinity of why we have separation of church and state in the Constitution.

I'm sure with that level of corruption Scott Walker will find a welcome home in the Trump administration. There surely is enough openings for him.

He can take Bevin with him. His own corruption has been well documented.

Gotta partially disagree here. The Democrats are willing to spend more money on this in general but they haven't been willing to do what most Republicans would consider actual border security. Notably, all the proposals that I can remember at least include a path to citizenship for people who entered illegally, which is a non-negotiable for many on the right. Ditto with support of sanctuary cities, which is considered seditious by many on that wing. I think this is like some other issues where there's sharp disagreement; both parties are willing to try to do something, or at least to talk about it, but there are core, fundamental non-negotiables on each side that the opposing party will never accept. Which probably means roughly the status quo continuing for the forseeable future, and continued, escalating barking at the sky about it.

Disclaimer; before someone asks or jumps to conclusions, I'm against the wall 100%. Much better to cut off the source; harsh penalties against those who employ illegal-immigrant labor.

All but Western Europe, really, and even that comes with strings attached, since Spain and France have non-trivial Muslim populations.

Right. There are enough elected GOPers to kill any compromise deal because they want reduced non-Euro immigration, legal and illegal.

At different times the Dems have agreed to the wall, ending family reunification, a much stronger E-Verify, a guest worker program, a merit system, funding for other enforcement measures, and putting verification of enforcement before other immigration reforms. Every time the GOP has rejected the deal. The Dems have been willing to compromise, and enough GOPers have been insistent on not compromising, so nothing has happened.

One thing worth mentioning is that border security is frankly a non-issue being shouted loudly - immigration isn't anywhere near its peak levels and hasn't been increasingly hugely or anything for over a decade ... immigrants also commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens which is unsurprising when you think about it (ie. non-citizens have potentially far harsher punishments available to them in terms of deportation etc.).

:eek:

Holy Shit. The question I always wonder is this: Are they knowingly doing this stuff (the Pols) or are they so out of their element that they're just taken advantage of?

GWB had an immigration bill rolling pretty well just before 9/11 and that screwed everything up. Obama had Congress his first 2 years, nothing much happened. I don't think its as clear cut as Dems want immigration reform and GOP do not, its the details that matter and the compromises that need to happen.

However, I will concede that Trump is against unauthorized immigration and it is focused on south of the border (because that is what he campaigned on).

Mark, you and I continue to disagree on this. I agree it has declined but there is still a problem.

Unauthorized people/immigration in the country is 10.7M or about 3.3% of population. Of this 5.4M Mexicans, Central America another 1.9M.

Unauthorized immigration in 2017 is about 310K from south of the border

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Of the 1,980 miles of border in the south, about 580+ miles is "fenced".

We can differ on why, how to reduce etc. but I respectfully disagree that its a non-issue.

Don't know why you say there is effectively a border and a wall but you do bring up a good point about bypassing the wall and using the ocean. Its true the wall won't stop drugs, bad guys - if they want to come, they will have the means.

Pretty obvious to me that the ocean will be a significant obstacle for all the others. But I can definitely see a firestorm once bodies from inevitable failed attempts start to appear on the coast.

Holistic immigration reform (e.g. definitely guest worker programs for south of the border) is what we all want, not just a wall and its accompanying systems, support etc. Trump is too one dimensional on this for sure but Congress hasn't acted. There have been times when both parties owned the Presidency & Congress but did anything happen?

So until that happens, I'll take the wall as a stop gap.

At multiple times since 2000 there has been a majority willing to pass an immigration reform bill, but that majority did not include a majority of Republicans in the House. Because of that, these bills haven't gotten votes. This isn't about a dysfunctional Congress, it's about a faction of the GOP refusing to compromise on their anti-immigration desires.

Trump could actually spend the 94% of last year's budget on border security sitting unused before demanding more.

In November China's purchases of soybeans from the U.S. dropped to zero.

Meanwhile, in unrelated news, Canada and Australia's soybean farmers are selling record amounts to China under new TPP rules.

Your own source says that this number is down 13% in the last decade.


3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border : NPR

It's been under 500k a year since 2010. In 2000 it was over 1.6 million. That's a a drop of over 80% from 2000 to 2017.

From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s, it was near or over a million every year.

• Chart: A Long View of Migration Across the Southwest Border | Statista


The total number of of immigrants who illegally entered the US is steadily falling, and the number of people crossing the southern border illegally is down over 80% over the last two decades.

Sure, its gone down. Just because its going down its no longer an issue? Its the crossings and its the ones currently in the US.


From 1990, total unauthorized was 3.5M in the US. In 2016 it is 10.7M (give or take). Peak of 12.2M in 2007.

This and the 310K annual is an issue IMO.

So basically, when ICE was established along the heavier-handed approach to illegal immigration post-9/11.

You are being so overly obtuse it is painful. Something like 2/3 of all illegal immigration cases are visa overstays (I think the number may be larger since that was several years ago). Think of it this way, erecting a wall is like putting a band-aid on a stab wound. Sure it's something, but it does not actually stop the growing problem.

I just don't understand how reasonably intelligent people can say it is a good use of money if it addresses a fraction of the problem that is actually shrinking. It's like eating every day at McDonalds but ordering only diet coke to try and stop gaining weight.

This. The fact that it has declined means that it's less of a problem than it used to be. It doesn't mean that it isn't one. Among other things, it's a plain example of the whole frog-in-the-kettle phenomenon that over 10 million people are living here who didn't go through the proper process and weren't approved to be here gets met with a collective shrug.

There were over 100,000 visa overstays from Canada in 2017. If this were about anything other than white nationalism, we'd be talking about the crisis from the north.

It comes down to the impact those 10 million are having on our country. Do they commit crimes at a lower rate than your average American? Are they a boost or a drain on the economy? If these people are a net positive for the country then it shouldn't be a surprise that it's met with a collective shrug.

Either way could/should we improve the way they enter the country? Probably. But as long as the GOP insists on a wall and blocking people from certain countries from entering it's never going to happen. The Dems are the ones in this instance that have attempted to find a middle ground and the GOP isn't budging on certain things that take the entire idea of bipartisan immigration reform off the table.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter which way I skin it, it always boils down to more than 0% racism in each case.

Again, this is a very one-sided view of the situation. Democrats have favored a wall in the recent past, and they have their own things they won't budge on which also make bipartisan reform impossible. I mentioned what those are in my initial post on this subject. You can't have anything bipartisan when one side thinks an eight-figure number of people here illegally is tantamount to an invasion, and another doesn't even see that as a problem in and of itself. The two views are too far apart for anything bipartisan to happen. Trying to find a middle ground when you hold onto core assumptions you know the other side won't accept isn't legitimate compromise; it's political theatre, just like what Republicans did with the ACA.

Again, at multiple times since 2000 there has been a bipartisan majority of congress willing to pass immigration reform, but that majority did not include a majority of Republicans, so the GOP refused to allow votes to be taken.

What things have the GOP budged at all on when it comes to immigration? The Dems have shown a willingness to compromise in multiple areas, which has been noted here and even acknowledged indirectly by Trump.

When you have one side throwing comprises on the table and another that is completely unwilling to compromise you take your items off the table until the other side is willing to actually talk. That's where we are right now.

As I've said, unless these people are actually damaging our country (and the data suggests otherwise) there's no rush to actually do anything.

I've already addressed that directly. Nobody's responded on point. If someone chooses too, I'm happy to discuss it further.

And let's not forget the bill the Dems are advocating is a compromise and was expected to be passed on voice votes until Trump decided to blow it all up.

You say bipartisan reform is impossible, and it is, but only because the GOP has refused to allow a vote to happen. There have been multiple bipartisan reform efforts that commanded a majority of congress. The problem isn't a dysfunctional congress, it's a faction of the GOP driven by white nationalism.

And how could you give Trump republicans money for a wall with shit like this happening:

Mueller Refers Trump Immigration Case to FBI | Law & Crime

because remember, now there is no smoke until there's actually a fire burning on your clothes and perhaps even some of your skin.... no smoke. no smoke.

Please see #13775 for a better definition of what I mean re: the wall.

How many of the 2/3 overstays are from south of the border?

Let's put things into context. Canada + Europe + Oceania is 5% of the total population of illegals.

Mexico is 53% and top 4 from south of the border is 64%.

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US | migrationpolicy.org

I'm pretty sure if Canada + Europe + Oceania was 64%, you would see similar-but-admittedly-less concern.

What does that have to do with the wall?

Trying to put things into context re: Miked post.

Forget I asked if you don't think its relevant.

If they have a visa, a wall will not keep them out, they are here LEGALLY. I'll repeat that, if they have a visa, you can build whatever wall you want and it won't help. So you are addressing a small piece of the pie that is actually decreasing on its own (because it's much easier to visit and overstay). So that is why reasonable and intelligent people are against it.

If they are here legally, we aren't talking about them, they are welcome.

If they enter here legally and then overstay, Trump does want to kick out the ones already here illegally.

Is overstay really the main issue re: the wall? Overstay statistics cover only air-and-sea, not land crossings so I see that as a red herring argument.

The answer is a holistic immigration reform plan to address the supply, demand, access routes etc. Both GOP and Dems have failed to pass this when they were in power. So until then, I'll take a wall and accompanying monitoring, systems etc. until that gets done.

He's saying that 2/3 of all illegal immigrants in the US are illegal because they overstayed on visas. If they got here via a visa, they arrived legally. Hence, 67% of all illegal immigrants got here legally, and a wall will not address 67% of the illegal immigration problem.

I do understand that. My research actually shows its anywhere from 42-50% not 2/3.

My response is -

1) Trump wants to kick out the illegals already here in addition to the Wall. Kick them out and keep them from coming back in.
2) I agree the wall won't do it by itself. You need to have holistic immigration reform to go with it.
3) While the holistic immigration reform works itself through Congress, lets do the wall to address the approx 310K annually that is coming through the borders illegally (and to keep the ones we do kick-out from returning)

I am assuming most anti-wall do believe there is an "issue" its just that they don't think a wall only will solve the issue.

I agree with this. My point is - until Congress can get it done with holistic immigration reform (e.g. w/guest worker program), let's build a wall with its accompanying manpower and systems, let Trump kick out the illegals already here (especially the felons but I'm all for some sort of DACA solution) ... because it could be a very long time before Congress does anything.

'cept the last time a 2000 mile wall got built, it accomplished absolutely nothing except the creation of a tourist hot spot thousands of years later.

Have fun with that?

On another note:

Mueller's Investigation Data Includes a Nude Selfie, Russian Company Tells Court

Your brain has now substituted the worst possible subject, given the context, and you are desperately searching for brain bleach.

You're welcome.

Assume you mean the Great Wall of China? Good thing the unauthorized south of the border is coming for economic reasons and not with guns to invade.

OTH, the wall that Israel built is working pretty well. Unfortunately, we won't get close to their 99% rate.

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says | PolitiFact



But let's go with the folks on the ground. Unless you think they are all white supremacist, they lend some credibility to the discussion.

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds - Washington Times

That's the one.


So, uh, those economic reasons would be "in search of a better life."

If that's the impetus, and not "invasion," then the folks calling for the use of lethal force to deter would-be border crossers are...what, exactly? Sociopaths? Wastes of genetic material utterly without the ability to exercise empathy for those less fortunate than themselves?


It turns out the shorter a wall or fence has to be, the better it works.

The difficulty of border enforcement increases logarithmically the longer a barrier gets.

A wall might make it more difficult, but here's the rub, yeah?

If you think the level of illegal border crossings is such that we have a crisis that only a "big, beautiful wall" can solve, what you're saying at the same time is "unless we commit to full-on Fortress Amerika, we cannot stop this. All we can do is divert it."

If you build a wall along the southern border, you're going to have to do the same thing along the Canadian border and significantly beef up the Coast Guard to enable them to more effectively patrol thousands of miles of coast to prevent human smuggling.

You can spend billions on a symbol that amounts to trying to plug countless leaking dikes, or you can look for solutions that don't amount to a giant monument to one man's penile insecurity.

It is an invasion. Just not one with guns.

Re: use of lethal force, I assume you mean shoot-first vs. what I assume Border Patrol has the right to do in using lethal force when necessary. If its the former, yes, they are wrong. If the latter, I find that reasonable.


That is not what I am saying. I agree that some others are saying this. I am hopeful most that want the Wall also want holistic immigration reform that address supply, demand, DACA, guest workers, better H1-B etc.


Maybe re: Canadian border at a later date they aren't really the problem. I guess its possible for south of the border to illegally get into Canada and then cross the border that way but minuscule/unlikely.

Canada+Europe+Oceania is only 5% of the problem. Let's deal with Mexico & Central American at 67%.

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US | migrationpolicy.org

Question to you -

1) Do you think there is a problem with south of the border unauthorized immigrants?
2) If no, why not? If yes, what do you think is the solution?

wtf?

Then by your definition anyone entering the country who stays illegally is an 'invasion' - if an individual overstays their visa in your eyes they are advance scouts? ;)

Those figures are the totals for people present within the country at present - is there any data on the current yearly incoming illegal immigrants? ... I ask because the amount coming through the southern border has dropped hugely in recent years while a lot of H1B's (which many Europeans are on) haven't been renewed.

I would expect the amount of them from Mexico/Central America is partially biased by time and the different policies and enforcement that was present in the far past in the US when it was very easy for them to enter (up until the 1950's there was pretty much no enforcement from what I can tell).

I think the main problem is that the current administration is shouting loudly about an issue which has already largely resolved itself by the illegal immigration having dropped considerably over time already and is attempting to make it into a real issue by their own policies treating people applying for asylum as criminals.

For instance the caravans that Trump shouts about appear to mainly be going to legal entry points and applying for asylum - yet he shouts about them as criminals who are spreading disease and such in an attempt to rile up his base.

I will also reiterate that immigrating isn't something which people do lightly and most individuals doing so far (1) very motivated individuals, (2) when they immigrate they commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens, (3) contribute more to society in terms of taxes etc. than they take out.

In terms of border security I think that using standard sensible techniques rather than a wall would be the most sensible approach, hire more people and use technology more not least because a wall is ludicrous to consider in many areas due to terrain and such.

I don't believe in 'open borders' any more than anyone else - however I accept the DEA stats which indicate that 95% of drugs are smuggled via. container ship and nothing to do with the southern border (how are drugs smuggled into US and that immigrants have very good vetting by and large.

PS - I also think it is somewhat awful that the current administration takes no responsibility for the US having contributed to the causes which mean people leave their countries to try and move elsewhere, no one does that sort of thing lightly and often it is inspired by choices which richer countries have made in terms of supporting governments, wars, cutting support to the countries involved etc.
It is this side of things which I think the current administration is attempting to use to create a crisis that only they can solve - they're cutting support for countries abroad, pulling out of countries where US support has been regardless of whether it might cause genocide etc. ... all of which is likely to cause more civillians to evacuate untenable situations and become refugees.

And the way you know that simply isn't true is that the opportunities to address all those things in the last 20 years have been legion, and Republicans have refused to engage seriously. They're terrified of the word "amnesty," which conservative talk hosts have labeled anything that isn't "kick 'em all out."

As was pointed out upthread, the folks who want a wall also want immigration that's restricted to generally northern and western European countries (and we've seen that movie before, about a century ago).


And, as has ALSO been pointed out before, border crossings as a percentage of illegal immigration has dropped drastically in the last ten years for various reasons, while the elephant in the room - visa overstays (which was also how the 9/11 attackers entered the country) - has been fundamentally unaddressed.

But yeah, let's keep fucking that wa--I mean chicken.

Question to you -


I think the solution is a lot more complicated than "build the wall," because I think the issue is a lot more systemic than "block those border crossings."

A wall tackles symptoms, not the disease that causes them. If your claim is that 67% of illegal entries stem from Latin America, then the next question becomes "why are people traveling 3,000 km to reach our borders? What's causing that level of desperation?"

Trump loves to threaten to take aid away from countries that don't knuckle under to him, but you know what? Trump's own administration is projecting that the cost to complete the wall will be at *least* $18 billion for around 700 miles of "wall." Trump himself was demanding $25 billion in January. Even if you give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that those figures are closer to the truth than the $70 billion Democrats have said is more likely, you're still talking about a wall that approaches 100x in initial spending what we spend on economic aid to the entirety of Latin America annually.

But "let's spend a bit more annually to help our friends south of the border build a viable economic situation in their own countries so that their citizens don't travel 3000 kilometers in the desperate hope that the United States will provide them a better life for their families" isn't the same trophy to penile insecurity as that wall is.

Nor is "overhaul immigration requirements so that the folks who want to 'do it the right way' aren't spending years and years in immigration limbo."

So at the end of the day, it doesn't really MATTER what I think the solution is, because that solution will never see the light of day until and unless Republicans are evicted from control of the legislative and executive branches. They simply don't want anything that requires nuance when they can just tell their constituents that the wall is built and everything is solved forever re-elect me please.

You are a bright guy, but this statement is laughable given the current administrations take on this subject.

All you hear from Trump et al is we are under invasion, all they send us is their worst, they are all criminals, rapists, human traffickers, etc...they bring disease.

Their entire platform for trying to get the wall is one of fear. They scare the crap out of feeble minded Cletus, convincing him any day now a horde of brown people are going to show up to rape his daughter and force his son into injecting black tar heroine between his toes.

If pro wall people really thought they were here for economic reasons they would be welcomed. These people do jobs lazy Americans wont. This is purely conjecture, and maybe someone like Lungs could shed more light, but I would venture to say if we stopped ALL illegal immigration, farms would start dying out at a rapid rate.

I think this approach is all wrong.

You are looking at the wall as a temporary solution to a very long term issue. The cost, time, maintenance, etc...that comes with this wall isn't a stop gap until a better solution is found. You speak of it as if you are putting a wire fence up to stop deer from eating your garden until you can put up one made of wood.

Trump and his followers are looking at it as a permanent fix to stopping illegal immigration, which is ludicrous.

I would imagine if you got rid of all illegals, the American economy would collapse.

So are we still asking for $5 billion (remember Mexico is paying for it) for what likely amounts to nothing more than some “fencing”?

"To be honest, it's not a wall," Kelly told the paper. "The president still says 'wall' — oftentimes frankly he'll say 'barrier' or 'fencing,' now he's tended toward steel slats. But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration, when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it."