American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charriu]

Still this wall won't solve any problem, because of stuff like ladders, tunnels or just walking around it.

Yes, it can be better, with cameras, drones, and underground detectors.

Will cameras, drones and underground detectors really stop people from crossing the border? I highly doubt that. And when they crossed the border you still have to take care of them just as now.

but do you really want to pay for all of this for the next decades, when you could use the money for other solutions that might actually work?

What other solutions would work?

One obvious thing would be to reduce or stop the causes for migration like wars and crime in their home countries. Yes this also costs money, but it will stop a good portion of the people, who were forced to leave their country.
You could also use the money to improve the asylum program so that you can decide faster what to do with the people.
Then there are options that I personally don't approve, but were effective, like when the EU more or less paid Turkey to stop migrants from coming into the EU.

[ipecac]

Will cameras, drones and underground detectors really stop people from crossing the border? I highly doubt that. And when they crossed the border you still have to take care of them just as now.

Why have door locks if they can't stop a determined person from entering? Or bolts? This sort of 'it must perfect or don't bother' false dilemma is just not rational thought at all, and you obviously don't apply it to your own suggestions.

The answer is that >99% of the people go because they think they can walk right through. Put serious obstacles in their way and the large majority will stop.

One obvious thing would be to reduce or stop the causes for migration like wars and crime in their home countries. Yes this also costs money, but it will stop a good portion of the people, who were forced to leave their country.

And what about those who aren't forced to leave, but come because they choose to?

Then there are options that I personally don't approve, but were effective, like when the EU more or less paid Turkey to stop migrants from coming into the EU.

And how do you think Turkey does that? How can that be effective? It ultimately boils down to barriers and armed forces.

Which is probably happening to some extent with Mexico and the US. The really wrong thing here is wanting to appear 'moral', therefore paying someone else to do the dirty work for you.

[Charriu]

Will cameras, drones and underground detectors really stop people from crossing the border? I highly doubt that. And when they crossed the border you still have to take care of them just as now.

Why have door locks if they can't stop a determined person from entering? Or bolts? This sort of 'it must perfect or don't bother' false dilemma is just not rational thought at all, and you obviously don't apply it to your own suggestions.

The answer is that >99% of the people go because they think they can walk right through. Put serious obstacles in their way and the large majority will stop.

I never said that my solutions are perfect, but I think my proposed solutions are more effective then a wall, cameras etc. Another question how tall of an obstacle would stop a person facing murder in their home country?

One obvious thing would be to reduce or stop the causes for migration like wars and crime in their home countries. Yes this also costs money, but it will stop a good portion of the people, who were forced to leave their country.

And what about those who aren't forced to leave, but come because they choose to?

First of all those who choose to go are in the minority. If you aren't forced to leave, then there is no reason to take up this life-threatening journey. It's much safer to go the legal way.
Because these people are the minority the institutions that are in place should be able to handle these cases. There is no scenario in which you reduce the number of illegal border crossings to zero.

Then there are options that I personally don't approve, but were effective, like when the EU more or less paid Turkey to stop migrants from coming into the EU.

And how do you think Turkey does that? How can that be effective? It ultimately boils down to barriers and armed forces.

Which is probably happening to some extent with Mexico and the US. The really wrong thing here is wanting to appear 'moral', therefore paying someone else to do the dirty work for you.

Yes, you are right in all you've said. Turkey is handling it with armed forces. And I deem this option immoral, which is why I said 'I personally don't approve'. The reason why it is more effective then a wall is that it's much easier to get across a wall then to get across a whole country. After all Efficiency has nothing to do with moral.

[ipecac]

I never said that my solutions are perfect, but I think my proposed solutions are more effective then a wall, cameras etc. Another question how tall of an obstacle would stop a person facing murder in their home country?

The walls are to stop those without a valid reason to enter in a valid way. For those who have asylum cases to plead, there are designated places to do so.

First of all those who choose to go are in the minority. If you aren't forced to leave, then there is no reason to take up this life-threatening journey. It's much safer to go the legal way.

This is completely wrong and misinformed. There are millions of illegal aliens who go to the US for jobs, and those who have valid grounds for asylum are in the minority.

Yes, you are right in all you've said. Turkey is handling it with armed forces. And I deem this option immoral, which is why I said 'I personally don't approve'.

Why is it immoral? How else would you secure borders?

[MJW (ya that one)]

RNCC released a poll showing Kobach losing by 10%. Most people, even Blue Wave Dems (Krishan Patel), called the poll BS and an attempt for the RNCC to make Kobach lose Primary. I actually believe the poll could be correct but the Dem is unlikely to win because the fact that he's Bi-Partisan+Pro-Choice will slowly but surely posion the well against him. There were polls in TN showing Bredesen leading Blackburn by 10% and Sabato, Gonzales and myself never had TN below Lean R.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Crystal ball moves NC due to the dumb primary challenge and AL due to impeachment. They still think Moore could win primary which is dumb because AL has runoff; so AL should have been Lean R from the start and without impeachment.

DEMs target to actually do something is actually 51 seats because WV DEM won't vote to abolish filibuster and they already have the ME and AK Rhinos to prop them up for other stuff. This is not plausible anymore (they would have to win every single one of my leans) and was probably lost win Steve Bullock decided to sucide in the Presidentail race. GOP holding out would have great symbolic value though.

[DaveV]

The irony of Trump's obsession with Biden's son's unseemly profiteering in Ukraine is that it's small potatoes compared to the Trump and Kushner families' relentless skimming:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump...mar-a-lago

Shameless self-dealing:

https://projects.propublica.org/paying-the-president/

And disturbing conflation of personal and government business:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/busin...marks.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018...aeli-deals

[MJW (ya that one)]

Senate Update

   

 

Solid: All but certain to win.
Likely: I almost call it.
Lean: Clear edge.
Tossup. Everything else. The tilt rating is just for fun in an attempt to guess everything; too subjective and based on intuition/emotion to be serious.  

AZ: Steve Bullock is unlikely to declare in MT now so now I have to guess what this is supposed to be. I go with Tilt D due to PredictIt giving 60%D/40%R.
ME&AL: Impeachment is bad news for Senators in enemy territory; I was on the fence about those ratings. I'm very confident in my AL rating; not so much ME but I bumped it down to not imply that impeachment would help the GOP Senate.
GA-S: Now that Lucy Macbeth didn't declare the GOP would get a free ride into the runoff which is very bad news for DEMs if Trump loses. If Trump wins I don't see a path the victory for Senate DEMs so I'm assuming that he loses. I predict the runoff goes 52-48 GOP. This is a poster boy about ratings being about likeliness to win; not the margin of victory.

DEMs have a hard path to victory (win all tossups) but it's hard to see how the GOP improves its position. If this was serious I would say that the Senate is a tossup but it's not so I can conformably say that it's Tilt R.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Nahh I was being overly dramatic when I moved AL to likely, so it goes back to lean, but ME stays were it is.

2019 Gov Races:

LA: Tossup (Tilt D)
MS: Solid R (Jim Crow law.) Lean R if GOP gets more votes.
KY: Lean R

Edit: To be more clear on the GA situation I'm pretty sure Trump will lose. If Trump loses the runoff is bad news for DEMs. If he wins I'm underestimating the GOP and GA's true value is higher so it gets bumped up too.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Things don't look good for LA governor. Here are my ratings assuming he loses.

   

Ratings changes:
MN Likely-->Solid D: Jason Lewis is weak and a bad fit. I don't see how GOP wins this unless the DEMs totally implode but if that happens NM and VA are in play.
ME Lean R-->Tossup/Tilt R: The massive increase in partisanship and bad poll for her makes me shift it out of lean.
CO Lean-->Likely D: AL should actually lose worse but it's the Tigers coach could plausibly have grabbed someone's no-no zone so AL has a plausible path to victory. CO actually winning is implausible but not implausible for me to call it. AL/CO is an example of ratings being about how likely to win; not margin of victory.  
IA Likely-->Lean R: It doesn't make sense to have only 2 lean ratings so I drag down my least likely likely D or R state.
GA-S Lean-->Likely R: Now that Macbeth failed to declare the vote should be split which will lead to a runoff which is very bad news for DEMs if Trump will lose. I'm pretty sure that Trump will lose but if he wins then that means I underestimated the GOP and should bump up the ratings because of it. The regular GA election has a reasonably strong incumbent and it going to runoff is also bad news so the incumbent will be able to effectively add all the third-party votes to his vote total.

Other states worth commenting on.
MI: Only a 3 point lead for incumbent which is a bad sign. Remember he isn't being weighed down by Warren and Trump probably losing yet. Lean D because it's only one poll.
KS: I got worried when the DEM nominee was a former GOP but then I found out that she's Pro-Choice. LOL
LA: Incumbent, better candidate and federal nature/turnout makes this an even easier win unless GOP implodes but if that happens KY could flip. Even if former LA gov declares it's still solid.
NM and MT: NM likely D if former governor declares because she imploded at the end; solid otherwise. MT would now be Lean R if the declare happens because his failing around has damaged him quite a bit now. 

Overall rating: Barely Tilt R for 51 seats and Lean R for 50 seats. If GOP wins or wins 50 seats and blocks everything via filibuster (Joe Manchin won't vote to get rid of it and I'm pretty sure that everyone else would.) then their victory would be fueled by the Pro-Choice 2018 incumbents who lost. FL to would have been pushed over the finish line because the DEMs would be even more enthusiastic and the DEMs would have been able to redirect funds from ND and MO with Nelson getting preferential treatment due to being one of the few dems who got outspent. DEMs would start with 50 seats and would easily flip just a single one. 2022 is a bad map so DEMs could plausibly win that but the GOP will easily pick up enough House seats to keep the payout too low to get rid of the filibuster. Trumpism holds on to had the baton to a GWBish nominee who should lose even worse.