Mexico is doing quite a bit along the border. They recently sent 15,000 troops there to slow northern migration at great expense. Sure they aren’t handing over cash for a wall, but they are now doing their part where they weren’t before. It’s working. So it turns out to be a great policy. — NOS4A2

That has nothing to do with the wall, as you well know.

The wall is to hinder the ones who hop the border, not the ones who overstay their visas. — NOS4A2

Says who? You?

That’s the problem, I think, is Trump’s expressions strikes fear into people who would rather not think about politics, but would much rather be lulled by glittering generalities and euphemism. People are thinking about politics now, some for the first time in their lives. — NOS4A2

That's as patently absurd as claiming all Trump supporters are idiots who only vote for Trump because they know him from TV.

That has nothing to do with the wall, as you well know.

Sure it does. The actions by the Mexican governments are directly contributing to lower illegal immigration over the border, saving American’s money at great expense to the Mexican government.

Says who? You?

Hopefully you do too. Arguing that building a wall doesn’t work because there are a lot of illegals overstaying visas is absurd because a wall is not intended to stop or hinder the flow of illegals overstaying visas.

That's as patently absurd as claiming all Trump supporters are idiots who only vote for Trump because they know him from TV.

Those two arguments are not even analogous.

Sure it does. The actions by the Mexican governments are directly contributing to lower illegal immigration over the border, saving American’s money at great expense to the Mexican government. — NOS4A2

And all achieved without a wall, or anything related to funding a wall. So where is the connection, exactly?

Hopefully you do too. Arguing that building a wall doesn’t work because there are a lot of illegals overstaying visas is absurd because a wall is not intended to stop or hinder the flow of illegals overstaying visas. — NOS4A2

No-one is arguing that "building a wall doesn't work" in the sense that you literally end up with nothing. That's just a straw man. The argument is whether building a wall is an effective policy regarding illegal immigration as a whole.

Those two arguments are not even analogous. — NOS4A2

The analogous part is painting your political opposition with a single broad, condescending brush.

Do you think we should be giving military aid to Ukraine?

And all achieved without a wall, or anything related to funding a wall. So where is the connection, exactly?

Mexico is paying for it.

The analogous part is painting your political opposition with a single broad, condescending brush.

I said “people who would rather not think about politics”. You said “all Trump supporters”. Not even close.

Given that Russia is pretty much trying to annex it, absolutely. I'm not too interested in allowing Putin to reconstruct the Soviet Union...

Another nothing-burger day for the impeachment inquiry. All we have is the insubordination of unelected bureaucrats. Instead of resigning, they leaked, and ended up straining the relations they claim to be protecting.

Given that Russia is pretty much trying to annex it, absolutely. I'm not too interested in allowing Putin to reconstruct the Soviet Union... — VagabondSpectre

I dont think that's possible.

I think there's a good argument that Donald J Trump is really an Enemy of the State - the very same state which he was elected president of. He keeps insulting and defaming employees and even whole departments, as he has no conception that their loyalty must be to their jobs and to protecting the constitution.

Bring on the vote, I say. — Wayfarer

No.

After the indisputable well known accepted facts are laid out... and after the states finish the work Mueller began. Until then... let's have all the facts... and let the voters decide. In the meantime, let's punish those who deliberately mislead the public about the events that are transpiring and have been since 2016 for treason to defraud the American people. Those who are just wrong... let them say their piece in light of the evidence to the contrary. Hold them side by side. Show the relevant facts.

Donald J Trump is really an Enemy of the State — Wayfarer

Sleeping with enemies does not necessarily make one an enemy.

I dont think that's possible. — frank

So you don't think America should be giving military aid and assistance to Ukraine?

So you don't think America should be giving military aid and assistance to Ukraine? — VagabondSpectre

I don't understand why we are. How would it impact us if Russia defeated them? Wouldnt the lives of Ukranians improve in the absence of war?

I don't understand why we are. How would it impact us if Russia defeated them? Wouldnt the lives of Ukranians improve in the absence of war?

We should be asking Congress if any of them can point to Donbas on a map.

American diplomats saying the Donbas is important for America is like saying the border along northern Mexico is a vital national-security interest of Moscow. Ukraine should be Europe’s problem.

let the voters decide — creativesoul

If Trump is impeached and then removed from office, it will be no longer up to the voters. Given the evidence, he is clearly impeachable in my and many other's views. But it seems 'Trump supporters' are willing to believe the lies, and the GoP will follow suit, so he may not be removed from office. But I think he should be, and hope that he is.

Mexico is paying for it. — NOS4A2

What is this nonsense? Anything the Mexicans are paying for is now related to Trump's promise of building a wall?

How would anything that Mexico does now be different if Trump never promised a wall?

I said “people who would rather not think about politics”. You said “all Trump supporters”. Not even close. — NOS4A2

Ok, let's play that game: who are the people who would rather not think about politics? What's their stance toward Trump?

What is this nonsense? Anything the Mexicans are paying for is now related to Trump's promise of building a wall?

How would anything that Mexico does now be different if Trump never promised a wall?

Is that all you can do? Misrepresent my argument then pose it back to me in the form of a question?

I’m just saying that Mexico is paying for American border security. You can thank Trump for that.

Ok, let's play that game: who are the people who would rather not think about politics? What's their stance toward Trump?

To you “people” means all Trump’s opponents. Play that game all you want.

I’m just saying that Mexico is paying for American border security. You can thank Trump for that. — NOS4A2

Maybe you're living a parallel universe, but can you back this claim up in any manner or form?

I’m just saying that Mexico is paying for American border security. You can thank Trump for that. — NOS4A2

But you were attempting to defend Trumps promise of building a wall. So what does any of this have to do with the wall idea?

To you “people” means all Trump’s opponents. Play that game all you want. — NOS4A2

So who did you mean?

Maybe you're living a parallel universe, but can you back this claim up in any manner or form?

Mexico sends nearly 15,000 troops to the US border

“ The deployments come after renewed pressure from the Trump administration on Mexico to help slow migration flows northward.”

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/24/americas/mexico-sends-15000-troops-to-us-mexico-border-intl/index.html

But you were attempting to defend Trumps promise of building a wall. So what does any of this have to do with the wall idea?

I was defending Trump’s efforts to get Mexico to pay for it.

I don't understand why we are. — frank

It's mostly about a long-term geo-political strategy to counter the re-emergence of Russia as a rival super-power. To some degree it's also about making good on America's alliances.

How would it impact us if Russia defeated them? — frank

It would weaken western economic strength and strategic position, and strengthen that of Russia.

Wouldnt the lives of Ukranians improve in the absence of war? — frank

Maybe, maybe not. If we're to consider the Ukranian people (and if there's any validity to the moral premise of America as herald and protector of democracy) then the U.S might be right to counter Russian aggression/infiltration/influence. It depends on what Russia would decide to take as victory spoils, and the measures it would use to stay in control.

It's reasonable to assume that Russian control over Ukraine benefits Russian interests more than it does Ukranian interests. Maybe surrender would save lives, but what would it cost them now and in the long run?

In any case, it seems as if the Ukranians will fight with or without American help, and now is not the time for isolationism.

Okay, then we have progress on the issue. Still, that wall isn't being paid by Mexico, as promised it would be...(?)

I was defending Trump’s efforts to get Mexico to pay for it. — NOS4A2

To pay for what? Your sentence is missing an object.

Again, the equivocating is silly. If you overstay a visa you’ve gone through the necessary security points and shown documents. If you hop a border you’ve avoided going through security and showing documents. The wall is to hinder the ones who hop the border, not the ones who overstay their visas. — NOS4A2

So I guess then your line isn't about illegal immigrants in general, just specific illegal immigrants. Very poor illegal immigrants?

Every policy ought to be grounded on facts and reality, not on impressions ignorant voters have on the issues. So if the majority of illegal immigrants don't come over the Mexican-US border somewhere in the desert, that doesn't actually matter. That's those kind minute details people get bored with. Building a wall is something that the simple Trump supporter can picture mentally in his or her mind. Hence it's got to the best way to counter illegal immigration (from Mexico). Simple answers are understandable. Complex policies confuse or bore people.

Especially for Trump the reality doesn't matter, what only matters is if his supporters think that is good. Best example of this is this whimsical idea to deploy "the army" to the border. Because that instills this idea in the Trump supporters that the President is doing something in a "dramatic" way in a "dramatic" situation. People can understand as a measure that "the Army is called in". So increasing the various law-enforcement agencies isn't the option or increasing the Border guard isn't an option either. Nope, have the US Army go there. It's dramatic. The effectiveness of this is quite debatable starting from things like what authorities and when has the army compared to the border guard and police, but who cares. Any kind of critique of Trumps actions is just those Trump-haters hating Trump.

Trump has stated himself that this is his modus operandi. Actually Trump let the media himself to see this with one perfect example. When Trump was interviewing general Mattis for the post of secretary of defence the issue of the effectiveness of torture came up. The marine general said that giving a beer and a pack of cigarettes works far better that torturing a prisoner, but Trump personally disagreed. He stated that because Americans think that torture works, then he thinks that torture works. And these people have learned that from Hollywood: the no-nonsense hero willing to go the extra mile and who doesn't give a shit about protocol will by whacking the terrorist get him to spill the beans where the nuclear warhead is. And besides the lousy terrorist deserves the beating anyway. So what actual intelligence people and the military on the ground think about torture doesn't matter. Hence it doesn't matter for Trump.



And hence we can understand Trump's obsession with the wall and why it has to be a "big, beautiful wall". His supporters might be OK with the idea that some intelligent barrier of barbed wire with a network of smart detectors with quick reaction teams would physically be more effective and be far cheaper. They could understand that focus on the US-Mexican land border might then turn the problem to the Coast Guard. They could admit to it and understand the "wall" being more of a metaphor. But just how closed or open the border is doesn't matter. It isn't the issue at all here: the issue would be that if Trump didn't build exactly the wall, then all the Trump haters could laugh at him at not building the wall. This is what Trump is most concerned about: if people could say that he has broke his promise. It all comes down to his own self centered narcissism and that he doesn't believe he could win over people that didn't vote for him. For Trump these issues are just rhetoric, a discussion he has to be on top with his tweets. Actual facts don't matter so much.

What is a "quid pro quo"? It means "this for that".

Don't politicians make promises in exchange for votes? Does their election benefit the nation as a whole, or only their voters, constituents and political party members, or themselves?

Don't politicians make promises to each other to support each others bills in exchange for other political favors and do those bills, and the favors they generate, benefit the nation as a whole, or only that representative's constituents back in their home district, and by extension themselves if they get re-elected? One of the favors is getting money from your political party to support your re-election in your district. Are those favors in the public interests or in the private interests of the politician and their party?

It's not a question of whether or not Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo. He was. The question is whether or not it benefited just Trump, or more than just Trump.

What about Biden and the Obama administration's quid pro quo with the Ukranians - in withholding aid in until they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Biden's son? It is not inconceivable that the Obama administration harbored legitimate concerns about the Ukrainian prosecutor. The question is whether the Bidens benefitted personally from the dismissal of this prosecutor as a direct product or merely as a byproduct of the quid pro quo? To maintain the public trust, elected officials must not only avoid impropriety, they must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. At least on this latter score, Biden failed.

Does the relationship between the Bidens and Burisma appear to be corruption? I'm not asking if it IS corruption, I'm asking if it appears that way. If you agree that it does, then doesn't that warrant an investigation regardless whether Biden is running for president or not? Doesn't it make it more important to investigate it since Biden is aspiring to hold the highest office?

The U.S. has a legitimate interest in securing a corruption-free Ukraine. Trump could have stated this in no uncertain terms that aid is contingent on eliminating corruption in their government and that means identifying and prosecuting any and all individuals regardless of party affiliation that are complicit in the corruption.

This statement would have cast a wide enough net to include the Bidens without identifying them specifically by name. The fact that Trump singled out Hunter Biden in the discussion blurred the lines between the public and the private interest, but only because Joe Biden is a potential presidential rival for Trump.

Nice analysis. :100:

It's mostly about a long-term geo-political strategy to counter the re-emergence of Russia as a rival super-power. To some degree it's also about making good on America's alliances. — VagabondSpectre

So we're still fighting the Cold War? The nice thing about the Cold War was that the US was in a position to hemorrhage funds into the US economy and defense at the same time. We're not there anymore. While billions of dollars have been handed over to Ukrainian.. whoever that was, there are still US cities that have lead levels above the EPA's guidelines.

Americans are suffering so that 1) Europeans don't have to pay for their own defense, and 2) so somebody in the US can live in the past.

It would weaken western economic strength and strategic position, and strengthen that of Russia. — VagabondSpectre

How does that happen? Why does there have to be an east/west conflict? Am I just hopelessly naive?

If we're to consider the Ukranian people (and if there's any validity to the moral premise of America as herald and protector of democracy) then the U.S might be right to counter Russian aggression/infiltration/influence. It depends on what Russia would decide to take as victory spoils, and the measures it would use to stay in control. — VagabondSpectre

Moral premise. I think I understand the sentiment, but history shows that once the borrowed money is flowing into this moral project, the long term effects will be instability and bloodshed. I think it's time the US realized that each nation has to work out stability for itself. A culture has to evolve according to its own internal integrity. Trying to make USA mini-me's is not moral at all.

Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

It's not a question of whether or not Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo. He was. The question is whether or not it benefited just Trump, or more than just Trump. — Harry Hindu

It's not just that. It was illegal for him to withhold aid at all, whatever the motivation.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/state-department-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did

President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.

The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid.

What about Biden and the Obama administration's quid pro quo with the Ukranians - in withholding aid in until they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Biden's son? — Harry Hindu

That's not what happened. It's actually the opposite.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/

In the excerpted portion of the clip, Biden was discussing his efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine into to prosecuting corruption and firing Viktor Shokin, an ineffective prosecutor. That effort by Biden has been used by Trump supporters to argue, inaccurately, that Biden single-handedly had Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian group of energy exploration and production companies of which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.

However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigations — including investigations connected to Burisma. And Biden wasn’t alone in the effort to push Shokin out, but rather was spearheading the Obama administration’s policy, which represented a consensus among diplomats, officials from various European countries, and the International Monetary Fund that Shokin was an impediment to rooting out corruption in his country

As for whether or not the Obama administration had legal standing to block the aid, I'm unsure.