This this this. A million times this.

The FBI, with its flaws, still doing their job:

Watchdog report finds FBI not motivated by political bias in Trump probe

And already disputed by Barr. Barr's findings are going to cause a shitshow of consequences when they're released.

If you have unlimited resources then your argument makes more sense. But we don't so we're going to throw more resources at where there are more crossings.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's the best use of those resources, but It would be absurd to waste them on a border where (according to Edwards numbers) there are very few crossings.

Personally I think all illegal immigrants should be caught and given a proper punishment regardless of color. Let them come legally if they want to come.

And it's quite bigoted to think that everyone who is for immigration laws is a racist.

A thousand times this. I am open to what we decide the laws actually are, but I have a problem with us not enforcing whatever laws we do decide to have on the books.

Also, I am in favor of making it easier to become a citizen and more worthwhile to become a citizen.

Oh, so YOU are the guy ahead of me driving precisely 55 miles per hour. Ugh.

Most people aren't aware that initial immigration violations are a civil, not criminal offense. And when they hear that people aren't being arrested, that turns into "we aren't enforcing the laws on the books".

(Going to break this into 3 parts - AIC, Cato, Studies where wall will be effective)


The AIC report was not documenting why it wouldn't work. It was more a summary of events/discussions that has occurred.

1. Extensive physical barriers already exist along the U.S.-Mexico border
2. In the past, Congress acknowledged that additional physical barriers were not necessary
3. Border barriers are expensive
4. Until recently, federal agencies maintained that the wall was unnecessary
5. There are complications to building a wall
6. Border barriers create a host of additional problems

Of these sections, I would like to add counter argument to quotes from #4.


I'm not sure of the sequencing or timing, but here's a quote from 4/2018. It seems to be an out-of-sync between Border Patrol management vs folks on the ground? I think its fair to say there is honest disagreement but can't really answer why the difference is so wide.

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

I beginning to think this Barr guy isn't quite on the up and up.

Are you also in favor of increasing the size of the IRS 100 fold so we can audit every return and actually put a stop to tax evasion?

No, I will do 10% over. I just don't bitch when I get pulled over for speeding.

Disagree with you to a certain point. The resources would be wasted on a wall. Where as the resources spent on a better more efficient system to admit people into this country would not be. But let's not muddy the waters here. The wall, the philosophy and the polices behind it are what's being called racist (including the people that support it for the same reasons). Also, I don't think anyone is against immigration laws and no one is advocating for open borders, even on liberal left. What we are asking for are policies and laws that don't discriminate based on the outside characteristics of the human beings that are trying to come to America.

If people don't want to sound or be labeled as a racist, then don't sound or act like a racist. It's pretty simple, and when people advocate for only a southern wall, coupled with the presidents* comments, kind of hard to not take it as being racist. The very same president* that has a literal white supremacist (stephen miller) and had a card carrying nazi (sabastian gorka) working in his administration. Plus, I don't really care if I'm bigoted towards racists.

Last I checked, the IRS has no purview over matters of immigration.

Using QS's example, this would be like saying we need to increase the number of police 100 fold to prevent everyone from speeding.

Some quotes from the Cato article (hope this is a fair representation of their argument)


Yes, I do think there will be maintenance challenges.


I think this has been answered with the photos of current wall being built. Its not a wall-wall but a fence-wall that does have "opacity".


There is no doubt if it was just the wall, it won't be enough. There does need to be people & technology monitoring it. Is it part of the $10B package or is there enough of it, I don't know. However, using extremes from a prior post, if it was a $1T budget, yeah, I think there would be enough technology & people. If it was a $40B budget, I would hope so.

Let me state again, regardless of what Trump says, we all know a wall is not impenetrable nor 100%. The discussion topic I think is whether a wall will significantly (my swag hope is 70-80%) reduce illegals crossing over.

You said you have a problem with enforcement of laws. We lose an estimated $200-400 billion a year (depending on the source) from tax evasion.

Or does enforcement of laws only apply to immigration?

The only substantive study I was able to find is the Yuma study from DHS. I would counter I did not see any study from DHS that says "own internal studies showed otherwise" (e.g. don't see how that invalidates this study).

This Yuma study was published in Dec 2017 which implies the benefits this study states occurred pre-Trump and very early Trump.

However, I think we can both agree that there are political considerations so yeah, it wouldn't be unbelievable that Border Patrol/DHS top dogs want to make Trump happy so they say (or change) what they have to say.

Arizona Border Wall Case Study

FWIW, an additional data point also from Cato Nov 2016

A Wall Is an Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective Border Plan | Cato @ Liberty

So bottom line to me, lots of opinions and Trump's "impenetrable wall" BS notwithstanding, no substantive study the wall+other stuff won't work, only one substantive study the wall+other stuff may work.

It won’t. These people literally walk thousands of miles for a chance at a better life. Do you really think an easily penetrable wall will deter them?

It’s amazing to me anyone can see this as anything other than an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem designed to appease a very xenophobic portion of the population.

See the above quoted Yuma study. Its the only one I could find that seems/look substantive (reminds me of my college papers) that provide evidence that it does deter. I have not seen an equivalent study that says otherwise (e.g. vs opinions, if you have one or something that contradicts the Yuma study I would like to read it).


I am not saying (nor I think anyone else on this board that is pro-wall) that a Wall by itself will solve the problem.

So how is the wall going to deter people? Will they just not bother to come even though evidence indicates you can bypass it? Will they walk thousands of miles just to see an easily passable barrier and turn around? Will they try and pass it and get caught?

Answer me that, exactly how will it significantly reduce illegal immigration to the point that makes it economically sensible?

Assuming when you refer to the wall it is the wall+other stuff (people, technology etc.). It will deter illegals because less illegals will be able to successfully cross (e.g. they'll get caught) and those wanting to cross over in the future will have to assess whether its worth the cost/risk/etc. (e.g. they may not want to take the arduous journey with a good likelihood of failing).


On economically feasible, I've not claimed it was. That's because I don't know of a study that has been done. No one know how much the wall will end up costing because it seems to be done piecemeal right now.

Question to you:

1) Do you believe we have an illegal immigration problem from south of the border? Both in annual crossings and/or also living in the country
2) If you do believe we have a problem, how would you resolve the issue?

Not an immigration attorney but per below, the illegal entry (e.g. initial immigration violation) is a "crime".

Is being in the United States unlawfully a 'crime'? | PolitiFact Florida

I'll answer your question with a question, do you think completely open borders are acceptable?

So much winning.

I think we have somewhat of a problem in the sense of people coming here illegally, and likely always will given our prosperity, need for cheap labor, and proximity to those countries.

However, I do not feel people coming across illegally are causing a problem. This is a completely manufactured crisis by an administration pandering to its racist, xenophobic base. When the POTUS refers to them as rapists and murderers, and he assumes some of them are good people, that rhetoric makes it seem like a far worse problem than it is. It takes these illegals from largely invisible people working jobs most Americans wont do to villains who are going to rape your daughters and force your sons to inject black tar heroine. This is all done for political gain so Trump and Miller can rile up the base. You think it is a surprise every Mollie Tibbetts type killing gets used as an example of how evil the brown people are?

This country has survived illegal immigration for virtually its entire existence, and in many cases been propped up by it. To think this wall is anything other than a bargaining chip to appease his racist base is silly.

Yep. This is exactly what I was talking about just a few days ago when everyone was talking about how absurd the support for lawless actions of our current POTUS are. And they are right, it is absurd … but then when comments like this get sniped by the very same people, it's clear what the problem is and it's got nothing to do with the law.


That's me, except in the most literal sense. And suffice to say I don't at all consider myself the problem when it comes to this issue.


An unenforceable law is worse than no law at all. You'll never have 100% enforcement of anything, but any law that can be consistently and flagrantly violated with little fear of consequences is a problem. Auditing every single return isn't necessary, but if you're going to have a law it needs to have a reasonable mechanism for enforcement, or the law should never be passed in the first place and/or be revoked. So in the case here, increasing the size of the IRS would be one option, but not the only one. You could also argue for simplifying the tax code (for multiple reasons, many of which are not directly related to this issue), decriminalizing some tax-related offenses, etc. There are many possible solutions to improve the gap between the law and compliance with it.


I'm not sure why this is considered such a good point, since it is at best misleading. Birth rates have been quite flat since the early 70s; much flatter than, for example, they were prior to that point. They've been gradually lowering for the last several years, but only just this past year did they narrowly go below the mid-70s levels. There was an eventual rise then and it's just as reasonable to think that might happen again. Birth rate in the US is still higher than that in China, Canada, Japan, etc. and almost as high as the UK for example, though certainly some developed countries are higher. Overall birth rates worldwide are in decline and that's a good thing in many ways, so the idea of let's just take people from other nations is a really weird proposition IMO. The long-term view shows the US is doing much better than most of the world in sustaining birth rates. We're just fine on that front.

Here's another assertion completely unsupported by the facts. Going back over 50 years, there has never been a time (though it's down to just about even now) - when more people wanted immigration increased than decreased. While opinions have varied significantly over time, almost twice as many thought immigration should be decreased in the mid-90s as do so today. And that's immigration in general, it doesn't even get into the illegal part. If it's a manufactured crisis, Trump's done an absolutely horrible job of it since there's been a steady upward trend starting several years before he was elected in viewing immigration in general as a positive. That trend has not stopped during his administration. This is literally the worst time in modern American history to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment; there's simply much less of it than there has been in the past.

No, but a physical barrier is the least effective way of deterring people. For various legal and nature related reasons its also not feasible across large sections of the border. So preventing all or even most illegal immigration is virtually impossible without making serious sacrifices in our budget or our freedoms.

If cutting down on illegal immigration is the true goal then putting the majority of your resources where the vast majority it occurs makes more sense to me. What we've seen along the sections of the border with a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that then overstay their visa. Walls don't work.

What does set me off is seeing this administration steal money from military construction projects to build the wall that's going up now. As I described earlier, I've lived in the barracks and military housing some of the money was supposed to go to. My son went to one of the elemtary schools that needs to be replaced. Putting that money into something their own study showed will be ineffective is offensive and should piss off everyone that claims to support the military.

Do you recall hearing the rhetoric we hear today about immigrants?

I would imagine people wanting less immigration in the mid 90s came from immigrants coming over here and stealing tech jobs and not keeping out the rapists and murderers.

So how is any of what I said contradicted by what you said? Cutting down illegal immigration is the goal, so then what do you propose?

I would argue, that if the result of a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that overstay their visa, does make the subsequent deportation easier to do, you at least have a record of it.

That said, I agree that a wall is not an effective means to completely stop it. I am also realistic enough to understand that we are never going to have the number at zero. So the question boils down to a couple of questions:

1) What is an acceptable number of illegals (zero is not realistic and will never be achieved)?

2) What is the best way of turning illegal into legal immigrants? Is it too easy to reap the benefits of citizenship without actually being a citizen?

If I recall, the single largest number of illegals are due to expired work visas. Do we need to follow up with these people more regularly, work with them to extend their visas proactively, and then if their work visa has expired and there is no response, go after their employers?

Do we eliminate work visas and force employers to either hire domestically, or have someone go through everything required to be a full blown citizen?

The reason why the wall gets so much play is it is something tangible people can relate to regardless of the efficacy of it.

Going back to my original point, if we want to completely open the borders, I am all for it. There may be some increase in crime, and there will be some instability initially, but that time should mitigate that. I do think infrastructure near the border would be overwhelmed in the short term. The big threat I see is from terror organizations, but we already run the risk from them where we stand now.

Closing the border is also fine, but we need to invest in doing so. It will be expensive, and the improvement in quality of life for most of us will be negligible if not negative as we will be pulling dollars from other sectors. I am ok with that, but I realize most will not be.

The most common reason I've seen for support of the border wall has been "it's the law so it should be enforced". We have hundreds of laws that either aren't enforced or are minimally enforced and I don't see anyone running on a platform to end prostitution, speeding, tax evasion, or any of the other unenforceable laws that are either federal or across numerous states.

If we want to try to fix the problem with unenforceable laws I would personally think the best place to start would be the laws where the lack of enforcement are causing the most damage to our country. Another option would be to attack the easiest to resolve. Regardless of which one you choose, that's definitely not illegal immigration. Most studies show that illegal immigration is a net gain for our economy and illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than our own citizens and there simply is no easy solution to cut most of it. However, as I stated above, the IRS's own estimate is we lose $400 billion a year to tax evasion. That does a fair amount of damage to our country. While hiring enough IRS agents to audit every return would be costly and wasteful, it would be far more effective at doing its job than building a wall to stop illegal immigration. A nuanced approach, as you mentioned, would be cheaper while getting the job done well enough. We can do the same with illegal immigration.

I will admit my frustration is seeing inconsistency (not necessarily with you) from those that say since it's the law it should be enforced yet have no problem or minimal interest in other laws that are broken on a daily basis.

If you say either be smart (and better) about enforcing our laws on illegal immigration or just open up the borders and that's consistent with all of the unenforceable laws we have then I'm down with that.

It just makes zero sense to me for anyone to be in support of a border wall. It doesn't attack the root problem and is ineffective in doing what it's meant to do. We could build a southern border wall out of toothpicks for those that feel we need to something (anything!) along the border and it'd save us billions and be nearly as effective.

It's not possible to think that enforcement of some criminal laws should be a priority over others?

That would be bad news for marijuana users in some states.

Illegal immigration has been a problem (my definition) for a while and prior to Trump. I don't think its a Trump thing. Reagan and his immigration bill/amesty, Bush trying to push through immigration reform, legalize the illegals & increase guest workers.

But what you say about Trump further inciting irrational fears is true, no question.

And you're probably driving in the left lane too!


I disagree with you here. I want more legal immigrants (assuming security concerns are mitigated) - white, yellow, brown, black etc. Here's why:

1. Birthrates may have been stable for a while but we know there's not enough young population entering workforce to support the old population leaving (e.g. social security). And the trend is likely to continue downwards so why not nip it in the bud now
2. Being competitive with China is a major concern of mine. We need to bring in as much highly-educated talent, entrepreneurs, investors etc. as possible. Sure we can grow our own talent but I see great advantage in having the benefits of the "brain drain" from other countries
3. There are some professions that we have a shortage - medical doctors, nurses, AI technologists etc. Let's encourage that group to come (and re-certify if needed)

With the Hong Kong unrest, I've wondered if it would be wise to open the doors to HK populace to fast-pass immigrate to the US. Lots of talent (and money) there.

The people you support politically don't. Even if the extent of that support, giving you the widest possible benefit of the doubt, is restricted solely to "build a big beautiful wall," the government's position on immigration is "lock them out."

If you mean completely open the borders meaning allowing not just south of the border but everyone else all over the world to just come, stay, work (or not) and live here the rest of their lives ... no way.

Is this what you meant?

Below is a survey and the US comes out far ahead as the most desirable place to migrate to. I would argue its underestimated if we really open borders with no restraints to immigrate.


Which countries do migrants want to move to? | World Economic Forum

To be clear - I do not support Trump politically. I did not vote for him and do not plan to vote for him. However, there are some policies that I clear cut support, there are some that are marginal, and there are some that I do not support.

With that preamble, I looked up where Trump is restricting legal immigration.

I'm not sure this is what you are referring to, if not please provide a link.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

I'm okay with the theme of "merit based immigration" and moving away from family-based immigration. I'm also okay with immigrants having to get health insurance but would say 30 days may be too soon vs 90 days.

The statement it may bar 65% of would-be green card holders puzzles me. It wouldn't be green card holders that got them due to getting a job. I assume it would be green card holders that are parents sponsored by child? The 65% seems too high for this so TBD opinion for now.

Bottom line - yes, it does look as if Trump wants to reduce family based legal immigration to merit-based. I honestly don't see any problems with that philosophy. I will agree that the execution may well be FUBAR.

FWIW, many of our western friends do the same. Yes, there are likely differences and the US version may be more discriminatory but other western countries are discriminatory also. I remember looking at Canada's point based system several years ago, and age was a key input IIRC because it nearly eliminated me from consideration.

Points-based immigration system - Wikipedia

I am one of those that say "its the law, if you don't like it, garner enough support and change it". I also believe you need to secure your borders (not calling out a terrorist threat). You are right that I don't have a lot or minimal interest in many other laws broken on a daily basis because there is scale, degree, prioritization etc. of some laws being broken.

Equating to your frustration, I am frustrated at how many people on this board focus on the brown people south of the border and don't think about all the other people that want to immigrate to the US legally and illegally. I know/believe the lack of focus/concern of those other yellow, black, brown people in Asia is not because you don't care, its just that its not been a central point of discussion ... same with all those other laws being broken for me.

With that said, I actually agree that tax evasion should be high up there in priority. We just don't factor it into the discussion because I don't think anyone disagrees and its not controversial enough. Don't think it needs a 100 fold increase in IRS, primarily more technologies (I've read of more AI playing a role here). Heck, with up to $400B, it'll pay for itself so yeah, lets do it.

A few unconnected thoughts on the immigration topic:

I see the 'pathway to citizenship' talked about often. While it's an important aspect of reform, I feel 'pathway to permanent residence'(aka green card, though they aren't green) doesn't get talked about enough. The complaints are about 'cutting in line' so to speak for the citizenship process, and I get that. For those that agree that deporting 12+ million people isn't an option, we don't need to have an immediate jump from completely undocumented to citizenship.

I've voiced my opposition to a wall because I believe it would be ineffective. I'll clarify a bit by saying I'm not in favor of having nothing to deter illegal crossings. I'd just rather take a 21st century approach through use of technology rather than an approach that didn't even really work in ancient times. Why not both? Because a wall is a damned stupid idea and there's not much that will convince me otherwise. What is the cost of a combined wall/technology upgrade versus tech only?

Guest workers will need protections. As a former employer, I saw too many of my fellow employers advocating for an almost indentured servitude guest worker program. I've seen some pretty piss poor treatment of workers in my day. Status quo allows exploitation and some employers want legalization with continued exploitation and no oversight.

The thing is, his policies on immigration are not severable. He's not building a wall to the exclusion of the other immigration policies he's pursuing.

To the extent you're boosting "build that wall," you're boosting the rest of it, whether you mean to or not.


1) Not my responsibility to do your research for you, bucko.

2) If you need to ask me to "provide a link," you've been sleeping through the last three years while chanting "build that wall!" They have not been shy about their desire to reduce all immigration, whether it's "ending chain immigration" (spoiler: that's what "build a better life" immigration IS; few immigrants in search of a better life for their families have the resources to bring their families with them from the jump); or "treat legal asylum seekers as lawbreaking border jumpers"; or "reducing the number of visas issued by 20%" or...

They've been out in the open about it, and a lot of it is fairly tacit white nationalism, to boot.


The problem with "merit-based immigration" being the base of your immigration policy is that that's fundamentally H1-B immigration. "You can come here if you have job skills that your employer will then use to more cheaply insource labor at the expense of Americans currently in those positions."

If you open the doors to people looking to build a better life, you're opening the doors to the kind of people who, you know, fucking built this country in the first place. If you replace that with "merit-based" immigration, what you're doing is allowing business to use immigration to fuck over Americans.

Which is, ostensibly, why you and those who also chant "build that wall" want the wall in the first place: resentment against immigrants and the idea that they're somehow cheating honest (white) Americans out of...whatever.

If you want an immigration system that works, benefits America, and doesn't accidentally encourage illegal immigration, don't close the door to people who are trying to build a better life. Open it wider, and fix the system so it doesn't take 20 years from application to admission. It shouldn't take so long to receive approval that minor children age into their majority and have to restart the process, forcing parents to choose between their dreams and their children.

But that's the system we have now.

IMO the argument is still the same. They would be 'cutting in line' for the green card that many people are already in-progress/waiting for going through the legal process.


I agree with you. Not exactly the same but comparable. My first hand knowledge is regarding an asian restaurant that brought folks over and put them in terrible conditions.

I did do my research and provided the link for you to confirm. I didn't really know if what I found was what you were talking about. So I'll assume yes for now until told otherwise.


Oh, I take it back. "Reduce all immigration" was not in either of my links that I thought was pretty good.

Yup, you're going to need to provide a link for me and other to react to if we want to continue this discussion.

lol no

Trump and Miller's desire to slash immigration in toto has been exhaustively reported on in the last three years, both in terms of specific policy proposals and actions actually taken.

I'm not holding your hand.

That's a lot of stuff for a do-nothing congress only concentrating on impeachment to do.


Legislative Nerd AM Recap:
1) White House endorses bipartisan deal to rein in surprise medical bills
2) Negotiators unveil deal on major defense policy bill
3) Final USMCA agreement possible today as officials meet in Mexico City

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) December 10, 2019

...and the President continues to gas-light us all. But, we are fine as long as the stock-market is up and he keeps the brown people out, right?

I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2019

Having gone through the H1B visa process myself, I know how difficult and arduous it is. I don't see it as equating it to increasing H1B. The link I posted above and highlighted below says its not. So until you provide a link that says otherwise there's not much more to talk about.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

"Current Director of the FBI"

Wonder if he's itching to fire another head of the FBI until he finds a Barr-like lackey.

That is exactly what I meant. For a good part of our history we did exactly that because it was hard to secure our borders and we lacked the technology to do so.

What are the negatives of immigration, more people? That's a larger labor force, and one of the areas we need one is (un)skilled labor. We are going to have a dire shortage of wastewater operators in a few years because no one wants to work at a WWTP. It's a job that pays pretty good money and in most areas you can retire after 25 to 30 years. Welders are another dying breed. Get good at it and be willing to travel and that is a six figure job right there. That's not including other jobs that don't require skills, but need people willing to get their hands dirty.

Through much of our history, we have had a stream of inexpensive labor for industry. Chinese, Irish, Italians, Poles, Swedes, Germans, etc., and they were all reviled when they first got here. At the end of Blazing Saddles, they allow in the blacks and Chinese, but they drew the line at the Irish. Why did that resonate, because it happened. It showed the absurdity of the moment and shined a light on both sides of the aisle because most of us after accepting something or someone move the goal posts rather than change ourselves realizing the absurdity of our beliefs.

Again, would it be painful? Yes, but you can get rid of all the political football being played by completely opening things up. I understand that limiting immigration in theory allows us to better absorb the incoming groups with little disruption, however, I think it is better to have the issue completely in the forefront rather than where it is now. I also think we would have better dialogue than we do now if it impacted more people.

Seeing a lot more pro-Trump/anti-impeachment forwards on facebook today. I'm thinking that the WH/Russian Bots/Whomever decides when to flood the market with those have decided that now is the time to solidify the base.

Well when the President is jealous of a 16-year-old girl and then attacks her on Twitter, I guess you got to do what you got to do...

And Trump dangles the keys once again.

Well what else is going to distract from the fact that the sitting President has admitted to defrauding charities and had to pay a $2 million fine?

EDIT:the most amazing part of this whole charity thing is Trump once used his charity to pay Don Jr's $7 boy scout fee.

I've been mostly staying out of this thread, but JFC, this is fucking insane.

Outgoing Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin Pardons Convicted Killer Whose Family Hosted Fundraiser For Him And Donated To His Campaign


https://www.kentucky.com/news/politi...#storylink=cpy

Bevin is a fucking piece of shit, and if I was one to wish ill will on anybody, he would be a candidate. Fucking loser.

If Nadler or Schiff reads the Pence aide letter on the floor we could be witnessing the first returned salvo from congress at the white house wherein the Congress will be truly attacking the fabric of the bulletproof vest they're all trying to stand behind. Everything else has been couched in rules and protocol which means that Trump and his ilk can gaslight their way to protecting their base. Not that there's any way in hell they'll see that he's ever done anything wrong ever...evvveeerrrr.

JFC...They aren't even trying to be sneaky about it anymore:

#MOSCOWMITCHMCCONNELL TRENDS AFTER SENATOR VOWS 'TOTAL COORDINATION' WITH WHITE HOUSE ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

The truth is much worse than this. They know he's done a lot of things wrong - this is well-documented going back to the campaign. They know who and what he is, and still think he's far better than the alternative. That's the real problem.

So what's wrong with Pence in their eyes? Because right now, he's the alternative.

Trump gives them a much better chance at 4 more years then Pence or anyone else.

Pence has the charisma of a vomiting skunk

No mention or discussion today of Fuckabee saying that trump IS eligible to serve a third term, and that he's going to head up the campaign?

Just curious on what he bases this incredibly asinine determination on? But then wouldn't mean Obama could come back for a 3rd too?

On immigration:

There’s a tenuous silence on this issue...

Where some voters who can be persuaded to vote right/red can be easily convinced that the brown people are a huge problem (this is the easy part), but

Another big swath of voters who also ate in the mix to vote right/red are aware that they got their last deck built for $5,000 rather than $18,000 largely because of soft/ish immigration laws, and aren’t wild about showing all their cards (this is the hard part).

Immigration is a great wedge issue right up until we actually do something. Turns out, shockingly, lots of people in the USA benefit mightily by having s whole subculture if under the table workers out there, who will work for wages offered rather than whatever the law says. And, truth be told, lots of those workers are gone having payroll taxes deducted as they collect their after
-tax earnings, which far exceed their best option elsewhere.

This is a seemy underbelly of this debate.

Not sure how I feel about the Phase 1 deal with China just yet. There'll be a rollback of some tariffs while others continue, more buying US agricultural products, and supposedly some sort of IP/technology component. I haven't read any details on the last and hence my hesitancy.

But this is a win for Trump politically. Even if there is no Phase 2, he can at least say he negotiated a Phase 1, reinforce his popularity with the farmers etc.

Economic "war" is happening now. Technology "war" is where its going to be. I've read some articles on US and China decoupling (e.g. competition vs cooperation) and I like the idea because it seems inevitable (unless something major changes) so let's acknowledge it for the reality it is and prepare for it.

I would feel a lot better if I thought Trump & cohorts had a long-term, strategic plan vs just winging it on Trump's whim of the day. Not much about China in the debates yet but (think) have read that Biden, Sanders, Warren are the most aligned to my views. Bloomberg apparently has shown to be a China sympathizer because of his company's interests.

[Deleted Axios link, it did something funny]

Since it seems to work with so many people, you have to take your hat off at the "win at all costs" strategy here. Trump sets the building on fire, throws a bucket of water in the corner, announces we are on our way to putting the fire out, and every person who is at all in play to vote for him rallies in support of his heroism.

It's funny, for years there was always a cynical view that to win over the public, you needed to treat them like 12 year olds. Turns out, we were aiming too high. They're 8 year olds.

I don't think there is much doubt the building was already on fire. Trump jumped up-and-down to do something about it (albeit likely for selfish reasons) and it is arguable whether he fanned the flames even more, status quo, or actually reduced the fire.

It'll take years to understand his legacy on China.

BTW, had no idea Schumer supported Trump's China policy

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/chuc...aboolainternal

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had higher than great recession farming bankruptcies and suicides with status quo. That doesn't even get into the money lost by the middle class and poor to the tariffs. But death and ruined lives is all good if it means maybe a slightly better economy a few years from now.

Economy over everything except when it comes to people crossing the southern border.

Specific to bankruptcies the below does not show that to be the case. I was unable to find a similar historical trend for suicides.

A CNN poll from a prior link. Immigration is #4 on both. Trump will definitely escalate that issue to play to his base as needed so I can easily see it increasing in importance next year.

Trump Has Already Lost His Pricey China Trade War, Paul Krugman Warns

Just a little fun at the expense of our national dignity, ya know?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/polit...019/index.html

Reading that is what I'd expect to read from some A.I. trying to learn how to talk. Or someone that's an idiot.

Bullshit.

Dear leader knows way more than a noble prize winning economist.

Michael Flynn loses his last (?) attempt to stay out of jail as the judge rejects all his arguments for the FBI trapping him into his confession. As his new attorney might face ethics charges for plagarizing her brief from a Supreme Court Ruling. He still may withdraw his guilty plea and face a trial or appeal his conviction, which would be very stupid and mean more prison time, so that's probably what he will do:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local....co/UV6kV0Faik

Not sure what is driving this but not good news for Dems. I would have thought support for impeachment would have increased ...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/polit...cnn/index.html

I think all that says is that looking at the straight facts the same number of people believe what he did was wrong and impeachable, but more and more people know it is a fruitless effort because the GOP is going to die on this hill supporting Trump so why bother.

Never look at a single poll.

The average says that opinions haven't changed from October, but "don't impeach" is in the minority.

OTOH, the numbers have been fairly stable since October 1, with a little bit of daylight (6% at most) and then coming back together and then it happening again:

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump? | FiveThirtyEight

Everyone knows the whole thing dies in the Senate.

Can the Dems win enough in 2020 to get enough in the Senate and do this all over again if Donnie wins again?

It's definitely going to die in Senate, but I also think McConnell and the Trump hardliners are making huge mistake openly admitting they're coordinating with the White House on this and announcing the Senate trial will more or less be a sham.

Everybody's known that for, oh, as long as Trump's been committing impeachable offenses.

For people in certain states, that's a feature, not a bug.

20 seats? No.

If Trump wins another term even with an unconfirmed impeachment and all the other baggage, the Dems will have to accept there just isn't enough support for a confirmed impeachment and should just move on.

Make the best out of it, negotiate the best deals they can for their issues and just move on. Other than for murder (or attempted), I don't see any other situations where Trump and supporters can't rationalize it to Dems being over zealous.

And with each passing day, I am more convinced he will win reelection. I don't think the Dems have any idea how to stop him. They keep trust in the rule of law and reason, and he crews that crap up and spits it out.

I still have hopes that once the Dems pick who they will nominate and the VP is selected, there will be a ground swell of support as people can then see the alternative.

Until then, yeah, the incumbent has the advantage especially with a booming stock market and economy doing well.

An article on 5G, why its important, the head start China has, and why Huawei. Hopefully Trump and/or Dem nominee will see the significance and help nurture our 5G industry.

[url="https://fortune.com/2019/10/31/china-5g-rollout-spectrum/"]

Yeah, I'm also coming around to the idea that he gets re-elected, no matter who gets nominated on the Dem side. He might have a narrow floor/ceiling of ~40%, but that floor is both unshakable and active, and I could see a lot of people just sitting out or not voting on the Presidential ticket.

I'll still be very surprised if that happens. All of the best evidence, without exception, points in the direction of Trump getting his hat handed to him in '20.

The war that is being won is a war on Facts. It's been going on before Trump but in essence, speak your narrative and if need be loudly and do so unwaveringly no matter the contra to it. I honestly don't know how we'll ever get back to seeing the world through a mostly agreed-upon set of facts. That scares me more than Trump or anything. Don't like the fact, find a source that discounts it and then cite it loudly and broadly.

He'll lose by a ton of votes but he still has the electoral college on his side.

So now we know that a Russian oligarch was paying Lev Parnas...

Who was paying Giuliani...

Who is providing free legal work for Trump.

The only thing we don't know is what Trump was promising for all of this.

Looks as if Trump has a soul mate in religious discrimination & prejudice. Wouldn't be surprised if he uses it as foil one day.

I've not found a poll on % of Indians that support or not. I suspect a large majority do support it.

From what I've read, the bill will legitimately help a bunch of non-Muslim illegals from 3 bordering Muslim countries gain citizenship so there is that plus. However, it is obviously discriminatory to a religion.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/asia/...hnk/index.html

I think the media is doing a decent job in pointing out incorrect statements, lies, exaggerations etc. I do think this has been happening all along in politics, the difference is Trump himself is saying so much of it when its not even needed.

I like to think the next President will revert back to pre-Trump ... more selective with words, more care on who s/he offends etc. and only lie when its necessary.

So there's social media outrage about Trump not backing the Armenian Genocide bill.

But seriously, what purpose does this bill serve? It looks like a present gift wrapped by democrats to Putin in order to divide the US and Turkey.

I think the only question after today's revelations is when is Rudy going to be indicted? Then we get to see how long it takes Trump to claim he doesn't know him.

Yes a lot of things blend into politics but there's a LOT of stuff that is harbored outside of Politics that is being batted back and forth so the truth gets blurred. The sources and encyclopedias being attacked is something that, if not reversed, means that future history books will be rewritten regarding what we always just took as fact.

Based on what? I'm not trying to be snarky or dismissive, but I just don't see it. The GOP got their clocks cleaned in the midterms and every special election I've seen in the places he'd need to win. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, they all tell the same story. It's not one that's good for his re-election. I'm not writing him off as long as the economy is good, we're a long way from next November, etc., but every single time since he was put in office that the voters he needs to keep him there have gone to the polls, they've said the same thing.


Yep, this is a big part of it. I'm with you 100% here - presidents come and go, but this kind of social change tends to be more enduring - and therefore dangerous.

Am I the only on that thinks Trump and the GOP are simply gonna cheat, and if it comes to light, justify it? Isn't that the pattern we're seeing with quid pro quo, Russia, and everything else?

]Yes, and I think they did last election as well. Which is why the Dems have a lot to overcome to win.