This is good news no matter how you slice it!

Winning?

#Winning!

Didn't we cover this before already? The number of arrests are down. That doesn't necessarily equate to an equivalent drop in the number of illegal crossings.

(03-09-2017 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Didn't we cover this before already? The number of arrests are down. That doesn't necessarily equate to an equivalent drop in the number of illegal crossings.

So your proposal is that illegal immigration remains steady but a newly engaged, reinforced and emboldened ICE is not arresting illegal immigrants?

Or should we perhaps assume among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected?

Under budget, ahead of schedule.

(03-09-2017 10:49 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Didn't we cover this before already? The number of arrests are down. That doesn't necessarily equate to an equivalent drop in the number of illegal crossings.

So your proposal is that illegal immigration remains steady but a newly engaged, reinforced and emboldened ICE is not arresting illegal immigrants?

Or should we perhaps assume among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected?

cons have never agreed with logic when it comes to this concept.

I spent so much on this with regards to hate crimes stats and trying to explain this concept to cons yet they were either too stubborn or too dumb to understand it (I would say stubborn).

In 2015 this same stat was at a 40 year low. so I'm not sure what the cons are even trying to get at here.

(03-09-2017 11:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 10:49 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Didn't we cover this before already? The number of arrests are down. That doesn't necessarily equate to an equivalent drop in the number of illegal crossings.

So your proposal is that illegal immigration remains steady but a newly engaged, reinforced and emboldened ICE is not arresting illegal immigrants?

Or should we perhaps assume among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected?

cons have never agreed with logic when it comes to this concept.

I spent so much on this with regards to hate crimes stats and trying to explain this concept to cons yet they were either too stubborn or too dumb to understand it (I would say stubborn).

In 2015 this same stat was at a 40 year low. so I'm not sure what the cons are even trying to get at here.

Easy...they know Trump is (and likely will be) a total disaster, so they look for anything to put forth as a success for him.

Just like their fantasy of a decreasing national debt.

And one of his minions the other day was giving him credit for ALL the recent stock market gains.

It hasn't even been 50 days yet folks. They haven't hired new border guards yet, they haven't enacted any fiscal policy yet, etc.

Frankie say relax.