CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - uconnbaseball - 12-09-2018 10:18 AM

(12-08-2018 04:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 04:42 PM)ausowl Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 08:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 08:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A wall to mark the legal border between the U.S. and Mexico and prevent illegal entry, which U.S. law already prohibits, is … “immoral”.... interesting choice of 'semantics'.
House Speaker to-be On the 'Morality' of marking the border
I will give her the benefit of the doubt of this being a cloddish remark or a 'misstatement', and *not* a complete paean to the concept of open borders that seem to enthrall many on the progressive side, much in line with what I would hope (but dont think) some others might do with other statements.
I won't give her that benefit. What I see happening is the democrats radicalizing right before our eyes. Center-left is gone.
Yes, the gulf is widening, and it is doing so under impetus from the Democrats. In a few years Lad may have to reevaluate whether he wants to be far left or left of right center.
With many of the 40 new D's in Congress coming from R or R-leaning districts, I wonder if the center-left is disappearing or reemerging? Yes, a 29 year socialist won in NYC and is soaking up a bunch of press . . .
The Congressional R's who survived in their ultra safe districts probably look a lot more like the Freedom Caucus than the Boehner-Ryan wing of the party.
Haven't checked to see if someone has done an ideological matrix of this new House class.
Some of the D's who won in formerly R districts promised to be centrists in order to get votes. I predict they won't be. We shall see.

Doug Jones in Alabama promised to be centrist, and definitely has not been so far. He appears to be Schumer's puppet.

I fear that your suspicions will be proven correct.


RE: Trump Administration - ausowl - 12-09-2018 12:50 PM

Doug Jones has voted 50% plus with Trump.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-09-2018 01:22 PM

(12-09-2018 12:50 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones has voted 50% plus with Trump.

Trump has voted?

Jones is also 70% with Schumer. I'm guessing he's on a leash where when it doesn't matter Schumer turns him loose to vote the other way to try to curry some favor back home. Based on what I'm hearing from Alabama, it's not working. The problem with Alabama, and what got him elected in the first place, is that the state republican party has become almost a complete disaster.


RE: Trump Administration - ausowl - 12-09-2018 10:38 PM

Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-09-2018 10:49 PM

(12-09-2018 10:38 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7

He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-09-2018 11:18 PM

(12-09-2018 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:38 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7

He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.

Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-10-2018 02:40 AM

(12-09-2018 11:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:38 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7

He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.

Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?

Funny, I thought you recently complained quite vociferously about the 'objective number semantics' thingy. 03-wink


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 01:53 PM

Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.


RE: Trump Administration - JustAnotherAustinOwl - 12-11-2018 01:54 PM

So Trump just told Schumer and Pelosi on camera that he is "proud" to shut down the government over his wall. Pence appeared to be enjoying himself immensely.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2018 02:36 PM

(12-10-2018 02:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 11:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:38 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7

He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.

Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?

Funny, I thought you recently complained quite vociferously about the 'objective number semantics' thingy. 03-wink

I chuckled a bit, I'll give you that.

I'd argue there's a difference between asking where a line in the sand is for something, versus asking if that line in the sand exists. Especially when you're talking about things that have been normalized, like voting records compared to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. But like I said, I chuckled.

I think it's a more than fair question to ask why voting with someone 77% of the time gets you called a puppet. But voting with someone 69% of the time doesn't.

For example, Cory Booker only voted with McConnell 26% of the time and with Schumer 88% of the time. That's much more puppet-like. Heck, even Angus King, a registered Independent, had a bigger differential between Schumer and McConnell (83% vs 54%, respectively).


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2018 02:41 PM

(12-11-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.

This is why part of my solution to the immigration crisis would be increasing the workforce to process claims. Unless we completely want to abandon accepting asylum seekers, we will always have legitimate claims and illegitimate claims - just the nature of the beast.

If we have an infrastructure in place that can effectively and efficiently process the claims and grant asylum to those who are deserving, based on how our laws are written, why does the amount of claims we've received matter? At least people claiming asylum get put into a system and can be tracked.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 02:57 PM

(12-11-2018 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-10-2018 02:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 11:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:38 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Doug Jones, "currently stands out as the member with the lowest party unity score in the entire Senate" source 538, 12/7

He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.

Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?

Funny, I thought you recently complained quite vociferously about the 'objective number semantics' thingy. 03-wink

I chuckled a bit, I'll give you that.

I'd argue there's a difference between asking where a line in the sand is for something, versus asking if that line in the sand exists. Especially when you're talking about things that have been normalized, like voting records compared to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. But like I said, I chuckled.

I think it's a more than fair question to ask why voting with someone 77% of the time gets you called a puppet. But voting with someone 69% of the time doesn't.

For example, Cory Booker only voted with McConnell 26% of the time and with Schumer 88% of the time. That's much more puppet-like. Heck, even Angus King, a registered Independent, had a bigger differential between Schumer and McConnell (83% vs 54%, respectively).

But you also have to realize that both those numbers can be 'watered down'. There is far more import to voting 'Nay' on a SCOTUS nominee than voting 'Aye' on renaming the Federal Courthouse in El Paso.

I might grant you that the Jone's record shows moderation in toto.... I would think that Schumer realizes that and has granted him all sorts of leeway to make sure that his voting record with Schumer shows moderation -- especially for Alabama.

Noting the public opinions of Alabama re: the Kavanaugh nomination and his ultimate vote, yep, when it is an 'important' issue I am pretty certain that Jones will be in the pocket for Schumer. As one Judicial Crisis Network ad in Alabama over the summer stated:

Quote:"Now we get to see who Doug Jones really is. Will he side with the people of Alabama and support Kavanaugh?"

I guess we know where that fell.

Or, even with the current question on the wall (tied to the government shutdown, mind you) it should be noted that zero Democratic Senators have indicated a stance to support even a cloture vote on the issue, Jones included. In contrast to the stances of his constituency. In fact, Jones is on the record as explicitly 'against' the wall.

Alabaman's Views on 'The Wall'

So, I think the general consensus is that Jones may have latitude to tone his Democratic stances down to some extent. But, apparently he does not have the latitude that Manchin has. Thus, when it comes to 'important' votes, I think it is clear Jones is an 'in the pocket' vote for Schumer.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 03:01 PM

(12-11-2018 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.

This is why part of my solution to the immigration crisis would be increasing the workforce to process claims. Unless we completely want to abandon accepting asylum seekers, we will always have legitimate claims and illegitimate claims - just the nature of the beast.

If we have an infrastructure in place that can effectively and efficiently process the claims and grant asylum to those who are deserving, based on how our laws are written, why does the amount of claims we've received matter? At least people claiming asylum get put into a system and can be tracked.

And mine is to limit the availability of asylum claims. But progressives *love* more bureaucracy, so I understand your stance.

I think it is fing clear that the asylum issue is being massively abused with these numbers (even without my pro-bono clinic 'anecdotes' that seem to be dismissed out of hand) (as an aside, the last one I overheard, just in the last ten days, explicitly described the asylum claim, with or without more 'help' at the border and processing, as the 'soft underbelly of immigration' and the speaker further commented he was astounded that even more failed to throw this card at each and every opportunity. And he stated, at the very worst, it is a 6 mos. 'pass' to avoid the bus. The term 'avoid the bus' was his, mind you. But hell, this is just an anecdote with no real world import....)

Your solution is to simply throw more government at it. Is that a correct delineation?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2018 03:15 PM

(12-11-2018 02:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-10-2018 02:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 11:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  He agreed with Schumer 77% of the time per
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/J000300-doug-jones/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/115

Their biggest disagreement was that Jones voted to confirm Pompeo for SecState, and Schumer voted against.

Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?

Funny, I thought you recently complained quite vociferously about the 'objective number semantics' thingy. 03-wink

I chuckled a bit, I'll give you that.

I'd argue there's a difference between asking where a line in the sand is for something, versus asking if that line in the sand exists. Especially when you're talking about things that have been normalized, like voting records compared to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. But like I said, I chuckled.

I think it's a more than fair question to ask why voting with someone 77% of the time gets you called a puppet. But voting with someone 69% of the time doesn't.

For example, Cory Booker only voted with McConnell 26% of the time and with Schumer 88% of the time. That's much more puppet-like. Heck, even Angus King, a registered Independent, had a bigger differential between Schumer and McConnell (83% vs 54%, respectively).

But you also have to realize that both those numbers can be 'watered down'. There is far more import to voting 'Nay' on a SCOTUS nominee than voting 'Aye' on renaming the Federal Courthouse in El Paso.

I might grant you that the Jone's record shows moderation in toto.... I would think that Schumer realizes that and has granted him all sorts of leeway to make sure that his voting record with Schumer shows moderation -- especially for Alabama.

Noting the public opinions of Alabama re: the Kavanaugh nomination and his ultimate vote, yep, when it is an 'important' issue I am pretty certain that Jones will be in the pocket for Schumer. As one Judicial Crisis Network ad in Alabama over the summer stated:

Quote:"Now we get to see who Doug Jones really is. Will he side with the people of Alabama and support Kavanaugh?"

I guess we know where that fell.

Or, even with the current question on the wall (tied to the government shutdown, mind you) it should be noted that zero Democratic Senators have indicated a stance to support even a cloture vote on the issue, Jones included. In contrast to the stances of his constituency. In fact, Jones is on the record as explicitly 'against' the wall.

Alabaman's Views on 'The Wall'

So, I think the general consensus is that Jones may have latitude to tone his Democratic stances down to some extent. But, apparently he does not have the latitude that Manchin has. Thus, when it comes to 'important' votes, I think it is clear Jones is an 'in the pocket' vote for Schumer.

Not sure how much I would trust that source on the border wall. It has 60% of people supporting the wall in Houston. The fact that all Republicans were swept out of office this past year makes me think this website might not be a great reference.

And we'll see how Jones votes in the future. I can understand your perspectives, but I don't think using the Kavanaugh nomination as a gauge board is very good. When legislation is in front of him, I think we'll be able to more fairly judge if he's a conservative Democrat, stooge of Schumer, etc.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2018 03:21 PM

(12-11-2018 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.

This is why part of my solution to the immigration crisis would be increasing the workforce to process claims. Unless we completely want to abandon accepting asylum seekers, we will always have legitimate claims and illegitimate claims - just the nature of the beast.

If we have an infrastructure in place that can effectively and efficiently process the claims and grant asylum to those who are deserving, based on how our laws are written, why does the amount of claims we've received matter? At least people claiming asylum get put into a system and can be tracked.

And mine is to limit the availability of asylum claims. But progressives *love* more bureaucracy, so I understand your stance.

I think it is fing clear that the asylum issue is being massively abused with these numbers (even without my pro-bono clinic 'anecdotes' that seem to be dismissed out of hand) (as an aside, the last one I overheard, just in the last ten days, explicitly described the asylum claim, with or without more 'help' at the border and processing, as the 'soft underbelly of immigration' and the speaker further commented he was astounded that even more failed to throw this card at each and every opportunity. And he stated, at the very worst, it is a 6 mos. 'pass' to avoid the bus. The term 'avoid the bus' was his, mind you. But hell, this is just an anecdote with no real world import....)

Your solution is to simply throw more government at it. Is that a correct delineation?

My solution is to actually deal with the problem.

I fail to see how your alternative - limiting asylum claims - actually deals with the problem of too many people wanting to claim asylum. So what happens to the X number of people who are unable to make an asylum claim because Y claims have been made on Day Z? Do they start taking numbers and come back?

I don't see how a cap on the number of asylum claims is helpful, I think addressing those claims, though is. We could also implement a system where you can claim asylum at consulates so that we do not have issues with immigrants either waiting at our border to make a claim or in the country while the claim is being processed.

I prefer to tackle immigration pragmatically, as I do with drugs. Recognize that people are going to use it and create a system where you can focus on the real bad guys and effectively control the majority of people who are just trying to live their lives.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 03:25 PM

(12-11-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-10-2018 02:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 11:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Susan Collins, considered a rather independent voter regularly, votes with Mitch McConnell 91% of the time. I don’t know anyone suggesting she is completely bossed around by McConnell.

And Jones votes more in line with McConnell than Manchen (a conservative Dem) does at 69%, only 8% less than his votes with Schumer. So are those 8% points the difference between being beholden to one person but not another?

Funny, I thought you recently complained quite vociferously about the 'objective number semantics' thingy. 03-wink

I chuckled a bit, I'll give you that.

I'd argue there's a difference between asking where a line in the sand is for something, versus asking if that line in the sand exists. Especially when you're talking about things that have been normalized, like voting records compared to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. But like I said, I chuckled.

I think it's a more than fair question to ask why voting with someone 77% of the time gets you called a puppet. But voting with someone 69% of the time doesn't.

For example, Cory Booker only voted with McConnell 26% of the time and with Schumer 88% of the time. That's much more puppet-like. Heck, even Angus King, a registered Independent, had a bigger differential between Schumer and McConnell (83% vs 54%, respectively).

But you also have to realize that both those numbers can be 'watered down'. There is far more import to voting 'Nay' on a SCOTUS nominee than voting 'Aye' on renaming the Federal Courthouse in El Paso.

I might grant you that the Jone's record shows moderation in toto.... I would think that Schumer realizes that and has granted him all sorts of leeway to make sure that his voting record with Schumer shows moderation -- especially for Alabama.

Noting the public opinions of Alabama re: the Kavanaugh nomination and his ultimate vote, yep, when it is an 'important' issue I am pretty certain that Jones will be in the pocket for Schumer. As one Judicial Crisis Network ad in Alabama over the summer stated:

Quote:"Now we get to see who Doug Jones really is. Will he side with the people of Alabama and support Kavanaugh?"

I guess we know where that fell.

Or, even with the current question on the wall (tied to the government shutdown, mind you) it should be noted that zero Democratic Senators have indicated a stance to support even a cloture vote on the issue, Jones included. In contrast to the stances of his constituency. In fact, Jones is on the record as explicitly 'against' the wall.

Alabaman's Views on 'The Wall'

So, I think the general consensus is that Jones may have latitude to tone his Democratic stances down to some extent. But, apparently he does not have the latitude that Manchin has. Thus, when it comes to 'important' votes, I think it is clear Jones is an 'in the pocket' vote for Schumer.

Not sure how much I would trust that source on the border wall. It has 60% of people supporting the wall in Houston. The fact that all Republicans were swept out of office this past year makes me think this website might not be a great reference.

And we'll see how Jones votes in the future. I can understand your perspectives, but I don't think using the Kavanaugh nomination as a gauge board is very good. When legislation is in front of him, I think we'll be able to more fairly judge if he's a conservative Democrat, stooge of Schumer, etc.

As to the bolded -- it seems to be a crystal clear gauge. We shall see when more 'important' votes are put forth. He is 0-2 at this point. (Or 2-0 depending on your polarity, I guess...)

As to the italicized -- I would hazard a very strong guess that the Wall is supported to a great extent in Alabama. If you think not, well, so be it.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 03:36 PM

(12-11-2018 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.

This is why part of my solution to the immigration crisis would be increasing the workforce to process claims. Unless we completely want to abandon accepting asylum seekers, we will always have legitimate claims and illegitimate claims - just the nature of the beast.

If we have an infrastructure in place that can effectively and efficiently process the claims and grant asylum to those who are deserving, based on how our laws are written, why does the amount of claims we've received matter? At least people claiming asylum get put into a system and can be tracked.

And mine is to limit the availability of asylum claims. But progressives *love* more bureaucracy, so I understand your stance.

I think it is fing clear that the asylum issue is being massively abused with these numbers (even without my pro-bono clinic 'anecdotes' that seem to be dismissed out of hand) (as an aside, the last one I overheard, just in the last ten days, explicitly described the asylum claim, with or without more 'help' at the border and processing, as the 'soft underbelly of immigration' and the speaker further commented he was astounded that even more failed to throw this card at each and every opportunity. And he stated, at the very worst, it is a 6 mos. 'pass' to avoid the bus. The term 'avoid the bus' was his, mind you. But hell, this is just an anecdote with no real world import....)

Your solution is to simply throw more government at it. Is that a correct delineation?

My solution is to actually deal with the problem.

I fail to see how your alternative - limiting asylum claims - actually deals with the problem of too many people wanting to claim asylum. So what happens to the X number of people who are unable to make an asylum claim because Y claims have been made on Day Z? Do they start taking numbers and come back?

I don't see how a cap on the number of asylum claims is helpful, I think addressing those claims, though is. We could also implement a system where you can claim asylum at consulates so that we do not have issues with immigrants either waiting at our border to make a claim or in the country while the claim is being processed.

I prefer to tackle immigration pragmatically, as I do with drugs. Recognize that people are going to use it and create a system where you can focus on the real bad guys and effectively control the majority of people who are just trying to live their lives.

The issue is that the asylum claim is now 'known' to be a counter to the instant ride back to Juarez. It is *actively* promoted as such a counter. To the extent that when you are caught in an ICE raid after having been in the States for four years, the advice is to insta-claim asylum.

In short, the underbelly of the claim promotes more illegal entry --- Kind of like back when 55 mph was the national standard on interstates and Culberson and Pecos county initiated the "anything less than 75 mph is a $5 dollar 'wastage of energy' violation". Do you think those actions by those counties added to or detracted from the people that went over 55 mph and kept it below 75 mph? If you say it detracted from that added impetus (in the same way that the short circuit adds to the impetus of illegal immigration) then I have some fing land I would like to sell to you.

If you dont see that having an instant short circuit available is a promotion to whatever activity you want to curtail is an lessening of effective enforcement, then so be it.

The asylum angle is *seriously* and *amazingly* overused and abused. Full stop. You think it fine to keep it in place as is. Got it. That much is clear. Just throw more people at it and it will be cleared up. Again, got it. Hope you have enough fing ankle bracelets to pass around.....


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2018 03:59 PM

(12-11-2018 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 03:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Asylum claims at US-Mexican border soar. Cause remains a mystery.....

Guess those seminars at the pro-bono clinics about short circuiting the insta-bus ride back to Guadalajara aren't effective at all.

This is why part of my solution to the immigration crisis would be increasing the workforce to process claims. Unless we completely want to abandon accepting asylum seekers, we will always have legitimate claims and illegitimate claims - just the nature of the beast.

If we have an infrastructure in place that can effectively and efficiently process the claims and grant asylum to those who are deserving, based on how our laws are written, why does the amount of claims we've received matter? At least people claiming asylum get put into a system and can be tracked.

And mine is to limit the availability of asylum claims. But progressives *love* more bureaucracy, so I understand your stance.

I think it is fing clear that the asylum issue is being massively abused with these numbers (even without my pro-bono clinic 'anecdotes' that seem to be dismissed out of hand) (as an aside, the last one I overheard, just in the last ten days, explicitly described the asylum claim, with or without more 'help' at the border and processing, as the 'soft underbelly of immigration' and the speaker further commented he was astounded that even more failed to throw this card at each and every opportunity. And he stated, at the very worst, it is a 6 mos. 'pass' to avoid the bus. The term 'avoid the bus' was his, mind you. But hell, this is just an anecdote with no real world import....)

Your solution is to simply throw more government at it. Is that a correct delineation?

My solution is to actually deal with the problem.

I fail to see how your alternative - limiting asylum claims - actually deals with the problem of too many people wanting to claim asylum. So what happens to the X number of people who are unable to make an asylum claim because Y claims have been made on Day Z? Do they start taking numbers and come back?

I don't see how a cap on the number of asylum claims is helpful, I think addressing those claims, though is. We could also implement a system where you can claim asylum at consulates so that we do not have issues with immigrants either waiting at our border to make a claim or in the country while the claim is being processed.

I prefer to tackle immigration pragmatically, as I do with drugs. Recognize that people are going to use it and create a system where you can focus on the real bad guys and effectively control the majority of people who are just trying to live their lives.

The issue is that the asylum claim is now 'known' to be a counter to the instant ride back to Juarez. It is *actively* promoted as such a counter. To the extent that when you are caught in an ICE raid after having been in the States for four years, the advice is to insta-claim asylum.

In short, the underbelly of the claim promotes more illegal entry --- Kind of like back when 55 mph was the national standard on interstates and Culberson and Pecos county initiated the "anything less than 75 mph is a $5 dollar 'wastage of energy' violation". Do you think those actions by those counties added to or detracted from the people that went over 55 mph and kept it below 75 mph? If you say it detracted from that added impetus (in the same way that the short circuit adds to the impetus of illegal immigration) then I have some fing land I would like to sell to you.

If you dont see that having an instant short circuit available is a promotion to whatever activity you want to curtail is an lessening of effective enforcement, then so be it.

The asylum angle is *seriously* and *amazingly* overused and abused. Full stop. You think it fine to keep it in place as is. Got it. That much is clear. Just throw more people at it and it will be cleared up. Again, got it. Hope you have enough fing ankle bracelets to pass around.....

How would your plan, or limiting the number of asylum claims that can be made in a day, reduce illegal immigration?

How would it stop people from trying to abuse the asylum process?


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-11-2018 04:29 PM

If the asylum process is limited, then one of the incentives (technically a reduction of negative consequence) is removed.

Trust me, Lad, if and whenever you actually speak one on one with illegal immigrants (hint: I do, as a matter of course as explained previously, which you pooh pooh to a pretty vast extent) there is a weighing of the positives and negatives. One serious negative for the immigrants is the instant (48 hour or less) bus ride back to Nuevo Laredo (or whatever destination is for that center).

The claiming of asylum at any point in time, notwithstanding at any place, gets rid of that very large negative on the ledger sheets. People are being *actively* coached to claim this. And yes, that news has a way of making it back to the source country as well.

What used to be a 'Hi there, we are the migra, you got the fast bus back across the border' is now being subverted by an 'insta-delay' of the process. You have a 'Get out of deportation right here, right now card' that is being actively promoted.

You restrict that instant 'hey you got 2, 3, 6, 8 free months here on personal recognizance' with a return to the norm, that negative consequence *will* negatively affect the 'travel rates'.

I am just saying that the asylum card *is* being actively promoted as nothing more than a delay device at best. To a fing massive extent. If you dont see what the lessening of a negative consequence has on an action, then I dont know what more to say.

You seem to think that this short circuit has no gd effect on the illegal immigration rates. I dont know where you get that from, but the absolute overriding reverence that this subject has in the pro-bono clinics that I help out at tells me that this subject alone has a decent amount to do with that.

What is the proper 'restrictive practice' to put into place? I dont have the foggiest. But it is crystal fing clear to me with my first hand, and rather up close, observations that the short circuit that this provision effectuates is being *massively* abused, and this short circuit *is* part of the 'immigration calculus' that is occurring.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-11-2018 05:07 PM

I don't see the point of Lad's expansion of the bureaucracy to handle asylum claims if all it does is expedite entry for the masses.

Asylum is a relatively new thing - nobody asked the immigrants on Ellis Island if they were fleeing oppression, or if they were fleeing any-damn-thing.

I think there are a lot of residents of Chicago/LA/NY/other big cities that have just as much right to asylum as people from Honduras/Salvador/wherever, since the criteria seems to be fleeing gang violence.

In truth, many of those fleeing the gang violence in Salvador will just move into American slums marked by gang violence. Yay, we "saved" them, let's pat ourselves on the back like good little liberals.