What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

At least now we have empirical evidence on "bad cop/confused and ignorant cop"

Verdict: doesn't work so well.

[Razgovory]

There are few people in the US who deserved to be humiliated and disgraced as much as Bolton did.

[jimmy olsen]

Looks like turnout is low in the special election for the 9th district in NC, and the GOP candidate will eek it out by 1 or 2 percent.

Disappointing, though Trump won that district by like ten points in 2016, so it's not a bad sign for 2020.

[Razgovory]

Looks like turnout is low in the special election for the 9th district in NC, and the GOP candidate will eek it out by 1 or 2 percent.

Disappointing, though Trump won that district by like ten points in 2016, so it's not a bad sign for 2020.

Considering that there was an outright attempt to steal the election in 2016, I'd say it's pretty bad sign for 2020.

[Tamas]

I am always sceptical to attribute even mildly elaborate plans to Trump, when observable behaviour has only shown erratic actions and a distinct lack of any pre-calculation.

[Berkut]

Looks like turnout is low in the special election for the 9th district in NC, and the GOP candidate will eek it out by 1 or 2 percent.

Disappointing, though Trump won that district by like ten points in 2016, so it's not a bad sign for 2020.

The election saw a 12% swing against Trump, and was invalidated because of election fraud.

The special election saw that swing erode to 10%. The Dems are going the wrong way. And this guy was a moderate Dem.

So what was the difference between then and now?

A couple presidential debates where every single candidate was forced to bleat about decriminalizing the border (and you can be sure that is seen as "Open borders for everyone!") and getting rid of private primary healthcare?

I still think Trump is going to get stomped. But the Dems are moving in the wrong direction, they've frittered away a lot of their clear advantage that having the worst President in history in office by an order of magnitude or two by letting the wrong message dominate. Maybe that is just normal primary shift to the left, and once it narrows down it will shift back to the center a bit, but it is alarming when it comes to their chances to get a true mandate, and get back the Senate.

[garbon]

Okay, Mono.

[Tamas]

The thing is, as long as the far-left voices on the left exist at all, the whole Republican media pressure will be on highlighting those. And if they would silence completely, that media machine would still make them out to be the main message of Democrats.

"they want to open the borders" is how the Hungarian government has been reacting to any kind of opposition action, or participation in an election, since 2015, despite various lead opposition figures declaring about once every fortnight for the past 4 years that no, they do not seek to open the borders.

[Habbaku]

And now Trump's bullying the Fed to enter Danish-level interest rates.

This should be exciting. Gold is looking pretty tempting now.

[Berkut]

The thing is, as long as the far-left voices on the left exist at all, the whole Republican media pressure will be on highlighting those. And if they would silence completely, that media machine would still make them out to be the main message of Democrats.

"they want to open the borders" is how the Hungarian government has been reacting to any kind of opposition action, or participation in an election, since 2015, despite various lead opposition figures declaring about once every fortnight for the past 4 years that no, they do not seek to open the borders.

Well sure. That goes without saying.

There is a battle of perception happening.

My point isn't that there is some magic that will make Fox News honest.

My point is that if there is a battle of perception happening over, say, illegal immigration, it isn't helpful if the entire Dem establishment is forced to say things like "We should decriminalize the border!". That isn't a perception problem, it is a stupid idea that really does sounds like the Dems want to actually open the border, rather than just NOT building a stupid fucking wall.

This is why populist stupid crap works so well. The Right invents a border crisis, and invents a solution that is ridiculous.

The Left then reliably over-reacts, and claims that not only is there no crisis, there isn't even a problem. Not only is there no problem, if there is a problem it is actually that the border without the wall is TOO restrictive, and we should "decriminalize" the border. Why? What problem exists that "decriminalization" would solve compared to the status quo? It is this reflexive over reaction to the rights bullshit that the left falls into every single fucking time.

There is an obvious and rational stance to take on immigration. The border needs to be secure, and we should stop as much *illegal* immigration as we can, and we can and should control what immigration is allowed. We should let experts decide what "secure" means and how best to accomplish that, and they've already spoken. More electronic surveillance. Possibly even more physical barriers in places where they make sense.

Streamline the amnesty process, and commit the resources necessary to humanely and safely handle circumstances where there is a situational surge in "walk up" immigration.

But is this the plan the Dems are putting forth? Nope. Instead every single one of them raises their hand when asked if illegal immigrants should get free healthcare.

You are right that the right will twist whatever is said - of course they will - that is just politics. But in these cases the right doesn't have to twist it, they can just repeat what the woke left has forced otherwise moderate candidates to say to scare off moderate voters. That is a mistake, a political error on the part of those who spend their time trying to craft the Democratic message.

[The Minsky Moment]

My point is that if there is a battle of perception happening over, say, illegal immigration, it isn't helpful if the entire Dem establishment is forced to say things like "We should decriminalize the border!". That isn't a perception problem, it is a stupid idea that really does sounds like the Dems want to actually open the border, rather than just NOT building a stupid fucking wall.

Except that it is not a stupid idea and it has nothing to do whether the border is "open" or "closed"
Criminalizing the border IS a stupid idea.  Taken seriously it means that anyone who enters illegally would have to be prosecuted under the criminal laws and then imprisoned in a US prison facility at taxpayer expense.  That is a really bad idea for lots of obvious reasons.  It isn't taken to that extreme but in some ways that is worse because gives near unbounded discretion to target certain categories of entrants.  During the Obama administration, the targeting was based on incidents of violence and apparent dangerousness; the new administration on the other hand has targeted families travelling in so-called "caravans" and asylum seekers, apparently as some crude form of deterrence. 

We have a well-established and functional system of administrative deportation that is capable of dealing with people whose only offense to the law is an illegal entry.  It's not clear what a criminal prosecution option adds other than waste, cost, and lots of opportunities for abuse and due process violations.

Federal criminal prosecutions of illegal entrants now constitute over half the federal criminal docket.  It is a brutal drain on critical law enforcement resources and priorities.  It is really a crazy policy to continue.  The entire federal criminal system is getting clogged up with this nonsense.

The idea the criminal prosecution should be a possible option in exceptional cases is theoretically justifiable but the practice shows that this authority is too easily abused and not worth the meager theoretical benefit.

[Berkut]

How is "decriminalizing the border" different from the status quo then?


Currently, there is a law that makes it a criminal offense, but it is rarely enforced. But it is there if needed.


What is the utility in getting rid of it, except to signal that we are not at all serious about saying "Hey, if you want to immigrate, please follow the legal process."


It is a proposal with zero practical application, but just hands the "build the wall" guys credence to their claim that the alternative is a "open border".


And yes, we all know that isn't actually convincing to us, but that isn't the question. Is it convincing to voters who could be convinced to vote for the Dem candidate who voted for Trump previously?

"You are playing into Donald Trump's hands," Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana said during Tuesday's debate. "The challenge isn't that it's a criminal offense to cross the border. The challenge is that Donald Trump is president, and using this to rip families apart. A sane immigration system needs a sane leader. And we can do that without decriminalizing."

[grumbler]

How is "decriminalizing the border" different from the status quo then?

Currently, there is a law that makes it a criminal offense, but it is rarely enforced. But it is there if needed.

There is a law that makes it potentially a criminal offense, depending on circumstances.  It is much like the laws against speeding; there is a degree at which speeding becomes a criminal offense, if the officer wants to push that.

What is the utility in getting rid of it, except to signal that we are not at all serious about saying "Hey, if you want to immigrate, please follow the legal process."

The utility would be to return to the lower costs and equal benefits of the Obama Administration policy, when it was not at all obvious that the US was trying "to signal that we are not at all serious about saying "Hey, if you want to immigrate, please follow the legal process."" Maybe I've just missed the signs that pursuing criminal prosecutions has actually reduced illegal border crossings, and you can share those stats with us?

It is a proposal with zero practical application, but just hands the "build the wall" guys credence to their claim that the alternative is a "open border".

Not "zero practical application," but certainly a limited application unless you care abut tax dollars spent, courts clogged with cases, and detention of suspects in sub-standard facilities and conditions.

And yes, we all know that isn't actually convincing to us, but that isn't the question. Is it convincing to voters who could be convinced to vote for the Dem candidate who voted for Trump previously?

Properly explained, of course it is.  "We can reduce tax expenditures, speed the course of justice, and reduce the incidence of inhumane treatment without increasing the rate of illegal border crossings.  What say you?"

[Berkut]

How does decriminalizing reduce tax expenditures if in fact it isn't commonly used? How does it speed of courts of justice?

And the only legit argument I can see is the idea that it would stop the bullshit Trump is doing now....except that it won't, because it cannot be done, now, and would only be done if Trump were already gone....in which case the argument is not to decriminalize, but rather to get rid of Trump.

If this is a serious policy proposal, then the only possible scenario it could be implemented is after the Dems secure the White House and the Senate. At that point, it would make good sense to not only look at this, but an overall and comprehensive reform of immigration that would include a lot of adjustments.

So what is the utility of bringing this up NOW, in the context of a campaign? It cannot be done unless you win. And if you win, it would certainly be part of a larger reform package. Why is this important, then, to call out specifically RIGHT NOW???

Because it is virtue signalling that you are super duper totally awesomely progressively against THE WALL. Except that the only people who care about that message are never, ever, EVER going to vote for Trump.

And it is also signalling to others who *might* vote for you that you are in favor of an "open border" - why, you want to actually repeal the law that makes it against the law to cross the border without permission!

This is just bad politics, being done in the service of the wrong target audience.

[The Minsky Moment]

"You are playing into Donald Trump's hands," Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana said during Tuesday's debate. "The challenge isn't that it's a criminal offense to cross the border. The challenge is that Donald Trump is president, and using this to rip families apart. A sane immigration system needs a sane leader. And we can do that without decriminalizing."

Everything Bullock says is right except for the unstated assumption that absent Trump we will always have sane leaders.  The election is Trump is powerful empirical evidence that we can't rely on that assumption and that our laws need to be proofed against misuse by irresponsible leaders.

That notion - that law and government authority needs to be cabined to prevent abuse by bad leaders - is at the very heart and core of our constitutional system. If that concept is too subtle or complicated for most American to grasp, then we are in a very sorry state.