Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So all that makes Trump's ordering the NG to the border different than his 2 processors?

Yes, exactly as I said above, in posts #95 and 96.

E.g., Bush's announced use of the National Guard was part of a 1.9 Billion proposal put before Congress, in which the legal status of the Guard had been thought through and defined into the mission. It included a rotation plan, estimation of the number of needed beds, etc.

Without saying EXACTLY how much the deployment would cost, he linked the funding to the existing request to Congress for funding for border operations. That was an inherent limit.

His announcement came with estimates (including a time frame) and answers, a stage in a process during which WH staff working as an Executive team got Bush the numbers and answers he needed.

Here is a link from 2006 to give you some ideal of how Bush's deployment entered the news cycle.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12796688/ns/us_news-security/t/bush-ordering-guard-border/#.Wsfj0msUncs

And I might add that border crossings in 2006 were TRIPLE what they are today, so CIRCUMSTANCES are different as well as policy.

(04-06-2018, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I figured this one is different because folks just don't like him.

Would it be fair to say that some folks just like him, and that's why they don't see any difference between competent implementation of policy and incompetent?

Or could it be some folks have no measure of competence beyond rhetoric and announcements? From that perspective, the current deployment WOULD be no different from any previous. There would be no basis for judging it premature or ill-planned, because who is looking at estimates and mission goals and threat assessment? People who don't like Trump would complain because they don't like Trump, not because Trump was actually, demonstrably, mismanaging the resources entrusted to him.

[*Nately120*]

(04-06-2018, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So all that makes Trump's ordering the NG to the border different than his 2 processors? 

As I figured this one is different because folks just don't like him.

Oh, I have no doubt that you and Dino have the same opinion on everything Trump does. Now I've just got to find the "rest of us" he speaks for. I'm assuming it is everyone but me. 

A lot of it is.  What is so absurd about this?  The guy isn't likable and he has made a career on being very unlikable.  If Hilary won we'd hear democrats crying about how their miserable and unlikable candidate is being unfairly picked on by the right-wing.  I've been pretty cynical about politics for a while now, but the 2016 election really took the proverbial cake as far as bi-partisan delusion and "woe is us" nonsense.

Regardless of where I land politically, I can see some appeal (or at least something not to dislike) about Obama, Bush, McCain, Gore, Reagan, Mondale (not so much Romney or Dukakis) and so on.  Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump has got to be the least palatable election I hope to see in my lifetime.

Anyways, let this be a lesson kids, if you act like a miserable self-congratulating d-bag for decades on end people might not like you.  Astounding, isn't it?

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 07:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Anyways, let this be a lesson kids, if you act like a miserable self-congratulating d-bag for decades on end people might not like you.  Astounding, isn't it?

I hope I understand you correctly. You are saying that Trump, because of his behavior, is the reason why people don't like him.

I.e., Trump is the cause of his dislike. He himself, his actions, are the reason "some folks just don't like him."

Bfine seems to be implying his behavior--especially his execution of office--is not the cause of people's dislike for him. They just, somehow, dislike him, and citing incompetent behavior is just smoke.

I.e., they really dislike Trump because of who THEY are, not because his behavior as Commander-in-Chief really justifies criticism and alarm.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 07:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, exactly as I said above, in posts #95 and 96.

E.g., Bush's announced use of the National Guard was part of a 1.9 Billion proposal put before Congress, in which the legal status of the Guard had been thought through and defined into the mission. It included a rotation plan, estimation of the number of needed beds, etc.

Without saying EXACTLY how much the deployment would cost, he linked the funding to the existing request to Congress for funding for border operations. That was an inherent limit.

His announcement came with estimates (including a time frame) and answers, a stage in a process during which WH staff working as an Executive team got Bush the numbers and answers he needed.

Here is a link from 2006 to give you some ideal of how Bush's deployment entered the news cycle.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12796688/ns/us_news-security/t/bush-ordering-guard-border/#.Wsfj0msUncs

And I might add that border crossings in 2006 were TRIPLE what they are today, so CIRCUMSTANCES are different as well as policy.


Would it be fair to say that some folks just like him, and that's why they don't see any difference between competent implementation of policy and incompetent?

Or could it be some folks have no measure of competence beyond rhetoric and announcements? From that perspective, the current deployment WOULD be no different from any previous. There would be no basis for judging it premature or ill-planned, because who is looking at estimates and mission goals and threat assessment? People who don't like Trump would complain because they don't like Trump, not because Trump was actually, demonstrably, mismanaging the resources entrusted to him.

Yeah, the big difference between Bush and Trump was Bush was pushing to obtain money for the venture so he had to give a figure while Trump already has it and as I said earlier the Trump administration could definitely use costs spent of previous deployments as an estimate.

WTS, you have stated that Dino speaks for you on all things Trump (I find that to be so hilarious and will have much fun with it) related and he says we should not focus on Trump not knowing the specific costs of the venture; even though he was the one that posted about it.

My apologies for not randomly using the bold function throughout my post. 

Absolutely there are folks that "just like Trump" and they are about as pragmatic as those that "just don't like Trump". Unless of course you are suggesting that POTUS is solely in charge of the Budget. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 07:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A lot of it is.  What is so absurd about this?  The guy isn't likable and he has made a career on being very unlikable.  If Hilary won we'd hear democrats crying about how their miserable and unlikable candidate is being unfairly picked on by the right-wing.  I've been pretty cynical about politics for a while now, but the 2016 election really took the proverbial cake as far as bi-partisan delusion and "woe is us" nonsense.

Regardless of where I land politically, I can see some appeal (or at least something not to dislike) about Obama, Bush, McCain, Gore, Reagan, Mondale (not so much Romney or Dukakis) and so on.  Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump has got to be the least palatable election I hope to see in my lifetime.

Anyways, let this be a lesson kids, if you act like a miserable self-congratulating d-bag for decades on end people might not like you.  Astounding, isn't it?

Oh, I have 0 doubt that if Hills would have gotten elected there'd be a population that didn't like her simply because of who she is, but those people would be just as closed minded as the folks that do the same toward Trump.

Folks will try to make themselves sound rational and say "we don't like him because of policies......) But those are the same folks that wanted him impeached about his 3rd day in office, so their attempts of claiming pragmatic thought falls flat.  

[NATI BENGALS]

Sounds like a wicked plot.

Im sure the republitard nuts will be all over this like that sinister Jade Helm operation that black dude tried to take over the country with.

[*Nately120*]

(04-06-2018, 07:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I have 0 doubt that if Hills would have gotten elected there'd be a population that didn't like her simply because of who she is, but those people would be just as closed minded as the folks that do the same toward Trump.

Folks will try to make themselves sound rational and say "we don't like him because of policies......) But those are the same folks that wanted him impeached about his 3rd day in office, so their attempts of claiming pragmatic thought falls flat.  

Where we disagree is when I say that the 2016 election was between two people that had made it clear long ago that they were people well deserving of ire.  Unsavory things about Hillary and Trump go back for decades, so I don't expect their detractors to completely disregard their past actions anymore than I'd expect their supporters to pretend Hilary wasn't an experienced politician and Trump didn't have a bajillion bucks.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say remember all the things I've done to impress you, but when it comes to disliking me for the bad things I've done...well, forget those and give me a clean slate.  

They're both celebrity-level people.  It's not like they served their time and paid their various debts to society and we're supposed to give them a re-do.

This is the only election I can think of (at least in my lifetime) where both candidates were pop culturally known to be unlikable people who had done very public and very not awesome things in order to get where they are.  You ask me why I don't like Trump and why I don't trust him or give him a fair shake and I'll give you reasons that go back for decades and have nothing to do with him being president.  Same with Hilary.  

Meh, it just looks like the 2016 election was The Devil you Know vs The Devil you Know and neither candidate gets purified absolution just because they were elected to a certain office.  Not in my eyes, at least.  


tl:dr - Both candidates have been various forms of sleaze for decades and neither deserve to have their records expunged.  

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, the big difference between Bush and Trump was Bush was pushing to obtain money for the venture so he had to give a figure while Trump already has it and as I said earlier the Trump administration could definitely use costs spent of previous deployments as an estimate.

WTS, you have stated that Dino speaks for you on all things Trump (I find that to be so hilarious and will have much fun with it) related and he says we should not focus on Trump not knowing the specific costs of the venture; even though he was the one that posted about it.

My apologies for not randomly using the bold function throughout my post. 

Absolutely there are folks that "just like Trump" and they are about as pragmatic as those that "just don't like Trump". Unless of course you are suggesting that POTUS is solely in charge of the Budget. 

I have pointed out a number of differences in policy, process and circumstances, which you are simply ignoring. I might add the difference of hindsight, since previous deployments proved ineffective. And the international context and mission goals were different--e.g., Obama's goal was drug interdiction, not apprehension of illegals, and done in cooperation with Mexico whereas Trump's deployment is neither.    Or perhaps you don't really see differences, especially if my bolding appears random to you. Bush "had to give a figure" because his deployment was already at a much more developed stage of accountability when he went public with it. 

Here is where Trump's deployment stands WITHIN HIS OWN ADMINSTRATION.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/what-we-know-about-trump-plan-to-send-troops-to-border.html
President Donald Trump's order to deploy National Guard forces to the U.S. border with Mexico has left key national security players in his administration scrambling to nail down details for the mission.

His "players" are trying AFTER THE FACT to get a deployment in motion that was dumped on them by surprise. That was not the case for Bush or Obama's team.  Now there is no timeline, no set numbers, no idea of the Guards' legal status and whether they will be armed--which had been sorted out beforehand by the Bush/Obama team. Now there are a third of the numbers of illegals trying to cross the border while border personnel guarding it have doubled in number compared to 2006.

But you do not appear to see stages or other indications of planning (or lack thereof) or differences in warranting circumstances, only rhetoric.
Bush and Trump announced deployments; no difference at that level, agreed.

Finally, those who "just like Trump" seem not very immersed in or concerned about policy process. They operate at the level of rhetoric, where all deployments look the same, just because they were done.

PS ask Dino what he does think we should be focused on regarding Trump's deployment announcement, or if he sees no difference between Trump's announcements and previous ones. Could be a lot of amusement there.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 08:21 PM)Dill Wrote: I have pointed out a number of differences in policy, process and circumstances, which you are simply ignoring. I might add the difference of hindsight, since previous deployments proved ineffective. And the international context and mission goals were different--e.g., Obama's goal was drug interdiction, not apprehension of illegals, and done in cooperation with Mexico whereas Trump's deployment is neither.    Or perhaps you don't really see differences, especially if my bolding appears random to you. Bush "had to give a figure" because his deployment was already at a much more developed stage of accountability when he went public with it. 

Here is where Trump's deployment stands WITHIN HIS OWN ADMINSTRATION.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/what-we-know-about-trump-plan-to-send-troops-to-border.html
President Donald Trump's order to deploy National Guard forces to the U.S. border with Mexico has left key national security players in his administration scrambling to nail down details for the mission.

His "players" are trying AFTER THE FACT to get a deployment in motion that was dumped on them by surprise. That was not the case for Bush or Obama's team.  Now there is no timeline, no set numbers, no idea of the Guards' legal status and whether they will be armed--which had been sorted out beforehand by the Bush/Obama team.  Now there are a third of the numbers of illegals trying to cross the border while border personnel guarding it have doubled in number compared to 2006.  

But you do not appear to see stages or other indications of planning (or lack thereof) or differences in warranting circumstances, only rhetoric.
Bush and Trump announced deployments; no difference at that level, agreed.

Finally, those who "just like Trump" seem not very immersed in or concerned about policy process. They operate at the level of rhetoric, where all deployments look the same, just because they were done.

PS ask Dino what he does think we should be focused on regarding Trump's deployment announcement, or if he sees no difference between Trump's announcements and previous ones. Could be a lot of amusement there.

You really have no idea how the actions differ, you just know how they are reported differently and unfortunately, this dynamic makes folks think the are experts in things they actually have 0 idea about. 

Admittedly, I'm not overly concerned with the process/announcements, I'm more interested in the effect;  but then again I do not consider myself petty in nature. My make up does not allow me to condemn an action before it occurs.

Yours and your spokeman's thoughts are clear. 

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 08:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, it just looks like the 2016 election was The Devil you Know vs The Devil you Know and neither candidate gets purified absolution just because they were elected to a certain office.  Not in my eyes, at least.  

tl:dr - Both candidates have been various forms of sleaze for decades and neither deserve to have their records expunged.  

I agree we shouldn't be expunging records, but I do see two differences here. 

1. Hillary served as a Senator and as Secretary of State. She knew government. And she showed a command of policy when she debated Trump. He brought Clinton accusers to one debate. That is what he showed.  Also, during the Benghazi hearing when she spent 9 hours grilled before House Republicans, she acquitted herself very well, never stepping in it, never contradicting herself, never losing her composure. Trump's lawyers find him a handful, scornful of advice and ready to incriminate himself second to second. If you are Putin, you would much rather be facing Trump than a composed and knowledgeable Hillary. 

2. A lot of the "sleaze" attributed to Hillary has curiously remained at the attribution stage. Lots of innuendo, something said in private or overheard by a friend of a friend, and in many cases just falsehood. A "suspicious" fee for a speech. A meeting with a Moroccan diplomat which turned out not to have happened. 20% of US uranium never actually sent to Russia. And mostly from sources like Fox, where one commentator kept a "body count" of people supposedly disappeared by the Clintons.   The sleaze attributed to the Grabber-in-Chief comes almost exclusively from his own public statements and court records--the depositions of stiffed contractors and Trump University students. There is some witness testimony--like the 19 women accusing him of sexual misconduct. (Not Stormy, of course. She was paid.) I just don't see the equivalence here.

One goal of Right Wing media has been to create a mediascape in which all manner of sleaze and false equivalence are thrown around so enough voters have difficulty sorting fact from fiction to give right wing candidates a chance. "Both sides do it. The parties are really the same. What have you got to lose?"

[*Nately120*]

(04-06-2018, 08:41 PM)Dill Wrote: One goal of Right Wing media has been to create a mediascape in which all manner of sleaze and false equivalence are thrown around so enough voters have difficulty sorting fact from fiction to give right wing candidates a chance. "Both sides do it. What have you got to lose?"

I'll agree Trump is worse, though I'd point out Hilary's handling of the women her husband finagled to be easily filed under "not cool."  And I say "Both sides do it, so why not vote libertarian until the party gets popular enough for every sleazebag politician to put that "L" by his/her name so he/she can get elected and run the thing directly into the ground?!"

I have to say, when some negative (but rather tame by comparison) things about Gary Johnson starting coming out my first thought was "Wow, Gary might be somewhat legit if people are taking the time to pick on him!"

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 08:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really have no idea how the actions differ, you just know how they are reported differently and unfortunately, this dynamic makes folks think the are experts in things they actually have 0 idea about. 

Admittedly, I'm not overly concerned with the process/announcements, I'm more interested in the effect;  but then again I do not consider myself petty in nature. My make up does not allow me to condemn an action before it occurs.

Yours and your spokeman's thoughts are clear. 

If you say so.  

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 08:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really have no idea how the actions differ, you just know how they are reported differently and unfortunately, this dynamic makes folks think the are experts in things they actually have 0 idea about. 

Admittedly, I'm not overly concerned with the process/announcements, I'm more interested in the effect;  but then again I do not consider myself petty in nature. My make up does not allow me to condemn an action before it occurs.

Yours and your spokeman's thoughts are clear. 

LOL. So the "reporting" is the problem.  I have 0 idea from the press.

I don't really know that there were 9,000+ border agents when Bush deployed the Guard in 2006 and 21,000+ now. The numbers were just reported differently in different years. I don't really know if border crossings now are only a third of what they were in 2005. I don't really know if Bush's Guard were not issued weapons. I don't know if Mexico cooperated with Bush or threatens non-cooperation with Trump. No one really knows any of that stuff. And no one knows what is happening now (apparently including WH staff ) Can't tell if Bush or Obama REALLY put more time into their decisions before announcing them than Trump did. 

And even if Trump didn't put much thought into moving thousands of personnel to an international border, why condemn an action before it occurs?  

Imagine a guy comes to a bank looking for a loan officer with a proposal for a business start up. The guy has no idea how much it will cost or how many employees he will need. Says his assistant will provide the figures later. One officer says "that looks like a recipe for failure."  But another, less petty in nature, refuses to condemn an action before it occurs. That loan request is no different from other proposals which come with estimates. So he grants the loan because he judges proposals on their effect.

Successful people in all walks of life, from chess players to stock brokers, to farmers, "condemn actions before they occur" because they can infer consequences based upon logic, experience, and information at hand, and make choices accordingly.

Were the voters and politicians condemning Bush's Iraq War before it happened just being "petty," overly concerned with process?  Should voters and politicians who wanted to wait for the "effect" be our civic role models in the age of Trump?

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 09:19 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL. So the "reporting" is the problem.  I have 0 idea from the press.

I don't really know that there were 9,000 border agents when Bush deployed and 21,000 now. I don't really know if border crossings now are only a third of what they were in 2005. I don't really know if Bush's Guard were not issued weapons. I don't know if Mexico cooperated with Bush or threatens non-cooperation with Trump. No one really knows any of that stuff. And no one knows what is happening now (apparently including WH staff ) Can't tell if Bush or Obama REALLY put more time into their decisions before announcing them than Trump did. 

And even if Trump didn't put much thought into moving thousands of personnel to an international border, why condemn an action before it occurs?  

Imagine a guy comes to a bank looking for a loan officer with a proposal for a business start up. The guy has no idea how much it will cost or how many employees he will need.  One officer says "that looks like a recipe for failure."  But another, less petty in nature, refuses to condemn an action before it occurs. That loan request is no different from the others which come with estimates. So he grants the loan because he judges proposals on their effect.

Successful people in all walks of life, from chess players to stock brokers, to farmers, "condemn actions before they occur" because they can see consequences ahead of time.

Were the voters and politicians condemning Bush's Iraq War before it happened just being "petty"?  Should those who were "more interested in effect" model our response to Trump?

You can look in the mirror and tell yourself "I'm not petty; I'm an expert", but when you shoot down an operation based on the limited blurbs we have then don't be surprised if everyone but the person looking back at you in the mirror and a couple folks in this slanted forum kind of just chuckle. 

Of course Border crossing have dropped during the Trump administration as folks realize there is no amnesty here. But even with this Border crossings jump up 37% between February and March. What do you consider an acceptable number, that does not require additional security?  

You've went to great pains to show the difference in reporting; yet claim you do not. Then you go off on a tangent about a loan officer and  chess player. 
 

[StLucieBengal]

(04-06-2018, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, any POTUS is going to be given an estimate right before they go in front of cameras, they don't know that shit off the top of their heads or even 5 minutes prior. They have too much going on. Trump isn't known to do things "on script," so him not having the estimate at his fingertips is a stupid thing to focus on.

As for my concerns prior, it looks like the administration knows what's up. I think it was Mattis (old white dues sometimes look alike to me) said in a televised interview I caught a clip of that they won't even be able to detain, just providing support. So my concerns on that front are cleared up. I still think this is the wrong move, but that is a difference of opinion in policy.

Having the military on the border will deter people coming towards the border just because they see the military. That visually is enough plus they can free up BP to actively hunt anyone down who gets near the border.

I want to make that southern border as unappealing as possible.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 11:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Having the military on the border will deter people coming towards the border just because they see the military.    That visually is enough plus they can free up BP to actively hunt anyone down who gets near the border.    

I want to make that southern border as unappealing as possible.

Even if the military can't due anything to them?

Even if the military isn't stationed where they are coming through?

lmao.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can look in the mirror and tell yourself "I'm not petty; I'm an expert", but when you shoot down an operation based on the limited blurbs we have then don't be surprised if everyone but the person looking back at you in the mirror and a couple folks in this slanted forum kind of just chuckle. 

Of course Border crossing have dropped during the Trump administration as folks realize there is no amnesty here. But even with this Border crossings jump up 37% between February and March. What do you consider an acceptable number, that does not require additional security?  

You've went to great pains to show the difference in reporting; yet claim you do not. Then you go off on a tangent about a loan officer and  chess player. 
 

Ha ha, so its ok when you go by the news reports. YOU don't have 0 idea about what's happening with Trump's operation.

Border crossings have been dropping over the last 12 years, beginning under Bush.  But if they are down this year, you tack that onto a threat by Trump, as Trump frames it.

What "difference in reporting" are you referring to? I haven't checked Fox yet, but all other sources I have used here agree with the figures I posted above.  Maybe tomorrow Fox or Rush will tell us how this deployment fits into a grand plan that the liberals don't get. For now it is chaos policy viewed from outside that bubble.

Loan officer and chess player--examples of people who judge the advisability of actions before taking them, before they "occur."  You are basically arguing we can't tell whether a loan/policy/operaation is a bad idea until we see the results.  It is "petty" to check the facts against what politicians claim. Wait to see how the invasion turns out. That is VERY bad advice, and you know it. You would not take it yourself regarding your own finances or family affairs.  If your daughter wanted to date a drug dealer with a prison record, you would not wait to see how it turned out to judge.

The only "tangent" on this thread is chatter about mirrors and experts to chastise people for doing what voters OUGHT to be doing in a democracy.  In totalitarian states people just accept the great leaders assessment of his decisions and policies.  You are arguing for voter passivity. We "can't know" and have to wait for effects before judging. Trust our grifter leader but not the reporters.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 11:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Having the military on the border will deter people coming towards the border just because they see the military.    That visually is enough plus they can free up BP to actively hunt anyone down who gets near the border.    

I want to make that southern border as unappealing as possible.

First of all, border crossings or only a third of what they were 10 years ago. So why suddenly 100s of millions spent to move thousands of military around. Why not hire 2,000 more border guards or build a section of the wall, which would be permanent?

Second, the majority of the people heading for our border are refugees from El Salvador, the Honduras and Guatemala seeking asylum. They want to turn themselves in. 

When they see the military they will cross the borders to turn themselves in. They cannot be sent back to Mexico.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-06-2018, 11:23 PM)Dill Wrote: First of all, border crossings or only a third of what they were 10 years ago.

Second, the majority of the people heading for our border are refugees from El Salvador, the Hoduras and Guatemala seeking asylum. They want to turn themselves in. 

When they see the military they will cross the borders to turn themselves in. They cannot be sent back to Mexico.

Why do you want these people in our country?

We do not need central America’s garbage. We have our own garbage to take care of already. Mexico needs the hammer dropped on them badly. They are without a doubt a massive threat. As I said before, we should have never given them back half their country. We should had just ran them south and kept the entire country.

Unfortunately, At some point we will need to march Troops into Mexico again to straighten them out since they are unwilling to get themselves or their Central American buddies sorted

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 11:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, so its ok when you go by the news reports. YOU don't have 0 idea about what's happening with Trump's operation.

Border crossings have been dropping over the last 12 years, beginning under Bush.  But if they are down this year, you tack that onto a threat by Trump, as Trump frames it.

What "difference in reporting" are you referring to? I haven't checked Fox yet, but all other sources I have used here agree with the figures I posted above.  Maybe tomorrow Fox or Rush will tell us how this deployment fits into a grand plan that the liberals don't get. For now it is chaos policy viewed from outside that bubble.

Loan officer and chess player--examples of people who judge the advisability of actions before taking them, before they "occur."  You are basically arguing we can't tell whether a loan/policy/operaation is a bad idea until we see the results.  It is "petty" to check the facts against what politicians claim. Wait to see how the invasion turns out. That is VERY bad advice, and you know it. You would not take it yourself regarding your own finances or family affairs.  If your daughter wanted to date a drug dealer with a prison record, you would not wait to see how it turned out to judge.

The only "tangent" on this thread is chatter about mirrors and experts to chastise people for doing what voters OUGHT to be doing in a democracy.  In totalitarian states people just accept the great leaders assessment of his decisions and policies.  You are arguing for voter passivity. We "can't know" and have to wait for effects before judging. Trust our grifter  leader but not the reporters.

I don't go by news reports, I go by cause and effect so your Fox and Rush comments are fruitless. I suppose that is the disconnect.

BTW, you never answered the question of what is an acceptable number of illegals crossing that does not require additional security. Do you care to now?