Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

There has been lots of proposed legislation written to address these issues over the past 30 years. The problem is that there are fundamental policy differences between the two parties that make that an exercise in futility -- writing legislation that has no chance of even getting out of committee because Nancy or Mitch don't like it, or the President has already promised he will veto it, is a waste of time.  That leaves the option of trying to nibble around the edges and figure out which hole in the dike to put a pinkie in. 

It think the idea that DACA plays a significant role here is dubious.  DACA was initally implemented back in 2012.  There was an uptick in border apprehension rates after 2012, but it was comparatively modest. The "crisis" level numbers (i.e., consistent  historical monthly highs not seen for decades) have come since mid-2017, which is post-Trump's scale back of DACA. 

As I have noted before, I tend to believe that obvious, simple explanations are usually the correct ones. The current "crisis" is due to a massive increase in asylum seekers and migrants from the three Northern Triangle countries. Political conditions in those countries have deteriorated significantly in the last couple of years. (Read about the situation in Guatemala, post it's 2016-17 elections, including the rollback of a previously-successful, internationally-supported program to fight government corruption.)

The deterioration of civil institutions in those countries has led to murder and violent crime rates there that rival levels of violence in countries at war. And as we have seen with Syria, etc., families flee from those levels of violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

There has been lots of proposed legislation written to address these issues over the past 30 years. The problem is that there are fundamental policy differences between the two parties that make that an exercise in futility -- writing legislation that has no chance of even getting out of committee because Nancy or Mitch don't like it, or the President has already promised he will veto it, is a waste of time.  That leaves the option of trying to nibble around the edges and figure out which hole in the dike to put a pinkie in. 

It think the idea that DACA plays a significant role here is dubious.  DACA was initally implemented back in 2012.  There was an uptick in border apprehension rates after 2012, but it was comparatively modest. The "crisis" level numbers (i.e., consistent  historical monthly highs not seen for decades) have come since mid-2017, which is post-Trump's scale back of DACA. 

As I have noted before, I tend to believe that obvious, simple explanations are usually the correct ones. The current "crisis" is due to a massive increase in asylum seekers and migrants from the three Northern Triangle countries. Political conditions in those countries have deteriorated significantly in the last couple of years. (Read about the situation in Guatemala, post it's 2016-17 elections, including the rollback of a previously-successful, internationally-supported program to fight government corruption.)

The deterioration of civil institutions in those countries has led to murder and violent crime rates there that rival levels of violence in countries at war. And as we have seen with Syria, etc., families flee from those levels of violence. 

Clinton had two years of D control and nothing. Bush had two years of R control and nothing, in fact he took a pass twice when it could have been addressed. BHO had two years of D control and nothing. Trump had two years of R control and nothing. You can wax on ever so eloquently, but the bottom line is NEITHER PARTY  has any interest in dealing with this issue. Both see it as a political chip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

There has been lots of proposed legislation written to address these issues over the past 30 years. The problem is that there are fundamental policy differences between the two parties that make that an exercise in futility -- writing legislation that has no chance of even getting out of committee because Nancy or Mitch don't like it, or the President has already promised he will veto it, is a waste of time.  That leaves the option of trying to nibble around the edges and figure out which hole in the dike to put a pinkie in. 

It think the idea that DACA plays a significant role here is dubious.  DACA was initally implemented back in 2012.  There was an uptick in border apprehension rates after 2012, but it was comparatively modest. The "crisis" level numbers (i.e., consistent  historical monthly highs not seen for decades) have come since mid-2017, which is post-Trump's scale back of DACA. 

As I have noted before, I tend to believe that obvious, simple explanations are usually the correct ones. The current "crisis" is due to a massive increase in asylum seekers and migrants from the three Northern Triangle countries. Political conditions in those countries have deteriorated significantly in the last couple of years. (Read about the situation in Guatemala, post it's 2016-17 elections, including the rollback of a previously-successful, internationally-supported program to fight government corruption.)

The deterioration of civil institutions in those countries has led to murder and violent crime rates there that rival levels of violence in countries at war. And as we have seen with Syria, etc., families flee from those levels of violence. 

OK - Again - come to the front door, knock and wait in line.......Sorry for your luck in coming when the rush is on......

Mexico is finally doing more to help ease the tensions on their side of the border, but this takes a lot of time to get this done.  The US didn't tell you to swim across the river to get here......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

OK - Again - come to the front door, knock and wait in line.......Sorry for your luck in coming when the rush is on......

Mexico is finally doing more to help ease the tensions on their side of the border, but this takes a lot of time to get this done.  The US didn't tell you to swim across the river to get here......

Maybe I misunderstood your original post, but I thought you were suggesting (based on the one example of the guy who drowned with his daughter) that the increased numbers of folks coming to the border from the Northern Triangle countries are not mostly legitimate refugees, fleeing violence, but are instead folks trying to immigrate here for economic reasons.  Obviously, if people are legitimate refugees, our laws (and international law under treaties we have signed) require that they be treated differently -- stand in a different line -- than immigrants motivated solely by economics. 

Whether we keep them on our side of the border or the Mexican side while we consider their asylum claims, we are cutting our own nose off to spite our face when we pullback on foreign aid to those countries, which could be used to improve the conditions there that have, in the last two years, caused so many more people to flee from them to the U.S.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Maybe I misunderstood your original post, but I thought you were suggesting (based on the one example of the guy who drowned with his daughter) that the increased numbers of folks coming to the border from the Northern Triangle countries are not mostly legitimate refugees, fleeing violence, but are instead folks trying to immigrate here for economic reasons.  Obviously, if people are legitimate refugees, our laws (and international law under treaties we have signed) require that they be treated differently -- stand in a different line -- than immigrants motivated solely by economics. 

Whether we keep them on our side of the border or the Mexican side while we consider their asylum claims, we are cutting our own nose off to spite our face when we pullback on foreign aid to those countries, which could be used to improve the conditions there that have, in the last two years, caused so many more people to flee from them to the U.S.  

Bernie has it covered. Not only is he going to solve all of our problems, he's going to fix central America's problems as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Clinton had two years of D control and nothing. Bush had two years of R control and nothing, in fact he took a pass twice when it could have been addressed. BHO had two years of D control and nothing. Trump had two years of R control and nothing. You can wax on ever so eloquently, but the bottom line is NEITHER PARTY  has any interest in dealing with this issue. Both see it as a political chip. 

Your original comment was specifically addressed to current members of Congress,  so I was responding to what the current situation is. 

Historically, the policy differences that continue to skewer immigration reform today were more intra-party policy differences, so having even a veto proof majority in both houses didn't matter in terms of the ability to actually get something passed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Your original comment was specifically addressed to current members of Congress,  so I was responding to what the current situation is. 

Historically, the policy differences that continue to skewer immigration reform today were more intra-party policy differences, so having even a veto proof majority in both houses didn't matter in terms of the ability to actually get something passed.

 

More to my point, NO one has any interest in dealing with it. Past, present, or future. 20 years from now this conversation will still be going. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

More to my point, NO one has any interest in dealing with it. Past, present, or future. 20 years from now this conversation will still be going. 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think there are lots of people in politics who are interested in fixing this problem, but just like you see in this forum, they have deep disagreements about what is the "right" way to do that.  And as you also see from the discussions on this topic in this forum, those disagreements are often based on people's  feelings about gut level stuff like "fairness" or "following the rules", so it is very hard to change minds or to get people to compromise (because who would compromise on "fairness"?) 

So just like on this forum, the arguments go round and round and get pretty  passionate sometimes, but no faction has the ability to impose its position on the other factions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think there are lots of people in politics who are interested in fixing this problem, but just like you see in this forum, they have deep disagreements about what is the "right" way to do that.  And as you also see from the discussions on this topic in this forum, those disagreements are often based on people's  feelings about gut level stuff like "fairness" or "following the rules", so it is very hard to change minds or to get people to compromise (because who would compromise on "fairness"?) 

So just like on this forum, the arguments go round and round and get pretty  passionate sometimes, but no faction has the ability to impose its position on the other factions.

I agree there are some genuine folks, but they are the exception rather than the rule. And honestly I don't know how anyone who's in Washington for any length of time doesn't become corrupt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

Maybe I misunderstood your original post, but I thought you were suggesting (based on the one example of the guy who drowned with his daughter) that the increased numbers of folks coming to the border from the Northern Triangle countries are not mostly legitimate refugees, fleeing violence, but are instead folks trying to immigrate here for economic reasons.  Obviously, if people are legitimate refugees, our laws (and international law under treaties we have signed) require that they be treated differently -- stand in a different line -- than immigrants motivated solely by economics. 

Whether we keep them on our side of the border or the Mexican side while we consider their asylum claims, we are cutting our own nose off to spite our face when we pullback on foreign aid to those countries, which could be used to improve the conditions there that have, in the last two years, caused so many more people to flee from them to the U.S.  

You were right W, I was asserting that opinion.  But I'm sure you will agree there are so many that are now coming across the border illegally or legally that are using the asylum reason as a way to gain entry then disappear into the country.  (Again - IMHO)  AND - if a migrant crosses the border illegally - Deport them...

The second point of your post I can empathize with, but how long do you continue foreign aid to those countries when that aid isn't reaching the intended targets.  Yes, aid COULD be used to improve the conditions, but who is going to do what is needed to be done to actually improve the conditions?

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2019 at 8:31 AM, gonzoron said:

Only a small disclaimer at the bottom of the site reveals its purpose as a form of "entertainment and political commentary."

"It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC," the disclaimer reads. "It is a project BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens. Self-Funded."

"It's very telling that The New York Times calls quoting Joe Biden 'disinformation,'" he said. "All quotes, policy positions, and GIFs in the site are 100 percent real and are sourced from reputable sources."

Didn't know it existed......Thanks for the head's up.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

Once again, the internets do not fail. Check this hashtag out on twitter.

#RevolutionaryWarAirportStories

I choose not to have a twitter account.  Never understood the need or usefulness of it, frankly.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I choose not to have a twitter account.  Never understood the need or usefulness of it, frankly.

 

It's a good resource for sports fans. Especially during Indiana High School Football season, which is the reason I joined. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It's a good resource for sports fans. Especially during Indiana High School Football season, which is the reason I joined. 

I'm not so egotistical to think anyone would care what I have to say about anything. But frankly when I was coaching, it's a GREAT tool to get information to a lot of people. Rainouts, cancellations, postponements, etc., I texted the team, then posted on Twitter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Administration Threatens Veto Over Defense Bill That Only Spends $733 Billion: https://reason.com/2019/07/10/trump-administration-threatens-veto-over-defense-bill-that-only-spends-733-billion/

Quote

President Donald Trump is threatening to veto a massive defense spending increase for not being quite spendy enough.

On Tuesday, the White House issued a policy statement regarding House Democrats' 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets defense spending levels for the coming fiscal year. Democrats in the House are proposing a $733 billion defense budget, an increase of $17 billion over last year's NDAA.

That spending boost is nevertheless $17 billion shy of what the Trump administration is requesting. Anything less than $750 billion, the administration argues, will leave America's military unprepared for the security challenges it faces.

"The level of funding that would be authorized by the bill," reads Tuesday's policy statement "would not fully support critical national security priorities." If the bill "were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he veto it," it adds.

....

This back and forth between the White House and House Democrats obscures just how marginal the debate over this latest defense spending bill really is. Regardless of whether we settle on a $733 billion or a $750 billion NDAA, we will still be spending far too much on a bloated and overextended military that is tasked with doing much more than just protecting the U.S. homeland.

"It's absurd that the U.S. thinks the only way we can be secure is if we spend $750 billion or $733 billion," the Cato Institute's Christopher Preble, a defense policy scholar, told Reason back in June when was first surfacing. "The problem is we have defined our grand strategy very broad so that the only way we can be secure is if the whole planet is secure."

The United States of America cannot be the world's cop.  We cannot afford it.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...