[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-07, 15:49, said:

Reduction in illegal alien entries of 70%

I have seen this here twice now and am surprised that noone else has pointed out that it is simply wrong. By most accounts there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a figure that has been more or less static since the end of the depression. From everything I have seen, there are still around 11 million illegal immigrants. How is this possible if illegal entries are down 70%?

Well the answer is of course that they are not. Whenever a politician gives you a figure of this nature you should demand to see the source data. It turns out that in this case Trump is using only the data from the south western border with Mexico and not any sort of representation of illegal immigration as a whole. Moreover, he uses as his base statistic a period containing a massive spike, probably caused in part by the election, specifically his own rhetoric during the campaign.

Now there has certainly been a reduction in attempted border crossings in this region. That is part of a long-term trend of declining numbers since 2000 and it is at the moment unclear whether the cause of the most recent changes is Trump rhetoric or if this is the calm after the end of 2016 rush. The figures for July (a 15% rise) suggest it might be the latter but it is currently too early to say. What almost all experts do agree on is that the changes have little, if anything, to do with White House policies. Finally, the biggest effect (outside of the US economy going through the floor) is most likely to come in the form of the violence in the Northern Triangle. If the numbers of refugees picks back up to the levels seen in the past then attempted border crossings will likely rise again irrespective of anything that might be done on the US side of the fence/wall.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-08, 18:05, said:

I have seen this here twice now and am surprised that noone else has pointed out that it is simply wrong. By most accounts there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a figure that has been more or less static since the end of the depression. From everything I have seen, there are still around 11 million illegal immigrants. How is this possible if illegal entries are down 70%?

Well the answer is of course that they are not. Whenever a politician gives you a figure of this nature you should demand to see the source data. It turns out that in this case Trump is using only the data from the south western border with Mexico and not any sort of representation of illegal immigration as a whole. Moreover, he uses as his base statistic a period containing a massive spike, probably caused in part by the election, specifically his own rhetoric during the campaign.

Now there has certainly been a reduction in attempted border crossings in this region. That is part of a long-term trend of declining numbers since 2000 and it is at the moment unclear whether the cause of the most recent changes is Trump rhetoric or if this is the calm after the end of 2016 rush. The figures for July (a 15% rise) suggest it might be the latter but it is currently too early to say. What almost all experts do agree on is that the changes have little, if anything, to do with White House policies. Finally, the biggest effect (outside of the US economy going through the floor) is most likely to come in the form of the violence in the Northern Triangle. If the numbers of refugees picks back up to the levels seen in the past then attempted border crossings will likely rise again irrespective of anything that might be done on the US side of the fence/wall.

http://www.washingto...er-down-70-pct/

Are you saying that the Washington Times story is incorrect?

The statement was that "illegal immigration" was down by 70%. Not that the existing population of illegal immigrants was down by 70%. But the rate of influx was down by 70%. Does that help with your confusion?

[mike777]

any one notice North korea may nuke us?

sadly I posted this issue years ago here in the forums

wait for it... the issue will become how this is all the idiot trump fault or the evil republican fault becomes the meme

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-August-08, 22:18, said:

any one notice North korea may nuke us?

sadly I posted this issue years ago here in the forums

wait for it... the issue will become how this is all the idiot trump fault or the evil republican fault becomes the meme

I won't lay blame - other than on the guy leading North Korea. At the same time, I would strongly prefer someone else had his hands on the nuclear codes right now.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-08, 23:18, said:

I won't lay blame - other than on the guy leading North Korea. At the same time, I would strongly prefer someone else had his hands on the nuclear codes right now.

ok you don't blame trump...you don't blame republicans...noted for the record

I do note you wish for a fantasy...yet

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-08, 18:05, said:

What almost all experts do agree on is that the changes have little, if anything, to do with White House policies.

Incoming administrations love to take credit for results that occur during their term, even if they were caused by policies initiated during the previous term (or even earlier).

ALthough considering the number of Obama policies Trump has been reversing, maybe we should consider anything that continues in the correct direction to be an achievement of the Trump administration.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-August-08, 23:43, said:

ok you don't blame trump...you don't blame republicans...noted for the record

I do note you wish for a fantasy...yet

Mike777: "strong preference for = wish for fantasy".

I disagree.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-08, 19:33, said:

Are you saying that the Washington Times story is incorrect?

Yes, the story is economical with the truth in several areas as can be seen at factcheck and several other sources that point out the flaws in the headline statements, particularly when extended to illegal immigration in general such as was claimed here.

It is worth remembering that crossing the Mexican border is not even been the most common form of undocumented entry into the USA. Overstaying visas has been at the top for the last decade. Before making any sort of claim about the general figures for unauthorised entry, this category needs to be included in the figures; and that is simply not the case for these numbers.

[Winstonm]

Here are the ideas of a conservative with whom I can find much agreement: Andrew Bacevich.

Quote

My own prescription for how to act upon that statement of purpose is unlikely to find favor with most readers of TomDispatch. But therein lies the basis for an interesting debate, one that is essential to prospects for stemming the accelerating decay of American civic life.

Initiating such a debate, and so bringing into focus core issues, will remain next to impossible, however, without first clearing away the accumulated debris of the post-Cold-War era. Preliminary steps in that direction, listed in no particular order, ought to include the following:

First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American politics.

Second, rollback gerrymandering. Doing so will help restore competitive elections and make incumbency more tenuous.

Third, limit the impact of corporate money on elections at all levels, if need be by amending the Constitution.

Fourth, mandate a balanced federal budget, thereby demolishing the pretense that Americans need not choose between guns and butter.

Fifth, implement a program of national service, thereby eliminating the All-Volunteer military and restoring the tradition of the citizen-soldier. Doing so will help close the gap between the military and society and enrich the prevailing conception of citizenship. It might even encourage members of Congress to think twice before signing off on wars that the commander-in-chief wants to fight.

Sixth, enact tax policies that will promote greater income equality.

Seventh, increase public funding for public higher education, thereby ensuring that college remains an option for those who are not well-to-do.

Eighth, beyond mere “job” creation, attend to the growing challenges of providing meaningful work—employment that is both rewarding and reasonably remunerative—for those without advanced STEM degrees.

Ninth, end the thumb-twiddling on climate change and start treating it as the first-order national security priority that it is.

Tenth, absent evident progress on the above, create a new party system, breaking the current duopoly in which Republicans and Democrats tacitly collaborate to dictate the policy agenda and restrict the range of policy options deemed permissible.

These are not particularly original proposals and I do not offer them as a panacea. They may, however, represent preliminary steps toward devising some new paradigm to replace a post-Cold-War consensus that, in promoting transnational corporate greed, mistaking libertinism for liberty, and embracing militarized neo-imperialism as the essence of statecraft, has paved the way for the presidency of Donald Trump.

We can and must do better. But doing so will require that we come up with better and truer ideas to serve as a foundation for American politics.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2017-August-08, 09:41, said:

Don't forget health care. Whether you like Obamacare or not, it happened and was very significant.

One big thing he kept promising but didn't accomplish was closing Guantanamo.

Correct on both counts. Being eternal optimists is what allows us to vote for these turkeys... but Obamacare was his brightest light.

[y66]

mike777, on 2017-August-08, 22:18, said:

any one notice North korea may nuke us?

sadly I posted this issue years ago here in the forums

wait for it... the issue will become how this is all the idiot trump fault or the evil republican fault becomes the meme

The issue is real as you foresaw. I prefer Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' less colorful written statement to Trump's rhetoric. Mattis said North Korea risked “the end of its regime and the destruction of its people” if it did not stand down from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Same message minus the gratuitous saber-rattling.

[mike777]

y66, on 2017-August-09, 16:56, said:

The issue is real as you foresaw. I prefer Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' less colorful written statement to Trump's rhetoric. Mattis said North Korea risked “the end of its regime and the destruction of its people” if it did not stand down from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Same message minus the gratuitous saber-rattling.

You don't think Mattis rattled the saber?? really??

------------------


Perhaps one thing we and are allies can do:
Have Japan and South Korea start to take steps to go nuclear, very noticeable steps, very loud steps.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2017-August-09, 16:56, said:

The issue is real as you foresaw. I prefer Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' less colorful written statement to Trump's rhetoric. Mattis said North Korea risked "the end of its regime and the destruction of its people" if it did not stand down from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Same message minus the gratuitous saber-rattling.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush said "This will not stand". And then he followed through on it.

Something along those lines would have been best. For example:
"North Korea is pursuing nuclear development that poses an extremely serious threat to the United States and indeed to the entire world. We have no choice, we must deal with this effectively, whatever the consequences might be. It is our hope that this can be done without the massive death and destruction that extreme military action would bring to us all, but we are prepared to act if we must."

Something along those lines, I think.

The Trump tweet was not thought out. It starts ""North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,". No! The weapons program is the threat. The Trump warning does not in fact address the weapons program. Taken literally, which of course we have all been told not to do, this seems to imply outfitting the missiles with nukes is not the problem, the problem is that Kim makes threats. This upsets out president. Myself, I see the missile program as a threat even if Kim never says another word. But then, right, we are not to take Trump literally. Has someone explained that to Kim?

I have never read "The Art of the Deal", nor do I intend to. I gather the idea is to start negotiations with a heavy load of bullstiuff. Trump supporters praise him for his skill at bullstuff. Take him seriously but not literally and so on. He is just so clever with everything he says. It's all bullstuff but it's such clever bullstuff, he is brilliant. At Real Estate maybe.

We desperately need a well thought out idea, one that is clearly phrased and can be taken both literally and seriously. What we have is bullstuff. No sensible person, senator here or head of state elsewhere, will stand shoulder to shoulder with a purveyor of bullstuff, no matter how loudly his supporters cheer.

Wars start in many ways. It would be a true shame if one started because our president cannot control his emotional need to tweet whatever springs to mind at the moment.

This is not good.

[mike777]

Ken Bush said that after the war had been started and Kuwait conquered not before.

To follow your logic Trump should wait until NK has taken over SK

As for the rest, all of that has been said year after year after year, nothing new to see here.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2017-August-09, 20:26, said:

Ken, Bush said that after the war had been started and Kuwait conquered not before.

To follow your logic Trump should wait until NK has taken over SK.

Quote

Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle. -- SADDAM HUSSEIN, July 25, 1990.

Iraq invaded Kuwait August 2, 1990.

Quote

This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait. -- GEORGE BUSH, Aug. 6, 1990.

George H. W. Bush began the war to expel Iraq from Kuwait 7 hours after the January 15, 1991 deadline set, by ultimatum, for Iraq to start withdrawing.

Ken's logic is fine. President Bush said that the surprise attack would not stand, gave Iraq a chance to withdraw, and expelled them when they did not. It would not have made sense to say "This will not stand" before the surprise attack occurred.

What should not stand now are the nuclear-armed missiles being developed by North Korea.

[Zelandakh]

PassedOut, on 2017-August-09, 21:51, said:

What should not stand now are the nuclear-armed missiles being developed by North Korea.

Why? Do you not find it arrogant for a country with over 40% of the world's nuclear arsenal stating that another country should not have even 1%? It is not like NK is signed up to the NPT. Would it be regarded as an improvement if NK bought missiles from China (as Trident is in the UK)? The rhetoric puts me in mind of a short story:-

Hu Sung-Ok: Hi, my name is Hu Sung-Ok. I would like to become a member.Hu Sung-Ok:
Jefferson Jr III: Hello Sir. You do realise that this is the Sunshine Valley exclusive golf club?
Hu Sung-Ok: Yes, of course. That is why I wouls like to join.
Jefferson Jr III: I am sorry, we do not allow slinky-eyed low-life here.
Hu Sung-Ok: What?! But my neighbour Zhang Gioliang is a member. He will even sponsor me.
Jefferson Jr III: Mr Zhang is a special case. He is incredibly rich and offered us a very generous loan a few years back when we had some financial issues. You on the other hand have nothing we need.
Hu Sung-Ok: Oh come on! I've been saving for 50 years to join this club.
Jefferson Jr III: Not a chance. And don't think about joining any other clubs round here or we will have Mr Goldman make sure that all of your finances are ruined.
Hu Sung-Ok: Screw you! I am going to build my own minigolf course.
Jefferson Jr III: I wouldn't advise that Sir. You might just find that your house is built on a sinkhole.
Hu Sung-Ok: (storms out)
Jefferson Jr III: Note to self - have a word with Mr Zhang about sorting out his troublesome neighbour.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-10, 00:58, said:

Why? Do you not find it arrogant for a country with over 40% of the world's nuclear arsenal stating that another country should not have even 1%? It is not like NK is signed up to the NPT. Would it be regarded as an improvement if NK bought missiles from China (as Trident is in the UK)? The rhetoric puts me in mind of a short story:-

Hu Sung-Ok: Hi, my name is Hu Sung-Ok. I would like to become a member.Hu Sung-Ok:
Jefferson Jr III: Hello Sir. You do realise that this is the Sunshine Valley exclusive golf club?
Hu Sung-Ok: Yes, of course. That is why I wouls like to join.
Jefferson Jr III: I am sorry, we do not allow slinky-eyed low-life here.
Hu Sung-Ok: What?! But my neighbour Zhang Gioliang is a member. He will even sponsor me.
Jefferson Jr III: Mr Zhang is a special case. He is incredibly rich and offered us a very generous loan a few years back when we had some financial issues. You on the other hand have nothing we need.
Hu Sung-Ok: Oh come on! I've been saving for 50 years to join this club.
Jefferson Jr III: Not a chance. And don't think about joining any other clubs round here or we will have Mr Goldman make sure that all of your finances are ruined.
Hu Sung-Ok: Screw you! I am going to build my own minigolf course.
Jefferson Jr III: I wouldn't advise that Sir. You might just find that your house is built on a sinkhole.
Hu Sung-Ok: (storms out)
Jefferson Jr III: Note to self - have a word with Mr Zhang about sorting out his troublesome neighbour.

If I could get rid of the nuclear stockpiles that the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, ... have I would.

Not sure how successful that's going to be.
Its hard to shove the genie back into the bottle.

Its a lot easier to stop other bottles from getting opened.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here's the discussion that I wish that people were having:

My expectation is that the end result of the Mueller investigation will look as follows:

1. Mixed evidence with respect to active collusion between elements of the Trump campaign and The Russian government

2. Clear and compelling evidence that the value of Trump's real estate holdings are highly dependent on Russian money laundering. In turn, this means that the Russians have an easy source of influence over Trump and, of course, Trump's been breaking the law for years. (If you don't care about Russian money laundering, maybe his deals with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard might be considered more serious)

It would be nice to get folks on the record whether item #2 warrants impeachment because this is where the real energy is going

[PassedOut]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-10, 00:58, said:

Why? Do you not find it arrogant for a country with over 40% of the world's nuclear arsenal stating that another country should not have even 1%?

North Korea is not just "another country." It has some unique attributes.

[jjbrr]

Quote

Nearly half of Republicans (47 percent) believe that Trump won the popular vote. Larger fractions believe that millions of illegal immigrants voted (68 percent) and that voter fraud happens somewhat or very often (73 percent). Moreover, 52 percent said that they would support postponing the 2020 election, and 56 percent said they would do so if both Trump and Republicans in Congress were behind this.