American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 11 of 57)

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm way smarter than you.

Your response indicates a belief that Syria is some sort of medieval fiefdom that keeps records on parchment.  They have electricity, computers, and modern record keeping there.

You also apparently didn't finish even the first bullet point, or you likely would have noticed that 99% of applicants are screened out by the UN.

I'm interested in Informant's opinions, but I do find it extremely tiresome to be told: someone who expressed the outrage you express is a hypocrite. Therefore, that point of view is worthless. You should instantly dismiss any opinion shared by contradictory and confused human beings. If someone exercises bad judgement in some areas or many areas, then anything they say immediately invalid.

It adds about as much to the conversation as Slider_Quinn CONSTANTLY bringing up Marvel movies in the DC thread. It's just changing the subject.

Conceding that your concerns about immigration are legitimate (your country can't sustain the population, it's a security risk) -- are you really okay with people who've received green cards and visas being held without due process and being threatened into leaving the country and being sent back into the persecution and horror they were fleeing and for which they were granted safe passage that's now being withdrawn? Are you really okay with people being caught in limbo between the countries they fled and America which has now abruptly shut its doors? Are you really okay with all this cruelty and suffering?

I never said that anyone who expresses a different opinion isn't worth listening to or that the other side is invalid.

What I said was that these ideas that Trump is a dictator, Trump is not a valid President, Trump's actions are unlawful... THOSE are worthless. That is hypocrisy. That is a waste of time. It's a burning mess of useless vitriol that is keeping people from discussing the actual issues.

FACTS:

--Trump is a valid President. He won the election. Deal with it.

--Trump's actions are legal. They've been passed through any number of government organizations whose job it is to decide whether they are legal and they are.

--They are not unconstitutional. They are not even unusual. Obama and Carter took similar actions. Nobody cared.

--He is not discriminating based on religion. He is not banning Muslims. He is not giving Christians alone preferential treatment. He is giving priority status to those who are most persecuted, which does include (but is not limited to) Christians.

--Religion has always been used as part of the process when judging asylum cases. Why? Because religious persecution is a thing that exists and people need asylum because of it.

--The hold is not permanent. In fact, it will quite probably last for a shorter amount of time than when Obama did it.

--Those with visas can still get in! The order has a provision, allowing a case-by-case review whereby people with visas can be allowed back into the country, even if their country of origin is listed on the halt. And people are taking advantage of this, so it's not like it's some mythical thing that is never going to happen. It should also be noted that visas can be reviewed or revoked at any time anyway.

--People are not being detained without due process. It's not like they're being sent to Gitmo. They are being delayed while they are processed. There's a difference. They're sitting in an airport for a few hours while they wait. If they want to live in America, they should probably get used to that part, because we've all done it. Also, they have representation. I saw one of the people on the news this morning after being released from DFW airport, and his lawyers were all right there. Which he didn't need, because he was processed and released. He left his home country Monday, and he was free to go on Tuesday. If the hardship of sitting in an airport is the worst thing that these refugees have experienced in their lives, they probably don't deserve refugee status.

--Some quotes from October 2015 --

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.): “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

FBI Director James Comey: “Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,"

And for those keeping up with Obama halting Iraqi refugees in 2011, Comey added: “You can only query what you’ve collected, and with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. This is a different situation,”

Yes. James Comey. I don't like him, but whatever. There you go.

--If polls are your thing, when last I checked it was about 57% of Americans who agreed with Trump's actions regarding the refugees, with 33% disapproving, and the rest undecided. This is why Trump was elected. This is what the people wanted.

So, let's discuss this issue. Let's discuss the vetting process, and the refugees, and whether Christians or more persecuted. But no matter how many times I've rambled off relevant facts and information in this discussion, we keep coming back around to the hysteria about Trump being an evil dictatiornazihitlerracisthomphobetyrant.

You cannot call him a dictator for using his power to undo what Obama used the same power to do. You cannot call him a dictator for telling law enforcement officials to enforce the law, while having not cared that Obama literally ordered them not to follow the law. Yes, I am absolutely going to call bullshit on that, because it is absolutely relevant to this conversation. We can't discuss the issue until we clear away the thick layer of crap that people are insisting we swim through.

I know it sucks to suddenly be the people standing by, powerless, while the President does things that you don't agree with. That was my life for the past 8 years. I watched Obama violate the Consitution. I watched him violate his oath to uphold the laws of this country. I watched him turn his back on our allies and give aid to their enemies. I watched him create a level of racial division that I have never seen before in my life. And I called him a lot of things during that time. But I never compared him to Hitler. I never declared that he was a dictator who was only moments away from building concentration camps. My side of this argument never had violent riots in the streets, lighting people on fire or beating the crap out of them because we disagreed.

There is good and proper disagreement and anger to be had. But that does not excuse blind hatred, violence, or childish whining and name-calling. It does not excuse a Secret Service agent saying that she would not take a bullet for the President, because it is not her job to choose. I've known federal employees, agents and otherwise, who have had to serve under Presidents they liked and Presidents that they didn't. They don't get to decide when they will uphold the law and when they won't. And these other government employees who are violating orders to not discuss their work on Twitter are not just or righteous for violating their orders the second they have to serve under someone they disagree with. They are not allowed to create a shadow government that operates how they see fit. They are not allowed to stage a coup against a Presidents whose only crime thus far has been to order them to do their damn jobs.

And fucking Obama needs to keep his has-been mouth shut. As I predicted, he is out there, trying to keep stirring the pot and keep the riots raging. Keep people hating. Keep people violent. He loves this shit. George W. Bush didn't go out there, criticizing Obama's every move. We just went on and on about this peaceful transfer of power and how amazing it is... except, it's not amazing when the former President is trying to undermine the authority of the current President.

Finally, don't tell me that discussing the hypocrisy is a useless detour from the real conversation. I came in here before anyone was discussing the refugees, specifically to discuss the hypocrisy on the left. That is a very large part of the conversation taking place here. I am not going to let it go until people start acting like adults by having rational discussions about the issues and the facts, and stop whining about how Trump is such a big meanie for not being Obama. You can disagree and debate without all of that crap. Hell, I might even agree on some of the issues with this order, you never know. But as long as everyone is being ultra irrational, going on as though it's only logical that if a President does something they disagree with, he should immediately be kicked out of office, that nice and calm version of this conversation can't really happen. When my stating actual facts and my own opinions is met with accusations of being an uncaring Trump parrot who loves suffering and cruelty, how do you expect to have a meaningful discussion?

If I'm wrong, and there is good reason why Obama was justified for violating actual laws and overusing his power, and Trump is a horrible dictator for using his power, please tell me. If I'm wrong about the stories of an increase in violent crimes in countries who are accepting more refugees, tell me. If I'm wrong about the quotes from the FBI Director saying that there really is no way to properly vet these people, let me know. I'd love to have that back and forth. Just do it without the hysteria and the hypocrisy, because I will not stop calling people on that. I'd expect no less from anyone responding to me.

They wouldn't allow Karen Gillan into the US?! What kind of tyrant was that man!? That is clearly a violation of several of my rights. We should probably see about having him brought up on charges, because Karen Gillan should be allowed to go wherever she damn well pleases!

Nobody's suspended civil liberties for Muslims. The US still has more freedom than you do.

When I said "don't tell me", it was a colloquialism, not an actual order.

Hypocrisy is the topic that I brought up. Therefore hypocrisy is a topic of conversation. It's not a detour. And it is a very large part of this conversation, because hypocrisy is what keeps people thinking that the US has suspended civil liberties for Muslims or that freedom is being lost in the US. Hypocrisy is what makes you think that Trump is somehow violating laws and the Constitution, because that is what the headlines are telling you, from the same news outlets that failed to report on Obama's actual violations. It's the notion that it's all okay, as long as I like the guy doing it but when someone else gets elected, they should have to do whatever I want anyway or be kicked out of office.

If people stepped back and looked at the actual facts instead of reading headlines and freaking out and forcing the rest of us to live in an imaginary world where Nazi airships are hovering over Washington, the conversation could be quite civil and pleasant. Nobody's losing their rights. Homes aren't being raided. Nobody's being thrown into any ovens. What Trump is doing is simply what should have been done in the first place, which is take the time to figure out how to do this properly. Why wasn't this done in the first place, so we'd have a well oiled machine by now? Instead, we had government officials admitting that they really have no idea how to vet these refugees, but we're letting them in anyway!

I'm curious now. What freedoms do you think we're losing in the US?

*Trump didn't admit to grabbing women on that tape. Much like when he said that he could gun someone down in the middle of New York and not lose any supporters, he was making a comment about the things that people would let him get away with, using an exaggerated example.

See, that sounds like I'm defending him. I'm not. I think both comments show how disgusting he is, and what an ego he has. I've been around dudes who were doing the locker room talk thing, and it always disgusts me. Then again, I've been around plenty of women who could hold their own in that department. I was just raised better than that and I don't talk about people in that way. However, as much as I do not approve of those comments, I can't go along with the "he admits to sexually assaulting women!" narrative, because it is false. I will not believe anything just because it's convenient.

Random story time...

I was a juror on a civil trial a while back. It was a sad story. A girl was born at 21 weeks (!!!). She was so premature that her skin wasn't even skin yet. She had a ton of medical issues, naturally. One of them was called retinopathy of prematurity. Essentially, as her eyes vascularized, the veins went crazy and detatched her retinas. Laser surgery stopped the progress of the damage, but there was damage. Now on top of all of her other issues, she was going to be mostly blind.

Horrible situation. The family was suing the doctor for not performing the laser surgery sooner, to the tune of millions of dollars. The job of the jurors was to look at all of the available information and determine whether or not the doctor was negligent. With witness testimony and medical journals provided as evidence, the case became complicated. There is something called "threshold" when it comes to ROP. It's the point in the development of the eye when those veins go crazy and detatch the retinas. Standard practice at the time was to wait until threshold, to see whether or not ROP developed and how much damage their would be, however trials were being run on performing the surgery prior to that threshold point. Later, the earlier surgery would become standard.

Everyone cared about the kid. We all sympathized with the family. We all wanted to help them take care of the girl, because of the challenges that she would be facing. The question was, was the doctor negligent? Did he meet the medical standards?

Yes, he did. At the time, standard practice was to wait for threshold. There was a lot of behind the scenes drama with getting the equipment needed at this hospital, but ultimately, despite all of that drama, the medical standard *at the time* was met.

So, the jury deliberates. It's a simple decision. Everyone knows where they stand. We turn in our votes... ten jurors side with the parents. Two jurors side with the doctor. I sided with the doctor, because no matter what I felt or wanted, the facts were the facts. The standards were met. I even asked the other jurors how they could vote the way they were, knowing that the standards were met and knowing that our on job was to make that determination. How could they ignore the facts? The answer I got was "These are doctors. The standards should be higher for them."

Of course, the standards ARE higher... and the doctor met those standards. But no matter how much I tried to get this point across, those ten jurors acknowledged that the facts were on the side of the doctor, but sided with the family instead. And when I asked them if they could explain why, the answer I got was literally, I kid you not, "We have the majority. We don't have to explain ourselves to you."

So I sat in that room for days, listening to them decide just how much money they were going to wrongfully give this family. The only time I could speak up was to tell them when they were awarding money for things that were clearly unrelated to the case. The one other juror who agreed with me would just sit there, giving me wide-eyed shrugs as we watched those ten other people wrongfully award money, going against the responsibilities that were spelled out to us, and going against facts and logic (not an opinion, mind you. They clearly said that the standards were met and they had no reason for what they were doing).

They awarded the family millions. The doctor's lawyer knew who voted for what, and she looked at me as the decision was being read. All I could do was shrug. I genuinely had no idea why.

The family didn't know how anyone voted. So as I was walking out of the place for the last time, they were met a group of us in the hallway. The mother was crying, hugging us and thanking us (I was with the woman who also voted against them). It was really awkward. I genuinely did feel for these people. But the decision was 100% wrong.

It's all good. I'm still Facebook friends with three of the jurors, two of whom voted wrongly and one who was just an alternate and didn't vote at all.

But this is who I am. I don't care if people have different views. What annoys me and nags me all these years later isn't that I didn't win that argument or that they were wrong. What bothers me about it is that they didn't care about facts. It bothers me that I can't understand why they believed what they did, because they didn't really care enough to think it through.

Facts matter. Saying that Trump banned Muslims is a lie. Saying that something is unconstitutional for Trump, but wasn't unconstitutional for Obama is disingenuous. I can't accept that as a reason. I respect a ton of people who have many different opinions than I do when it comes to politics, but it bothers me when I can have long conversations with people without understanding what those other people think. I can usually argue both sides of a debate, and I've actually switched sides and argued against myself when other people weren't making good points. I hate it on TV shows when the writers can't understand a different point of view, so their characters can't genuinely believe in anything that the writers don't (Firefly's Book character suffered because of this).

I want there to be good reasons for people to have different opinions, because I have an obsessive need to understand these things. I understand why people supported Obamacare, even if I could see its failure coming from a mile away. I can understand people supporting abortion, though I see it as an absolute atrocity. I can understand people who want government funded college education, though I think it'd be about the same level of mess as the public school system that we have now. I don't need to agree with people in order to get them. I just need actual reasons. That is why I am trying to cut through the BS hysteria and emotional nonsense in regards to Trump. If there's a debate to be had on the issues, I want to have it. But I post actual reasons for where I stand, citing historical examples and providing data, and in return I am told that I'm just a manic Trump supporter.

Which. I. Am. F---ing. Not.

The truth is that despite the fact that I don't like Trump on an emotional level, I am capable of liking some of what he does. I'm a conservative. I'm not going to suddenly adopt liberal beliefs because an a$$hole is in office. If he does conservative things, then I'll probably be having a good day.

Do you know why I like you, ireactions? Despite the fact that we completely disagree quite often and our beliefs probably couldn't be more different, once you get past your emotional response, you're willing to accept that I am not a Nazi sympathizer. It's really that simple. You're willing to accept that I have beliefs that you don't share. You probably even read this whole post. Why? Because you can respect someone who isn't like you and that makes conversation worthwhile.

But you have shit taste in news sources.

I'm going to need some time to ponder Informant's jury experience. As for news sources, feel free to recommend your picks?

I find it best to associate with people who don't think the same way I do; I don't need an echo chamber.

Okay, arguing aside, I want to get some points of view from the other side of the issues.

The riots taking place recently, protesting Trump and Milo, and all of that stuff... when you see those things, how do you react? In theory, these are people on your side of the debate (though I don't think anyone here would support violence like that). So what is your gut reaction to seeing people in black masks, carrying signs that range anywhere from "America was never great" to "No Hate", throwing benches through windows, burning cars, firing rockets (fireworks?) at buildings, lighting people on fire, beating them with poles, etc.

I understand differences of opinions on the issues, but it seems like completely out of controls hatred to me. From my point of view, these people look more hateful, more fascist, more intolerant, more dangerous and more crazy than Trump. Rationalizing assault by saying that it's okay to punch a Nazi (therefore declaring anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi) seems completely insane to me. But I'm already on the other side of this debate. So how far from mainstream are those rioters? How do you liberal-minded people see this? Does it make you draw closer to that side, or does it make you step back a little, just to put some distance between you and them? Because I know a lot of liberals, and I have a hard time believing that they would be cheering this on... But I also can't speak for them. They're oddly quiet on this particular topic.

Honestly, I've never seen this level of pure hatred and violence in this country. To see if from people carrying signs about tolerance and love just baffles me. Is this the mainstream left, or should we chalk it up to them wacky millennials who were never taught how to properly process their emotions?

Then again, they could be paid "protesters" who aren't there for anything except the money.

Okay, that's what I figured. I just wanted to get the "everyman" liberal perspective on it.

I always thought it would have been annoying to live in the 60's, with the drugged up hippies and radicals that were blowing things up. I guess this is our chance to experience that. Sigh.

On another note:
Can you imagine what my life would be like if I boycotted anyone or any company who supported politicians that I disagree with? I have to be pretty selective with my boycotts or else I'd never be able to turn on the TV, read a book or watch a movie.

To be clear, I think there's a difference between someone saying "I hate Charlie O'Connell" and someone condoning violence against Charlie O'Connell. I don't care if someone hates Trump. I don't care if someone hates me. But what we're seeing now is a step or ten beyond the scope of what people usually mean when they say "I hate that guy". When I discuss the level of hate in this country right now, I'm not referring to the angry signs at the Women's March. I'm talking about the culture that is calling violent riots "mostly peaceful protests", shifting the blame off of those actually responsible, or flat-out condoning the violence and urging more (which we're seeing from a lot of celebrities, which serves to normalize such speech). Yeah, this might not represent the majority (though I've seen some of my normally level-headed liberal friends making pretty nasty comments and having no desire to be friends with Trump supporters, usually for reasons that are factually wrong, but I don't really get into it with them), but it's going to become the face of the liberal movement unless more sensible liberals stand up and say "I don't like Trump, but this sh*t needs to stop."

I love the practice of the First Amendment as much as anyone (though it was frowned upon during the Obama years, where you couldn't criticize his tie without being called a racist), but I do not love the display that we're seeing. At some point, there will have to be some mature discussion, right? I agree that we need to be truthful and discuss facts, which is what I've been trying to say for a while now. Unfortunately, that isn't what's been happening at all lately. I'd love to discuss the immigration issue without calls of racism (the funding of the wall is really not what most people are thinking when the discuss the idea of Mexico paying for it). I'd love to discuss the refugee situation without the term "Muslim ban" coming up. I'd love to discuss all of those fun issues, but the problem is that we always seem to fall back on slogans and catchphrases, rather than discuss the actual issues. We live in a world that expects everything to be discussed in 140 characters or less. Life just doesn't work that way.

It comes down to facts.

Was it a Muslim ban? I don't care what anyone called it. The official documentation and actions taken did not ban Muslims. Many Muslims are still coming into the country. Therefore, there was no Muslim ban. Were Muslims banned? No. That's it. Fact. Calling it a Muslim ban in spite of the facts is an attempt to rewrite history so that you can continue to hate Trump. I believe this is unnecessary because you'll have plenty of reasons to hate Trump without making stuff up.

A hypothetical is not a literal. Which is why it's called a hypothetical and not a literal. Saying that it's an admission of guilt is simply not a fact. You are saying that acknowledging the *fact* that it's a hypothetical is some sort of feinting and dodging maneuver, when the exact opposite is true. You want to believe that he sexually assaults women because it justifies how you *feel* about him. The facts do not support that conclusion, any more than the time that he hypothetically said that he could gun someone down in the middle of the street and not lose any supporters. There is a difference between what we *feel* and what *is*. I feel that Trump is gross. I feel that Trump needs to be carefully watched (which is true of any politician, but this dude knows how to play people). I feel that we could have done better. But my ability to picture him reenacting scenes from American Psycho does not mean that it actually happened.

The wall is not racist. Most of the countries in this world protect their borders, and they do it a lot more strictly than the US has for some time now (not just under Obama, it goes back quite a way). The implication that securing our border is racist is silly. It's another attempt to delegitimize the man rather than discuss the issue.

Trump did say that some Mexicans were rapists. He also said that some were perfectly nice people. This is a fact. If it's racist, you should tell the illegal Mexicans who rape people to stop doing that because they're making the rest of us racist. Not all illegals are rapists... But all illegals are criminals.

The judge... Judge Curiel is a member of an organization whose name literally translates to "The Race". Can you imagine what you'd be saying about Donald Trump right now if he belonged to an organization called "The Race"? I've seen members of La Raza on the news, talking about wanting to retake land that they think was stolen from them. So if Donald Trump thinks that this judge might have a grudge against the guy who wants to build a wall, it's an idea that I'm willing to consider. I'm also willing to consider that the judge could be fair (though from what Trump says, they lost the plaintiff in the case against him and the judge still wanted to proceed, which seems weird to me. I haven't researched that case enough to have an opinion one way or the other). Do I think it automatically think that it makes Trump a racist? No. The judge willingly associated with a race-based organization, and that association is allowed to be questioned, whether the accusation is true or not.

As with my jury duty experience, we have a situation here where people allow their feelings to outweigh the facts at hand. Willingly believing anything you hear just because it justifies your hatred of someone is fundamentally wrong. And it's a "boy crying wolf" scenario, because I think you'll have plenty of justified reasons to dislike Trump over the coming years, but if you jump on every tabloid story about his alligator babies, your legitimate concerns aren't going to carry the weight that they should.

There was no Muslim ban. Starting from that *fact*, why do you object to this action? Because you feel it's unnecessary? Because you think that there has already been enough effort put into the screening processes and you feel this is just a show of power by Trump? Because you think it's not worth delaying the arrival of refugees who desperately need to get out of danger, for the sake of weeding out some hypothetical terrorist that may or may not exist? Because such-and-such law makes it illegal for him to take such actions?

I'm not saying that I agree with any of the above, but let's start from the foundation of reality. It happened. It's serious. We don't need razzle-dazzle, with lots of flashy keywords. You disagree with this action. That's fine. So tell me why. What is wrong with a temporary moratorium on refugees from these specific countries, pending a review of the screening process?

Don't know. Could be none for all I know. But that doesn't change the fact that many countries around the world have walls or barriers on their borders. Illegal immigration is a major problem that we have with Mexico. Drug trafficking. Human trafficking. Weapons trafficking. Criminals coming over here, committing violent crimes, and even if they are deported, they just come right back over the border. Not all illegals are violent criminals. Some want better lives for their families, but by breaking our laws they prove that they have no regard for our laws. Being pleasant doesn't mean that they do not impose a burden on our country that they literally have no right to impose on us.

And on top of the problems that we have with Mexicans, we have the issue of people from other countries who want to get over that border. Some with terrorist ties.

We have a right to protect our border. We have a right to decide who will come into this country and what that process will be. So if you're opposed to using a wall for that purpose, what do you propose? We could put thousands more agents out there with guns, arresting and deporting, but that doesn't seal the hole or stop the flood.

And if you think I'm just a mean racist who doesn't care about the poor people who want better lives, do you have any idea how many of them die trying to get here illegally? How many are raped by the coyotes they hire to bring them here?

This problem needs to be addressed. Immigration is great, but it needs to be done properly. Throwing open the doors didn't work.

As covered before, if terrorists are the concern then the wall needs to be on the other border.

As for crime, the data doesn't support your conclusion.  Crime rates are lower along the border.  The wall isn't going to stop trafficking in drugs or humans as long as the CBP is working with the cartels.

Punishing people for coming here illegally because we won't allow them to come legally based on an arbitrary quota is an exercise in circular logic.  It's like limiting the number of people who can use a crosswalk then arresting people who jaywalk.

Throwing open the doors didn't work?  Nonsense.  We had no immigration quotas on Mexico at all until the 1960's.  Nobody had a problem with it.  Closing the doors is what hasn't worked.

ireactions, I would not call myself a "Trump supporter". Most of what I've said here isn't even supporting Trump, but clarifying facts, as opposed to feelings or misinformation written in false news headlines or false news articles. To call myself a Trump supporter would mean that I support the man, which is not true. However, as we are both conservatives, there will probably be many times when I agree with what he does. My support will be on the issues, and on a case-by-case basis.

We can discuss quotes from the President. However, a quote from a President or his staff is not the same as the policy that is enacted. For example, Obama said that if you liked your medical plan, you would be able to keep it. However, the policy enacted reflected something different. Trump doesn't just wave his hand and make something so. He signs an official document. He could say "I'm signing a document that bans all Muslims" and then sign a lunch order for his staff... that doesn't mean that the lunch order banned Muslims.

One of the frustrating things about Trump is that he talks a lot, without going over his words as though they were a legal document, the way most Presidents have. He uses the wrong words. He says the wrong things. And sometimes it takes some work to figure out what it actually going on. Like when he says that Mexico will pay for the wall... it's true that this is the plan, but it misrepresents the method by which this will be done. Hell, the "wall" might not even be what we're all picturing when all is said and done. There is no official design that I've seen.

I will accept you arguing your side. I will accept you getting frustrated with me when I constantly contradict what everyone else says on certain subjects. However, I will not accept being spoken of as though I am being irrational for looking at the actual facts and documents when it comes to official policy. We can discuss the comments made by those officials in relation to the actual policy, but that's about it. If you want to just discuss the way Trump talks sometimes, then we will probably be in agreement a lot of the time. He's an ass. But don't say that you're done discussing and that you're ready to move on and then take a jab at me.

But I'm ready to move on and stop this back and forth if you are. There really is no point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to care about the difference between reality and irrational emotion.

See? It's really annoying when someone does that, isn't it?

pilight, can I ask where you're getting your statistics about crime rates along the border? I've seen a DOJ report from 2014, showing that something like 40% of federal crimes were committed along the border, but if there is some more recent data to take into consideration, I'm interested in seeing it.

I agree that we need to crack down on corrupt employees and program in our own government. However, making it harder to move product from point A to point B is certainly going to make trafficking harder.

Other than that, there's not much that I can say about your comments. We have fundamentally different beliefs about how immigration should be handled. I don't think it's realistic or sustainable to just let anyone who wants to come into our country do so without going through the proper procedures. Every country has immigration policies, some more strict than our own. We are a country that a lot of people, in a lot of other countries (not just Mexico) want to live in. If we don't have some sort of immigration policy, how do you propose that we stop people from flooding in?

I had a South African friend years ago, who was here on a visa and wanted desperately to stay, but couldn't. We aren't just talking about Mexico when it comes to the policies that we establish here. And no matter how much we might like people or feel for people, we simply cannot sustain every person in this world who wants to come into our country. I don't know if you've noticed, but our economy isn't exactly doing great as it is. Schools are over-crowded. Hospitals struggle with illegals who can't pay for care. When handled correctly, immigration allows people to come into the country and become a part of the great American system. If you just let everyone come rushing in, we will be drowning in people that we can't take care of and the great American system will not be able to carry that burden.

On top of all of that, quite frankly, I don't want people coming into this country if they're going to wave around the flag of another country and declare that they're retaking something that they view as theirs. That's called an invasion.

chaser9, thanks for posting that link. That is the way things seem to be in this country.

I type fast... and I'm in editing mode. You should see me go on about something that I'm really passionate about.

My unwillingness to get involved in a debate over Trump and America with Informant shouldn't be read as a dismissal of Informant. It's a bit like Slider_Quinn21's inexplicable and bizarre love for STAR TREK VOYAGER. I've ranted about how awful the show is -- but there's no point getting any farther into it at this stage. We know each other's positions, these positions are welcome to be shared in this space on the internet. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I shall watch FARSCAPE, Slider_Quinn21 will watch VOYAGER, and we will carry on. I need to put my rage elsewhere and to more productive purpose than here.

We could always stop financing the Sinaloa cartel, giving them the funding and muscle to murder their enemies and sending panicked Mexicans fleeing for safer regions!

Will it get worse or better?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/ … index.html

Not for Michael Flynn.  He's out, and sure to be called before the Senate.  Another Oliver North?  We shall see.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … ing-214775

Trump hasn't really accomplished much of anything, good or bad.  The travel ban is the only real thing he's done, and the checks and balances of the country have worked in stopping that for the time being.  The media and social media are saying a lot about Trump being a fascist.

Instead, he's basically what he's always been - a lot of talk and no action.

Well, as someone who didn't like Trump but feared Hillary more, I was banking on him not doing much.  So not doing much of anything is basically my best case scenario

Just curious - how long until there's a Hollywood action film where Trump and his administration are the villains?

Where's Leslie Nielsen when you need him?

I'm confused.  Am I supposed to hate Comey?  Love him?  Feel sorry for him?  Love that he got fired but not in the way he did?  Wish he wasn't fired but that he would be better?

I've been told so many thing by both sides that I honestly don't know how I feel.

That actually might be a really good comparison.

Really.  There's no way Trump could make the trains run on time.

Trump's an idiot and an embarrassment, but I have trouble calling him a fascist since he's so....ineffectual.  The Muslim ban was pretty fascist, but it failed.  People rose up against it, and it didn't work.  He tried to repeal ACA, and it didn't work.  He's trying again, and it....probably won't work.  There's no wall or any real movement on the wall.  Hillary isn't in prison.

He has a Republican Congress, and he's accomplished...almost nothing?

Yeah, that's just another in a long line of campaign promises Trump never had any intention of keeping.

Okay, I'm not going to say that Trump isn't a part of the problem. He clearly is. He never should have been a realistic candidate, and he never should have gotten the nomination. But he did. And he's still better than Hillary. So, there's that.

The fact of the matter is that Trump isn't *the* problem though. He is simply serving to highlight what is wrong with the entire system right now. We have government officials refusing to acknowledge that he is the President, simply because they don't like him. We have Congressmen and Senators who are outright trying to undermine his authority as President. Not because he is breaking laws or because they are doing their job by keeping him in check. They are doing it because he isn't Hillary. That's it.

There needs to be maturity and perspective, but there isn't. This is not just childish and petty, it's dangerous for all of us. All of those people are just as bad as Trump, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can't believe that Trump is in office, or that he is the source of all of this. There is a much, much larger issue here. It involves Trump, many judges, many senators and congressmen, and many members of the press. It didn't just start when Trump was elected. Hell, the only reason Obamacare passed in the first place is because nobody knew what was in it. We had Pelosi famously declaring that they had the pass the bill in order for people to find out what was in it!

I would love for them to just undo Obamacare. Complete repeal needs to happen, I think. The thing is, this back and forth that they're having over the issue now should have taken place before Obamacare ever passed. This is a conversation that should have been resolved many years ago, but it wasn't. Because they wanted to secure a legacy for Obama.

Right now, we have a lot of people violating laws by not upholding laws. We have many people stepping outside the boundaries of their authority. We have people acting against the lawfully elected government. I have a hard time looking at that and thinking that Trump is the problem. I think he is the least of our worries.