Ten oz

Illegal border apprehensions were 1.6 million per year in '00 and by 17' were just 301k per a year. Deferred action only impacted those already living in the U.S. and not illegal crossings. It is illegal crossings that a Wall would be attempting to prevent. The number of illegal crossings having been falling your whole life. Less and less people have been illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico for decades. Embadded in the above link are attachments for CBP reports showing the volume by year. It is down. It has been falling your whole life.

Today Trump rejected attempts by his own Party to re-open the govt.. This further illistrates that the current impasse in less about partisan politics and more about Trump himself. The govt isn't currently shutdown over clear ideological difference between numerous elected officials. It is shutdown for the pleasure of one man.

@Airbrush you hit on a very important (at least in my opinion) point. Trump wasted tax payer having samples for his wall constructed. All samples were concrete structures. Now he is demanding 5.7 billion for what he's describing as a steel fence. The official White House's plan for the money references a DHS border improvement proposal from 2017. That proposal calls for improving existing barriers, hiring more agents, and hiring more immigration judges. It doesn't detail constructing a 5.7 billion dollar wall. So we are on in this strange position where the govt is shutdown over Trump's demand for funding yet what he plans to specifically do with said funding isn't known or hasn't been communicated.

Despite the tough talk from Trump U.S. demand from Chinese product remains high.

The second part of why I consider this fiction (as previously posted) is that countries around the world would notice. C130's are transport aircraft. They are not bombers or fighters. A C130 wouldn't be used to engage or encroach on a foriegn power. The first aircraft you mentioned, Intercept, is old but can at least be used for surveillance. The inclusion of C130's doesn't make this anymore likely in my opinion.

As the Trump administration seeks footing on what the U.S.'s involvement in Syria should be tensions are growing with Turkey.

Right, your intentions may have been good but ultimately you still errored. Denying such and hiding behind your intentions would only prevent you from doing better. Many in this conversation are using intentions as some sort of get out of jail free card but it isn't. Over the years I have had to change many my use of language. I think we all need to evolve as we learn how our words impact others. To err is human after all. And what if your audience was taken world wide and people were offended; would you apologise or just claim it never happened?

Not really. Currently every major metro in the U.S.overwhelming is Democrat and every rural area is Republican. Even in Texas, a state known as a Republican stronghold, all the major cities (San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Austin, El Paso, etc) vote Democrat. I personally feel Republicans take advantage of people's common understand of political divides to justify their bad behavior. Rather than people seeing in Trump and the Republican's who protect him criminal behavior (Mueller already has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 33 people and counting) they see two party division. It is Democrats vs Republican and not a criminal POTUS willfully breaking the law. Many people reflexively feel it makes them partisan to take sides and Republicans exploit that to behavior in a manner far worse than the other side would ever consider. No one in the Obama administration was ever found guilty of a crime. Despite countless investigations into Hillary Clinton that dragged on for years she was never shown to have committed a crime or implicated by a guilty party to have participated in a crime. Within the division between the two parties only one side can be objectively shown to be behaving criminally.

Your implication is that I am offended by Raider's posts. While I do not feel that's accurate I do understand why you might such. I disapprove of the tone in Raider's posts. Some common synonyms for disapprove are dislike, think wrong, find unacceptable, object to, and etc. The sorts of things people find wrong or object to are very often things they also find offensive/ take offense to. The difference is nuanced enough that depending on ones own world view there may be no difference at all. So while I don't feel offended or that I have posted anything implying I might be offended I also understand that people will interpret my words their own way based on their own world view. No amount of protest on my part will change your interpretation. Likewise if one is offended by "stupid woman" no amount mansplaining will change that.

Republicans still control the Senate and kill any legislation which Trump objects to. This unfortunately isn't new. George Washington himself warned against putting party over country. Trump is merely the most extreme version of this we've seen since the end of the Civil War.

I was aware that Trump had met with Putin without advisers present but it is new information (at least to me) that Trump destroyed his interpreters notes. He does however I am not sure which specific ones you are referencing. My sense is that Republicans feel it is better to be in the drivers seat of a car without any brakes than in the backseat of any type of vehicle. Long as their guy is President they control their own destiny even if that means driving straight off a cliff. Trump has changed the common understanding of what is or isn't right fora President to do. In the past Presidents had made their Tax Returns public, disassociated themselves from businesses, avoided nepotism, and etc. It is up to Congress to check the power of a President and because they haven't laws like Emoluments Clause have proven to be insignificant at dealing with this specific President. Take federal Nepotism laws: Trump's work around for having both his Daughter and son-in-law working in the White House is that neither receive pay. They are "volunteers" so the federal law against Nepotism doesn't apply to them. Clearly what Trump is doing violates the goal of the law.

With the limited info provided I would say fiction for 2 reasons: - Interceptor aircraft are old. Initial produced in the 60's they primarily saw action through till the 80's. Some U.S. contractors sell them to foreign countries like China but the U.S. Military has long since replaced them with a variety of newer ,ore capable aircraft. - Military bases domestically and overseas have thousands of employees both service members and civilian. When aircraft go missing a lot of people notice. Along those lines every advanced nation in the world monitors air traffic globally. So not only would the U.S. have to be keeping this quiet but so too would Germany, Japan, England, Russia, etc, etc, etc.

Trump has been concealing details of his conversations with Putin from his own advisers. Mueller investigation aside the Office of the President is a one meant to serve the public at large. For the sake of national security and long term international relations it doesn't make sense for a President to keep his or her (though there has never been a her) own staff in the dark.

The Mueller investigation has gotten guilty pleas or indicted 33 separate individuals and that doesn't include the business we know are being looked into. In court a federal judge referred to Flyn's actions as "treason" and told him directly "you sold out your country". Trump long time personal Lawyer has already pleaded to multiple felonies and is cooperating with investigators on other possible felonies. Manafort has been found guilt in court on multiple felonies and shared campaign data with Russia . Trump himself is a national security threat yet currently has the govt shutdown and is threatening a national emergency (so he can bypass the other branches of govt) over national security. It is insane. Stranger than fiction.

Claiming victory no matter what is the only exit strategy Trump ever has. Just look at North Korea. Trump and Kim were trading threats of all out Nuclear war and then overnight they were best bros meanwhile nothing changed on the ground. North Korea still has Nuclear weapons, China is still violating the sanctions we put in place, and Kim still occasionally makes threatening demands. Trump just need to stand his ground and appear tough long enough to convince his base that he tried his best. After that his base will accept any result. Trump will get an "A" for effort. That is what happened with healthcare. Trump insisted the ACA had to go and Republicans had a better plan. Trump twisted arms, attacked fellow Republicans who didn't get on board, and then after it failed Trump just moved on. Same goes for the various versions of the Muslim Ban that kept losing in court. It seems, at least to me, that the Conservative base is comforted by Trump simply trying to do stuff they like. They is no penalty for failure provided an effort was made. Now that the shutdown can be spun as lasting a record amount of time (it is actually only a partial shutdown) Trump can claim he has fought harder for this than any President in history has ever fought for anything. He has stood his ground and will receive credit from his base for it regardless of what happens next. My guess is that just as McCain was thrown under the bus over healthcare Trump will wait for GOP Senators to break with him on this and then use them as his scapegoat. GOP Senators Murkowski, Collins, Portman, and Gardner all appear ready to break and Graham is on the edge as well. I suspect Trump and his allies would love to see Romney break ranks because given there history and Romney's profile he'd make a great scapegoat to blab about allover social media and cable news. That is where I think we are right now. GOP senators sitting around trying to decide which one among them takes the blame. I do not believe this. Republicans are better at this game. The majority of the Republican base is all demographically/culturally similar (white, Christian, rural) which enables them to be ideologically unified in a way Democrats could never. While Minorities, LGBTQ community, the highly educated, and etc all predominately vote Democrat they all ideologically care about different things. Any individual issue like Climate Change or Medicare would be an over reach for Democrats to declare an emergency over. Democrats didn't even aggressively get behind Obama so Garland could get seated. That will go down is history as one of the biggest missed opportunities any party ever had.

In addition to the revaluations regarding Manafort sharing internal polling data with Russia turns out U.S. Intelligence official were (perhaps still are) afraid Trump posed a risk to national security and was taking direction from Russia. The same people who questioned Obama's citizenship and cried about Clinton using a smart phone to read email voted for a guy who literally may be in bed with a foriegn adversary.

As it applies to him being "smart enough" not to be "butthurt" if someone called him "kid" it makes no difference. The implication is obvious. Raider was clearly implying that those who get offended by such things are "oversensitive" and he finds it "ridiculous". Whether I refer to his analogy as parallel, similar, or equivalent matters little. The topic of this thread deals with Corbyn's use of "stupid woman". Raider's "similar" (equivalent) analogy was him being called "kid". If the analogy is "similar" as Raider insists than so too are his insults "similar". If it is "ridiculous" as he says to be offended by "kid" than similarly it would be ridiculous to be offended by "woman". That is how analogies work.

There won't be one. If Trump is on the ballot in 2020 he'll get 63 million (give or take a million) votes. Whoever his opponent is will get 68 million votes (give or take a million).

Trump is betting the effect will be positive for him.

I disagree. They will forget. People vote the party. Nearly nothing moves the needle. Trump got 63 million votes in 2016 and provided he is on the ballot in 2020 I believe he will get 63 million (give of take a million) again on 2020.

It is a bill for appropriations which is separate from the DHS budget. For now the money Democrats are offering would go towards hardening existing fencing and other security assets well has increases in the number of immigration judges and agents. That is all stiff Trump has claimed some of his 5.7 billion would go towards anyways per the CBP's Security Improvement Plan. So Democrats are offering Trump some of the money Trump is demanding. That is just a fact. Democrats are also offering to continue the discussion. This can't be stressed enough. There is enough bipartisan support to pass a budget today if McConnell would allow a vote to be held

Also, also....when Republicans had control of both Houses of Congress they successful pushed through everything they actually wanted. Democratic obstruction couldn't stop the Tax cut, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and etc. Only when Republicans themselves haven't been supportive was Democratic obstruction success. The amount isn't $0. Democrats are currently offering 1.3 billion is special appropriations in trade for getting the govt open for a month so talks can continue. If talks fail Trump could keep the 1.3 billion and shutdown the govt again. And before you argue that the 1.3 billion isn't specific earmarked for a wall can you specifically outline what Trump plans to do with the 5.7 billion he is demanding?

I was hoping for something in your words.

Can you even provide an example of what you'd consider a fact as it relates to "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"? Other than Denying science, deregulating, and championing industries which cause environmental damage I cannot think of any other way for a President to act which would more pointedly reflect them not caring about the environment.