Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Apparently Trump celebrates Easter by announcing there will be no DACA deal. What a shitbag.

There was a deal on the table but Dems wouldn't go for it.  An uncontrolled border is more important to them.

[tim_m]

Apparently Trump celebrates Easter by announcing there will be no DACA deal. What a shitbag.

There was a deal on the table but Dems wouldn't go for it.  An uncontrolled border is more important to them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/trump-claims-democrats-abandoned-daca-immigrants.html Nice try.

[pilferk]

Apparently Trump celebrates Easter by announcing there will be no DACA deal. What a shitbag.

There was a deal on the table but Dems wouldn't go for it.  An uncontrolled border is more important to them.

This is patently untrue, actually.

There were 6 deals on the table.  The president refused 5 of them (sometimes after agreeing to them).  His idea of a "deal" was to give him EVERYTHING he wanted or no deal (aka the 6th "deal).

That's not negotiation...that's dictation. He held DACA hostage and his price tag was, literally, 25 billion plus a bunch of shit nobody wanted (not even the Repubs).

HIS proposed framework....the only one he said he would sign (OK, thats not true...because he twice said he'd sign a deal and then backed out...but it's the only one he ULTIMATELY said he'd sign)....had 60 votes AGAINST it in the Senate.  Yeah, that's right....not even all the Repubs would vote for it.  He actually got 38 votes for HIS "plan".

So, please, spare us all the spin.  Trump, and Trump alone, owns this.  A DACA deal is not in place because HE would not actually make a deal.  He was never going to make a deal.  And he was never going to negotiate a deal.  For a deal maker, this guy really SUCKS at negotiation and deal making.

5 different plants went to vote over the course of this session (4 in rapid succession, recently)...and he indicated he would ONLY sign the one that even the Rebups wouldn't vote for (thereby eroding support for the other 4...not that it mattered).  How is that the Dems fault?

Oh, right....it's not.  That's Trumpian "alternative facts" at their finest.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

First I've heard of Trump having 5 different plans.

You can't have DACA or any real path to citizenship without a controllable border. What about the 1500 central Americans heading our way from Mexico, do we just let them in?

[tim_m]

Now Trump wants to violate the constitution and put military at the Mexico border.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Now Trump wants to violate the constitution and put military at the Mexico border.

You have 1500 people heading north thru Mexico, many who will be trying to cross illegally and there is no barrier in many places. 

I am not sure how that violates the constitution by sending in the military. There arent enough border patrol agents to deal with something like that.   

[pilferk]

First I've heard of Trump having 5 different plans.

You can't have DACA or any real path to citizenship without a controllable border. What about the 1500 central Americans heading our way from Mexico, do we just let them in?

Really?

Maybe watch some Cspan?

TRUMP didn't have 5 plans.  There were literally 5 different bipartisan deals...all of which he refused.  OK, 2 of them he said he'd sign..and then backed out later.

TWO of those deals were less than a handful from the 60 vote margin (the other ones were all right around 50 votes) AND....there were 8 to 10 senators who voted against because the president said he wouldn't sign them and so it was useless to put them up for a "real" vote.

TRUMPS idea of a "deal" was to give him everything he wanted (25 billion in funding, huge increases in ICE hiring and power, reduced ICE oversight by the legislature, etc, etc).  And he'd let them add DACA.

THAT plan got 38 votes in the vote around.

This is all well documented.

[pilferk]

You have 1500 people heading north thru Mexico, many who will be trying to cross illegally and there is no barrier in many places. 

I am not sure how that violates the constitution by sending in the military. There arent enough border patrol agents to deal with something like that.   

First off, is it 500? Or 1000? Or 1500? Because the conservative spin machine keeps raising the number....

Second: OMG, WHAT SHOULD WE DO TO ALL THOSE BROWN PEOPLE???  SHOOT THEM ALL!!! C'mon, now.  You're buying into media hystronics when, really, this is a very easy situation to deal with, and not one that really needs any special attention.  We deal with it the way we have for DECADES.  Just because this president, and the conservative spin room, want this to sound like some rainbow colored unicorn walking across rainbows toward the US doesn't make it one.

Third: Border patrol has 21000 agents. Twenty. One. Thousand. With about 400 more approved for hire with the omnibus spending bill.  I think they can probably figure out how to corral 500/1000/1500 unarmed, malnourished, exhausted migrants.

Fourth: Um, they're not coming here.  They were stopped in Mexico City.  And they're being sent back.  Which, you know, is what Mexico has been doing for decades with these caravans. They deported about 76000 Central Americans (mostly Hondurans, but not all) LAST YEAR in stopping these groups as they try to make their way to the US border.

Fifth: If they'd gotten here, and applied for asylum (these caravans always do because you can't hide 500/1000/1500 people trying to cross the border AT ONCE...they've been going on for a decade or more: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-refugee-caravan-20180403-story.html), you appoint more judges to adjudicate and deny them all.  Roughly 85% of those who have MADE it to the states in these caravans have had exactly that done.  So...now you're down to 75/150/225 people who would go through the process and actually get GRANTED ASYLUM.  You know, legally.

Sixth: It is illegal to deploy troops in this manner on US soil without Congressional approval.  In addition, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids using the military in civilian law enforcement. And Border patrol is considered law enforcement.  So he could send the guard down there to do non enforcement stuff (logistics, infrastructure fixes, survellance, and arrest processing basically...which is what they did when Obama AND Bush sent 1500 or so guardsmen to the borders at different times) at HUGE cost and with congressional approval. But they can not act as Border Patrol Officers.

Sixth and half: When Obama did this, even with the guards limited ability to do anything, residents didn't like it. And repubs bitched that it was ineffective and expensive: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-guard-deployment-on-us-mexico-border-has-mixed-results/2011/11/21/gIQAly6qXO_story.html?utm_term=.f5db6fe9cb27   I guess we've found ANOTHER R point of hypocrisy, eh?

Seventh: Stop watching conservative media. Stop believing anything this president says without doing a quick fact check. Watch more Cspan.

[pilferk]

You can't have DACA or any real path to citizenship without a controllable border. What about the 1500 central Americans heading our way from Mexico, do we just let them in?

Nobody is suggesting we not have a controllable border. Nobody is suggesting a open border (except Repubs, who ascribe it to dems (falsely) so they have a boogeyman to rail against).

IN FACT, border crossings started sharply declining UNDER OBAMA (circa 2014 til..well...now).  But I know that's an inconvenient truth for the dittoheads to accept because it destroys their boogeyman.

We have a generally controllable border, now. Statistics show it (xenophobia be damned).  And I'm all for using some 21st century technology to help make it more controllable and secure.

I'm not for spending tens of billions of dollars on the president's penis extension along the southern border, though. It's a waste of money. It's a solution looking for a problem, at this point....and it's a bad one, even then.  And...wait for it...any wall...EVERY wall...ever built for purposes like this has been circumvented (or removed).  THEY DON'T WORK. Trumps Erected Folly would be no different.

Creating an unsupervised, strong armed, paramilitary force out of ICE or the Border Patrol isn't the solution.  A wall isn't the solution.  Technology and infrastructure to aid existing patrols, beefing up our ability to see areas that are hard for human patrols to get to, and making sure current Border Patrol can get the resources they need to do their jobs are the solution.  

But they're not a sexy, penis extension that the riled up, needlessly afraid, base can see.  They were promised a WALL, god damn it, and that Mexico would pay for it!

Hows that working out so far, btw?  Have we seen the first check from Mexico yet?  Seems premature to start building til we do....

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Wow Pilferk, what was in your coffee this morning?   

Who the hell is saying the military is going to start shooting at the migrant caravan?  If you have 1500, 1000 or  several hundred people whatever the number is you need the manpower to deal with it unless you just want the current agents overrun. They can be turned back or taken it custody and deported. Or granted asylum on a case by case basis.

[pilferk]

Wow Pilferk, what was in your coffee this morning?   

School Term is just about over...so I have about 2 weeks til I get busy again (and the next one starts).

Who the hell is saying the military is going to start shooting at the migrant caravan? 

Hyperbole.  Made evident by the ensuing explanation (though, in actuality...thats all they could legally do: repel them if they were an invading force.  Since they're clearly not.....).

All this hand wringing over the migrant caravan is republican spin theater.  That's it.

Its happened before, it will happen again, and there are precedents, laws, and procedures to handle these things.  And they've worked before.  No need to hystronically wonder aloud "Oh what shall we do" while holding hands to our cheeks, and doing our best Sweet Polly Purebread.

If you have 1500, 1000 or  several hundred people whatever the number is you need the manpower to deal with it unless you just want the current agents overrun. They can be turned back or taken it custody and deported. Or granted asylum on a case by case basis.

1) Twenty. One. Thousand. Border. Patrol. Officers.

2) The military is legally prevented from engaging in law enforcement actions.  Arresting or detaining or chasing or stopping this caravan, even had it reached the border, constitutes a law enforcement action.

3) You just proposed exactly what the law says they should do, what they have done in the past, and how the process has worked when previous caravans get to the border and ask for asylum.

So....I'm not sure what you're looking for here.  It's all working as intended.  If you didn't know that.....well, now you do.    No need for a wall. No need for illegal military intervention. Done and done.

[tim_m]

Well Trump did it and ordered the national guard to the border. One more caveat to when Obama did it with congressional approval. He like did it temporarily because there weren't enough border agents at the time. Trump wants them there until the wall is done.

[tim_m]

Now Trump and his attorney are under state investigation after today's raid of his lawyers homes and offices for bank and wire fraud and election law violation. Are we tired of all the winning yet?

[tim_m]

Now we have more breaking news tonight. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/trump-mueller-ukraine-victor-pinchuk.html

[tim_m]

Based on Trumps tweets this morning he clearly doesn't understand laws. Attorney client privilege does not cover everything. He contends he knew nothing about Cohen paying off Daneils. If that's true then any conversation they had about it isn't privileged. If he's lying it is only privileged if he was seeking legal advice  However if what they were discussing turns out to be one of the crimes they've investigating then the privilege is void.

[AxlsMainMan]

Standing by for Blutarsky and Sandman to vehemently insist these were Crooked Hillary henchmen, not FBI agents

[tim_m]

And it keeps getting worse, now we find out the office Cohen uses just happens to be at the same offices for the attorneys that represent Cambridge Analytica and for Russian lobbyist Gazprom oil. That is way too crazy to be a coincidence. This whole thing is really starting to stink very badly. Could this be the beginning of the end?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Could this be the beginning of the end?

You've been saying this for 2 years now! 

If the raid on Cohen was related to investigating Russian collusion in the 2016 election that's warranted , but if Mueller is seeking info regarding Stormy Daniels that is an abuse of power. 

Mueller has a job to do, which is investigate Russian collusion.  But his job isn't to nail Trump by any means possible and search for a crime.   

Just to clarify, I am not condoning Trump's behavior with the porn star.

[sandman]

Standing by for Blutarsky and Sandman to vehemently insist these were Crooked Hillary henchmen, not FBI agents

i'm too busy watching Roseanne.

[sandman]

And it keeps getting worse, now we find out the office Cohen uses just happens to be at the same offices for the attorneys that represent Cambridge Analytica and for Russian lobbyist Gazprom oil. That is way too crazy to be a coincidence. This whole thing is really starting to stink very badly. Could this be the beginning of the end?

beginning of the end??? you've been saying he's going down for years. trust me. Trump is not sweating this. Nor are his supporters.

this raid is to look into payments to some playmates and porn stars. if campaign finance laws were broken, the guilty parties should pay a price. but trump is not going down. that is the carrot the media keeps dangling in your face to keep their ratings up, and to divide us.

we are about to enter another war by bombing the fuck out of syria, but dems are stuck talking about porn stars.

I do not support the actions that some sources are reporting will be coming in Syria as early as Friday. I am not convinced Assad used chemical weapons.

similar to last year, it's amazing to me how the media, dems, liberals, and their supporters are largely ok with going into Syria. we didn't get sucked into anything last year, but it sure feels like the "war machine is turning". I would have thought most would be criticizing trump for this, but I guess if CNN says we have to do it, then it's a good thing.

also, I am not a fan of Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingram, but glad to see they have been so outspoken against any actions in Syria. I know that conflicts with the narrative that Fox News is the Trump network, but anyone that thinks the old school republican party and Fox News supports trump has their heads buried in the sand and are not really paying attention.

plenty of people with an "R" next to their name are very anti trump. these long-term politicians from both sides are all working together in many ways behind the scenes. that is what trump is fighting against. he's putting a dent in it. and today a big one fuckin dropped!!! bye bye paul ryan. enjoy your millions, asshole.