Posted by cccp1014 on 6/20/2018 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2018 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/20/2018 2:58:00 PM (view original):
You are all over the place. Don't we have legal immigration here to help those who want asylum and aren't the people who cross illegally breaking our rules? We can't help everyone. Deportation has not worked because, while not you, many believe that we do have issues with illegal immigrants. So the administration ran on a tougher policy, that you disagree with. You are also speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You say border security is important but you say the vast majority of people who cross illegally are not criminals, so why is it important?

I mean you either enforce thee rules or you don't. If you want to change the rules, that is fine but I don't think the GOP supporters want that. Also "humanely" is a subjective term. Providing food, clothes, water is humane. Crossing to a country where you know you are committing an illegal act is not being humane to your kids, in my honest opinion.

Mexico has a wall between Guatemala and Mexico and harsh immigration policies. Why should we not have the same with US and Mex?

We are ALWAYS going to have issues with illegal immigrants. That doesn't mean that deportation isn't an effective way to deal with it.

Border security includes a lot more than just people coming over illegally.

There is no law requiring that the government take children from their parents.

There is no wall at the Mexico-Guatemala border.

So you are OK leaving it as status quo? There is fencing as well as natural barriers between Mex and Guat.

I never said there was. I said they did it to deter illegal immigration. Rightly or wrongly.

The Mexico-Guatemala border is one of the most porous borders in the world. There is far less in terms of man-made and natural barriers at that border than the US-Mexico border.

Wrongly. Which is my point.

Is your solution status quo? Yes or No?

Regardless of what the solution is, mandatory prosecution of a misdemeanor that results in toddlers in holding facilities is not an acceptable situation.

Posted by all3 on 6/20/2018 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
trump would not have won if he wasn't running against someone as unlikable as HRC.

I would say this is the 3rd time today we agree, but I'm afraid of what would happen.

too late...you already said it. Now our heads will explode!!!

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/20/2018 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
trump would not have won if he wasn't running against someone as unlikable as HRC.

And Cleveland would have won if they weren't playing a team like GSW. #1 you never know and #2 you never know.

Not sure about that. I think Houston would have beaten Cleveland too. Other than LeBron, Cleveland sucked.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/20/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
trump would not have won if he wasn't running against someone as unlikable as HRC.

Probably true...but the Democratic Party, for whatever reason, thought they could ram through a candidate as bad as Clinton. The question remains, did they learn their lesson or will they nominate another unelectable person in 2020? If the Democrats think they can throw anyone out there and simply run on an anti-Trump theme, they may be surprised (again.)

also probably true.

Liz Warren would be someone that comes to mind.

I don't know how known to the masses she is, but people will like her less than Hillary.

Posted by edsortails on 6/20/2018 7:54:00 PM (view original):
Liz Warren would be someone that comes to mind.

I don't know how known to the masses she is, but people will like her less than Hillary.

She is whom I had in mind when I asked the question. While I believe the democrats have forced themselves into a corner about gender (in that they pretty much have to nominate a female in 2020,) there has to be more likeable personages than the Clintons/Warrens of the world.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/20/2018 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
trump would not have won if he wasn't running against someone as unlikable as HRC.

And Cleveland would have won if they weren't playing a team like GSW. #1 you never know and #2 you never know.

Not sure about that. I think Houston would have beaten Cleveland too. Other than LeBron, Cleveland sucked.

Utah also, especially if Rubio was healthy.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/20/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/20/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
trump would not have won if he wasn't running against someone as unlikable as HRC.

Probably true...but the Democratic Party, for whatever reason, thought they could ram through a candidate as bad as Clinton. The question remains, did they learn their lesson or will they nominate another unelectable person in 2020? If the Democrats think they can throw anyone out there and simply run on an anti-Trump theme, they may be surprised (again.)

also probably true.

Without the re-opening of the bogus email scandal by the blackmailing of Comey by the Trumplandia office of the FBI, Hillary still beats the douche. Not to mention the Russian effort to get Trump elected.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/20/2018 8:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 6/20/2018 7:54:00 PM (view original):
Liz Warren would be someone that comes to mind.

I don't know how known to the masses she is, but people will like her less than Hillary.

She is whom I had in mind when I asked the question. While I believe the democrats have forced themselves into a corner about gender (in that they pretty much have to nominate a female in 2020,) there has to be more likeable personages than the Clintons/Warrens of the world.

They are going to nominate whoever they think has the best chance to win...my money will be on Corey Booker.

I think the point may be they are blind to the reality of who might win.

Posted by The Taint on 6/20/2018 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/20/2018 8:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 6/20/2018 7:54:00 PM (view original):
Liz Warren would be someone that comes to mind.

I don't know how known to the masses she is, but people will like her less than Hillary.

She is whom I had in mind when I asked the question. While I believe the democrats have forced themselves into a corner about gender (in that they pretty much have to nominate a female in 2020,) there has to be more likeable personages than the Clintons/Warrens of the world.

They are going to nominate whoever they think has the best chance to win...my money will be on Corey Booker.

We'll disagree on that one. I don't think the feminists allow a man to be the nomination and, if a man is the nominee, you potentially fracture the party. Years of the me too movement, which is a feminist movement, and then the dems turn around and nominate a man? That might work for the donor class but I'm not sure it resonates with the committed grass-roots activist.

Maybe...but winning back the white house is going to supersede any other agenda they have. More likely you see the first female VP.

Posted by The Taint on 6/20/2018 9:03:00 PM (view original):
Maybe...but winning back the white house is going to supersede any other agenda they have. More likely you see the first female VP.

It'll be fun to see who enters the primaries...and the tone they take. I don't think it will be a railroad job the way Clinton vs Sanders was. It won't be a polite Methodist rain but a good old-fashioned Baptist downpour.