ldrews

Seems reasonable to me. As Democrats and the liberal/left have been asserting for some time that Russia was meddling and influencing the 2016 election in favor of Trump, now that Trump is President and enforcing tough sanctions on Russia, it is very credible that Russia would use the very same capabilities to oppose Trump and support the Democrats in the upcoming 2018 elections. Perhaps we need to take actions to ensure that no foreign parties are able to mess with our elections. One suggestion would be a national voter ID requirement to ensure that only valid US citizens are able to vote. This would prevent the Russians from materially interfering.

While I don't agree with your views, I do support you. You seem to be quite sensible.

1. Why is that? 2. Why is that? 3. Why is that? I think the chasm between us is so great that meaningful discussion is impossible. To me the only alternative is to consider you as an enemy and relate to you accordingly.

So now, by Executive Order, illegal immigrant families are no longer being separated. Is this satisfactory to you?

They have no legitimate claims for asylum unless they present themselves to an official port of entry.

Excuse me, I did not claim that 90% don't show up, I claimed that Senator Jeff Flake reported that 90% don't show up. It would help if you get your facts straight.

And I reject your framing of the illegal immigrants being asylum seekers. Legitimate asylum seekers present themselves at a port of entry and request asylum. Illegal immigrants, those crossing the border at other than ports of entry, and then claiming to be asylum seekers are simply using a subterfuge. Crossing the border at other than ports of entry is a crime in the US. Therefore those who do so are criminals.

So back to the original topic here. It seems to me that there are only 3 choices: Arrest the illegal immigrants and separate them from the children Arrest the illegal immigrants and put the children in jail with the parents Arrest the illegal immigrants but if they have children release them and hope they show up at court To me there are no good choices, just bad ones. But the long term consequences of releasing the family is to make a huge incentive for an increase in the number of illegal immigrants who bring children, not necessarily their own. A byproduct of that increase is a probable increase in child trafficking. To me the choice is family separation or child trafficking. Which do you prefer? If you see another alternative, please describe it.

Read the link

So I get it, you are in favor of open borders if that will prevent the separation of children from parents who have illegally entered the US, regardless of long term consequences.

Do you have evidence that small children are being tortured? Torture has very specific physical and/or mental conditions.

According to Senator Jeff Flake, 90% of illegal immigrants fail to appear in court. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/10/jeff-flake/sen-jeff-flake-says-90-percent-immigrants-given-co/ So apparently you choose to allow illegal immigrants to just disappear into US society. Don't you think this will only increase under that policy? The US already has problems funding the social services used by illegal immigrants. And they tend to compete for the lowest rung of jobs, depriving US citizens of entry level positions. How do you handle these consequences?

That is assuming that they don't remove them.

I very much want to keep the families together. The next question is: How? Do you put the children in the adult prisons with the parents? Do you build special facilities for imprisoning families? Do you just release the families to the public with the hopes that they will return for their court appearance (apparently most don't). And if you release them to the public, isn't that an incentive for bringing children with you when you enter the US illegally? Isn't that an incentive for an increase in child trafficing? (Apparently a large number of the children are not related to the adults that they enter with). Anyone have any practical solutions to this situation that addresses both the short term and long term?

I would then say that the term racist has lost any differential meaning. Almost all of the people who grew up in that era would be racist by your definition.

Perhaps some of us look back fondly, it was indeed a simpler time. But mostly it is to learn from our past, both the good and the bad. As many have stated, to ignore history is to be doomed to repeating it.

Are we not talking about attitudes formed during the 50's and 60's? Today's children will obviously have much different attitudes, prejudices, and foibles. But you are talking about someone and others whose attitudes and characters were formed long ago. To apply today's standards to 70 year olds is disingenuous to say the least.

Another thing. I don't know where you grew up, but in the 1950s, 1960s in most major cities, particularly New York, and particularly Queens where Trump grew up, every cultural group seemed to have a knickname: wops, kikes, niggers, spics, etc. Often derogatory but often not. It was what it was. The names were used universally on the street. According to your definition, all of those people who grew up in those communities and used that language are racist.

Hrothgar, I have black friends that refer to other blacks as niggers. Does that make them racist?

And yet: Dr. Ben Carson, a black, is a cabinet member Trump responded to Kim Kardassian's plea for clemency Trump is considering a pardon for Mohammed Ali Elain Choa, a Tawainese-American, is a cabinet member Nikki Haley, a Indian-American, is Ambassador to the UN

The cognitive dissonance on this forum is amazing. Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College, the only way to be elected President. That means he won the popular vote in the states with the majority of electors. This is how you do it in the "United States of America". Two years ago Obama and the economists where telling us to get used to 2% annual GDP growth, and that those manufacturing jobs were never coming back. Today, after 18 months of Trump administration, GDP growth is approaching 5% on a quarterly basis, unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, workers have received bonuses, businesses are making significant investments, and today it was announced that there are more jobs available than people to fill them. ISIS is decimated, North Korea is coming to the negotiating table, troops are being withdrawn from Syria. Major trade imbalances are being rectified by renegotiating trade agreements, Trump is tackling China head on. Trump's Cabinet contains a black person (Dr. Ben Carson), an indian-american (Ambassador Nicki Haley), and a Taiwanese-American (Elaine Choa). Trump has appointed several women to senior executive positions, and has appointed the first gay Ambassador (to Germany). So from the direct evidence, Trump is not racist, anti-feminist, nor homophobic. Trump's popularity continues to rise, currently between 45%-50% depending on which polls you believe. He apparently is gaining significant support among blacks (called "leaving the plantation") and hispanics. The Trump base voters continue to remain loyal. Trump's prospects for a 2nd term continue to improve. After 18 months of investigation there is no evidence publicly available that Trump colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election, while there is ample public evidence that Hillary Clinton and the DNC did do so. So, given all of this, exactly what is your beef with Trump?

But not the electoral college, which is the vote that counts.

President Donald J. Trump Accomplishments https://www.promiseskept.com/

It defies belief that rapid change of GDP growth of 1.5-2% quarterly to projected 4+% quarterly in just a little over a year of inauguration amidst all of the actions taken by Trump are not causally related. Also record lows of unemployment, explosion of consumer confidence, explosion of business investment. And labor shortages so severe that some communities are offering bonuses to people willing to move into the communities to fill the vacant jobs. Winstonm, the economists he cites, and others who think there is no causal effect must be smoking some strong weed.

So who are you going to believe? Your own lying eyes or academics of economics?