Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 585205 times)

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4208
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5850 on: January 26, 2019, 03:39:17 PM »
President Pence is really not something I wish for.

President Pence would be a policy disaster, but he would at least follow the law.  It would be a crushing defeat for progressive ideals and it might set us back to the 1950s, but at least the Union would endure. 

I'm merely supposing here, but I think Pence would not take bribes from foreign governments, or put children in cages, or fire the FBI director for doing his job, or use the US military to blockade the border, or destroy NATO so that Russia can invade its neighbors.  He would say a lot of horrible things about women and gays, but we could all have a good laugh at his ignorant backwardness and then go about the business of having a country.  Trump, by contrast, seems hell bent on tearing down everything America stands for.

So yea, I kind of wish for President Pence.  I'd also support Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or even a moderately competent mid-sized city mayor for President over Donald J. Trump.  Really, anybody who might actually care about the office in the way that Trump clearly does not, even if it was somebody with whom I have strong policy disagreements.
I hear what you are saying about the long-term good of our institutions, but I think it is easier for you to stomach the idea of a Pence assault on human rights from the security of your position as an educated, heterosexual white male. Over here on the female side of the aisle that possibility is rather scary.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9203
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5851 on: January 26, 2019, 03:56:05 PM »
@MDM,   I think a good question to ask is whether illegal immigration from the south is such a problem anyway.
Yes - always good to evaluate whether the cure might be worse than the disease.

Quote
Research shows that the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the US had fallen from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007 to only 10.7 million in 2016.
Therefore, if the number of illegal immigrants currently in the US is bearable and not a crisis, then it's not an emergency. It's only going to be getting better not worse.
Yes, if it is bearable and not a crisis.  And if it is not bearable and is a crisis, one reaches a different conclusion.  Plenty of anecdotal evidence to support either qualifying phrase.

Quote
I wonder what could be accomplished by $5 billion applied towards speeding up immigration processing, and doing things like opening up offices in countries of origin so that people could find out BEFORE they leave their countries whether their asylum application has a chance. If you have a reasonable way for people to enter legally, most people will use that way.

Anecdotally, I personally know Guatemalans who are longing to go home to care for terminally ill parents south of the border but afraid to because they would not be able to return to work here and rejoin family who are legal residents here.  It's a terrible situation.  Making it easier for "unskilled" workers to work here and exit/re-enter would probably mean more temporary workers who take advantage of higher wages here but keep their home bases in their home countries, rather than bring their families here.  The hard border means that people come here and stay, rather than come when jobs are available and leave when jobs are few.
As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12919
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5852 on: January 26, 2019, 04:07:21 PM »
As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

A wall/fence/call-it-whatever already exists on 635 of the 1933 miles of US/Mexico border.  (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexico-border-actually-looks-like/)

Where is makes sense to build, it has already been built.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5853 on: January 26, 2019, 04:10:38 PM »
Fighting the wall and neutering this spineless dumbass is the best thing any politician can do for the country.

While I'm sure that would be satisfying, let's not forget at approximately 30% of the country actually supports Trump.  They also think Mexicans are rapists, and they honestly believe that a wall will stop the flow of drugs.  Their concerns, while misguided, are genuine concerns of your fellow Americans and deserve to be addressed.

Actually building a useless wall is not the way to do that, but neither is shouting "your'e a dumbass" at them.  As painful as it is to slowly re-explain these issues using the smallest possible words, that's probably the only way to really help this situation.  My suggested talking points:

1.  America needs immigrants in order to grow.  They help our economy, and we should be thankful that so many people want to join our exclusive club.  America is in trouble the moment people stop wanting to come here.

2.  In order to help America grow, we need to expand (not restrict) LEGAL immigration pathways, for things like seasonal work permits.  Track them, tax them, and let them come and go as our workforce demands.  This what American businesses want.

3.  The current "illegal" immigrants are normal immigrants who want to work, and have been forbidden from doing so legally.  In most cases, their only crime is wanting to contribute to America's GDP.

4.  For immigration problems unrelated to population and labor supply, like crime and drugs, we need effective solutions.  A wall is not an effective solution.  Democrats have been asking for increased funding for border security that actually addresses these problems, so a compromise should be easy to find.

5.  Trump is asking for more money for a border wall than some huge government agencies (like the national park service) have in their entire budgets to use for conducting vital government work.  For all of our arguing about "fiscal responsibility" and reducing discretionary spending by a few percent here or there, adding on $5.7billion for a border wall is not only ineffective, it's also irresponsible.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 04:13:49 PM by sol »

skp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Location: oh
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5854 on: January 26, 2019, 04:28:07 PM »
Registered republican here.  Maybe it's because I'm against the wall because I think it's useless.  The great wall of China, the Maginot (sp) line did not work.  I think it's a waste of money,  I've always thought so.
And I also think that when the democrats took hold of congress, the American people are saying that they want Trump thwarted and they want Trump to compromise.  Pelosi has the power now and is using it. 
But I find the following hypocritical. I was told today on my local news (I've been avoiding the news but it gets shoved down your throat when you want the weather)  that the democrats are against the wall on "moral grounds".   I have heard and fact checked it that  we have a limited wall already that democrats have voted for.  Both Obama and Clinton voted for it. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5855 on: January 26, 2019, 04:30:25 PM »
6.  We recognize in this country that very young children (e.g. those younger than 5) cannot be convicted of a crime.  Ergo, people who were brought to this country at a very young age cannot be 'illegal' and should not be penalized for things which were beyond their control. Nor is it humane to 'send them back' to a country they have no recollection of and no ties to.

Omy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5856 on: January 26, 2019, 04:39:41 PM »
Aren't we all for border security? I'm a democrat and have no issues with having a secure border. It is much less expensive and more effective to use technology instead of a wall. My alarm system is way cheaper than putting a wall or mote around my house.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9203
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5857 on: January 26, 2019, 04:51:48 PM »
As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

A wall/fence/call-it-whatever already exists on 635 of the 1933 miles of US/Mexico border.  (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/what-the-us-mexico-border-actually-looks-like/)

Where is makes sense to build, it has already been built.
That may be correct.  That may be incorrect.

As that article notes,
Quote
Piecemeal walls have been used before in the region, and some have been successful in stopping large scale operations of smuggling and illegal immigration. The Smuggler's Gulch fence was designed as part of a $60 million engineering project to fortify 3.5 miles of fencing between San Diego and Tijuana.

Further east in Jacumba, California, a border wall was constructed in the mid-1990s to disrupt human and drug trafficking. The large stretches to the east and west are the areas Trump wants to fix, the places with a small border fence, if one at all.

But photographer James Whitlow Delano learned during his time reporting along the border that walls alone don't solve such problems. In April of 2015, U.S. border patrol agents seized almost 70 pounds of amphetamines that drug smugglers had transported across the border. The border agents realized that to get around the wall between Calexico, California, and Mexicali, Mexico, the smugglers had found another way. They built a tunnel.
Seems "walls aren't perfect, but good ones can be very helpful" is a reasonable summation.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5858 on: January 26, 2019, 04:59:51 PM »
As with most things, the best approach is probably somewhere between extremes.  E.g., some wall/fence/call-it-whatever, plus some of the things you, nereo, and others have mentioned.

The left has tried to frame it as if it's a border wall vs. everything else as if funding a border wall means all other enforcement methods will go away.  It's ridiculous.  They keep repeating that a border wall won't stop all immigration.  It's not supposed to.  It's just one important piece of the pie.  Trump even stated that it would be used in combination with other methods of enforcement in his televised address.  I've stated this time and time again on this forum, and the left still doesn't get it.  Where border wall has been used in the past, it decreased illegal immigration significantly, but there are too many areas with either "no" or "insufficient" border wall.

A lot of the existing border fencing is easily walked right over or under.  Definitely, we need a lot more border wall, effective border wall, and the border patrol states it is a crisis and has stated so well before Trump came along.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffcrouere/2018/12/01/build-the-border-wall-or-say-goodbye-to-america-n2536828
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/02/border-patrol-dhs-trump-wall-steel-fence/
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/border-walls-work/

The left wings talks about the cost of the wall, yet the wall will pay for itself by reducing the welfare and public resources sucked up by illegals.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/12/border-wall-pay-for-itself-cutting-welfare-illegal-immigrants/

As that article states, an effective border wall can cut illegal immigration by 89%:

Quote
A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis of the southern border found that a fence in the San Diego sector, combined with an increase in agents and other resources, caused apprehensions in the sector to decline by 76 percent over a 12-year period from 1992 to 2004. In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.

Illegal aliens are a total drain on our society.  Some on the left will state that illegals will work and pay taxes, and some will, but they take FAR more in resources than they ever contribute.  They are huge net "takers" from Americans.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/may-6-2013/heritage-amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-63-trillion.html

Illegals bring in drugs, leave massive amounts of trash near the border, decorate rape trees, they bring in disease, they commit horrendous crimes against innocent Americans, they bring down wages in the industries they most infiltrate.

Let's remember that democrats have repeatedly approved border wall funding in the past.  They are only opposing it now as a form of obstructionism because Trump is in the White House.  The democrats voted for a border wall as part of The Secure Fence Act of 2006 which didn't include amnesty for any illegals.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061026-1.html
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/2006-secure-fence-act-vs-trumps-border-wall
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/h446
« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 05:04:33 PM by DreamFIRE »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5859 on: January 26, 2019, 05:13:43 PM »
Why are immigration and drug trafficking conflated here? They have almost nothing to do with each other. The consumers of drugs are mostly American citizens, and the importers of drugs are rich people/big cartels, not people coming across the border to pick fruit or do janitorial work.

As with most things, the market is going to win here - there's demand for cheap labor, so there will be immigrants coming to do those jobs. There's demand for drugs (at artificially high prices since they're illegal) so the drugs (which are *ultra cheap* to produce) will keep coming too.

Short of just forcibly deporting people en masse, those market forces are going to overcome basically any obstacle you put up, whether it's a wall or e-verify or whatever else. Why are we even talking about this?

-W

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5860 on: January 26, 2019, 05:16:45 PM »
Why are immigration and drug trafficking conflated here? They have almost nothing to do with each other. The consumers of drugs are mostly American citizens, and the importers of drugs are rich people/big cartels, not people coming across the border to pick fruit or do janitorial work.



-W

Exactly. And these days, drones are used more and more to move drugs over the border. Which a wall is not going to change.

The wall is a racist dog whistle. That's all it is.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5861 on: January 26, 2019, 05:20:17 PM »
Kris, whatever the YouTube video was: peace.  Out.  - MDM

It's okay.

I know you looked.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9203
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5862 on: January 26, 2019, 05:27:18 PM »
Kris, whatever the YouTube video was: peace.  Out.  - MDM

It's okay.

I know you looked.
You may want to reexamine other things you "know" - that aren't so.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5863 on: January 26, 2019, 05:27:44 PM »

Let's remember that democrats have repeatedly approved border wall funding in the past.  They are only opposing it now as a form of obstructionism because Trump is in the White House.  The democrats voted for a border wall as part of The Secure Fence Act of 2006 which didn't include amnesty for any illegals.

A lot to unpack in your last post, so I'll only address the point above.

The problem I have with this argument is that the 115th congress didn't pass (or even seriously put forth) an appropriation bill funding a border wall even though they controlled both chambers. In addition, the house members who's districts are along the border oppose building a wall - including Hurd (R - Texas). It seems to me that neither part is particularly keen on funding such an expensive project, as they have not been able to get ≥50% support in 2017, 2018 or so far in 2019.

I also don't accept the argument that because one party or individual supported an action once that they should be expected to support it in perpetuity.  Spending bills in particular are like this; one might support increasing funding once, but not for subsequent requests.  That doesn't necessarily mean the shift in opinion is due to spite.  As GuitarStv suggested, an alternative explanation for waning support is that barriers already exist in the areas where they are most effective and least expensive.  This was the rationale given as to why both George W Bush and Obama administrations didn't extend the barriers across the entire border.

firescape

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5864 on: January 26, 2019, 06:05:17 PM »
Fighting the wall and neutering this spineless dumbass is the best thing any politician can do for the country.

While I'm sure that would be satisfying, let's not forget at approximately 30% of the country actually supports Trump.  They also think Mexicans are rapists, and they honestly believe that a wall will stop the flow of drugs.  Their concerns, while misguided, are genuine concerns of your fellow Americans and deserve to be addressed.

Actually building a useless wall is not the way to do that, but neither is shouting "your'e a dumbass" at them.  As painful as it is to slowly re-explain these issues using the smallest possible words, that's probably the only way to really help this situation.  My suggested talking points:

1.  America needs immigrants in order to grow.  They help our economy, and we should be thankful that so many people want to join our exclusive club.  America is in trouble the moment people stop wanting to come here.

2.  In order to help America grow, we need to expand (not restrict) LEGAL immigration pathways, for things like seasonal work permits.  Track them, tax them, and let them come and go as our workforce demands.  This what American businesses want.

3.  The current "illegal" immigrants are normal immigrants who want to work, and have been forbidden from doing so legally.  In most cases, their only crime is wanting to contribute to America's GDP.

4.  For immigration problems unrelated to population and labor supply, like crime and drugs, we need effective solutions.  A wall is not an effective solution.  Democrats have been asking for increased funding for border security that actually addresses these problems, so a compromise should be easy to find.

5.  Trump is asking for more money for a border wall than some huge government agencies (like the national park service) have in their entire budgets to use for conducting vital government work.  For all of our arguing about "fiscal responsibility" and reducing discretionary spending by a few percent here or there, adding on $5.7billion for a border wall is not only ineffective, it's also irresponsible.
Many who oppose Trump and the wall do not distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. There is a difference.
From above quote, #1 'Legal immigration' helps our economy. A border walls purpose is to reduce 'illegal immigration', which does not help our economy.
 A wall across the southern border would not eliminate immigrants you say US needs to grow. Again, a wall would reduce 'illegal immigrants'. Immigrants come from various countries, many legally.

#4 Many other countries with a wall would say it has been effective. I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate that 'no wall' is far more ineffective than 'wall'.

Omy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5865 on: January 26, 2019, 06:44:26 PM »
I wonder if MMM would say that a physical wall was the best use of funds for the purpose of reducing illegal immigration. There are MANY other approaches that are FAR more cost effective than a wall.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5866 on: January 26, 2019, 07:13:10 PM »
Many who oppose Trump and the wall do not distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. There is a difference.
From above quote, #1 'Legal immigration' helps our economy. A border walls purpose is to reduce 'illegal immigration', which does not help our economy.
 A wall across the southern border would not eliminate immigrants you say US needs to grow. Again, a wall would reduce 'illegal immigrants'. Immigrants come from various countries, many legally.


I agree, and it's annoying when people do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. However Sol has distinguished between the two and acknowledges something Republicans have huge cognitive dissonance issues about-we need those illegal immigrants to keep the economy humming. Trump did need em to keep his hotels going. Farmers need them to keep the $.99 a pound tomatoes in the supermarket. We need em as consumers to blow our money on as much crap as we can for the fewest dollars. Republicans happily lap up the benefits while simultaneously denigrating the portion of our population that does the dirty work cheap enough so that Republicans and everyone else can enjoy their luxuries.

The illegal immigrants in Trump's fantasy are a bogey man to pin all the country's ills on. Only after losing the house he decides to "need" a wall. Creating an issue that casts him the victim in a mammoth struggle. Lots of despots have practiced this technique, including his buddy in Russia. It's a sign of a weak country that such an issue can pull attention so far into such an idiotic direction.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5867 on: January 26, 2019, 07:15:56 PM »
@firescape - I’m curious why you said ‘illegal immigration does not help our country’.
It seems to me that US citizens benefit in many ways from the great number of ‘illegal’ (or undocumented) immigrants here.  Though the word ‘help’ can mean so many different things.

shuffler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5868 on: January 26, 2019, 08:52:52 PM »
https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/12/border-wall-pay-for-itself-cutting-welfare-illegal-immigrants/

As that article states, an effective border wall can cut illegal immigration by 89%:

Quote
In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.
This is the NY Post article being referred to.  Note that it's in the opinion section.
It draws its data from this report from the Boarder Patrol specifically comparing El Passo's apprehensions from 2006 (year the wall started) to 2010 (year the wall was completed).

And it's true that the apprehensions went from 122,256 (2006) to 12,251 (2010) which is about an 89% reduction.

However, the right-hand column of the data shows total apprehensions across the entire southwest boarder.
The total apprehensions went from 1,071,972 (2006) to 447,731 (2010) which is about a 59% reduction.
The general rate of illegal immigration was already falling, independent of El Passo's wall.

In other words:  No, El Passo's wall did not cut illegal immigration by 89%.

You might try to claim that the wall still had some effect to curb illegal immigration.  Maybe it did.  But clearly a much more thorough analysis would be needed to determine that.  More thorough than the article you refer to, and whose conclusion you repeat.

(Note that the Daily Caller seems to have got the dates slightly wrong, using 2012 as the end-year instead of 2010.  And that both articles, DC and NYP's opinion piece, conflate a reduction apprehensions with a reduction in crossings.)

The left has tried to frame it as if it's a border wall vs. everything else as if funding a border wall means all other enforcement methods will go away.
Nobody around here is saying that.

I've stated this time and time again on this forum ...
No kidding.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5869 on: January 26, 2019, 09:05:10 PM »

The left has tried to frame it as if it's a border wall vs. everything else as if funding a border wall means all other enforcement methods will go away.  It's ridiculous.  They keep repeating that a border wall won't stop all immigration.  It's not supposed to.  It's just one important piece of the pie.

Possibly some people in the left have framed it that way.  My general understanding is that the MAIN argument is that the money proposed for a border wall would be spent more effectively elsewhere, whether in alternative means of border security OR in other areas that would benefit the US economy and security more.

Please visit the following short summary of points against extending the wall.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/cost-of-border-wall

A study was done on the actual effects of building 548 miles of walls along the US-Mexico border following the Secure Fence Act of 2006. 
"1.Did the Secure Fence Act lead to a change in migration patterns?
Yes, but the effect was small. Using a unique dataset that contains information on the
origin and destination of (primarily unauthorized) Mexican migrants, we document
that migration fell between Mexican municipalities and U.S. counties that were more
affected by the wall (i.e.  by geographical proximity).  The magnitude of the effects
suggests that the direct effect of the wall expansion was to reduce migration flows
by  0.8%.   The  direct  effect,  however,  does  not  account  for  other  effects,  such  as
whether migrants changed where they migrated to or whether wages changed in the
destination.   To  account  for  these,  we  develop  and  estimate  a  general  equilibrium
spatial  model.   We  find  the  total  effect  of  the  wall  expansion  was  to  reduce  the
number of Mexican citizens living in the United States by 0.6%, or roughly 82,650
people.

2.What impact did the Secure Fence Act have on the U.S. economy?
The effect of the Secure Fence Act on the U.S. economy – after accounting for changes
in wages, the cost of goods, and the internal migration of U.S. workers – was largely
negative.  College-educated U.S. workers lost an equivalent of $4.35 in annual income,
while less-educated U.S. workers benefited on average by only 36 cents.  This number
is less than the $7 per person construction cost of the wall.

3.What impact did the Secure Fence Act have on the Mexican economy?
The  Secure  Fence  Act  on  the  Mexican  economy  was  negative.   College-educated
Mexican workers lost an equivalent of $2.99 in annual income,  while less-educated
Mexican workers lost on average by $1.34 per year."

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/d/2043/files/2018/11/ADM-Border-Walls-Executive-Summary-1kguush.pdf

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5870 on: January 26, 2019, 09:39:18 PM »
@DreamFIRE, I don't have the time tonight to deal with the rest of your argument, but I will point out that your sources complaining about the drain on our resources by illegal immigrants, are in large part based on the costs of educating immigrant children (US born or otherwise).  Yes, children are a drain on America's resources, especially the costs of educating the poor.  But pound for pound,
"All immigrants consume 39 percent fewer welfare benefits relative to all natives, largely because they are less likely to receive Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. Immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits relative to natives with similar incomes and ages. "
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates#full

Your sources also neglect the costs net with the benefits of having immigrant workers in our fields, restaurants, construction sites, and other vital industries.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/06/26/paul-gosar-how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-cost-economy/691997002/

Here are critiques of the Heritage study (the second link is to an earlier version of the study by Rector, but most of the flaws in the earlier study were not corrected in the later version)
https://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flawed-immigration-analysis
https://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

"Professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA wrote a paper for Cato last year where he employed a dynamic model called the GMig2 to study comprehensive immigration reform’s impact on the U.S. economy. He found that immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by $1.5 trillion in the ten years after enactment.

Professor Hinojosa-Ojeda then ran a simulation examining the economic impact of the policy favored by Heritage: the removal or exit of all unauthorized immigrants. The economic result would be a $2.6 trillion decrease in estimated GDP growth over the next decade. That confirms the common-sense observation that removing workers, consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs from America’s economy will make us poorer. "
« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 09:47:45 PM by Poundwise »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5871 on: January 27, 2019, 08:00:34 AM »
Here are critiques of the Heritage study (the second link is to an earlier version of the study by Rector, but most of the flaws in the earlier study were not corrected in the later version)

To be fair the Heritage Foundation isn't exactly known for statements of fact or correcting their mistakes. They are big players in a lot of anti-science right wing stuff. They are involved in anti-global warming misinformation campaigns as well as railing against science proving that second hand smoke causes cancer. They are a favorite group of the likes of Philip Morris.

Their views on immigration are completely expected.  "Jason Richwine, who co-authored the think tank's controversial report on the costs of amnesty (the one DreamFIRE links to), resigned his position following intensive media attention on his Harvard PhD thesis from 2009 and comments he made at a 2008 American Enterprise Institute forum. Richwine argued that Hispanics and blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and have trouble assimilating because of a supposed genetic predisposition to lower IQ."

That report has also taken criticism from right wing types because of it's obvious and apparent flaws. Here is a good overview of many of the flaws: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/keller-dark-heritage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 08:22:40 AM by MasterStache »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10177
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5872 on: January 27, 2019, 11:10:01 AM »
It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.
Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).
And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Nothing really. Except Trump turning it into a symbolic boondoggle. Seriously, a wall isn't what's opposed here. It's the rhetoric, the divisiveness, the hypocrisy, the antagoism. Surely the dealmaker in charge could have figured out how to get his wall without calling Mexicans a bunch of raping murderers. Trump himself is what's the probkem. Think a guy who's been hiring illegals for decades really gives a shit about American wages and jobs or terrorism?! Lol. More terrorists have come through Canada than the Mexican border. More drugs were confiscated through the Coast Guard than any other department, shutting down the govt really affected them, for a stupid border wall that isn't going to do squat. Trump's racism, abortion hating, LBGQT hating, and gun loving is a recent phenomena-he was actually a pragmatic kinda guy till the far right got a hold of him. Fighting the wall and neutering this spineless dumbass is the best thing any politician can do for the country.

"More terrorists have come through Canada than the Mexican border."   Sources please?  There was a false rumour that the 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada - they entered directly into the US.  I haven't heard of any others coming via our border.  Except that one guy years ago on a boat with explosives, who was so incompetent that they caught him easily.

Most of the illegal border crossings were last winter, when refugees in the US got so spooked that they illegally entered Canada - and some had severe frostbite injuries because of their choice of route.  So far we haven't seen the same thing this winter.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5337
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5873 on: January 27, 2019, 02:32:08 PM »
It's not about the percentage of the budget - it's for the specific appropriation of the funds.  An equal amount was offered for border security.
Nothing says "I love you" like a government shutdown over 0.1% of the federal budget. an idea with so little support that the Senate bill with no funding for it prior to the shutdown had overwhelming support (right up until Trump threw a fit).
And what is so terrible about having a wall for border security?

Nothing really. Except Trump turning it into a symbolic boondoggle. Seriously, a wall isn't what's opposed here. It's the rhetoric, the divisiveness, the hypocrisy, the antagoism. Surely the dealmaker in charge could have figured out how to get his wall without calling Mexicans a bunch of raping murderers. Trump himself is what's the probkem. Think a guy who's been hiring illegals for decades really gives a shit about American wages and jobs or terrorism?! Lol. More terrorists have come through Canada than the Mexican border. More drugs were confiscated through the Coast Guard than any other department, shutting down the govt really affected them, for a stupid border wall that isn't going to do squat. Trump's racism, abortion hating, LBGQT hating, and gun loving is a recent phenomena-he was actually a pragmatic kinda guy till the far right got a hold of him. Fighting the wall and neutering this spineless dumbass is the best thing any politician can do for the country.

"More terrorists have come through Canada than the Mexican border."   Sources please?  There was a false rumour that the 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada - they entered directly into the US.  I haven't heard of any others coming via our border.  Except that one guy years ago on a boat with explosives, who was so incompetent that they caught him easily.

Most of the illegal border crossings were last winter, when refugees in the US got so spooked that they illegally entered Canada - and some had severe frostbite injuries because of their choice of route.  So far we haven't seen the same thing this winter.

https://www.cato.org/blog/45000-special-interest-aliens-caught-2007-no-us-terrorist-attacks-illegal-border-crossers
Quote
Zero people were murdered or injured in terror attacks committed on U.S. soil by special interest aliens who entered illegally from 1975 through the end of 2017.  However, seven special interest aliens who initially entered illegally have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  They all entered illegally from Canada or jumped ship in American ports before the list of special interest countries even existed.  None of them successfully carried out their attacks and none illegally crossed the Mexican border.

Five of those seven illegal border crossers resided as illegal immigrants in the United States.  Walid Kabbani, a native of Lebanon, walked across the Canadian border illegally in 1987 to deliver a bomb to his co-conspirators in the United States.  He was discovered by a local police chief and arrested before he could carry out his attack.  Algerian-born Ahmed Ressam attempted to enter with false documents in 1999 on his way to attack Los Angeles International Airport as part of the so-called Millennium Plot.  U.S. border inspectors apprehended him, discovered his bomb in the spare tire well of his car, and then arrested him.  In the scuffle to detain Ressam, he broke free of U.S. law enforcement officers and ran into the United States before being apprehended a short time later.  Since Ressam technically entered the country unlawfully when crossing the Canadian border, we included him on this list.

Algerian-born Abdelghani Meskini aided Ressam in his plot after he entered the United States illegally as a stowaway on a ship.  Palestinian Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who was born in Israel and traveled on Israeli papers, was apprehended at a bus stop after illegally entering the United States in 1997.  Somali-born Nuradin M. Abdi originally entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1995 on a fake passport.  While he did not cross the border unlawfully, he did so on a false passport and would have been blocked like Ressam was if his subterfuge was discovered by Customs agents.  In order to include the maximum number of possible terrorists so that we bias the results against ourselves, we included Abdi.   

From 1975 through 2017, a total of nine terrorists entered the United States illegally and only three did so along the Mexican border: Shain Duka, Britan Duka, and Eljvir Duka.*  They crossed as children with their parents in 1984 and were arrested as part of the planned Fort Dix terror attack that the FBI foiled in 2007.  The Dukas are ethnic Albanians from Macedonia – neither country has appeared on any special interest countries list.  The only terrorists who crossed the border with Mexico illegally did so as children, decades before becoming terrorists, and were not even from the special interest countries.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5874 on: January 27, 2019, 03:10:08 PM »
@RetiredAt63
I haven't viewed the actual source, and tracking down the exact numbers is a bit hard by phone, but here is where I heard that more terrorists and suspected terrorists have come from Canada than Mexico. Also, worth noting, in that radio piece, more have come through airports and other ways beside the border than through actual borders. The 9/11 terrorists being prime example here.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683339621/former-director-of-national-counterterrorism-center-weighs-in-on-border-situatio

Quote
SHAPIRO: One detail I found interesting in that document that Customs and Border Protection provided to Congress is that last year, more suspected terrorists were apprehended on the northern border with Canada than the southern border with Mexico.

RASMUSSEN: And again, it just goes to the problem that we've seen in terms of marshalling facts and supportive arguments here because, again, the facts would suggest that we don't face a crisis at the southern border in terms of terrorists trying to cross into the United States.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10177
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5875 on: January 27, 2019, 03:50:44 PM »
@RetiredAt63
I haven't viewed the actual source, and tracking down the exact numbers is a bit hard by phone, but here is where I heard that more terrorists and suspected terrorists have come from Canada than Mexico. Also, worth noting, in that radio piece, more have come through airports and other ways beside the border than through actual borders. The 9/11 terrorists being prime example here.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683339621/former-director-of-national-counterterrorism-center-weighs-in-on-border-situatio

Quote
SHAPIRO: One detail I found interesting in that document that Customs and Border Protection provided to Congress is that last year, more suspected terrorists were apprehended on the northern border with Canada than the southern border with Mexico.

RASMUSSEN: And again, it just goes to the problem that we've seen in terms of marshalling facts and supportive arguments here because, again, the facts would suggest that we don't face a crisis at the southern border in terms of terrorists trying to cross into the United States.

It's hard to find solid numbers online (I gather the reports are classified) but it looks like a lot of the ones trying to cross from Canada were Americans, the rest a mishmash. Not large numbers (<100) but one terrorist is an issue.   Nice to see security is actually working.

Sad that the biggest concern is home-grown radicals.  But not surprising, we are seeing the same issue here.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5876 on: January 27, 2019, 08:41:36 PM »
Registered republican here.  Maybe it's because I'm against the wall because I think it's useless.  The great wall of China, the Maginot (sp) line did not work.  I think it's a waste of money,  I've always thought so.
And I also think that when the democrats took hold of congress, the American people are saying that they want Trump thwarted and they want Trump to compromise.  Pelosi has the power now and is using it. 
But I find the following hypocritical. I was told today on my local news (I've been avoiding the news but it gets shoved down your throat when you want the weather)  that the democrats are against the wall on "moral grounds".   I have heard and fact checked it that  we have a limited wall already that democrats have voted for.  Both Obama and Clinton voted for it.
@skp it sounds like you don't understand why the Dems are against spending billions for a wall that has been shown not to be effective in those areas (as the areas it will be have already been built), will cause harm to both the environment and our citizens (taking their land) yet are ok with a wall in areas where it was determined to help and had limited harm to environment (admittedly I have not checked about citizens being forced to sell their land for the last one).

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5877 on: January 27, 2019, 09:18:06 PM »
Not all people in favor of a wall are racist, but it is one help of a dog whistle for racists. The trump administration literally began the 2016 by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. The subsequent statements and actions of the administration have continued to soft pedal on condemning overtly racist actions (charlotttesville, etc), while also advocating policies that punish brown people and ignore wrongs by whites. This emboldens actions like the following:
 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/kansas-militia-trial-sentencing.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

If a wall is proposed, and continued to be pushed hard for racist reasons, it is moral to oppose it. It also happens to be a stupid idea for economic, environmental, and practical reasons.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8246
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5878 on: January 27, 2019, 11:05:28 PM »
we have a limited wall already that democrats have voted for.  Both Obama and Clinton voted for it.

It's a common talking point on conservative radio these days that "democrats have previously voted for a wall" but that's really only half the story.  Democrats have agreed to wall funding in the past, before the wall became a symbol of racism, in exchange for other immigration reforms that they supported.  People like Schumer have previously agreed to funding increased physical barriers when they were tied to things like providing a pathway to citizenship for hard working immigrants whose only crime is working for US corporations without proper paperwork.  That's called compromise.  It's disingenuous to point to that sort of compromise and then say "why won't democrats vote for a wall this time?"  Um, maybe because the deal Trump wants is not the deal they supported before?  Trump wants $5.7 for a border wall without offering anything meaningful in exchange.  That's not compromise.

Ultimately, it won't surprise me if democrats agree to some wall funding.  It's a lot harder now that Trump has turned it into a symbol of white nationalism, because that only complicates the issue unnecessarily.  I really think he shot himself in the foot on that one, like he would have had much more luck getting it built if he hadn't taught crowds of maga hat wearing chuds to chant "build the wall" while literally praising Nazis as very fine people.  Trump turned what should have been a straightforward congressional debate about funding for border security into this whole complicated race war thing, and now people feel compelled to oppose him on moral grounds.

But if Trump were to come out and publicly refute the more racist reasons for building a wall, for example by condemning white supremacists like Steve King who are afraid of "other people's babies" and then publicly recognizing the vital role that immigrant labor plays in keeping US corporations competitive and profitable, democrats could probably be convinced to build a hundred miles of new border fencing (in areas with minimal disruption to ecosystems or private property rights) in exchange for some mix-and-match combination of  amnesty for noncriminal immigrants who can find work, an expansion of legal work visas, increased funding for immigrants courts currently backlogged with refugee cases, no more child separation or kids in cages, or a DACA fix.  It's a big and messy deal, which might make it impossible, but in broad outline everyone could declare victory.  Both sides of Congress want half of that stuff anyway, and they're really just arguing over amnesty vs wall funding so I say throw them both in there. 

Another hundred miles of wall isn't going to make a bit of difference to immigration rates, drug trafficking, MS-13 activity, or anything else.  It won't keep out terrorists, who mostly fly here on airplanes (or, more commonly, are home grown).  It won't keep out drugs, which are mostly brought through legal points of entry.  We might as well stack up that billion dollars and light it on fire, but if that's what it takes to convince Donald Trump to not veto a bill that actually fixes the rest of our immigration system then I would consider it money well spent.

Maybe order three fewer stealth bombers next year to pay for it.  The alternative is to find some agency like BLM or NPS and just close it down for a year to come up with that billion dollars.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 11:09:52 PM by sol »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5879 on: January 28, 2019, 05:39:23 AM »
we have a limited wall already that democrats have voted for.  Both Obama and Clinton voted for it.

It's a common talking point on conservative radio these days that "democrats have previously voted for a wall" but that's really only half the story.  Democrats have agreed to wall funding in the past, before the wall became a symbol of racism, in exchange for other immigration reforms that they supported.  People like Schumer have previously agreed to funding increased physical barriers when they were tied to things like providing a pathway to citizenship for hard working immigrants whose only crime is working for US corporations without proper paperwork.  That's called compromise.  It's disingenuous to point to that sort of compromise and then say "why won't democrats vote for a wall this time?"  Um, maybe because the deal Trump wants is not the deal they supported before?  Trump wants $5.7 for a border wall without offering anything meaningful in exchange.  That's not compromise.


THis argument that "Dems won't support any wall funding because of Trump" gets even more absurd when one considers that the 115th already offered wall funding in exchange for reinstating DACA back in January 2018.  That deal fell through because the WH was not willing to reinstate the program (DACA) that it had recently ended.

So we are left with this:  the wall hasn't been funded because a majority of the legislative branch (including some in the GOP) do not support it as a stand-alone bill, and Ryan/McConnell never offered enough of a compromise to get a handful of Dems and the rest of the GOP on board. There has never been majority support for a wall across the entire southern border, not even when the GOP controlled both chambers.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5880 on: January 28, 2019, 06:28:52 AM »
This Reuters article seems to confirm that Trump will not budge an inch on immigration reform, even if it means wall funding, and plans to instigate another shutdown and declare an emergency if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, without compromise.

Trump doubts lawmakers can reach acceptable border security deal

Quote
In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump also sounded doubtful about a possible deal involving both wall money and a broader overhaul of U.S. immigration laws.

“I doubt it,” he said, when asked if he would agree to citizenship for a group of immigrants known as “Dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children - in exchange for border wall funding.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5881 on: January 28, 2019, 07:20:08 AM »
This Reuters article seems to confirm that Trump will not budge an inch on immigration reform, even if it means wall funding, and plans to instigate another shutdown and declare an emergency if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, without compromise.

Trump doubts lawmakers can reach acceptable border security deal

Quote
In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump also sounded doubtful about a possible deal involving both wall money and a broader overhaul of U.S. immigration laws.

“I doubt it,” he said, when asked if he would agree to citizenship for a group of immigrants known as “Dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children - in exchange for border wall funding.

I really hope we don't go down that path.  The last shutdown sucked for us, and another one so close will likely be worse even if it doesn't last quite as long.  At the same time any 'emergency declaration' is going to get tied up in the courts for months, under the obvious question 'can the president unilaterally decide what constitutes an 'emergency' and does this qualify?'  I suspect the lower courts will say 'no' but SCOTUS might overturn.

At the same time, Trump has seemed defiant multiple times before only to crater - most recently with the SOTU and his shutdown demands. 

I'm hoping for a broad compromise that has enough support to give a veto-proof majority.  Given how little appetite there is for another shutdown right now that seems like a possibility.  The best course of action here seems to be for the legislature to do their job and remove the executive branch entirely from questions regarding the funding of our government.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1995
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5882 on: January 28, 2019, 08:26:22 AM »
This Reuters article seems to confirm that Trump will not budge an inch on immigration reform, even if it means wall funding, and plans to instigate another shutdown and declare an emergency if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, without compromise.

Trump doubts lawmakers can reach acceptable border security deal

Quote
In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump also sounded doubtful about a possible deal involving both wall money and a broader overhaul of U.S. immigration laws.

“I doubt it,” he said, when asked if he would agree to citizenship for a group of immigrants known as “Dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children - in exchange for border wall funding.

I really hope we don't go down that path.  The last shutdown sucked for us, and another one so close will likely be worse even if it doesn't last quite as long.  At the same time any 'emergency declaration' is going to get tied up in the courts for months, under the obvious question 'can the president unilaterally decide what constitutes an 'emergency' and does this qualify?'  I suspect the lower courts will say 'no' but SCOTUS might overturn.

At the same time, Trump has seemed defiant multiple times before only to crater - most recently with the SOTU and his shutdown demands. 

I'm hoping for a broad compromise that has enough support to give a veto-proof majority.  Given how little appetite there is for another shutdown right now that seems like a possibility.  The best course of action here seems to be for the legislature to do their job and remove the executive branch entirely from questions regarding the funding of our government.

It would be colossally stupid for Trump to shut down the government AND declare a state of emergency.  Just declare the emergency and be done with it.  I don't understand why he didn't do that within a few days of the original shutdown (tactically speaking, I mean).  It would be have been win-win for him: he could be the 'good guy' the reopened the gov't; he could act tough for his base; he won't actually get the wall b/c the courts will likely block it so he can blame 'Obama judges'; and best of all he can continue to run on building the wall, which he really needs for his reelection campaign.

But, Trump has proven himself colossally stupid many times, so I guess we will be stockpiling the backpay and not making any investments. Again. Until the Feb deadline is past.

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5883 on: January 28, 2019, 10:08:56 AM »
A report released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 billion that's gone forever, in the 35 days that parts of the federal government went unfunded.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/shutdown-cost-u-s-economy-11-billion-budget-office-says-n963531

How is that for winning? Are we tired of winning yet? If not, maybe we should have another shutdown. #frustrated

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5884 on: January 28, 2019, 10:24:50 AM »
A report released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 billion that's gone forever, in the 35 days that parts of the federal government went unfunded.

I suspect the true cost of the shutdown won't be known for several years, and that another shutdown (like a double-dip recession) would have an exponentially larger impact.  There's the easily-measured direct effects, like 800k federal workers who accomplished no work, then there will be considerable (but delayed/harder-to-measure) indirect effects, like contractors and independent businesses operating at a loss for over a month. Many already initiated cost-cutting measures like reducing payroll - another shutdown and some of these companies may be pushed into bankruptcy.  Then there's the very important but almost immeasurable effects like loss of confidence in the federal government and exodus of federal employees due to the sudden insecurity and politization of their jobs.  I suspect attracting talented and dedicated people to the civil service will be harder now, and the efficacy of federal departments will suffer because of that loss of talent.

To add insult to injury, "winning" here involves punching ourselves in the face until the other side says "mercy".  Regardless of the outcome everyone's worse off having endured this fiasco.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 10:39:22 AM by nereo »

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5885 on: January 28, 2019, 10:37:05 AM »
...Then there's the very important but almost immeasurable effects like loss of confidence in the federal government and exodus of federal employees due to the sudden insecurity and politization of their jobs.  I suspect attracting talented and dedicated people to the civil service will be harder now, and the efficacy of federal departments will suffer because of those loss of talent.

I'm really hoping that one of the proposed bills aimed at keeping the government funded at historic levels in the event of a budget impasse will gain some traction. The way we currently handle government shutdowns is imbecilic.

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5886 on: January 28, 2019, 11:34:18 AM »
A report released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 billion that's gone forever, in the 35 days that parts of the federal government went unfunded.

I suspect the true cost of the shutdown won't be known for several years, and that another shutdown (like a double-dip recession) would have an exponentially larger impact.  There's the easily-measured direct effects, like 800k federal workers who accomplished no work, then there will be considerable (but delayed/harder-to-measure) indirect effects, like contractors and independent businesses operating at a loss for over a month. Many already initiated cost-cutting measures like reducing payroll - another shutdown and some of these companies may be pushed into bankruptcy.  Then there's the very important but almost immeasurable effects like loss of confidence in the federal government and exodus of federal employees due to the sudden insecurity and politization of their jobs.  I suspect attracting talented and dedicated people to the civil service will be harder now, and the efficacy of federal departments will suffer because of that loss of talent.

To add insult to injury, "winning" here involves punching ourselves in the face until the other side says "mercy".  Regardless of the outcome everyone's worse off having endured this fiasco.

Totally agree. The number is something they can measure now. Who knows several years later, we all can look in the past and wow... that was 20B hit instead of 11B.

Another shutdown imho will be a disaster. What happen with Mexico is going to pay for the wall? Why suddenly tax payer are being forced to pay for this wall?

I believe in "lets not have a second term so whatever it takes" so if it takes another shutdown until 2020 to wake everyone up, so be it. My thoughts is if on first term is a mess like this, can you imagine what could happen on the second term where there is nothing to lose, no accountability at all.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5887 on: January 28, 2019, 02:13:39 PM »
...Then there's the very important but almost immeasurable effects like loss of confidence in the federal government and exodus of federal employees due to the sudden insecurity and politization of their jobs.  I suspect attracting talented and dedicated people to the civil service will be harder now, and the efficacy of federal departments will suffer because of those loss of talent.

I'm really hoping that one of the proposed bills aimed at keeping the government funded at historic levels in the event of a budget impasse will gain some traction. The way we currently handle government shutdowns is imbecilic.
I'm really hoping that congress can just do their jobs and pass budgets.  The proposals to keep historical funding levels will just give Republicans incentive to block passage of budgets, thereby effectively lowering funding for federal programs.  These bills are solutions to a problem that the crafters have made.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4025
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5888 on: January 30, 2019, 03:34:53 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

toganet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5889 on: January 30, 2019, 05:33:08 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

I don't think we can assume that, as there are other explanations that aren't necessarily "treason" -- but I think regardless of whether there is any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and/or administration, his policies do seem to strengthen Russia at the expense of the USA.  And the GOP going along with it may not be collusion, but it is complicity.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5890 on: January 30, 2019, 07:16:54 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

I don't think we can assume that, as there are other explanations that aren't necessarily "treason" -- but I think regardless of whether there is any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and/or administration, his policies do seem to strengthen Russia at the expense of the USA.  And the GOP going along with it may not be collusion, but it is complicity.

I'll have to agree - one alternative explanation is simple unadulterated greed on the part of Team Trump, and that they got played by a well trained, focused and dedicated Russian op. All Trump want(ed) was to build guilted skyscrapers in Moscow so he could play the part of a plutocrat, and he didn't sell out his country as much as Putin just manipulated him every step of the way, flattering him, making Trump feel like a supreme negotiator - you know, the useful idiot.
Wouldn't surprise me - on one side you've got a career-trained KGB operative with decades of experience subverting the US, on the other you've got a TV personality with an enormous ego.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4025
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5891 on: January 30, 2019, 08:26:43 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

I don't think we can assume that, as there are other explanations that aren't necessarily "treason" -- but I think regardless of whether there is any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and/or administration, his policies do seem to strengthen Russia at the expense of the USA.  And the GOP going along with it may not be collusion, but it is complicity.

I'll have to agree - one alternative explanation is simple unadulterated greed on the part of Team Trump, and that they got played by a well trained, focused and dedicated Russian op. All Trump want(ed) was to build guilted skyscrapers in Moscow so he could play the part of a plutocrat, and he didn't sell out his country as much as Putin just manipulated him every step of the way, flattering him, making Trump feel like a supreme negotiator - you know, the useful idiot.
Wouldn't surprise me - on one side you've got a career-trained KGB operative with decades of experience subverting the US, on the other you've got a TV personality with an enormous ego.

Selling your country out for stupidity,vanity and greed is still selling out your country.   And talking about it in the past tense is wrongly ignoring that it is going on right this minute, up to the meeting in Argentina and the removing of sanctions on Deripaska.   Trump's White House said that there would be no meeting in Argentina, Russia then said there would be a meeting, and there was then a meeting at which no USA official was present.  Any intelligence service in the world would assume on that basis and on the basis of past actions that 1) Putin knew about the coming meeting even though the White House was denying it, 2) Putin is inducing Trump, through whatever means, to betray his country, and 3) Trump will go on betraying his country for as long as he is given the opportunity.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12919
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5892 on: January 30, 2019, 08:30:28 AM »
Yeah, but WHERE'S THE COLLUSION?

:P

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5893 on: January 30, 2019, 08:34:12 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

I don't think we can assume that, as there are other explanations that aren't necessarily "treason" -- but I think regardless of whether there is any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and/or administration, his policies do seem to strengthen Russia at the expense of the USA.  And the GOP going along with it may not be collusion, but it is complicity.

I'll have to agree - one alternative explanation is simple unadulterated greed on the part of Team Trump, and that they got played by a well trained, focused and dedicated Russian op. All Trump want(ed) was to build guilted skyscrapers in Moscow so he could play the part of a plutocrat, and he didn't sell out his country as much as Putin just manipulated him every step of the way, flattering him, making Trump feel like a supreme negotiator - you know, the useful idiot.
Wouldn't surprise me - on one side you've got a career-trained KGB operative with decades of experience subverting the US, on the other you've got a TV personality with an enormous ego.

Selling your country out for stupidity,vanity and greed is still selling out your country.   

Of course.  The question then becomes 'what did the president know (if anything) and when did he know it?". There still remains the possibility that he didn't realize he was selling out his country. He lives/d in a bubble and Putin and others were more than happy to keep up that illusion. Given the warped-reality tweets he's so fond of pushing out that isn't an unreasonable scenario to me.  BUt it's just one possibility.  It's also very possible that he knew and understood exactly what was going on and simply did not and does not care.
I anticipate decade of analyses on these topics as information slowly becomes available.  I don't think history will shine a very favorable light on this administration.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12919
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5894 on: January 30, 2019, 08:37:30 AM »
Are we now at the point where it can be assumed that Trump is a traitor to the USA and that it is up to people who say he is not to prove their case?


https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

The White House denied that there was to be any such meeting but the Russian press apparently knew better - so which back channel was used to set up the meeting in advance without any USA officials knowing?

I don't think we can assume that, as there are other explanations that aren't necessarily "treason" -- but I think regardless of whether there is any collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and/or administration, his policies do seem to strengthen Russia at the expense of the USA.  And the GOP going along with it may not be collusion, but it is complicity.

I'll have to agree - one alternative explanation is simple unadulterated greed on the part of Team Trump, and that they got played by a well trained, focused and dedicated Russian op. All Trump want(ed) was to build guilted skyscrapers in Moscow so he could play the part of a plutocrat, and he didn't sell out his country as much as Putin just manipulated him every step of the way, flattering him, making Trump feel like a supreme negotiator - you know, the useful idiot.
Wouldn't surprise me - on one side you've got a career-trained KGB operative with decades of experience subverting the US, on the other you've got a TV personality with an enormous ego.

Selling your country out for stupidity,vanity and greed is still selling out your country.   

Of course.  The question then becomes 'what did the president know (if anything) and when did he know it?". There still remains the possibility that he didn't realize he was selling out his country. He lives/d in a bubble and Putin and others were more than happy to keep up that illusion. Given the warped-reality tweets he's so fond of pushing out that isn't an unreasonable scenario to me.  BUt it's just one possibility.  It's also very possible that he knew and understood exactly what was going on and simply did not and does not care.
I anticipate decade of analyses on these topics as information slowly becomes available.  I don't think history will shine a very favorable light on this administration.

Sir, I can't be held accountable for my actions behind the wheel of that car!  I was drunk at the time!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5895 on: January 30, 2019, 08:51:44 AM »
Continuing this discussion of fantasy-land...

After detailed testimony yesterday by the director of the CIA (Haspel) and Director of National Security (Cotes) and the FBI Director (Wray) outlining how (among other things) N. Korea was not giving up its nuclear arms, ISIS had not been defeated and could potentially attack the mainland US and that Iran did not appear to be building a nuclear weapon and that the earlier Obama-era sanctions had appeared to work - Trump tweets out:

Quote
The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! ... Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!

Important to note: Trump appointed Cotes, Haspel and Wray, who are all publicly contradicting the president on what they see as the most vital national security threats.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4025
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5896 on: January 30, 2019, 09:08:37 AM »

Important to note: Trump appointed Cotes, Haspel and Wray, who are all publicly contradicting the president on what they see as the most vital national security threats.

They were all very careful while telling the truth about national security threats to keep their comments on Trump himself to the private sessions.  I'm guessing they all agreed in advance it was the only way to keep their jobs and so keep doing what little they are allowed by Trump to do to keep the US safe.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9884
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5897 on: January 30, 2019, 09:25:58 AM »

Important to note: Trump appointed Cotes, Haspel and Wray, who are all publicly contradicting the president on what they see as the most vital national security threats.

They were all very careful while telling the truth about national security threats to keep their comments on Trump himself to the private sessions.  I'm guessing they all agreed in advance it was the only way to keep their jobs and so keep doing what little they are allowed by Trump to do to keep the US safe.

As someone who has been in the civil service (and who has a spouse employed by the federal government now) - one thing which ahs pleasantly surprised me through this administration is that, by and large, career employees continue to do their jobs in a non-partisan way, publishing the reports, analyzing the data and identifying risks - even when it runs contrary to this administration's policies and world-view.

To be sure there's an enormous brain-drain going on which will haunt us for decades, but despite all the threats and public brow-beating those running the ship continue to do their jobs, keep the engines going and chart us around rocks and icebergs.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3507
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5898 on: January 30, 2019, 10:24:17 AM »

Important to note: Trump appointed Cotes, Haspel and Wray, who are all publicly contradicting the president on what they see as the most vital national security threats.

They were all very careful while telling the truth about national security threats to keep their comments on Trump himself to the private sessions.  I'm guessing they all agreed in advance it was the only way to keep their jobs and so keep doing what little they are allowed by Trump to do to keep the US safe.

As someone who has been in the civil service (and who has a spouse employed by the federal government now) - one thing which ahs pleasantly surprised me through this administration is that, by and large, career employees continue to do their jobs in a non-partisan way, publishing the reports, analyzing the data and identifying risks - even when it runs contrary to this administration's policies and world-view.

To be sure there's an enormous brain-drain going on which will haunt us for decades, but despite all the threats and public brow-beating those running the ship continue to do their jobs, keep the engines going and chart us around rocks and icebergs.

The bureaucrats may save the world. Perhaps literally.