Post New

The only two states in which every district voted red or blue in 2024.

Let’s compare:

Oklahoma (red)
44th in education
49th in healthcare
44th in quality of life
50th in test scores
Top 10 in worst poverty

Massachusetts (blue)
1st in education
2nd in healthcare
1st in quality of life
1st in test scores
Top 10 in meast poverty

The authoritarian loop
https://open.substack.com/pub/meidastouch/p/exposi...

Love it.
Keep up the smug snobbery. It’s served you so well so far.

How many ports and financial centers do they have in Oklahoma?

Love it.
Keep up the smug snobbery

I don’t live in Mass. it’s not snobery, though that’s your fall back, and I’m sure Jedi will be along to echo you and then tge two of you can laugh and laughandlaugh.

It’s simply a stark reminder of what happens when people vote against their best interests.

Lulz. You dodged the question.

liberalism didn’t build the ports in Boston and the resulting financial windfalls.

You people like to thing liberalism created wealth, but in places like Nee York, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, Boston and San Francisco it’s there in spite of liberalism, not because of it.

TL;DR: You didn’t build that.

"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"


"Dear VP Vance. I've helped Trump and W win. I can do the same for you. That's a sample of my work"


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

"Dear Dems. When GO: overplays its hand and you'll take Congress. I've helped many Dem victories be empty , without governing mandate. Hakeem, I;,l do the same for you"'
'
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


Chris Matthews. James Carville. Bill Maher. I am too extreme for you. And too smug and incapable of addressing what you say.


BAAAAAAAAAAA


Off to the next ZIMMERMAN! WA PO!!!!! Now "hegseth!!!!!!!"

Ewok, my little cigarette smoker in the throes of post coital ecstasy…..

How is a comparison of the metrics of Oklahoma with the metrics of Massachusite anything other than exactly that?

Apparently, Republicans run from such comparisons like a wicked witch from water.

Instead of actually engaging, they blow smoke out of their asses and shout “Smug!” “Baaaaa!”

Why do red states so strikingly vote against their own interests?

And why do ewoks desperately try to change the subject whenever this is pointed out?

“Ewok” doesn’t quite capture it.

Given your self description of smoking cigarettes and laying around in “post coital” ecstasy, you are now Jabba the Hut.

y ports and financial centers do they have in Oklahoma?

Florida has ports and Financial centers (Miami), how about New Orleans and the other red states ports? Ports are geographic, and there are several ports in red states.

Historically, 100th meridian west:

In the United States, this meridian roughly marks the boundary between the semi-arid climate in the west and the humid continental and humid subtropical climates in the east - Wiki

So to the left (West) of that meridian crops need frequent irrigation and we built a huge irrigation system. The Comstock lode was there and while it was there, times were good. A lot of people who moved into that area left before the irrigation projects because it was too difficult to make a living. Irrigation is being threatened by changing weather patterns.

Ya know that part of Oklahoma that sticks out above the Texas panhandle? That's due to Texas having slavery. So the South became dependent on King Cotton, waged a war over slavery, and seems to not have recovered due to its culture. Adams visited the South and deemed the culture as "dissipated". The plantationers were generally aristocratic wannabees, non first-sons from Europe and their progeny. The Appalachians were settled by Scots and people from the English Scottish border who were generally characterized as spending time fishing and fighting, and making whiskey.

SNIP In terms of social status, New England was also less stratified than other colonies. Most of the colonists were free men and women, some were minor gentry, but none were aristocrats, members of the highest strata of English society. WIKI SNIP The culture was that you had to be industrious and also give back to the community. They did and they also wagon trained to the Washington, Oregon area where Dope lives.

So there's a lot more to that than just ports and financial centers growing up where ports are, and more than I've mentioned.,

So there's a lot more to that than just ports and financial centers growing up where ports are, and more than I've mentioned.

Sure - but I think the larger point still stands.

Massachusetts has always been a fairly wealthy state. Oklahoma has always been a relatively poor state. Oklahoma probably isn't poorer than Massachusetts because it has voted for Republicans in the last couple of decades. It was much poorer than Massachusetts before it started voting for the GOP.

There's lots of reasons why that's the case that go beyond just ports and financial centers, but I don't think that was what Dope was really trying to get at. I think the larger point is that the correlation between wealth and "blue" politics isn't necessarily (or even likely) due to causation. The poorer states in the country were poor long before the "Solid South" broke up and turned Republican.

Sidebar-

Little appreciated fact- at the time Texans were living there at the sufferance of the Mexican government, ie Texas was part of Mexico, Mexico demanded they stop the practice of slavery, Mexico having banned slavery in 1820. Texans refused.

So the glorious last stand at the Alamo was actually fought in defense of slavery. You won't find that on the plaque in San Antonio.

fd

Only peripherally related to the point at hand:

"Historically, 100th meridian west:

In the United States, this meridian roughly marks the boundary between the semi-arid climate in the west and the humid continental and humid subtropical climates in the east" (IIRC this has to do with the western boundary of northward-migrating moist air asses from the Gulf Coast)

Personal anecdote:

Only in the last year or so occurred to me that on my maternal side:
- ancestors of both maternal GF and maternal GM emigrated from England to the Boston area in the 1650s and commenced farming
- they farmed their way steadily westward generation by generation (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa...), ultimately arriving at literally 99 degrees west longitude just in time for the 1930s Dust Bowl
- a cumulative 28 degrees west longitude (71 to 99 degrees) in 280 years, or around 25 miles every ten years ~= 50 miles/generation
- until around 1930 when the younger generation said, stuff this and headed (via Model A) 22 more degrees west to the California and Washington to become small merchants

-- sutton
wouldn't have minded inheriting a dozen acres or so outside of Boston

Oklahoma probably isn't poorer than Massachusetts because it has voted for Republicans in the last couple of decades.

Oh sure it is. Sam Brownback ring a bell?

Trickle-Down hasn’t worked. It’s time for Middle-Out economics.
https://okpolicy.org/trickle-down-hasnt-worked-its...

GOP confronts another failed tax experiment in Oklahoma
https://apnews.com/article/f058811fa1fb4bf68a34e3c...

Kansas, Sam Brownback, and the Trickle-Down Implosion
The Kansas governor’s attempt to create supply-side nirvana in Middle America not only failed to grow the economy—it created a crippling crisis of government that led to a statewide rejection of his politics.
https://prospect.org/labor/kansas-sam-brownback-tr...

Now before you say “Oh, well that isn’t “the last couple of decades”, it’s true, but if you examine Kansas you’ll find that this mentality of “government is always wrong” and “lift yourself up” goes back decades, if not generations.

“What’s the Matter with Kansas” makes a persuasive argument that Kansans were fed a steady diet of culture war issues, and when Republicans took over (from the remnants of the FDR coalition) they yanked the rug and voted for what we now call “trickle down” policies, while still flogging the culture wars in public. Sam Brownback was just the visible tip of the spear, stupid enough to acknowledge what they were doing, but it had been going on long before him.

Culture populism trumped issues like better schools, infrastructure investment, and so on to the point where Kansas is now among the worst performing states in the country - but hooray, it has low tax rates if you’re a gabaillionaire, not many of whom want to spend a lot of time in Kansas since there’s no there there. The monies that could have made it a more productive and equitable state have only served to enrich the lucky few and cleave the state into have’s and don’t have’s.

It’s actually the story of America, writ small. And it’s still going on.

The poorer states in the country were poor long before the "Solid South" broke up and turned Republican.

Yes, but the culture adopted can extend being poor, or it can help the economy. The South and Appalachia still have cultures that don't value industriousness or education generally. They aren't known for it. So when the coal or cotton goes away, the culture extends being poor.

My point is that the culture makes more of a difference than we think. If you have a natural asset like oil, investment will come into the area. When the asset is depleted, the economy slows way down.

The South's culture seems to extend being poor. Same with Appalachia's, but it also has geography problems. The West can only support so much in the high desert, high suicide areas. None of those cultures values education, but the West has some areas that value industriousness.

Oh sure it is. Sam Brownback ring a bell?

Sam Brownback....from Kansas? Not Oklahoma?

Culture populism trumped issues like better schools, infrastructure investment, and so on to the point where Kansas is now among the worst performing states in the country - but hooray, it has low tax rates if you’re a gabaillionaire, not many of whom want to spend a lot of time in Kansas since there’s no there there. The monies that could have made it a more productive and equitable state have only served to enrich the lucky few and cleave the state into have’s and don’t have’s.

If we're going to talk about Kansas - is it? Like, among the worst performing states in the country? One of the worst performing states in the country? I mean, seems pretty middle of the road to me. Better than average poverty rate, middling on rankings like life expectancy and public schools, pretty good on per capita income (adjusted for cost of living), middling on state rankings, above average in educational attainment. Per capita income in Kansas since 1980 (the beginning of the Reagan Revolution) has risen pretty much at the exact same rate as the national average.

It seems like a kind of....well, middle-of-the road state by most metrics. Perhaps slightly better than average? Certainly not one of the worst performing states in the country by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/248058/percent...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas

Yes, but the culture adopted can extend being poor, or it can help the economy. The South and Appalachia still have cultures that don't value industriousness or education generally. They aren't known for it. So when the coal or cotton goes away, the culture extends being poor.

Seems a bit unfair to go blaming the victim there, and attributing poverty to just not "valuing industriousness" enough.

The economic fortunes of the South and Appalachia are also deeply affected by history and geography. Centuries ago they built their economies on slavery and agriculture - and bear the scars of those decisions today.

And they were crushed by the Second Industrial Revolution, especially the development of the railroad...because of the Appalachian Mountains. While the North and Midwest were being knit together in an economic engine by the development of railway transportation, linking the center of the country to the coastal ports with low-cost/high-volume transport, the South and Appalachia were basically cut off from all of that by a dominant mountain range:

https://appalachian-railroads.org/homepage/railroa....

The entire region basically missed out on nearly a century railroad-oriented economic development, from the Civil War until the development of the interstate highway system and air travel. The major East-West economic engine ran north of the mountains, from the major cities of the Great Lakes eastward to the major Northeastern ports in Boston and New York.

Why do red states so strikingly vote against their own interests? - ill

-------------------

Psssst. Bill, we aren't. It is just you can't perceive what those interests are. Ges asks the same question over and over again. I've boiled the answer down to two words hoping he will grasp, but still he asks. Economy and Security.

Security is used in the broad senses here encompassing domestic crime, immigrant crime securing the border, sidewalk encampments, antisemitism, no cash bail for violent repeat offenders, and probably a few others. The things that make law abiding people miserable and dangerous and destructive to small business.

You could include the international threats that are many but I don't think that is on the mind nearly as much with voters than the threats that are wandering the streets and sidewalks where they live.

“Ewok” doesn’t quite capture it.

Given your self description of smoking cigarettes and laying around in “post coital” ecstasy, you are now Jabba the Hut.

---------------

That's the best LOL I have had for a while, still chucking as I type.

Warning to Jedi, be wary, when Princess Leia slips behind you, she is not there to kiss your ample neck.

Hee hee I have so much to say about Leia inn that outfit..

But she's Amidala's daughter. And she's our Princess and General so I cant.


But yes your warning is accurate thanks :)


PS: Can we cancel Jabba's WaPo subscription ?

Little appreciated fact- at the time Texans were living there at the sufferance of the Mexican government, ie Texas was part of Mexico,

True, mostly. Also underappreciated fact, they were there at the invitation of the Mexican government, who welcomed them because they would develop the sparsely populated territory and add to the tax roles. The Spanish and Mexican government issued free land grants to people who would move there (much as had been done earlier to persuade east coasters to move to Ohio and other Midwest territories), and they were swamped with “immigrants.”

Who then decided to stay there but not like Mexico so much. Definitely a case of “immigration gone wrong.”

i followed the kansas tax experiment closely, and consider them a positive (1-time) outlier.
they quickly (in election terms) realized they voted against their interests at the state level, and unambiguously threw the myth of gop fiscal tax policy in the toilet. i still dont think they appreciate how that disaster would have compounded had they kept brownback and his group in power.

would i expect most red states, or the nation as a whole, to be capable of such a realization? no.

r.

Seems a bit unfair to go blaming the victim there, and attributing poverty to just not "valuing industriousness" enough.

The point is that poverty can be extended by the culture. So it's not all due to the culture, but it has an effect. Blaming the victim is different from making people aware of the different cultures and the effect. And it's industriousness (my synopsis) and Education.

Appalachia may have been cut off, but the South didn't need to be. At the time of the Civil War there were 11 different gauges of RR in the South. The industrial revolution was taking off in the North and one of the big reasons the North won was we could lay new railroad and fix it. Also,the South didn't make war materials and food for the troops priority, and private shipments were the same priority. Then we get the Lost Cause crusade to gloss it all over. And, as I remember it, half of the Appalachia were in favor of the Union.

The people who write about different American cultures will tell you the people who originally settle an area shape the culture of an area that lasts.

Economy and Security.

The top two uniters for red states are

1. An immense cultural distrust of back East if you're in the West, the North if you're in the South, and flatlanders if you're in Appalachia. This is by and large earned by back East because back East and the North were always seen as looking down on them, and New England and the environs of Virginia did look down on them.

2. Lately, it's been abortion, but that seems to now be usurped by - fear of brown hordes invading from the South. So under the more benign title of "security" is - get these brown-skinned evil invaders out of the country. This is a White Christian country and we shall have no dark skinned people before us, unless they are safely in a lower caste.

Useful political foils which make it easier to blame others and resent, neither of which are productive. So the West has the high desert to deal with and theoretically the altitude + toxic masculinity (rugged individualism) yields the high suicide rate. Farmers also have a high suicide rate, and I'm partial to small farmers, who have it tough. The big farmers break their farms up into less than 20,000 acre corporations (within the corporation) so they're eligible for the subsidies.

The Appalachians are billed as early Libertarians. That's a wonder isn't it? They did talk and fight about their rights. The currency was whiskey for a while. And there was a certain amount of indolence. The big circular flat area in the Cumberland gap is a filled in meteor crater. The Appalachias are the US portion of a mountain range caused by the formation of Pangea.

This is a White Christian country and we shall have no dark skinned people before us, unless they are safely in a lower caste.

The red regions of northeast and central east California have convinced themselves that Homan won't go after the undocumented brown-skinned people without whom the nation would lose a devastating percentage of the nations year round fresh food supply.

Here's an amusing conflict: Trump promises to kill the rivers so farmers have more water to grow export crops.

But tariff's kneecapped the farmers during his first term.

Deportation promises means we'll lose enough farm labor that the crops can't be produced even if there's water and a market.

I drive through a few hundred miles of the central valley farm belts every coupla weeks. Ain't no white MAGAs on those crew busses rushing from field to field.

California has as many as 2 million undocumented residents, many of whom work in industries ranging from construction to agriculture. The full-blown roundup Trump promises would have an immense economic effect on the state, with agriculture arguably the most vulnerable.

I suspect Trump is "hoping" Newsom fights back against this which can keep the rage going, as well as give Trump an excuse to punish CA.
Trump has to know his mass deportation plan will be an economic disaster for the country.
Alan

Trump has to know his mass deportation plan will be an economic disaster for the country.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I mean, I'm sure he's aware that the economic consensus is that it will have dire economic effects. I just doubt he believes it.

I imagine he mentally puts it in the same box as the economic consensus on how unrestricted global trade is good for all the countries that engage in it - a story that economists tell themselves about how the world theoretically works, but which has little bearing on what we experience in practice.

I suppose any statement that includes "Trump has to know..." may be problematic.

This does create a question though...
Are the Dems going to be willing to roll over and let Trump have his way in order show how bad his policies are... or are they going to be like last time with the "resistance".

Our local Trump supporters appear to believe most of Trumps positions are simple negotiating tactics. However, I would say it is a bad idea to pay off a blackmailer.

As a Californian, I think it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. AFAIK, there has been no effort here to sequester/hide the undocumented to protect them, but that may be happening.

Are the Dems going to be willing to roll over and let Trump have his way in order show how bad his policies are... or are they going to be like last time with the "resistance".

I suspect they will take whatever steps they can to oppose his policies. That's part of their job, after all - even when the opposing party controls the White House, elected Democrats were elected to their jobs as well, and have a mandate to pursue the goals that they were elected to pursue as well.

For things like immigration enforcement, the President has a lot of existing authority to take action against illegal immigrants that have been in the country for a while. Unlike many new/recent arrivals, who are still pending the disposition of their initial claims to lawfully remain in the country, more of those folks will have either evaded the system altogether or have jumped out of the system (ie. have a deportation order that they are avoiding). Against that population, the main check on the President is funding. For his "Day One" stuff, Trump has signaled he'll use emergency authority to divert funds from other programs - which can probably be challenged in court, though how successful such challenges will be remains to be seen. But I expect that Trump will get a shirt-ton of funding for his immigration restrictionism in whatever reconciliation package gets out of Congress in the spring, so that would be a short-lived victory even if achieved.

But if DHS agents start swarming the almond groves in California, there's not a whole lot that California can do to stop it....

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I mean, I'm sure he's aware that the economic consensus is that it will have dire economic effects. I just doubt he believes it.


There are probably around 100k illegal alien criminals running around the country. They're the first to go.

Second on the list are the known terror threats that have been coming in over the border. Round them up and send them home.

Third on the list are roughly 1.3 million people who are currently under deportation orders. They know they need to leave, and they're staying anyway.

Those are the folks being talked about. Do you all seriously believe that any of these groups is contributing significantly to the American economy?

Those are the folks being talked about. Do you all seriously believe that any of these groups is contributing significantly to the American economy?

No - though I expect that there are a fair number of folks that have a deportation order that are working. But neither do we seriously believe that those are the only groups that will be affected.

First, there's the obvious issue that these three groups aren't (by and large) the ones that have driven a lot of the news coverage leading up to the election. That's a different group - recent arrivals to the U.S. under a claim of asylum, which were transported away from the southern border and overwhelmed the resources of the blue cities they were sent to. Those folks aren't mostly criminals or terror threats, and don't have deportation orders. But it will be a very visible problem for Trump if nothing happens to fix the problems caused by those folks. His Administration probably can't limit deportation just to the three groups you mentioned.

Second, no one's actually said they're going to limit deportations just to the three groups you list. I mean, sure - you have some folks in the coalition trying to put that spin on the deportation program - but that program hasn't been released, and it probably hasn't been formalized yet. While Miller and Homan might have some ideas about prioritizing their targets, they haven't made any statements that would limit the program to just these three groups.

And finally, any program that seeks to deport 1.4 million people is going to affect a far larger number of people. Directly, of course, the efforts to apprehend the 1.3 million folks under deportation orders are going to reveal a large number of people here illegally who haven't yet been ordered to leave. When they pick up Husband for failing to comply with his deportation order, and find him living with Wife and Mother who are also here illegally, it's going to be really hard to craft a policy and implement it so that those DHS agents don't take Wife and Mother-in-Law with them. And then there are the indirect effects - if you do only deport Husband and leave Wife and Mother-in-Law in the house....what happens to them? What if they have citizen children? If you deport a large number of people working illegally, you not only have the disruptive effect of their absence from their workplace, but also the disruptive effect on the rest of their household that now will have no source of income.

There's no way to do a large-scale deportation without having large-scale impacts, especially in regions and industries where undocumented workers are concentrated. Personally, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Trump is unable to pull off the large-scale deportation, and will instead just have some very highly publicized efforts that don't end up moving a whole lot more people than have been moved historically. But if he does pull it off, it's going to have some dire economic effects.

But if DHS agents start swarming the almond groves in California, there's not a whole lot that California can do to stop it....

That might be beneficial for California. According to FarmTogether, it takes 1.1 gallons of water to grow 1 almond. Science Direct claims each almond has a 3.2 gallon footprint. Take your pick. Either number is an egregious use of our water.

But it might surprise you to know that California grows more than almonds.

California produces around 13% of the total value of food produced in the United States, making it the largest food producer state in the country. It is also the world's fifth largest supplier of agricultural commodities.

California produces 75% of our country’s fruit and nuts, 33% of its vegetables, and almost 20% of its milk. It is also the only US state that grows almonds, olives, pistachios, raisins, plums, walnuts, table grapes, and several other foods.

So sure, let’s send in the army to round up all those brown folks and boot them out of our country asap.

What could possibly go wrong?

You can’t fix stupid.

So sure, let’s send in the army to round up all those brown folks and boot them out of our country asap.

Setting up a potential confrontation with blue state governors.

But neither do we seriously believe that those are the only groups that will be affected.

Agreed. There's no indication from his first term that they'll pay much attention to the differentiation and just pick people up as they find them with an emphasis on criminals and any remaining people that hint of terrorism (this should be teeny). If this is what happens we have a problem.

So between the deportations, the tariffs, and the budget cutting, we have a good chance of derailing/lowering the good economy we have now. So the question then is, how can we profit with this looming instability and potential downturn? Enquiring minds want to know.

So the question then is, how can we profit with this looming instability and potential downturn? Enquiring minds want to know.

Go ask Elon.

First, there's the obvious issue that these three groups aren't (by and large) the ones that have driven a lot of the news coverage leading up to the election.

Illegal alien criminals absolutely have driven the news coverage. But that's beside the point.
All 3 groups I mentioned have zero right to be here, and many of those folks are victimizing American citizens. If democrats want to stand in the way of them all being shown the door, I'm here for it.

But it will be a very visible problem for Trump if nothing happens to fix the problems caused by those folks. His Administration probably can't limit deportation just to the three groups you mentioned.

Trump is approaching this in a rational fashion, which is
1. ID the groups that need to go
2. Prioritize the worst of the worst and send them packing first
3. Then decide what to do about the flood of asylum seekers that are here

We're on Step 1.

While Miller and Homan might have some ideas about prioritizing their targets, they haven't made any statements that would limit the program to just these three groups.

They don't need to. They have a lot of folks to clear out just in the first 3.

And finally, any program that seeks to deport 1.4 million people is going to affect a far larger number of people. Directly, of course, the efforts to apprehend the 1.3 million folks under deportation orders are going to reveal a large number of people here illegally who haven't yet been ordered to leave.

And...?
The people I listed have zero right to be here.

There's no way to do a large-scale deportation without having large-scale impacts, especially in regions and industries where undocumented workers are concentrated. Personally, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Trump is unable to pull off the large-scale deportation, and will instead just have some very highly publicized efforts that don't end up moving a whole lot more people than have been moved historically. But if he does pull it off, it's going to have some dire economic effects.

I don't accept this, because it's the school of thought that says, "Let's just throw up our hands and let everyone stay". That's not acceptable, and also not sustainable in either the short or the long run.

You should check out what happened at the last Chicago City Council meeting with respect to immigration.

So between the deportations, the tariffs, and the budget cutting, we have a good chance of derailing/lowering the good economy we have now. So the question then is, how can we profit with this looming instability and potential downturn? Enquiring minds want to know.

Maybe keep plenty of dry powder (T-Bills) and be prepared to purchase wonderful assets on sale after Trump destroys the country?

Seems to be pretty much what Warren Buffett is currently doing...

https://moneywise.com/investing/stocks/jim-grant-s...

All 3 groups I mentioned have zero right to be here, and many of those folks are victimizing American citizens.

A separate issue from whether removing them will have a material economic impact. There are industries that rely very heavily on labor that has "zero right to be here" - so even if those workers don't have any moral claim on a right to remain in the country, removing them can have a significant impact on those economic sectors.

They don't need to. They have a lot of folks to clear out just in the first 3.

Except, again, they haven't said they're going to limit themselves to just the first 3. Folks who are justifying the coming "mass deportations" are justifying them by arguing that they will be limited to these types of groups, but no one has ever said (let alone promised) that the deportation operation will just be those three groups.

I don't accept this, because it's the school of thought that says, "Let's just throw up our hands and let everyone stay". That's not acceptable, and also not sustainable in either the short or the long run.

Whether you accept it doesn't affect whether there will be a huge disruptive economic impact if you have mass deportations of all these people. You might find letting them stay to be unacceptable, but that doesn't mean it's possible to remove them without doing a lot of damage.

Trump is approaching this in a rational fashion

You can’t fix stupid.

Trump has to know his mass deportation plan will be an economic disaster for the country.


He is probably counting on not being able to follow through, knowing that he can blame the failure on the left/enemies within/Dems...whatever.

Remember Trump's motto: "I take no responsibility at all"

The buck stops.....OVER THERE!

What you list here is just a continuation of current policy, but perhaps with better funding. If you are not aware, there was a bipartisan bill (agreed to by Democrats) that would have accomplished this, but Trump killed it. Very few people have any issues with the deportations you are talking about in this post.

As you have indicated in previous posts, and Trump has alluded to in his speeches, what you mention here is simply "phase 1", which almost nobody has a problem with. It is what comes after that is of concern.

For local folks, the a concern will be phase 1 is an "excuse" for coming in, but the resources deployed will actually be working on the "mass deportations" Trump has promised. There is not going to be any trust between local authorities and Trumps minions.
We will need to wait and see exactly what happens...

I don't accept this, because it's the school of thought that says, "Let's just throw up our hands and let everyone stay". That's not acceptable, and also not sustainable in either the short or the long run.
We do deport over a million people a year... seems a little different than "everyone stay"...

I don't accept this, because it's the school of thought that says, "Let's just throw up our hands and let everyone stay". That's not acceptable, and also not sustainable in either the short or the long run.

Think of osmosis. It's kind of like that.

I've always wanted less immigration, but I came to realize that as along as there was such a steep economic 'gradient' between the US and Mexico and other countries, it is an almost impossible task to prevent the flow.

And then as the disruptions from climate change get more severe there will just be more illegal immigration.

You want to fix it? Better think about the conditions in those source countries; better think about climate change; better think about promoting family planning worldwide.

But no, those things probably won't happen. So, the right wing politicians have a wonderful rage producing situation that helps them hold on to power. Remember, Trump could have let a decent border bill pass, but he knew the problem was his best way to manipulate his low info base.

Trump is approaching this in a rational fashion

LOL. Trump and rational are not two words that go together. You have TDS.

Personally, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Trump is unable to pull off the large-scale deportation, and will instead just have some very highly publicized efforts that don't end up moving a whole lot more people than have been moved historically.

I agree with this. And I'll get blunt, with a little bit of class warfare tossed in the mix.

All these simpletons like Dope and BHM and LM, along with their child-man-god Trump, think it's easy. Just deport the folks here illegally. And that would be following the letter of the law, which is fine. The problem comes in actually doing that.

It's almost exactly the same as building the wall. The one Mexico didn't pay for.

You want to deport more people? Fine. Who is going to do that? If you don't hire more agents, you have to divert the existing agents from what they are currently doing. Which is most likely keeping people from entering illegally in the first place. If you stop that job, you're just moving the problem from one place to another. More people going out, but more coming in. Good for PR - "look at all the people we're deporting" - bad for actually reducing the number of illegal aliens in the country. If anyone starts tracking who was deported, you'll see the same people being deported multiple times.

So you really need more agents. Where's the money going to come from to pay for these additional agents? Tax cuts was another one of the promises. So it's not coming from there. What other program are you going to cut? And how will the budget cut affect that program?

What about the children of those here illegally? Some number of those children will be US citizens by birth. That's in the 14th amendment (a response to the USSC Dred Scott decision). You can't deport US citizens, even if you don't like the 14th amendment. That's going to put a bunch of kids in the foster care system, which is run by each state, not the feds. That means that system will need more funding. So states will need to raise taxes to pay for expanding their foster care systems - unless they can talk the Feds into paying for some of it and pushing the needed tax increase or program cuts onto the feds.

Another question - how are these illegal aliens providing for themselves while living in the US? Some are probably resorting to crime, but that's also the fastest way to get deported, even today. A larger number are working and making money in some way. Some will be using stolen or shared social security numbers to get a job. Some are working in the underground economy, getting paid in cash or bartering their services for things they need. That's very real contributions to the economy, and will be a very real hit to the economy if it stops. I don't see things utterly crashing, but there will likely be some price increases in some items.

What about the employers of these people? Are there going to be consequences for them? For our uneducated dolts, employers are required to obtain some proof that a new hire can legally work in the US. There's an entire verification system built up around this requirement. If these people are not able to legally work in the US, how did their employer fail in this required check?

Oh, I forgot. These are some of those nasty, burdensome regulations that JCs need to have removed. Get these overbearing regulations out of the way so the job creators can make more money.


So - I agree with albaby. None of this will actually work because no one with any brains is going to be working on it. There will be lots of noise and bluster and fanfare as the first load of illegals are frog marched across the border into Mexico. While just out of shot, they are walking down the street and back in to the US through that Big Beautiful Wall that doesn't work.

This all reminds me of the popular definition of insanity - trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We've tried Trump before, and he didn't deliver on immigration. I doubt he can deliver this time, either. It's just too complicated for his tiny brain. But he sure has managed to brainwash his brainless idiot followers into thinking that complex issues have simple answers.

--Peter

PS - I never bothered to talk about WHY all those folks are wanting to come into the US, traveling long distances at some significant personal risk to do so. But that doesn't matter. Just put up a bigger beautifuller wall with all the money Mexico is showering us with to pay for it. Sheesh.

Maybe keep plenty of dry powder (T-Bills) and be prepared to purchase wonderful assets on sale after Trump destroys the country?

Where's hclasvegas? I need to know the over/under on the Dow hitting 30,000 between now and the end of 2028.

After all, don't betting sites know everything?

You can’t fix stupid.

How many subs has the WaPo lost? Maybe you ought to find out for us.

Go ask Elon.

I am soo disappointed in that guy. There are tons of papers from think tanks, etc., on how to reduce gov spending, but most of the budget isn't discretionary - are you going to cut the military? Obama managed to reduce the manpower budget across the board over years, but I never looked at the mandatory spending, which is a lot.

I don't see how I can insulate myself from the economic downturn I portend. There are too many places where things could go wrong.

Trump has to know his mass deportation plan will be an economic disaster for the country.

Why would that be something he would think about? The deportation plan benefits him as long as there is plenty of fanfare about it happening. Announcements. People hired. First deportations happening (just ignoring the fact that deportations happen daily no matter who is in the White House). Once those items are checked off, his idiot followers will be pacified and will cheer him as the hero he is not but wants to be. Then everything can fall apart and it won't matter because the failure can then be blamed on the Democrats. How terrible they are to him!

There's no way to do a large-scale deportation without having large-scale impacts, especially in regions and industries where undocumented workers are concentrated. Personally, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Trump is unable to pull off the large-scale deportation, and will instead just have some very highly publicized efforts that don't end up moving a whole lot more people than have been moved historically. But if he does pull it off, it's going to have some dire economic effects.

Dope: I don't accept this,

Then why is he talking calling out the military and using them in this effort to deport? Is that just show? BTW, here is a test of your theory that you can fabricate emergencies and issue executive orders - so he should close down the border too.

elected Democrats were elected to their jobs as well, and have a mandate to pursue the goals that they were elected to pursue as well. - albaby

----------


Keep in mind, the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch to oppose, resist and undermine Trump policies were not elected by anybody.

Then why is he talking calling out the military and using them in this effort to deport?

Because money. Money and time.

If you want to deport 1.5 million people in the next few years, and end "catch and release" for hundreds of thousands more, you need detention facilities. Lots and lots of detention facilities.

Problem is, though, that it costs money and time to build and staff new detention facilities. By the time you buy the land, bid the construction contract, go through permitting, then actually build the thing, as well as hire and train all the staff....well, that doesn't happen in months. That's more than a year, closer to two at best - at least for the facilities that don't get bogged down in lawsuits and NEPA challenges and what have you. And Trump's only got four years.

But the military....ah, the military is just sitting there! All that land and buildings and personnel. And the budget! Boy, that's just the biggest budget in the whole budget. If there's anywhere we can just "find" the tens of billions of dollars worth of facilities and money we need to conduct this mass deportation, it's in the military. They'll never miss it - we just move some dollars around because of the emergency, and we're good to go.

It takes even longer because the government agencies, campus graduates, and academic types would be in charge of it.

One giant symposium and study group

Keep in mind, the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch to oppose, resist and undermine Trump policies were not elected by anybody.

What "resistance"? They don't work for Trump. They work for the U.S. government.

It's hard, because the U.S. government - like many governments - doesn't have a single person in charge. They have lots of bosses. The government is run by both Congress and the President. Congress itself has two chambers, each of which has tons of committees, and comprises 535 different individuals. So many people who have a role in deciding what the policy of government is.

Moreover, the entire structure of government is deliberately unclear about who's in charge. Congress makes all the substantive laws and rules, and the President's role is to "Execute" what Congress has done - which might make you think that it's Congress who gets to set the government's policies, and that all the executive branch should be trying to figure out what their preferred policies are. But in practice, the President is the titular head of the Executive branch, so arguably he gets to set whatever policy choices can fit within the constraints of actual statutes and laws. But then again, the President doesn't even get to solely pick his own cabinet heads or any of the other 1,200 or so top officials that actually run the government - Congress has deliberately set up all of these agencies to be outside of the White House, run by "officers of the United States" who can't fill that position unless the Senate confirms them. Congress - specifically the House - gets to control all the budget and resources that all these agencies have as well.

To say nothing of the fact that Congress has also adopted a Civil Service Act for the express purpose of ensuring that government employees are allowed to do their jobs without being subject to the political preferences of upper level appointees. And that it adopted the Administrative Procedure Act so that the Executive can't just change the policies of the agencies based solely on their preferences or election outcomes. And it has regular oversight processes - standing oversight committees - so that it's constantly up in the faces of all the administrators making sure that they follow the policies set out by Congress in implementing these laws.

It's intentionally structured so that there's tension between the Legislative and Executive branches in exercising power over the government. Checks and balances, and all that. Congress exercises control over the Executive branch in lots of ways, and has passed laws to make sure that the employees of the agencies are not merely automatons constrained to carry out the policies of the President.

It's not like a closely-held private company, where the CEO is in absolute charge of everything and any employee has an obligation to do whatever the CEO wants.

It might help to know what, specifically, you're talking about here. Let's pick an agency - say, EPA. What do you think is the biggest example of EPA staff opposing, resisting, or undermining Trump's policies during his first term?

because the failure can then be blamed on the Democrats.

Count on it.

Keep in mind, the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch to oppose, resist and undermine Trump policies were not elected by anybody.

What "resistance"? They don't work for Trump. They work for the U.S. government. - albaby

------------

So not accountable to anyone, huh. I generally reject that premise for leadership. What is the point to electing a President whose policies the citizens, who we are told ARE in charge (protect the democracy they chant), can be undermined by an un-elected perma-state.

Field personnel in the executive agencies are most just grinding out the work. The rot occurs at the top, so at least the top guy and the to or three layers beneath should serve at the pleasure of the President.

the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch

What on earth are you talking about here?

Is this the "deep state" crap?

Is this the "deep state" crap?

Pretty much. Whether he knows it or not, Mike is arguing for the abolishment of Civil Service and a return to the Patronage (Spoils) System.

Trump’s first picks already make me yearn for “the devil we know”

At least the devil we know knows how to do the job.

The rot occurs at the top, so at least the top guy and the to or three layers beneath should serve at the pleasure of the President.

They do.

So again, what are you talking about?

Keep in mind, the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch to oppose, resist and undermine Trump policies were not elected by anybody.


What albaby said.

But just have another tall glass of that MAGA Koolaid and don't worry about a thing.

At least the devil we know knows how to do the job.

To be fair the Trump civil servants will know how to 'do the job', that job being to fill their pockets with corrupt money.

>>the resistance operating covertly with the Executive branch<<

What on earth are you talking about here?

Is this the "deep state"

-----------------

How about when some unnamed Trump Admin operative, illegally leaked the contents of a phone conversation between Trump and the Australian prime minister stirring up friction between to the to leaders. That was fun.

Or when the FBI lied to the FISA court to coducnt illegal surveillance on Trump.

Or when state department got their panties in a twist when Trump went to Germany to lecture the Germans about the dangers of buying Russian gas. Trump is interfering with our carefully developed foreign policy they whined. Who exactly sets foreign policy anyway

Or as we are now learning, FEMA leadership issuing guidelines to curtail providing assistance to homes sporting Trump signs. Nothing deep statey about that.

But the military....ah, the military is just sitting there! All that land and buildings and personnel. And the budget! Boy, that's just the biggest budget in the whole budget. If there's anywhere we can just "find" the tens of billions of dollars worth of facilities and money we need to conduct this mass deportation, it's in the military. They'll never miss it - we just move some dollars around because of the emergency, and we're good to go.

Yep. That's the way I see it, with a much better description than I would've made. And if there is an economic downturn, they'll just find a way to blame it on Biden.

And we'll probably need planes to take some to countries other than Mexico. Tickets to Turkey? The logistics of this mass deportation will be something. Then we'll still have Ukraine, which will likely be a disappointing mess. Our international reputation takes another nose dive. Ahh, well, the end of my life will be disappointing.

Our international reputation takes another nose dive. Ahh, well, the end of my life will be disappointing.

If you are traveling abroad, expect to get a lot of puzzled looks or worse. While here in the US millions of people can't seem to see Trump for what he is, the rest of the world sure can.

My sister-in-law and husband are traveling in Greece right now and they have to constantly assure people that, 'no, we did not vote for that idiot'.

So not accountable to anyone, huh. I generally reject that premise for leadership. What is the point to electing a President whose policies the citizens, who we are told ARE in charge (protect the democracy they chant), can be undermined by an un-elected perma-state.

They are accountable. They're just not solely accountable to the President. That's the whole point - the President is not the sole person in charge of the government, and arguably isn't even the office that's supposed to be most in charge of the government.

Congress gets to shape and control the Executive. They get to do so directly through some rather obvious means - law-making and budgetary power, for example. The Executive exists to execute their laws, not just be the one who decides what the rules are going to be. They also do so through direct but non-obvious means - influencing personnel through the Advice and Consent power, blocking things that the Executive wants until policies are changed (hi, Tommy Tuberville!), conducting oversight hearings and yelling at staff until they do want the Committee Chair wants, and the like.

The Administrative Procedure Act is an example of that. There are competing policy interests involved with government judgment calls. On the one hand, people have to interact with the federal government a lot. It's very, very frustrating for "customers" of the government to get different answers to the same questions - either because they're dealing with a different branch office, someone's retired, or because there's been an election. The law is the law, and it shouldn't change based on the identity of the administrator, and it makes it impossible for "the governed" to plan their lives and businesses if they don't know what the rules are. If Congress hasn't actually changed the law, then the change of administration shouldn't change the law. On the other hand, we have elections for President, and we want government to be responsive. Sometimes government policy in how they're going to handle a law changes, even if the law does not. The more room their is for that, the more the Executive branch is accountable to the voters. The APA strikes a balance - the President can change policies, but they have to "show their work" and solicit input, rather than just do it arbitrarily.

Field personnel in the executive agencies are most just grinding out the work. The rot occurs at the top, so at least the top guy and the to or three layers beneath should serve at the pleasure of the President.

They do. There are about 2-3K political appointments the President makes. They always get to pick the top guy and the next two layers down. Possibly three - I'm not sure.

Let me ask you again - is there a specific example you're thinking of in the EPA? Department of Labor? Department of Energy? Some instance during Trump's first term where the Department Secretary asked staff to pursue a policy and they just said, "no"? What's the biggest single instance of this that you think hamstrung Trump's policy implementation?

Are the Dems going to be willing to roll over and let Trump have his way in order show how bad his policies are... or are they going to be like last time with the "resistance".

I suspect they will take whatever steps they can to oppose his policies.

But Albaby..... the wealthiest and biggest farms are owned by Republican stalwarts who freely admit in interviews with the major networks that if mass deportations are executed in Caifornia, the food simply stops.

330,000 undocumented workers in the Salinas and San Joaquin valley clear the fields, set the pipes, place the sets over and over.... while labor contractors bus crews from field to field filling gondolas of product that get hauled to packing houses every few miles, into trucks and off to the nation.

The workers have always been a blend of undocumented immmigrants migrating and/or residing here full time.... working, having kids here, retiring. Lots of kids who are citizens, speak no spanish, never been to Oaxaca... gonna stay here while Mom, Dad, y los abuelos get deported?

And the redneck republican watches his 20 miles of cropland lay fallow with nobody to continue the production cycle?

His Administration probably can't limit deportation just to the three groups you mentioned.

Homan said 'if you're undocumented, pack your bags because we're coming to get you."

Ice did some large workplace sweeps during Trump's term.... meat & poultry plants, iirc.

The west coast farm valleys are wide open for sweeping... 5 and 101 running right up the middle with hundreds of workers bent over in the fields as far as the eye can see, teeming in the roadside packing houses.

It'll be like shootin' fish in a barrel...unless the wealthy farmers can buy off Trump to look the other way.

So sure, let’s send in the army to round up all those brown folks and boot them out of our country asap.

Setting up a potential confrontation with blue state governors.

....and all the rednecks who own the big farms. and all the rednecks who service the ag industry; mostly MAGAs who wanted to split up CA into red and blue states.

It'll be hard to contain the schadenfreud if an when those businesses that support the ag industry lose all their orders for fertilizer, irrigation supplies, etc. The crash all the way down will be spectacular.

And the redneck republican watches his 20 miles of cropland lay fallow with nobody to continue the production cycle?

Yeah. Maybe.

I mean, a "mass deportation" isn't an easy thing to do. They don't have the detention facilities or the personnel to do it, and it will take many many months before they have either (or the money to pay for it, for that matter).

But, yeah - if Trump sticks to it and makes it a top priority, they'll get the money and put it in play. He and Miller and Homan appear to be true believers on this. They think that the negative consequences of lax immigration enforcement are much, much worse than the economic costs that might be associated with disrupting the industries that heavily use those folks for work.

Or maybe not. Trump's got a good ear for when things are unpopular. He's not seeking to maximize his popularity, of course - he truly doesn't care whether his opponents like him or not. But he has an excellent sense for what the voters in his camp want, and is perfectly willing to flip on a dime to give it to them. The "Operation Warp Speed to anti-vax" road is an excellent example of that, but he did it from the jump - he intuited that cutting Medicare and Social Security was deeply unpopular, so he completely rejected those positions. Federal regulation of abortion was this cycle's version; not only did he throw the pro-life folks under the bus during the campaign, but he's appointed a pro-choice person to head HHS!

So I expect he'll wait and see. If the "redneck republicans" find a way to work it out and keep their farms running with whatever "mass deportation" they come up with, he'll be ecstatic. And if it turns out that there's really enough economic pain that it starts to drive up food prices, he'll shout "Transgendered Squirrel!" and pivot away from it so that the tomatoes and carrots get picked.

But, yeah - if Trump sticks to it and makes it a top priority, they'll get the money and put it in play. He and Miller and Homan appear to be true believers on this.

--------------

How could they possibly do this? According to you, voters merely make suggestions and unless the law changes, nothing changes.

How could they possibly do this? According to you, voters merely make suggestions and unless the law changes, nothing changes.

Because voters don't merely make suggestions. Who the President is matters, even though the President is not the sole person that the Executive agencies are accountable to. The President gets to direct a lot of policy - he's just not unconstrained, and staff is also accountable both to Congress and to private parties enforcing the law. That's why I keep pressing you to give me an example of an instance in the various agencies like EPA or Labor or Interior or Energy where the career staff just decided to "subvert" the President, rather than (say) conform to legitimate requirements of the APA or the oversight of Congressional committees or what have you.

But to clarify - when I say that if Trump sticks to it "they'll get the money," I meant from Congress. The GOP will do their Budget/Reconciliation package in early to mid summer. If Trump insists, you'll have funding in there to fund the staffing and construction costs for building new detention centers. A real "mass deportation" would probably require several tens of billions over the budget period - but if that's his main ask on the spending side, I think it's something he'll get.

"It'll be hard to contain the schadenfreud if an when those businesses that support the ag industry lose all their orders for fertilizer, irrigation supplies, etc. The crash all the way down will be spectacular."
--------------------------------------------

I'm in Michigan I honestly have no memory of ever seeing a white person working in the fields and orchards here ( I'm sure there are white pickers, but I have not seen them. I worked on a farm growing up, but the crop was harvested mechanically, we were in the warehouse, putting said-crop into 100 pound bags, from sunup to sundown ). And there is a lot of farming going on, so it's not a small sample size.

The MAGA that i know are already backpedaling, stating that Trump will need time and patience and support. I give them my incredulous look/face, and ask them: Like the patience and support you gave Biden ????

Working class MAGA owns what's coming. The people have spoken, good chance that they're going
to get what they asked for, good and hard,lol.
Working class white, brown, and black MAGA all gonna get screwed in a unique way. Hope they bought lots of lube.

All of us old white retirees that went MAGA are going to FAFO, too.

I suspect most people here are roughly my age, and had roughly the same civics classes I did. And yet your antagonist doesn't seem to know the basics of the three branches and separation of powers. Without even getting into the Legislative abrogating their responsibilities to the Executive for the past few decades (e.g. declaration of war).

Truly sad that many (most?) school districts today have eliminated civics entirely. How are young people today supposed to know anything about government if we don't teach it to them?

It will be interesting to see how many appointees actually are confirmed. Not all of the majority party are MAGA-heads, so I wouldn't think it would be a lock. They may take their jobs seriously, in which case Dr OZ and some others are DOA. And Gaetz apparently isn't very popular in his own party, so he'll have a rough time of it (I would think).

Truly sad that many (most?) school districts today have eliminated civics entirely. How are young people today supposed to know anything about government if we don't teach it to them?

Here's how:

Ten years ago when my son was in high school (yes, I am a very old dad) one of his teachers had FOX 'news' playing on the TV all the time.

That's why I keep pressing you to give me an example of an instance in the various agencies like EPA or Labor or Interior or Energy where the career staff just decided to "subvert" the President - albaby

-------------------

AFAIK, these deepstate leakers/subversives got by with it and were never identified.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/leaked-t...

The “absolutely horrific” leak of US President Donald Trump’s contentious 2017 phone call with then Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could lead to criminal charges.

Devin Nunes, the highest-ranking Republican member on the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, announced on Sunday (local time) he is sending eight criminal referrals to US Attorney-General William Barr.

One of the referrals is aimed at finding out who leaked transcripts of Mr Trump’s January 28, 2017 phone call with Mr Turnbull, a call with then Mexican president Pena Nieto and former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with a Russian ambassador.

“You had conversations with the president of the United States and the prime minister of Australia leak,” Mr Nunes told Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.

“You had leaks of President Trump talking to the president of Mexico leak.

“We all know the travesty of General Flynn.”

How are young people today supposed to know anything about government if we don't teach it to them? - 1pg

----------------------

There is not enough time for STEM but too much time on pronouns and gender activism. Oh and one more, there is time to inculcate the students that the USA is a racist country.

AFAIK, these deepstate leakers/subversives got by with it and were never identified.

Every Administration has leaks. Staffers talk to the press. And the President - or more accurately the Secretary - can fire a leaker if they've violated departmental policy.
That's a failure of administration, not the system. Those leakers aren't protected by their position, or the civil service statutes, or their allies in Congress.

Is it just leaks you're thinking of? No one refusing to implement the President's policies on anything substantive, refusing to do their job, failing to implement the directives of their superiors?

Every Administration has leaks. Staffers talk to the press. And the President - or more accurately the Secretary - can fire a leaker if they've violated departmental policy.
That's a failure of administration, not the system. Those leakers aren't protected by their position, or the civil service statutes, or their allies in Congress. - albaby

---------------

Sure every admin has leakers. I know that and never claimed it did exists in both tribes. But you appear to be OK with it.

After all, they work for the US Government, not the president. And you argue there is nothing wrong with opposing presidential policy from your perch inside the executive branch.

I expect and support robust opposition from Congress because they were elected and are representing their constituencies as best they know how. But secret squirrels running around the executive branch seeking to embarrass the President or interfere with international relations, or debase the will of the voters, I have a problem with that. Since they are un-elected, they have no standing except in their exercise of dissent as a private citizen on their own time.

there is time to inculcate the students that the USA is a racist country.

It certainly was at is founding. That's just a basic fact of history. Unless you consider the owning of black slaves and counting them as 3/5 of a human to not be a racist thing. If so, we've got other issues.

How far away from that founding racism we've moved is open to debate. I don't think you can say that racism has been completely eliminated from the US. Its far less a systemic piece of state and federal government than it was 250 years ago. But it still exists among the population.

--Peter

It will be interesting to see how many appointees actually are confirmed.
I see this as pretty standard methodology for this crowd. Propose things that are so outrageous, when you make a merely objectionable suggestion it will sail right through.
Alan

Sure every admin has leakers. I know that and never claimed it did exists in both tribes. But you appear to be OK with it.

Of course not. Government officials should never be allowed to convert government property (which information is) to the personal use. Whether they’re selling classified info to a foreign country or leaking classified info for personal purposes. Or stealing government money or even office supplies.

I just thought you were referring to people in the administration actively doing something like refusing orders in order to block the implementation of policies, which might warrant a structural change in how the agencies were set up if they were genuinely trying to exercise governmental power for themselves. Not something as prosaic as leaking dirt to the press.

This is soooo interesting to me.
Both you and dope seem to be radically changing positions, but perhaps you are just clarifying them.
(1) Deport criminal... We have been doing this all along. Almost everybody agrees this is a great idea
(2) Arrest federal employees who break the law... We have been doing this all along. Almost everybody agrees this is a great idea

I guess Trump could have said we are just going to keep everything the same, but for some reason he did not say that.
Alan

which might warrant a structural change in how the agencies were set up if they were genuinely trying to exercise governmental power for themselves. - albaby

-----------------

Here is one that gets more towards usurping Presidential authority. Recall the uproar from the State Department about Trump's interference with "their" carefully curated diplomatic relationship with the Germans when Trump went over there to lecture the Germans about meeting NATO commitments and not to become dependent on Russian gas.

AFAIK, the President sets foreign policy and the State Department implements that policy. It is not like they can have their own foreign policy separate from the president, can they?

Then why is he talking calling out the military and using them in this effort to deport?

I said "I don't accept this" in reference to the economic impact of deporting all the criminals.

You folks seem to think that using the military means armed troops going door to door saying "papers, please".

Why you assume that? "Using the military" could be as simple as having the Air Force fly them someplace in a C-17.

What you list here is just a continuation of current policy, but perhaps with better funding. If you are not aware, there was a bipartisan bill (agreed to by Democrats) that would have accomplished this, but Trump killed it. Very few people have any issues with the deportations you are talking about in this post.

1. We're not deporting criminals, not nearly at the rate we should be.

These 1.3 million people? They've already had their day in court and lost. They're under deportation orders and refuse to leave.

2. "The bipartisan border bill" was terrible. We covered it here.

As you have indicated in previous posts, and Trump has alluded to in his speeches, what you mention here is simply "phase 1", which almost nobody has a problem with. It is what comes after that is of concern.

Are you sure about that? LA just unanimously made themselves a Sanctuary City and won't held the feds deport ANYONE.

Recall the uproar from the State Department

I don’t recall from your description. Can you identify it a little more - maybe a rough time frame? I’d like to find out more about this event.

Both you and dope seem to be radically changing positions, but perhaps you are just clarifying them.
(1) Deport criminal... We have been doing this all along. Almost everybody agrees this is a great idea

Ahem. The left is wigging out about this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/us/los-angeles-...

The Los Angeles City Council passed a so-called sanctuary ordinance on Tuesday that would prohibit city resources from being used to carry out federal immigration enforcement, the first deportation-related move by a major U.S. city since Donald J. Trump won the presidential election two weeks ago.

and
Hugo Soto-Martínez, a council member who introduced the ordinance last year along with two other members, Nithya Raman and Eunisses Hernandez, said in a statement on Tuesday that the new law was about “ensuring that all of our residents can interact with our government without the fear that Donald Trump’s deportation squad is around the corner.”

“By passing this law today,” Mr. Soto-Martínez added, “we’re making sure that no city resources or staff will be used to deport our friends, family, neighbors and co-workers.”

WE have 1.3 million people here under deportation orders. We have not been deporting people near the rate should have been.

LA just unanimously made themselves a Sanctuary City and won't held the feds deport ANYONE.
Sanctuary cities do not protect criminals, but rather allow them to be deported.

Specifically, the LA ordinance specifically calls out an exception for criminals.

As a fine point, I believe many illegals that perform criminal activities should be incarcerated rather than deported.
Alan

Specifically, the LA ordinance specifically calls out an exception for criminals.

You know what every illegal alien has in common? They're *all* breakers of the law.

As a fine point, I believe many illegals that perform criminal activities should be incarcerated rather than deported.

Agree here.

I don’t recall from your description. Can you identify it a little more - maybe a rough time frame? I’d like to find out more about this event.

---------------
Below is a long article, and I excerpted the gist of the incident. Still looking for the reports by unnamed State Department Personnel in our German Embassy expressing public concerns to the press about Trump's naivete and interference.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-scolded-g...

Trump scolded Germany for buying gas from Russia. Here’s what we know
World Jul 11, 2018 3:29 PM

BRUSSELS — President Donald Trump wasted no time in escalating his verbal attacks on Germany in the opening leg of his European tour. Seated across from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at breakfast Wednesday morning ahead of the alliance’s meeting, Trump expanded his criticism beyond how little – in his view – Europe’s most powerful economy spends on defense to target where they buy their energy.
.
.
.
Trump complained Germany is “making Russia richer.” When the NATO secretary general told Trump trade was a separate matter, Trump fired back. “How can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection against?” he asked. “I think it is a very bad thing for NATO and I don’t think it should have happened and I think we have to talk to Germany about it.” From Trump’s perspective, trading with adversaries is bad business.

We have not been deporting people near the rate should have been.

Ok. That’s a federal problem. Not a state or city problem.

Why should the city of Los Angeles spend their money enforcing federal laws when they can’t keep up with enforcing the laws that they ARE charged with enforcing?

And for those who aren’t local to L.A., this is nothing new. It was a policy put in place by the mayor a few years ago. It’s now being formalized in city ordnance rather than relying on future mayors to continue the policy.

Hugo Soto-Martínez, a council member who introduced the ordinance last year along with two other members, Nithya Raman and Eunisses Hernandez, said in a statement on Tuesday that the new law was about “ensuring that all of our residents can interact with our government without the fear that Donald Trump’s deportation squad is around the corner.”

--------------------

How exactly would that work? Who would arrest the heavily armed ICE agents when they roll up in their armored transport busses and start stacking Tren De Aragua like cordwood? Who would want to stop them but that is an enigma...

As a fine point, I believe many illegals that perform criminal activities should be incarcerated rather than deported. - alan

Agree here. - dope

-------------

I can sort of agree with some nuance. It depends on the nature of the criminal activity.

Misdemeanors by otherwise hard working illegals don't get deported and deserve some compassion. Maybe even low grade felonies could be lenient too. That said, commit any sort of serious felony, then hard time for you, followed by immediate deportation. And BTW if you are ever discovered in our country again, it is medieval time.

Why should the city of Los Angeles spend their money enforcing federal laws when they can’t keep up with enforcing the laws that they ARE charged with enforcing?

----------

To keep their citizens safe isn't good enough?

And BTW if you are ever discovered in our country again, it is medieval time.

I’m with you Mike.

You can’t let something as trite as the United States Constitution get in the way of the law & order party. Go get ‘em!



You can’t fix stupid.

>>And BTW if you are ever discovered in our country again, it is medieval time.<<

I’m with you Mike.

You can’t let something as trite as the United States Constitution get in the way of the law & order party. Go get ‘em! - Alpha

-----------------

I think there are a lot of sentencing laws that specify escalating penalties for repeat offenders. So how do you see the United States Constitution getting in the way?

Thanks, that helps identify the event.

How exactly would that work? Who would arrest the heavily armed ICE agents when they roll up in their armored transport busses and start stacking Tren De Aragua like cordwood? Who would want to stop them but that is an enigma...

Our lefty friends don't seem to understand that some of these local democrats left Reasonable a long time ago and that they're taking a stand to defend these criminals.

If I'm Trump, I don't do anything to LA, though. I call Greg Abbott and tell him to bus every single illegal that comes into Texas over to CA...

Who would arrest the heavily armed ICE agents

No one. That's not what this is about. Why do you always seem to jump to the ridiculous and mis-state things?

Its about interactions between the LAPD and city residents and visitors. If you have an interaction with the LAPD, they aren't going to check your immigration status. That's not a concern of the LAPD.

To keep their citizens safe isn't good enough?

That's exactly the point of this ordinance. To keep citizens safe.

If an undocumented alien is victimized by a criminal or witnesses a crime AND they know that the LAPD is going to check their immigration status when they report the crime, they're not going to report the crime and the criminal is going to go free.

So the LAPD will NOT check the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses. That encourages them to report the crime and cooperate with the investigation so that criminals can be held accountable for their actions.

--Peter

Third on the list are roughly 1.3 million people who are currently under deportation orders. They know they need to leave, and they're staying anyway

This is going to be quite a project. If they are deported in one year and the teams only work M to F, it will require appending 6,000 people per day.

If they are in custody for 10 days to allow for review/logistics it is 60,000 beds.

I can't imagine these people are waving a flag saying here I am, so perhaps one team of 4 people can apprehend 1 person a day. So 24,000 field people for apprehending and 4,000 in the office doing paperwork.

The budgeting process should be interesting.

Aussi

This is going to be quite a project. If they are deported in one year and the teams only work M to F, it will require appending 6,000 people per day.

If they are in custody for 10 days to allow for review/logistics it is 60,000 beds.


And you've hit on why the emotional reactions really aren't warranted: just getting all the people who need to removed ASAP is going to take a long, long time.

If I'm Trump, I don't do anything to LA, though. I call Greg Abbott and tell him to bus every single illegal that comes into Texas over to CA... - Dope

----------------

Greg Abbott was just interviewed tonight on the network that shall not be named. One thing that came up is that Texas is allocating 1,100 acres to BP and ICE for use as staging and detention.

So the LAPD will NOT check the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses. That encourages them to report the crime and cooperate with the investigation so that criminals can be held accountable for their actions.

-------------

Fine, this cooperation on the front end leads to a conviction and some jail time. Lets say the perp is repeat offender, bad guy all around and has the neck tattoos to prove it, long rap sheet including violent crimes. Why release him onto the streets to find new prey when ICE would be glad to take a hand off and deport him?

Greg Abbott was just interviewed tonight on the network that shall not be named. One thing that came up is that Texas is allocating 1,100 acres to BP and ICE for use as staging and detention.

----------------

Ooops, my bad, it is actually 1,400 acres. And I learned a new fun fact, the land is in Starr County.

Yeah, this Starr County,

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2024/11/06/starr-c...

Starr County flips red for the first time in over 100 years
Trump won Starr County in South Central Texas with about 57.7% of the vote

If I'm Trump, I don't do anything to LA, though. I call Greg Abbott and tell him to bus every single illegal that comes into Texas over to CA..

That's not fulfilling Trump's promise to deport, or Homan's stated intention to send “illegal aliens back to their country of origin.”

‘Pack your bags, everyone’ doesn't carve out an exception for any sub-classification of undocumented immigrants.

"Homan said. "Families can be deported together."

Later in the interview, Vega asked: "Why should a child who is an American citizen have to pack up and move to a country that they don't know?"

Homan said: "Because their parent absolutely entered the country illegally, had a child knowing he was in the country illegally. So he created that crisis."

But now he seems to be back-pedaling.... perhaps because the reality of 4.4 million U.S.-born children live with an unauthorized immigrant parent would result in bad optics for the orange grifter.

Tuesday that the new law was about “ensuring that all of our residents can interact with our government without the fear that Donald Trump’s deportation squad is around the corner.

Great move. But I'm sure that doesn't include that if an illegal immigrant is charged and convicted in the criminal justice system, that we don't let Donald trump's deportation squad deport him. Meanwhile, if someone under deportation orders goes to the ER for treatment, do we treat and deport them? Won't that make them less likely to get treatment? Is it to our benefit that we encourage getting treated, rather than discourage? How about if the Avian Flu jumps into the human population? How about if they bring their American born daughter in for treatment but aren't a criminal?

I don't think we can proceed against a few groups and the rest will be left alone. I think the logistics are such that they're likely just to grab what they can and deport. We'll be dealing with a mixed bag with all of the horror stories. We're gonna bust up families. We'll take Grandma And Grandpa of an American born family and deport them, with black marks,so their chances of getting back to their family approach zero. We are likely to concoct policies that separate Mom and daughter. What kind of country does that? What kind of country deliberately does inhumane things just to send messages?

And what do we do if we run a DNA test and find out that Her Papa Ain't Her Papa But Her Papa Don't Know? Shame and scandal in the family turns into outright tragedy! Shades of Evangeline - they meet at the end of their lives. I'm beggin ya , let's not write that song, let's not write that story, It we are going to err, let's err on the side of humanity.

And BTW if you are ever discovered in our country again, it is medieval time.

Mike, no we don't do that, we are law and order, not tortured in a dungeon. No matter how bad you are, you get due process, and no cruel and unusual punishments, Mike. That's what makes the DIFFERENCE Mike. If you advocate no due process, or a rigged due process, you are advocating totalitarianism, or fascism if you prefer. If Dope is right and we can manufacture an emergency to sidestep the constitution, we are looking at fascism then, not proto-fascism.

So the LAPD will NOT check the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses. That encourages them to report the crime and cooperate with the investigation so that criminals can be held accountable for their actions.

All those communities are a mix of illegals and legals. We want the legals to be safer. So we don't grab everyone, intimidate them, and make them give up the guy next door who is sending many back to his family. We make it easy for them to point out criminal activity and actual criminals in their hoods. And, for their safety, we don't do things that underscore who is doing the pointing. We do ask them to testify in court, but we can do that many times without identifying them in the courtroom. You do have a right to confront your accuser though, and I've forgotten how that works. Maybe Albaby can enlighten us. I read a non-fiction crime-in-L.A. book and I don't remember how that worked now. I do remember the witness did get identified in the end. Never found out if anything happened to that witness.

I think it was called Ghettoside, written by a reporter. I remember hese stats, the good investigators solved ~40% of their cases, and the good ones solved ~80% of their cases. Easy read, good book.

It’s time this thread that has garnered 106 respnses- dies a natural death.

Like the game of “Telephone”, the conversation has wandered far and wide.

Like the Mississippi River that begins in a pure trickle of water from a pristine lake in Minnesota, this stream has become a river that has now plunged into the Gulf of Mexico, carrying with it the noxious residue it picked up along the path of its journey.

Oh and one more, there is time to inculcate the students that the USA is a racist country.

That's not my experience. I was never inculcated that the USA is a racist country. History was glossed over in High School, that is true history But I got Algebra, Chemistry and Physics. I think most of us have gone through rude awakenings, if we paid attention. California has one of the genocides recognized the UN. We put $5 bounties on the ears of Indians. In The Last of the Yani, there's a description of how the last of the Yani watched as a group of men rode through his Indian camp killing everyone, taking ears and anything of value and riding out. He could do nothing at the edge of the forest but watch or rush in and be killed with the rest. Winter is setting in and he now has nothing.

Or that we infected blacks with syphilis and kept track of it into the 80s I think. And we sterilized Native American Women into the 70s. Wounded knee? When I played Cowboys and Indians as a kid, the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian,' was on TV and we repeated it while playing. I heard the phrase, "Nigger in the wood pile" and got a poor explanation for it. I sensed it was bad, but I had to wait until I was an adult before I understood how racist we are. And I was an Army brat.

And it's nothing new, racism is common around the world - look at the Han Chinese in China. We don't get good descriptions of that one, wonder why?

Inculcated? F*ck no. Don't kid yourself - we get it shoved up our ass.

Oh and one more, there is time to inculcate the students that the USA is a racist country.


Why the strawmman? There's no doubt that the USA history is rife with racism bigotry. Slavery, Jim Crow, even Trump (busted for racial discrimination renting to POC)fill the bill from start to today.

Yes, there's a lot of racism in the USA. Doesn't make it a racist country. But there ain't no shortage of racism, ESPECIALLY among the 48 % of voters supporting the racist rapist.

All those communities are a mix of illegals and legals. We want the legals to be safer

Hah! MAGA has you using their choice of words.

There are documented and undocumented aliens and immigrants.

There are many undocumented aliens who have done nothing mor eillegal than their employers who have failed to keep their status up to date.. criminals like the Trumps who failed to see that their H2B employees were kept current.

With stock futures getting rocked bigly this A.M. I wanted to revisit my prescient prediction from November...

Maybe keep plenty of dry powder (T-Bills) and be prepared to purchase wonderful assets on sale after Trump destroys the country?
Seems to be pretty much what Warren Buffett is currently doing... ~Banksy

https://moneywise.com/investing/stocks/jim-grant-s...

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.