Yes, I originally tried to include a Google Maps satellite view of fencing within the El Paso city limits, but Google Maps embedding doesn't work accurately anymore, so after pushing on it hard for a while I gave up and went and did something else. When I resumed my post I forgot to mention the fencing inside the city. But as you can see in the image I provided, outside El Paso there's no fencing.
But the larger point is that those against Trump's wall are not saying walls are never needed. I hope Pelosi only means she's against Trump's ambiguous and constantly changing wall when she says things like, "There will be no wall." Obviously places with no natural barriers (such as rivers or geography) need artificial barriers, and most people understand that. What those opposing Trump's wall are against is 240 miles of wall just blindly plunked down along a stretch of Rio Grande that doesn't need it. They're only against building a wall that has no justification other than that it was a Trump campaign promise. They're not against border security.
And being against Trump's wall is not synonymous with open borders. Few are for open borders, or for illegal immigration, for that matter, despite those being the constant accusation of Republicans. The increasing vehemence of their lies about Democrats exposes their desperation.
And being against Trump's wall does not make one a leftist, Faith's constant anthem against anyone who opposes Trump. If Trump morphs his 240 miles of wall into appropriate barriers northwest of El Paso and any similar open regions, then I'll support Trump's proposal, and I'll condemn any Democrats who play politics with such a proposal.
I'm sure Trump has advisors that would tell him where and what type of barriers are actually needed, but since Trump is smarter and knows more than anyone else (ask him, he'll tell you), he wouldn't listen.
The governor of New Mexico has ordered that the National Guard be pulled from its border, calling Trump's claims of a border crisis a "charade of border fear-mongering." Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham went on to say, "I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border," adding that the area has "some of the safest communities in the country."
The governor also said some troops will remain in southwestern New Mexico for a humanitarian mission because "large groups of families, women and children" have been observed "crossing over the border in the remote Antelope Wells area in recent months."
The Republicans, and especially Trump except that he's incapable of compassion or empathy, should take a lesson from this. This is the way migrants presenting themselves at the border should be treated, with help and assistance and proper facilities. If the federal government won't act decently then the border states will have to.
Migrants also need timely processing of their applications, but that's a solely federal issue. We need more legal staffing, including judges, on the southern border.
The ultimate solution is to work with our Central American neighbors to solve the problems in their countries that are causing so many people to flee. In the meantime we have to remain a beacon of hope and freedom to all the peoples of the world and reflect the American values cited in Stacy Abrams speech last night, the only speech worth mentioning.
Checking the New Mexico border with Mexico in Google Maps, the Antelope Wells area has a fence and a border patrol road alongside.
What really caught my attention was where Republicans on the committee argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign should also be investigated for Russian collusion. It's hard to believe there are Republicans still pushing this ridiculous theory, so I'd thought it would be reasonable to ask what evidence exists of collusion for both campaigns and compare the lengths of the lists. If they're not too different in length then both campaigns should be investigated. Here's my attempt at a list, and I'll attempt to be very generous toward the Republicans. In order to keep the table brief I've left out most detail, refer to Message 689 for more information:
Trump Russian Collusion Evidence
Clinton Russian Collusion Evidence
Cohen's attempts to set up Trump/Putin meeting
Steele Dossier
Cohen's attempts at cooperation with Russian social media
Former Russian business associate of Trump writes him letter
Papadopoulos works at establishing ties to Russian Government
Papadopoulos, Sessions and Miller meet about a Trump/Putin meeting
Carter Page invited to give speech in Moscow
Papadopoulos works on a Trump visit to Russia
Manafort contacts Russian with ties to Russian intelligence
Manafort tries to set up backchannel meeting with Russians
Manafort offers Russian oligarch private briefings about Trump campaign
Trump Jr., Manfort and Kushner meet with Russians at Trump Tower
Dan Scavino contacted by Russians about Russia social media site
Papadopoulos works on establishing contact with Russian Foreign Ministry
Sessions speaks with Russian ambassador, later denies it
Page speaks with Russian ambassador and a Russian energy executive
Manafort meets with Russian with ties to Russian intelligence
Roger Stone announces when Wikileaks will release Democrat emails hacked by Russians
Trump Jr. exchanges emails with Wikileaks
Trump Jr. receives email from Russian social media executive
Scavino contacted again by Russian social media executive
By my count, evidence for Trump campaign collusion outnumbers evidence for Clinton campaign collusion by 20-1. It isn't even close, and the Steele dossier isn't even evidence of Russian collusion, so it's more like 20-0. And that's not even a complete list of Trump campaign misdeeds, I just ran out of time.
So the Republicans on the Intelligence committee have no basis for a Clinton/Russian collusion investigation. It's just a baseless "Oh yeah? Well so did you."
It makes perfect sense that the Trump campaign had a great deal of contact with Russians because Trump had done business with Russia in the past (the Miss Universe contest, for one), and because he'd been working with Russian officials trying to build a hotel in Moscow for like forever, and because he surrounds himself with lowlifes for whom collusion is just Tuesday.
Clinton had no history of Russian contacts outside her official work as Secretary of State.
Also, it should be obvious to everyone by now that Trump lies and misrepresents everything. He's even admitted making things up, such as when he met with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. The media is doing America a grave injustice by reporting everything Trump says as if it might be true. Trump's history of lies is more than long enough for everything he says to be labeled false until he presents evidence of its truth.
Trump State of the Union Address Words Never Used Before
These are words Trump has used in his State of the Union addresses that have never been used before in the history of all previous State of the Union addresses:
2017
2018
2019
------------------
------------------
------------------
Dethroned
Amputations
Bloodthirsty
Etched
Booby
Chilling
Footprints
Cajun
Fentanyl
Imploding
Crutches
Freeloading
Intel
Legend
Heartache
ISIS
Mazda
Hurtling
Lawn
Motto
Kissing
Motorcycles
Opioid
Outspend
Obamacare
Paramedics
Rekindle
Quarterback
Respiration
Sadistic
Softbank
Revving
Screeched
Sophomore
Spine
SWAT
Vile
Timelines
Venomous
Walmart
Tormentors
Womb
Toyota
Unaccustomed
Many of the words are innocent enough, but a significant number are laden with negative undertones:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Explains Our Broken System
In a series of quick questions Ocasio-Cortez breaks it down so that even a kindergartner, even a president, could understand it. You won't regret watching this one:
Here's what the National Guard Did to Nogales's downtown when Trump sent them to Arizona:
The town is threatening to sue if the razor wire isn't removed.
Is concertina wire so difficult to defeat? Down you just throw some heavy canvas or a rug over it? Can't you just buy a rolled up length of hallway carpet and throw it over the wall? If there are no border patrols, can't you just reach through the slats and cut the wire? Here's video of Hungarian families cutting through concertina wire, it just isn't that hard. I've positioned the video at the point where they approach the fence, you only need to watch a minute. When half a family has crossed through the hole in the fence the border patrol catches them but permits the rest of the family to cross so they can be together. The other families have to remain behind, waiting for another opportunity to cross. Their ultimate destination is Germany.
Walls and fences are the oldest technology, folks, and they work, anyone can tell you. Yeah, right. Plus there are border guards who turn out to be actual human beings.
The town of Nogales, Arizona, mentioned in my previous post is also a border crossing point. A truck heading south refused to stop, and so the customs officer shot into the truck. This is inexcusable. Likely the men in the truck were up to no good, but it's not impossible the brakes failed* or they were drunk or confused or distracted.
What's wrong with calling their Mexican counterparts not 300 feet away?
--Percy
PS: Coincidentally, my daughter's car's brakes failed just last week when a hydraulic line failed, but she was able to stop with her emergency brake, so happy ending. That was the final straw for the old car, she is now the happy owner of a brand new Honda Civic Si, though unfortunately she doesn't know how to drive a stick and has to wait for someone to teach her before she can drive it.
I was in a hurry and forgot to link to the article (Man in pickup truck shot at Nogales port of entry while trying to flee into Mexico) and mention that the driver may have been killed (reports vary). Obviously (at least to me) border guards should not be shooting at people, and certainly not into vehicles whose passengers might be completely innocent of any crime, and certainly not with a hundred other vehicles around full of innocent people.
The border guards reported that the truck tried to run an officer over. Not so long ago that would have been good enough for me, but as video has become ubiquitous so have the police been caught lying. There was a shooting, a man was possibly killed, the police are frequently caught covering for their own, so I'll believe the border guards' account when I see the video. There's likely tons of surveillance video at the border.
I'll let you know how my daughter does with The Clutch.
In Limited government requires a limited president George F. Will argues that Congress gave away too much power to the presidency with Section 232 of the Trade and Expansion Act of 1962, and brings to our attention that this law is being challenged in the U.S. Court of International Trade by U.S. steel importers. In other words, they're challenging President Trump's ability to unilaterally impose Tariffs based upon whatever he decides to be in the interests of national security. Some juicy excerpts, which in the end turns out to be much of it:
quote:Soon, in a federal court that few Americans know exists, there will come a ruling on a constitutional principle that today barely exists but that could, if the judicial branch will resuscitate it, begin to rectify the imbalance between the legislative and executive branches. It is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which expresses John Locke’s justly famous but largely ignored admonition that institutions such as the U.S. Congress are vested with the power “to make laws, and not to make legislators” but “have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.” ... The U.S. Court of International Trade, which sits in New York, is mulling the argument, made on behalf of U.S. steel importers and foreign steel producers, that the discretion that presidents enjoy under Section 232 is so vast that it amounts to unconstrained lawmaking. Hence, it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. ... A “proper” law is not only necessary but also consistent with, among other things, the separation of powers. Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego School of Law and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law have argued that a law cannot properly give to the president discretion to “make rules for the governance of society,” which is legislating. ... Not since the Supreme Court’s accommodation of ” actually, capitulation to ” the New Deal has the court held (in the 1935 Schechter v. U.S. case) that although Congress may permit an executive agency or other entity to make subordinate rules within prescribed limits, it must stipulate policies and standards. In another 1935 case, the court voided a congressional grant of vast discretion to the president because, in the granting statute, Congress did not declare or even indicate any policy or standard to guide or limit the president.
If the Court of International Trade revives the nondelegation doctrine, this might reach the Supreme Court, which upheld Section 232 in a 1976 case that did not turn on the constitutional questions now presented. The court might flinch from the task of defining “excessive” delegation that makes a law not “proper.” However, that task ” judging ” is the court’s raison d’tre.
The Constitution’s first words after the Preamble are: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” All . James Madison was, as wise people usually are, an accomplished worrier who rarely worried about the wrong things. It turns out, however, that he did when, in Federalist 48, he worried about Congress “drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” For generations, Congress has been a centrifugal machine, spinning off powers. Limited government requires a limited president, which requires limits on what Congress can give away.
In other words, not only is the legislative branch constitutionally not the lackey of the executive branch, they do not constitutionally even have the power to delegate any of their legislative prerogatives to others, including to the president.
An imperial presidency can be a good thing or at least not a menace when there is a good president, but in the hands of a mendacious and malevolent man it imperils us all. If the law is successfully challenged then I will miss the imperial presidency, it worked out okay in the hands of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, but the examples of Nixon and now Trump are telling us that we must let it go.
Illustrating that the mainstream media can be objective and balanced, the Washington Post just gave Four Pinocchios for Kamala Harris’s claim about Trump’s tax law. Apparently she took the news that tax refund amounts are down 8% this year and implied that that meant people had ended up paying more in taxes. She also implied the problem would get worse over time. The details for why her mistake was so egregious are in the article, so four Pinocchios:
The important point is that it isn't just people on the right making Pinocchio level misstatements of fact that the left acknowledges. It's just that the right has had a monopoly on this type of behavior over the past couple years because they controlled all of Congress and the presidency. Now that Democrats control the House and are starting to declare that they're running for president they should start receiving more Pinocchios.
For that matter, is there any kind of voter fraud that voter ID would prevent?
Thinking about this a little, I think only very small amounts of voter fraud could go undetected, not enough to sway any but the closest of elections. Even with no voter ID every voter still has to check in and give their name and sometimes their address. Since those manning the check-in tables are typically locals, it isn't going to be uncommon that Mrs. Rabinowitz manning the R-U table knows that it is not Mr. Abraham Silverstein standing before her. The plot will quickly unravel when the false Mr. Silverstein is arrested and questioned.
Whether the impersonator is first to the polls or not, when the 2nd voter of that name shows up then questions will be raised. If the impersonator is 2nd to show they would not be able to show proper ID and would be arrested. If the real person is 2nd to show they would be able to show proper ID and the police would be alerted. If the system allows tracking of who cast which vote, the false vote could be canceled and the real person could still vote. Surveillance cameras will sometimes be present and would allow some of the perpetrators to be identified and arrested. When only a few people commit voter fraud it's likely to go undetected, but when it's committed in sufficient volume to sway an election then in some way the plot will be uncovered.
In my state of New Hampshire Clinton beat Trump 348,526 to 345,790, a margin of only 2736. Rather than implementing fraud in hundreds of communities across the state it would be much easier to focus attention on the several large (for New Hampshire) cities of Manchester, Nashua, Concord and maybe Derry. But the odds that none of the 2736 fraudulent votes would be caught out would still be exceedingly small. The plot would still be uncovered.
I guess I don't think that voter fraud significant enough to affect an election possible in any but the closest of races. Voter ID makes it even more impossible, but not by enough to be worth it in my opinion. We have voter ID in New Hampshire and since I have a driver's license it isn't a problem for me, but my 95-year old mother hasn't driven in years. When the voter ID law passed we had to go through the inconvenience of visiting the Social Security office to get her a social security card (lost somewhere somehow long ago), then go to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get her a special non-driver ID. It was a significant inconvenience and effort for someone that old. In another year or two she will have to renew, which I hope she can do by mail.
So my conclusion is that voter ID only insignificantly reduces the possibility of voter fraud, and it is a significant enough inconvenience to certain segments of the population as to discourage voting.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Rewrite poorly thought through 2nd para.
Re: Answer to Diomedes on the Trump Bashing Thread.
Faith writes:
Sorry, Mueller found "no evidence" of collusion.
Absurd denials like this bring discussion to a crashing halt are why you'll not be permitted in threads where people are attempting to engage in constructive discussion. Of course evidence of collusion was found. For just for a few examples (there were so many contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians that listing them would take forever), there were all the false denials of contacts with Russians, there was the Trump Tower meeting followed by all the lying about it, there was the Manafort sharing of polling data with a Russian with contact to Russian intelligence, and there was Trump's behavior in Helsinki where he met with Putin with no one else present but translators, then he took the translator's notes and swore her to secrecy.
Mueller might have concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient to criminally prove collusion, but it is still evidence. Trump wasn't cleared of collusion - it was only that the evidence wasn't enough to level criminal charges, which have a very high bar.
Your summary makes it seem like it was Trump who was being investigated. The investigation was actually into the Trump campaign, so rewriting this a bit:
Tangle writes:
Trump is wrong lying in saying that the accusations were groundless and a conspiracy of the Democrats, and the Democrats are wrong to continue to claim correct that Trump members of the Trump campaign is somehow have been indicted or pled guilty to various crimes, of something regardless of the outcome which is a direct result of the investigation.
The fact is that he the Trump campaign was investigated because there was evidence but that there was not enough of it nor was it compelling enough to lead to a charge that had a better than even chance of succeeding to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
What is publicly known already tells us the Trump campaign colluded. For just one example, when Donald Jr. was told the Russians wanted to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton (accepting foreign help in an election is illegal), instead of reporting it to the FBI he replied, "I love it." Then he actually held a meeting in which he expected to receive foreign help in the election. Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended. When the meeting came to light President Trump lied about the meeting, claiming the agenda was adoptions.
Even just what's publicly known screams collusion. If there truly wasn't any collusion it sure wasn't for lack of trying - by last count there were 102 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russians.
™ Version 4.2
