Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 132520 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1950 on: February 11, 2017, 04:55:12 PM »
My understanding is that a high proportion of the Obama deportations were people caught coming across the border who were returned almost immediately and that his deportation figures were higher because previously those people hadn't been included in the figures.  Is that right?  If so, then an increased emphasis on deporting those who have been established in the USA for a period of time could be down to the new Trump Executive Order and the new atmosphere on immigration created from the top.  A change of policy along those lines would be far more personally disruptive to far more people with settled connections within the USA.  Whether or not the overall figures for deportation will be higher is probably unknown so far: the change in policy may prove to be less effective overall if it has displaced personnel from operations targeted on new arrivals over the border.
This would be worthy of noting.  However, the LA raids were clearly a hold over from the Obama immigration policies. This leaves much room for improvement. Trump has been focused on border security, which would be basically continuing Obama's "deport them at the border" policies. Not as disruptive as the Raids conducted recently. And if, as ICE claims, the vast majority of those caught in the raids were criminals, many with violent crime convictions, and most of the rest already had deportation orders against them, I'm not sure that this specific instance is a bad thing, overall.

You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.

I don't think this is in any way a sign of being "post-fact" in the way that Conway and Spicer are "post-fact" but I do agree that Trump is going to get less leeway on some of these things than Obama got.

Obama seriously considered the Keystone pipeline, for example, and stalled on a verdict for over a year.  If he had approved it, most of America would begrudgingly accepted that he's a very smart man who made a careful decision and decided the negative consequences of the pipeline were outweighed by the benefits.  When Trump makes that decision, it will come off as flippant and deliberately inflammatory, like he'll say tweet "Drill baby drill!  Fuck the earth and all of the liberals on it!"
I agree that Trump will get less leeway and receive more flack for actions that would be considered normal under different administrations. I agree that this is largely a reaction to the way he acts and the silly things he spews from Twitter. I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole. Perhaps this is naive, but i think focusing on debate and discussion will be worth the effort and combat a bit of the negatives of Trump's inflammatory style.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1951 on: February 11, 2017, 05:06:56 PM »
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.
...

I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the conversation. Is this an impact of Trump? Perhaps. Have law enforcement officials generally targeted arabs/muslims since 2001? Probably.

There are entire websites dedicated to "TSA Horror Stories" that list out in detail all sorts of apparently illegal actions taken by the TSA since the Department of Homeland Security was created. I don't think we can blame that on Trump. There are plenty of stories of when Obama was in office too, and Bush.

Again, as a political tool, sure, blame Trump. For having a discussion I would need facts to come to the conclusion that government interactions are materially worse for American citizens of arab/muslim descent because Trump is in office.

How about, "These things should not be happening under any administration, Republican, Democrat, or other, so let's stand up to it"?
While true, it is off topic for this thread.

Okay, I'll reframe it so it's on topic:

Realistic impacts of a Trump presidency? This shit is going to get exponentially worse, and the tendency toward complacency of many people will allow it to go on for far too long.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1952 on: February 11, 2017, 05:27:50 PM »
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America. 


dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Age: 34
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1953 on: February 11, 2017, 06:39:59 PM »
It's time we all got serious about this. 

I think that time was actually early November. Now we have to hope that he'll obey the courts and if he doesn't congress will remove him.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1954 on: February 11, 2017, 06:51:30 PM »
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.

In what I'm seeing on social media lately, the arm-flailing is coming from barely articulate Trump supporters spewing victorious rage.  My liberal friends are far more coherent and rational.

People claiming that liberals are being reactionary is laughable.  It's nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the vast majority of Trump supporters.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1955 on: February 11, 2017, 08:10:07 PM »
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
Tu quoque? Again? Of course Trump lives to inflame, bully and shut down discussion. Does that mean that everyone should engage in such tactics?  No. No one should. Trump is getting attacked from every angle for his actions. If the other side engages in the same practices, they deserve the same reprimands. I made no mention of 'liberals' in my post - I think anyone who engages in hyperbolic arm flailing needs to cool down and come back to reasonable discussion. We can probably agree that it is unlikely that Trump will do this, but I think that only makes it more important to engage with other citizens to discuss issues, and it is exactly the wrong thing to try to rise to Trump's level of incendiary half-true rhetoric.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1956 on: February 11, 2017, 08:12:35 PM »
It's time we all got serious about this. 

I think that time was actually early November. Now we have to hope that he'll obey the courts and if he doesn't congress will remove him.
I was very proud of the checks and balances system displayed by the courts last week. Over the past several years they've done a fair job of preventing some of the worst examples of executive branch over-reach. I hope they continue to do so.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1957 on: February 11, 2017, 10:39:30 PM »
Tu quoque? Again?

No, not at all.  YOU are the one criticizing Trump's detractors for this behavior, instead of criticizing Trump.  I'm not suggesting that everyone else should be as shitty as Trump, I'm suggesting that you are giving Trump way too much deference by only criticizing his detractors for the exact behavior that Trump has pioneered and weaponized.

Don't attack me for the logical inconsistencies that you yourself are displaying.  That was the whole point of my post, that this is exactly what Trump has done so well.  You only prove my point by repeating the attack.  Next time, consider following up with "SAD!"
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 11:55:36 PM by sol »

jim555

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1958 on: February 11, 2017, 11:14:18 PM »
It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
I am glad I am not the only one who sees it.  How is anyone taken in by this con artist?  Amazing. 

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1959 on: February 11, 2017, 11:24:50 PM »
It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
I am glad I am not the only one who sees it.  How is anyone taken in by this con artist?  Amazing.

Yeah, sorry MM but totally on this side of the fence. It really doesn't matter if this policy or that policy from Trump's desk is consistent with the past, when there is so, so much evidence of actions that are well beyond the pale and that in any previous administration almost certainly would have resulted in congressional investigation at a bare minimum. And this is happening daily. And we're still in the first month of his presidency. I think Pence would also be an awful president but I at least have some faith he would respect the dignity and gravity of the office and make some effort to consider the constitution, even if his interpretations would differ widely from my own. At a minimum, he would actually read the daily briefings and know what the Geneva Conventions (that he very well might still violate) actually mean.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 11:39:27 PM by Lagom »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1960 on: February 12, 2017, 01:41:03 AM »
Tu quoque? Again?

No, not at all.  YOU are the one criticizing Trump's detractors for this behavior, instead of criticizing Trump.  I'm not suggesting that everyone else should be as shitty as Trump, I'm suggesting that you are giving Trump way too much deference by only criticizing his detractors for the exact behavior that Trump has pioneered and weaponized.

Don't attack me for the logical inconsistencies that you yourself are displaying.  That was the whole point of my post, that this is exactly what Trump has done so well.  You only prove my point by repeating the attack.  Next time, consider following up with "SAD!"
I've been nothing but critical of Trump. He's a pretty terrible person. How many times do I have to say this? No one is arguing he is not a sleazy con man. You can add your strawman to the pile. I will be equally critical to all persons who engage in the same actions as Trump, hold the same views or use the same tactics to attack their opponents while deflecting from the issues. If both sides are engaged in arm flailing about tweets or hand sizes or inauguration suits instead of debating and discussing policies and actions, I will be critical of both sides. The fact that Trump's policies are often awful does not absolve previous administrations of their awful policies. They can both be awful, and have been, and it is perfectly reasonable to be disgusted by both. And when the polices of one awful administration are blamed on another, or held up as models of what should be done instead of the awful things a different administration is doing, I will be critical of those views as well. Criticizing the actions of one side by the other, when they are engaged in the same ineffective, hyperbolic fear-mongering and misinformation is hypocritical. Both sides should be called out for it whenever they engage in such silly behavior. I see no conflict in reason to consistently dislike an action, regardless of who is performing it.

Yeah, sorry MM but totally on this side of the fence. It really doesn't matter if this policy or that policy from Trump's desk is consistent with the past, when there is so, so much evidence of actions that are well beyond the pale and that in any previous administration almost certainly would have resulted in congressional investigation at a bare minimum. And this is happening daily. And we're still in the first month of his presidency.

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1961 on: February 12, 2017, 08:09:07 AM »

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1962 on: February 12, 2017, 08:54:03 AM »

Do you have any sources or articles?  If American citizens are being harassed or deported, I would hope that would be front page news.

What I have seen thus far from many sources is a lot of hyperbole.  As many other have stated, we have been deporting for quite some time.  I haven't, thus far, seen a dramatic increase under Trump.
Here is the google results: https://www.google.com/#q=american+citizen+accidentally+deported
And, yes I agree there have long been issues, I just trust the older administrations (Bushs included) to deal with the issue more properly if it was brought up.  I'm not saying any of them did it perfectly just that it is getting worse.
And what more would you like to know about the incident?

I stand corrected, apparently American citizens are occasionally deported.  I glanced through you link and found the this article from NPR - http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141500145/in-the-rush-to-deport-expelling-u-s-citizens 

First of all, deporting American citizens is unacceptable.  Having said that, those described in the article often had difficulties the normal person would not have (mental illness or a complicated birth history).  In addition, those articles happened under the previous administration. 

To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

I'm all for reining in unconstitutional practices of law enforcement including DHS, Trumps actions thus far on the topic seem to follow the trend of constitutional over reach that was continued under President Obama.  If you would like to criticize Trump, there are plenty of options.  I just don't believe this is one of them yet.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1963 on: February 12, 2017, 09:09:23 AM »
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1964 on: February 12, 2017, 10:12:17 AM »
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1965 on: February 12, 2017, 10:57:29 AM »
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico.
IF we are looking for whether or not there is an enforcement bias among groups, why they are deported matters less than whether >75% of all deportees are latino.

Actually what struck me about that graphic was how few of the population in question are from countries in the middle east.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1966 on: February 12, 2017, 11:06:32 AM »

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.

Also regarding A, I repeat that the previous presidents that were impeached/investigated were done so for reasons that appear trivial compared to some of what has happened thus far. I don't think it's a problem to point this out, it's just me objectively assessing historical examples vis a vis the present, just as you say you are trying to do with specific policies.

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances") than we do. Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that is backing literally every move of Trump thus far (absent a couple minor court decisions) , laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition is going to objectively address the concerns of the constituents they so far appear to be ignoring? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 12:14:34 PM by Lagom »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1967 on: February 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM »

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.

Also regarding A, I repeat that the previous presidents that were impeached/investigated were done so for reasons that appear trivial compared to some of what has happened thus far. I don't think it's a problem to point this out, it's just me objectively assessing historical examples vis a vis the present, just as you say you are trying to do with specific policies.

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances" than we do). Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that (absent a couple minor court decisions) is backing literally every move of Trump thus far, avoiding constituents and laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.

(not in response to anyone in particular, just somewhat tangent)

The sentiment of "just let the system do its job" is somewhat ironic, given that the citizens of the country are supposed to be what drive the system in the first place.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1968 on: February 12, 2017, 11:25:54 AM »
(not in response to anyone in particular, just somewhat tangent)

The sentiment of "just let the system do its job" is somewhat ironic, given that the citizens of the country are supposed to be what drive the system in the first place.

Agreed. Although we are now back at the point where someone will chime in to say "we put up with 8 years of Obama without throwing hissy fits over it." And that, my friends, is what cognitive dissonance actually looks like.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1969 on: February 12, 2017, 02:10:49 PM »
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater proportion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico.
IF we are looking for whether or not there is an enforcement bias among groups, why they are deported matters less than whether >75% of all deportees are latino.

Actually what struck me about that graphic was how few of the population in question are from countries in the middle east.

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.

If we were to look at deportations excluding those caught very soon after entry (ie typically the Southern border), I don't know what the numbers would look like as far as racial profile.  If we are focusing on law breakers and one ethnic group is over represented in that group, it is possible that a racial group could be over represented due to factors other than racial profiling.

Incidentally, I'm not saying some hispanic's haven't been profiled.  I'm simply saying the fact that a large proportion of those here illegally are hispanic and it stands to reason they would represent a large portion of deportations due to that. 

In addition, there was an assertion that ICE is going door to door in hispanic immigrant neighborhoods asking for papers.  Frankly if ICE did that (and I'm not advocating they do), I suspect they wouldn't be deporting in the low numbers they do.

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1970 on: February 12, 2017, 04:02:17 PM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1971 on: February 12, 2017, 04:17:08 PM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1972 on: February 12, 2017, 05:25:56 PM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1973 on: February 12, 2017, 07:19:27 PM »
So, I haven't kept up with being trolled by the usual crowd here, but went to a real life camp-out in Louisiana with an ex-military guy from Texas for BoyScouts.  Wow what an eye-opener!  I don't necessarily disagree with how the ex-military guy feels, that Hillary wasnt expected to support the military vs. the proactive way Trump promised not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  We listened to Fox News on his Sirius Satellite Radio which was slightly grating, but even he turned it off when people openly yelled at each other (disagreeing about the ridiculous KKK guy demonstrating in Berkely, CA).  Basically, he is worried that the US has become fat and lazy which lead to the military not being ready for the Iraq Invasion which is why it has gone so poorly ever since.  The proliferation of terrorism is directly a result of drawing down our military after successful campaigns.

And as we drove though small-town Texas and Louisiana, there are so many disaffected people on the outskirts, living in trailers and small hollowed-out towns.  There are a lot of Americans barely hanging on.  Of course they are going to vote for the guy that promises he will bring back the better days before modern life made obsolete.  Having a big family and high school education should not be a liability. 

It made me quite sad, to think that Trump has no idea of what he steps on to enjoy his first world, five star, first class lifestyle on the backs of these dupes.  This guy should be sweating though his bedsheets with the responsibility and pressure, but I don't get the impression he cares about much other than winning shallow daily opinion polls. 

 I only wish Democrats had a better, more inclusive message - that they would burnish the military in a respectful, inclusive, proactive way.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1974 on: February 12, 2017, 07:57:42 PM »
A relevant presentation that I came across today - it is worth the time to watch:  https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_political_conversations

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1975 on: February 12, 2017, 07:58:44 PM »
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 08:30:28 PM by sol »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1976 on: February 12, 2017, 08:20:50 PM »
I guess I would just like to quickly state that pandering to the military will get you far.  We are idiot civilians for the most part here if we pretend that vets and current military think like us (which is one of the significant roots of society).  For better or worse, most of humanity is defined by physical conflict, not academic conflict.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1977 on: February 12, 2017, 08:47:39 PM »

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances") than we do. Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that is backing literally every move of Trump thus far (absent a couple minor court decisions) , laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition is going to objectively address the concerns of the constituents they so far appear to be ignoring? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.
I was not arguing for 'giving Trump more latitude." I absolutely agree he should be held accountable for all of his actions. Unfortunately, he was elected to the POTUS and his pattern of behavior is pretty well set and quite open to view. He has massive authority, but not unlimited power. Right now not enough congressional representatives are opposing him, and indeed both sides seem to be more content to simply sit back and blame the other side for everything rather than work together productively, so I will have to settle for the court stopping the actions that are in line with their authority. Peaceful protest could help. Motivating one's congressional representatives to support bills more in line with one's beliefs could help. I don't think railing against Trump for his many personal faults is going to be an effective way to combat his leadership direction. Debating and informing oneself on the issues and policies is the first step - how else can one choose a direction if one is uninformed? Blaming Trump for Obama policies or actions is not the mark of an informed person and not an effective use of one's resources, nor logically consistent, if one feels that Trump is the problem. Instead of protesting and waving signs with Trump puns on them because Obama deported more people and broke up more immigrant families than any other administration, one should be calling on their congressperson to push for immigration reform under the current administration. It's about time for it. 


Holding congress's feet to the fire I think is a great way to effect change, imo. I don't feel trying to 'hold feet to the fire' will be productive with Trump - I personally feel a person with his personality style may be much more responsive to positive action proposals than negative reinforcement i.e. "Mr. President, in your reformation of immigration laws, I would like to see you use your power to accomplish X" rather than "Mr. President, your action X is disgraceful to our nation and nobody likes it. It's the worst. Please stop doing X." I feel he feeds on conflict and uses it as a distraction. Removing the conflict and focusing on actions Trump could perform, rather than telling him what he shouldn't do, may be the way to motivate him to more appropriate actions. Probably I'm misreading him. Probably am. But overall I feel the POTUS is so difficult to reach that for an average person such as myself I feel I have a much higher chance of effecting the change I wish to see by contacting my congresspersons and working through them. 
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1978 on: February 12, 2017, 10:16:23 PM »
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1979 on: February 12, 2017, 10:55:43 PM »
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
How did we venture so far away from the OP?  Oh yeah, Trump :)
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1980 on: February 12, 2017, 10:56:56 PM »
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
How did we venture so far away from the OP?  Oh yeah, Trump :)

Thanks Trump!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1981 on: February 12, 2017, 11:43:25 PM »
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1982 on: February 12, 2017, 11:50:45 PM »
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.

I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1983 on: February 13, 2017, 12:02:18 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1984 on: February 13, 2017, 06:37:44 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/moron-seal-team-6-operatives-based-mutilations-off-of-f-1791069958

It appears to be taking a toll. I hesitate to call it extremist, but I don't really have a good word for it. Combine those sorts of actions with loyalty to a person instead of a country, and it's bad news.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1985 on: February 13, 2017, 07:14:45 AM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1986 on: February 13, 2017, 07:33:47 AM »
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.
...
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1987 on: February 13, 2017, 10:04:19 AM »

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.


Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1988 on: February 13, 2017, 10:16:19 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 

We've already been through the same process for munitions, after the advent of nuclear weapons.  America's global presence is exerted by a handful of tactical submarines and missile silos, not by a huge standing army of young men with hand to hand combat training.  We don't buy many swords and pistols anymore, because the nature of war has changed.  I think it's about time our military HR department changed with it.

But I'm just some random dude on the internet.  I don't get to make any decisions, and I'm not privy to all of the relevant information.  You are each free to disagree with me, and concerns that nereo raised are a valid reason to do that.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1989 on: February 13, 2017, 10:31:07 AM »

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.

Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.

Radram - I'm not arguing for or against a southern wall.  My comments were in response to the recent raids.  I will say even your sources indicate the incursions on the Southern border are still in the hundreds of thousands a year.  That's  a problem. 

In addition, the southern border is a significant source of drugs into this country (legalizing MJ would fix at least part of that problem w/o a wall) but it's still a very porous border with a country with significant issues.

I agree with you that stricter enforcement of employment laws would have a meaningful benefit.  What we have now, however, is selective enforcement of those laws.  In addition, when they are enforced, there is an outcry. 

Let's have laws we can enforce and enforce them.  If we did that, people would quit coming to the US illegally on the hope we might let them stay.  12M people are assuming they will get to stay because that's what happened in the past.  If we grant the majority legal standing w/o changing our practices, this cycle will continue.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1990 on: February 13, 2017, 11:05:49 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1991 on: February 13, 2017, 11:34:40 AM »
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.
While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1992 on: February 13, 2017, 11:38:52 AM »
My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.

At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?

When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1993 on: February 13, 2017, 11:58:52 AM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1994 on: February 13, 2017, 12:06:51 PM »
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1995 on: February 13, 2017, 01:10:52 PM »
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1996 on: February 13, 2017, 01:28:32 PM »
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.

I've wondered for a while why this wasn't a bigger deal in the US.  Certainly it would have been better to have captured Bin Laden alive and put him on trial.  By all the accounts I have read they just sprayed him with bullets after securing the rest of the compound when the immediate threat was relatively low. Most accounts say he wasn't even armed when he was shot.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

accolay

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1997 on: February 13, 2017, 01:45:48 PM »
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1998 on: February 13, 2017, 02:17:01 PM »

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.
...kind of like "the best way to turn a juvenile offender into a career criminal is to send him away to prison"

We aren't really into reform or rehabilitation in this country.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1999 on: February 13, 2017, 02:25:21 PM »

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM