Governor Brian Kemp is a Trump sycophant that I thought had no redeeming qualities, but I think he made a good decision in refusing Trump and naming Kelly Loeffler as a replacement Senator. Trump wanted him to name Rep. Doug Collins, whose mouth is permanently attached to his butt. Instead, he named a woman who can play well with women in the suburbs were Republican support is waning. To me, the state still has a few years before it can/will turn truly purple, but another Trumpist would have given Dems the best chance of flipping the seat. I think now it is going to much tougher for whoever (most likely Jon Ossoff) to unseat her.

Barr went public today to disagree with the IG's finding on how the FBI handled the Russia investigation. This is setting things up for his side investigation into his own DOJ to throw everyone under the bus to protect the President and justify removing more dems and Obama appointees from government jobs.

Barr's conduct since being appointed by Trump and his recent speeches about the war with the left makes it clear why he was interested in the job and why he was appointed.

According to Pew, 43% of Republicans now think the country's problems could be addressed better if presidents didn't have to worry about congress or the courts.

I'm more and more concerned that we won't get out of this.

Don't worry, they'll all come around and be ready to disband the presidency when the next D is elected.



Otoh, I honestly cannot fathom how people can't see the dangers that the country is facing.

just stay in line and nobody has to get the same fate

Who would have guessed that the well documented liar would lie regarding just about everything, including loan and tax paperwork.

right there with you on this

Perhaps all those R's that say that they're more centrist (I'm looking at you Susan Collins) will stop acting like you really give a shit to the media when the appointee comes before them and say that they're really going to look closely at the appointee and listen to their answers for we know, we really know since you've seen it with Barr and others, that what they say to the committee is NOT at all what it'll be like when they reluctantly get approved even though they're concerned.

He is going to win another term.

I also think the first thing he does, either publicly or privately, will be to start laying the groundwork to change the constitution to allow additional terms. We really are facing the death of our nation as we know it.

You know he already has visions of passing the torch to Donald Jr. in 2024 if he can't circumvent the constitution (And again the irony here as the GOP treats it like the Holy Grail on things that they stand for) thereby starting a faux family dynasty, ala his idol in NK.

If he someone how manages to make it so that he can run for a 3rd term, I think it would be a good time for Obama to make a return.

Oh don't worry, there will be the 'Obama Clause' to prevent that.

I'm not sure we can easily survive another election where the person with the most votes comes in second.

I'm not worried about Trump as king. He's already deteriorating quickly enough that I can't imagine he could even run for a third term. If we get through the aftermath of another Trump win with fewer votes, the bigger problem is going to be the next person, right or left, that isn't lazy and stupid the way Trump is. That person will see the Trump years as a beginning, not an end.

Survey and conclusion about why the impeachment % hasn't moved up.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/polit...sis/index.html

From the same article, link to the CNN poll. Page 4 shows what is most important to Dems vs GOP.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...EL13B-2020.pdf

Dems

• Healthcare - 55%
• Climate Change - 52%
• Gun Policy - 43%
• Immigration - 42%
• Impeachment - 39%
• Economy - 32%
• Foreign policy - 32%
• Trade with other countries - 24%

GOP

• Economy - 50%
• Gun policy - 45%
• Health care 36%
• Immigration - 35%
• Trade with other countries - 28%
• Foreign policy - 25%
• Impeachment -15%
• Climate change - 7%

Internet surveys/comparisons says I lean some towards GOP but can honestly say I've voted both parties and am not tied to one party. I go for the person that I believe aligns with my top interests/concerns and/or the lesser of two evils.

From the list, my order is

1) Economy - assume debt/deficit is included
2) Trade with other countries - assume this includes China trade/IP etc. and long term consequences. If not China, this would be further down on my list
3) Immigration - 3 & 4 can be swapped
4) Healthcare
5) Foreign policy - I include wars we are in (and easing away from)
6) Impeachment - I say do impeachment out of principle but let the election really decide one way or another
7) Climate change
8) Gun policy

Oh,they absoultely see the dangers. Some see dangers to their own wallets and don't care who gets hurt to protect that. Some see the dangers of brown people in our country and if it takes a dictator to stop that then that's completely okay. Some realize that if a democrat gets elected the military starts going door to door taking everyone's guns the next day, and again if we need to make Trump a dictator to stop that, we need to. And I guess we can't forget that many are willing to watch the world burn as long as they vote for a candidate who is against abortion.

We've 100% got our prioritties in the right places, its all good.

I seriously don't understand the lack of perspective. Republicans are getting their butts kicked in every election since Trump was put in office. As has been discussed before, America (and not just this country of course) has a long tradition of believing things like, for example, that obstruction of justice is not sufficient grounds for impeachment. Not all that long ago, post-Trump's election I think, there was a discussion of the rule of law and a sizable majority around here including some of those now freaking out didn't think it was that big of a deal and the foundation of our society was just fine on that front thank you very much.

What is new here is simply a difference of degree, and frankly not that much of one. The foundations have been laid for decades if not longer. . This is why trust in the media has dropped like a rock, people practically prefer infotainment to hard news of the day, and so on.

Welp. We'll be withdrawing from NATO now.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...-nato-n1095351

Oh dear.


I was just joking, y'all!


Trump to Leave NATO Meeting Early After Video Catches World Leaders Appearing to Mock Him

Doesn't take much to melt a snowflake...

I am trying to think of one single voter who is currently against impeachment who will have his mind changed by "A bunch of liberal law professors just told Congress that they should impeach Trump."

From some of what I've read about today's testimony so far, the democrats witnesses(?) make the republican's witnesses look like how a pro athlete would play against some schlub that's played at no higher a level than a rec league.

Who is the pro athlete in this scenario! The dem or republican?

The dems.

These constitutional law professors are doing a pretty good job explaining all of this shit.

The dems by a mile is the pro. On the repubs side it's all about someone's dog being mad...even worse than the Chewbacca Defense.

Haven’t listened to much of today’s hearings. Just tuned in. Glad to hear republicans still don’t ask questions and use their five minutes for grandstanding.

"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for one's self."

That and several motions for a roll call. It's almost like they know they really don't have to defend trump at all since once the impeachment process moves to the senate for removal, they know that's where this whole thing will go to die under Moscow Mitch's watch.

Yes agree. In particular “Some see dangers to their own wallets and don't care who gets hurt to protect that. ” even on this board I have noticed with the right leaning folks.

Let's face it, NATO is hardly worth the paper it's written on at this point. And that goes beyond Trump.

No.

It's not an accident that western Europe has been free of war since 1945. The post-war order has been one of mankind's great successes.

I am trying to think of one single voter who is currently against impeachment who will have his mind changed by anything less than a terrorist holding a gun to his daughter's head and screaming to support it, while also offering him a million dollars and a gun rack.

My brother is one of those. Other relatives are as well. Many of them have disgust for Trump, there's just basically in the camp of not wanting impeachment for anything short of a proven violent felony committed by the POTUS(or whatever other position) themselves.

It's a good thing it's the position of POTUS and his lawyers that he can literally shoot someone as President and be immune from investigation for the crime then, amirite?

Don't get me wrong, I said about a year ago, that we were beyond impeachment, and we were at the point where a straight resignation should have been accepted. The fact that there's still an argument over IF he should be impeached, let alone removed, is just dumb, imo.


The bar started at, "does this equate to Nixon" and has been moved to, "he the president, or course he can do it" no matter what, it is.



We went from R's screaming about the near constant use of Exec Priv, as a means to direct law, as being a near impeachable and nothing short of a monarchic dictatorship, to the president should be burdened with the courts, or congress. I mean, what the actual fuck?

I wish people would stop thinking that Republicans mean anything they say. They only say and do things that gives them their way. Rule of law is important when it comes to restricting Democrats. Presidents can't use Executive Privileged for anything, as long as there is a "D" beside their name. Ignoring congressional subpoenas is a crime, unless you do it as a Republican. Foreign influence in our elections should be stopped, unless it helps Republicans.



And the saddest part is, we have 40% of the people, many of whom are taking the brunt of the Republicans terrible policies, that are just fine with it. Heck, more than fine.

FoxNews comment section is FULL of folks literally threatening armed revolt if they don't get to pay their insurance premiums. It's absurd.

"A Narcissist's Prayer" has been quoted going back years on countless things happening in this administration.


We've been in the proverbial "you deserved it" range for a really long time now on all of these issues. The leap the administration, fox, and voters will make overnight from "the president didn't do that, that's illegal and he doesn't do illegal things" to "of course the president did that and everyone should its not a big deal" has just become staggering. That 40% base won't ever care.

With the Putin/Russia resurgence, it has a role. However, I am with Trump in asking the NATO allies to pay more. Also, I don't think Turkey is a good fit, maybe at one time, but we shouldn't have frenemies in NATO.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/thre...-bad-deal.html

You do understand that strategically, Turkey sits in the catbird seat between Russia and the Mediterranean. For NATO, that is prime, prime real estate. Russia would love to have complete control (via alliances and influence) of that region and should NATO lose that, it's a big set back for the US and it's ability to float big things in the Black Sea. They are well aware of this, and the tolerance for the things that Erdogan has done that mimic Putin has given rise to the nationalistic influence that Russia propagates in the region.

Sure its strategic. Nevertheless, a frenemy within NATO countries isn't good.

Mostly driven by GOP members of the military.

At this point, the US is frenemies with Germany and France (and probably most of NATO).

Sure we can say that superficially but doesn't compare.

They know Trump will exit in 1-5 years but no same assurance with Erdogan. US is also paying much more into this alliance than Turkey (or Germany & France for that matter).

We aren't trying to kick Turkey out of NATO as long as we have nuclear warheads based there.

Now there's a good argument for removing those warheads, but until that happens we'll let Turkey get away with a lot.

Oh, yeah, and Trump is corrupt and is getting God knows what from Erdogan.

Do we really need those nukes there? My vote would be relocated the nukes into Greece, that will really stir things up!

Erdogan hasn't always been this hostile to the US. Some of that is due to the failed coup in 2016 and the aftermath, but a lot is how Trump has handled the relationship. US has dealt a fine line with autocrats before - giving a bit of leash where we look the other way for bigger strategic interests.

So we now have a Saudi Arabia's air force officer killing us (and supposedly co-students, at best, passively involved)

It wouldn't surprise me as much if it was some grunt but these (I assume like their US counterparts) are highly educated, screened, and loyal.

Must be more to the story.

https://apnews.com/75a8adc71422596a54052540fabb7230

Trump Tower, Istanbul?

If there was an opportunity, to suspend a program, send all current students out of the county, reconsider the current program, screening, etc, and have the Pentagon address these issues with SA and viability of continuing the program, this would be it.

I confess to being fairly ignorant on foreign policy, it's just not my strong suit. But from where I sit, we don't really need a complex rationale to explain Trump's series of strange positions and statements about basically everything in Europe and the northern edges of the Middle East. It all seems to connect to Russia very nicely.

Whether it's a matter of him/them feeling indebted to Russia for assistance in the last election, him/them becoming persuaded as a matter of policy that the Russian goals are worthy, or him/them seeking some further personal enrichment from the relationship... I/we don't know, and it might not even matter at this point. If you start with the assumption that Trump and his administration are pursuing or abetting a Russian agenda in that part of the world, then basically everything else flows from there fairly naturally.

Admittedly, not the beautiful wall I was expecting (nor free to US taxpayers which I never believed), but good to see some new construction.

Article states 8 miles for $167M which is approx $21M per mile. Simplistic extrapolation, for $10B we'll get 476 miles.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-b...mp-2019-12-04/

How is it good?

We have a president who claims to love the military, yet he would rather spend billions on a useless wall to appease his xenophobic base than use that money for something better. Lets also not forget a lot of this money is being funneled from military projects.

FFS that article states the sections wont be connected.

---------------------- BROWN PEOPLE -------------------
WALL WALL

No one expects it to be perfect. As fair as reducing illegals, I'd think that once completed and operational (and it probably never will be if Trump doesn't win second term), it will reduce quite a bit. Purely my swag, I would hope by 70-80%?

I agree with the term xenophobic as its "dislike or prejudice" vs racist (used way too often here IMO). The additional context I would add is approx a third of hispanics support a wall, so its not just old white Americans.

On not being connected, give him the $40-$50B (number I once heard early on) and I'm sure it'll be connected where the Border Patrol thinks best.

62% of illegals came in on visas last year. And between boats, airplanes, tunnels, gaps and trucks there is no reason to think you'll get near that number even on border crossings.

How about we spend that money actually trying to fix the economies, etc..of those countries instead of on an absurd, useless wall?

Sorry, I should have said reduce by 70-80% that cross illegally at the southern border.

Helping fix the economies ... it'll never be enough help.

But absolutely agree we need a holistic immigration reform package which includes Wall, more guest workers, allow higher educated more slots, help grow the economies (somehow), bullying Mexico to step up enforcement (which is working to a degree) etc.

But for now, staging some impotent political theater to show the worst among us that we're serious about the "brown people problem" gets chalked up as "good." Got it.

You are being wildly optimistic. Between ladders, saws, tunnels, and areas where a wall simply can't be built, it won't put a dent in the numbers. Anybody I've talked to that's ever crossed the border illegally laughs at the idea of a wall stopping them.

Doesn't seem impotent to me. At the very least, he has succeeded in bullying Mexico to patrol the border and he has brought awareness that something has to be done (one way or another, good or bad depending on your POV) vs same old do-nothing-much.

Too bad the Obama didn't see reforming immigration as something he wanted to spend his political capital on and/or cared enough about during his 8 years.

Yeah, I can see that on the $10B version. All the more reason we need the $40-50B version.

Undocumented immigration dropped drastically under Obama.

You could throw trillions of dollars at a wall. Still won't work.

Probably because there's weren't that many jobs back then? Or care to share what policies Obama enacted that would explain the drop?

Trillion dollars (lets say over 5-7 years) is a lot of money. I'd lay odds it'll work assuming its managed and apportioned properly by/to commercial firms (e.g. Blackwater-and-such patrolling the border)

Is is the same wall you're able to cut through with Home depot saws?

I guess we can just assume brown people can't afford to go to home depot so it's effectively impenetrable.

Too bad he can't get the $40-$50B version where maybe there will be more guards patrolling the wall.

Seriously?

It is a 2500 mile border, exactly how many guards should we have?

Yeah it's too bad the military doesn't have more housing and school projects they could steal money from. Let me tell you, living in old SS barracks in Germany, then previously condemned housing on a closed Fort Ord, and Housing that was condemned within a year of leaving San Antonio was the highlight of my military career. Then you can add to that the elementary school on Fort Lewis my son attended that wasn't large enough for the number of students and didn't have a gym or cafeteria.

But at least we get a wall that's both cuttable with home power saws and easily climable despite data and scientists saying it's going to have miminal impact on the actual problem.

The only true plan that will work in Mexico will never work. It involves a stance, where you do brand the cartels and terrorist organizations. You go to the people and say, you want to come here for money, and jobs, well, let's make Mexico have the same prosperity as the US. The massive problem though, is that the central government in MEX is just too weak to ferret out the corruption and back dealings at the state level (which coincidentally, is exactly the kind of government the Grover Nordquist's of the world want). It involves a lot of legit fighting, warfare, innocent deaths, and the destruction of the only thing that is bringing money into and supporting many of the towns in Northern Mexico. Idealistically, you'd create a thriving culture that buffers (see Turkey) the land (except that they functionally annexed the land), with a combination of people who want the same things. In order to pull such a thing off you'd have to be ok with lots of dead bodies, dead civilians, and Mexico would have to allow the US military to operate within their country, alongside their government, killing Mexicans. That will never happen either. See Afghanistan for a similar failed attempt, because you can't have it both ways. You can't just eradicate the problem without the locals turning on you, as you're taking away the only thing that has ever supported them. On paper, in a strategy game, that's exactly what I'd do. Americans haven't invested in anything without a profit margin in decades. So they would see this as just throwing good money down the drain. But like infrastructure investments, the payoffs would happen years and years down the road. A wall doesn't do anything, unless you're using it as part of a much more comprehensive, technological determent and security platform utilizing topography, drones, and more officers. Many, many more officers.

Clearly we need to reinstate the draft and have everyone spend three years marching east to west to save us from the brown menace.

Let’s level set first and agree there isn’t an additional 500 miles of border

I would hope there would be electronic and other type of surveillance with $40-50B budget.

I agree with you here.

This is such a typical response for someone who buys in to this nonsense, deflect, deflect. 2000 or 2500 doesn't matter.

You can also have a very similar solution without a wall, just as effective. That's why it's a complete waste of money.

In this day and age of fake news and hyperbole, and mis-aligned definitions ...

I would say the same to you where you focus only on "guards" when I've stated it needs to be a holistic solution where the wall are just part of.

I appreciate your post as you've obviously put thought into it.

I do not believe the Wall (+other stuff) is the only solution but honestly, other recent administrations were given an opportunity to make change, and nothing much has happened. If it takes a buffoon to do a sales job on his base and reallocate funds to make things happen I'm all for it.

Trump and the Wall has forced this discussion into the forefront where it once wasn't. And it will continue to do so even if Trump loses 2020 and that, in itself, is not a bad thing. I sincerely hope the next Democratic administration will act decisively and reform immigration because Trump's way right now seems very piecemeal (but doing something is better than doing not-much-at-all).

Easiest way to stop it is to punish companies for hiring illegal immigrants. Also stop fucking with their countries so they have to leave.

Real immigration reform won't happen as long as the GOP is a white nationalist party looking to reduce legal as well as illegal immigration. So all that can happen is wasteful, symbolic gestures like the wall. Nothing changes, but the GOP can point to their legos and demand people clap for them.

Immigration will be the GOP's new boogeyman to rally to the polls for the next 20 years since they're about to "win" on abortion with the Supreme Court.

I would honestly like to read more about this, hoping it truly is a substantive analysis. Appreciate a link when you get a chance.

Previous administrations didn't push the need for this because it because both parties deemed expanding the border wall expensive, unfeasible, and unnecessary.

The High Cost and Diminishing Returns of a Border Wall | American Immigration Council





The only reason the GOP is supporting a border wall now is because Trump made is popular with his based during his campaign and we've seen congressional GOP will do absolutely anything to avoid alienating Trump's base.


Cato institute article on why a border wall won't work for further reading:

Why the Wall Won't Work | Cato Institute


I throw the ball back in your court. Find a well sourced and reliable study that shows a border wall will be effective. The DHS website is pretty much the only place you'll find data showing a wall will work and the DHS didn't believe that as recently as 3 years ago because the government's own internal studies showed otherwise.

The sad part is that population trends suggest we will need more and more of these immigrants to support an aging population with a falling birth rate.

So keeping immigrants out (whether it works or not) merely exacerbates what will become a major problem in the near future.

How do I know 'Trump's Foley #2' is all about keeping the brown people out and nothing but masturbation material for his racist voting base (and steve miller)? Someone please point to me the wall that will separate the US from Canada please. If it really was about illegal immigration, there would be a wall up north, not just on the southern border.

I for one do not accept the white utopia that trump and his ilk and his deplorable supporters want.

How many illegal immigrants cross over from Canada vs Mexico?

Alaska Cod Fishery To Close For 2020 Season Amid Warming Waters : NPR

It will snow somewhere this winter, and Trump will tweet that that proves that climate change isn't real, and very serious Republicans will all agree that the science is still unsettled.

WTF? Biden is getting hammered by the left right now because Obama's reputation was "Deporter in Chief". Removals increased - and now Biden is having to answer questions in the debates on this. How in the world is this conveniently forgotten by the right?

asked and answered... "convenient"

Thanks for the info. I'll take a closer look and reply back later.

In a holistic immigration reform package, I'm all for legal immigration to mitigate our low birth rates and to position us for the future. I've said in previous posts that we should encourage legal immigration and give preference (and more slots) to highly educated, key professionals (e.g. nurses, doctors) etc.

There are definitely jobs that Americans don't want to do and I'm definitely for increasing guest worker program. I'm not sure where I stand on DACA but am leaning towards a path to citizenship.

From south of the border (not just Mexico)

Access Denied


From Canada

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-shows-n981131

For total illegals in the US

Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

The discussion topic was


Are you saying that Obama's policies on deportation was the reason why vs bad economy and no jobs?

That's your discussion topic (ignoring that the economy was on a steady increase from Obama's 2nd year). Which was a goalpost moving from your why didn't Obama do anything about immigration.

If you want a decent discussion about these things you need to stop being so intellectually dishonest.

Honestly, I have no idea what the numbers are and don't think that's really important if you reeaaally just want to stop illegal immigration, regardless if it's 1 or 1,000,000. However, the argument the right/conservatives always like to use is "What part of ILLEGAL do liberals not understand?". So if it really is just about illegal immigrants, then they would want a wall in the north and south. They would also realize that most people here illegally were here legally initially, then they would want a wall at all the airports, seaports and up down our coast lines. But in reality, it isn't about how many illegal immigrants there are, it's about the non white ones.

See #20436 to who/what I was responding to.

Sorry I got you triggered.

FWIW, declined started before Obama got into office.

Which was based on a response to #20432. But sure, do your goalpost shifting, "the discussion is" bullshit that just serves to hide the ball as opposed to actually having an intellectually honest discussion about these issues.

I believe I've been pretty honest about my opinions on illegal immigration and don't feel that I have to hide the ball.

Sorry you feel that way. Feel free to ignore me and I'll do the same.