The Right Side of the News

I think illegal immigration has been growing steadily this year, and has recently reached the highest levels of Trump's presidency.--Percy

I was looking for this chart when I composed my previous message. I wanted to use it to illustrate that Trump's claims of a crisis on the border are untrue. Border apprehensions over the past decade have been far lower than all years prior until you get back to the early 1970's, i.e., lower than at any time over the past half century. Trump manufactured the crisis out of thin air.Trump deals only in extremes. For him everything is either the best or the worst. Almost invariably he's making it up.We're only running short of holding facilities because Trump is trying to end the "apprehend and release" approach. Independent of whether that's the right thing do, ending it means there will need to be greatly increased holding capacity, which Trump is loath to do.--Percy

A solution to the overcrowding at ICE detention facilities will require Trump and Congress to work together, which is unlikely to happen. Democrats want to rein in ICE's recent enthusiasm for arresting law-abiding illegals with deep community ties and for holding asylum applicants, but they have only blunt tools for influencing Trump, who has ultimate control over ICE. The House does have control over the number of ICE beds through funding, so that's what the House is doing by refusing to expand ICE bed funding.But the overcrowding at ICE detention facilities is not the fault of Congress. Trump caused the overcrowding by forcing reductions on "apprehension and release." Applicants for asylum used to be released on their own recognizance after a hearing date had been set. According to ICE statistics, the vast majority of asylum applicants show up for their hearings. But now ICE is trying to hold as many asylum applicants as it can, and that's what is causing the overcrowding.Congress does have a say on immigration, both through law and funding. If Trump wants to change the way immigration laws are enforced then he will have to work with Congress. But Trump has been reluctant to work with even a Republican Congress, which it was until January of this year when the Democrats gained control of the House. The overcrowding at ICE facilities caused by Trump policies existed long before that and could not possibly be the fault of Democrats. Even the formerly Republican House did not provide more ICE bed funding.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Little known fact about Alabama, or at least I didn't know it: rapists can sue for custody rights of the children they conceive: For rape victims in Alabama, a second traumaLet's summarize: Alabama forces raped women to carry the child to term, then allows the rapist to further torture them through custody battles.--Percy

I occasionally comment on articles over at Fox News where I'm Percy00. Apparently if they don't like what you say they delete it. My comment on Sen. Graham: Nancy Pelosi is 'biggest loser' now that Mueller will testify was deleted, even though it got 4 likes. It was rather mild, and even though I did quote the Mueller report saying they couldn't exonerate President Trump I don't understand why they deleted it.The replies to my comment are still there, just unanchored messages with no context. If you click on the above link it will take you straight to my deleted message and you can see the replies. Weird.Even more weird is that I keep replying to the guy who replied about collusion, and that keeps getting "disappeared" with no indication it was ever there. I seem to have caught someone's attention at Fox News. All I said was:

quote:

---

"Besides, what evidence do you have of this collusion?"

​

I wasn't originally going to reply, but the original message has been deleted, so I'll just say that my comment was about obstruction, not collusion, which isn't mentioned in the Mueller report anyway.

​

Strangely, this is the third time I've posted this to you, but it keeps disappearing, don't know why. Hope you get a chance to see this.

---

I've never had a comment deleted at the Washington Post or the New York Times.AbE: That reply got disappeared again, so I just put it back again. I wonder how long this will go on?AbE: I thought it disappeared again, but I didn't see the "3 more comments" link before posting it again.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : AbE.

In a NYT editorial (How Mueller Can ”Fix His Mistakes’) Jed Handelsman Shugerman argues that Mueller made two significant mistakes:

1. Mueller wrongly concluded that it was ambiguous whether foreign-provided opposition research constitutes "a thing of value," that it might be First Amendment protected speech. True, "a thing of value" is vague, but foreign attempts at interference cannot be constitutionally protected because the government "has a compelling interest in limiting such corruption."
   ​
2. Mueller used the wrong definition of coordination, saying that "We understood coordination to require an agreement ” tacit or express..." But Congress clearly defined coordination in 2002, saying, that campaign finance regulations "shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination." Following this guidance the FEC's regulations state:
   ​

   quote:

   ---

   “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,” with no need to show any kind of agreement.

   ---

If Shugerman's interpretation is accepted it means that Mueller incorrectly concluded that the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russian government to defraud the American people in an election. It is safe to assume that the Democrats' legal team reads the papers and will give these possibilities consideration as the Democrats decide whether to pursue impeachment.Since the Senate would never vote to convict (McConnell has said the Senate wouldn't even take up for consideration any articles of impeachment, so there wouldn't even be a vote), impeachment would be a merely political exercise designed to hurt Trump's reelection chances. Given that most people won't make the effort to understand the rather subtle distinctions that Shugerman makes, I don't think his arguments will carry much sway with Democratic leaders.But Shugerman might well be right that these are two very significant Mueller errors. Had the Mueller report followed the path outlined by Shugerman then the House might be considering articles of impeachment as we speak. But he didn't, Barr has already created the impression in the minds of most Americans that the report exonerated Trump, and Shugerman's opinion piece won't change that.What Mueller can do is state once again that the report does not exonerate Trump on obstruction. And someone might want to ask him what he thinks about Barr's exoneration of Trump.--Percy

But this is just another in an unending stream of anti-little-guy actions by the Trump administration. How in the world the regular guy/gal Trump supporter still thinks Trump is on their side doing good things is beyond me.They should all think back to a time when they were cheated and how it happened. They probably trusted someone they shouldn't have but who seemed perfectly trustworthy at the time. They should use that experience to inform their current thinking, though that would require gathering actual facts instead of listening to Trump or to most Republicans in Congress or to the propaganda-outlet-posing-as-news-media arm of his administration. Gee, that leaves only the mainstream media, the part of the media that wins Pulitzers and such, but everyone knows that's all just fake news.--Percy

You keep bringing up what you do, yet you're very coy about it. You're not a policeman, but you do something somehow related in a way that you felt lent your views on police work some authority - if there was more information than that I don't recall it. Now you're again claiming your work, this time for women and minorities, lends your views some authority. Because you keep bringing it up as giving your views some weight, why don't you tell us what it is, exactly, that you do? I don't know very much about Antifa, but I think everyone should be against violence in the service of political ends. Vocal on liberal issues? Here at EvC? Where?Just one person's perspective: however you want to describe yourself politically, you definitely come across to me as fairly rightwing. I know you don't support Trump.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

In other words, their beliefs about the inferiority of other races springs from within rather than from any facts. We already knew they were wingnuts before the NYT article.--Percy

Your classified cables link doesn't even mention "classified cables." The word "classified" doesn't appear in the article, and the word "cable" is used in a different context, as in "cable network." It also doesn't mention open servers, just Hillary Clinton's private email server, which security-wise was tight as a drum. Ironically, during Clinton's term as Secretary of State there was a successful hack of department computers, but not of her private email server.You can believe Hillary Clinton's an idiot if you like, but at least do it for reasons that are true. She used a private email server in violation of department policy that put our nation's security at risk. In terms of actual damage, going from memory I believe less than 10 emails were found to contain classified information, and they were only deemed classified retroactively, i.e., after the emails had already been sent. Dude, what the heck cables are you talking about? Your Secretary of State link doesn't mention cables. I don't think any of us would be happy about a "trove of malfeasance," but that's incredibly vague, and you have not so far mentioned a single fact related to your specific claim about cables. If you explained what you're talking about maybe others would be unhappy too, but so far there's no specifics to go on. The word "cable" does not appear in the Wikipedia article on the Hillary Clinton Email ControversyHillary Clinton's private email server was never hacked, though there were attempts. For perspective, the server for this website receives around a hundred hacking attempts a day, and if it weren't for the automated firewall software I use for blocking IPs it would be around a thousand a day. You're starting to sound like Marc9000 who gets all his information from radical right-wing sources. You earlier claimed you advocate liberal views all the time, including here, but I still have yet to see one, and now you seem to be going off the deep end on Hillary Clinton a la the alt-right. Why do you even care about Clinton? She's not in government and she's not running for anything. There's nothing wrong with not liking Clinton, I don't like her either, but anyone with integrity will make sure their criticisms are true. The hacked emails were of the DNC and of John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign. Could you be specific about which emails you mean? Your links didn't turn out to be relevant to your claims, and it's not possible to tell what you're trying to say. Again, please just give us a little information to go on. JonF wasn't spinning the Clinton email controversy as no big deal. He was noting that your exaggerated, unsupported and alarmist claims have no impact on the facts on the ground. Since we have the redacted (for security purposes) Clinton emails, the DNC emails, and the Podesta emails, you should have no trouble telling us what "sensitive information" you mean. Maybe we'd be just as upset as you if we could just figure out what you're talking about.And as far as being the highest ranking government official to leak sensitive information, that would be Trump, who did it on camera with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. Here's an ABC news report about it in case you've forgotten, the essentials are right up front, you only have to listen to 10 or 20 seconds: The phrase is "drawn and quartered." Maybe you're right that Clinton is a moron, but how do you hope to convince anyone if no one can figure out what you're talking about? But the hack still wasn't of the Clinton email server.--Percy

We should accept reliable evidence regardless of the source. Our efforts should be for developing skills for seeking out and recognizing reliable evidence, rather than for developing filters against views different from our own.--Percy

You're getting the attention because you're the one defending current administration policies about treatment of immigrant children, and of immigrants in general. The old policy prior to Trump was to schedule an immigration hearing, then release into the country. There was no need for huge holding facilities.Without consulting Congress Trump changed the policy and ceased releasing immigrants into the country, instead holding them in the aforementioned holding facilities. Congress disapproves of this policy and so refuses to allocate the funds to properly carry it out. Trump should negotiate with Congress to find a solution that Congress will fund. You know, the way government's supposed to work.--Percy

The name caller extraordinaire is you. Well, yes, endorsing and/or perpetrating racist driven cruelty tends to draw attention. Donations are not accepted by border patrol holding facilities. This is the US government we're talking about, not the Red Cross. I think we're doing that. Using the web I write my senators and congressperson several times a year, and I often try to write people in Congress from other states, such as Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), but their websites often reject contributors from outside their state by requiring a zip code. I didn't mention any detention facilities. My comments were general about the importance of seeking facts regardless where they lead. The overcrowding is due to Trump administration policies that no longer release immigrants into the country pending their immigration hearing. If you want to do something positive then you could write the president and your people in Congress that you believe immigrants should be treated with compassion and dignity.--Percy

Is anyone here telling you to just accept what they say as factual? Or are they offering information they think factual so that you can confirm it for yourself?And are you investigating the provided information? Or are you dismissing it? The pre-Trump policy worked pretty well (somewhere around 95% of asylum immigrants appear for their hearings), and it was what Congress had funded. You're referring now to the newly elected Democratic House. The formerly Republican House was just fine with the Trump policy. Trump doesn't need any help looking bad. He tweets his racism and cruelty constantly. I don't think you've been listening to what people have been saying. More funds have been voted for some things but not others, for instance for improving the facilities to provide better treatment but not for expanding the facilities, i.e. not for providing more beds. This is because the Democratic House does not agree with the Trump administration policy of incarceration for those attempting to enter the country illegally, or with forcing them to wait in Mexico. What is happening at the border is cruel and inhumane. I cannot support that. My hope is that everyone is against cruelty and inhumanity. I think you need to get your facts straight. I think you think this because you have your facts backwards. I think others here have offered much better explanations than me. What I've said in my brief posts is the short form. You're comparing problems of completely different magnitudes, but I hope we're all against inhumane conditions no matter where or when they occurred. If you believe pre-Trump policy was inhumane, then isn't Trump the one with the opportunity to fix it?--Percy

In the news today, this is from the NYT: Planned Parenthood Refuses Federal Funds Over Abortion RestrictionsI have just donated to Planned Parenthood: Donate to Planned Parenthood--Percy