Ten oz

Custom Border Protection (CBP) detains 50,000 people on a monthly basis. The logistics are already in place. There are no additional support required temporary or permanent. This crisis is purely one of choice and will be milked through the budget negotiations as Trump demands money for his wall.

Do you currently have an idea of where the line in the Sand lays? I don't. I would like my govt to provide some clarity on whether or not we'd intervene if Russia moved to annex the Ukraine.

Sanctions require partnership among Allies to enforce. Those partnerships are currently frayed. That has been part of Russia's objective with it's election interference. Sanctions also take time to develop and implement. Considering Ukraine has declared Martial Law, Russia has 3 Ukraine ships, and an election is looming something more immediate is required than sanctions which are at least a couple years away from having any impact on Russia's economy. I am not recommending war. I simply want the U.S. President and the UK Prime Minister to be more vocal, definitive, and visible on what's currently happening. As it stands I have no idea if or where the line in the Sand is for my (U.S.) govt in this issue. If Russia invaded Ukraine tomorrow I have idea what, if anything, my govt should do. I consider that a serious problem. We should all know what the rules of engagement look are.

90,000 people on average cross the San Yside border into San Diego everyday. There are no logistical issues. The families at the border pose no appreciable spike in the amount of traffic officials at the border deal with on a regular basis. This year CBP as a whole has detained an average of 50,000 people a month. The logistics clearly are already in place. The current crisis level atmosphere is politically manufactured. Trump is using it to rally his base. That is all.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has an annual budget of $14.2 billion , U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has an annual budget $8.3 billion, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has $3.2 billion a year. Asylum seeking is legal. With a combined budget of $25.7 billion dollars a year the onus to have the logistics for asylum seekers figured out is on CBP , ICE, USCIS, and the Political oversight officials. The onus is not on the asylum seekers. Our laws on the matter are not new. Politicians have the ability to change law and on this matter have chosen not to. A deal on immigration reform has been discussed for years but no action ever followed. It is not the fault of the asylum seekers. We know what our laws are and our agencies have $25.7 billion a year to manage the logistics of enforcing our laws. So we need to follow our laws and stop using desperate families and political props.

You question rational behind why Ukrainian ships would be in where they were while acknowledging it is their own territorial waters. Shouldn't the same logic apply to Russia? Not only did Russia annex part of the Ukraine but Russia has interfered with Ukrainian elections even going so far as to poison officials. What sort of reaction should Russia expect? Considering Russia's history of election interference I see know reason to assume the Martial Law declaration is a move by the current govt to manipulate election. There are no pro-Russian candidates tracking to win the election. So implying that martial law somehow stifles pro Russia voices ahead of the election is a stretch. Without pro-Russian candidates in play this Election to begin with I don't see how the current Ukrainian govt's recent moves does anything to negatively impact their elections. There is nothing wrong with fearing a third world war but it definitely shouldn't be used as a call for inaction. Standing by quietly while Putin exercises increasing amounts of authority and force only makes a larger conflict more likely. Whether it is the women and children dying in Yemen, the Russian led military assaults in Syrian, or now what's happening in Ukraine I keep seeing people imply some version of the notion that allowing these abuses today somehow spares of larger conflict tomorrow. I think history clearly saying otherwise. Russia interfered with U.S. elections in 2016 and this year. Russia also put cyber propaganda, financial support, and intelligence assets behind Brexit in the UK. Putin is intentionally sowing division in the Western World and it is working. The U.S. is behaving combative towards NATO and the U.N. while the UK is dissatisfied with the EU. As western partnerships dissolve Putin is working to consolidate power within Russia, strength the power of his allies like Assad, and move on his seemingly unprotected (Ukraine is not technically part of NATO) neighbors. It is a best case scenario for Putin. If this were a game of Chess Russia has put western democracy in check. It isn't checkmate but a counter move is required.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. This BS where people argue they just want legal immigration plainly dishonest when everything possible is done to block legal means. What's happening here is plain to see. The administration is working to subvert law while claiming to just want law upheld. Anyone who actually cares about the process and just want to see assylum seekers follow it should be calling for extra immigration services admin personnel to be sent to the border. That is the quickest way to ensure everyone is doing things the legal way. An analogy for closing the border via armed guard and then carrying on about crossing legally is to raise a draw bridge and then tell cars to only use the raised bridge safely. It literally can't be done.

Right, the mutual assured destruction stuff is not any sort of deterrent if it isn't believed. Russia's actions imply they don't anticipate meaningful consequences. I would like to see Theresa May and Trump publicly address the matter. Additionally I would like to see the U.S. send our Sec of State and or other cabinet level officials to the Ukraine to assess the situation. I believe having high level officials in the region would at the very least quiet things down for a for days as Russia is not likely to take further action while diplomats are in the region.

Trump is dividing the nation. The idea that hostility and division is worse under Trump is one of the few nonpartisan ideas left in politics today. Trump attacks immigrants, the media, all politic rivals, and etc. Hate crimes are up since he has taken office and the overall approval of his office and govt in general is down. White Nationalism is also on the rise. Petty complaints about how similar on a scale between Trump is or isn't to Hilter fail to acknowledge real problems. Nazi sentiments and aggressions are bleeding their way I to conservative leaning movements thoughout the western world. No amount of excuse making or deflecting accomplishes anything. A problem denied is a problem which remains unresolved.

Ukraine govt has declared Martial Law Here . Germany's Angela Merkel spoke Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko via phone today and thus far only spokes people for UK's Prime Minister and the U.S. President have commented.

This is what I think. However I also think Russia had a hand in those distractions for this very reason.

Here in the U.S. such has been the political norm for a few years now. Any claim regardless of how absurd is expected to be treated seriously.

U.N. will meet to discuss the matter today and in Ukraine they are considering martial law Here . The U.S. and UK have been among the leading voices on matters concerning Russia for several decades yet currently seem too embroiled with internal minutiae of far less significance than its being given to response adequately. I think history shows that it is better to stay on top of these matters before they get out of hand. Once forces are mobilized and bombs are dropped everything become more difficult. If Russia moved to annex the rest of the Ukraine (they already took Crimea) I don't get the feeling the U.S., UK , or anyone else will feel like risking WW3 to do anything about it. I think there is something very dangerous about that .Allowing bad actors around the world to misbehave as a means of avoiding larger conflicts only emboldens those forces globally. Whether its Syria's continued use of chemical gas, Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses in Yemen, or Russian aggression in Ukraine we are seeing an escalation in abuses among some of the worlds top Armed Forces. There are serious risks in continuing to ignore it.

Chemical gas has been used again. Russia is claiming it was the Rebels and a UK base human rights group monitoring in the area claim it was the Syrian Govt. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46337143

Tensions are elevated between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine is stating that Russian assets have attacked 3 of their ships off the coast of Crimea. What are the potential implications of this and how should NATO respond if at all?

The fear didn't start with a campaign anymore than perversion started with pornography. These things exist on their own within every society. As they naturally grow and the environment becomes increasingly toxic people exploit them. Sometimes it boils over and we end up with wars and atrocities. Other times sanity rises to meet it and order is restored. I personal don't think the will for either outcome exists inside of a single individual either way. I think when the people are ready a leader will rise and not vice versa. I believe it is as true for murderous leaders as it is for those who champion freedom.

Michael Wolff was allowed access inside the WH early on and interviewed many people among Trump's campaign and inner circle. In the book Wolff claims Trump never thought he'd win and initially he and his family were "horrified" that he had won. If you choose to believe otherwise that is your choice. Back on topic I think the rise of Nazi sentiment among Western conservatives is related to the increases in advance education and technology. Younger Gen Xers and older millennials were raised on a philosophy of hard work, sweat from the brow, up from one's own bootstraps, and etc slogans of masculine Independence. The world changed however. Working hard is no longer enough to ensure success (not that it ever truly did for all). Today one must no know things. One must be proficient at desirable skills. For those who anticipated stubborn persistence to manifest richess failure has been humiliating and emasculating. In response they lash out at any number of things they blame. Fear of automation, fear of immigration, fear of education (liberal elitists), fear of science, and so on. They are anti anything they feel has deprived them of they birth right to Lord over the world. Hilter and Nazis were the last miltary rise of white dominace so that is what they migrate towards with only a surface level understand of what Nazi's were about.

I don't mean this argumentatively but I don't know we can be quantified how good Trump is at what he does. I don't think Trump planned on being President. I am sure you have read the same stories from people around him that he, his family, and his campaign expected to lose. His Presidency is a media stunt gone wrong. Moreover there is reason to believe Trump has damaged his family's brand long term and put his children's future jeopardy. The temporary high of office will almost certainly have long term negative impacts especially if or when some combo of Kushner, Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric get indicted. Can we say Trump is quite good at what he does if this has been by accident?

I think people often assume a direct connection between success and intelligence (of any type). I don't think the two are always connected. Sometimes one becomes successful through a series of events beyond their understanding or influence. Other times through low levels of integrity. For example Giorgio Tsoukalos has no background in history, archaeology, or religion yet has flown all over the world to different historical sights as part of the Ancient Aliens show gaining access and exposure true experts ever do. Same goes for the folks on shows like Finding Bigfoot and Ghost Haunters. These individuals don't have some special talent or ability which drives their success. Rather they are just filling a niche which exists in society in-spite of them that educated people in the associated fields have too much integrity for. The Kardashian family draw crowds. Alex Jones draws crowds. Bringing such people onstage at a political rally would earn a politician far more attention than any well written speech or policy idea yet I don't think such is a sign of greater "emotional intelligence" as @koti put it. FoxNews ,Talk Radio, and Faux print journalism built the audience Trump speaks to. Trump just parrots what has already been broadcast for decades. I think people like Rupert Murdoch deserves more credit for the current state of affairs in the U.S. and UK than any current Politician. They pushed and pushed until a Trump and or a Brexit emerged. Here in the U.S. lets not forget that Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Ted Curz, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rudy Giuliani, and etc all had serious Presidential bids in recent years. Donald Trump is not magnitudes worse than that lot. Had Trump lost the GOP nomination in 2016 Ted Cruz/Carly Fiorina would have gotten it and not some combo of Romeny, McCain, Corker, Rice, or any other sane Republican. Trump isn't responsible for driving U.S. conservatives off the rails. They were already turned toward the cliff with the pedal all the way down when Trump jump on board.

I agree but feel what Hilter did gets overstated to proportions which make him seem far more intelligent than he was. Meanwhile many Nazi scientist who had design weapons and chemicals that killed millions were given jobs in Russia and the U.S. and lived their lives out comfortably into old age.

I think history, or at least the way Hilter is discussed in popular culture, has distorted how unique and significant to world events as a whole Hilter was. Joseph Stalin killed upwards of 10 million people during his era which included WW2, The Japanese Empire Killed up to 10 million Chinese (estimates vary) during WW2, and Mussolini was around murdering people as well. The world was a very dark place. In the United States segregation was still in effect and people were openly lynched. Hilter rose to power during a hateful and violent time. Hilter himself was not catalyst for the hatred and anger. It was a global phenomenon. Jordan address that a bit pointing out that Hilter said whatever people wanted to hear but fails to point out that perhaps had Hilter never came along someone else would have. Hilter was more a Canary than he was the fumes. Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939. Mein Kampf had already been on bookstore shelves a decade. The events of WW1 well know. The U.S. stayed of it for almost 2 full years till Pearl Harbor in Dec. of 1941. WW2 was a global error and a lot of parties share a lot of blame. For the sake of brevity it is easiest to just point the finger at Hilter but had Hilter never lived the world would have still be a powder keg. I don't think jumping in a time machine and killing baby Hitler alone would have prevented WW2.

I disagree. If they all held up the middle finger they would all be getting punished. No amount of minutiae about first amendment or claiming the middle finger was just their way of holding up the number one would matter. Obscene gestures are obscene gestures. Codification of a Nazi salute as speech rather a obscene gesture is a mistake. Not tolerating teenage kids to publicly misbehave isn't equal to pushing hateful ideas into hiding. In grade school there are any number of things kids aren't allowed to say or do. Creating hostile environments, intimidating other students, obscenities, and etc are all things any normal student at any normal school would get in trouble for. Treating their rudeness as political speech accomplishes nothing. If this were a group of friends taking a picture at a party on their own I could sympathize with your position. People can be hateful all they want at their own homes or on their own social media accounts. This wasn't at a private home or among a group of friends. This was a school event and misbehavior is misbehavior.

Those kids in Wisconsin won't be punished for their Nazi salutes. I could have gotten out of a lot of detention in High School if only I had used my First Amendment rights. Who knew?

At over 700,000 the average house district today is more populated than was the most populated State in the country when the Constitution was ratified. Not only were the number of people being represented far less but govt itself was very different. Soc Sec, Medicare, DOD, the Federal Reserve, FDA, EPA, the Education Department, DOT, FAA, NASA, NOAA, and etc, etc, etc, etc, etc did not exist. The bureaucracy being overseen today is far larger, more complex, and impacts everyone in the country regardless of which state they live in. There are currently more individual federal agencies than there are Senators. Number of Fed employees and contractors is at 10 million people. Federal budget of nearly 4 trillion. There are just 535 members of Congress to oversee it all. By contrast the UK has 1/5 the population of the U.S. and their Parliament structure has over 1400 seats between MPs and Lords. Canada has 1/10 the population of the U.S. and their structure has 443 members between MPs and senators. Expanding the number of seats is critical in my opinion. The process has become too incestuous. Individual members sit on committees and subcommittees numbering into the teens and each committee has several lobbyist. Those lobbyist are unelected and basically write policy. Additionally the limited seats prevents the rise of more independent parties. If Congress were larger it would be harder for party whips to control individuals along party lines.

Voting locally in one state and then nationally from another might not be a crime. I think one of the problems is that there is not a national standard for voting. Every individual state has their own laws and practices. The link I provided outlines them by State. The population is more mobile than it once was. It is normal for an individual to live in more than one state throughout their lives. I have lived in 4 states and currently own homes in 2 states. The matters of states rights, the electoral college, and manner in which states receive representatives is antiquated. There were less than 4 million people living in the United States in 1790...... let that soak in a minute....less than 4 million. Population wise the largest state was VA at 690,000 and the smallest was WVA at 55,00. Today those numbers are equal to a small metro and a average size subarb. In Congress there were 65 house members to 26 senators, not a huge difference. Today the population is 330 million. Largest state is CA at 40 million and and the smallest is WY at 590,000. That is the difference between a large country and small metro. In Congress there are 535 house members and 100 senators. It is a very different country. In my opinion it is insane that Wyoming gets an equal say in the Senate as California and neither state is using a nationalized election standard for those Senate seats.