Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 850 of 4573 (809436)
05-18-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 846 by Tanypteryx
05-17-2017 11:21 PM


Tanypteryx laughed about the CIA hiding documents.
But there are very easy quotes to find about the "spooks" holding back documents from Nixon. From government officials in the administration.
Google
Interestingly, the 4th hit is Roger Stone talking about the issue in a recent book.
The fact of the matter is that the agencies holding documents from even the President of the United States is a real issue.
And it is an issue among those in the Trump circle.
At least Stone and Trump.
Stone was just the subject of a documentary Roger and Me.
Dedicated to Wayne Barrett.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2017 11:21 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2017 12:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 852 by Taq, posted 05-18-2017 12:38 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 862 of 4573 (809880)
05-22-2017 12:03 AM


Agreement: $350 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This should raise questions .
Did Trump get campaign donations from defense contractors?
This would be a worthy discussion instead of this Russian conspiracy bull crap.
Saudi Arabia spends $87 billion a year on its aggressor I mean "defense " budget.
Iran spends $14 billion a year.
This is a county that is full of royal family parasites that loot the middle eastern people, murder its own citizens, and with one of the worst overall human rights records in the world.
A nation that bombs some of its neighbors (like Yemen where 10,000 civilians have been murdered by Saudi bombardment ), and arms and mans rebel groups against some others ( like Syria and Iraq ).
Sickening.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 863 of 4573 (809881)
05-22-2017 12:04 AM


Big bad Russia spends $66 billion a year on its military.
March 27 New York Times reported these military budgets.
Per year in billions
U. K. $55
Russia $66
France $51
India $51
Japan $41
Saudi Arabia $87
China $215
Saudi Arabia just got a contract to buy $350 billion more in weapons from the United States military industry over 10 years.
This raw weapons purchase is over half per year of the entire Russian budget.
Raw ADDITIONAL weapons purchase, that is.
But Russia is just so dangerous to the peace of the Middle East.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 871 of 4573 (810032)
05-22-2017 10:27 PM


Interestingly, Obama let Flynn veto the arming of Kurdish troops (closing Obama days)
The biggest issue is whether General Flynn was a "Turkish agent" really.
But that runs counter to the Russian agent craze that has swept the military industrial complex propaganda machine.
Meanwhile, Gary Cohn, Trump's chief economic adviser, said this about the $110 billion in immediate sales of American arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia :
quote:
A lot of money. Big dollars.
Trump said this :
quote:
Tremendous investments in the United States. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs.
$350 billion over the next ten years and $110 billion right now on military sales in the name of defense against, get this, Iran.
The military industry wins again.
The people of the world loose.
The military industry funds paid mouthpieces, often ex military officers, to the tune of billions of $$$ a year, in sounding alarms at inadequate military spending, or so the propaganda goes.
General Wesley Clark has been talking alot about how we need to spend so much more to keep up with Russian and Chinese technology. Another mythology we have to suffer.
"gap"
"gap"
"gap "
Talk about the God of the "gaps".

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 892 of 4573 (811997)
06-13-2017 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by Taq
05-17-2017 6:15 PM


Re: Oh, I don't think Trump has anything to fear on the alleged election collusion.
On the "election collusion" stuff, I guess I should refer you to the Friday, June 9, 2017 New York Post article, TIME's MAJOR STORY BLUNDER by Bob Fredericks.
A Thursday June 8 Tweet by Dean Baquet said that the Comey "it was not true" answer to the committee would cause the NYT to "report back with more information as soon as we can " on this Paul Manafort related issue.
quote:
The New York Times published a story (headline above ) about alleged contacts between Team Trump and Russian intelligence officials that turned out to be dead wrong,ex-FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
....
The Gray Lady's supposed Feb. 14 scoop reported that members of President Trump's campaign staff had repeated contact with "senior Russian intelligence officials."
The story cited as sources four current and former US officials, who cited as evidence "phone records" and "intercepted calls."
The story said that there was no proof of collusion, but that US officials were "alarmed" because the alleged contacts came at the same time Trump was publicly praising Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.
....
Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet said at the time that the paper stood by the story.
"The Times had numerous sources confirming this story..." he said.
But Thursday, the paper said it would review the story.
There has been no posting here at EVC on the issue, so I will offer this above for those who are interested in following the developments. The Feb 14 headline was TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD REPEATED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
I appreciate the New York Times and am thrilled to see that they are adding 100 more journalists to a paper that has much cheaper online subscriptions than the (also outstanding ) too expensive Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post has reasonable prices too. The Guardian is free but has seen its once $50 billion (or so I remember ) endowment drain down so low that it might not last long. Sad. Very sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 898 of 4573 (813299)
06-25-2017 9:58 PM


Pro-Hillary crew behind anti-Trump 'dossier'
Paul Sperry wrote a Sunday June 25, 2017 New York Post article about Fusion GPS, a company that describes itself :
quote:
Fusion GPS describes itself as a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters."
....
The Senate Judiciary Committee is also investigating whether the FBI has wrongly relied on the anti-Trump dossier and its author, Christopher Steele, to aid its ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and it's possible ties to Moscow.
Also an article Dems warn own party rez-Russia flap a loser
By Mary Kay Linge

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2017 10:25 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 906 of 4573 (814256)
07-05-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by LamarkNewAge
05-17-2017 6:11 PM


Re: Oh, I don't think Trump has anything to fear on the alleged election collusion.
When I said "he relishes that investigation" ,I feel that all current commentary is in total complete agreement now.
Right, Left, center.
CNN just fired 3 reporters over the Russian conspiracy theories.
Trump was given a major gift when the Democratic party and intelligence agencies went after him based on hopes for Russian collusion evidence being plausible and certain meeting being solidly convincing as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-17-2017 6:11 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 951 of 4573 (815784)
07-24-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by Chiroptera
07-19-2017 12:55 PM


Re: Trump certifies Iran nuclear deal
quote:
The New York Times: Reluctantly, Trump Recertifies Iran’s Compliance With Nuclear Agreement
The US President has to certify to Congress every 90 days whether Iran is complying with the "Nuclear Deal". For the second time, the Trump Administration has certified Iran's compliance.
One of Trump's campaign promises was to scrap the deal and negotiate a better one. Unfortunately, this agreement involves the international community, especially the US' European allies. Trump is learning that negotiating deals is much more difficult in real life than on TV.
He said he would keep the deal during the campaign, and it distinguished him from all other candidates (except perhaps Rand Paul)
Trump did , however, boast that he would use his clever cunning toughness to use every last line of the deal to make life like hell on Iran as the nation struggled to fulfill its end of the bargain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Chiroptera, posted 07-19-2017 12:55 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1290 of 4573 (821385)
10-06-2017 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1216 by Minnemooseus
09-30-2017 5:06 AM


This Jill Stein stuff and Nader in 2000. Bad math all over again.
quote:
Donald Trump won the 2016 election with 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. That is a spread of 74 votes.
Clinton was likely to win in several states in which she lost, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio, etc. In three states that could have gone either way, Jill Stein’s vote count was larger than the difference between Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704 votes, Stein got 51,463 votes. In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 46,765 votes, Stein got 49,678 votes. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,177 votes, Stein got 31,006 votes.
If every Jill Stein vote would have been a Clinton Vote, it is likely that Clinton would have had 49 electoral votes more than she did have.
It was commonly said that Nader cost Gore the New Hampshire Electoral College votes in 2000 because Bush won by 7000 votes while Nader got 22,000.
But the best national exit polls showed that 25% of Nader voters would have voted for Bush, and 38% for Gore. (however, there was a good exit poll which showed that 47% of Nader voters would have supported Gore while 24% would have went for Bush)
The claim that Nader cost Bush New Hampshire was based on pure ignorance.
Then there was Florida.
Nader got around 97,000 votes there (something like 1.7%) and Bush only won by 537 votes.
It would seem that Gore would have won by 12,00 to 22,000 votes had Nader not been in the race.
But the Libertarian candidate (Harry Brown), Constitution Party candidate (Howard Phillips) and Reform candidate (Pat Buchanan) took a much higher percentage of Bush voters than Nader took Gore voters, and they almost got as many votes as Nader when combined.
Nader pointed out that political scientists have determined that a straight (year 2000) Bush verse Gore race in Florida would have resulted in Bush winning still. The recount would have been the decisive factor yet again.
Stein might have cost Hillary Michigan, but not the national race. And there wouldn't have been a real difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and especially Ohio (it always amazed me how people could claim Nader cost Gore Ohio when Bush won 50% to 46% in that state, and Nader only got about 3%, so it will amaze me that Trumps 51% to 42% Ohio 2016 win was "because of that evil Jill Stein").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1216 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 5:06 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1294 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2017 8:51 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 1297 by anglagard, posted 10-07-2017 1:52 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2378 of 4573 (837695)
08-07-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2377 by jar
08-07-2018 12:38 PM


Re: Proof of citizenship
I lived in Texas in 2010, and wanted to roll my New York license over to Texas.
(Houston)
I had my NY drivers license and Social Security card but lost my birth certificate (lost some paperwork somehow). (Had my own zerox that I made but it did no good)
I could not get a license roll over the entire time I was there.
Could not vote in the 2010 elections (I left before they came up anyway).
New York requires the same documentation (though I can't remember it I ever needed it to keep my old license going, but newer New Yorkers need a birth certificate and S.S. card to convert their out of state license or I.D. into a New York one.)
And I mean New York, New York (Manhattan).
Interestingly, I saw the (down town) Houston congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee tell the C-SPAN audience that her mother couldn't vote because her Birth Certificate can't be gotten EVER because the place that holds the records either burnt down long ago or something just isn't to be found in any government record building.
(I lived in downtown Houston too when I was there but I wasn't born there)
I lived in the downtown area of Houston too.
When you are away from your birth place, it is very hard to get your documents, but it was amazing to see that the mother of the congresswomen couldn't even get her documents in her home town.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2377 by jar, posted 08-07-2018 12:38 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2379 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 3:22 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2385 of 4573 (837916)
08-10-2018 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2384 by Percy
08-10-2018 7:26 PM


Back in September of 2016, per capita income was projected to be $65,000+ in 2020.
I have been linking to the IMF wage projections. (but the links become out of date and useless as time passes)
This Brexit thread has worthless links. (They were for 2016 and 2020 incomes)
EvC Forum: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
The most updated figures will have things a bit higher than $65,000 for 2020
(Here are the most up to date IMF projections for 2018 and 2022)
List of Countries by Projected GDP per capita
Source International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (April - 2018)
Date 06 May 2018
Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com
NOW MY POINT.
Anyway, an economy that grows 3.0% instead 2.5% will see average incomes roughly $1,200 higher per person after 4 years.
The difference between $71,000 and $72,000 or $66,000 and $67,000.
Clearly the difference won't matter too much.
So what will matter?
I would say one answer is the "economic system" but there are other answers. Social programs are one answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2384 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 7:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2386 by xongsmith, posted 08-10-2018 11:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 2479 of 4573 (839762)
09-14-2018 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2478 by Percy
09-14-2018 4:48 PM


Trump could be a "liberal" mole in the GOP
I even got a big liberal Democrat (friend), who HATES Trump, to sort of come around to my arguments.
He found an online video of Trump (1989?) saying that he could pretend to be a racist and get lots of idiot rednecks to support him.
I remember talking about Trump possibly being President way back in the late 80s and early 90s. (mostly because he was so big of a business man).
Trump is on record supporting "open borders" as recently as 2013 and it seemed to be somewhat secretive.
This was AFTER his Birther support (around 2010-12, which everybody, on BOTH the right and left, at the time of his Birther "birth", saw as some thinly veiled bone thrown to a needed anti-immigrant populist group of Republicans that he was somehow trying to get on the good side of).
HOWEVER
I do think that Trump genuinely dislikes lots of left-leaning people personally. He very well might find very many of them to have disgusting character traits. (Perhaps because even white liberals have always only been about 27% supportive of increasing yearly immigration yet constantly attack others as "racist"? I don't know but he does seem to really dislike the left though it might be tough to figure out. I feel he considers everybody savages and that he needs to tear everything apart. But he seems to find many Average Joe conservative types to be not as dislikable as he might - secretly - dislike their anti-immigration views)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2478 by Percy, posted 09-14-2018 4:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2480 by DrJones*, posted 09-14-2018 11:24 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2581 of 4573 (842762)
11-07-2018 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2573 by RAZD
11-07-2018 10:27 AM


Hopefully liberals are genuinely for rights of ALL.
On the Democrats.
quote:
They need to stop being anti-progressive and they need to return to being for workers.
"Workers" (meaning unions or not?) have a history of only wanting rights for themselves.
Historically, there have been lots of liberals who don't want blacks protected.
It took quite a while to get unions to see blacks as equals to whites.
To this day,union members (not just whites, but blacks too) talk endlessly about immigrants and foreigners somehow needing to be KEPT POOR because the "other's" increased wealth and rights will somehow take away from the worthy one.
I dont know too much about these jokers the Democrats just elected (they got 2 seats in southern Florida from what would have been pro immigration Republican areas), but we shall see if they genuinely believe in the rights of "others".
I remain skeptical.
One clue will be if Democrats start to support guest worker's programs (which means increasing the number alloted by many hundreds of thousands and making it much easier for foreigners to get approved).
Another clue will be whether Democrats open up and tell the truth about the worlds Communist partys being the driving force for civil rights and ALL workers rights (remember, the French Socialist party didn't support rights for the various colony's workers, ONLY French workers) as the Communist party was the only American party, in 1919, calling for civil rights.
The even bigger clue will be whether American unions stop their phony-baloney "concern" for foreigners "labor rights" just so they can stop cold trade deals. They need to prove they are concerned by supporting guest worker programs, and admit they do not and have not cared about foreign workers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2573 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2018 10:27 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2587 by Taq, posted 11-08-2018 12:06 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 2588 by Phat, posted 11-08-2018 1:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2768 of 4573 (849548)
03-14-2019 12:11 AM


Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
2016 (or 2015?) UNIVISION DEBATE
Sanders said "I think I can agree to that", then Hillary Clinton said "yes".
That question was asked in the light of the Trump campaign (plus the Central American child migration crisis of 2013- present).
Now, Democrats say Trump is evil for putting children migrants behind bars.
HOLD FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC RANK-AND-FILE TO A CONSISTENT STANDARD.
Nothing less than the highest standard for children migrants is acceptable.
(Be advised that the only new thing under Trump is PARENTS AND CHILDREN BEING SEPARATED. The detention of children is standard fare. Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job. To his credit, Sanders spoke, on the floor of the Senate, in opposition of the detentions. He was somewhat consistent from 2013 to 2016.)
Today's Democrats say that the issue of children being put behind bars is extreme but will they be consistent when there is a Democratic administration?
MY FEAR:
Democrats (during a future Democratic administration) will say, "We opposed the 'excesses' of the Trump administration, which especially included the separation of migrant children from their parents BUT WE CANNOT ALLOW EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD TO IMMIGRATE TO THIS COUNTRY".
MY HOPE:
Democratic administrations (and the Democratic party as a whole) will admit that they fired severe attacks on Trump for stopping child-migrants at the border (and irrespective of the separate issue of separating a few thousand parents from children), and the accordant policy of the post-Trump Democratic party will be to honor the spirit, of the Trump-era opposition-party position, that the party of Thomas Jefferson presented then.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2769 by Percy, posted 03-14-2019 8:55 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2770 of 4573 (849562)
03-14-2019 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2769 by Percy
03-14-2019 8:55 AM


Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
The issue is about giving the undocumented/illegal immigrants the right to avoid deportation and to stay.
(children seem to be the group Democrats show willingness to defend to various degrees)
( The right to NOT be walled off by a border check is another issue. Democrats are on the record calling walls "racist", and we all know walls are just a symbol of borders)
Here is the Univision transcript.
Transcript: Univision News Democratic Debate on March 9, 2016 | Noticias Univision Poltica | Univision
This March 2016 Univision debate was in the shadow of Hillary Clinton's 2014 comments (the quotes are easy to find) supporting swift deportation of children.
quote:
Search only for hillar clinto said deport children
Hillary Clinton Defends Call To Deport Child Migrants | HuffPost
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost...
Hillary Clinton this week defended her call to deport children from the U.S. who are fleeing violence in Central America. ... Clinton also said the U.S. should do more to deal with the violence in ...
Clinton, Sanders won't deport children - Business Insider
static3.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bernie...
Univision debate moderator Jorge Ramos asked Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about deportation at the Wednesday-night Democratic debate. Ramos pressed Clinton repeatedly on the issue of child deportation until she said, plainly, "I will not deport children." "I will not deport children.
Hillary Clinton says illegal immigrant children should be ...
Hillary Clinton says illegal immigrant children should be 'reunited with their families' | Daily Mail Online...
Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the American government should deport thousands of children who cross the border illegally into the United States.
Hillary: I Will Not Deport Illegal Children, Family Members ...
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-wont...
Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she would not deport illegal children or aliens that do not have criminal records ” and "I do not want to deport family members, either." "I want to prioritize who would be deported," Clinton told Univision co-moderator Jorge Ramos in Miami.
Hillary Clinton’s Child-Deportation Flip-Flop - The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast...
Hillary Clinton’s Child-Deportation Flip-Flop. ... Hillary Clinton swore up and down that she does not want to deport kids, no way, no how. ... “I will not deport children,” she said after ...
Clinton, Sanders won't deport children - Business Insider
Insider...
Hillary Clinton. Univision/Washington Post Both candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president said definitively on Wednesday that they will not deport children if elected.
Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central ...
news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-deport-illegal...
Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central America More For years, parents in crime-ridden Central American nations have been sending their children up through Mexico alone to cross the American border.
Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central ...
dailycaller.com/2014/06/17/hillary-clinton...
Probable Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton broke with President Obama on a key policy issue Tuesday, claiming the unprecedented number of illegal children flooding into the United States must be deported and returned to their families in Central America.
Hillary Clinton: Unaccompanied Minors 'Should Be Sent Back'
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost...
Cristina Jimenez, managing director for United We Dream, said in a statement. "If separating children from families is not who we are as Americans, then Hillary Clinton should join other ...
Hillary Clinton Said Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Be ...
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-immigration...
Hillary Clinton Said Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Be Sent Back in 2014 CNN Interview ... And the report notes that while on the campaign trail Clinton said she wanted “comprehensive ...
Back to the March 9, 2016 debate
Sanders said he would not deport children.
(Hillary largely agreed)
quote:
Hillary Clinton: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country; I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.
Jorge Ramos: Senator Sanders, can you promise us tonight that you won’t deport children?
Bernie Sanders: Let me just say this. I don’t think that the Secretary fully answered your question, and I think the proof may be in the pudding. Honduras and that region of the world may be the most violent region in our hemisphere; gang lords, vicious people, torturing people, doing horrible things to families. Children fled that part of the world to try, try, try maybe to meet up with their family members in this country, taking a route that was horrific, trying to start a new life. Secretary Clinton did not support those children coming into this country. I did. Now, I happen to agree with President Obama on many, many issues. I think he’s done a great job as President of the United States. He is wrong on this issue of deportation. I disagree with him on that. So to answer your question; no, I will not deport children from the United States of America.
But where are we now?
We are at a situation where illegal immigrants are being protected in "sanctuary cities".
Put "Obama deported Children" into google and see lots of mainstream media articles enlightening the evidence of large numbers of deportations and comparisons to Trump.
Google
quote:
Politics & Policy
Why Trump Deports Fewer Immigrants Than Obama
Sanctuary states and cities are slowing the expulsions.
By Francis Wilkinson
May 15, 2018, 10:12 AM CDT
It's a testament to President Donald Trump's capacity for malice that his deportation policy has terrified more while deporting less. Arrests by his administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2017 were about half what they were during President Barack Obama's peak years, 2010 and 2011, according to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute.
During Obama's first term, when he was laying the groundwork for what he hoped would be a comprehensive bargain on immigration, his administration aggressively enforced immigration law. ICE arrests peaked at more than 300,000 annually in 2010 and 2011. Deportations from the American interior -- in other words, not of people apprehended near the border ” surpassed 200,000 in both those years, also about twice the number reached in 2017. Pro-immigrant groups took to calling Obama the "deporter in chief."
....
I asked Leopold why Obama's peak years of enforcement hadn't spread as much fear or more ” given the higher rates of arrest and deportation.
"Even during the worst days of the Obama crackdown," he said, "ICE used its discretion and applied common sense." Today, he said, the agency refuses to use either, while seeming to revel in "tearing apart families."
Why are Trump's deportation numbers so far below Obama's peak? Credit resistance at the state and local level. California saw its share of total ICE arrests drop from 23 percent in 2013 to 14 percent in 2017. Local jurisdictions were more inclined to reject ICE requests for detainers, which seek to hold a particular subject for up to 48 hours, enabling ICE to take custody. Nationwide, detainer requests in 2017 were rejected at four times the rate of 2016.
The Migration Policy Institute report stated:
Across the study sites, state and local governments, attorneys, advocates, community leaders and Mexican and other consulates have been engaged in increased activism and mobilization to monitor ICE activities, develop response plans to protect immigrants during ICE operations and provide legal defense to those in deportation hearings. California, New York, Chicago and the Mexican consulates provided significant new funding to support immigration legal services and representation.
Close to 300 states and localities have sanctuary policies of varying force. About 200 of them do not honor ICE detainers. "ICE has responded by doing what it can ” making more arrests in the community, which it can do on its own without local cooperation," said Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications and public affairs at the institute, a leading immigration think tank and research organization.
While sanctuaries resist, red states are stepping up. Texas's share of total ICE arrests increased from 25 percent to 28 percent as California's share declined. Given a free hand by Washington, ICE has grown much less discriminating in its targets. While arrests of noncitizens with convictions rose 7 percent from 2016 to 2017, arrests of noncitizens without criminal convictions increased 147 percent.
Employers are being targeted as well. ICE said this week that it had opened nearly 2,300 employer audits between Oct. 1 and May 4. There were 1,360 such audits between October 2016 and September 2017.
The Migration Policy Institute report, the product of a yearlong study informed by numerous interviews, stated:
Amid growing pushback in some locations, ICE has adjusted some of its enforcement activities, conducting more operations in limited-cooperation jurisdictions, arresting people in courthouses and near sensitive locations such as schools, carrying out more arrests in the community and bringing in immigrants who were not targets, and taking in a growing share of non-criminals.
In effect, Trump's policies are achieving his goals, frightening undocumented immigrants and heightening risks of deportation -- even if he can't match Obama's peak. Fear of arrest and deportation also appears to be discouraging some immigrants from reporting crime.
Meanwhile, local and state officials who resist federal immigration policy are having success blunting Trump's attack on undocumented residents. Immigration policy in the U.S. is heading in two diametrically opposed directions, with different outcomes in different geographies.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Democrats will be in power again, and we will see if "walls are racist" (or "The Wall is racist") will be matched with sincerity in policymaking. Walls are just a symbol of borders. Will Democrats seriously challenge borders?
Is a fence less racist than a wall (Google: "wall verses a fence")?
Then, will Democrats backtrack on the rights of children?
(will there be "open borders" of sorts for children?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2769 by Percy, posted 03-14-2019 8:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2774 by Percy, posted 03-16-2019 11:14 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024