Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Cut by over a third.
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50 percent February 2, 2016.

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway...

The DHS IG found that “ … after 8 years, CBP cannot prove that the program is effective.” Worse, the CBP low-balled the per-hour cost of operating its drones. Instead of the claimed $2,468 per flight hour, the DHS IG found the cost was $12,255 per hour — nearly five times as much as CBP officials have claimed. Almost no illegal border crossing apprehensions could be attributed to information from the drones, and the CBP could not show the drones actually reduced the cost of border surveillance. Despite these findings, the CBP has not abandoned plans to spend nearly half a billion dollars more to expand its drone program.

Directing a federal agency that has already squandered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on failed surveillance technologies and policies to engage in more of the same reinforces the image of Congress being a dysfunctional institution.

Border Patrol Cuts Use of Force by Nearly 40 Percent Over 2 Years Oct 13, 2015

Violent encounters with both immigrants and American citizens were down to 768 in fiscal year 2015 (October 2014 to September 2015) from 1,215 in fiscal 2013 (October 2012 to September 2013).

Sounds like a success.

[Greyblades]

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway...

Sounds like a success.

“This reduction is especially significant, considering that assaults against agents and officers have essentially remained steady.”

In 2014 (I assume this is a typo for 2015), there were 390 assaults on agents, according to CBP; whereas in 2014 there were 373 and 2013 there were 468.

In 2014 there were 486,651 apprehensions on the border, in 2015 this dropped to 337,117 and rose back to 415,816 last year. Source.

Just by correlation I would say that the violent encounters were bound to go down as such in reflection of the lowered overall numbers, whereas the amount of attacks on officers slightly increased.

I see this as a "success" in the vein of the "failure" that was the introduction of metal helmets in ww1 which increased the reported head injuries, took them a while to realize the helmets were merely converting fatalities into injury.

The cato instutute is a libertarian think tank funded by the koch brothers, without supporting evidence It would be hard to take take their words as mcuh more than biased allegation.

Speaking of libertarians, going a bit further back it can be found that it was obama of all people who was wrestling with the republicans into underfunding border security. House GOP slashed Obama's $3.7 billion into $600 million on an emergency bill in 2014.

I'm looking for whether this bill passed so low but if it or any other gutted bill passed it might explain the why of the lowered apprehensions.

[Montmorency]

In 2014 there were 486,651 apprehensions on the border, in 2015 this dropped to 337,117 and rose back to 415,816 last year. Source.

Just by correlation I would say that the violent encounters were bound to go down as such in reflection of the lowered overall numbers, whereas the amount of attacks on officers slightly increased.

I see this as a "success" in the vein of the "failure" that was the introduction of metal helmets in ww1 which increased the reported head injuries, took them a while to realize the helmets were merely converting fatalities into injury.

The cato instutute is a libertarian think tank funded by the koch brothers, without supporting evidence It would be hard to take take their words as mcuh more than biased allegation.

Speaking of libertarians, going a bit further back it can be found that it was obama of all people who was wrestling with the republicans into underfunding border security. House GOP slashed Obama's $3.7 billion into $600 million on an emergency bill in 2014.

I'm looking for whether this bill passed so low but if it or any other gutted bill passed it might explain the why of the lowered apprehensions.

From the horse's mouth.

As for (Southern) border security under Obama, unsurprisingly for an 8-year period the picture isn't a simple one.

Cato again:

President Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.

From NPR:

Deportations Rose During The First Half Of Obama’s Administration, But Have Declined In Recent Years

President Obama's approach to immigration enforcement is really two very different approaches: one for those caught near the border, the other for immigrants found living illegally in the interior.
[...]
"The result is sharply different enforcement pictures at the border and within the United States," according to a report from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "At the border, there is a near zero tolerance system, where unauthorized immigrants are increasingly subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility."

Illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped in recent years, but many from Central America still attempt to cross.

The Washington times notes a "surge" in 2016...

Chief Morgan’s description of what’s happening was disputed across town by Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, at a forum sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center. He prescribes greater attention to “underlying circumstances” in Central American countries.
“Experience shows that you can build more walls and you can put more border security on the southwest border, but you’ve got to address the underlying circumstances in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that motivate a 7-year-old child to transit the entire length of Mexico, come to the United States for a better life. Until we start addressing these underlying conditions and until we build out the alternative safe legal paths to come to this country, we’re going to deal with this problem.”

[Husar]

So what do people think about Trump's executive order to begin banking deregulation?

I thought Hillary was despised for being in the pocket of the banks and now Trump wants to deregulate them?
People questioned Hillary's willingness to rein in the banks and voted for a guy who openly wants to give them free range again?
Whose pensions were destroyed when the lending rules were more open? Those of the "establishment"?

Not to forget he literally mentioned his friends (=rich people) needing more money from the banks.

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So what do people think about Trump's executive order to begin banking deregulation?

I thought Hillary was despised for being in the pocket of the banks and now Trump wants to deregulate them?
People questioned Hillary's willingness to rein in the banks and voted for a guy who openly wants to give them free range again?
Whose pensions were destroyed when the lending rules were more open? Those of the "establishment"?

Not to forget he literally mentioned his friends (=rich people) needing more money from the banks.

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com

Sanders was the one who was hammering Hillary most on that issue. Trump always took the stance that he can deal with Wall street because he is too rich to be bought by them. At least that was the rhetoric.

It remains to be seen which regulations will be pruned, if any, to abide by the terms of the executive order (2 regulations out for every new one added). As it is, no changes at all would leave things just as they are.

[Husar]

Sanders was the one who was hammering Hillary most on that issue. Trump always took the stance that he can deal with Wall street because he is too rich to be bought by them. At least that was the rhetoric.

It remains to be seen which regulations will be pruned, if any, to abide by the terms of the executive order (2 regulations out for every new one added). As it is, no changes at all would leave things just as they are.

Well, Sanders is also the one who posted the following on Facebook:

To say that Donald Trump is a hypocrite would be a major understatement. During his campaign he told the American people that he would be taking on the powerful forces of Wall Street and the rigged economy. On January 9, 2016, he said: “I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us. We're going to tax Wall Street." In August of 2016, Trump said: “We can’t fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place." He even managed to put into the Republican platform language that called for reinstating Glass-Steagall legislation.
Surprise, surprise. Now that he's president, he has turned his back on everything he said during the campaign and cozied up to Wall Street. Many of his major financial appointments come directly from Wall Street and Goldman Sachs — architects of the rigged economy. Among other Goldman-Sachs alumni in his administration are: White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin, National Economic Council Chairman-appointee Gary Cohn and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman nominee Jay Clayton.

Paired with the following link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2944943

You can interprete that however you want, while it may be true that an administration full of bankers cannot be bribed by bankers may be true, only because it does not require bribes if you put bankers in charge in the first place. And the following is also interesting: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...lden-parachute

Chao and Cohn pose a different problem in the eyes of ethics advocates. That’s because, unlike Tillerson, they both have provisions in their contracts that specifically require their companies to reward them with millions if they join the government, according to Holman, of Public Citizen. They would not receive these payouts if they left their companies either to retire or to join a competitor.

I also came across an article that says Trump's protectionist stance may actually be good for the US given certain historic precedences. Since I was curious about this earlier, I read all of it and am not sure what to make of it: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...101303370.html

Protectionism could IMO spark a whole lot of new problems even if I would generally say that some of the necessities of globalism such as the enormous ocean traffic etc. are not desirable at all. Then again Trump's protectionism doesn't seem to take the environment (or as we should say, our world) into account at all.

[Husar]

It has apparently begun.

No, seriously, read this, it's hard to summarize, I read it weeks ago: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/...e77#.57hhzxglb

It's about how Putin uses the media to his advantage, by inserting people who praise him and further his agenda to drown out uncomfortable questions. And then today I watched a clip of the Lib Show with Cuckbert, where he inserted a clip from the following:



I mean, to say there are no similarities is to think that Stalin just got unlucky that so many people had unfortunate deadly accidents during his presidency.

I hope I don't have to explain why the question the guy asks is incredibly idiotic as well...

[Idaho]

Anyone who thought Trump would somehow do something to curtail the excesses and influence (control?) of wall street, were totally deluded. Big money is going to have the leash taken off, and the working people of America are going to be distracted by this kind of thing:

https://youtu.be/oqZaQKskP-A