Trump campaign aide Rick Gates to plead guilty in Mueller investigation

 sdwright wrote: 
No, I only meant the 'splitting up California' part, and even that was just a joke. I know CA's economy is just as dependent on immigrant labor as Texas'. The reality is, the US economy depends on all of our trading partners.

In Austin we have a rail line that runs right through the middle of town. A common sight is rail cars stacked high with bare truck frames, going from Mexico to assembly lines (read: good jobs) in the US. Also a lot of enclosed car carriers, presumably loaded with cars built in Mexico (or San Antonio, where there's a big Toyota plant). The right's jingoist rhetoric is out of step with the reality on the ground. 

The truly sad part is, the US is complicit in undermining the governments of the very Central American countries many immigrants are fleeing. We broke it, but refuse to buy it. Talk about Golden Rule, huh?
c.

 kurtster wrote: 
It's a lot more complicated than that. Texas has similar issues. One big problem is, ICE doesn't always come get the folks they're so desperate to deport. Low-level, non-violent offenses are the majority, and they jam up the local jails. Local jurisdictions do not have the resources to be holding tanks for all ICE detainees. Local law enforcement has to prioritize, so violent offenders can be detained.

The local Sheriff has complied with ICE detainers when accompanied by a warrant or court order. But ICE wanted (and got) blanket detention orders for anyone suspected (not necessarily convicted) of any crime. Fine, but where are you going to put all those people? Worse, what happened to due process? Illegal immigrants are still human beings, and still have rights, conferred by our Constitution. Throwing them in detention indefinitely, without filing charges against them, is a violation of everything we should stand for.

But the biggest issue at the local level, is police need some level of trust in the community, regardless of immigration status. If someone lives in fear of being deported, they are much less likely to talk with police about crimes being committed in their neighborhoods. Illegal folks who are otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying members of the community, become marginalized, and the real scumbags, illegal or not, have free reign.

You could say 'all illegals are criminals', but that doesn't begin to tell the whole story, and doesn't solve anything either. It is pure fantasy to try and expel 12 million people from the US.
Big chunks of Texas' economy depend on the labor of illegal immigrants. It's not a good thing, sure, but it is a fact. Throwing them out solves nothing, and causes real damage to businesses and families.

Now as to California...

c.

 R_P wrote: 
It was only a matter of time. I had the same idea but no Photoshop or time to execute it.

 kurtster wrote: 
Of course you do. All Trump zombies do.

 miamizsun wrote: 
hanging tough.

With Ca becoming a sanctuary state, they refuse to do anything at all to help out the feds on anything regarding immigration enforcement.  Not turning over illegals who are already in jail and releasing them requires ICE to go find them out in the wild, requiring more manpower, greater expense and unnecessary risk to the agents as well as the public in order to find and re arrest those who are wanted for deportation.

So why bother ?

while we are at it, we should split Ca into two states and give the southern half back to Mexico and the northern half back to Russia ...

 kurtster wrote: 
hey bud, hope all is well

i'm out of the loop

what's going on with california?

I like the idea of pulling ICE out of California.

 R_P wrote: 

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Some of the fine people who elected this train wreck are now issuing death threats to survivors of the latest mass murder. This country is beyond fucked up.

 Steely_D wrote: 
for a happy meal

 haresfur wrote:
Perhaps it could serve to remind him that he holds the responsibility of the office, but what might work better would be a splash screen for his twitter app that says "You're the president of the United States, dumbass—rethink what you're about to tweet."

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Tattoo

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Topless Scott

This is the first pass I've given Trump. One per year, I guess. I want a president to work from notes if that's what he has to do to keep from forgetting to say something, even if it's as basic social graces. I struggle with that, so I respect that he (or his staff) is aware enough to jot it down. 

And I think the 45 monogram is cool. I'd absolutely do that. If I wore shirts, that is.

 Steely_D wrote: 

 Steely_D wrote: 
Brutal.

Brutally accurate!

Trump has '45' embroidered on his shirt cuffs — but style experts say it's a big mistake

So you don't have to visit the Business Insider site and see all the ads:

It's really easy to guess Trump's favorite number.

It's 45. Look, it's right there on his shirt cuff, embroidered in blue for all to see. The monogram was most recently on display during a White House "listening session" that focused on gun control.

While a monogram typically uses an owner's initials, Trump's uses a logo that refers only to him and his place in the US presidential order. This is unusual, but it isn't the first time Trump has taken the number "45" as his own — it's also appeared on hats he's worn.

Still, monograms are extremely controversial in men's style circles. They're basically a minefield in rules and taste.

Monograms have their roots in preppy style. Traditionally, they were an easy way to differentiate whose shirt was whose when they were all jumbled together in the laundry, presumably at an East Coast university.

We doubt that it serves the same functional style for the president. Some on Twitter called the president "narcissistic" for employing the monogram, while others derided his sartorial choices and compared them unfavorably to those of other world leaders.

Style experts have debated the merits of any kind of monograms on clothing for decades, and it's a heated topic.

"The people most likely to be impressed by ... embroidery are by definition allergic to the ideas that elegance is restraint and discretion the better part of not looking goofy," men's style expert Troy Patterson wrote in 2013 for Slate.

Most take less of a hardline against monograms and have nothing against them, provided they are discreet and limited. The air of personalization they give to a man's wardrobe is alluring, after all. Even JFK was photographed with a monogram on his left breast in a picture published in 1960.

The choice of placement, however, is another place where guys can go wrong. While the cuff is one of several areas on dress shirts where men often place their monograms, Trump's location choice is where he really went wrong.

Justin L. Jeffers, who runs the blog The Fine Young Gentleman, did not mince words.

"The place to not put your monogram is on the edge of the shirt cuff. I played around with this placement on a few shirts and could not get over the ever-presence of it, even when in a matching color to the shirt," he wrote in 2013. "Never again."

While a monogram can be subtle, one on the shirt cuff is the opposite of that. It peeks out, and with contrasting stitches, it draws the eye immediately, distracting from the rest of what you have to say. They face outward and are impossible to hide.

Still, there's plenty of support for fans of monogrammed cuffs. Pinterest is full of inspiration for those who are daring enough, and most shirt companies will offer it as an option.