Biggest Joke on Television Tonight

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

Whatever synonyms were used by the Think Progress article, I have no doubt that Trump intended to say that he (or some of his people) would physically prevent BLM from taking the stage. Likewise I have no doubt that his use of the words “blood from whatever” was too suggest Megan Kelly must have been having her period (although he is denying that).

That sort of street language is inappropriate from a politician.

It is time to assess candidates’ attitudes, not word choices by the press. If Trump just wanted to let BLM know that he would not allow them to take over his place on the stage, he could have done that more diplomatically sans a physical threat. But in truth he chose the moment to call Bernie Sanders a “disgrace” and “weak”. Such a manly man that Trump is (TIC).

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

Trump has to put forth some solid, workable proposals if he wants to expand his support from the 20% or so of Republicans who now say they will vote for him. A border wall with Mexico that they will pay for? He's saying what his extremist fringe buds want to hear. I heard him claim that he drew more of a crowd at the Iowa state fair than anyone else, but two news noted that Hillary's crowd was as large as all the GOP candidates combined. 20% of the GOP translates into about 5% of the general electorate. He may be the GOP frontrunner, but in head to head polls, he's trailing both Clinton and Sanders, badly.

People have short memories. Our current immigration "problem" with Mexico has been around for a long time, but illegals crossing the border from Mexico peaked during the Bush administration largely because the tax cuts required slashing the budget and personnel in areas that affected enforcement. The thought of erecting a "border wall" along the Mexican border isn't feasible, however, the thought of controlling illegal immigration along the border under Republican budget policy is also not feasible. The thought that Mexico would pay the high price for a monstrosity that would strangle the legitimate trade with the US, which is the economic life of their country, is just stupid. And while I applaud the GOP candidates who are pointing out his stupidity and bigotry, and are making an excellent argument why the man is unfit to be President, none of them are really addressing the issues that are going to resonate with voters.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=M ... mp=yhs-003

Go to about 2:25, where the GOP analyst begins talking about the data that was coming in from exit polls during the 2012 election. He notes that 2012 would be the last election in which the Republicans would have a chance to win depending solely on getting a majority of the Caucasian vote. He notes that they will not be able to win on the national level without gaining ground among Hispanics. Later on, in the same clip, is the discussion about the women's vote. Both of those categories are solidly Democratic constituencies now, and Trump is alienating large segments of both. Watch what comes from the RNC and Fox News. You can tell they know he is sinking their boat.

Sanders is drawing crowds because 1) the Democrats are not as monolithically committed to Hillary Clinton as the GOP wants you to believe they are, and 2) he is addressing the issues top to bottom that rank high with voters. The Republicans can squawk and screech about Benghazi from now until the cows come home, if all they can come up with is changing the status of a few of Hillary's emails to manipulate the hearing and make it look like she sent classified information on her email server, they are in major deep weeds.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: An interesting article about a Boarder wall in Sandy's Home state;

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/ ... den-text/3

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

Ah, yes, the Naco wall. That's about 40 miles from my hometown. Granted, it has reduced illegal crossings from Naco and through the Cochise County town of Bisbee by quite a bit. But as the article notes, it just causes those intent on crossing to go around it at either end, and pushes them into other areas of the county. Going east, the wall stops about 10 miles west of the twin cities of Douglas, AZ and Agua Prieta, Sonora, and becomes a chain link fence with barbed wire full of holes where those coming across use wire cutters. Or they just go beyond Douglas, into the open ranch country, where they are less likely to get caught.
Given the cost of that particular stretch of wall, I'd love to hear from Mr. Trump how his cut taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy plan would be able to finance the construction of such a wall, and the video equipment and patrol officers necessary to make it effective.

Growing up, it was not unusual, while out riding my bike, to run into illegals walking down the stretch of old US 80 that bordered our neighborhood. I can think of many occasions when I would pass the garden hose over the back fence to allow them to get a drink, and wash off, take them a sandwich or something else to eat. I had a part time job in high school working on the ranch of the grandfather of one of my friends, and once a week, after they'd cut and bailed the hay, we'd deliver and unload it somewhere, and there was always an illegal or two going along to help, or working somewhere on the ranch. Most of them came up here and worked to support their families back home, partly because they could make more in a week on a ranch than they could in a month in a factory owned by an American company exploiting the cheap labor. The Republican approach, to "just stop" illegal immigration, doesn't address the root problems which includes working with Mexico to resolve the problems that cause their citizens to come across the border, looking for a better life for them and their families. We seem much less interested in investing in helping Mexico resolve its drug crime problem, and stabilize its employment, than we are in funneling billions to Israel, which has helped us, how?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

A wall would cost a lot more than $1,500,000 a mile. And that's not including the daily cost of providing the border patrol. The wall along the border in Naco that Ed referenced is only about 50% effective in slowing down illegal crossings. Poverty, exploitation of workers, drug wars, and political corruption, among other things, are problems that contribute to Mexican citizens seeking refuge on the US side of the border. Ending programs and benefits that prevent them from starving once they are here would heighten the misery, but it wouldn't stop them from coming, because the root problems would still be there. Seems that it would be much more effective, and much less costly, to work with the Mexican government to eliminate the market for drugs, shut down the cartels, tax American companies that exploit cheap labor in Mexico, and help them stabilize their economy, including developing their energy resources. If a Mexican citizen can work a decent job that provides a living, and feels safe in his home, he or she won't feel like they would be better off crossing the border into the US. The US government and its economic policy has a direct effect on what goes on in Mexico. It can certainly control the border without building a wall.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

Just for the record, I am in favor of the ”Welcome, y'all!” approach, but I don't see a way to market it to the electorate in 2016, and I don't expect 'serious' candidates in either party to try, even if they agree with me.

[Sandy]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06 ... -down?lite

We're talking almost $3 billion for the 600 some-odd miles of security fencing, walls, lights and camera system that is up now. That's mostly just fence. A 2,000 mile long wall, much of it through rough rock and mountain country, would cost, literally, tens of billions of dollars. And a wall is not likely to put a dent in the illegal immigration. The personnel required to enforce border security would be monumentally expensive. The US has, in the past, achieved a balance with Mexico in regard to economics, trade, drug enforcement, and so forth, and there have been many, many years when illegal border crossings were no big deal, and mainly involved people crossing to work in ranches and places adjacent to the border area. The recession that occurred in 88-89 de-stabilized Mexico's monetary system, and skewed the labor costs, and the one that nearly flattened the US economy in 2006 pressed it down further. It can be done. Clinton did it. Compared to what it was under Dubya, illegal crossings now are much less. As long as the problems go on in Mexico and in Latin America, where a lot of the illegals now come from, people will head to the US to better their lives and provide for their families, and a wall will be like a straw fence in a fire.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy I can not dispute your figures for the cost of present fencing along the Mexican border but I am sure a huge portion of it is due to political pork.

There are less expensive and perhaps more efficient methods of wall building than that seen in the picture in your link. to start the lighting shown is utterly excessive, and does little but provide light for those wanting to come in. There is much more suitable technology for detecting the interlopers with out assisting their efforts. Even the $1,500,000 per mile average for the interstate system contains pork but in many places that system also faces the same geological challenges, the cost of which are included in the average.
that you cite for a border wall. And I am not sure why there would need to be any additional personnel cost with a less penetrable wall along the full 1952 miles, than we now have.

For further edification about U.S. border fencing, as it is or at least as it was in July of 2014, go to: http://www.lawatchdog.com/Understanding ... ces-2.html

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]