Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by on Monday March 13 2017, @12:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the betteridge's-law-says... dept.

Illegal Southwest border crossings were down 40% last month, according to just released Customs and Border Protection numbers -- a sign that President Donald Trump's hardline rhetoric and policies on immigration may be having a deterrent effect.

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly himself announced the month-to-month numbers, statistics that CBP usually quietly posts on its website without fanfare.

According to CBP data, the 40% drop in illegal Southwest border crossings from January to February is far outside normal seasonal trends. Typically, the January to February change is actually an increase of 10% to 20%.

The drop breaks a nearly 20-year trend, as CBP data going back to 2000 shows an uptick in apprehensions every February.

The number of apprehensions and inadmissible individuals presenting at the border was 18,762 people in February, down from 31,578 in January.

It will still take months to figure out if the decrease in apprehensions is an indication of a lasting Trump effect on immigration patterns. Numbers tend to decrease seasonally in the winter and increase into the spring months.

But the sharp downtick after an uptick at the end of the Obama administration could fit the narrative that it takes tough rhetoric on immigration -- backed up by policy -- to get word-of-mouth warnings to undocumented immigrants making the harrowing journey to the border.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Monday March 13 2017, @12:35PM (7 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Monday March 13 2017, @12:35PM (#478370) Homepage

    Maybe they just don't want to live under a different despot.

    Ignoring the "illegal" bit, how much has legal immigration changed in the same time? If that's down 40% or more, then it's telling of something else.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 13 2017, @01:35PM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday March 13 2017, @01:35PM (#478387) Journal

      My first thought was to wonder if they'd cooked that 40% drop. Stand by for a "revised" estimate.

      And if they have fiddled with the stats, why? Reduced or no illegal immigration before the border wall is built undermines their case for building it. Build wall first, then make up the reduction in numbers.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:57PM (#478393)

        My first thought was to wonder if they'd cooked that 40% drop. Stand by for a "revised" estimate.

        It doesn't have to be on purpose.
        Maybe trump's election caused the border patrol agents to party so much, so they were too hungover to work very much.

        But more seriously, I think the reason the numbers are down is because the numbers before the election were up.
        It was widely reported that trump's campaign rhetoric was causing an increase in the number of border crossings [cnn.com] because people were afraid that if he was elected they would not be able to get in, so everyone rushed to get in before the inauguration.

        But there are not an infinite number of migrants. So that surge depleted the pool of potential migrants, kind of like how the "cash for clunkers" program caused a burst of new car sales followed by a big slump. Give it a few more months and the numbers will probably return to "normal."

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @03:51PM (4 children)

      Either you don't know the meaning of that term or you have some serious reality filtering going on in your head.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:02PM (#478539)

        Well, we aren't there quite yet, but it looks to me like Der Drumpf does have aspirations in that direction. Luckily, it looks like the courts and a few in the legislature are giving some desperately needed push back. I just hope they can hold the line for four to eight more years.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:22PM (#478549)

        Ok, fair enough.

        However I do have a rebuttal. Trump is a despot wannabe. That is how he ran his businesses and even his little TV show. He is a petty little tyrant and it is clear he is having a tough time adjusting to reality where POTUS does not have quite the same indiscriminate power as a owner/CEO.

        Back to immigration: The world has paid attention to the actions of the US, and it is clear that if you violate US law then your future can be quite grim. From mild "toss you back over the border" to more serious prison sentences, and on the extreme end places like Gitmo. I would 100% be terrified of getting caught by US agents under the Trump administration.

        Now, is that a good thing for the US to have lower illegal immigration? You could argue that point. Is it a good thing to have people terrified of coming to your country in the off-chance they get picked up by border patrol for any number of reasons? I'm going with NO! I don't much like my own country being viewed as a bunch of fearful and violent turds with serious bigotry issues.

        To head off the "SJW calls everyone racist" misdirection: it is about time we admitted that there is a huge amount of bigotry in the US, and many other countries. Every single country has their own bigots, and trying to pretend like its some liberal conspiracy is stupid. Own up to it, the US has a shit-ton of bigots, for the most part quite mild ones. Even some younger members of my own family referred to some group as "the asians" which isn't too bad, but the manner in which it was done just screamed of minor subconscious prejudice. That mild prejudice swings into action when someone like Trump promotes policy that will bring down a "righteous hammer of wrath" on illegals. It gives people that emotional validation that their bigotry/fear is right and good, yet in reality Trump is working on a huge amount of PORK for private contractors. The wall will not really fix the problem, and it definitely won't be worth the price tag. Lets spend those billions on something more productive!

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday March 13 2017, @06:42PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday March 13 2017, @06:42PM (#478564) Journal

        Says the "so-called" ""Mighty Buzzard""! Hope you got ch'er pocket constitution on you at all times, just in case.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:01PM (#478376)

    Bullshit cuts both ways.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @01:10PM (35 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @01:10PM (#478380) Journal

    Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

    Same thing here. The liberal president went easy on illegals. Now we have a crazy bastard running things, and this time the Mexicans are scared.

    Crazy bastards do have their uses.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:43PM (#478389)

      Crazy bastards do have their uses.

      Careful what you wish for, it may be granted.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (#478397)

      Yes, I remember the October Surprise.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @11:38PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @11:38PM (#478692)

        You forgot to include the link.

        Reagan's October Surprise. [google.com]

        Nixon's October Surprise. [google.com]

        Both were treason.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:35AM (2 children)

          You forgot to include the link.

          Reagan's October Surprise.

          Nixon's October Surprise.

          Both were treason.

          -- OriginalOwner_

          Sorry _gewg, those don't rise to the level of treason. At worst they are violations of the Logan Act [wikipedia.org].

          As for Nixon, he had his Watergate [wikipedia.org], and Reagan had Iran-Contra [wikipedia.org].

          What's more, I'm pretty sure that the CIA was also trading arms for hashish with the Afghani rebels back in the mid 1980s, and selling it in the US.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:56AM (#478735)

            A USAian conspiring with a foreign power to subvert the diplomatic efforts of the democratically-elected gov't of the USA fits exactly within the definition of treason.

            Iran-Contra

            The Executive Branch giving USA's weapons of war to a foreign power without consulting Congress is also treason.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:48AM

              Au contraire, _gewg. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 [cornell.edu]:

              Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

              You might want to educate yourself a bit, _gewg. This [amazon.com] would likely be of interest.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (#478398)

      The liberal president actually made good progress. The crazy actor president delayed the release so it would happen on his watch.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:24PM (17 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @02:24PM (#478406) Journal

        Yeah, I've heard that claim before. I've also heard it claimed that people in Benghazi spontaneously rioted due to some stupid video release. Sorry, I don't believe either story.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:37PM (#478413)

          I am not an American so I have no skin in this game. I remember Canadian political commentators discussing this during the Reagan inauguration. It was not secret.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:46PM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:46PM (#478418)

          Yeah, I've heard that claim before. I've also heard it claimed that people in Benghazi spontaneously rioted due to some stupid video release. Sorry, I don't believe either story.

          Lol. "I only believe things that confirm what I believe."

          Frankly no one gives a fuck what you believe.
          Its utterly irrelevant to reality.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (9 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (#478439) Journal

            Well, Frank, you obviously cared enough to post a response.

            All that silly crap you're trying to sell as "history" originates from just a couple of people, who were close to Carter.

            Now, admit this much: Carter had 444 days - more than a year - in which to arrange for the hostages to be released. He FAILED. For more than a year PRIOR TO the "October Surprise", Carter failed to secure the release of the hostages. Reagan didn't throw a monkey wrench into Carter's negotiations 15 months before the election. The idea is absurd.

            I'll also mention the fact that Carter was personally responsible for that failed "rescue" attempt. Any one of the services could have done more, and done better, than that combined services fiasco. The Army might have pulled it off. The Navy and Marines might have pulled it off. The Air Force alone could have delivered either Army or Marine troops to Tehran. But, when Carter decided to take an experimental mixture of all four services, and throw them at the mission willy-nilly, he doomed them to failure.

            IMHO, the best possible troops available were Navy and Marine pilots, with Marine grunts acually performing the rescue.

            I know, I know - you can't admit that a liberal screwed up. But, Carter was a bigger fuckup than either Clinton or O'bummer. Almost as big a fuckup as Bush Junior. Worse, Carter is a veteran Naval officer. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR HIS INEXCUSABLE LACK OF LEADERSHIP!!! The man served personally at Zumwalt's beck and call, running Zumie's errands. He should have learned some leadership from Zumwalt.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:39PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:39PM (#478446)

              > Well, Frank, you obviously cared enough to post a response.

              I cared enough to post a response because your idiocy is the most interesting topic here.
              Your full-throated embrace of alt-truth is the beginning and end of the story.
              Its like your fragile ego is so completely tied up in your world-view and that being wrong about anything is a direct reflection on your self-worth.
              Its sad and pathetic, but you are such a shit about it that I can't really bring myself to feel sorry for you.
              Its like you are walking around with a "kick me!" sign taped to your back, that you deliberately put there yourself.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:09PM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:09PM (#478471)

              Carter sucks!
              Carter sucks!
              The military rocks!
              Carter sucks!

              Yeah, we get it you hate carter and love military men.
              What does any of that have to do with your false claim that Reagan was responsible for the hostage release?

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @04:40PM (6 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @04:40PM (#478489) Journal

                It's patently obvious. The Ayatollah's people didn't want Reagan to nuke Tehran. Reagan may or may not have been crazy enough to do that. But, because the Iranians believed he was that crazy, they didn't want to deal with him. They GAVE the hostages away, before Reagan could take over.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:27PM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:27PM (#478522)

                  It's patently obvious.

                  Indeed it is, to someone who fully embraces alt-history it is clear as a bell!

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:21PM (4 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:21PM (#478547) Journal

                    *sigh*

                    Were you even BORN when all that shit was happening? I was reading the news every day. For 444 days - the number was incremented each day on the news, as well as in some of the newspapers. Add those days up. They amount to a longer period of time than the official presidential campaign. When the hostages were taken hostage, I hadn't even HEARD OF Ronald Reagan. If you had asked me who he was, I couldn't even have identified him as an actor since I don't do movies. If I were pressed, I may have finally identied him as the governor of Cal, but I never followed Cal politics.

                    Reagan had just about nothing to do with the hostage crisis. October surprise? Yeah - if you believe that crap, then you're just another conspiracy theorist. Enjoy it.

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:34PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:34PM (#478557)

                      Reagan had just about nothing to do with the hostage crisis.

                      How does that cake taste?
                      You are eating cake, right?
                      Because you are clearly trying to have your cake and eat it too.

                      Reagan intimidated the iranians into releasing the hostages and at the same time he had nothing to do with the hostages.

                      Keep on prattling on about how you "hadn't even heard of ronald reagan" but also know all about what was going on behind closed doors in direct contradiction of what the people who were actually behind those doors have said.

                      Oh, yeah Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!!!! unga bunga Benghazi!!!

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @08:53PM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @08:53PM (#478627) Journal

                        Reagan intimidated the iranians into releasing the hostages and at the same time he had nothing to do with the hostages.

                        What makes you think that's contradictory? Let's suppose some of my buds and I are illegally racing our pick ups down a country road. A fellow conspirator radios us on the CB that a "smokey" (that's 70s movie-speak for a law enforcement vehicle) is coming to our location. We then abscond and lay low for a while. The smokey had nothing to do with our drag racing, but we aborted the drag racing in order to insure that things remained that way.

                        Similarly, the Iranians would have the problem that if they continued to hold these hostages into Reagan's term, then Reagan would have to do something about it. Even if they didn't buy into Runaway's description of Reagan as potentially crazy, it's still throwing in a new unknown without anything to gain from it.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:55PM (#478653)

                          You've got it wrong. It was Jesus himself who flew down from a Star Wars satellite, shook hands with Reagan and personally rescued the hostages using the threat of flooding the Earth for 40 days and nights. Shit got real for the Iraqis and they realized they needed to pray to the West and worship Reagan. That's why us decent Christian countries have better weapons, because our scientists are devout believers in the right God and Jesus personally guides every bullet our Godly soldiers fire.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM (#478659) Journal
                            I thought it was just that Allah clearly favors a secular constitutional democratic republic over a medieval theocratic republic. Learn something new every day.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (#478438)

          There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party. Stevens may have survived if the video didn't increase the size of the crowd beyond their defenses. And the main perp admitted the video did bother him. It's thus reasonable to state the video probably played a role.

          The administration's real "sin" is taking the intelligence reports too literally when in fact nobody really knew the entire cause or story, and still don't. They should have added more disclaimers to their statements. (They did add some, but not enough.) It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.

          Further, some suggested in private discussions that giving too many details may tip off the perps that we were on to them. Detractors say this idea was politically motivated, but again without neuron tear-outs, motivation speculation is only speculation. Guess-versus-guess. Move on.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @06:42PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:42PM (#478565) Journal

            There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party. Stevens may have survived if the video didn't increase the size of the crowd beyond their defenses. And the main perp admitted the video did bother him. It's thus reasonable to state the video probably played a role.

            Then let's see this evidence rather than an assertion it exists somewhere.

            The administration's real "sin" is taking the intelligence reports too literally when in fact nobody really knew the entire cause or story, and still don't. They should have added more disclaimers to their statements. (They did add some, but not enough.) It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.

            While that's a fascinating degree of rationalization, it ignores the obvious: the administration spun a tall tale to avoid criticism (and a shift of the election narrative to terrorism) for the Benghazi attack and its aftermath. It wasn't some spontaneous riot that got out of hand, but a terrorist attack that succeeded once and almost again a second time.

            Then we have the matter of the lack of an official rescue. Apparently, the group responsible for rescuing the remaining members of the consulate was acting against orders. What a peculiar situation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:54PM (#478652)

            There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party.

            Do you have scientific evidence of that, and how could you objectively verify it? Can you read people's minds to discern their true intentions? This, much like opinion polls, are completely worthless because you can't objectively verify whether or not what people said is actually true. At least you can verify the results of an election to a reasonable degree, and you can measure someone's penis size if they lie about it, but how can you read someone's mind to see if they truly believe X? We do not have such technology yet, so opinion polls are bogus, and saying that someone admitting that a video bothered them is good evidence that it was a large reason why they carried out an attack is also unverifiable. There have also been shooters who blamed violent video games for their actions; you can say or blame anything, but unless you have actual evidence that their claims are true, it's ludicrous to simply accept what they say.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @10:46PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @10:46PM (#478678) Journal
              The previous poster already admitted that they had no evidence for their "fairly strong evidence".

              There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party.

              [...] It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.

              An assertion of strong certainty followed by an argument from ignorance for the exact same thing. Classic cognitive dissonance. This sort of thing is why I think a fair number of people have gone beyond mere irrationality for US politics to some sort of mental illness.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday March 13 2017, @09:16PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday March 13 2017, @09:16PM (#478639)

          More specifically, Reagan's foreign policy staff, some of whom were the same people who helped Nixon win in 1968 by shutting down LBJ's attempt to negotiate an end the Vietnam War, convinced the Iranians that they'd sell weapons to them in exchange for not releasing the hostages until after the new president was inaugurated. This was a crime under the Logan Act, and the first illegal act of a whole host of illegal actions taken by the Reagan administration that became collectively known as "Iran-Contra".

          This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of the courts that looked at the matter.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:10PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:10PM (#478399)

      Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

      I remember it. Apparently better than you remember it.
      The hostage release was completely negotiated by Carter. [politifact.com] The Iranians just sat on last step in order to deny Carter the credit because they were pissed at him for letting the Shah come to the US.

      In fact, there is a a strong argument to be made that Reagan conspired with the Iranians [nytimes.com] to delay the release to damage Carter in the election.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:25PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @02:25PM (#478408) Journal

        Yeah - keep telling yourself that. See my response to the above AC.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:39PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:39PM (#478415)

          It's false because I don't want to believe it. Reagan and Trump are the daddy I wish I had.

          FTFY

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:01PM (#478606)

            This is modded up here? This petty, immature crap? Really?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42AM (#478776)

              Looks like somebody doesn't understand the meaning of Touché.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:30PM (#478442)

      Wow. You bought off on every lie and swallowed every load they have pumped into you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but yours is toast.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday March 13 2017, @06:49PM

      Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages.

      Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Pick me! Pick me!

      I remember, apparently better than you do. the "liberal" president authorized the failed Operation Eagle Claw [wikipedia.org] which, while it was a failure, was certainly pretty aggressive. After that, the Iranians did all they could to discredit Carter.

      When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

      Exactly. In fact, it was 20 minutes after the inauguration of Ronald Reagan that the hostages were released. So, unless the Reagan team indulged in illegal contacts with the Iranians [wikipedia.org], the Reagan administration had exactly zero to do with the release of said hostages.

      Same thing here. The liberal president went easy on illegals. Now we have a crazy bastard running things, and this time the Mexicans are scared.

      Crazy bastards do have their uses.

      You've once again shown your poor knowledge of history and are talking out of your ass again. You're stinking up the place, Runaway!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM

      by stormreaver (5101) on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM (#478569)

      When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

      Reagan had exactly zero involvement in releasing the hostages. The Iranians approached the Carter administration to propose a release of hostages in exchange for the U.S. unfreezing assets they needed to fight their war with Iraq. This happened long before Reagan won the election. The hostages were released coincident with Reagan's inauguration as a final middle finger to Jimmy Carter, whom the Iranian "administration" hated.

      The only role that Reagan played was one of not being the current administration at the time. The Iranians didn't have the time or money to negotiate new terms with a new administration.

    • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:57AM

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:57AM (#478781) Journal

      > Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

      If your point was that the Iranian regime liked Reagan more than Carter, then totally. I mean, they probably didn't like either, but the one actively trying to spread democracy and Western values around the world, well, damn ... he was really a thorn in their side. Reagan? Ptth. As long as they don't threaten the US, they can torture their citizens as much as they want, stone women for being raped, it's all good. US under Reagan don't give a fuck.

      So yeah, of course they wanted to release the hostages under Reagan. They despised Carter and didn't want him to get the credit for the release... even though his administration completed all the negotiations for the release, and he and his diplomats therefore deserved it.

      So they delayed the release until just after Carter stepped down to spit in his face, because they knew many of our country's stupider citizens would give Reagan the credit for his release, even though that makes no sense.

      As you've just proved, they were right.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:57PM (#479854)

      Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.

      Same thing here.

      False, Iran was holding out because they wanted to humiliate the old president by playing ball with the new president.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:22PM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:22PM (#478404)

    Sounds like political bullshit and their busy sucking them selves off now.
    They may have slowed the influx, but they will never stop starving people from getting in.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:31PM (28 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @02:31PM (#478411) Journal

      Starving people don't have the strength to walk across the border. Are you nucking phutts? Do you think it is EASY to walk, run, and hide for a couple hundred miles in the desert southwest of the US? Starving people, indeed. I suggest you get a grip on reality. If there are any starving people in Mexican and South American villages, they remain at home, while their stronger kin make the trek to the US. But, that's a really big IF. Starvation isn't a thing in the western hemisphere. Not one of my "immigrant" coworkers has ever made mention of starvation in their home towns and villages. Never. There are many shortages of various items in Latin America, but it seems that food is plentiful.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:49PM (27 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:49PM (#478420)

        Starving people don't have the strength to walk across the border

        Which is why hundreds of migrants die in the desert every year.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @03:17PM (26 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @03:17PM (#478430) Journal

          People aren't water fowl - people aren't "migratory". There are no ages old migratory paths for people to follow. Again - starving people don't set out to walk to the US. Perfectly HEALTHY people make that trek. The people who die usually die of a small number of causes. Some are robbed and abandoned by their "coyotes". Others are robbed, raped, then abandoned. Some die due to being locked into confining enclosures, such as the backs of trucks, then being abandoned in the hot sun. Others die of simple exposure, under the burning hot desert sun. Some few are as stupid as Americans - they don't understand that the desert is COLD at night, even in the summer. Finally, there is simple dehydration.

          Starvation is the least of the illegal aliens worries when they make that trek. At a mere 20 miles per day, you can walk the necessary distance in less than ten days. It takes a good deal longer than 10 days to starve to death.

          Some liberal minded mods has modded you as "informative" - and you are simply full of misinformation. Starvation might get one or two people per year along the border - but that would only happen after they had been abandoned, and they were hopelessly lost. But, for starvation to do them in, they would have to find enough water to allow them to live long enough to starve.

          Of course, I don't expect any sheltered American city dweller to understand all of that. So, you go on believing that people are dropping like flies from starvation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:23PM (23 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:23PM (#478434)

            People aren't water fowl - people aren't "migratory".

            Its revealing you decided to make random, unprompted dictionary pedanticism your first and best argument.
            I can practically see the spittle dripping off your monitor.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @03:33PM (21 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @03:33PM (#478443) Journal

              PUll your head out. There are no "migrant" routes across the border. There are only a few safe places for pedestrians to cross the border. There are no migratory routes across the desert. I was not being pedantic, so much as point out the absurdity of the whole "migrant" bullshit. They aren't migrants - they are illegal alien invaders.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:42PM (10 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:42PM (#478451)

                PUll your head out. There are no "migrant" routes across the border.

                And now some weird pedanticism about "routes."
                Its like you are having an argument with the voices in your head and one side of it is leaking out into your posts.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @04:43PM (9 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @04:43PM (#478493) Journal

                  Words have meanings. When you start talking about "migrants" and/or migratory animals and people, you are suggesting that it takes place every year, or twice a year, and that it has been an ongoing thing for centuries if not longer. Like geese. Geese migrate. They do it twice a year. The follow established migratory routes, for the most part.

                  This invasion that started in recent decades isn't a "migrant" thing. It's an invasion. Because they don't carry weapons, you are incapable of recognizing it for what it is.

                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:07PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:07PM (#478507)

                    Wiktionary has similar results as well, but I felt that their specific inclusion of meaning immigrants as a neologism was begging the question. I'd go grab the OED but I'd need to head to the library.

                    Migrant [dictionary.com]

                    adjective

                    1. migrating, especially of people; migratory.

                    noun

                    2. a person or animal that migrates.
                    3. Also called migrant worker. a person who moves from place to place to get work, especially a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally.

                    Migrate [dictionary.com]

                    verb (used without object), migrated, migrating.

                    1. to go from one country, region, or place to another.
                        Synonyms: move, resettle, relocate.
                        Antonyms: remain.

                    2. to pass periodically from one region or climate to another, as certain birds, fishes, and animals:
                        The birds migrate southward in the winter.

                    3. to shift, as from one system, mode of operation, or enterprise to another.

                    4. Physiology. (of a cell, tissue, etc.) to move from one region of the body to another, as in embryonic development.

                    5. Chemistry.
                        (of ions) to move toward an electrode during electrolysis.
                        (of atoms within a molecule) to change position.

                    6. (at British universities) to change or transfer from one college to another.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:24PM (6 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:24PM (#478520)

                    Words have meanings. When you start talking about "migrants" and/or migratory animals and people, you are suggesting that it takes place every year, or twice a year, and that it has been an ongoing thing for centuries if not longer.

                    Hey dumbass, the number one rule of dictionary pedantry is to READ THE DAMN DICTIONARY.

                    migrant: [oxforddictionaries.com]
                    noun

                    1. A person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.

                    2. An animal that migrates.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:22PM (5 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:22PM (#478550) Journal

                      The term suggests established migration routes, that have endured through time.

                      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:37PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:37PM (#478559)

                        I never thought I'd meet the guy who migrates his VMs back and forth between two or three pieces of physical hardware with the seasons as his grandfather's grandfather did, but here he is!

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:37PM (3 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:37PM (#478561)

                        Dude you are now reduced to disputing the FUCKING OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
                        The single most authoritative dictionary of the english language in existence.

                        Like every single dictionary pedant ever, you incorrectly thought your personal definition was the actual definition.

                        Give it up already. Cut your losses. And just stay down.

                        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM (2 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM (#478658)

                          Dude you are now reduced to disputing the FUCKING OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
                          The single most authoritative dictionary of the english language in existence.

                          Like every single dictionary pedant ever, you incorrectly thought your personal definition was the actual definition.

                          Give it up already. Cut your losses. And just stay down.

                          STFU! The OED is a librul rag like the failing NYT!

                          They only publish fake definitions, just like the WaPo, CNN and those fucking whores over at HuffPo, the Christian Science Monitor, McClatchey and their ilk!

                          They are enemies of the 'murikkan people just like you and the Oxford English Dictionary. Unabridged my ass!

                          So fuck you, you commie fifth columnist! Read a real 'murikkan dictionary [urbandictionary.com], asshole!

                          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:14AM (1 child)

                            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:14AM (#478702)

                            I sadly ran out of mod points...

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:37AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:37AM (#478774)

                              They do give out more, Bob. :) :) :)

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:07PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:07PM (#478611)

                    LOL, the secret immigration war where all these thousands of immigrants will suddenly start butchering their neighbors...

                    This explains SO MUCH! Right wingers on this site LITERALLY BELIEVE THIS????

                    Sweet jesus mother mary cross my heart and hope to deport some crazy citizens and import some PhD refugees.

              • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday March 13 2017, @05:38PM (9 children)

                by NewNic (6420) on Monday March 13 2017, @05:38PM (#478527) Journal

                They aren't migrants - they are illegal alien invaders.

                The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive, except in the minds of bigoted idiots.

                --
                lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:15PM (5 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:15PM (#478544) Journal

                  I have a neighbor, who lives a quarter mile down the road. He comes on my property, and steals the fruit off of my trees, and the nuts off of the nut trees. When I plant a garden, he helps himself to the prettiets tomatoes, and the fullest ears of corn. He goes into my toolshed, and takes whatever he wants. I've even seen him walk into the house, and help himself to whatever is in the refrigerator and pantry.

                  Is this neighbor a "migrant", or a thief?

                  That word, "bigot", doesn't mean what you think it means. If I disliked that neighbor because he has blue eyes, then I would be a bigot. But, I dislike him because he is a parasite, taking my food and my tools. For that reason, your accusation of bigotry is completely unfounded. Use a dictionary, alright?

                  But, I'll admit - the term "migrant" and the term "thief" are not mutually exclusive. Nor are "migrant" and "illegal alien invader" mutually exclusive. One man's beauty is another man's beast. I say, if you like that ugly dog so much, then maybe you should go home with her - to Mexico.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:27PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:27PM (#478553)

                    I have a neighbor, who lives a quarter mile down the road. He comes on my property
                    blah, blah
                    hugely flawed analogy
                    blahdity, blah, blah

                    This country is not your property.

                    That word, "bigot", doesn't mean what you think it means.

                    bigoted [oxforddictionaries.com]
                    adjective

                            Obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

                    Nope, I think they know exactly what bigot means.

                    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:45AM

                      I have a neighbor, who lives a quarter mile down the road. He comes on my property
                      blah, blah
                      hugely flawed analogy
                      blahdity, blah, blah

                      This country is not your property.

                      That word, "bigot", doesn't mean what you think it means.

                      bigoted
                      adjective

                                      Obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

                      Nope, I think they know exactly what bigot means.

                      I'd also add that Runaway1956 is a fanatic [quoteinvestigator.com] in the sense often attributed to Winston Churchill [brainyquote.com]:

                      A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

                      Just sayin'.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:36PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:36PM (#478558)

                    I have a neighbor, who lives a quarter mile down the road. He comes on my property, and steals the fruit off of my trees, and the nuts off of the nut trees. When I plant a garden, he helps himself to the prettiets tomatoes, and the fullest ears of corn. He goes into my toolshed, and takes whatever he wants. I've even seen him walk into the house, and help himself to whatever is in the refrigerator and pantry.

                    Is this neighbor a "migrant", or a thief?

                    Wow. Just wow. Just plain wow. That is some powerful reality distortion field you are living inside of. Is the sky blue in your alternative universe? Just wondering.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:49AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:49AM (#478726)

                      I have a neighbor, who lives a quarter mile down the road. He comes on my property, and steals the fruit off of my trees, and the nuts off of the nut trees. When I plant a garden, he helps himself to the prettiets tomatoes, and the fullest ears of corn. He goes into my toolshed, and takes whatever he wants. I've even seen him walk into the house, and help himself to whatever is in the refrigerator and pantry.

                              Is this neighbor a "migrant", or a thief?

                      Wow. Just wow. Just plain wow. That is some powerful reality distortion field you are living inside of. Is the sky blue in your alternative universe? Just wondering.

                      Don't bother, different AC The stupid is strong with this one. [quickmeme.com]

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:52AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:52AM (#478734)

                        Yeah, I get that the stupid is strong with this one. What I find horrifyingly amazing is how proud he is about it. Like I said, just plain wow.

                • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday March 13 2017, @07:16PM (2 children)

                  by Sulla (5173) on Monday March 13 2017, @07:16PM (#478584) Journal

                  I think the big problem here is that you see race as the difference between the two. In my mind, and in a lot of peoples minds, a legal immigrant is completely different from an illegal immigrant. Why would I care if a legal immigrant is from Mexico? I want a complete stop to illegal immigration into the United States not because I don't want more Central/South Americans, but because they have proven that they will commit a felony to get what they want. I want to bring in more legal immigrants because these people have proven that they are willing to wait through the bullshit for their chance.

                  Legal vs illegal is an issue because the left is choosing to make it about race instead of what it is really about, crime. I would be okay with a one for one trade on kicking out an illegal to taking another one from the waiting list and bringing them into the US. Because I care about crime and not about race.

                  --
                  Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:31PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:31PM (#478590)

                    he left is choosing to make it about race instead of what it is really about, crime.

                    And being an illegal immigrant means they are all criminals, so obviously they need to go!

                    Because, when it comes to crimes that actually have victims, illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native born, so that can't be the problem.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:00PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:00PM (#478605)

                    I think the big problem here is that you see race as the difference between the two.
                    ...
                    Legal vs illegal is an issue because the left is choosing to make it about race

                    WTF? Your post is literally the first one in this entire subthread to mention race.
                    Project much?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:35PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:35PM (#478444)

              And some wonder why america sucks so badly today, with morons like this in such plentiful supply. Game over.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @06:57PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:57PM (#478573) Journal

            People aren't water fowl - people aren't "migratory".

            That's never been true. People have never stopped migrating since we became homo sapiens. When you move from one region to another (a thing I've done numerous times), it is a migration just like it is for birds (though not necessarily a seasonal migration which is more a bird thing, but something that humans occasionally do as well). From the point of view of the place you're entering, it's an immigration. From the point of view of the place you're leaving, it's an emigration.

            Perfectly HEALTHY people make that trek.

            And who regulates this so that only HEALTHY people make the trek? Starvation isn't the only source of unhealthy people. I get that the original poster exaggerated somewhat the "starving" nature of illegal immigrants to the US, but they definitely don't come here because they have what they need.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday March 13 2017, @07:00PM

            ...people aren't "migratory". There are no ages old migratory paths for people to follow.

            Oh really? [soylentnews.org] Wow, Runaway, your're really channeling the stupid [wikipedia.org] today. The entire history of humanity [wikipedia.org] is about migration [wikipedia.org].

            Well, at least you drive comments here, with numerous corrections to your bullshit.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:42PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:42PM (#478449)

    T's bully pulpit is super-charged, and tough talk may work for a while. However, the reality is that there is not enough staff for massive deportations, and training etc. will take years to ramp up, perhaps more than 4. Plus, as families get ripped apart, the "optics" of this will get ugly and political.

    The best way to reduce the flow of illegal workers is to audit businesses much more carefully, increase punishment to business owners, and offer rewards for ratting out businesses. Moles can pose as illegals. The business auditors don't even have to touch workers: just fine businesses heavily, and arrest owners who are repeat offenders. This will reduce incentives for illegal crossings as work dries up, but in a more gradual and more family-friendly way.

    However, businesses lobby and (legally) bribe heavily to NOT have this done to them.

    T is doing it wrong because he's impatient and clueless, and GOP is doing it wrong because they are bribed to do it wrong.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @04:04PM (5 children)

      Years? Temporarily repurpose half the military basic training facilities. Let's be conservative and say two months to get the drill sergeants up to speed and a month for each class of thousands of recruits. They could be fully staffed to the wildest dreams of the most extreme border-security pundits in six months.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:08PM (#478508)

        repurpose half the military

        True, but the idea of the military marching through the city streets asking to see "your papers please" will be one heck of a spectacle that will be hard to get the majority of Congress to support. Although, it's happened to other countries before and thus hard to completely rule out.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

          You should read the whole sentence. It meant nothing approaching what you responded to.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:11PM (#478612)

            And just how exactly do you propose to catch the illegals already in the US? The only logical method seems to be "stop all people fitting a profile and ask for their identification papers". Are you really so blind and dumb to not see this is the only way it could go down? Border agents have jurisdiction 100 miles from the coast, which covers the majority of the US population. This is 100% possible and likely given Trump's rhetoric and the demand to follow through on his deportation of illegals.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:21AM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:21AM (#478706)
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:16PM (#478545)

        Yeah, fuck the posse comitatus act!

    • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:39AM

      by shortscreen (2252) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:39AM (#478713) Journal

      I think that another way to reduce the number of people hopping the border might be to address factors which are causing their home countries to be shitty places.

      For instance, ending the war on drugs might reduce funding to drug cartels and cause said drug cartels to lose power in Mexico, and a drop in corruption and violent crime.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday March 13 2017, @03:48PM (43 children)

    by Lagg (105) on Monday March 13 2017, @03:48PM (#478453) Homepage Journal

    It's because this country has been crappy compared to the rest of the first world for getting close to 18 years now. It just went through an election fought between two insane dictators. It's not his tough talk. It's the same reason we don't take summer vacations to Iran and large parts of Africa. Why would such people want to go to the US any more than those places? It's simply bad business.

    It's one thing to miscredit this idiot for things that were implemented when Obama was running (and would be miscrediting to thank Obama even) things. But it's a whole other level of bad idea (roughly on the fascism-serving level as showing Conway on TV and treating her legitimately) to say that an insane dictator scaring away the kind of people that built this country is any sort of "tough talk"or interpret-able as anything but massive writing on the wall.

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (#478462)

      > It just went through an election fought between two insane dictators.

      Oh please. If you think there is any validity to that false equivalency, then your logic is completely suspect.

      Clinton was a boring-ass establishment candidate of small ideas. Completely unremarkable given all the presidents that had served before.

      Trump was the outrageous candidate of xenophobia and racial animus.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:04PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:04PM (#478466)

        Were you and I following the same election? Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.

        Where Trump had hotel deals in countries across the world, Clinton had uranium and oil deals with the Saudis, Russians, and plenty of other dangerous agents.

        They both sucked, they were both tyrants. I would rather have the moron who wont accomplish anything because his own party is working against him, than a pro-war neocon who would face no opposition from house or senate when it comes to trampling freedoms and other countries.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @04:07PM (9 children)

          Yup, they were both shit but Trump was the less dangerous shit because he'll have far less ability to Get Things Done than his opponent would have.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:32PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:32PM (#478481)

            Yup, they were both shit but Trump was the less dangerous shit because he'll have far less ability to Get Things Done than his opponent would have.

            You still going on about that?
            The guy has neutered the state department.
            That's a recipe for war.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @04:59PM (3 children)

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 13 2017, @04:59PM (#478503) Journal

              He is also busily undermining the press and the judiciary, while purging every post he can get his tiny hands on of dissenters at an unprecedented rate and stuffing them with cronies.

              Meanwhile the Republican party - with a few notable exceptions - doesn't seem to be offering much in the way of resistance at all. Apparently they are thrilled to have someone wearing their colours in the Whitehouse regardless of his actual beliefs, policies, actions or character - which surprises absolutely nobody with a half-decent grasp on reality.

              The "ineffectual village idiot" line may have had some credibility last Autumn, but right now Trump is proving that he can and will deliver his vile promises.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @07:27PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @07:27PM (#478588) Journal

                He is also busily undermining the press and the judiciary, while purging every post he can get his tiny hands on of dissenters at an unprecedented rate and stuffing them with cronies.

                Actually, it has been remarked how slowly he's doing that compared to previous administrations. For example, this story [dailysignal.com] states that Trump has appointed cronies to his cabinet at the slowest rate since George Washington.

                What's really going on is that for the first time in a while, the press is doing its job perhaps with some increased visibility from the fumblings of the Trump officials in charge of the house cleaning. You're finally hearing about the routine stuff of presidential transitions that the press hasn't cared about in a long time.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @05:42PM (2 children)

              The State Department does what the President tells it to. It is not independent. If he wants to do all the diplomacy himself, that's his choice and makes zero difference to our relations.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM (#478542)

                You clearly have zero idea how the state department works. Else you would have never written such a ridiculous non-sequitur.
                The state department builds relationships with other countries.
                Without competent people building and maintaining those relationships, the ability to conduct diplomacy is crippled.
                Trump is no more able to "do all the diplomacy himself" than he is able to "do all the science" of the DoE himself.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:51PM (#478626)

                All hail the new police state! All hail our great new leader Drumpf! All hail FASCISM! For good measure lets toss TMB in the pen first, let him see what his bullshit amounts to.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:57AM (#478736)

            Yup, they were both shit but Trump was the less dangerous shit because he'll have far less ability to Get Things Done than his opponent would have.

            YEAH!!!! Because what this country needs right now to become great again is someone dangerously incompetent!!! You tell 'em, Buzzard Breath!!!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:03PM (#478505)
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:12PM (#478511)

          Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.

          Oh please. At best that's a massive distortion of the facts. She was 100% behind the nuclear deal with Iran. Threatening to bomb them is the exact opposite of that.

          Where Trump had hotel deals in countries across the world, Clinton had uranium and oil deals with the Saudis, Russians, and plenty of other dangerous agents.

          That's so disingenuous it might as well be a lie.

          Trump personally took dirty russian money to bail him out of bankruptcy and almost certainly ended up laundering it as part of the deal.
          The shadowy Russian émigré touting Trump [ft.com]

               — US election raises ghosts of cold war-era spy games

          Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection [ft.com]

               — FT probe finds evidence a Trump venture has links to alleged laundering network

          Clinton approved uranium and oil deals on behalf of the US government. The uranium conspiracy theory is particularly egregious because the russian company that bought the mineral rights, with the approval of 8 other US agency heads did not have and would not have been allowed to acquire export rights so the uranium was never in going anywhere. [politifact.com]

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM (#478541) Journal

          Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.

          [CITATION NEEDED]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:01PM (#478504)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (#478463)

      I love this whole Conway thing. Had she been a Democrat who successfully made Hillary president, she would be held up as a great political coach who against all the odds managed to be the first successful female presidential campaign manager. Unfortunately she is Republican so we must spit on her and ruin her for not towing the line.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @05:11PM (5 children)

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 13 2017, @05:11PM (#478510) Journal

        Bullshit. Please, prove what you just wrote. Prove even one word of it.

        Conway is rightfully reviled because she spouts bare-faced lies in defence of a corrupt and inept fascist demagogue. End of. If she did the same for Hilary then she'd get just as much flak from precisely the same people.

        BTW, didn't anyone tell you? You alt-right dipshits won the election. Steve Bannon sits next to the president and whispers in his ear every day. YOU are the mainstream now. You ARE the establishment. Your pathetic "white heterosexual males are a persecuted minority and everyone's got it in for us and that's why I can't get a break" boohoo doesn't work any more. You have no more excuses, no more scapegoats, you can no longer claim that the system works against you. You have to take ownership of your own failures now that Obama's Transexual Lesbian Muslim Immigrant Black Oppressors are no longer there to hold you down.

        When it all goes to shit, you take the blame.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @07:56PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @07:56PM (#478602) Journal

          BTW, didn't anyone tell you? You alt-right dipshits won the election. Steve Bannon sits next to the president and whispers in his ear every day. YOU are the mainstream now. You ARE the establishment. Your pathetic "white heterosexual males are a persecuted minority and everyone's got it in for us and that's why I can't get a break" boohoo doesn't work any more. You have no more excuses, no more scapegoats, you can no longer claim that the system works against you. You have to take ownership of your own failures now that Obama's Transexual Lesbian Muslim Immigrant Black Oppressors are no longer there to hold you down.

          Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment? Doesn't work that way. What I think is more ironic along these lines is the neoreactionary/dark enlightenment folk (who apparently these days are some small part of the alt-right movement) who have denigrated democracy for a number of years, yet only have a taste of power because of that democracy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM (#478628)

            Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment?

            Do you even hear yourself?

            Obama was not a "poor urban black" nor was anyone in his administration.
            But Steve Bananas is Trump's closest advisor, Steve Miller and Ghorka are also part of his inner circle and Jeff Sessions is head of the DoJ.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @08:59PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @08:59PM (#478633) Journal

              Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment?

              Do you even hear yourself?

              I sure do, but apparently you don't. The grandparent stated that people who voted for Trump were now mainstream and establishment because Trump and some other "alt-right" candidates won in 2016. I merely pointed out a similar group from the 2008 and 2012 elections who did the same thing and didn't become mainstream and establishment as a result.

              Obama was not a "poor urban black" nor was anyone in his administration. But Steve Bananas is Trump's closest advisor, Steve Miller and Ghorka are also part of his inner circle and Jeff Sessions is head of the DoJ.

              These weren't alt-right voters. Sorry, not the same thing.

              • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)

                by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 13 2017, @11:31PM (#478690) Journal

                I think you missed my point, you're taking me too literally. Firstly, I never levelled my charge against everyone who voted for Trump, I was referring to "alt-right dipshits". There's a big intersection on that venn diagram, but it isn't complete.

                Secondly, I was pointing out that the alt-right, which has been raised on a diet of manufactured persecution complex, can no longer play the victim card. They never could, legitimately, but now even the pretence has been taken from them. It doesn't matter whether Trump really is their man or not (obviously he's not, he's only ever looking out for Donald), unless the orange one metamorphs overnight into a so-called SJW, the alt-right can no longer pretend to be oppressed by some kind of mythical left-wing dominatrix, forcing wealth distribution and political correct language and straight bananas on everyone.

                I've stated here before that I don't think the alt-right can survive the transition from loony guerilla trollforce at the fringes of sanity to mainstream political organisation, but that is exactly what they must do[1] now that they've taken office. They have to either abandon the paranoid anti-establishment narrative that defines them (entirely possible, just re-write the narrative and hope most followers go along with it rather than rebel, but then they haven't so much "survived" as "evolved"[2]) or they will turn against their masters and devour them (also possible, if the Whitehouse fails to live up to Trump's campaign promises and he followers refuse to swallow the excuses - see the ultra-right-wing response to TrumpCare for an idea of how that might play out.).

                [1] When I say they "must" do it, I mean that's the only way they can survive as a movement. I personally don't think the movement "must" survive at all, I'd be quite happy to watch the whole thing implode.
                [2] That's a more literal meaning of "evolved" as in "changed in to something different", not necessarily the more metaphorical meaning of "improved oneself or changed for the better". Quite ironic given that the whole movement was intelligently designed in the first place.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:48AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:48AM (#478778)

                  I think you missed my point, you're taking me too literally.

                  That one sentence sums up callow's entire existence.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @04:13PM (18 children)

      Illegal moochers did not build this country. Imperialistic Brits and those subjects willing to bust their ass with no government safety net, in primitive conditions, for a better life did. Border jumpers get welfare and foodstamps. Our forefathers went as far as to sell themselves into indentured servitude. There is no comparison.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:36PM (16 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:36PM (#478485)

        > Illegal moochers did not build this country.

        Yeah, slaves did.

        > Border jumpers get welfare and foodstamps.

        No they don't. Those are literally restricted to citizens.
        But people who work using fake social security numbers pay 10+ billion dollars into the system each year that they will never get out.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @05:09PM (12 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @05:09PM (#478509) Journal

          Maybe you don't understand that whole "indentured servitude" thing. White people and black came to this country as chattel. The master could put a white man to death just as quickly and easily as he could put a black man to death. So, yes, slaves built this country. Black slaves and white slaves alike. Black slaves got a much shittier deal than white slaves did, in the long run, but it didn't start out that way.

          If you're going to give credit to the chattel who were black, make sure to also give credit to all the involuntarily deported English, Irish, and Scots people sent here by English judges.

          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @05:15PM (3 children)

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 13 2017, @05:15PM (#478513) Journal

            Didn't we see this "hey, there were white slaves too, and black slave owners" pop up a few days ago?
            I'm pretty sure in that case it was introduced to the argument completely off topic as well.

            Hey everyone, I think we found the new meme handed down by the alt-right propaganda machine! Everybody cross "SJW" and "Identity Politics" off your Breitbart Bingo scorecards, and write "White slavery" in its place.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:31PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:31PM (#478525)
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM (#478563)

              It is pretty hilarious to see the memes spread like wildfire. "Hey boys we have a new way of distracting everybody!"

              Lawl lawl lawl, it is entertaining and horrifying all at once. Seeing the idiots get worked over by their own stupidity is funny, seeing them shape the direction of our country is terrifying.

            • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday March 13 2017, @07:12PM

              by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday March 13 2017, @07:12PM (#478581) Journal

              It may be popping up again, but it's not new. It was in the white supremacist/Christian extremist undercurrent at least in the 90s and probably before then. (See Christian Identity [wikipedia.org].)

              Look for key ideas like slave owners working just as hard beside the slaves in the field (or harder) and denials that the speaker's heritage would have been wealthy enough to even own slaves if the speaker comes from down South. There is also eagerness to bring up the fact that many African cultures often did have a practices one may describe adequately as “slavery” though the white supremacist will imply those are no different at all from the practice in the antebellum South. There's also Anthony Johnson [wikipedia.org] who came up recently here as well.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:18PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:18PM (#478517)

            B-b-but, white slaves!

            Ah, that's the racist-as-fuck runaway that we all know.
            That day or two of not-being-a-total-shit really was an aberration, must have given your password out to someone else.

            Here's a clue: The children of indentured servants were not indentured.

            But you know what is especially revealing?
            I didn't say one damn word about whether the slaves were white or black.
            You put that in there all on your own.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM (6 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM (#478562) Journal

              "Here's a clue: The children of indentured servants were not indentured."

              Exactly. And, the children of black slaves weren't slaves either - until one black man went to court to fight his black servant's legitimate claim to freedom.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#Casor_suit [wikipedia.org]

              The wiki article doesn't really go into depth, but you now have the names of Anthony Green, John Casor, and the Northampton court, along with the date - 1654. You will note that the court found in favor of John Casor, but Green appealed, and presumable paid off the appeals court judge. Anthony Green is responsible, in part, for the abysmal conditions later imposed upon his fellow black people in America. It took 200 years for that ridiculous appeal to finally be overturned.

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM (#478568)

                Holy shit.

                Slavery is actually the fault of black people.

                And the proof is a wikipedia article that the Talk section reveals to be mostly the result of a pro-racism edit war.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:57AM (3 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:57AM (#478716) Journal

                  Yeah, holy shit - black people fought each other, captured the losers, and sold those losers into slavery. It is a time honored tradition in much of Africa, one that Arabia capitalized on since long before Mohammed.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:54AM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:54AM (#478780)

                    Slavery as an economic institution was not a creation of africans.
                    Slave labor was not the underpinning of any african markets.
                    Nor was there a demand for thousands and thousands of slaves.

                    You just can't help yourself, can you?
                    With every single post you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
                    Its like you snorted a bunch of KKKocaine this weekend or something and all of the white supremacist meme parasites have burrowed into your brain tissue.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:03PM (1 child)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:03PM (#478908) Journal

                      Ignorance can be cured - sometimes. Try reading.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa [wikipedia.org]

                      Chattel slavery[edit]
                      Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[12] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders.[12]

                      Military slavery[edit]

                      Slaves for sacrifice at the Annual Customs of Dahomey - from The history of Dahomy, an inland Kingdom of Africa, 1793.
                      Military slavery involved the acquisition and training of conscripted military units which would retain the identity of military slaves even after their service.[14] Slave soldier groups would be run by a Patron, who could be the head of a government or an independent warlord, and who would send his troops out for money and his own political interests.[14]

                      This was most significant in the Nile valley (primarily in Sudan and Uganda), with slave military units organized by various Islamic authorities,[14] and with the war chiefs of Western Africa.[15] The military units in Sudan were formed in the 1800s through large-scale military raiding in the area which is currently the countries of Sudan and South Sudan.[14]

                      Slaves for sacrifice[edit]
                      Although archaeological evidence is not clear on the issue prior to European contact, in those societies that practiced human sacrifice, slaves became the most prominent victims.[4]

                      Slavery practices throughout Africa[edit]
                      Like most other regions of the world, slavery and forced labor existed in many kingdoms and societies of Africa for thousands of years.[17] Precise evidence on slavery or the political and economic institutions of slavery before contact with the Arab or Atlantic slave trade is not available.[7] Early European reports of slavery throughout Africa in the 1600s are unreliable because they often conflated various forms of servitude as equal to chattel slavery.[18] The complex relationships and evidence from oral histories often incorrectly describe many forms of servitude or social status as slavery, even when the practices do not follow conceptualizations of slavery in other regions around the world.[7]

                      The best evidence of slave practices in Africa come from the major kingdoms, particularly along the coast, and there is little evidence of widespread slavery practices in stateless societies.[4][7][8] Slave trading was mostly secondary to other trade relationships; however, there is evidence of a trans-Saharan slave trade route from Roman times which persisted in the area after the fall of the Roman empire.[12] However, kinship structures and rights provided to slaves (except those captured in war) appears to have limited the scope of slave trading before the start of the Arab slave trade and the Atlantic slave trade.[7]

                      Northern Africa[edit]

                      Redemption of Christian slaves by Catholic monks in Algiers in 1661.

                      Burning of a Village in Africa, and Capture of its Inhabitants (p.12, February 1859, XVI)[19]
                      Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC - ca. 500 AD). The Sahel region south of the Sahara provided many of the African slaves held in North Africa during this period and there was a trans-Saharan slave trade in operation.[12] Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana).[4]

                      http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/history/slave-trade.php [ghanaweb.com]

                      "The seemingly insatiable market and the substantial profits to be gained from the slave trade attracted adventurers from all over Europe. Much of the conflict that arose among European groups on the coast and among competing African kingdoms was the result of rivalry for control of this trade."

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM (#478629)

                This should be the poster-child for "try hard"

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @05:40PM (2 children)

          No they don't. Those are literally restricted to citizens.

          And how, pray tell, do you tell who's a citizen and who isn't? The one document that could prove your citizenship, your birth certificate, is not asked for; only the child's is. For foodstamps you don't need even that. What is legal and what actually happens are not the same thing or we would not have a problem with illegal immigration.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:02PM (#478538)

            The one document that could prove your citizenship, your birth certificate, is not asked for; only the child's is. For foodstamps you don't need even that.

            Ah, the argument from ignorance.
            Just because SNAP has multiple ways to verify recipient identity doesn't mean they do not verify identity.
            They don't just write your name down and then file it away. They look you up in the system to make sure you are qualified to receive benefits.
            A birth certificate isn't actually ID anyway since it has no photograph.

            The idea that any substantial portion of illegal immigrants are falsely claiming benefits is ludicrous. Illegal immigrants stay as far away from organs of the state as possible because any such contact dramatically risks them being deported. Its a last resort at best.

            What is legal and what actually happens are not the same thing or we would not have a problem with illegal immigration.

            Oh look, another dictionary pedant. All definitions of "illegal" are not equal. Otherwise everybody in the country would be an illegal since we've all broken some law at some point in our lives. [reason.com]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:43PM (#478566)

              TMB: Not letting facts get in the way of his personal narrative for 20+ years!

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday March 13 2017, @07:37PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday March 13 2017, @07:37PM (#478593) Journal

        Do you conveniently forget history when it suites you? Sure the British had a colony here, but there were many other settlers ("Immigrants") from all over Europe here as well. Many of those who fought in the revolutionary war against Britain were foreign born such as Tadeusz Kościuszko [wikipedia.org].

        And it's not like the US hasn't seen its fair share of discrimination against immigrants in the past. How about we go back to when waves of Irish flooded into the USA and the backlash against them? Remember "No Irish Need Apply"? They along with other Catholics such as the Italians, Poles and Germans were discriminated against. Immigrants like all of my family who just so happen to be from said countries. Their children fought in WW2, opened businesses, and started families. It's why I'm here.

        Face it, the country was built by immigrants.

        FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @04:58PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @04:58PM (#478502) Journal

      Ahem. You're talking about Mexico and Central and South America. US politics are pretty tame compared to most of theirs. Have you read any news from "South of the Border"? http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ [borderlandbeat.com]

      You can learn more about Mexican politics here, than you'll ever learn from US news sources, or high school text books. It isn't a politics site, but they do include some political news.

(1) 2