J.C.MacSwell

One of his goals that has seemed consistent is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. To some degree he has succeeded in that. Anyway...enough of my "defending" Trump... More my point of interest was the potential for emergence of a moderate centrist party. Something I would like to see if the two current ones remain polarized.

Same link: "Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party" Is any of that part quoted factually incorrect?

I haven't read it all but for what it's worth: "The political positions of United States President Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism[1][2]) have elements from across the political spectrum" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump I also don't quite understand how House investigations push him further right, but Bannon seems to say it is because that is where his base is.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Is Point capitalized for some particular reason?

I just watched the Bannon Oxford Speech and Q&A. Very interesting what he predicts for 2020, about how Trump will be forced to the right by the House (Investigations etc), Clinton, Booker et al will pull the Democrats to the Left, and a new "unity" party will form in the middle to make it a 3 way race. It comes just before the hour mark with the question asked at 57:30:

Just generally. The same as I took Ten oz to mean it.

All to often this is the case, but Pro may be winning the battle but losing the war. Con's ideas could be seen as more robust long term and Con may better understand both sides going forward. Much of this depends on the audience (if there is one) and how knowledgeable and open they might be. Very good point about the time restricted perspective. More and more that seems to lead to the tactics of getting just your own points across strongly with what time you have, and interrupting the "opponent" when they try to make their case.

...and you were absolutely correct to ask for clarification. We don't all speak the same language...even when we are all speaking "English".

He was using the term correctly. It seems more and more common for the term to have the context of voter disenfranchisement, but the term is much broader than that. I was surprised when you brought it up, but after you did it made me realize how much it tends to get used in political discussion with voter disenfranchisement to be the assumed meaning.

Meanwhile Trump being congratulated at the G20 on his "historic victory" in the midterms by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Apparently he must have read the title of this thread and looked no further into it...

I remember as a kid going across the Bay of Fundy on the ferry between Saint John New Brunswick and Digby Nova Scotia. At about the midpoint all the garbage was thrown overboard. Why around the midpoint? Because it was the right thing to do...Ecology 101 back then... A few weeks ago I was at a meeting of challenges to industry. There was about a dozen up for discussion and this was one of them: Plastics Challenge - Remove and Manage Ghost Fishing Gear and Marine Debris https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/101.nsf/eng/00035.html

OK...what would "different energy loss" mean in this hypothetical point of view?

I don't believe you would. If you do all the accounting in that frame energy should be conserved. The extra energy would be in whatever your zero kinetic energy particle collided with. Energy conservation should work for any event, measured from any and every inertia frame. Every observer would measure the photon to be at c. None would travel with the photon.

Quite the opposite. If you suggest "totally open" border, then you don't need to answer the questions.

No. The root cause is either: 1. inability to take on more immigration or 2. unwillingness to take on more immigration or some combination there of, with the threshold for 2 doubtlessly changing as immigration increases. That would quickly become apparent if the processing was sped up. I realize that sounds sad, but that does not make it untrue. Every country has to decide how much immigration they are willing to take on, and what process they wish to use to make it happen. There is no easy answer like processing immigrants faster. That would be a temporary fix only (though much better than tear gassing children, and temporarily better than paying $160/day average per detainee) and with it would come an unintended announcement of a race to your border. There are 7 Billion of us on the planet. How many would come if it was a totally open border? Do you want them all? What restrictions would you like to have in place? How many do you think would be politically feasible, and how best to do that? How many can you have and assure they will be welcomed?

Nonsense. In the context under discussion a border that allows you passage but requests you check in now and then is freer than one that detains you and won't let you in It is "working". Very expensively, and with money that no doubt could be put to much better use. Do you, like CY, also believe that without it immigration levels would not increase? Possibly. Are we not all looking for ways this tear gassing of children can be best avoided? Looking for better outcomes?

First point (understood that we disagree. You think no effect at all, and I think economic migrants will be more dissuaded. I think we can agree it will do nothing to change those fearing for their lives) Second

Here I am not making the argument that CharonY conveniently now claims I was making. You were quoting me directly CY, in responding to the above. Don't try to weasel out of it.

...and maybe it's just wishful thinking up here in the cold...but we realize global warming is real... But the point is how much immigration can be comfortably handled. Canada has less congestion and I would say less political and economic stress. Not saying it is easy, but I think that makes it easier. Sharing essentially just one border with one other Nation, that is generally as attractive to migrants or more so, helps as well.

Thanks INow. It was higher back when you had a population close to Canada's present population. Canada's is presently well above your peaks around that time, currently 20+ percent. Not perfectly, but we seem to manage it, albeit with lower population densities overall. We also have an incarceration level 1/6 of what yours is, and less military spending.

So. You are unable to see that it's true, because you have a valid reason to dislike it? You are not giving any argument whatsoever that it is not true. Is it not obvious that a freer border will lead to more immigration? I'm not advocating the use of detaining as a deterrent. But if you like the current level of immigration, with the current system in place, and wish to change something that currently discourages it, then what do you propose to hold immigration to the same level? Or is a higher level acceptable?

I think that is a valid argument. Do you disagree with that argument, or disagree?

Ten oz. I realize you think you know better than I do about any agenda I might have, but I am actually the authority on it not you. Insulting my questions does not change that fact. I am not pushing that. I was merely asking questions on it. In particular with respect to the costs associated with it.

I asked some questions. But I really haven't. As usual, you are quick to assume.

From the link: "Less wasteful and equally effective alternatives to detention exist. Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security show that the costs of these alternatives can range from 70 cents to $17 per person per day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the currently detained population, taxpayers could save more than $1.44 billion per year—almost an 80 percent reduction in annual costs." Do you not think allowing more migrants through (and not detain them) would encourage more migrants to come?