ewen21

Barr is stepping up to the mic now. This should be interesting. The shame of it is I can only watch until about 10:00. I hope you guys watch

Do you understand why there are redactions? The bolded part makes it seem like you don't. It isn't because random republicans decide this shouldn't be there and that shouldn't be there so as to protect Trump. The reasons are as follows: 1. Information that has been presented to a grand jury, which is subject to secrecy rules. This could conceivably cover a lot of material. 2. Material that intelligence officials fear could compromise sensitive sources and methods. This would include information from F.B.I. informants and foreign allies. 3. Information that could hamper other current investigations, including spinoffs of the Mueller inquiry. Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and Manhattan are investigating the finances of the Trump inaugural committee and hush payments intended to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to upend Mr. Trump’s campaign. 4. Material that the Justice Department believes would unfairly infringe on the privacy and damage the reputations of “peripheral third parties.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/when-will-mueller-report-release.html If anything, redactions are done more to protect those doing the investigating and aiding in the investigation.

I most certainly have seen him speak and this is why I ask. Being articulate seems a compulsory attribute to me and I really cannot determine if he is genuine just yet. Not sure how anyone can be so convinced of him so early in the game

The report will be released with minor redactions today. I think the last thing guys like Nadler and Schiff want is the report to be released free of redaction. In that case they can't keep complaining about the report not being fully released and I think that's the last thing they want. They wouldn't know what to do without that

I have no idea who I'm going to vote for at this stage. I don't begrudge Carole her preference for a woman to be in office, but I cannot understand the recent fascination with "mayor Pete". Could someone please breakdown what makes Buttigieg such an attractive candidate?

I cannot disagree. Trump's not been effective addressing this problem and his rhetoric has inflamed the issue to the point where it's going to be an even bigger struggle trying ameliorate the situation. The rhetoric from the democrats has been even more ineffective because they have been far too slow to acknowledge the issue. They were too busy trying to characterize Trump as a racist and promote their party as the one of tolerance and inclusion. Whether ii is because of their obsession with being anti-Trump at every turn of if its their need to supply the public with feel good rhetoric, they aren't offering solutions. All we get is we have to bring humanitarian aid to the countries in question. And...these people are human beings! It's almost as if they are a prop for the democrats to promote their odd agenda. They talk about humanitarian work. 1. What does that even mean? How is it accomplished and what does that entail exactly? At what cost? What kind of time parameters? This is foreign policy and it takes time. 2, Why are we talking about that and not addressing the more pressing issue? It's nice to put your head in the sand and reside on a moral high ground, but now that Trump called their bluff on sanctuary cities they are exposed. They can't just sit back, criticize Trump and make that their policy. Apart from attempting to remove Trump from office I cannot see where their focus lies. It's become a culture of whining. Come up with SOMETHING beyond "we need to save these people We need to fix the problem for AMERICANS CITIZENS FIRST. Elected officials are supposed to promote the general welfare for its citizens first. The democrats need to stop posturing with their anti-Trump obsession and the humanitarian aid rhetoric. It doesn't address the current issue at the border. Therein lies the rub. It is why I am extremely frustrated with the democrats. They talk a mean game when it comes to policy by they don't seem to be capable of implementation. If they can intoduce a bill that can change immigration laws and thwart these migrants from manipulating the system then I'd be on board. It comes down to the fact that these countries can gain easy access to us without even becoming citizens. They can (even if it's only for a few years before a percentage of them are deported) live off our system in a somewhat parasitic way. To be able to work without being tax (no matter how meager the pay) and get certian benefits is a drain on our economy. Mexicans are in the same boat we are. We REALLY need to get with them and work on problem. A lot of Mexican people are fed up with this and want their souther borders reinforced and closed

I heard several times over that people are fleeing Central America due to the problems WE created for them. I need to ask whether or not Americans are responsible for the violent crimes in these countries: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/21/5636412/countries-most-homicides-deadliest-murder-rates According to the link above Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador had the highest violent crime rate. This was after 6 years of Obama being in office. Is he complicit in this as well? I happen to think we MIGHT want to reflect on where things went wrong, but to say WE created the violent crime epidemic in this countries doesn't fit. It certainly doesn/t fall on Trump's lap.

I think link this is a must read for anyone speaking on the migrant issue at the border. It states rather clearly that those who cross the border illegally are detailed. There is no question they know it going into the journey. Then it is determined via a screening if the migrant has reasonable or credible fear. The NY Times says 75% of the screenings determine "credible or reasonable fear" is present. According to the article this is due to "congressionally mandated rules that set a fairly low bar for approval". Once they pass this screening they are set loose and given a work permit. In essence they have circumvented the system (for the time being) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/barr-asylum-bail.amp.html Trump is not the reason why there now is a border crisis. The conditions in the countries in question and the crunch of humany at the border, coupled with laws that allow illegals to be detained and released IS the problem. The numbers have become so insane so quickly that it could take YEARS for a released detainee to get a hearing. This is what's making them so bold. They more than willing to take their chances of never being found after they are released (or better yet, slip through the cracks). No, this isn't on Donald Trump. Trump is the one fixated on trying to quell this mess (or possibly end it). Say what you will about his methods, but I credit him for acknowledging the issue.

Mike, I think it makes the most sense for me to cite the NY Times or some other liberal media outlet to buttress a point. Glad I can make you laugh (I try to amuse sometimes)

Badsmerf, WHICH aspect of the problem? You think more people are dying to get into the US because of Trump? I don't follow

If we are going to be factual, The number of cases where "asylum seekers" cite "credible fear" skyrocketed during Obama administration. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED_CredibleFearWorkloadReport.pdf Whether or not that is on him or not, I am in no place to assume. I do know that to say this is due to Trump's policies really is off the rails. You'd think they'd run away from the border with that racist Trump in charge... Then again, maybe they see a booming economy and a chance to succeed here. I think these caravans of people at this point don't care about the process. They understand they will be detained for a short period of time and can be released. After that they can take their chances, with the increased numbers and how backed up the courts are they might never get their hearing. I think they figure being in limbo here beats life in their homeland. They are more desperate than ever and as Badserf points out, it's been going on for a while. As you can see from the data in the link I provided the numbers spiked during Obama's second term There is your problem. Trump understands that, but how does the problem get fixed? Someone has to come up with something. To sit back and say it takes a humanitarian effort on our part in those countries to fix them is awfully presumptuous. We can work on that, but far more pressing is the issue we have at the border now AND with all the detainees being released

NOTE: I will try only to use liberal publications when I present facts on the issue of immigration.

I didn't say crept up on us. I said it is an urgent one that appeared rather suddenly. The Trump administration has not made the problem worse. The problem is that people know that they can enter illegally, be detained and then released. There is the issue right there and it existed long before Trump was inaugurated. To not acknowledge that is to admit you just don't know the issue. Read the seventh paragraph and you tell me if Trump created this issue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/barr-asylum-bail.amp.html Trump is responding to something that's being manipulated by "asylum seekers"

Ok, I can agree with some of that. The first part is part to hammer out the 3rd point. I guess we need to clarify what the red tape comes down to. Both sides of the aisle agree the law and the process compounds the issue. Citizens must understand this issue more deeply because it's going to be big on the campaign trail before we know it. For my meager part, I into the forms for asylum seekers and it isn't very user friendly. That is something which can be recitified almost instantly (if has been yet). I might have looked at dated information, even if it was only a couple of months old. As far as restoring relations with Mexico goes, I would like that but easier said than done. That's a two way street. Not sure we can conceptualize exactly what the US means to Mexicans. It would be nice to arrange town halls via video conference between Mexican and American voters. Not sure as to the feasibility of that but it can't hurt. One other thing, though.., If you think Trump is bad how bad could the leadership be in the Central American nations if it's producing this massive burgeoning crop of asylum seekers? There is such a history of corruption and lawlessness there. Where can THEY fix this problem? Do they want to? They don't have a constitution nor do they have the wealth of resources we have. What kind of support do they need? Are they going to be amenable to our "help"? I don't think it's our responsibility to build infrastructure there when we have so SO much to do here. This is an urgent problem and it is one that appeared rather suddenly. The opiod crisis is a new phase in the battle against addictive drugs and that will likely never be won. It's been an ongoing issue for years. Then again, the production of some of these drugs might need to be discontinued utterly. (That is another conversation altogether)

LaBombo, hats off for trying. You have nothing to defend. The last three points you make cannot be disputed. Whether they are acknowledged or understood makes no difference. My original point had more to do with the hypocrisy of democrats on this issue.

LaBombo, you're second point MUST be acknowledged and conceded immediately by all those who insisted on the term "illegals" being "factually incorrect" Sayonara until next week. This puppy is about to get off the ground

And Mexico is not happy about it. Listen to the people speak. These are Mexicans with no vested interested in boosting our case: Asylum Seekers or not they are not doing it legally. Hence, my use of the term "illegals" I am sorry it offends people, but it's just a word.

There aren't any illegals crossing the border? When and others keep on insisting the term 'illegals" not be used it shows that you actually do disagree with what LaBombo said. Part of me wishes I wasn't on my way to sun and fun so I could continue this discussion properly. All I will say for now if forget whatever you want to call them. Acknowledge the crisis and stop assuming we can comfortably absorb all of them. By doing that you just deny very real concerns

Whatever Leviathan. Stop it and stay on topic if you want to talk about this. As far as this statement goes: "the current crisis is not about"illegals".Every time you use that wording you are factually incorrect.Asylum seekers are not illegals, they are following our legal process.What is broken is our process" OK fine. Seems like you want to actually have a discussion now after your opening comments. I will drop fence jumpers from the discussion, even though they are of great concern (vis a vis M-13 and the criminal element). You want to talk ONLY about asylum seekers then FINE. Let me hear you on that one. Where do we place them? Why did the democrats vote down a bill that would have withheld federal aid to sanctuary cities (if they didn't turn over illegals) in 2015 and turn around and oppose placement of detained asylum seekers in sanctuary cities? That was my initial post regarding Corey Booker's comments in reaction to Trump's power play. Booker changed his tune. Did he not? It shows a level of hypocrisy demonstrated by this new rabid far left dogma that is poisoning the discourse. And by the way..... On Mr. Brooks, I did not ignore his theory as to why they are all coming up here. This was is what I said: "Did we create SOME of the problems for these countries pertaining to the things your outline? Certainly." After that, I don't there is much to say until he get better develop precisely how he came to that conclusion. Make me believe it's a bigger reason than the horrible job they do policing down there and the corrupt governments they have. Unless he can explain to me how America is more responsible for the disarray I will get into it a lot more. The bold is all he is going to get. If you want to take the baton from him and develop that idea then go for it. The sad part is, I am done after this post. I am due at Albany International and am flying out of town for vacation. I hardly want to engage with you when I am chilling in the sun. One last thing. I made a very extensive post in "privilege and responsibility". Watching you and reading you operate in this forum for almost two years I am stunned you didn't jump all over what I posted. I gave you a lot to chew on and devour. YOu relish the opportunity to go back and forth. Evidence of that exists everywhere in this forum. Could it be that you actually agree with much of what I said and cannot bring yourself to admit it? I think that is the case. Mr. Brooks did something I have never seen you do in all debates and entanglements you have gotten into: he made a concession. We can pick this up next week. Lighten up.

I probably will purchase Bernie's last book "Guide to Political Revolution" It's great to be a revolutionary, speaking on the outside because you don't have to do anything but be a voice in the wilderness. What happens when the revolutionary gets the reigns?

That is EXACTLY how the exchange with the FOX reporters went when it came to the Omar quesiton. Thanks for doing it better than me. I give Bernie a whole lot of credit for stepping into the FOX line of questioning and I thought they were very respectful of Bernie. Interestingly they had "Bernie Sanders, VT (I)" up on the screen. Is he a democrat or an independent? Anyway, I also give him credit for trying distance himself from the smear politics used by Clinton. When they asked him about Biden he would not do in detail about him and I think that is the way it should be. However, I would like to see him be more clear on the HOW part when he talks about solutions. He speaks in such broad terms and moves all over the place.

You support Bernie, but you couldn't find the time to watch the town hall meeting? I suggest you watch and then tell me what you think. He seems like a nice guy, but 1) he is no leader and 2) he once again failed to articulate how he would carry out some of the things that gave him mass appeal. How is "taxing Wall Street speculation" going to pay for free college education? Another thing I found funny was when Ilhan Omar was mentioned the crowd cheered wildly. What exactly does she do that is so spectacular? When they asked about her he said he's talked to her maybe two times. He clearly didn't want to touch that hot potato and that was probably smart. Then again, I thought he talked in circles and said nothing. I also found it odd that he'd sit down after a question was asked and then stand up when he answered. He looked very uncomfortable. I just don't see how he could hold up to the daily rigors of being a president.

SABR, sanctuary cities was the news of the day yesterday and I was attempting to speak about it. Instead you want to ram about five other topics against the screen--no less important, but completely off topic. That is not any kind of way to have a discussion. You injected black crime into discussion and I find that to be interesting. I posted a very long and detailed post in the "privilege and responsibility thread" on Saturday morning at that post basically napalmed the thread. Nobody wants to be the next to respond. I wonder why? Maybe because in your heart of hearts you can't speak to me unless you are trying to disprove something I said? If you want to talk about inner city blacks I have ideas about how to solve problems in that realm. With regard to my original point, democrats voted in 2015 to squash a bill called the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act" which would have punished cities by withholding federal aid had they not turned over immigrants who came here illegally. However that isn't the issue now. The issue is what do we do about those on their way and arriving at the border--with no intention of providing documentation? They come to border and get detained. What else are we supposed to do? Hand them a party favor and say have a nice day, enjoy your freedom? This is about WHAT NOW to me. I am not interested in mass deportation for those already here. I guess they beat the system and as long as an illegal is productive and contributing work to give them citizenship. What do we do NOW? I don't think it is unreasonable to close the border while we hammer out something resembling a solution. It could take months, but it would be temporary. People on the left can jump up and down and stomp their feet, but they were the ones who believe in sanctuary cities. Trump handed the ball off to them and they flipped out. It only goes to show their rhetoric doesn't equal policy and we haven't got time for flowery rhetoric.

I can't post from a phone. I'm sorry.

I'm with you SABR as far as solving the humanity problem. However, that doesn't dismiss the sudden urgent issue at the border--which affects the citizens our is supposed to represent. It isn't good to ignore either, but the more time sensitive issue for government needs to the one at the border. You aren't saying we need prioritize the more complicated of foreign affairs over that? Are you?