Politics Thread

[bobbiemcgee]

Rudy sez Trump repaid Cohen! Trump sez he didn't know about it! WTF?

[paulxu]

This will only surprise the "some of the people, all of the time" that you can fool.

[GoMuskies]

Drunk male student was savagely sexually assaulted by a female student according to UC.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/11/cincinnati-rape-title-ix-doe-roe-sex/amp?__twitter_impression=true

[Muskie in dayton]

Drunk male student was savagely sexually assaulted by a female student according to UC.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/11/cincinnati-rape-title-ix-doe-roe-sex/amp?__twitter_impression=true

A girl did that to me too once. I married her.

[GoMuskies]

Thank you to the Supreme Court for striking down an inane federal law that prevented sports gambling outside of Nevada and Delaware.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Thank you to the Supreme Court for striking down an inane federal law that prevented sports gambling outside of Nevada and Delaware.

So awesome. C'mon Ohio, do the right thing!

[Juice]

Thank you to the Supreme Court for striking down an inane federal law that prevented sports gambling outside of Nevada and Delaware.

I can't wait to read the decision to see what dumb shit dissent RBG and Sotomayor came up with.

[Lloyd Braun]

Well it didn’t take long for congressional blowhards (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/05/14/after-supreme-court-ruling-utahs-hatch-to-introduce-legislation-on-sports-betting/) to express desire to intervene.

[Juice]

Well it didn’t take long for congressional blowhards (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/05/14/after-supreme-court-ruling-utahs-hatch-to-introduce-legislation-on-sports-betting/) to express desire to intervene.

I understand that gambling is against his religion and all that, but why can't he just live with Utah not allowing gambling as the current state law?

This is more of a rhetorical question.

[GoMuskies]

I understand that gambling is against his religion and all that, but why can't he just live with Utah not allowing gambling as the current state law?

This is more of a rhetorical question.

My guess is that he's doing the bidding of one Sheldon Adelson.

[Lloyd Braun]

My guess is that he's doing the bidding of one Sheldon Adelson.

So the swamp isn’t drained afterall? We’ve been fleeced!

[bobbiemcgee]

Maybe we can get ZTE to run this operation. They need the jobs!

[XU 87]

I can't wait to read the decision to see what dumb shit dissent RBG and Sotomayor came up with.

Base on what I heard on the news, which is not a good source for legal analysis, the dissent said, “yea, the law is unconstitutional, but we need to rewrite it to make it constitutional”, which isn’t the function of any court.

But again, consider my source.

[Juice]

Base on what I heard on the news, which is not a good source for legal analysis, the dissent said, “yea, the law is unconstitutional, but we need to rewrite it to make it constitutional”, which isn’t the function of any court.

But again, consider my source.

Which is code for, "Shit, states rights actually mean something, let's try to come up with something to stop that..."

[GoMuskies]

Can't we just grab up that little weasel Kim while he's in Singapore and broadcast him being eaten by dogs on North Korean TV?

[bjf123]

Base on what I heard on the news, which is not a good source for legal analysis, the dissent said, “yea, the law is unconstitutional, but we need to rewrite it to make it constitutional”, which isn’t the function of any court.

But again, consider my source.

Agreed. Unfortunately, too many people think that is the function of the SCOTUS. If it’s unconstitutional, send it back to the legislative entity that wrote and tell them try agin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Agreed. Unfortunately, too many people think that is the function of the SCOTUS. If it’s unconstitutional, send it back to the legislative entity that wrote and tell them try agin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I read the opinions, of you are speaking about the baker’s case SCOTUS basically ruled against the Colorado Commission the levied the original punishment and punted on the big stuff.

I believe Kennedy even wrote that you shouldn’t go around and discriminate against LGBTQ at your business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caf]

Can't we just grab up that little weasel Kim while he's in Singapore and broadcast him being eaten by dogs on North Korean TV?

The guy's making a pretty strong case for why regimes should hold onto nukes for dear life. Based on the conversation around this it seems like him and his family are going to skate free on 70 years of human rights abuse.

[GoMuskies]

Definitely not something I expected to see in this lifetime:

https://m.wsj.net/video/20180612/061218trumpkim4/061218trumpkim4_960x540.jpg

[Lamont Sanford]

Definitely not something I expected to see in this lifetime:

https://m.wsj.net/video/20180612/061218trumpkim4/061218trumpkim4_960x540.jpg

Is that MoR (or XU87) and Caf finally breaking bread????

[GoMuskies]

The guy's making a pretty strong case for why regimes should hold onto nukes for dear life. Based on the conversation around this it seems like him and his family are going to skate free on 70 years of human rights abuse.

I'm okay with them skating on the past 70 years if it avoids 70 more years of human rights abuses (at some point, because it obviously won't happen right away).

[Caf]

I'm okay with them skating on the past 70 years if it avoids 70 more years of human rights abuses (at some point, because it obviously won't happen right away).

Yeah agreed. Will be interesting to see if Kim wants this done so he can keep the country closed or so he could open it up like Cuba is trying to do.

History in the making folks

[Caf]

Is that MoR (or XU87) and Caf finally breaking bread????

I'm way heavier than Kim, plus with a thick neck beard.

Trump was actually looking great in this. Looks like he lost some weight.

Also this is one of the funnier things coming out of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchPeopleDieInside/comments/8qgdx9/thin_and_perfect/

[boozehound]

Yeah agreed. Will be interesting to see if Kim wants this done so he can keep the country closed or so he could open it up like Cuba is trying to do.

History in the making folks

This will be profoundly interesting to watch. I'm honestly not sure how this will go. I would assume that North Korea will need to open up for weapons inspectors similar to Iraq etc. Will they consistently allow that? How much monkey business will we tolerate, because you know there will be at least some. Whether this is a highly significant event or just another chapter will likely take years to play out. Kim Jong Il is batshit crazy, you know he is going to pull something at some point.

[GoMuskies]

Kim Jong Il is batshit crazy

He was, but now he's dead. I don't think Un is nearly as crazy, but it's a low bar.

[XU 87]

Is that MoR (or XU87) and Caf finally breaking bread????

I'm much taller than both of them.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The deal is crap, good lord I thought I read Trump saying he was going in unprepared. That just proved it. He did nothing but reaffirm was the North and South agreed to a few months ago and gave a few things up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

There's not really a deal, so it's kind of hard for it to be crap.

[Mrs. Garrett]

There's not really a deal, so it's kind of hard for it to be crap.

True. I felt it was crap when Dennis Rodman was brought in as the intermediary.

[Masterofreality]

Welp.

After the IG report today, EVERYBODY thinks James Comey is a disingenuous jerk.
What took them so long?

And, Hey Mueller. You've spent over $17 million on a dead end investigation...except for nailing Manafort for ish that has zero to do with the election. Then you had to get desperate to show you were doing something else so you go after Cohen for zero to do with the election or Russia. Overreach much? When are you One trick pony gonna finally pull the plug on this charade? It's become a Traveshamockery.

[bobbiemcgee]

Welp.



And, Hey Mueller. You've spent over $17 million on a dead end investigation...except for nailing Manafort for ish that has zero to do with the election. Then you had to get desperate to show you were doing something else so you go after Cohen for zero to do with the election or Russia. Overreach much? When are you One trick pony gonna finally pull the plug on this charade? It's become a Traveshamockery.

Four Trump advisers, 14 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Five of these people (including three former Trump aides) have already pleaded guilty. If Manafort and gates pay their tax bills, we will easily recoup the $17 million.

[paulxu]

Surely that's fake news Bobbie.

[X-man]

Surely that's fake news Bobbie.

Remember how pissed MOR was when the Bill Clinton investigation dragged on so long and wandered so far afield from the initial mandate? Neither do I.

[Caf]

Welp.

After the IG report today, EVERYBODY thinks James Comey is a disingenuous jerk.
What took them so long?

And, Hey Mueller. You've spent over $17 million on a dead end investigation...except for nailing Manafort for ish that has zero to do with the election. Then you had to get desperate to show you were doing something else so you go after Cohen for zero to do with the election or Russia. Overreach much? When are you One trick pony gonna finally pull the plug on this charade? It's become a Traveshamockery.

Bruh the federal government rounds to the nearest billion. $17 mil isn't even enough to get access to Don Jr.

[paulxu]

When Muskie speaks...I want you people to sit up at attention.

[bobbiemcgee]

58% of 'pubs think it's ok to rip your toddlers/babies away from you @ the border. Every living First Lady disagrees. Trump could fix it with a 30 second phone call.

[xudash]

58% of 'pubs think it's ok to rip your toddlers/babies away from you @ the border. Every living First Lady disagrees. Trump could fix it with a 30 second phone call.

There are reports on Facebook that this practice was going on under Obama. Are those reports true or are they all about more fake news?

Beyond that, are the parents of these children warned about this separation practice prior to crossing the border? I would think they would be. What kind of responsible parent would knowingly put their children at such separation risk?

[bjf123]

Under Obama, there was a program called ATEP, Alien Transfer Exit Program, which separated families, especially men from their families, though it could also have separated children from their parents. Remember the photo from a month or so ago of the child in a cage that the main stream media was using the point out the cruelty of Trump’s policies? It was also shared lots of times on Facebook. Turns out it was taken in 2014 at a detention center in place under Obama. Once that came out, media outlets and talking heads quickly deleted the photo from their Twitter feeds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[D-West & PO-Z]

What kind of responsible parent would knowingly put their children at such separation risk?

The better question is what kind of situations are they running from that makes the possibility of being separated from their children better than staying put. The risk of being separated is better than the risk of being dead.

In some situations they might very well be the most responsible, selfless parents you'd ever meet.

[GenerationX]

The better question is what kind of situations are they running from that makes the possibility of being separated from their children better than staying put. The risk of being separated is better than the risk of being dead.

In some situations they might very well be the most responsible, selfless parents you'd ever meet.

Yep.

And it’s my understanding that some family separation occurred under Obama’s administration, but it was more the exception. The difference is the zero tolerance policy now which results in charging the parents with a crime, even if the only “crime” was crossing the border.

[Boro Muskie]

Just a point of clarity on this. The detention and separating is only happening to people who cross the border illegally, or anywhere other than a port or point of entry.

[Masterofreality]

Remember how pissed MOR was when the Bill Clinton investigation dragged on so long and wandered so far afield from the initial mandate? Neither do I.

Weak sauce. A) Clinton was in office when his garbage happened. B) This, or any site like this was barely in existence, or not at all then.
Pray tell where there has been any connection with the Trump campaign an Russian interference after 14 months of investigation.
I’ll hang up and listen.

[paulxu]

Although at this time, many of the charges/guilty pleas are financial in nature, some relate to statements concerning Russian contacts.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17384096/mueller-investigation-poll

If there is nothing to worry about, I wonder why Trump felt it necessary to write the statement for his son about the meeting with the Russians, and then lie (and have the White House lie) about him not writing it...until it turned out he did.

Perhaps we should give Mueller the same time (7 years) that the Whitewater investigation was open.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/thompson-deveaux-indictments.png?w=575

[Juice]

Weak sauce. A) Clinton was in office when his garbage happened. B) This, or any site like this was barely in existence, or not at all then.
Pray tell where there has been any connection with the Trump campaign an Russian interference after 14 months of investigation.
I’ll hang up and listen.

Here is an article from 2015...


Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing


Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexican-kids-held-for-months-as-punishment-for-border-crossing/2015/03/10/311d319a-b2f2-11e4-bf39-5560f3918d4b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f418b3bbecb2

[paulxu]

That's an interesting article. Did you read it?
It's about teenagers used as guides to smuggle people across the border, who apparently go back and do it again if not caught.
Some of them get to go ice skating while in detention.

That seems (to me at least) a lot different than very young children who are with asylum seeking mothers, who are separated from their mothers.
But, that's just me.

[Caf]

Here is an article from 2015...





https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexican-kids-held-for-months-as-punishment-for-border-crossing/2015/03/10/311d319a-b2f2-11e4-bf39-5560f3918d4b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f418b3bbecb2

Is your point that this is fine because Obama did it? Or are you just saying the outrage is hypocritical?

Neither point is really worth making in light of what is happening. I'm sure some will look to qualify or argue that Obama didn't do it, or didn't do it to the same degree, and junk like that. Ultimately though it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Juice]

Is your point that this is fine because Obama did it? Or are you just saying the outrage is hypocritical?

Neither point is really worth making in light of what is happening. I'm sure some will look to qualify or argue that Obama didn't do it, or didn't do it to the same degree, and junk like that. Ultimately though it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Nothing else needs to be said.

My point is that the outrage is disingenuous/hypocritical because "you all" didn't give a shit when it occurred under Obama. Now that it's a story under Trump, he's the only one who has committed "human rights violations."

That being said, there aren't easy answers to this. Do you release the kids into the US without supervision, release back into Mexico (or where ever) without supervision, keep them detained for a longer period of time with their parents, or for a shorter period of time in the area for minors? Some answers are better than others but the logistics aren't easy. And I mean that it wasn't/isn't easy under Obama or Trump.

[X-man]

Is your point that this is fine because Obama did it? Or are you just saying the outrage is hypocritical?

Neither point is really worth making in light of what is happening. I'm sure some will look to qualify or argue that Obama didn't do it, or didn't do it to the same degree, and junk like that. Ultimately though it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Nothing else needs to be said.

Did you read the article? Apples and oranges.

[Lloyd Braun]

My point is that the outrage is disingenuous/hypocritical because "you all" didn't give a shit when it occurred under Obama. Now that it's a story under Trump, he's the only one who has committed "human rights violations."

That being said, there aren't easy answers to this. Do you release the kids into the US without supervision, release back into Mexico (or where ever) without supervision, keep them detained for a longer period of time with their parents, or for a shorter period of time in the area for minors? Some answers are better than others but the logistics aren't easy. And I mean that it wasn't/isn't easy under Obama or Trump.

Are you suggesting that the zero tolerance policy is not new? That there has not been any change in criminal charges since Trump has been in office declaring this zero tolerance party?

[Caf]

Did you read the article? Apples and oranges.

If you're getting into whether child-parent separation was worse under Trump than Obama then you're already missing the point. This isn't a policy that needs to end because it's worse than when it happened under the Obama administration. It's a policy that needs to end because it's messed up.

[xudash]

The better question is what kind of situations are they running from that makes the possibility of being separated from their children better than staying put. The risk of being separated is better than the risk of being dead.

In some situations they might very well be the most responsible, selfless parents you'd ever meet.

That is a very fair counter point.

At the risk of being too blunt for this message board, how could these parents possibly be deemed to be responsible for bringing life into such pathetic environments in the first place?

Otherwise, assuming they know this policy exists at the US border, and knowing that there are other Spanish-speaking nations that could serve as safe harbors for them, why not go to one of them?

Now please understand that I agree that it is absolutely terrible two separate families like this, but I am sick and tired of people flowing into this country illegally. They are coming in illegally!

[bjf123]

It’s not as black and white as everyone wants to make it. There are so many variables. Is the adult really the child’s parent or legal guardian? Apparently, that’s not always the case. Do you just open the borders and let anyone with a child in? If not, what do you do?

As for the moral outrage over this, and yes, it is very sad, it was apparently covered up when the Obama administration did the same thing. This is according to a Democrat from Texas who saw it happening.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/16/dem-rep-child-migrant-crisis/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boozehound]

That is a very fair counter point.

At the risk of being too blunt for this message board, how could these parents possibly be deemed to be responsible for bringing life into such pathetic environments in the first place?

Otherwise, assuming they know this policy exists at the US border, and knowing that there are other Spanish-speaking nations that could serve as safe harbors for them, why not go to one of them?

Now please understand that I agree that it is absolutely terrible two separate families like this, but I am sick and tired of people flowing into this country illegally. They are coming in illegally!

That's pretty blunt. I don't entirely disagree with the premise - for example my wife and I had a very hard time even having children largely because we waited until after I had completed my MBA and we were financially established to start trying. It does bear consideration that (1) reproduction is our most basic biological instinct and (2) many of these countries have deteriorated so the parents may not have knowingly been bringing children into the environment in which they currently find themselves. I also do have sympathy as a parent for people fleeing terrible situations like that with their children.

I will also say that I worked with a lot of illegal immigrants in college while working at a restaurant. Most of them were fleeing some pretty awful stuff, and most (not all) were good people. One died of a highly treatable form of Cancer because he was afraid to see a Doctor for fear of being deported.

It's also my understanding that most of these families are not necessarily 'here illegally' but are seeking asylum. The reason that they don't present themselves at the border asking for asylum is because they have a much better chance of being granted asylum if they are already on US soil. Technically they did cross illegally, but many as asylum seekers.

Having said that, we do need a process to vet these people to ensure that they are actually legitimately seeking asylum. I would advocate that we keep families together while awaiting the decision on whether or not to grant asylum. If we determine not to grant asylum, it would be humane to make arrangements with other countries to see if they would accept these refugees rather than returning them to their previous home countries if at all possible.

[X-man]

If you're getting into whether child-parent separation was worse under Trump than Obama then you're already missing the point. This isn't a policy that needs to end because it's worse than when it happened under the Obama administration. It's a policy that needs to end because it's messed up.

Did you read the article? In Obama's situation, according to the article, the kids were helping smuggle people across.....repeatedly. They were detained to discourage them (the kids) from continuing that practice. Can't you see a difference? And do you want to argue that kids who break the law shouldn't be punished? Apples and oranges.

[Caf]

Did you read the article? In Obama's situation, according to the article, the kids were helping smuggle people across.....repeatedly. They were detained to discourage them (the kids) from continuing that practice. Can't you see a difference? And do you want to argue that kids who break the law shouldn't be punished? Apples and oranges.

Yes I did - and no I don't really see the difference. This is the same justification Trump will be using. If people think children weren't taken from parents under Obama and it was only children engaged in smuggling they are kidding themselves.

Ultimately it comes down to what's the point of our entire immigration policy. If this country's goal is to prevent immigration from the southern border then it should do what it can to prevent it and deport those who come over. Detaining children, separating them from parents or just the adults they came with is fruitless and pointless. Really, detaining anyone who comes over is pointless if their only crime is coming here in the first place.

Also, I don't buy this as deterrent. They're fleeing much worse than an American prison. Even in the article they talk about how there was tourism and psychiatric support. That's 1000x better than what they're fleeing. This whole immigration reform wave is based on the lie that they're ruining the economy and taking taxpayer money. Why even spend money punishing them then? Take preventative measures and just deport.

[xudash]

That's pretty blunt. I don't entirely disagree with the premise - for example my wife and I had a very hard time even having children largely because we waited until after I had completed my MBA and we were financially established to start trying. It does bear consideration that (1) reproduction is our most basic biological instinct and (2) many of these countries have deteriorated so the parents may not have knowingly been bringing children into the environment in which they currently find themselves. I also do have sympathy as a parent for people fleeing terrible situations like that with their children.

I will also say that I worked with a lot of illegal immigrants in college while working at a restaurant. Most of them were fleeing some pretty awful stuff, and most (not all) were good people. One died of a highly treatable form of Cancer because he was afraid to see a Doctor for fear of being deported.

It's also my understanding that most of these families are not necessarily 'here illegally' but are seeking asylum. The reason that they don't present themselves at the border asking for asylum is because they have a much better chance of being granted asylum if they are already on US soil. Technically they did cross illegally, but many as asylum seekers.

Having said that, we do need a process to vet these people to ensure that they are actually legitimately seeking asylum. I would advocate that we keep families together while awaiting the decision on whether or not to grant asylum. If we determine not to grant asylum, it would be humane to make arrangements with other countries to see if they would accept these refugees rather than returning them to their previous home countries if at all possible.

My statement is absolutely blunt: too blunt for many, but blunt and reasonable for those who believe that RESPONSIBILITY BEGINS AT HOME. You were responsible. You and your wife made an informed decision to get financially established so that you could build a family on a strong foundation.

You also make a fair point about the possibility of things having been more normal "at home" at the time some of these people decided to have children, but, as a practical matter, virtually all the people who are making tracks our way are, in fact, making tracks: they don't have an S-Class that they're also trying to get across the border. I have to imagine that we're still dealing with a poverty-driven issue that has been exacerbated by repressive regime policies.

Some will argue that lessor developed nations can't break the cycle. Educational resources aren't sufficiently present to help guide youth in terms of making key early life decisions. Birth control probably is unaffordable, assuming it's available. Perhaps even the Catholic Church still steps in with strict doctrine and declares the use of contraceptives as a sinful practice in those poor Latin nations that always seem to have this chronic cycle of suffering and desperation.

BTW, this is absolutely not about taking away a human's most basic rights. What it should be about is committing resources into areas/regions/nations with structured-poverty to navigate children towards education and development so that they can grow up and have a legitimate shot at a reasonable quality of life. At the very least, a better shot than they have now, growing up in destitution and desperation. We - a very collective "we" - don't appear to value humanity enough to attack this problem at its source. And so we repeat this cycle with each new generation, temporarily relieved and pleased that we occasionally witness great humanitarian efforts in 20 minute segments on 60 Minutes or some other news outlet. It always seems like its a few inches forward and three steps back. Perhaps that's just me.

Perhaps my problem is that I make the mistake of watching local news during the evening on a lot of nights. The problem of not helping society get to a place where families can have a chance if they're otherwise formed is the same fundamental problem that exists in this nation in its poorest areas. Poverty and historically horrid immigration policy - fundamental lack of enforcement - have given us MS-13. U.S. poverty has given us violence in our largest cities on a grand scale.

On that note: gun control? When it comes to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, YES, absolutely. The founding fathers didn't have them, probably would have thought them wasteful and certainly could not foresee them. Gun control in general? Beyond stupid. Seriously, truly beyond stupid. Invest in a way that breaks the poverty cycle: stop having children until you're ready to have children, and then help responsible families have a chance once families are formed.

Will that take violence to ZERO? Of course not. But imagine how much better things would be if educational and support resources were made available and properly directed.

Back on topic: I agree with your idea for asylum: keep them together, process and determine their status for inclusion in American society, and arrange for an alternative address if need be, assuming the new host kicks in with some financial support for its soon-to-be new citizens to get them there.

The United States is long past being able to save the world: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[X-man]

Yes I did - and no I don't really see the difference. This is the same justification Trump will be using. If people think children weren't taken from parents under Obama and it was only children engaged in smuggling they are kidding themselves.

Ultimately it comes down to what's the point of our entire immigration policy. If this country's goal is to prevent immigration from the southern border then it should do what it can to prevent it and deport those who come over. Detaining children, separating them from parents or just the adults they came with is fruitless and pointless. Really, detaining anyone who comes over is pointless if their only crime is coming here in the first place.

Also, I don't buy this as deterrent. They're fleeing much worse than an American prison. Even in the article they talk about how there was tourism and psychiatric support. That's 1000x better than what they're fleeing. This whole immigration reform wave is based on the lie that they're ruining the economy and taking taxpayer money. Why even spend money punishing them then? Take preventative measures and just deport.
That's what the article says, so how do you know otherwise?

[Caf]

That's what the article says, so how do you know otherwise?

That's assuming the government was fully forthcoming on the details of the hundreds of juveniles referenced, the government made no mistakes or exceptions, that every single "guide" was in fact what they say and their parents were definitely not with them.

Not detaining minors without a charge is a pretty basic principle worth upholding.

[bobbiemcgee]

Not to worry, Fox News sez the kids are just at "summer camps".

[paulxu]

There's definitely something wrong with me.
When I look at a teenager, who is guiding immigrants across the border, and is detained to prevent more of that activity...and then look at a 2 year old in his mother's arms...I see two different situations.

Also, good luck with this program:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/sessions-church-complaint/index.html

[GoMuskies]

There's definitely something wrong with me.

Paul, we've all been waiting for you to notice. The bourbon finally did its magic. Welcome to the club!

[noteggs]

Wrong is wrong! The law needs to be changed...why say Trump is worse than Obama or Obama did it as well? Most agree, the federal law was established in 1997 by the Flores vs Reno case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. I’m pleased that we have an opportunity to fix this problem. Only question is, why has it taken 21 years for the press and politicians to see such a problem?

[muskienick]

There's definitely something wrong with me.
When I look at a teenager, who is guiding immigrants across the border, and is detained to prevent more of that activity...and then look at a 2 year old in his mother's arms...I see two different situations.

Also, good luck with this program:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/sessions-church-complaint/index.html

Public Reps, Paul!!!

[Juice]

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer told reporters. “Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it.”

Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

It's almost as if this isn't about the kids at all for the Democrat politicians.

[Strange Brew]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

It's almost as if this isn't about the kids at all for the Democrat politicians.

Hey Chuck..

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

[bjf123]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

It's almost as if this isn't about the kids at all for the Democrat politicians.

It’s not. It’s in the Democrats best political interest for this issue to not be resolved so they can keep harping on Trump leading into the mid-term elections.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Caf]

There's definitely something wrong with me.
When I look at a teenager, who is guiding immigrants across the border, and is detained to prevent more of that activity...and then look at a 2 year old in his mother's arms...I see two different situations.

Also, good luck with this program:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/sessions-church-complaint/index.html

Obviously there’s a difference, but what’s the cutoff of when a minor is old enough to be detained without a charge? 12? 15? 10?

The people crying foul are hypocrites because they only care when the kids in the pictures are cute and helpless. If they’re criminals, then charge them. If not then why hold them? Is due process just a technicality or something we believe in? Or only when it’s equitable?

[X-man]

There's definitely something wrong with me.
When I look at a teenager, who is guiding immigrants across the border, and is detained to prevent more of that activity...and then look at a 2 year old in his mother's arms...I see two different situations.

Also, good luck with this program:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/sessions-church-complaint/index.html
Caf, like so many on the right, refuses to accept evidence when presented if it doesn't reinforce what they already "know" to be true. C'mon Caf, give us evidence to support your claim instead of simply making up shit.

[boozehound]

Caf, like so many on the right, refuses to accept evidence when presented if it doesn't reinforce what they already "know" to be true. C'mon Caf, give us evidence to support your claim instead of simply making up shit.

I don't think he's on the right. I think he's making the argument that we should care now, but that we should also have cared before.

[Caf]

I don't think he's on the right. I think he's making the argument that we should care now, but that we should also have cared before.

Thank you booze. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

X-man if the left is going to keep trying to split hairs on this they’re going to end up proving Trump right. You’re either okay with us detaining minors under Obama and Trump or you’re against it under both or you’re a hypocrite. Making qualifications about it is a fools errand. The border is a gray area where officers have no clue which kid belongs to which adult, if they’re kidnapped, working with cartels or just coming over with Mom and Dad. Regardless, these are kids taken from their homes either by their parents or by cartels in the guide case. Detaining them alone without charge, regardless of what relationship they have with the adults they were with, is against fundamental rights of our country.

[paulxu]

A good overview of the existing legal framework:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?utm_term=.3c11bd255e3a

And what makes it hard these days to figure out what is really going on with anything it seems:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-trump-seems-to-be-saying-more-and-more-things-that-arent-true/2018/06/19/c1bb8af6-73d5-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.dd5757ec1e8a

[Juice]

I expect everyone to yell and rabble rabble about Trudeau now too

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-detention-children-united-states-1.4709632


Last year, 151 minors were detained with their parents in Canadian immigration holding centres.

Eleven others were held in custody unaccompanied by an adult, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.

[bobbiemcgee]

Apparently the Liar-in-Chief has flipped again.

[X-man]

Thank you booze. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

X-man if the left is going to keep trying to split hairs on this they’re going to end up proving Trump right. You’re either okay with us detaining minors under Obama and Trump or you’re against it under both or you’re a hypocrite. Making qualifications about it is a fools errand. The border is a gray area where officers have no clue which kid belongs to which adult, if they’re kidnapped, working with cartels or just coming over with Mom and Dad. Regardless, these are kids taken from their homes either by their parents or by cartels in the guide case. Detaining them alone without charge, regardless of what relationship they have with the adults they were with, is against fundamental rights of our country.
Why can't I be OK with detaining minors if they are consciously breaking the law, but not if they are innocent bystanders to their parents being arrested on "Trumped-up" charges?

[Caf]

Why can't I be OK with detaining minors if they are consciously breaking the law, but not if they are innocent bystanders to their parents being arrested on "Trumped-up" charges?

Because they had no intention of charging those minors for "consciously" breaking the law.

I am really confused as to why someone who is so upset about what is happening today feels compelled to defend the government holding minors without filing charges 3 years ago.

[X-man]

Because they had no intention of charging those minors for "consciously" breaking the law.

I am really confused as to why someone who is so upset about what is happening today feels compelled to defend the government holding minors without filing charges 3 years ago.
If you can't see the distinction, we're done here.

[GenerationX]

Because they had no intention of charging those minors for "consciously" breaking the law.

I am really confused as to why someone who is so upset about what is happening today feels compelled to defend the government holding minors without filing charges 3 years ago.

Personally, I agree that it was wrong to hold them under Obama if they had no intention of charging them, but I can’t fathom how you don’t understand difference in the level of outrage

On one hand, you have children who chose to take a specific action that they knew wasn’t lawful. I realize that they may have felt they had no choice (I.e. cartels forced them, etc.), but generally my understanding is that these detentions were related to actual crimes/criminals beyond the illegal entry. Am I mistaken there?

On the other hand, you have border patrol agents turning away people seeking asylum at the port of entry, basically forcing them to an illegal entry point. The children here are completely separate from any wrongdoing. And our own government is creating the “crime “!

Of course people will be more outraged! And I disagree with some of Obama’s policies regarding immigration as well, but I think they are at least debatable. Maybe I’ve been misinformed or have missed something, though. Please enlighten me if that’s the case.

[Juice]

Haha the man sure is a genius when it comes to his twitter account

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

[GenerationX]

Haha the man sure is a genius when it comes to his twitter account

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

That’s one word you could use to describe him. I think weak, greedy, narcissistic, megalomaniac fits better. But that’s just me. The only reason he flip-flopped is that it wasn’t polling well on either side. Now he’s going to take credit for “fixing the problem.”

[Juice]

That’s one word you could use to describe him. I think weak, greedy, narcissistic, megalomaniac fits better. But that’s just me. The only reason he flip-flopped is that it wasn’t polling well on either side. Now he’s going to take credit for “fixing the problem.”

I have only seen this poll but I don't know if you're right on that: https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1009521625472040960

And he's done a lot more to fix the problem than anyone else at this point. You may question his motives or question his views in relation to yours, but if this has been going on since 2014/2015 (at least), who else has addressed it until now?

[paulxu]

He hasn't "fixed" anything:


Trump's Ploy

The President says he’s signing an executive order to end family separations. The actual aim seems to be to pick a fight with the courts and allow separations to continue while blaming judges. According to The New York Times, the President will sign an executive order allowing children to be detained indefinitely with their parents. The problem is that that violates a 1997 consent decree saying that you can’t detain/imprison children for more than 20 days (technically what’s currently happening isn’t detention). It straight up violates that order. So what will almost inevitably happen is that a court will step in, say you can’t do that and then Trump will announce that the judge is forcing him to keep separating families.

[noteggs]

That’s one word you could use to describe him. I think weak, greedy, narcissistic, megalomaniac fits better. But that’s just me. The only reason he flip-flopped is that it wasn’t polling well on either side. Now he’s going to take credit for “fixing the problem.”

I agree with narcissistic. Almost all presidents share this trait (Except for probably Carter and maybe W - he was just in the family business). It shouldn’t poll well on either side because they’ve had two decades to clean this mess. As I’ve told the numerous kids I’ve coached and volunteered with, who cares who gets the credit as long as you do the right thing!

[GenerationX]

I have only seen this poll but I don't know if you're right on that: https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1009521625472040960

And he's done a lot more to fix the problem than anyone else at this point. You may question his motives or question his views in relation to yours, but if this has been going on since 2014/2015 (at least), who else has addressed it until now?

That poll relates to family detention vs. catch and release... nothing about separating children from parents unless I missed it.

Obama’s policies evolved over time, and some think even he went too far. He wasn't known as the deporter in chief for nothing. If you’re strictly referring to separating children from parents, please see my post above. I disagree with his administration’s policy to detain children, but again, my understanding is that the policies evolved to try to ensure the safety of the children, etc. Here’s an article that fact-checks the equivalence between the two administrations:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856

And here’s a pertinent excerpt:
“The idea that this is simply a continuation of an Obama-era practice is "preposterous," said Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas Law School. "There were occasionally instances where you would find a separated family — maybe like one every six months to a year — and that was usually because there had been some actual individualized concern that there was a trafficking situation or that the parent wasn’t actually the parent."

Once custody concerns were resolved, "there was pretty immediately reunification," Gilman told NBC News. "There were not 2,000 kids in two months — it’s not the same universe," she added.

The Trump administration separated 1,995 children from 1,940 adults from April 19 to May 31, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said Friday, a period in which the "zero tolerance" policy was in effect.”


And yes, I most definitely question trump’s motives.

[Caf]

Holy cow, in this toxic political environment all anyone cares about is relativism.

I said holding minors without charging them is wrong. I said it's wrong now and it was wrong under Obama. What the hell is outrageous about that opinion? You can't justify human rights violations with worse human rights violations.

[GenerationX]

I agree with narcissistic. Almost all presidents share this trait (Except for probably Carter and maybe W - he was just in the family business). It shouldn’t poll well on either side because they’ve had two decades to clean this mess. As I’ve told the numerous kids I’ve coached and volunteered with, who cares who gets the credit as long as you do the right thing!

Looks like you prefer to cherry pick your lessons to the kids. Who cares if other presidents have shared that trait? That doesn’t make it okay.

Are you saying you agree with the policy to separate children from their parents as long as it “cleans up the mess”? (Whatever that means.) So “the end justifies the means “?

Remind me not to hire you to coach my kids lol.

[GenerationX]

Holy cow, in this toxic political environment all anyone cares about is relativism.

I said holding minors without charging them is wrong. I said it's wrong now and it was wrong under Obama. What the hell is outrageous about that opinion? You can't justify human rights violations with worse human rights violations.

I don’t disagree with that opinion, but I don’t understand why you disagree with people being more outraged at what’s going on now. Obama’s administration detained minors who helped people enter the country illegally. Trump’s is simply separating the children from parents and eventually putting them in foster care, etc. The parents don’t know where their children are and vice versa. I mean these are apples and oranges situations.

I’ll speak for myself in saying the only reason I replied to you is that you seemed perplexed why there is such an uproar now but not then. I mean really, what Obama’s administration did was arguable. I suspect the point was to deter the children from doing it again (helping people enter illegally.) Or in the case of family separation, to ensure the safety of the children. Again, I agree holding anyone, especially children, that they had no intention to charge is a human rights violation. But that’s not at all what’s going on now. I personally think it’s all a political game to try to get his horrible “reforms” passed.

Not only that, trump has put a spotlight on himself, so more people are aware of these things... the outrage is much more widespread. That’s probably the main positive thing I’ve witnessed since he was elected... people have become more engaged.

[bjf123]

As I’ve told the numerous kids I’ve coached and volunteered with, who cares who gets the credit as long as you do the right thing!

Sadly, in today’s political environment, the credit is all that matters. Personally, I don’t think the Democrats really want to fix this issue or DACA. It’s in their political best interest for the issue to be used to embarrass Trump and the Republicans, which helps them pick up seats in the mid term elections. If they gain control of one or both houses of Congress, they’ll pass some legislation they know Trump will never sign so they can continue the process.

It’s the same thing with taxing the rich, however you define rich. It gives the Democrats a great sound bite to say they’re not paying their fair share, whatever that is. Did the Democrats raise taxes when they had the chance? Nope. It was in their political best interest to leave it as a campaign issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GenerationX]

Sadly, in today’s political environment, the credit is all that matters. Personally, I don’t think the Democrats really want to fix this issue or DACA. It’s in their political best interest for the issue to be used to embarrass Trump and the Republicans, which helps them pick up seats in the mid term elections. If they gain control of one or both houses of Congress, they’ll pass some legislation they know Trump will never sign so they can continue the process.

It’s the same thing with taxing the rich, however you define rich. It gives the Democrats a great sound bite to say they’re not paying their fair share, whatever that is. Did the Democrats raise taxes when they had the chance? Nope. It was in their political best interest to leave it as a campaign issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This I agree with 100% The politicians from both parties suck pretty equally in the same way.

[noteggs]

Looks like you prefer to cherry pick your lessons to the kids. Who cares if other presidents have shared that trait? That doesn’t make it okay.

Are you saying you agree with the policy to separate children from their parents as long as it “cleans up the mess”? (Whatever that means.) So “the end justifies the means “?

Remind me not to hire you to coach my kids lol.

Cherry pick? Just trying to give kids a little humility lesson from what I learned from X...doesn’t matter who gets the credit for a good play, correcting an injustice, or a good deed, just keep doing the right things.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I think what’s going on with these kids is completely wrong. Unfortunately, this is a result of a 1997 case brought to the court of appeals. Both sides had 21 years to understand the ramifications and correct it.

However, if you sweet talk me, I’ll be willing to come out of coaching retirement

[bobbiemcgee]

It’s the same thing with taxing the rich, however you define rich. It gives the Democrats a great sound bite to say they’re not paying their fair share, whatever that is. Did the Democrats raise taxes when they had the chance? Nope. It was in their political best interest to leave it as a campaign issue.


Nobody's going to propose raising taxes. You saw how that went with Bush I's "Read my lips, no new taxes" remark. No budget surplus since Clinton's 1998-2001. Bush II couldn't stand for that, so he had a massive tax cut that put the deficit into a tailspin along with his stupid ass wars. I remember laughing when I got a check in the mail. What a Bozo. So now the OMB sez we will have trillion dollar plus yearly deficits. Pubs suddenly love deficits. They came up with some hocus-pocus BS rationale that only made sense to them. Meanwhile, interest rates going up on this massive debt. Congress has already stolen 3 trillion from the SS retirement funds, so where are they going to get the money now? Yep, they will have to borrow it thru Treasury bills that no one will want, not even the Chinese.
And hey Trump - who is going to pay your Tariiffs (taxes). Americans, that who.

[bjf123]

You’re making my point. If you’re correct, and no one is going to propose raising taxes, can we assume the Democrats will stop with their continual harping on how the rich aren’t paying their fair share? The only way to change that is to raise their taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caf]

I don’t disagree with that opinion, but I don’t understand why you disagree with people being more outraged at what’s going on now. Obama’s administration detained minors who helped people enter the country illegally. Trump’s is simply separating the children from parents and eventually putting them in foster care, etc. The parents don’t know where their children are and vice versa. I mean these are apples and oranges situations.

I’ll speak for myself in saying the only reason I replied to you is that you seemed perplexed why there is such an uproar now but not then. I mean really, what Obama’s administration did was arguable. I suspect the point was to deter the children from doing it again (helping people enter illegally.) Or in the case of family separation, to ensure the safety of the children. Again, I agree holding anyone, especially children, that they had no intention to charge is a human rights violation. But that’s not at all what’s going on now. I personally think it’s all a political game to try to get his horrible “reforms” passed.

Not only that, trump has put a spotlight on himself, so more people are aware of these things... the outrage is much more widespread. That’s probably the main positive thing I’ve witnessed since he was elected... people have become more engaged.

I understand why the outrage is greater now. What I don't understand is how people don't see how today is connected to Obama and every member of government before.

It's hypocritical to not have been upset about Obama's practices because they were an indication of gray areas where our laws were lacking and how they could be exploited to infringe on civil liberties. What allowed the Obama administration to get away with detaining guides is exactly what the Trump administration used to get away with child separation.

I keep going back to "detaining minors without charging them" because that is the basic law and right we extend to citizens and not migrants which has allowed this to happen. There is no law that the government has to keep kids with parents who are being arrested, citizen or not. There never will be. There is a law that says anyone arrested has a right to due process. It was in the Magna Carta for Christ's sake. It's an enormous flaw and contradiction to our basic values which Obama, Trump, and others before have not addressed and instead exploited. If you think the outrage here is that Trump did this, and not that Trump was able to legally do this, you're not seeing the forest from the trees. In 2018, in the United States, it's perfectly legal for the government to arrest a migrant parent and detain their children in a shelter. It's also perfectly legal to hold migrant teenagers accused of wrongdoing without proving wrongdoing in a court for extended periods of time. It's the same basic liberty being violated whether it's a happy family fleeing oppression or a teen trying to break the law.

I think people forget what Congress' function is since it's been a cesspool for 20 years forcing Presidents and the Courts to have to overstep their authority to keep this country functioning. Now we have a Frankenstein solution where kids will be detained with their parents. Oh happy day... From one band aid executive action to the next this country limps on.

[GenerationX]

I understand why the outrage is greater now. What I don't understand is how people don't see how today is connected to Obama and every member of government before.

It's hypocritical to not have been upset about Obama's practices because they were an indication of gray areas where our laws were lacking and how they could be exploited to infringe on civil liberties. What allowed the Obama administration to get away with detaining guides is exactly what the Trump administration used to get away with child separation.

I keep going back to "detaining minors without charging them" because that is the basic law and right we extend to citizens and not migrants which has allowed this to happen. There is no law that the government has to keep kids with parents who are being arrested, citizen or not. There never will be. There is a law that says anyone arrested has a right to due process. It was in the Magna Carta for Christ's sake. It's an enormous flaw and contradiction to our basic values which Obama, Trump, and others before have not addressed and instead exploited. If you think the outrage here is that Trump did this, and not that Trump was able to legally do this, you're not seeing the forest from the trees. In 2018, in the United States, it's perfectly legal for the government to arrest a migrant parent and detain their children in a shelter. It's also perfectly legal to hold migrant teenagers accused of wrongdoing without proving wrongdoing in a court for extended periods of time. It's the same basic liberty being violated whether it's a happy family fleeing oppression or a teen trying to break the law.

I think people forget what Congress' function is since it's been a cesspool for 20 years forcing Presidents and the Courts to have to overstep their authority to keep this country functioning. Now we have a Frankenstein solution where kids will be detained with their parents. Oh happy day... From one band aid executive action to the next this country limps on.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with everything you’ve stated. The action itself is appalling, but the fact that it could be done perfectly legally should be the focus. I’m skeptical anything will change, at least not any time soon, for the reason you’ve stated... Congress is a cesspool and completely ineffective.

[waggy]

I think we should pull Ol' Sparky of retirement. Fry a few up and all this nonsense would stop.

[STL_XUfan]

I think we should pull Ol' Sparky of retirement. Fry a few up and all this nonsense would stop.
Did you just suggest summarily executing people in a cruel way to send a message about your desire not to have them in your country?

[paulxu]

Did you just suggest summarily executing people in a cruel way to send a message about your desire not to have them in your country?

Sure. Why not?


Meanwhile, as the border crisis spirals, the absence of a coordinated policy process has allowed the most extreme administration voices to fill the vacuum. White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller has all but become the face of the issue, a development that even supporters of Trump’s “zero-tolerance” position say is damaging the White House. “Stephen actually enjoys seeing those pictures at the border,” an outside White House adviser said. “He’s a twisted guy, the way he was raised and picked on. There’s always been a way he’s gone about this. He’s Waffen-SS.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/stephen-miller-family-separation-white-house

[Caf]

A longstanding federal-court settlement—known as the Flores agreement—bars the government from jailing migrant children. The move by the administration to continue arresting adults while keeping their children with them in custody could run afoul of that settlement.

In the order, the Republican president directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to try to modify that court settlement to enable officials to detain families together for the duration of their immigration proceedings.

Legal experts said that would set the stage for the same court battles that President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration fought and lost when it tried to jail migrant families together for more than 20 days.

There's no reason to think this is anywhere even close to solved.

[bjf123]

Can someone explain this to me? I doubt we’ll see the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, etc., discussing this. I’m guessing the Fox commentators will go nuts.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html

How does this not push the blame for Russia’s interference squarely on Obama’s shoulders?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

Did you read the entire article?

[xudash]

Curious - and I'm not trying to derail the dialogue on the issue of separating families, but let's see where we all stand on this one: IS ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF OPEN BORDERS?

A REPHRASED VERSION OF THE QUESTION: Anyone here in favor of letting everyone in? The follow-up to that is that do you favor providing governmental financial support to them?

[Masterofreality]

Did you read the entire article?

Yeah. I read the whole article. This is the key passage:

"Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in an opening statement that “we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.”"

Anything after that, including OBummer's "stern warning to Putin" which was largely ignored ("Red Line in the Sand" Obama was great at "stern warnings" with no follow-up action) is nothing more than cover their 2 year old asses from their incompetence. This ludicrous Mueller Investigation that continues to be a marathon nothing-burger is even more off the reservation now.

Typical. Dems playing the reckless finger pointing game to distract from their malfeasance.

[Masterofreality]

Thank you booze. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

X-man if the left is going to keep trying to split hairs on this they’re going to end up proving Trump right. You’re either okay with us detaining minors under Obama and Trump or you’re against it under both or you’re a hypocrite. Making qualifications about it is a fools errand. The border is a gray area where officers have no clue which kid belongs to which adult, if they’re kidnapped, working with cartels or just coming over with Mom and Dad. Regardless, these are kids taken from their homes either by their parents or by cartels in the guide case. Detaining them alone without charge, regardless of what relationship they have with the adults they were with, is against fundamental rights of our country.

Bravo Caf. Excellent points.

[paulxu]

Then you noted where the efforts were directed to protecting our local and state election systems.
Hopefully that was successful, as one wouldn't want to think the Russians cast votes that were counted in the systems.
They seemed to have directed efforts to use social media to influence voters to vote for Trump, and that seems to have worked out OK.
Could we have done more (launched cyber warfare)? Probably. Why didn't they?
Sounds as if they had resource and security issues, and were unduly worried about Trump and his rigged election cries.
As always we could have done more I'm sure. We could have listened to Richard Clarke before 9/11 also.

[Lloyd Braun]

I believe the reason they (Dems) didn’t do more is because they never truly believed Trump would win....that enough people would be dumb enough to allow fake news on social media to influence their vote. They were wrong.

[GoMuskies]

.that enough people would be dumb enough to allow fake news on social media to influence their vote. They were wrong.

Or that enough people would see how truly toxic Hillary Clinton is and vote against her. Whichever is your preferred narrative.

Not a Trump fan. Still don't wish Hillary was the President instead.

[Lloyd Braun]

Or that enough people would see how truly toxic Hillary Clinton is and vote against her. Whichever is your preferred narrative.

Not a Trump fan. Still don't wish Hillary was the President instead.

Your opinion/narrative was in the minority on election night. Either way the Dems miscalculated electoral votes. A lot of people said they were voting for trump because they did not want Hillary. However, a lot of those people (some on this board) are quick to rush to trumps defense. Whether he is at fault or not the country seems to be even more polarized than 2 years ago.

[GoMuskies]

Your opinion/narrative was in the minority on election night

I really don't think it was.

[Lloyd Braun]

I really don't think it was.

If only there was a way to know who got more votes on election night...

[GoMuskies]

If only there was a way to know who got more votes on election night...

What's that have to do with anything? Certainly not the narrative I proposed. And certainly not the election of the president.

[noteggs]

Just lost a great man tonight - Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer... he put civil in civility when discussing politics! Wish we had more of that in today’s environment.

[Lloyd Braun]

What's that have to do with anything? Certainly not the narrative I proposed. And certainly not the election of the president.

I think we have diverted from the original point...I was simply saying the Dems miscalculated/underestimated, possibly based on polls of popular vote. More people voted for her than against her. The lack of action to prevent Russia from intervening allowed people to be exposed to constant Hillary bashing, much of which was fictional. After re-reading your initial reply it seems as if you believe the Russian ads/posts were mostly based on real facts? Regardless the media coverage was a joke, and spent more time talking about Hillary’s emails than anything negative Trump was associated, including grab them by the p***y.

[Lloyd Braun]

Yeah. I read the whole article. This is the key passage:

"Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in an opening statement that “we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.”"

Anything after that, including OBummer's "stern warning to Putin" which was largely ignored ("Red Line in the Sand" Obama was great at "stern warnings" with no follow-up action) is nothing more than cover their 2 year old asses from their incompetence. This ludicrous Mueller Investigation that continues to be a marathon nothing-burger is even more off the reservation now.

Typical. Dems playing the reckless finger pointing game to distract from their malfeasance.

So is it a nothing burger or was Obama too soft on Putin? Can’t be both

[GoMuskies]

What makes you think I believed the fake news? And more people voted against Hillary than for her.

[Lloyd Braun]

What makes you think I believed the fake news? And more people voted against Hillary than for her.

It’s either that or you replied with a completely different context to my statement, which was a direct response to Russian interference.

[bobbiemcgee]

Just lost a great man tonight - Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer... he put civil in civility when discussing politics! Wish we had more of that in today’s environment.

Trump called him a jerk and am overrated clown but I thought he had some good points once in a while.

[GoMuskies]

It’s either that or you replied with a completely different context to my statement, which was a direct response to Russian interference.

You said that was the cause of Hillary's loss. I would say Hillary being a shitty candidate had as much or more to do with her loss. No Russian propaganda necessary to believe that.

Though looking back I see how you can read it that way. Don't mean they saw how toxic she was through "fake news". Just regular ass news.

[bjf123]

Curious - and I'm not trying to derail the dialogue on the issue of separating families, but let's see where we all stand on this one: IS ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF OPEN BORDERS?

A REPHRASED VERSION OF THE QUESTION: Anyone here in favor of letting everyone in? The follow-up to that is that do you favor providing governmental financial support to them?

No. Rephrased version. No and no.

Something I’m curious about. Everyone talks about the Russians spreading fake news on Facebook and Twitter. Didn’t they spend something like $100,000 for targeted ads? Didn’t Hillary spend something like 20 times that? How much influence could that have really had? Seems to me it’s a false narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lloyd Braun]

No. Rephrased version. No and no.

Something I’m curious about. Everyone talks about the Russians spreading fake news on Facebook and Twitter. Didn’t they spend something like $100,000 for targeted ads? Didn’t Hillary spend something like 20 times that? How much influence could that have really had? Seems to me it’s a false narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn’t cost much to have bots send out millions of tweets and FB posts. So using dollars spent is not exactly an accurate measurement of influence. It’s not like we were watching TV ads from Russia during prime time TV. I don’t think we were anyways... anything is possible these days!

[Lloyd Braun]

You said that was the cause of Hillary's loss. I would say Hillary being a shitty candidate had as much or more to do with her loss. No Russian propaganda necessary to believe that.

Though looking back I see how you can read it that way. Don't mean they saw how toxic she was through "fake news". Just regular ass news.

I did? Just suggested influence. Was more or less trying to imply it had an impact that Dems underestimated.

[paulxu]

And more people voted against Hillary than for her.

Huh? What's that mean Go? I think she won the popular vote; certainly not the electoral college.

[GoMuskies]

Huh? What's that mean Go? I think she won the popular vote; certainly not the electoral college.

She got a plurality of votes. Not a majority.

[paulxu]

OK, she got the most votes. Generally a win in direct elections unless they require 50% +1.
Most points wins in basketball !
Speaking of which, that NBA commissioner guy is a scary looking dude.

[GoMuskies]

Most points is electoral votes.

Most votes is more like rebounds.

[paulxu]

Hah!
BTW, most politics is not electoral votes. Most is most votes.

[GoMuskies]

Hah!
BTW, most politics is not electoral votes. Most is most votes.

Agree. If someone wants to change the rules going forward (yes!), I'll be all for it. I just don't give much credence to whining about the rules everyone knew they were playing by after the fact due to the outcome.

[boozehound]

You said that was the cause of Hillary's loss. I would say Hillary being a shitty candidate had as much or more to do with her loss. No Russian propaganda necessary to believe that.

Though looking back I see how you can read it that way. Don't mean they saw how toxic she was through "fake news". Just regular ass news.

I mean, Hillary was definitely a shitty candidate, but compared to Trump? I'd take Ted Cruz over Trump, and I hate Ted Cruz. I'm actually not sure there was a serious primary candidate on either side that I wouldn't prefer to Trump. He is an imbecile with a personality disorder who doesn't seem to want, or truly engage with, being President. The one good thing that could come of this moron's Presidency is that if we survive it without major catastrophe it will validate that our system is strong enough that it can survive literally almost any mistake the electorate can make.

[GoMuskies]

I'm certainly not making a pro Trump argument. He doesn't bother me too much, just as Obama didn't bother me too much, but he definitely wouldn't have been one of my top choices.

I just don't think we'd be better off with Hillary as president (other than late night TV and SNL likely sucking less).

[xu95]

Living in Kansas it was easy for me not to vote for Hillary without having to vote for Trump. There was no chance of her winning my state and there was no chance of Trump losing it based on my vote. I got to use the write in option for the first time in my life.

I don't like Trump being president. The Republicans had better choices but they couldn't win the primary. I like Trump being president more than I would have liked Hillary being president.

Both parties did a shitty job of picking candidates in the primaries. The problem with the Democratic primary was they didn't have a good alternative. The Socialist would have been an even worse choice than Hillary.

That is my fear right now as far as our country goes. It seems neither party has a good candidate that they are willing to throw out there. Maybe it is because of all of the bullshit they have to put up with during the election process. Trust me, I did some stuff in my 20s that I would not want coming back to haunt me in my late 40s.

xu95

[GoMuskies]

Living in Kansas it was easy for me not to vote for Hillary without having to vote for Trump.

Definitely. I wish Gary Johnson wasn't such a goofball.

[Lloyd Braun]

Living in Kansas it was easy for me not to vote for Hillary without having to vote for Trump. There was no chance of her winning my state and there was no chance of Trump losing it based on my vote. I got to use the write in option for the first time in my life.

I don't like Trump being president. The Republicans had better choices but they couldn't win the primary. I like Trump being president more than I would have liked Hillary being president.

Both parties did a shitty job of picking candidates in the primaries. The problem with the Democratic primary was they didn't have a good alternative. The Socialist would have been an even worse choice than Hillary.

That is my fear right now as far as our country goes. It seems neither party has a good candidate that they are willing to throw out there. Maybe it is because of all of the bullshit they have to put up with during the election process. Trust me, I did some stuff in my 20s that I would not want coming back to haunt me in my late 40s.

xu95

I’m pretty sure he polled significantly better against Trump than Hillary did, didn’t he? Not sure if that would have made the difference in the electoral...

[GoMuskies]

I’m pretty sure he polled significantly better against Trump than Hillary did, didn’t he? Not sure if that would have made the difference in the electoral...

I think he simply means he likes Bernie less than Hillary as a potential president. I know I did. Yuck.

[xu95]

I think he simply means he likes Bernie less than Hillary as a potential president. I know I did. Yuck.

Correct. Socialism is not a step in the right direction for our country.

xu95

[Lloyd Braun]

Correct. Socialism is not a step in the right direction for our country.

xu95

I prefer socialism to fascism.

[GoMuskies]

I prefer socialism to fascism.

I don't really want either of them, although a well-functioning society certainly needs a dab of both.

[xu95]

I prefer socialism to fascism.

If you think we live in a fascist society right now, I don't think we can even have a reasonable conversation about it.

Is Trump a dumbass who says stuff he shouldn't say? Absolutely. Is he steering our country towards fascism? Absolutely not.

xu95

[paulxu]

I've tried to understand this tariff stuff as something logical, and not just a bully swinging a stick on the playground.
I'm really having a hard time though.
Anyway, I don't think it's going to help my city/county in the long run. Hope I'm wrong.


The largest BMW assembly plant in the world is located in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Last year, it posted a new production record of more than 400,000 vehicles — 70% of which were exported to other countries.

[Lloyd Braun]

If you think we live in a fascist society right now, I don't think we can even have a reasonable conversation about it.

Is Trump a dumbass who says stuff he shouldn't say? Absolutely. Is he steering our country towards fascism? Absolutely not.

xu95

I don’t think we live in a fascist society. Just like if Bernie won we wouldn’t be living in a socialist society. I don’t believe Trump is a fascist either but I think it would be appeasing to him. Trump is too much of a phony to be a complete fascist.

[GoMuskies]

I don't think he's competent enough at running a branch of government to be a facist. He probably ran the Trump Organization in a way that was somewhat "facist", and that's fine. You can always quit working for a company if you don't like it.

[xu95]

I don’t think we live in a fascist society. Just like if Bernie won we wouldn’t be living in a socialist society. I don’t believe Trump is a fascist either but I think it would be appeasing to him. Trump is too much of a phony to be a complete fascist.

We can agree on this. Obviously we wouldn't turn into a Socialist society with Bernie, we have too many checks and balances in place for that to happen.

xu95

[Caf]

I don't think he's a fascist, but I do worry he believes he's more important than the state. He has made it very clear that he thinks he's the only good and effective member of the government.

The way he was calling into question 2016 election results before they came out will be in the back of my mind in 2020.

[GoMuskies]

The way he was calling into question 2016 election results before they came out will be in the back of my mind in 2020.

I guess it turned out to be an accidentally brilliant move. Democrats were so adamant that he was a pathetic whiner at the time that it makes it harder to take seriously their complaints now about the legitimacy of the election.

[Caf]

I guess it turned out to be an accidentally brilliant move. Democrats were so adamant that he was a pathetic whiner at the time that it makes it harder to take seriously their complaints now about the legitimacy of the election.

Exactly - and I think that's ultimately why Obama didn't take action. It was a lose lose. If he intervened either Hilary would win and it would be called into question sparking a constitutional crisis or Trump would win.

[paulxu]

How can the entire White House staff be so tone deaf to let Melania wear that jacket to visit the immigration center?

[Lloyd Braun]

How can the entire White House staff be so tone deaf to let Melania wear that jacket to visit the immigration center?

I don’t think they really care... do u?

[GoMuskies]

I don’t think they really care... do u?

Not caring is basically their motto. To be fair, it was also pretty much the campaign platform.

[paulxu]

I don’t think they really care... do u?


Not caring is basically their motto. To be fair, it was also pretty much the campaign platform.

No, I don't think they really care. But someone in that nuthouse must have an ounce of common sense, and should have said..."hey, you're going to visit the kids; it's a big deal in the media. Let's change the jacket." Really, how much could that take?

[X-man]

I've tried to understand this tariff stuff as something logical, and not just a bully swinging a stick on the playground.
I'm really having a hard time though.
Anyway, I don't think it's going to help my city/county in the long run. Hope I'm wrong.

Trump is simply a mercantilist even if he doesn't know it. He believes trade is a zero sum game, and that trade deficits are a sign of weakness. Mercantilism was recognized over 200 years ago, by economists like Adam Smith, as completely bogus. But Trump's "economic advisor", Peter Navarro, hasn't figured that out. The only way that anything Trump is doing with trade makes any sense is as a way to move the terms of trade via exchange rate movement. But Trump likely is completely unaware of that and simply believes that a trade deficit means we are "losing". I say "likely" because there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump ever does any work at all trying to understand theories and how policies work in the abstract. Some of Trump's supporters appear to think that this is a strength. I am not in that camp. Policies created out of ignorance and "gut feelings" are bound to fail, or at least have unexpected consequences. And we see that constantly occurring in virtually everything Trump does.

[xudash]

Let us all pray for more harmony and better government - - meet you at the chapel:

https://webcam1.xavier.edu/view/viewer_index.shtml?id=448268

[GoMuskies]

Let us all pray for more harmony and better government - - meet you at the chapel:

https://webcam1.xavier.edu/view/viewer_index.shtml?id=448268

What is going on there?!?

[Lloyd Braun]

I don’t think they really care... do u?

Get it? .... ah nevermind

[GenerationX]

I don’t think they really care... do u?


Get it? .... ah nevermind

I tried to rep you but apparently my vote doesn’t count today :sign-wtf::chainedup:

[Masterofreality]

So is it a nothing burger or was Obama too soft on Putin? Can’t be both

It's a nothing burger As Far As Trump "Collusion"- which happens to be the alleged thrust of the investigation and has shown nothing- as in "nothing burger".
If Obummer really thought something was being done by Russia, where was his action after a "stern warning"? Even then there was no evidence of any "collusion". It's crap.

[xudash]

What is going on there?!?

The Williams donated their family chapel to X. Nice touch and good story.

[GoMuskies]

Ah, now that you mention it, I remember reading about that. Good stuff.

[Caf]

Harley-Davidson to Shift Production Overseas to Offset EU Tariffs (https://www.wsj.com/articles/harley-davidson-to-shift-production-overseas-to-offset-eu-tariffs-1529927301?mod=hp_lead_pos3#comments_sector)

Well that didn't go as planned...

[muskienick]

Harley-Davidson to Shift Production Overseas to Offset EU Tariffs (https://www.wsj.com/articles/harley-davidson-to-shift-production-overseas-to-offset-eu-tariffs-1529927301?mod=hp_lead_pos3#comments_sector)

Well that didn't go as planned...

Maybe not, but shouldn't it have been anticipated by someone (like Trump) who is supposedly well known for his ability to run a company and using every trick in the book to maximize profit? Or was this the Trump who had to file bankruptcy multiple times?

[X-man]

Maybe not, but shouldn't it have been anticipated by someone (like Trump) who is supposedly well known for his ability to run a company and using every trick in the book to maximize profit? Or was this the Trump who had to file bankruptcy multiple times?

Trump is f***ing clueless when it comes to economic policy (among other things). This trade business truly threatens to undo any juice for the economy that his tax cuts might have created. The sad thing, of course, is that this damage is entirely self-inflicted. Notice that POTUS isn't talking about stocks any more even though what is happening now is much more related to his policies than what transpired in the markets last year.

[Caf]

Trump is f***ing clueless when it comes to economic policy (among other things). This trade business truly threatens to undo any juice for the economy that his tax cuts might have created. The sad thing, of course, is that this damage is entirely self-inflicted. Notice that POTUS isn't talking about stocks any more even though what is happening now is much more related to his policies than what transpired in the markets last year.

Now begins the test of just how much people believe in "fair trade". This is going to start happening more and more, but if you are a true believer this is just a necessary sacrifice. DJT better hope this works by 2020.

[xudash]

Now begins the test of just how much people believe in "fair trade". This is going to start happening more and more, but if you are a true believer this is just a necessary sacrifice. DJT better hope this works by 2020.

You are absolutely spot on with that observation.

[X-man]

Now begins the test of just how much people believe in "fair trade". This is going to start happening more and more, but if you are a true believer this is just a necessary sacrifice. DJT better hope this works by 2020.

Please define "fair trade". All trade creates winners and losers. So do all trade restrictions. It's just that trade itself is a positive sum game, i.e. the winners gain more than the losers lose.

[Caf]

Please define "fair trade". All trade creates winners and losers. So do all trade restrictions. It's just that trade itself is a positive sum game, i.e. the winners gain more than the losers lose.

I used quotes because I think it's a load of crap. I agree with Trump on getting rid of the sunset clauses, but his focus on trade imbalances is not based on any economic realities.

[paulxu]

This is an interesting article that discusses the differences between real estate and other negotiations (that might essentially be one time deals) versus trade and other things between countries that are ongoing situations.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-deals-and-the-flea-market-bargaining-of-the-world

[GoMuskies]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this Maxine Waters strategy?!?

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1010981944056664064

[X-man]

This is an interesting article that discusses the differences between real estate and other negotiations (that might essentially be one time deals) versus trade and other things between countries that are ongoing situations.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-deals-and-the-flea-market-bargaining-of-the-world

Very interesting, but depressing, read. Thanks for sharing.

[noteggs]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this Maxine Waters strategy?!?

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1010981944056664064

What is up with politicians? Both sides are (for decades) using anger and fear for votes. Unfortunately we play into these games.

[bobbiemcgee]

Didn't trump tell his people to go out and punch somebody in the mouth? Civility is dead.

[Strange Brew]

Harley-Davidson to Shift Production Overseas to Offset EU Tariffs (https://www.wsj.com/articles/harley-davidson-to-shift-production-overseas-to-offset-eu-tariffs-1529927301?mod=hp_lead_pos3#comments_sector)

Well that didn't go as planned...

Interesting when you consider US tariffs on Japanese heavy bikes saved HD in the 80s.
And they’re only moving some of their production to Europe which was part of a larger plan to move production to be closer to their prime consumers as US sales have sagged since the mid 2000s.

[Lloyd Braun]

Interesting when you consider US tariffs on Japanese heavy bikes saved HD in the 80s.
And they’re only moving some of their production to Europe which was part of a larger plan to move production to be closer to their prime consumers as US sales have sagged since the mid 2000s.

You can try to spin it however you want, but....

Harley Davidson CEO Matthew S Levatich:
"Our decision to move some of our operations is 100% based on President Trumps tariffs. Mr. Trump knows nothing about economics and even less about trade. The man is a moron."

[Strange Brew]

You can try to spin it however you want, but....

Harley Davidson CEO Matthew S Levatich:
"Our decision to move some of our operations is 100% based on President Trumps tariffs. Mr. Trump knows nothing about economics and even less about trade. The man is a moron."

Actually, it’s some of their production and this is great cover for a company that prides itself on being made in America. His statement is Marketing and not about Econ. Read an article from CBS stating the company was eying shifting some production to the EU and Brazil. Again, blaming Trump is great PR for an “American made” brand shifting SOME of its production overseas.

By the way, the EU tariffs caused the move not the US tariffs on steel and alluminum.

[Lloyd Braun]

Actually, it’s some of their production and this is great cover for a company that prides itself on being made in America. His statement is Marketing and not about Econ. Read an article from CBS stating the company was eying shifting some production to the EU and Brazil. Again, blaming Trump is great PR for an “American made” brand shifting SOME of its production overseas.

By the way, the EU tariffs caused the move not the US tariffs on steel and alluminum.

I can see your theory being true... but you think Harley Davidson’s target audience are those that don’t support Trump? Admittedly I don’t know a ton of bikers but I know some, and blaming Trump typically wouldn’t go over well with them.

[Strange Brew]

I can see your theory being true... but you think Harley Davidson’s target audience are those that don’t support Trump? Admittedly I don’t know a ton of bikers but I know some, and blaming Trump typically wouldn’t go over well with them.

Calculated risk. US sales are flat. The brand is very strong with those who are “HD” people. It’s not like these bikers are going to buy a Honda or BMW. Very different personas for those bikes. Trump bikers may wince at the statement but they’re still buying a Harley made in WI with their next purchase.

Huge opportunity for a startup US heavy bike brand. Albeit the barriers to enter that market are high. Another reason why the CEO isn’t worried about offending US buyers.

[bobbiemcgee]

You can buy an Indian MC. I had a donor cycle for 3 yrs. at X. Hated it and couldn't wait to get my first job and buy a sports car. I think these overseas production facilities will proliferate. Who can afford to lose that kind of money on stupid taxes (tariffs).

[Caf]

North Korea Rapidly Upgrading Nuclear Reactor Despite Summit - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-still-building-at-nuclear-research-facility-despite-summit-diplomacy-1530100351?mod=hp_lead_pos11)

[ChicagoX]

CBS News - National debt at highest level since after WWII (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-at-highest-level-since-after-wwii/)

[boozehound]

CBS News - National debt at highest level since after WWII (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-at-highest-level-since-after-wwii/)

Interesting article. Is Rand Paul the last fiscal conservative left? Like him or not, he is principled.

[ChicagoX]

Interesting article. Is Rand Paul the last fiscal conservative left? Like him or not, he is principled.

Most Republicans are only fiscally conservative when a Democrat is president. Anytime a Republican is president, taxes are slashed, spending is increased, and the debt and deficit explode. You won't find a reputable economist who says that slashing taxes during times of economic prosperity is good policy.

[GoMuskies]

The corporate tax slashing was long overdue. Our corporate tax rates were silly and uncompetitive. The tax changes related to individuals were welcome to me personally, but I think they were unnecessary.

[ChicagoX]

The corporate tax slashing was long overdue. Our corporate tax rates were silly and uncompetitive. The tax changes related to individuals were welcome to me personally, but I think they were unnecessary.

I agree with you for the most part, although I think the corporate tax could have gone to 28% like Obama proposed instead of the 21% that was passed last year. Most of the tax breaks have gone to stock buybacks, dividend increases and business investments, and very little of it has been used to increase salaries, give employee bonuses or hire more workers.

[Strange Brew]

Interesting article. Is Rand Paul the last fiscal conservative left? Like him or not, he is principled.

Yep, time to drastically cut spending. Trump was already warned House members he’ll veto the budget if it looks like the last one.

[X-man]

Most Republicans are only fiscally conservative when a Democrat is president. Anytime a Republican is president, taxes are slashed, spending is increased, and the debt and deficit explode. You won't find a reputable economist who says that slashing taxes during times of economic prosperity is good policy.

And of course the real irony here is that when Obama was President and proposing deficit increasing programs, the economy was in serious recession and therefore a coherent case could be made for such deficits. With the economy largely recovered, as it was last year when Republicans both cut taxes and increased spending, increased deficits make no sense.

[X-man]

Yep, time to drastically increase taxes. Trump was already warned House members he’ll veto the budget if it looks like the last one.

Fixed that for you.

[GoMuskies]

Well, that's a terrible idea.

[ChicagoX]

Well, that's a terrible idea.

If you can't increase some taxes during times of economic prosperity, then when can you do it?

[boozehound]

The corporate tax slashing was long overdue. Our corporate tax rates were silly and uncompetitive. The tax changes related to individuals were welcome to me personally, but I think they were unnecessary.

Generally agree.


I agree with you for the most part, although I think the corporate tax could have gone to 28% like Obama proposed instead of the 21% that was passed last year. Most of the tax breaks have gone to stock buybacks, dividend increases and business investments, and very little of it has been used to increase salaries, give employee bonuses or hire more workers.

Agree.


Yep, time to drastically cut spending. Trump was already warned House members he’ll veto the budget if it looks like the last one.

Generally agree, although I have no belief that Trump will actually drive any meaningful spending cuts. The problem with cutting spending is that the majority of discretionary spending goes to (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, and (3) Military. I don't see anyone driving the level of changes needed to any of those areas to drive material cost reduction, particularly not a populist like Trump. Populism 101 = spend, spend, spend.

[GoMuskies]

If you can't increase some taxes during times of economic prosperity, then when can you do it?

Never hopefully (when talking about drastic tax increases, which is the word used above). Why kill the prosperity?

[GoMuskies]

Generally agree, although I have no belief that Trump will actually drive any meaningful spending cuts. The problem with cutting spending is that the majority of discretionary spending goes to (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, and (3) Military. I don't see anyone driving the level of changes needed to any of those areas to drive material cost reduction, particularly not a populist like Trump. Populism 101 = spend, spend, spend.

The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.

On SS, in theory I like the idea of a "donut" on the payroll tax. You know, a hole in the middle where the payroll tax doesn't apply from like $125k to $250k then kicks back in. But I don't trust the government to stop there and know they'd eventually apply the payroll tax to 100% of W-2 income.

[X-man]

Never hopefully (when talking about drastic tax increases, which is the word used above). Why kill the prosperity?

Are you not worried about the size of the publically held debt relative to GDP, and how that could threaten not only prosperity but also hamstring the government's ability to do anything to mitigate the next recession or fight a war (the two ways that historically are the primary reason for debt-to-GDP increases)? While I am not in the camp that worries about government borrowing or wants a balanced budget, I do subscribe to Greg Mankiw's concerns about the latter issue. It seems important to always have room, when times are good, to increase that ratio to fight a war or help an economy recover from a recession.

[Caf]

The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.

Surprised to see this, and agreed. This seems to be a cut most Republicans wouldn't support though.

[GoMuskies]

Are you not worried about the size of the publically held debt relative to GDP, and how that could threaten not only prosperity but also hamstring the government's ability to do anything to mitigate the next recession or fight a war (the two ways that historically are the primary reason for debt-to-GDP increases)?

I prefer to grow total tax revenue through increases in taxable income as opposed to rate of taxation. And there is definitely some room for reining in the spending.

[GoMuskies]

This seems to be a cut most Republicans wouldn't support though.

Well, Republicans kinda suck.

[GoMuskies]

Justice Kennedy is retiring. NOW shit is getting real!

LOL

[boozehound]

The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.

On SS, in theory I like the idea of a "donut" on the payroll tax. You know, a hole in the middle where the payroll tax doesn't apply from like $125k to $250k then kicks back in. But I don't trust the government to stop there and know they'd eventually apply the payroll tax to 100% of W-2 income.

Absolutely. It'll never happen though.

Regarding SS: While I do really enjoy the part of the year where I'm done paying payroll taxes and get another 6% added to my income, I'd probably be willing to give that up to get the budget under control.

[GoMuskies]

Regarding SS: While I do really enjoy the part of the year where I'm done paying payroll taxes and get another 6% added to my income, I'd probably be willing to give that up to get the budget under control.

If you uncap the tax like that, you've got to uncap the benefits accordingly.

[bobbiemcgee]

The govt has already stolen 3 Trillion from the SS "Trust" fund, so maybe they should pay it back.

[GoMuskies]

No matter what they do, they're going to keep "stealing" from the SS fund by spending the money and giving the SS fund government debt. They don't put that money in a bank account for a rainy day.

[GoMuskies]

it's been more than 43 years since Roe v. Wade, and it will never, ever be overturned.

Bump. Would Roberts really be the 5th vote to uphold R v. W? Looks like we'll find out.

[noteggs]

No matter what they do, they're going to keep "stealing" from the SS fund by spending the money and giving the SS fund government debt. They don't put that money in a bank account for a rainy day.

Hmmm... you mean it’s not sitting in a lock box as promised?

[X-man]

No matter what they do, they're going to keep "stealing" from the SS fund by spending the money and giving the SS fund government debt. They don't put that money in a bank account for a rainy day.

By law, SS surpluses (like those they have been running for the last 25+ years until this year) must be invested in government securities. What has always annoyed me is the fact that the government treated these surpluses as part of a unified public budget (and therefore spendable rather than put aside, like the "lock box" analogy) but when the fund starts needing to tap those surpluses, Republicans (e.g. G W bush) argue that it's not part of a unified budget. The argument is therefore that SS must be self-funded but isn't entitled to any surpluses it might run to help the program fund itself.

[X-band '01]

Justice Kennedy is retiring. NOW shit is getting real!

LOL

I am going to go out on a limb and guess Merrick Garland is not on Trump's short list.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Trump could screw the poor and middle class and really minorities for the next 40 years with a far right Justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Trump could screw the poor and middle class and really minorities for the next 40 years with a far right Justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You forgot women and of course....the children
Lol, classic lefty reaction

[bjf123]

Trump could screw the poor and middle class and really minorities for the next 40 years with a far right Justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sure the Democrats will do everything they can to make sure no Trump nominee is confirmed before the November elections.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

I’m sure the Democrats will do everything they can to make sure no Trump nominee is confirmed before the November elections.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There’s nothing they can do. Mitch has already said there will be a vote in the fall.
It will be comical to watch the loons throw fits during the hearings knowing full well it’s a really futile and stupid gesture.

[STL_XUfan]

There’s nothing they can do. Mitch has already said there will be a vote in the fall.
It will be comical to watch the loons throw fits during the hearings knowing full well it’s a really futile and stupid gesture.
You can’t have hearings on a nominee during an election year. I am positive I have heard that somewhere.

[Strange Brew]

You can’t have hearings on a nominee during an election year. I am positive I have heard that somewhere.

Presidential election. See Kagan 2010 for reference. Haha. Winning!

[ArizonaXUGrad]

You forgot women and of course....the children
Lol, classic lefty reaction

Classic righty response, go ahead and list the MAGA things done that are great for the poor and middle class. Go...

Forum is yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Classic righty response, go ahead and list the MAGA things done that are great for the poor and middle class. Go...

Forum is yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unemployment under 4%. Tax cuts that increased paychecks (crumbs I know). The right to not pay money to a union to which you don’t wish to belong just b/c you work for the gov’t. And on, and on, and on...

I’m not sick of winning just quite yet.

[X-band '01]

I’m sure the Democrats will do everything they can to make sure no Trump nominee is confirmed before the November elections.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As it is right now, the GOP has a shaky 51-49 majority in the Senate with mostly Democratic seats up for grabs this election cycle. Democrats might be in worse shape if they end up losing a few seats in places like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana come November.

[noteggs]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/05/05/the-social-security-trust-fund-is-real-but-so-what/amp/

[GoMuskies]

As it is right now, the GOP has a shaky 51-49 majority in the Senate with mostly Democratic seats up for grabs this election cycle. Democrats might be in worse shape if they end up losing a few seats in places like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana come November.

None of that matters here other than the 51-49 part. The new SCOTUS justice will be confirmed before the fall elections.

[bobbiemcgee]

I doubt Mc Cain will be voting.

[Masterofreality]

Classic righty response, go ahead and list the MAGA things done that are great for the poor and middle class. Go...

Forum is yours.



Lowest Unemployment Rate for Black Folks ever.
That seems pretty important.

[xudash]

Lowest Unemployment Rate for Black Folks ever.
That seems pretty important.

Please don't use hard data. Al Sharpton will stroke out, if not seek another appearance on Boston Legal, which would be a neat trick at this time.

[bobbiemcgee]

Lowest Unemployment Rate for Black Folks ever.
That seems pretty important.

Maybe Trump will get more than 4% next time. 5?

[X-man]

I prefer to grow total tax revenue through increases in taxable income as opposed to rate of taxation. And there is definitely some room for reining in the spending.

Growing tax revenue only works to bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio if it causes the debt level to grow more slowly than GDP. The growth rate of the debt is simply the deficit divided by the debt. This in turn implies that the deficit must be less than the debt multiplied by the growth rate in GDP. Can that happen without an increase in tax rates? Sure, but it's not a slam dunk.

[Lloyd Braun]

Please don't use hard data. Al Sharpton will stroke out, if not seek another appearance on Boston Legal, which would be a neat trick at this time.

Here is the hard data for “black folks”:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

Clearly the trend in this graph started in January 2012. Giving Trump credit for not messing it up is hardly a win in a normal presidency.

[boozehound]

If you uncap the tax like that, you've got to uncap the benefits accordingly.

I mean, you don't have to.

I'm fully expecting not to receive SSI when I retire. It plays no role in my financial / retirement planning. I'm counting on it being means tested or something similar by that time, and I won't qualify. I don't necessarily like that - I'm footing the people for people who (in many cases) chose not to save adequately for retirement, but I'm not particularly up in arms about it either.

[Caf]

I doubt Mc Cain will be voting.

It's up to Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. I'd imagine they will insist on a judge who gives precedent high importance for Roe v Wade.

[GoMuskies]

I'm not sure how that would help re: Roe v. Wade given that Roe v. Wade was a bunch of made up nonsense by the court.

If he brings in another Gorsuch, he's getting confirmed.

[Caf]

I'm not sure how that would help re: Roe v. Wade given that Roe v. Wade was a bunch of made up nonsense by the court.

If he brings in another Gorsuch, he's getting confirmed.

GOP Sen. Collins says Roe v. Wade case is "settled law" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-sen-collins-says-roe-v-wade-case-is-settled-law/)

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law," she said. "It's clearly precedent. I always look for judges who respect precedent."

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Unemployment under 4%. Tax cuts that increased paychecks (crumbs I know). The right to not pay money to a union to which you don’t wish to belong just b/c you work for the gov’t. And on, and on, and on...

I’m not sick of winning just quite yet.

He inherited unemployment, tax cuts to the middle class were virtually nothing, unions aren’t all a bad thing since I like weekends and PTO and holidays. Again, where is the MAGA. Without the steady Obama train, Trump would have nothing to brag about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Here is the hard data for “black folks”:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

Clearly the trend in this graph started in January 2012. Giving Trump credit for not messing it up is hardly a win in a normal presidency.

This, and when I sit here a type this out I know far too many college educated people who are still underemployed and work two to three jobs.

Tax cuts that dramatically increase the wealth gap that will continually exacerbate this problem of poor and lower middle class working several jobs to get by isn’t MAGA for those groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

He inherited unemployment, tax cuts to the middle class were virtually nothing, unions aren’t all a bad thing since I like weekends and PTO and holidays. Again, where is the MAGA. Without the steady Obama train, Trump would have nothing to brag about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, because the UE rate has been stagnant under his watch (roll eyes). Oh, I saw projections of 4.5% GDP growth coming (super MAGA). Something we haven't seen in decades.

Also, MAGA = Gorsuch and one more before Nov!

[paulxu]

Without the steady Obama train, Trump would have nothing to brag about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true...well, unless you overlook grabbing them by their pussy.

[ChicagoX]

Has there ever been a president who sided with Russia or any other country hostile to the U.S. over our own intelligence agencies?

Trump cites Russia’s denial of meddling: ‘Where is the DNC Server?’ (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/394564-trump-cites-russias-denial-of-meddling-where-is-the-dnc-server)

[Masterofreality]

Here is the hard data for “black folks”:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

Clearly the trend in this graph started in January 2012. Giving Trump credit for not messing it up is hardly a win in a normal presidency.

Welp. Kept going down and along with a GDP growth that has increased that's a pretty good job. Yeah, Obummer wasn't exactly a friend to business. Trump's train keeps rolling 7.9% black unemployment to 5.9% in a year and a half. Keep denying the facts.

And, excuse me. What is the acceptable term now for "People of Color who are darker than most" ? I'm called "White" or Caucasian. Aren't "People of Color who are darker than most" classified as "Black' or Negroid? Oh. But "Negroid" is offensive.

I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Enlighten me oh Progressive one of unknown origin.

[Strange Brew]

He inherited unemployment, tax cuts to the middle class were virtually nothing, unions aren’t all a bad thing since I like weekends and PTO and holidays. Again, where is the MAGA. Without the steady Obama train, Trump would have nothing to brag about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank goodness the Rs took control of the House in 2010 and turned the economic tide by slowing Obama's agenda which lead to >10% UE after his first two years.

[Caf]

And, excuse me. What is the acceptable term now for "People of Color who are darker than most" ? I'm called "White" or Caucasian. Aren't "People of Color who are darker than most" classified as "Black' or Negroid? Oh. But "Negroid" is offensive.

I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Enlighten me oh Progressive one of unknown origin.

What's the point of this?

[Xville]

He inherited unemployment, tax cuts to the middle class were virtually nothing, unions aren’t all a bad thing since I like weekends and PTO and holidays. Again, where is the MAGA. Without the steady Obama train, Trump would have nothing to brag about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hysterical...I find it incredibly ironic when the left lamblasts CEOs for their "corporate greed" yet, think it's wonderful how corrupt union bosses are who dont give a flying flip about who they supposedly represent, but instead care about lining their own pockets.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Welp. Kept going down and along with a GDP growth that has increased that's a pretty good job. Yeah, Obummer wasn't exactly a friend to business. Trump's train keeps rolling 7.9% black unemployment to 5.9% in a year and a half. Keep denying the facts.

And, excuse me. What is the acceptable term now for "People of Color who are darker than most" ? I'm called "White" or Caucasian. Aren't "People of Color who are darker than most" classified as "Black' or Negroid? Oh. But "Negroid" is offensive.

I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Enlighten me oh Progressive one of unknown origin.

I think it will take yet another recession caused by a severe lack of spending power by the poor and middle class to show you there is a difference between unemployed and underemployed (toss in underpaid also). Underpinnings of a recession have been rearing their ugly heads.

Perfect example, teachers right here in Phoenix. College educated, full time job, they cannot afford a car, home, food, loan debt, etc with what they are paid. Even older teachers must have either roommates or second jobs. This kind of economy is not sustainable without a real increase to buying power of the poor and middle class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

Hysterical...I find it incredibly ironic when the left lamblasts CEOs for their "corporate greed" yet, think it's wonderful how corrupt union bosses are who dont give a flying flip about who they supposedly represent, but instead care about lining their own pockets.

Or when so called civil servants get elected into office and get rich as shit, i.e. the Clintons, Bernie, etc. Republican politicians do it too but when Bernie rants about corporate greed but owns like 3-4 houses, it comes off a bit stupid.

[bjf123]

GOP Sen. Collins says Roe v. Wade case is "settled law" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-sen-collins-says-roe-v-wade-case-is-settled-law/)

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law," she said. "It's clearly precedent. I always look for judges who respect precedent."

Like the Dred Scott ruling was settled law and precedent that should have been allowed to continue forever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Like the Dred Scott ruling was settled law and precedent that should have been allowed to continue forever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Get off Roe, literally the world is on the side of Roe. Even religious Europe is on this side. I have no issue going to the 22-24 week limit. That is where near all other countries are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Religious Europe?!? WTF? Europe is the least religious place on the planet.

[XU 87]

Get off Roe, literally the world is on the side of Roe. Even religious Europe is on this side. I have no issue going to the 22-24 week limit. That is where near all other countries are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a large difference between the people or their representatives voting to allow abortion (see Ireland) vs. some judges on a Supreme Court ruling that banning abortion is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision with virtually no legal support. The word "abortion" is not mentioned nor remotely discussed in the Constitution. A bunch of liberal justices who are pro-choice simply decided that abortion should be legal.

[ChicagoX]

There is a large difference between the people or their representatives voting to allow abortion (see Ireland) vs. some judges on a Supreme Court ruling that banning abortion is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision with virtually no legal support. The word "abortion" is not mentioned nor remotely discussed in the Constitution. A bunch of liberal justices who are pro-choice simply decided that abortion should be legal.

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it? Where in the Constitution does it say that? This is, by far, the most regressive administration I've seen in my lifetime.

[GoMuskies]

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it?

Of course not. Just perhaps, you know, the right not to be slaughtered. If I am mistaken in thinking pregnant women do not already have a right not to be slaughtered, I hope our legislators and courts change that post haste.

[ChicagoX]

Of course not. Just perhaps, you know, the right not to be slaughtered. If I am mistaken in thinking pregnant women do not already have a right not to be slaughtered, I hope our legislators and courts change that post haste.

By doing away with abortion rights, you are giving the fetus more rights than the woman carrying it. Only a bunch of religiously brainwashed old men could impose these type of regressive laws on women. Religious fundamentalism has no place in a free society. Republicans should consider spending more time worrying about people who have actually been born, particularly since they don't seem to care too much for people past the second trimester.

[X-man]

Thank goodness the Rs took control of the House in 2010 and turned the economic tide by slowing Obama's agenda which lead to >10% UE after his first two years.

On what basis do you make this claim? Most objective analysts would argue that if anything, the Republicans prevented the Obama administration from doing what would have sped up the recovery when they limited his fiscal policy options in the name of deficit control (remember the Republicans used to worry about deficits when Obama was President; under Trump...not so much).

[XU 87]

Seriously, it's 2018. Are we really going to have laws that say that a fetus has more rights than the woman carrying it? Where in the Constitution does it say that? This is, by far, the most regressive administration I've seen in my lifetime.

It doesn't matter what year it is. The Constitution either says or it doesn't. If the Constitution doesn't address an issue, then that issue is left to the voters or their elected representatives to decide. That's the way our system of government is supposed to work. Because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, it should be decided by the voters, not by 5 judges.

Your argument above about "who has more rights" is not a Constitutionally based legal argument.

[GoMuskies]

By doing away with abortion rights, you are giving the fetus more rights than the woman carrying it.

You're really not unless it's okay to kill women. And shame on you for wanting to allow all those girl fetuses to be killed. Very misogynistic.

[XU 87]

By doing away with abortion rights, you are giving the fetus more rights than the woman carrying it. Only a bunch of religiously brainwashed old men could impose these type of regressive laws on women. Religious fundamentalism has no place in a free society.

And what do you call the women who are anti-abortion?

Seriously, make an argument. Just personally attacking people and calling them stupid if they don't agree with you is not a good argument.

[ChicagoX]

It doesn't matter what year it is. The Constitution either says or it doesn't. If the Constitution doesn't address an issue, then that issue is left to the voters or their elected representatives to decide. That's the way our system of government is supposed to work. Because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, it should be decided by the voters, not by 5 judges.

Your argument above about "who has more rights" is not a Constitutionally based legal argument.

The fact that we actually have to have a conversation as to whether a woman has more rights than her fetus goes to show how much religious fundamentalism has slowed social progress.

[ChicagoX]

You're really not unless it's okay to kill women. And shame on you for wanting to allow all those girl fetuses to be killed. Very misogynistic.

Oh, for f*ck's sake, I don't want all of the fetuses to be killed, I just don't think it's my business or anyone else's for that matter.

[GoMuskies]

Oh, for f*ck's sake, I don't want all of the fetuses to be killed, I just don't think it's my business or anyone else's for that matter.

I didn't say you wanted them to be killed. Just that you want them to be allowed to be killed. And we simply disagree on whose business it is.

[ChicagoX]

And what do you call the women who are anti-abortion?

Seriously, make an argument. Just personally attacking people and calling them stupid if they don't agree with you is not a good argument.

Where did I call anyone stupid? I think I've made valid arguments that not giving fetuses more rights than the woman carrying them is a pretty sound argument. Seriously, how does abortion have a negative affect on your life? You wish to impose laws on women you don't know and force them to go through with a pregnancy they don't want. What kind of medieval, religious crap is that?

[GoMuskies]

But the fetuses aren't getting more rights. And infanticide and cruelty to animals don't affect me, either, but I still want those to be illegal.

[ChicagoX]

But the fetuses aren't getting more rights. And infanticide and cruelty to animals don't affect me, either, but I still want those to be illegal.

By forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, you are absolutely giving the fetus more rights by denying the woman the right to make her own choices about a pregnancy happening in her own body. This type of religious fundamentalism is a pox on humanity.

[XU 87]

On what basis do you make this claim? Most objective analysts would argue that if anything, the Republicans prevented the Obama administration from doing what would have sped up the recovery when they limited his fiscal policy options in the name of deficit control


As for your use of the words "objective analysts"- HAHAHAHA. I think you meant to use the words "liberal analysts".

[GoMuskies]

By forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, you are absolutely giving the fetus more rights by denying the woman the right to make her own choices about a pregnancy happening in her own body.

You keep saying this. Doesn't make it more true, thougn.