I aboultely believe 17 agencies, the FBI, the CIA and Congress over you. Not only is their conclusion based on evidence it is also just plain common sense. The email hack was clearly to damage Clinton. They are also far more creditable than you.

You keep demanding evidence yet have given none to support your claims, which makes you look like a hypocrite.

No point in paying any attention to @raza or @wellwisher

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

This is why Trump wants the wall. If we had a wall across the southern border, real asylum seekers would need to enter by a front door. At the front door, children are not separated from honest parents. — wellwisher

Are you serious? How naive.

The wall has nothing to do with reality. It's an idea on the level you would make when drinking beer with some friends who aren't giving it a real thought, but just expressing their objection in general. That's why Trump hold on to it: far more simple to understand "the Wall" by the simple voter than some actual complex immigration policy & border policing strategy. It's something to give just a symbol of being tough on immigration. (And make money out of constructing something useless out of concrete.) Obviously there would more cheaper ways to close the land border to Iron Curtain levels which were seen in Soviet times, which then would simply then would leave the most desperate to take to the waters and make it a problem of the Coast Guard. But who cares about reality?

And anyway, the whole debate on border control and immigration policy simply becomes out of touch of reality. I've seen it here in Europe were the anti-immigration community simply has left reality and believe the most ludicrous statements. Actual facts don't matter anymore. The American xenophobes painting Europe as "lost" are even more whimsical and out of touch of reality.

No point in paying any attention to raza or @wellwisher — Maw

Yeah, should have noticed. Separate Worlds.

Creator of Godwin's Law:

:cheer:

Trump is a good thing. If he hadnt been elected he would have droned on and on for years about how the system was rigged against him, continuously eroding confidence in the US and the very idea of self determination upon which it's founded.

So he and his sort got to try out their ideas and that's as it should be.

So he and his sort got to try out their ideas and that's as it should be. — frank

Because in America stupidity, misogyny and racism never gets its say? Is that your argument? Are you new to the USA?

The world is full of assholes. Do you think it needs one more?

The world is full of assholes. Do you think it needs one more? — frank

Depends on what we are being assholes about.

So I guess the lesson here, is that it is OK to put little kids in cages as long as we are polite to each other about it.

Trump is a good thing. If he hadnt been elected he would have droned on and on for years about how the system was rigged against him, continuously eroding confidence in the US and the very idea of self determination upon which it's founded.

So he and his sort got to try out their ideas and that's as it should be. — frank

A fundamental concern is that Trump's approval rating, regardless of his inhumane policies, incoherent twitter outbursts, antipathy towards allies, or geniality toward enemies, etc. has never sunk below 35%. While there are degrees in which people intensely approve of him, in the abstract, ostensibly one-third of the country agrees with "Trumpism", which is likely to outlast Trump's presidency. There are people who earnestly approve of the tax cut, the wall, Trump's immigration policy, the America First foreign doctrine, racial animosity, etc. which will not cease simply because Trump is out of office, and which were essentially seen as "justified" in the first place because Trump was voted into the presidency.

Had Clinton won, there is no doubt that Trump would have stoke outrage about a rigged system, corrupt political elites etc.. I believe it was Michael Wolff who wrote that Trump and his team, not believing that they would actually win, had plans to create some sort of Trump TV in partnership with Breitbart which would basically be an anti-Hillary, anti-liberal, anti-democratic platform. Considering how Fox News' viewership rose sharply during Obama's presidency, I don't doubt that Breitbart partnership would have been highly successful. But the alternative is that a Clinton win would have placed doubt in the viability of Trump's ideas because her election would be a public rejection of Trump, and they would have likely remained on the fringe, at least more so than now, where they are now public policy.

Regardless of turnout, it's clear that, at minimal, Trump's election as the Republican nomination signaled that there is something very rotten in the United States. Ultimately, I would have greatly preferred Clinton to be President while Trump just barks and growls like the mad dog he is on some heterodox network, because we would not have gotten this bourgeois tax cut, zero-tolerance immigration and ICE roundups, and all the various mistakes towards out foreign and domestic policy that are being too innumerable to count.

Where do you place the blame? The people? The times? The governmental system?

I say if we want a government of the people, we have to be prepared for the occasional bumpy ride.

A couple of things we could have done differently: we could have prepared better in the last two months since Jeff Sessions announced the Zero Tolerance policy. We could have erected more holding centers, to be able to keep the families in tact, while they wait to see a judge. Another thing we could have done was to take out a series of public service announcements in the countries to the south of the USA, as well as within our borders, informing them in their language, while they are still at home, that the USA is enforcing a Zero Tolerance policy.

I say if we want a government of the people, we have to be prepared for the occasional bumpy ride. — frank

Not much gets done until we hit a critical mass on anything.

In 2014 the profile of the illegal immigrant was a young, male from Mexico, sneaking across the border to get a better paying job. When they were caught by ICE, their case was heard within 48 hrs and they were sent back to Mexico via plane or bus. We had plenty of places to hold family units because families were not the typical illegal immigrants.

One of the complicating factors in 2018 is that the profile of the illegal immigrant has changed. We are seeing more women with children, fleeing savage conditions and looking for political asylum, which we can offer at a much slower rate than returning the illegal immigrant of 2014. If they are not granted political asylum, where do we return them to? They came through Mexico but Mexico is not the majority of these folks hometown. We cannot turn them away at the Mexican border and expect them to travel back to their southern country. We could let them travel through the USA, like Mexico, and present themselves at the Canadian border.

Can we find another country to help us out with these folks seeking political asylum? The cost to the USA is $34,000 a year per immigrant.

@Banno Australia?

Trump is thinking he'll get money for his wall in exchange for mercy. That is grotesque.

I'm not being political about it. It really is just plain wrong. As Maw said, his way reflects what some portion of the American people agree with.

Trump is thinking he'll get money for his wall in exchange for mercy. That is grotesque. — frank

I know.

I'm not being political about it. It really is just plain wrong. As Maw said, his way reflects what some portion of the American people agree with. — frank

To which he is changing minds one person at a time.

I am looking for solutions now not whom to blame. We have enough on our hands trying to reunite 2000k children under the age of 18 with their guardians.

Got any solutions?

There is a lot of blame to go around, it's not reducible to one thing nor even a handful of things, and the blame isn't proportional.

The cost to the USA is $34,000 a year per immigrant. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

???

In 2016, The National Academies produced a 20-year study on the economic impact of immigrants in the United States. The study shows that while first-generation immigrants are generally most costly than native-borns (mostly at the state and local level), their children "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population." The study states that in the long-run, immigration creates an overall positive impact on economic growth.

Got any solutions? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Catch and release.

Catch and release. — frank

That solves nothing. We will have another generation of DACA kids.

'It's true of a nation as it is of an individual: what is a man profited should he gain the whole world and lose his soul?'

-LBJ

This is from 2016
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-illegal-aliens-cost-the-u-s-plenty/

The cost of $34,000 was the local news radio show's number and I cannot find a citation for it.

The study states that in the long-run, immigration creates an overall positive impact on economic growth. — Maw

The most natural reason for economic growth is population growth. You don't need a study for this fact.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html

http://www.genocidewatch.com/united-states-of-america

That kind of misinformation does more harm than good.

If that is true then it is also our morally social duty to be upset when such "bumps" occur.

First, that article discusses undocumented immigrants, not documented ones. Second, the Heritage Foundation's research on undocumented immigration has been routinely criticized even by Republicans. They are a highly dubious source.

The most natural reason for economic growth is population growth. You don't need a study for this fact. — ssu

I'm sure the National Academies took such an obvious fact into account.

So your justification for destroying families and caging little kids is that you think it will cost you more money to do otherwise?

If that is true then it is also our morally social duty to be upset when such "bumps" occur. — Jeremiah

Duty to be upset? Emotions are just there like an ocean. The ocean has no duties. If you realize that the scene in front of you is a repetition, the accompanying emotion will be melancholy, not rage.

I think you should feel rage if it's in your nature, but isn't there a way to channel it productively?

I think you should feel rage if it's in your nature, but isn't there a way to channel it productively? — frank

It has been proven that people remember negative social experiences a lot longer than positive social experiences and social shaming is the foundation of how we reinforce moral norms. I mean, can you actually prove that my way is less productive?

I am corporate trained in interpersonal communication, with 10 years of experience in customer relations, both interacting with customers and instructing others on how to successfully communicate with people. If you think politeness is the fastest and most lasting way to make your point, then I disagree. People remember what a troll said long after they forgot what Mr. Nice Guy said. People will think about what a troll said, and they will become engaged with trying to prove the jerk wrong. When it comes to Mr. Nice Guy they will just "agree to disagree" forget him and move on. I know this from 10 years of on the job experience of being paid to be Mr. Nice Guy.

I have also spent some time studying basic sociology and social shaming is the main method in which we reinforce moral norms. Perhaps that is why negative experiences have such a lasting effect. In fact what you are trying to do now is socially shame me as you disapprove of my behavior, which I find a bit amusing.

Or maybe all that is just an excuse and after dealing with so many people for so long and always playing Mr. Nice Guy, I am just ready to cut through the BS. I don't know have not figured that part out yet, but one thing here is for certain, I have given my approach far more thought than you are giving me credit for and likely far more thought than you have given your own approach.

Maybe your way is productive. If I could drop a couple notes of caution on you, ignore them as you see fit:

1) Many of the people who adhere to Trump think it's best to be aggressive and ruthless. The more ruthless you become, the more you become like them. If we do that, we're letting them dictate the climate. We become a bunch of growling dogs, alienated from one another and unable to wake up and see how much we have in common.

2) Shaming people for things they can't control fosters hopelessness, which is probably the greatest threat to the US at this point.

3) Being an asshole feels good. Yes. Hurting somebody else when you feel justified to do it is a drug. If you become addicted to that drug, your thinking can become clouded. Just be careful.