I guess this is what's causing the Trump fuss.

Last stat I remember was about 300K illegals each year recently, so if the 100K is to be believed, its a tremendous number for one month. Article alludes to surge happening because the smugglers know how to play the game.

As Donald Trump threatens border closure, migrants overwhelm Texas

Its the same concept as firearm sales going up when a Dem is in power or an Election year.

Trump has actually created a crisis due to the fact people want to get across before it becomes harder or more expensive.

pic.twitter.com/cHvw7ubpg4

— Blake News (@blakehounshell) March 31, 2019

lol

Scary that this is where the majority of our elderly population, who is already too trusting of the media, gets their news from.

I can get you a good deal on tickets to Mexico 3

Mexico 1 is lovely, but I won't go back to Mexico Dos anytime soon.

Had to check.

MSNBC (and possibly CNN) also. For Fox, maybe add "white" elderly population. I am surprised at the median age though would have thought more in the 50's.

How Old Is the Average Fox News Viewer in America?

Here's the thing. Illegal immigration, and border control is a major problem. It's a problem that was avoided by past administrations because the labor and cost of labor that was brought into the US went a very long way toward boosting the US economy. It was a major impact in keeping food and labor costs lower for the rise of the middle class. I think a nod to that is necessary.

It's rather amusing because it was D's, maybe 15 years ago, who were very concerned with the lack of control along the borders. As automation and the loss of manufacturing jobs killed a large number of high paying, low education related jobs the pain had to be turned into something else. I think this is exactly what trump tapped into prior to the election and something he continues to tap into.

I am all for doing something, spending actual legit money to not only police the border, but to create a much better system for dealing with the inevitable rush that any sort of migrant system creates. Cutting off all aid to the '3 Mexico's' probably isn't the right place to start though. We've seen it numerous places that the have not's will always look at the have's with some disdain, and a desire to get to the have position. There's a certain amount of trump and trump's base that is very much a 'let's keep the dirty little brown, poor people out' mentality and it probably has less to do with skin color than and more to do with the economic and social gap that exists and to protect that for even unemployed us workers, who would rather live in a failing coal mining town, than move across the country for a oil well job, or another labor job. They want the jobs brought directly to them, and they aren't wrong. It's not like it's cost efficient to make that kind of a life change, especially when they can't sell a home in a failing town for more than 20k, if that. Don't get me started on the correlation between failing blue collar cities and opioid drug abuse.

The bottom line is that this, like everything, is exceptionally complex. trump doesn't handle complex at all, in fact, his ability to just dumb everything down is maddening, as his ability to get people to follow his dumbed down definitions. A wall is a tremendous waste of money. People are much more liquid, can be moved, hired, fired, whatever. Tech is advancing and there's a great space in this area for a smart and effective plan, but that's not what anyone is selling. Instead, it's the wall or nothing, and no desire to explore the underlying issues that exist. trump can have 50bln for border defense as far as I'm concerned, but he can't do it just to build a dumbass wall, or to keep out the dangerous and hideous brown people.

We used to have success with comprehensive plans and strategy, but instead we can't do anything at all and it's fucking stupid.

I am biased. imo, trump has earned every bit of negative coverage, because he has brought it all on himself. Remember when a congressman yelled 'you lied'? He lied about not understanding how the plans were going to change, and now people couldn't keep their old plans, and maybe not even their old doctors. That was all we heard for MONTHS. trump has lied nearly 10,000 times according to The Post, in less than 2.5 years. He's shotgunning all over the place, of course there's going to be negative coverage. Prison reform was a great place to start, but that's a small bone to throw when you've also been complicit in essentially ok'ing the brutal assassination of a US employed, permanent resident, member of the media, by the same country who populated the vast majority of 9/11 bombers. Pages could be filled over and over again with this stuff.



If you want to get into calling any black criticism as racism we can have that conversation, but it's going to mean that you have to recognize just how the group in power (as in White America going back a couple hundred years) has used it's position to depress life for African Americans and recognize modern uses of racial and social power that continue to have the same effect. Throwing out the reverse racism card is potent. Does it exist? Most certainly in places, but a lot of their arguments originate from a valid place. Most times we have to give the weaker party the benefit of the doubt, or we end up with corrupted power.


I find the moral and ethical dilemmas that house slaves (or even as house freemen) must have had as one example. They were clearly in a higher position of power over others, but was it best that they look out for themselves, and try and improve their own quality of life? Or should they have done more for their fellow man? Even at risk of death? And if they lose their position, and now the group collectively loses don't they? No more hope for any advancement? Should they be happy when the owner throws them a bone, or happy with a fellow house worker throws them one? Or should they feel upset and angry because one is living the 'high' life while the rest of us suffer? This same dichotomy plays itself out all over in modern society and in the black communities ( and poor white communities too).




Personally, once I learned more about the man, I hated him. I hated his arrogance, his I never do anything wrong, and never apologize and if I'm mad I'll sue attitude. He is a pure narcissist and one who loves to use his money and name to get what he wants, and he will fuck over anyone to get it. How is that the example that we want as American citizens. Do I want the office of the President to succeed? Sure, but the man isn't worth my time. The far right is now calling treason against opposition and saying that the Mueller probe was a legit failed coup. So naturally, they would probably like to see those people lead away and treated as such, right? I mean, I hate to invoke other authoritarian leaders, but that's exactly what an authoritarian power grab looks like. It's exactly how Erdogan in Turkey managed to do it. trump would love to do it, so spreading that idea around isn't a bad thing. Sanders was just talking about how criticism of the president is treason and treason should be met with death. All of these things, are very strong fighting words.

The root cause of illegal immigration is the US is a much more desirable than a bunch of other countries. The southern issue is further exacerbated by the ease of travel back and forth. Yes there are definitely valid reasons re: "fear of death" asylum but I think we all can agree its primarily economic.

So what's the next step? Hope for a meshing of minds and getting the holistic reform done? There's been attempts but hasn't happened in 20 years or so with either party what makes us think it'll happen in the near future (e.g. when Trump is out in 2 or 6 years)? Reagan's reform was supposed to be a cure all, it's only gotten worse since then.

IMO I'm all for a "simple, in your face", albeit imperfect, step to begin with vs the political equivalent of "analysis paralysis". Is it going to stop all illegal immigration, no. Will it stop a lot of illegal immigration, yes.

If the Wall is built, there will be a ton of negotiations, discussions, bills etc. for the next 10-20 years. There will be a will to tear it down or keep it up, either way healthy debate(s) will happen.

It forces the US to confront the issue vs ignoring it or kicking the can down the road.

BTW - I do not think its a "hideous brown" issue. Race/ethnicity IMO is just a strawman. All thing equal except for skin color, it would be the similar results.

And I can build 'smart' barriers that raise and lower based on sensors (that serve to funnel, or stop without hurting locals, I can launch a nearly unlimited amount of drones, and I can place men pretty much anywhere I want, and and do it quicker and cheaper than any Build the Wall right now can do.

These solutions are out there, yet they aren't even considered as probable. Only a wall you can put a name on that is expensive, and expensive to maintain.

And were any of those done in the last 2 administrations? Nothing significant I don't think and that's because there wasn't the political will.

In your above post I think you have acknowledged its a major problem unlike some in this board that don't think its a major problem. If this is how Trump wants to do it and the boots on the ground Border patrol seems to support it ... why don't we give it a shot?

Its not as if we haven't wasted $5-$6B elsewhere in the past 20 years and its relatively small bet (vs the earlier $40-$50B estimates) to see what shakes out.

My point is that there is majority support on both sides for significant work to resolve any issues. I also addressed why nothing has really been done regarding it in previous administrations. I don't believe that it rises to national emergency we're going to take money from the military, that is unused and earmarked for one thing and use it for this. I think it is an overally national security issue, but one that is very multifaceted. You suggest that we just try it to see if it'll work, but I'm saying that's not how it's being sold. Instead, it's being sold as "this will for sure, 100% solve all our problems and I know that as a fact, and nothing can or will ever go wrong if we just do it." If we're going to related it to anything perhaps it's ACA. You have a strong desire for some sort of change, a lot of time, effort, negotiations with all sides went into it, and in the end something was created that was better significantly, but not the best we could have done. It was passed with a slim majority. I'm telling you that this is that all over again. Whatever work is started, especially if it's done in the manner that trump is attempting, will be torn right back down by the next D administration, simply because that's the way things work now.

5-6bln is a down payment on 177 miles of new barriers in the areas where CBP say would help the most. That's not what trump is pushing, although, to be fair, we are both already building, almost done building, and still need to keep building the wall, so there's that. He's pushing that this is all that it'll take.

Oh, and he lied about Mexico paying for the wall.


{edit to add: much of new technology has only been developed and refined in the last 10 years, so much of this tech is relatively new. But shouldn't we be working toward new and advanced solutions that we can adapt and modify to suit our needs going forward, rather than just going back to the stone age?}

Let me just float an alternative hypothesis. Immigration is a front of mind issue because it riles people up and the political attention it receives outweighs it's actual import or effect on the country by whatever measure you choose (economic, crime, etc.). Because the political import outweighs the actual import, it is better placed as a campaign issue than an actual policy issue.

Not sure if this is what you actually think but I choose ... impact to the demographics/makeup of the country in the long run (say 20-30 years) which will impact societal/political change and therefore is extremely important.

But do agree if you insert "short term import or effect on the country". And we all know voters focus on the near term.

Not going to disagree but honestly, everyone I know that voted for Trump knew there was some BS there. It just made for great rallying cry at rallies and it worked.


I actually did not know this. Can you provide a source?

What kills me is that we knew all this in the 1980s. Or at least some of us did.

I've had this thought as well.

So how much would you say the immigration policies of the late 1980s changed the demographics/makeup of the country today and how much impact has that had in societal and political change today?

Every day is April Fools with this clown show in the white house.

I follow left wing twitter (yeah, I'm not proud), and I am starting to see some major pushback against Buttigieg by Warren/Harris supporters.

I think that most of the country is like "Wow, can you believe that an openly gay guy is actually being taken seriously as a candidate" and see it as this huge progressive thing.

But there seems to be more than I would have thought who see it as "Young man comes in once again and steals thunder from accomplished woman."

Or maybe I just need to stay off political twitter.

Well the issue with Buttigieg is that right now he's kind of an empty suit. He doesn't really talk policy that much. Like I think he's a moderate Dem, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Yeah, probably this.

I'm guilty too, I follow lots, including plenty on the center-right (?), and I liken it to... hmm, it's not like a candy addiction... more like... eating ramen noodles? I mean, I know it isn't real, but emmmmesssssgeeeee yummmm.

I think this is smart, overall. (Survivorship bias) He's a longshot, of course, by name recognition. So, he's basically got three angles that I can see:

-fully embrace one issue and try to get swept onward based on it

-fully embrace being "openly gay" and try to get swept onward based on it

-project as competent and thoughtful, and remind people you're Navy too

The third is the hardest, but that's his play. Right now, he has to overcome the first mental hurdle... a smallish-town mayor can't win. He's doing okay there. Next up will be that an openly gay candidate will be dead in the general election and unappealing to the centrist voters. That's a tough sell for him, whether we like it or not. But he doesn't get there unless he gets past these first steps. So... raising $7m and becoming a non rounding-error in the polls is basically a 10/10 thus far.

Back to my first item...I don't know that there's a just-me issue in the Democratic party right now. A few years ago (2008?) Tom Tancredo ran as a Republican basically as a one-issue candidate, railing against immigration as his entire mantra. That's the model I'm thinking of, for a relative unknown, to get somewhere in a crowded party field. I'm at a loss for what issue offers such a foothold. (I guess Universal Basic Income is out there, but nobody's biting)

For the Dems I think there's a solid majority that almost only cares about electability. As people start to drop out I think Bernie's going to be in trouble as too many Dems are worried that he'd lose to Trump.

I think Sanders is more electable now that he's more familiar to America. But who's the next best electable option if Biden decides he can't run? Next highest ranked candidates on Predictit after Biden and Sanders are Kamala Harris (a black woman with a scary name), Buttigieg (gay mayor with a funny name), O'Rourke (current crush of far-left young voters), Andrew Yang (rich asian), and then Elizabeth Warren (take your pick).

I think there are far more moderate Dems than a lot of people think. Mostly because the far left Dems are louder. I think Sanders will run into a wall at some point. The question is whether someone else can consolidate the rest of the voters (moderates, etc) as opposed to multiple moderates running splitting the vote and leading to the guy with the 40% ceiling winning the nomination (aka, how Trump won the 2016 GOP Primary).

I'm still in for Booker at this point. I'm not sure if he'll be able to separate himself from the group, but he's got a lot of pluses (imo) right now.

Yang is the universal basic income guy.

I think being gay will be an asset for him in the Democratic primary. This isn't the 20th century anymore. No self-respecting liberal is going to publicly argue that being a LGBT is harmful to his candidacy. Many will want to see the first LGBT president in their lifetime and say they voted for him/her.

Yup, for better or worse

I had the same logic when Hillary was running. Many will want to say they voted for the first woman President...and we got Trump.

Well note that I did say "in the Democratic primary"

Patton Oswalt's bit on the voter decisions for president in his Annihilation special on Netflix is perfect.

The demographic/makeup of the country (e.g. ethnicity, race) are easy enough to find but I think the thrust of your question is how has it impacted societal and political change - this has been harder to find a scholarly analysis, vast majority of articles is on how immigration policy has changed.

With that said, a couple articles. Please note I'm not advocating either as the right answer to your question, its just a sampling of what's out there. Regardless, I do think its undeniable that immigration changes has and will change the "makeup" of the US.

403 Forbidden

Immigration & Cultural Change | National Review

Nice consolation I guess.

McConnell to Trump: We're not repealing and replacing ObamaCare | TheHill

This is just a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage.

[checks author]

Dennis Prager? Yeah, that sounds right.

This bit right here. This has always seemed like a double standard imo. It's quite literally the very same thing that was said about Irishmen, Chinese, etc, and there are generations of immigrants from early US history who are fine and upstanding Americans today. The concept of taking on American values vs. maintaining your group identity is so double sided in American culture. The same groups that claim this also fail to rail against sects that while religious in nature, are still completely separate cultures within the larger US mainstream culture. You don't hear these groups complain about Amish, Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, or quite literally any other sub culture of Americans that they personally view as 'American'. It's one of the tag lines that immigration critics love to point out, but when confronted with the idea that it's widely recognized that over time this viewpoint is considered alarmist and racist (at least in the history books I had growing up it was), they have no issue with say, Boston and it's heavy Irish Catholic heritage (because duh, their obviously American now), where the entire concept of you're free to be who you are originates from. I haven't lived in ND in well over 20 years, but I guarantee that the culture in the state has been permanently altered because of the massive influx of oil workers from the south. I can also guarantee that the state is old enough (ie. generational families that have lived in the same areas for nearly 100 years) conservative enough, that if these workers aren't white (because even growing up, racism against Native Americans was a given, nobody else mattered, because nobody else was there), that there is a quiet seething of long time, rural locals who feel like they have ruined everything. In the end it's a con job. It's really ok to be from Anglo European decent and be here, anything else is dangerous, but this is just another way to say that.

I wouldn't call the second piece scholarly. I also think you're walking a pretty fine line with your statement on changing the "makeup" of the US. Be careful.

Group movement versus individual movement in immigration colors this debate. Waves from different countries. My hometown is to this day two separate villages that run right into each other geographically. One side was German Catholic and the other side was Yankee Protestant. The German side kept the German language up until World War II. Schools merged in the 1960s, which probably was the last generation to care about the religious division of the town. Police and fire are merged. Yet there are still two separate governments to this day.

I'm learning the Danish language right now. And as I learn it, I'm seeing lots of things in the way my own family talks that have carried through from our Danish/Norwegian ancestry, even though I've never lived in a Scandinavian community (my Danish/Norwegian grandfather married a German Swiss girl and moved here).

Point being with all my personal tales is that fitting into this 'American culture' is nonsense. American culture is a mishmash of where we all came from.

I do agree that it's usually been overblown and we really shouldn't expect the first generation to fully assimilate, but instead their children/grandchildren. But I also do think that technology that has made the world smaller also makes it easier to retain links to your old culture instead of being forced to interact with the country you live in. True, many of the poorer (brown) immigrants coming in caravans won't be flying back and forth on visits home, but you can facetime with the people you left, you can watch TV shows and read newspapers from the home country, etc. There's also the demographic realities that 1st world societies have lower birth rates
If you want a more scholarly read on this from a centrist perspective, The Atlantic has a cover story on it this month David Frum: How Much Immigration Is Too Much? - The Atlantic

This is kind of fascinating with all the talk of crime coming from immigration. Seems the Saudi government is helping citizens escape prosecution and the federal government is turning a blind eye to it.

What does the FBI know about Saudi students escaping US justice? It won’t say - oregonlive.com

Sorry, I can see how it was read as me saying the 2 examples were scholarly articles. Poorly written, did not mean to say that at all.

I agree that American culture/society (probably a difference but lets use that interchangeably here) changes over time and certainly with the addition of new immigrants - this is the point I was trying to make, society and inevitably political views are impacted by a lot immigration (good and bad).

I've always heard the "melting pot" analogy but I prefer "salad bowl", there is definitely a retention of one's culture but we are "one big happy family with the special salad dressing".

However, I do think American culture, like for many other countries, is unique (but do change over time).

I'm not a sociologist but tossing out some examples below.

Note that I'm not saying each are uniquely American because there are certainly other/fewer countries that share some of the traits. I am saying taken in combination, it does make up the American psyche (just like many other countries are uniquely themselves).

1. US gun culture (hopefully it will change towards the right direction)
2. US on take on family unit - an example is mobility and how nowadays its not unusual for families to be spread out across the country and grow apart; I'd also say how its somewhat the norm to not "care as much" for elderly parents
3. ... and likely the most controversial among this board, is the American expectation of self-determination. The idea that a large % believe "you can be whatever you want to be with enough hard work and some luck".
4. etc.

For #3, there are other peoples in countries with this value also but think US is unique in the % of Americans that think this is true or expect it to be true. This is certainly not a belief held by the majority of asian population in Asian countries nor (I think) in Muslim dominated countries.

Looking forward to a good debate here and to learn different POVs.

Maybe it's guns... all the Dems are for gun control, but Swallwell seems to want to run almost exclusively on gun reforms as his platform. Good example of what I'm talking about here, I guess.

(edit: oopslink)

Swalwell was the one I was most curious about running before everyone and their neighbor decided to run. Has an uphill battle against some more established candidates especially if Biden runs. He's definitely trying to appeal to a younger crowd with announcing on Colbert and having a townhall with a Parkland survivor. Already has an established social media presence. Guess I need to see more bite then bark-more substance on the issues instead of sound bites before I'd back him though.

He just came out against free college with a "why should working class people have to subsidize the education of people who will get college degrees and end up making more money" argument.

So another thing he is doing it seems is taking some more moderate positions than most of the other people running. That, again, seems pretty smart. How do you distinguish yourself? Well, if everyone is running to the left, you stay in the middle.

And, because his personal brand (for lack of a better word) is leftist (young, gay), he might be able to run to the middle substantively and not turn off the base in the way that someone like Biden (old, creepy) might not.

Right now, it feels like his campaign is a March Madness 15 seed that came in with the perfect gameplan against UNC and is up by 1 halfway through the first half. He still is more likely to lose than not. But he's playing the game about as perfectly as you could hope.

In a country where well under 50% have a college degree, free college doesn't seem to me to be the political winner some think. I get the truth that college degrees mean higher incomes and higher taxes, but that's not a winning argument IMO.

dola

Trump expected to name Herman Cain to the Fed

lol

Should be fun watching the GOP elevate and defend Cain.

Unless Buttigieg's anti-free college stance included help for those who can't afford college who want to go (increasing need based grants, etc) and, perhaps, at least included Obama's free community college stance, it seems like a massive mistake. Because those two are the center-left positions. Saying lets not do anything at all about higher ed costs seem to be more right wing positions than center ones these days.

What Pete Buttigieg Said about Free College in Boston

Good article and appreciate the loads of info. TBH, I didn't read it as centrist, it seemed to be more right leaning than centrist.

Some snippets that caught my eye.


To me, Trump's wall isn't to keep out legal immigration. Its to keep out illegal immigration. It is arguable if Trump wants to keep out the "better educated, more mobile, more networked" but I definitely think we should open the floodgates for the more educated. Only way to keep our population growing (see Japan) and infusing it with talent with the additional bonus of disadvantaging the countries of origin.


I met an Uber driver that won the lottery. He started a family here, his kids have dual citizenship. He doesn't like it here and wants to return. Told him he was lucky vs me going through the process.


I didn't know this about the younger generation.


Didn't know this either. The paragraph state "immigrant", I wonder what an "illegal" immigrant would cost - higher or lower.


I'm not sure I buy "not economic" but agree with social/cultural.

Trump, the master of getting called on bluffs, now says Mexico has a year and then he might close the border.

Didn't realize Tim Ryan was running. Hrm. Guessing he won't be viable in Iowa so what's the point

Well he just declared he was running, so not realizing he was running until now is good ;).

An unthinkably bad idea, both of these two clowns should be laughed out of the room. But Ben Sasse will presumably be "troubled" and then "concerned" and then just curl into his usual position of kneeling and waiting to service his liege.

I guess Wall St really does like Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/70pe...d-in-2020.html

That article is kind of a mess, as it alternates back and forth between referencing Wall Street's belief in a candidate's chance to be elected versus which candidate is thought to be more 'friendly' to wall street, without making any distinction or clarification, whereas I would consider those to be two entirely different topics.

Yeah. The 70% is pretty impressive though.

Yeah, I think that if 70% of Wall Street expects Trump to win election than that does seem remarkable (which does seem to be what it's reporting).

However, if 70% of Wall Street think that Trump is the more *Dow friendly* candidate than {random_democrat} that wouldn't surprise me at all, and I'm still not entirely sure the article/poll isn't conflating those two things.

It's also unclear to me whether I'm supposed to think the collective 'Wall Street' has some actual dedicated insight, analysis and/or tracking regarding the issue, or they just asked some folks who are good at predicting one thing to try and predict another? If it's the latter you could just as well ask bookies at the dog track (which I would totally read too).

Well I'm sure glad the narrative of this economic boom isn't all about the near trillion dollar per year deficit anymore. The idea that it's ok to run these kinds of deficits in a bull economy is crap. We're running this economy hot right now, and even if inflation doesn't creep because apparently, inflation of the old days is dead now, but when the economy does turn down, the current budgets are going double that deficit maybe more, and there's nothing (or minimal at best) the fed will be able to do help it then.

The double standards are amzing

Trump refers to Netanyahu as “your prime minister� in speech to Republican Jews.

I fall into the 30% who would choose the economy. I'm not talking about Beijing like pollution but certainly would take fracking (in the short-term) to buy us time to develop Tesla and the like alternatives.

I am surprised its only 30% TBH.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/...gn=syndication

I used to be the same as you, but in recent years my thinking has switched. I think we have reached the point where critical decisions need to be made about the environment. As in, if we don't, there is no turning back, no chance for recovery. Now or never.

The economy, on the other hand, is recoverable and will do so. Any hits economically will eventually adjust and smooth out as revenue streams switch to more environemntally friendly sources.

It appears this puts me in the minority for my party and age group. But that's not a shock as most would probably call me an NPR (non-practicing Republican). I'm strongly averse to both Trumpism and religious social conservatism, which puts me at odds with the primary forces in the GOP these days.

I personally think folks like you who put small gains in their portfolio and short term solutions that kill our environment like fracking are the most toxic people to our country. We have had so many different booms over the last 200+ years, and our economy has always been great. There are of course, ups and downs, but we always recover when we look to the future. Idiots who think that we need to subsidize dying industries like coal that destroy our environment over training for the future need to go to the wayside.

Me supporting fracking to allow Tesla and like to grow is not about stock portfolios. Its about getting away from the dependence of ME oil resulting in us supporting countries we should not be supporting and getting involved in things we should not get involved in.

Innovation and figuring out clean energy and how to keep the planet habitable will bring about so many economic booms.

Absolutely agree. I don't know if Tesla is the solution and not sure I see a "direct path" to alternate energy. Also, its valid to ask if US fracking hinder the development of alternate energy.

But IMO extricating ourselves from ME oil dependence is one of the first steps we need to take. I'm tired to helping ME countries build up their "playgrounds" with little reward other than oil.

For whatever it's worth to anybody: only 40% of America's consumed oil comes from imports these days, Saudi Arabia is typically our second biggest supplier, at about 10% of our oil imports and Canada is our biggest supplier at 30-40% over recent years.

We're already trending pretty well towards oil independence, and it seems like we could probably cut the middle east, and Saudi Arabia in particular, out of the transaction entirely relatively easily right now and transferring the demand to other suppliers (which I would certainly personally support), but I'd imagine it's political interests that keep that connection going rather than straight economics. It appears that most of our oil comes from fracking.

Where does America’s oil come from? | World Economic Forum

I was going to say - I thought we already covered that we are no longer dependent upon the Middle East for oil.

I believe I read that we recently became the #1 oil producer in the world. Some of it through fracking, but mostly because of new oil discoveries because new scanning and extraction technologies have allowed us to reach new sources (or get more out of old ones).

I would love to get out of the ME. It makes me wonder sometimes what happens to that part of the world if oil dries up or the world moves completely away from carbon based fuels. Are there enough resources from other economies to keep the area going?

I can only imagine what a mass population shift away from the ME to other parts of the world would be like. Witness the Syria refugee crisis times by oh maybe a million.

That said, it does seem to be directly related to fracking, and if we weren't blowing up the crust of our own lands we probably would still be firmly on someone's teat.

I'm relatively neutral on fracking, but I think it's worth acknowledging that is probably entirely due to it being out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and if I thought I would have to deal directly with the results I would probably feel a lot differently.

Yeah, I'd imagine the effect of cutting off the middle east's oil income would be pretty far reaching, and basically an entire culture shift to that part of the world.....which might actually do some good?.

My grasp of Middle Eastern history is remedial at best, but it does seem like some Middle Eastern regions ironically went backwards culturally, socially, and even technologically as a result of all that oil money.

Not quite there yet. Maybe time for new refineries to process our own stuff.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/inves...tes/index.html

I do think the US can achieve oil independence (or greatly reduce our dependence). But if we don't buy it, China will for the next X years is my guess so those ME and other oil countries are probably set for next 20-40 years.

But better China than us IMO.

The decline in science/technology in the Muslim world happened a long time ago and it wasn't about oil.

Below article goes further in discussing differences between Christianity & Islam and the last paragraph I quoted may be controversial so take it for what its worth.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...y-from-science

Well sure, that publication probably not going to be kind to Islam.

(this is from a review of another article the journal published, which advocated that no one is "born that way.")


Again, Edward's sources have a distinct tilt to them.

Secretary Nielsin is out as Homeland Security Secretary-hope the Dems make her account for every last family member she separated at the border and hope she's never in a position of authority again.

Found a UAE article that gave kudos to same article I quoted and also Ghazali being the consensus culprit by academia. However, the article did go to say it probably wasn't Al Ghazali but Nizamiyah colleges.

Take it for what its worth. This article is not kind to Islam way back when re: lost of scientific momentum.

How the decline of Muslim scientific thought still haunts - The National

We shouldn't forget how out of line and dangerous this stuff is.

Trump: Russia investigators guilty of "treason". pic.twitter.com/sFEAzUQalB

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) April 10, 2019

if the leader of any other country said this stuff in a slightly authoritative state we'd be saying, "can you believe that shit happens there."

Trump reminds me of Slobodan Milosevic in some ways. There's no doubt he would have fit in perfectly in the Balkans during the 90s as an authoritarian.

Don't think I would vote for Bernie but glad Healthcare reform will become a major issue in 2020.

Sanders vows to blow up Senate rules to pass Medicare for All - POLITICO

Just like Cruz, he's wrong.

Just eliminate the filibuster and make the Senate a majority rule institution. That's a much better plan than exploiting loopholes to do whatever you wish.

Yup. Just kill it. It causes more harm than good.

And I say this as a Democrat knowing that 2016-2018 would had a lot more GOP legislation pass without the filibuster. And I wouldn't have liked that. But in the long run, we are still better off without it.

+1

Assange arrested in London, awaiting extradition to the US


Assange accused of conspiring with Chelsea Manning in 2010 WikiLeaks release, says unsealed U.S. indictment

He sees every matter as a purely one-dimensional, zero-sum "deal" rather than nuances in any way.

He sees every person through a lens of loyalty, rather than right or wrong.

The way he talks makes it evident that his mindset is that of a slumlord or crime kingpin, rather than political leader.

He sees every matter as a reflection of himself.

He needs people who will constantly praise and admire him.

He believes that he is the reason for all success and everyone else for is for his failures.

Oh what the hell, just copy the damn list. Are there any of these that you can't equate with him?

• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

AND

Have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism.

and when they do they respond with-

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment
• Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior
• Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior
• Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change
• Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

Sounds spot on. Where is this list from? American Psychiatric Association listing of the overt symptoms for sociopathic narcissism?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20366662

My mom has NPD, and I recognize so many traits she shares with Trump.

I find that one of the easiest ways to spot a narcissist in American culture is what I've termed 'Shitty Customer Disease'. If you know someone who always has an issue with their order at a restaurant, always asks for more work from anyone a service role, or is just far too familiar with the phrase 'let me speak to your manager', that person is very likely a narcissist.

Today's dumbass news is all about how the party of law and order really doesn't care about the law part, and the unethical lengths the dumbass in charge will go to support his narcissism.

Very petty of Trump.

Kinda ironic if it happens (but it won't).

Trump threatens to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities - POLITICO

That is some twisted shit. If I can't get my wall to keep these people out I am literally going to have them trucked into the middle of the country and dumped there.

It also seems worth noting that all of the cities Trump lives and works in (DC, NY and Palm Beach) are all sanctuary cities, which seems like it might open the door for unintentional hilarity.

Why is it twisted? It would seem safe to say that sanctuary cities would be better equipped to provide support to illegal immigrants as well as be more welcoming, accepting, and safe from deportation than non-sanctuary cities.

How is it not completely unethical and in direct opposition to the constitutional duties of the president?