Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Pettifogger]

I think we've managed much better than that. It's not the DMZ or even in the same balllpark of a border. The people there are our friends ffs. They are not an enemy...yet.



Support this with indisputable facts please. Regardless of your answer it doesn't change the fact that a wall is a massive waste of money. The only point you've made that supports a wall is it's not something easily reversed. I agree. A complete waste of tax payers money wasted.



How is our relationship with Mexico complicated? We are deeply in bed with each other in so many ways. Why in the hell would you think it's a good thing to [Poor language removed] Mexico? Do you want an enemy on the Southern Border or do you want a friend?

Furthermore regarding your terrorism *whew we've swerved that with Mexico point...guess you have forgotten about the terrorist that was caught right here in Washington State after crossing the Canadian border. The fella headed to LAX.

The people there are our friends? That's the summary of the US-Mexico border? Look, I'm not demonizing Mexicans or saying I particularly prefer to have a physical barrier between "them" and "us." But the fact remains that Juarez, Matamoros, TJ, etc. have major violent crime issues which threaten to, and sometimes do, bleed over into the United States. Mexican law enforcement and the federal police are frequently in bed with the cartels. The Gulf Cartel is HQd about 2.5 miles from Brownsville, TX. Of course, that doesn't mean too much when the various cartels have presence in cities throughout the United States.

So no, I don't agree with your assessment of our border. I've been to all three of the border cities mentioned, and all have travel advisories warning against visits by the US State Department. The 2017 DEA report warns that the situation in El Paso, which surprisingly has generally not been consumed by cartel violence from Juarez, is worsening.

And yes, because of this, our relationship with Mexico is complicated. If we encourage Mexico to go back to war with the cartels, people die. We want the tide of human trafficking and drugs stopped, but Mexico doesn't want war in its cities like we saw in 2011. And the US doesn't want duffle bags of heads on courthouse door steps in San Diego.

This will probably lead to a discussion of US drug policy and how the US keeps the cartels in business, and that is true. But the concept that that there aren't literal war zones along the US border with Mexico is patently untrue.

As for how immigrants breach the border, I'd love to know. But considerable portions of our border are unmonitored, and we gauge the flow of illegal immigration using mathematical formulas. Anyway, if I were on your side of this discussion, I think the estimates that crossing have dropped to about 1/10th of what they were in the early 00s would be a far more useful argument.

 

[Pettifogger]

We'll do DACA if...

Hearing this a lot from Republicans lately.

It's revoltingly cynical. ~80% of the US public believes that Dreamers should get citizenship, including ~64% of Republican voters... To mention nothing of it just being the morally right thing to do.

But in spite of that the craven ***holes in power in their party use it as a hostage situation.

I don't think there is anything morally wrong about wanting to do DACA in a way that lessens the chance of future DACA scenarios from arising.

Over 60 percent of Americans think our border security in inadequate. A majority favors increased border security even if that means a barrier. Almost 70% favor the end of the lottery, and almost 80% favor merit-based immigration. So it sounds to me like this kind of deal on DACA is exactly what America wants.

 

[Pettifogger]

Assuming that parties largely want to get elected, why would any support people who can't vote for them? Surely from any rational sense you have to conclude that it's because they believe, or they think their supporters believe, that treating people with respect is a decent thing to do.

Because we're on the verge of granting citizenship or a pathway to citizenship for approaching a million people? Because a lot of Hispanic citizens are probably inclined to support the party that makes that happen?

Do you guys give this much benefit of the doubt to Republicans' motives in policy selection? I highly doubt it.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Where on earth do they dig them up from?

Republican U.S. Senate candidate for Missouri Courtland Sykes blasted “women’s rights” this week. In a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday, Sykes said that he had been asked if he “supports women’s rights.”

“I want to come home to a home cooked dinner every night at six,” Sykes said, referring to demands he makes of his girlfriend. “One that she fixes and one that I expect one day to have daughters learn to fix after they become traditional homemakers and family wives.” According to Sykes, feminists push an agenda that they “made up to suit their own nasty snake-filled heads.”

The candidate said that he hoped his daughters do not grow up to be “career obsessed banshees who forgo home life and children and the happiness of family to become nail-biting manophobic hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the top of a thousand tall buildings they are [SIC] think they could have leaped in a single bound — had men not been ‘suppressing them.’ It’s just nuts.”

Sykes ended his rant by insisting that he supports women’s rights “but not the kind that has suppressed natural womanhood for five long decades.” “But good news,” he concluded. “They’re finished. Ask Hillary.”

 

[ilikecheese]

The people there are our friends? That's the summary of the US-Mexico border? Look, I'm not demonizing Mexicans or saying I particularly prefer to have a physical barrier between "them" and "us." But the fact remains that Juarez, Matamoros, TJ, etc. have major violent crime issues which threaten to, and sometimes do, bleed over into the United States. Mexican law enforcement and the federal police are frequently in bed with the cartels. The Gulf Cartel is HQd about 2.5 miles from Brownsville, TX. Of course, that doesn't mean too much when the various cartels have presence in cities throughout the United States.

So no, I don't agree with your assessment of our border. I've been to all three of the border cities mentioned, and all have travel advisories warning against visits by the US State Department. The 2017 DEA report warns that the situation in El Paso, which surprisingly has generally not been consumed by cartel violence from Juarez, is worsening.

And yes, because of this, our relationship with Mexico is complicated. If we encourage Mexico to go back to war with the cartels, people die. We want the tide of human trafficking and drugs stopped, but Mexico doesn't want war in its cities like we saw in 2011. And the US doesn't want duffle bags of heads on courthouse door steps in San Diego.

This will probably lead to a discussion of US drug policy and how the US keeps the cartels in business, and that is true. But the concept that that there aren't literal war zones along the US border with Mexico is patently untrue.

As for how immigrants breach the border, I'd love to know. But considerable portions of our border are unmonitored, and we gauge the flow of illegal immigration using mathematical formulas. Anyway, if I were on your side of this discussion, I think the estimates that crossing have dropped to about 1/10th of what they were in the early 00s would be a far more useful argument.

Look I'm not demonizing Mexicans, but here are a lot of words demonizing Mexicans.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Because we're on the verge of granting citizenship or a pathway to citizenship for approaching a million people? Because a lot of Hispanic citizens are probably inclined to support the party that makes that happen?

Do you guys give this much benefit of the doubt to Republicans' motives in policy selection? I highly doubt it.

I'm by and large liberal in my outlook tbh so think any restrictions on where we live are daft. It's not any of the government's business.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I don't think there is anything morally wrong about wanting to do DACA in a way that lessens the chance of future DACA scenarios from arising.

Over 60 percent of Americans think our border security in inadequate. A majority favors increased border security even if that means a barrier. Almost 70% favor the end of the lottery, and almost 80% favor merit-based immigration. So it sounds to me like this kind of deal on DACA is exactly what America wants.

There is no requirement to use the lives of a few hundred thousand people as a political wedge to get other stuff you want? Whether or not these people who are currently in the country (the only country they've ever known) are allowed to stay does not have to be dealt with in the same bill that tightens borders, builds a fairly useless, exceptionally expensive wall or whatever else.

It certainly doesn't have to be tied to whether kids get health insurance, which is the last card the GOP tried to play.

 

[Pettifogger]

Look I'm not demonizing Mexicans, but here are a lot of words demonizing Mexicans.

A dishonest and intellectually inept response from someone ill prepared to discuss the topic.

 

[Pettifogger]

I'm by and large liberal in my outlook tbh so think any restrictions on where we live are daft. It's not any of the government's business.

That helps to clarify things. But the huge majority of Americans, including Democrats in the US, are against open borders. So we probably don't have anywhere to go on this subject.

 

[tsubaki]

The people there are our friends? That's the summary of the US-Mexico border? Look, I'm not demonizing Mexicans or saying I particularly prefer to have a physical barrier between "them" and "us." But the fact remains that Juarez, Matamoros, TJ, etc. have major violent crime issues which threaten to, and sometimes do, bleed over into the United States. Mexican law enforcement and the federal police are frequently in bed with the cartels. The Gulf Cartel is HQd about 2.5 miles from Brownsville, TX. Of course, that doesn't mean too much when the various cartels have presence in cities throughout the United States.

So no, I don't agree with your assessment of our border. I've been to all three of the border cities mentioned, and all have travel advisories warning against visits by the US State Department. The 2017 DEA report warns that the situation in El Paso, which surprisingly has generally not been consumed by cartel violence from Juarez, is worsening.

And yes, because of this, our relationship with Mexico is complicated. If we encourage Mexico to go back to war with the cartels, people die. We want the tide of human trafficking and drugs stopped, but Mexico doesn't want war in its cities like we saw in 2011. And the US doesn't want duffle bags of heads on courthouse door steps in San Diego.

This will probably lead to a discussion of US drug policy and how the US keeps the cartels in business, and that is true. But the concept that that there aren't literal war zones along the US border with Mexico is patently untrue.

As for how immigrants breach the border, I'd love to know. But considerable portions of our border are unmonitored, and we gauge the flow of illegal immigration using mathematical formulas. Anyway, if I were on your side of this discussion, I think the estimates that crossing have dropped to about 1/10th of what they were in the early 00s would be a far more useful argument.

The point this spectacularly misses is that the border cities and states have such problems because they are border states with the US - the struggle over control of drugs, "fun" for the gringos and immigration routes (and the money on offer for those who control those things) guarantees violence whenever it looks like they are up for grabs.

If the US looked at what its policies - especially around drugs - were actually doing, Mexico would be a safer place in a matter of weeks.

 

[Pettifogger]

There is no requirement to use the lives of a few hundred thousand people as a political wedge to get other stuff you want? Whether or not these people who are currently in the country (the only country they've ever known) are allowed to stay does not have to be dealt with in the same bill that tightens borders, builds a fairly useless, exceptionally expensive wall or whatever else.

It certainly doesn't have to be tied to whether kids get health insurance, which is the last card the GOP tried to play.

Be realistic. Democrats don't want to give Trump anything, and they're probably not excited about border control measures in the first place. America has no legitimate obligation to grant a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally. Most Americans, however, want that to happen. Most Americans also want to avoid this situation in the future.

It doesn't seem at all possible to do DACA, and then just *hope* Democrats will be nice and work on border security with Trump. It didn't happen when it was promised to Reagan in the 80s, why would we take that chance again?

And the CHIP argument is false. The GOP already proposed continued funding for CHIP prior to the shutdown debate, and both Senate and House Republican majorities had already expressed favor for a reauthorization. CHIP was never legitimately at risk.

 

[Pettifogger]

The point this spectacularly misses is that the border cities and states have such problems because they are border states with the US - the struggle over control of drugs, "fun" for the gringos and immigration routes (and the money on offer for those who control those things) guarantees violence whenever it looks like they are up for grabs.

If the US looked at what its policies - especially around drugs - were actually doing, Mexico would be a safer place in a matter of weeks.

I don't see how my point "spectacularly missed" your point considering it is stated in my post.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That helps to clarify things. But the huge majority of Americans, including Democrats in the US, are against open borders. So we probably don't have anywhere to go on this subject.

Misinformation will do that.

 

[tsubaki]

I don't see how my point "spectacularly missed" your point considering it is stated in my post.

You said the discussion would "lead to a discussion of US drug policy and how the US keeps the cartels in business", which is sort of like saying Chicago in the 1920s was a dangerous place but that we might be able to mention the Mob and prohibition further down the line.

 

[Pettifogger]

Misinformation will do that.

Well that's a rather self-serving way to look at it, but alright.