So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[accolay]

What are some of the better ideas on trade, health and borders?   We have a huge trade imbalance with China and our companies are subjected to unfair practices there.  China also does not follow the same ecological and worker safety standards as the other modern industrial countries so while it is great that you can sit there with your I-phone 10 eating your avocado toast made on your solar home powered toaster after getting home from work in your Chevy Volt powered by lithium batteries, these items were most likely produced in China and by environmental and worker standards that would have American companies sued to non existence.

How YOU going to fix that?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2011/feb/09/pollution-china-manufacturing-towns

First off, dude, this is (or at least was) the MMM forum. I'm not spending money on all that shit you listed. Here's an article to blow your mind:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/25/the-truth-about-the-great-american-manufacturing-d.aspx

Second, I'm fixing it by consuming as little as possible. I can only do so much within my circle of influence. But as far as environmentalism in China, you should find some updated articles on what people actually in China are trying to accomplish there. Thirdly and finally, cutting American environmental standards and regulations and firing or forcing out the scientists who study these impacts as Trump has is definitely not the way to fix the problem.

But I suppose trade wars are "good and easy to win" so there is that.

[KBecks]

I'm only participating casually in the conversation and I'm not into politics, so I'm not keeping up with every action by the administration. Most politicians aren't that great and aren't that effective. I prefer a conservative court and that's as good a reason as any to keep Trump in office.  Low unemployment is excellent for people who want jobs and who want to move up in their jobs.  I don't understand why Canadians want to argue US politics.

[Roland of Gilead]

First off, dude, this is (or at least was) the MMM forum. I'm not spending money on all that shit you listed. Here's an article to blow your mind:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/25/the-truth-about-the-great-american-manufacturing-d.aspx

Second, I'm fixing it by consuming as little as possible. I can only do so much within my circle of influence. But as far as environmentalism in China, you should find some updated articles on what people actually in China are trying to accomplish there. Thirdly and finally, cutting American environmental standards and regulations and firing or forcing out the scientists who study these impacts as Trump has is definitely not the way to fix the problem.

But I suppose trade wars are "good and easy to win" so there is that.

So you say I should find updated articles and then you link me an article from the exact same year I posted.   Gee.

[Kris]

I'm only participating casually in the conversation and I'm not into politics, so I'm not keeping up with every action by the administration. Most politicians aren't that great and aren't that effective. I prefer a conservative court and that's as good a reason as any to keep Trump in office.  Low unemployment is excellent for people who want jobs and who want to move up in their jobs.  I don't understand why Canadians want to argue US politics.

US politics affects everyone, unfortunately. Especially when the US president is ignorant, mercurial, and narcissistic, and prone to bad decisions that could be catastrophic for others (like actually rolling back any efforts to deal with climate change, for example, just because Obama believed in it).

[Roland of Gilead]

On another forum I'm on, there's reflexive Trump-love. Whatever he does must be good, simply because Trump did it.

On this one, there's reflexive Trump-hate. Whatever he does must be bad, simply because Trump did it.

I think this really is a bigger issue than Trump: polarisation. It's not good for your country.

+1

This forum is just as much Trump-hate-liberals-shit-golden-egg-laying-unicorns as something like Survivalist forums is Liberals-eat-your-babies-Trump-is-God

I think if the two forums merged, they would vanish in a large release of relatively useless energy.

[Kris]

The fact that you think they are equivalent is laughable. Pointing out that Trump does a lot of fucked up things is not irrational.

And yeah, I sure as hell haven't seen the unquestioning hero worship for literally any Democratic candidates, from any left-leaning person on this site.

Your unquestioning false equivalencies are just that.

[Roland of Gilead]

The fact that you think they are equivalent is laughable. Pointing out that Trump does a lot of fucked up things is not irrational.

And yeah, I sure as hell haven't seen the unquestioning hero worship for literally any Democratic candidates, from any left-leaning person on this site.

Your unquestioning false equivalencies are just that.

You make my point without me even having to try.  Thanks.

[Kris]

The fact that you think they are equivalent is laughable. Pointing out that Trump does a lot of fucked up things is not irrational.

And yeah, I sure as hell haven't seen the unquestioning hero worship for literally any Democratic candidates, from any left-leaning person on this site.

Your unquestioning false equivalencies are just that.

You make my point without me even having to try.  Thanks.

Only if you don’t bother to read my actual words, but instead just make them say what you want to believe.

Which... yeah, seems like kind of your whole deal.

[MDM]

1. I'm not better off than I was a year ago: My federal income tax went up.

For some, that is what happened.  For most, the opposite is true.  See A Preliminary Look at 2018 Tax Data for statistics.

[Cool Friend]

The fact that you think they are equivalent is laughable. Pointing out that Trump does a lot of fucked up things is not irrational.

And yeah, I sure as hell haven't seen the unquestioning hero worship for literally any Democratic candidates, from any left-leaning person on this site.

Your unquestioning false equivalencies are just that.

You make my point without me even having to try.  Thanks.

Roland of Gilead: "This caricature I believe in is exactly the same as the other caricature I believe in but opposite!!! But the same!!!"
Kris: "That is not a fair comparison."
Roland of Gilead: "See???!?!?!"

[KBecks]

1. I'm not better off than I was a year ago: My federal income tax went up.

For some, that is what happened.  For most, the opposite is true.  See A Preliminary Look at 2018 Tax Data for statistics.

My understanding is that business got easier too, which led to more spending (investment) and more hiring.

[Malloy]

1. I'm not better off than I was a year ago: My federal income tax went up.

For some, that is what happened.  For most, the opposite is true.  See A Preliminary Look at 2018 Tax Data for statistics.

My understanding is that business got easier too, which led to more spending (investment) and more hiring.

Do you have a source for that understanding?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-29/trump-s-tax-cuts-aren-t-leading-to-more-business-investment

https://www.barrons.com/articles/sorry-but-trumps-corporate-tax-changes-did-not-put-america-first-51553767200

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-investment/15-trillion-us-tax-cut-has-no-major-impact-on-business-capex-plans-survey-idUSKCN1PM0B0

The analysis seems to point to the opposite conclusion with regard to business reinvestment.  And other posters have already pointed out that the positive trends in employment largely occurred under the Obama administration. 

Trump is a garbage fire of a person and an administration.  The fact that we're clinging to dim bulbs like Rick fucking Perry as being the shining stars of this administration is proof enough.  I won't play enlightened centrist with Trump and Obama and pretend that Both Sides Are Equally Good and Bad.  Remember when Obama hired his inexperienced son in law to fix the middle east and also healthcare and drug addiction?  Me either. 

[GuitarStv]

I'm only participating casually in the conversation and I'm not into politics, so I'm not keeping up with every action by the administration. Most politicians aren't that great and aren't that effective. I prefer a conservative court and that's as good a reason as any to keep Trump in office.  Low unemployment is excellent for people who want jobs and who want to move up in their jobs.  I don't understand why Canadians want to argue US politics.

If you want a conservative Supreme Court . . . cool.  Literally any republican president will get you that.  It's not a valid reason to support Trump.

The United States is (despite Trump's best efforts) still a world leader.  The things that Trump decides to do on a whim impact people around the world (destabilizing relations with Iran by reneging on settled contracts, fighting climate change initiatives, turning away refugees from around the world, etc.) but with Canada in particular.  The US is Canada's largest trading partner and shares one of the largest unsecured borders in the world with our country.

[nereo]

I don't understand why Canadians want to argue US politics.

Canada is the US's largest trading partner, and DJT has tried to replace NAFTA with the fairly similar USMCA.  At the same time he's used the national security justification to place tariffs on Canadian steel and other imports (see earlier about Canada being the US's largest trading partner).

Also related, we seem to be talking a lot here about Iran, and North Korea, and Russia, and Mexico, and the UK.  Sweden has even entered the conversation lately unexpectedly.  We talk about the politics and events in other countries because it heavily influences our own.

[gaja]

I'm only participating casually in the conversation and I'm not into politics, so I'm not keeping up with every action by the administration. Most politicians aren't that great and aren't that effective. I prefer a conservative court and that's as good a reason as any to keep Trump in office.  Low unemployment is excellent for people who want jobs and who want to move up in their jobs.  I don't understand why Canadians want to argue US politics.

I'm Norwegian, and I understand very well why Canadians are concerned. One of the first news stories here after Trump started messing up the Iran situation, was that USA had started asking for Norwegian soldiers to be deployed through NATO to protect the Hormouz strait and Oman Bay. Norway and the EU both stand by the atom deal with Iran and do not want a war, but because of Trump our people might end up killed. https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/lArJv7/usa-frir-til-nato-norge-vil-ikke-delta-i-iran-operasjon

This is the reality. USA starts wars and escalate conflicts, and uses NATO to draft soldiers from other countries to do their bidding. We have lost young men all over the world, and spent billions on stupid weapons, just to keep our word to NATO. And then Trump and his fans have the audacity to say that we owe the US money because they spend more on the military than us?

Wonder where this old banner is... time to brush off the dust:

[KBecks]

If you want a conservative Supreme Court . . . cool.  Literally any republican president will get you that.  It's not a valid reason to support Trump.

Practically speaking, the Repubs are not going to go get a new candidate, so...

[DavidAnnArbor]

- The Tax Cuts and Jobs act -- I had to look this up, searching Trump and taxes gets a bunch of hits about his personal returns, but his changes to taxation benefited many people.

"Trump's only major legislative achievement is the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act. The core of that bill was a sharp reduction in corporate tax rates, which has led to a drastic fall in tax revenues, on the order of $140 billion over the past year."

So who is benefiting from the tax cut? Basically, shareholders, who have received increased dividends and seen a lot of capital gains as corporations use their windfall not to invest but to buy back their own stocks.

And a big share of these gains to shareholders has gone to foreigners.

Overall, foreigners own about 35 percent of the equity in corporations subject to U.S. taxes. And as a result, foreign investors have received around 35 percent of the benefits of the tax cut. As I said, that's more than $40 billion a year."

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jul/27/paul-krugman-donald-trump-s-secret-fore/?news-columnists

[marty998]

What are some of the better ideas on trade, health and borders?   We have a huge trade imbalance with China and our companies are subjected to unfair practices there.  China also does not follow the same ecological and worker safety standards as the other modern industrial countries so while it is great that you can sit there with your I-phone 10 eating your avocado toast made on your solar home powered toaster after getting home from work in your Chevy Volt powered by lithium batteries, these items were most likely produced in China and by environmental and worker standards that would have American companies sued to non existence.

How YOU going to fix that?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2011/feb/09/pollution-china-manufacturing-towns

[/quote]

With respect, it is by and large American multi-national companies engaging or subcontracting these Chinese businesses, thus tacitly approving of those practices you are so vehemently against.

Not that that exonerates China from also being responsible (hehe exoneration means different things to the Republicans in this thread lol).

[GuitarStv]

If you want a conservative Supreme Court . . . cool.  Literally any republican president will get you that.  It's not a valid reason to support Trump.

Practically speaking, the Repubs are not going to go get a new candidate, so...

As you've pointed out, Trump has achieved nothing of value that would not have been easily achieved by any other Republican president.  His main differentiators are that he's openly racist, sexist, homophobic, collaborated with foreign powers to win the election, uses his position as president to increase his personal wealth, and is nepotistic.  Practically speaking then, those are the qualities Republicans want in a leader.

[KBecks]

No, you are being ridiculous. There's no point in talking further if your goal is to put down the entire other party.

You're the one who started the, Are Social Conservatives Always Wrong? thread.  I've wasted enough time on that shit, thanks.

[former player]

No, you are being ridiculous. There's no point in talking further if your goal is to put down the entire other party.

You're the one who started the, Are Social Conservatives Always Wrong? thread.  I've wasted enough time on that shit, thanks.

What is ridiculous?  The Republican Party could have chosen a candidate in 2016 who was not racist and corrupt and who would have carried out a Republican agenda.  It could still choose a candidate in 2020 who is not racist and corrupt and who would carry out a Republican agenda.  The fact that the Republican Party did not do so in 2016 and very likely will no do so in 2020 tells everyone that Republicans lack the moral fibre to stand up to racism and corruption when they think that claimed advantages those things come packaged with are sufficient justification to go along with them.  "Fellow travellers with racism and corruption" is the polite (or euphemistic) way to put it, "collaborators with racism and corruption" is the less polite and euphemistic way to put it.

[Kyle Schuant]

The Republican Party could have chosen a candidate in 2016 who was not racist and corrupt and who would have carried out a Republican agenda.

Yes but they would have lost. I mean, how do you raise a billion dollars for your election without some corruption? Think carefully, now.

Your system encourages corruption. Racism, well, that's another question.

Just don't choose Biden. In the choice between a rich sleazy boring old white guy, and a rich sleazy entertaining old white guy, it is not clear why the people would choose the boring one.

You guys are continuing to deny the issues which got Trump elected: the decline of the waged class. Being members of the salaried or investment classes, you don't see the decline of the waged class as an issue. Trump snuck in through this blind spot. If you don't open your eyes to it, and you probably won't, not only will Trump win again in 2020, he'll get another go and do 2024 as well.

This was written before Trump won, and like me, he predicted the win.

https://dedona.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment-john-michael-greer/

Consider this carefully, or you're going to have Trump in office until he dies of old age - at which point things get nasty, because his supporters will insist it's an assassination.

[KBecks]

If he wins, Trump will only do two terms.  Then the presidency is very likely to be handed to a Democrat.   It's ebb and flow.

[talltexan]

The first step act, which was an attempt at criminal just reform, is a good start in the right direction.

Other than that, I can't think of any other good things that have come out of the Trump administration.
In fact, it's been mostly bad on so many different fronts.

A few pages ago, I believe I asked for anyone to give an opinion about the executive order Trump issued on drug prices. The Economist praised it. But there must not be the critical mass of trump supporters here such that anyone can speak to this particular, positive step.

While I live openly as a registered Republican and #nevertrumper, I do earnestly seek out pro-Trump opinions, as I think anyone grappling with the larger questions of how society will be governed ought to do.

[former player]

The Republican Party could have chosen a candidate in 2016 who was not racist and corrupt and who would have carried out a Republican agenda.

Yes but they would have lost. I mean, how do you raise a billion dollars for your election without some corruption? Think carefully, now.

There's a difference between institutional corruption (ie the funding of the American political parties and their followers) and the personal corruption by Trump (no blind trust for his businesses, breaking the Emoluments Act, public money funding his businesses, Ivanka and Jared's business dealings, and so on).  The first is endemic, the second particular to one individual.

[nereo]

A few pages ago, I believe I asked for anyone to give an opinion about the executive order Trump issued on drug prices. The Economist praised it. But there must not be the critical mass of trump supporters here such that anyone can speak to this particular, positive step.

I don't like government by EO, and see that approach as short-sighted and ultimately bad for our country.  That said, I think the attempt to limit the cost of Rx is a good one, though it's just a small step in what needs to be done to bring our health care costs in line with other developed countries.

So good step, wrong approach?  I'm frustrated that such a bill wouldn't be pushed through congress by the WH, either when it had a majority in both houses or with bipartisan support (and there is plenty when it comes to lowering Rx costs).  But of course that would put a number of pols on both sides that get a great deal of money from drug companies in an awkward spot.

[Kris]

The first step act, which was an attempt at criminal just reform, is a good start in the right direction.

Other than that, I can't think of any other good things that have come out of the Trump administration.
In fact, it's been mostly bad on so many different fronts.

A few pages ago, I believe I asked for anyone to give an opinion about the executive order Trump issued on drug prices. The Economist praised it. But there must not be the critical mass of trump supporters here such that anyone can speak to this particular, positive step.

While I live openly as a registered Republican and #nevertrumper, I do earnestly seek out pro-Trump opinions, as I think anyone grappling with the larger questions of how society will be governed ought to do.

Has he actually done it yet, though? I know he talked about it, but other than saying an order was being written, I don’t remember hearing any concrete details or that he had signed it.

[Kris]

A few pages ago, I believe I asked for anyone to give an opinion about the executive order Trump issued on drug prices. The Economist praised it. But there must not be the critical mass of trump supporters here such that anyone can speak to this particular, positive step.

I don't like government by EO, and see that approach as short-sighted and ultimately bad for our country.  That said, I think the attempt to limit the cost of Rx is a good one, though it's just a small step in what needs to be done to bring our health care costs in line with other developed countries.

So good step, wrong approach?  I'm frustrated that such a bill wouldn't be pushed through congress by the WH, either when it had a majority in both houses or with bipartisan support (and there is plenty when it comes to lowering Rx costs).  But of course that would put a number of pols on both sides that get a great deal of money from drug companies in an awkward spot.

Agreed.

Then again, big pharma is actively trying to talk Trump out of this... so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/454694-trump-meets-with-pharma-executives-amid-drug-pricing-push

[nereo]

You guys are continuing to deny the issues which got Trump elected: the decline of the waged class. Being members of the salaried or investment classes, you don't see the decline of the waged class as an issue. Trump snuck in through this blind spot. If you don't open your eyes to it, and you probably won't, not only will Trump win again in 2020, he'll get another go and do 2024 as well.

This narrative that Trump won due to a groundswell of working-class voters is false.  Trump's main source of support were white males over 50, and white evangelical christians, and the wealthy.  He only won 50% of the non-college vote (still more than HRC, but hardly a landslide).  Mostly he benefited by having a large swath of the waged class - who are overwhelmingly non-white - not vote in the numbers that did in previous elections.

If he was "successful" among the waged class it was because he and his campaign convinced them not to vote.  He didn't gain supporters there.

[KBecks]

I still think he won because Hillary took a nap on her Wisconsin campaign, and the rest of the rust belt as well.

[former player]

You guys are continuing to deny the issues which got Trump elected: the decline of the waged class. Being members of the salaried or investment classes, you don't see the decline of the waged class as an issue. Trump snuck in through this blind spot. If you don't open your eyes to it, and you probably won't, not only will Trump win again in 2020, he'll get another go and do 2024 as well.

This narrative that Trump won due to a groundswell of working-class voters is false.  Trump's main source of support were white males over 50, and white evangelical christians, and the wealthy.  He only won 50% of the non-college vote (still more than HRC, but hardly a landslide).  Mostly he benefited by having a large swath of the waged class - who are overwhelmingly non-white - not vote in the numbers that did in previous elections.

If he was "successful" among the waged class it was because he and his campaign and the Russians convinced them not to vote.  He didn't gain supporters there.

FTFY

[ketchup]

You guys are continuing to deny the issues which got Trump elected: the decline of the waged class. Being members of the salaried or investment classes, you don't see the decline of the waged class as an issue. Trump snuck in through this blind spot. If you don't open your eyes to it, and you probably won't, not only will Trump win again in 2020, he'll get another go and do 2024 as well.

This narrative that Trump won due to a groundswell of working-class voters is false.  Trump's main source of support were white males over 50, and white evangelical christians, and the wealthy.  He only won 50% of the non-college vote (still more than HRC, but hardly a landslide).  Mostly he benefited by having a large swath of the waged class - who are overwhelmingly non-white - not vote in the numbers that did in previous elections.

If he was "successful" among the waged class it was because he and his campaign convinced them not to vote.  He didn't gain supporters there.

There were also a lot of unenthusiastic dems (I knew plenty of people that were anti-Trump voting for Hillary, pro-Trump voting for Trump, or anti-Hillary voting for Trump, but not all many that were actually excited about Hillary) leading to lower voter turnout among dems.

[arebelspy]

Just don't choose Biden. In the choice between a rich sleazy boring old white guy, and a rich sleazy entertaining old white guy, it is not clear why the people would choose the boring one.

Tell that to the people literally dying at the border.

People that are not illegal immigrants, but legally seeking asylum from terrible conditions. And then they come here.

But yeah, why would anyone not choose the "entertaining" one.

[arebelspy]

BTW, I'm no fan of Biden. Owned by corporations, not much better than Trump when it'd come to big business > people. Easily one of the worst of the democratic candidates.

But at least we'd get rid of the racism, a little of the sexism, xenophobia, and people literally dying due to his policies.

If those are my two (ugly) choices, I'll take boring.

And I feel queasy thinking anyone would choose the other option so they're "entertained."

[Roland of Gilead]

Tell that to the people literally dying at the border.

People that are not illegal immigrants, but legally seeking asylum from terrible conditions. And then they come here.

But yeah, why would anyone not choose the "entertaining" one.

Is there a breakdown of the number of deaths at the border with a comparison of the same number of deaths in a general, non detained population of the same social and economic status?

Like is it 5 deaths out of 200,000 people in the last 6 months which isn't that far out of range of typical deaths from various illness in a general population of the same social and economic status?

Obviously they are safer from getting killed by MS-13 while in detention.

If one were to dig into this in a really non biased way, I would make a guess that there are actually FEWER deaths in detention than in the non detained illegal immigrant population, just because there is some level of oversight and medical care in detention while none of that is guaranteed to the free roaming illegal immigrant (who may actually not take their child in for treatment simply out of fear or poverty).   This type of statistic would never be reported though...it doesn't sell and create heart wrenching news.

[partgypsy]

You guys are continuing to deny the issues which got Trump elected: the decline of the waged class. Being members of the salaried or investment classes, you don't see the decline of the waged class as an issue. Trump snuck in through this blind spot. If you don't open your eyes to it, and you probably won't, not only will Trump win again in 2020, he'll get another go and do 2024 as well.

This narrative that Trump won due to a groundswell of working-class voters is false.  Trump's main source of support were white males over 50, and white evangelical christians, and the wealthy.  He only won 50% of the non-college vote (still more than HRC, but hardly a landslide).  Mostly he benefited by having a large swath of the waged class - who are overwhelmingly non-white - not vote in the numbers that did in previous elections.

If he was "successful" among the waged class it was because he and his campaign convinced them not to vote.  He didn't gain supporters there.

There were also a lot of unenthusiastic dems (I knew plenty of people that were anti-Trump voting for Hillary, pro-Trump voting for Trump, or anti-Hillary voting for Trump, but not all many that were actually excited about Hillary) leading to lower voter turnout among dems.

That is true. I am basically a pragmatist, and Hillary is a pragmatist, which means for a lot of my friends who are really progressive,  she was politically to the right of where they are (esp foreign relations). Some of those same people unrightlfully blame her for giving up too early on nationalized health care. So that section was not particularly enthusiastic in either canvassing or showing up to vote.  There was also a sense of complacency that the Republicans really got screwed being saddled with Trump as the candidate, as he was not a serious, competent candidate.  That sense of complacency went away in the last weeks prior to election, but maybe too little too late.

[former player]

Is there a breakdown of the number of deaths at the border with a comparison of the same number of deaths in a general, non detained population of the same social and economic status?

Like is it 5 deaths out of 200,000 people in the last 6 months which isn't that far out of range of typical deaths from various illness in a general population of the same social and economic status?

[..]

If one were to dig into this in a really non biased way, I would make a guess that there are actually FEWER deaths in detention than in the non detained illegal immigrant population, just because there is some level of oversight and medical care in detention while none of that is guaranteed to the free roaming illegal immigrant (who may actually not take their child in for treatment simply out of fear or poverty).   This type of statistic would never be reported though...it doesn't sell and create heart wrenching news.

One might expect migrants to be a relatively more healthy population than the average: the old and/or sick and/or disabled aren't able to set out on that journey in the first place.

Obviously they are safer from getting killed by MS-13 while in detention.

Trump has made it pretty clear that his main way of trying to reduce asylum numbers is to make going through US immigration worse than staying at home with MS-13, failed crops and subsequent starvation due to climate change, and so on.  The dreadful conditions and the deaths in custody are the purpose rather than an undesirable side-effect.

[partgypsy]

Is there a breakdown of the number of deaths at the border with a comparison of the same number of deaths in a general, non detained population of the same social and economic status?

Like is it 5 deaths out of 200,000 people in the last 6 months which isn't that far out of range of typical deaths from various illness in a general population of the same social and economic status?

[..]

If one were to dig into this in a really non biased way, I would make a guess that there are actually FEWER deaths in detention than in the non detained illegal immigrant population, just because there is some level of oversight and medical care in detention while none of that is guaranteed to the free roaming illegal immigrant (who may actually not take their child in for treatment simply out of fear or poverty).   This type of statistic would never be reported though...it doesn't sell and create heart wrenching news.

One might expect migrants to be a relatively more healthy population than the average: the old and/or sick and/or disabled aren't able to set out on that journey in the first place.

Obviously they are safer from getting killed by MS-13 while in detention.

Trump has made it pretty clear that his main way of trying to reduce asylum numbers is to make going through US immigration worse than staying at home with MS-13, failed crops and subsequent starvation due to climate change, and so on.  The dreadful conditions and the deaths in custody are the purpose rather than an undesirable side-effect.

yes. The human rights violations have been done to create conditions (particularly the separation of children from their families) to deter migration. It is not a side-effect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-wants-toughness-to-deter-migration-but-physical-measures-keep-failing/2019/05/04/a14495a2-6d16-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d86f671063a0

[nereo]

I want boring.  I long for boring.  To me, a great President would be one that spends his time building bipartisan support making incremental changes that few would find exciting but most wouldn't object to.  S/he wouldn't go on tirades, start twitter wars or leave his/her own party scrambling to explain the latest comments from the WH.  Public statements would be professional, carefully worded and infrequent.  Transparency would be high. 

I want to be able to tune out for months on end and - upon checking up on the news - feel no sense of outrage, disgust or surprise at what my president has done or said.

[Omy]

Yes, please! ^^^^

[Roland of Gilead]

So I just looked it up and the age adjusted death rate in the USA is 731.9 per 100,000

There are 52,000 people in detention centers.

All I am saying is we should expect some deaths, it is normal.  What I am trying to figure out is if the number of deaths is way outside of the normal range or if a lot of this is just working the data.

Obviously if 5,000 out of 52,000 people died in detention in a period of 6 months it would be a huge evil human rights concentration camp type of disaster.

If 5 or 6 people die out of 52,000 in six months...is this actually out of the normal range?

My best friend's son died of the flu at age 7 and he was not in any concentration camp and had excellent medical care.  Conspiracy?

[Roadrunner53]

I want boring.  I long for boring.  To me, a great President would be one that spends his time building bipartisan support making incremental changes that few would find exciting but most wouldn't object to.  S/he wouldn't go on tirades, start twitter wars or leave his/her own party scrambling to explain the latest comments from the WH.  Public statements would be professional, carefully worded and infrequent.  Transparency would be high. 

I want to be able to tune out for months on end and - upon checking up on the news - feel no sense of outrage, disgust or surprise at what my president has done or said.

YES, YES, YES!!! BORING is good and that is what I used to think politics was. Now it is like getting punched in the gut every day and told "you will take it and you will like it". It was music to my ears to hear an eloquent President speak to us with intelligence, gentleness but firmness. The President is supposed to be like a father figure and calm our nerves when there are upheavals in the world and in our country. Tell us everything is going to be okay. Soothe us. Not treat us like ugly stepchildren that he'd rather kick in the ass than treat kindly. Insult women, insult minorities, let people rot in cages with no showers, inadequate food and sanitary conditions. Separate children from parents. Deny climate change while all the ice is melting, Paris suffering 108 degree temps, roads in the USA buckling from the heat. Our father figure has definitely let us down.

[Malloy]

Tell that to the people literally dying at the border.

People that are not illegal immigrants, but legally seeking asylum from terrible conditions. And then they come here.

But yeah, why would anyone not choose the "entertaining" one.

Is there a breakdown of the number of deaths at the border with a comparison of the same number of deaths in a general, non detained population of the same social and economic status?

Like is it 5 deaths out of 200,000 people in the last 6 months which isn't that far out of range of typical deaths from various illness in a general population of the same social and economic status?

Obviously they are safer from getting killed by MS-13 while in detention.

If one were to dig into this in a really non biased way, I would make a guess that there are actually FEWER deaths in detention than in the non detained illegal immigrant population, just because there is some level of oversight and medical care in detention while none of that is guaranteed to the free roaming illegal immigrant (who may actually not take their child in for treatment simply out of fear or poverty).   This type of statistic would never be reported though...it doesn't sell and create heart wrenching news.

This type of statistic would never be reported because we expect the US government to have a better record on killing innocent people than MS-13. Conservatives occasionally trot out these types of whatabout trial balloons (hey-did you ever consider that life as a slave wasn't so bad?  Their masters loved them!).  However, it's the 8th amendment that makes an argument of that sort moot.  We can't deny water to a child until they die of dehydration and then argue that it's better than being killed by MS-13 so who really cares. Our government is constitutionally prohibited from administering cruel and unusual punishments.  Perhaps not all deaths are preventable, but those due to lack of food, water, and medical care certainly are. 

[nereo]

So I just looked it up and the age adjusted death rate in the USA is 731.9 per 100,000

There are 52,000 people in detention centers.

If your facts are correct (and I am neither refuting nor supporting them), we would expect 3 or 4 people to die per year out of that 52,000 (since it can only be a whole number).  At least one source claims at least 24 migrants have died in detention since 2017.

There's two problems here - 1) if the time average timeframe these individuals are held is less than a year that number would be much less.  If, for example, most of those migrants had been in detention centers for 6 months or less the 'expected' deaths would be less than 2 per year. 2) The adjusted death rate may very well be different for migrants than it is for people within the USA. 

[Roland of Gilead]

This type of statistic would never be reported because we expect the US government to have a better record on killing innocent people than MS-13. Conservatives occasionally trot out these types of whatabout trial balloons (hey-did you ever consider that life as a slave wasn't so bad?  Their masters loved them!).  However, it's the 8th amendment that makes an argument of that sort moot.  We can't deny water to a child until they die of dehydration and then argue that it's better than being killed by MS-13 so who really cares. Our government is constitutionally prohibited from administering cruel and unusual punishments.  Perhaps not all deaths are preventable, but those due to lack of food, water, and medical care certainly are.

See, this is how you can twist facts to suit your view.   The child who died of dehydration while "in custody" had not been given water for several days by her parent(s).  She died 8 hours after crossing the border after her father had assured authorities she was in good health.

I am not saying the conditions at the border are good or that they don't need improving, but when you have thousands of people crossing a desert and then illegally crossing the border, sometimes waiting for darkness with no food or water, you are going to have poor health conditions.

If we really wanted to do something, we would attack this problem at the source, but that would mean big old bad USA bully would be invading other countries and messing with their right to govern.   Can't have that!

[KBecks]

The first minute or two of this video shows a former ICE official testifying before congress, and he explains how he has seen children die on the border.  He held a child who was dying in the back of a tractor-trailer.

Did this ICE official cause the death?  No, the terrible, risky conditions of illegal border crossing took the child's life.

Yet we'll treat that ICE official as if he is a heartless, evil person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SCltrq0wro

[Roland of Gilead]

The first minute or two of this video shows a former ICE official testifying before congress, and he explains how he has seen children die on the border.  He held a child who was dying in the back of a tractor-trailer.

Did this ICE official cause the death?  No, the terrible, risky conditions of illegal border crossing took the child's life.

Yet we'll treat that ICE official as if he is a heartless, evil person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SCltrq0wro

Of course we will because this is how you can sway a large amount of people to vote the way you want them to vote.  Facts never won an election, on either side.

Are people dying in detention?  Yes.   Is it out of the range of normal for the health conditions they are in when they arrive?  Unsure but likely it is not abnormal.  Democrats will have you believe we are running a death camp.

Are illegals committing crimes when they cross the border?  Some may be.  Is it really any more of a criminal behavior than regular American citizens commit?  No.   Republicans will have you believe that all crime is because of illegal immigration.

[former player]

If we really wanted to do something, we would attack this problem at the source, but that would mean big old bad USA bully would be invading other countries and messing with their right to govern.   Can't have that!

Since when does attacking the problem at source mean an invasion or subverting the right to govern?  Doesn't it mean supporting the rule of law in those countries, with training and support for good governance and the rule of law?  Doesn't it mean directing investment into mitigating the adverse effects of climate change with agricultural research and development?

And most of all, doesn't it mean the USA doing something about the demand for illegal drugs within its own borders which provides the raison d'etre and the rocket fuel for violence and gangs in those countries?

[Roland of Gilead]

If we really wanted to do something, we would attack this problem at the source, but that would mean big old bad USA bully would be invading other countries and messing with their right to govern.   Can't have that!

Since when does attacking the problem at source mean an invasion or subverting the right to govern?  Doesn't it mean supporting the rule of law in those countries, with training and support for good governance and the rule of law?  Doesn't it mean directing investment into mitigating the adverse effects of climate change with agricultural research and development?

And most of all, doesn't it mean the USA doing something about the demand for illegal drugs within its own borders which provides the raison d'etre and the rocket fuel for violence and gangs in those countries?

Come on.  Pulling out climate change as the reason for the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing violence from central American countries?

from BBC, a reasonable news outlet:

"Kate Jastram, senior staff attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, says that families fleeing violence in Central America began to make up a much larger part of border crossings beginning in 2014"

This is all about lack of law and corruption in these countries.  Not climate change.

[MasterStache]

If we really wanted to do something, we would attack this problem at the source, but that would mean big old bad USA bully would be invading other countries and messing with their right to govern.   Can't have that!

Since when does attacking the problem at source mean an invasion or subverting the right to govern?  Doesn't it mean supporting the rule of law in those countries, with training and support for good governance and the rule of law?  Doesn't it mean directing investment into mitigating the adverse effects of climate change with agricultural research and development?

And most of all, doesn't it mean the USA doing something about the demand for illegal drugs within its own borders which provides the raison d'etre and the rocket fuel for violence and gangs in those countries?

Come on.  Pulling out climate change as the reason for the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing violence from central American countries?

from BBC, a reasonable news outlet:

"Kate Jastram, senior staff attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, says that families fleeing violence in Central America began to make up a much larger part of border crossings beginning in 2014"

This is all about lack of law and corruption in these countries.  Not climate change.

Migration is multi causal. This has already been discussed. Yes escaping violence, poverty and indeed climate change are all reasons for migration. 5 years of severe draught in Central America, where they mostly rely on subsistence farming, tends to lead folks to seek out other sources of food.  Former player is spot on.