T Nation

Is Trey Gowdy SERIOUS?

Wait…hold up…

Is Trey Gowdy…(yep…THAT Trey Gowdy)…the Congressman from South Carolina who rode in on his White Tea Party Stallion…and proceeded to eviscerate anything and everything that even smelled Liberal…

Who became the darling of the Right because he Bitch Slapped Hillary Clinton and made the Word “Benghazi” the second most common word spoken on “FOX”? (Second only to “Obama”…)

Is this same Trey Gowdy saying he is leaving Congress because it is too…(wait for it…wait for it…)…

.Partisan…???

(What the Holy Hell…!)

The guy now has Trump, “Fox” and other conservative commentators calling him “a loser”…(and God forbid)…a “Rhino”???

Damn…I feel like I just had Hillary Clinton’s e-mail Server dropped on my head listening to this guy lament about his time in Congress…

Is South Carolina Bullshit a special and unique kind of Bullshit or something?

What say 'ye, my Friends on “PWI”?

4 Likes

Announcing your retirement must be liberating. It allows one to actually act like a human being.

1 Like

GOP controls the White House. GOP controls Congress. GOP Congressman says he’s quitting Congress because its unprincipled and too partisan.

Democrats aren’t driving him to quit.

Tells you everything you need to know about the GOP.

6 Likes

Yeah I won’t be shedding any tears over him quitting but it would be nice for some of the departing GOP to stand by their convictions while they are still in congress. Most of them don’t have the guts to stand up to trump for fear of his base. So sad.

1 Like

Yeah, and frankly, I’m amazed some of them aren’t more vocal. I just know some of them despise Trump and what he’s been doing. Maybe when it gets a little closer to quittin’ time, they’ll open up a bit more.

4 Likes

I think it’s the other way around. Trump doesn’t have the guts to nuke the GOP and do his own thing. The party establishment hates him more than the democrats do. Because he beat 16 of their “best” and he’s actually trying to impliment parts if their platform the GOP pays lip service to but never actually does (border security for instance).

That’s funny. You have to have them first.

1 Like

I would say that, for purely political purposes, he’s trying to implement the counterproductive demagoguery he used to hoodwink the low-information voters that constitute his base. Because in terms of effective border security, his wall is an absurdity.

2 Likes

Stepped up ICE enforcement and actually fighting sanctuary policies is resulting in more felons deported.

So the GOP cuts funding for ICE and detention centers in the budget. They don’t want the border enforced, at all.

So Trump proposes calling out the national guard.

He’s trying. Effective or not he’s trying.

1 Like

You say that as if it’s an unequivocally good thing, when in fact most experts seem to think the opposite. Again, this is optics designed to appeal to low-info voters, not an attempt at effective policy.

That’s my point–he’s not trying. If he was actually trying, he would listen to people who are well-versed in these issues. He’s engaged in nothing more than political theater, the point of which is self-aggrandizement and the accumulation of power. I dare say he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about immigration one way or the other.

Consider: I maintain that, if the 2016 political winds had been blowing in the Dems’ favor, Trump would have run for the Democratic nomination, because his motivation was to be in the thick of the election (as opposed to implementation of a specific political program). Do you dispute this speculation? That is, do you actually think Trump is a conservative guided by principle?

2 Likes

GOP has had plenty of convictions the past few years.

Has anybody else noticed how this Stormy Daniels thing is called a nondisclosure agreement these days instead of a Gag order?

I guess given the nature of the subject, Gag Order would be considered unpalatable.

3 Likes

Less foreign felons in the US = good thing. That’s why the enforcement is going after illegals with priors. Paint the Dems into fighting FOR people that break multiple laws (not just immigration laws).

First, not all felonies are created equal, so such a blanket statement is misleading on its face. Further, if the deportation of felons comes at the cost of reduced trust in and engagement with authorities on the part of the undocumented population, it could well drive crime rates up.

Frankly, that’s a low-info thing to say. You’re better than that.

There should be zero undocumented (illegal alien) population. They should be very afraid of law enforcement. So afraid, they go back home and immigrate legally. Like they should have in the first place.

Politics is a dirty game, always has been. Pretending like nobody is playing a game with serious issues is naive (low information if you will).

The dems are literally giving the GOP rope to hang them with. They’re going to the mat to protect illegal immigrant criminals. How do you think that polls, even with independents? Anyone without trump derangement syndrome can see that the Dems are playing into his hand on the sanctuary issue.

1 Like

That’s like saying ‘There should be zero medical errors’ or ‘There should be zero product malfunctions.’ An impossible, unrealistic, and vastly cost-inefficient goal, the pursuit of which would grind our economy to a halt.

This would be decidely suboptimal, for them as well as the rest of us. We want everyone living here to feel free to go to the police when circumstances warrant it. The undocumented population lives on the front line when it comes to interacting with the truly bad actors among them (eg, MS-13). You drive a wedge between the undocumented population and the authorities, and you cut off an important source of intelligence for the law enforcement.

Trump is playing an entirely different game than is your garden-variety politician, one far more damaging to our democracy.

This is so ridiculous that I’m willing to accept anecdotal evidence in its defense. Examples, please, of Dems ‘going to the mat to protect undocumented persons’ whose criminal history unequivocally outweighs their current status.

1 Like

Being in the country illegally IS criminal history. Full stop. It outweighs their need to feel safe.

Your argument amounts to: “We can’t aggressively enforce the law because the criminals won’t trust law enforcement. That breakdown in trust will lead to more law breaking.”

What other crime would that argument work with? Petty theft? Insurance fraud?

It’s your blatant failure to recognize illegal entry into the country as a crime befitting punishment that makes this conversation uselss. You certainly won’t stop everyone. So your argument is we shouldn’t enforce at all, since we can’t stop 100%? Again what other crime does that logic work for?

You want anecdotal evidence? Every single politician that is fighting cooperation with ICE (for criminals who are already in custody) is aiding and abetting felons.

The dems need illegals as they need to import a dependent under class they can convince to vote nearly 100% dem. Because as soon as they have anchor babies, boom Democrat voters. The establishment republicans need slave labor, so its a fruitless conversation anyway as the enforcement efforts will all go away Jan 21 2021.

Where are you getting this from? Not challenging you, but a quick Google search turned up this:

Yet figures released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 5th show that the total number of deportations has declined over the past fiscal year—from October 1st 2016 to September 30th 2017—to the lowest level seen since 2006. The data also show that deportation has become less selective in the Trump era, increasing the risk of removal for people like Mr Barrios Mendoza, who have led long and quiet lives in America.

I also understand illegal immigration is at its lowest in 46 years (it’s been on the decline for quite awhile).

2 Likes

So, criminal is criminal is criminal, meaning we shouldn’t treat a murderer any different from, say, someone convicted of jaywalking?

No, my argument is that it is not in our interest–our referring to you, me and the rest of the legal population–to drive a wedge between the undocumented population and the authorities–that on balance, we are better off when the undocumented feel secure.

Thus far, you have failed to address my points concerning proportionality and cost-effectiveness. Since (per you) crime is crime is crime, and the only acceptable rate of criminal activity is zero, can I assume you’re in favor of building a wall (a big, beautiful, solid wall, to be specific) along every street in America in order to prevent jaywalking? Or, mobilizing National Guard troops to monitor every city block, gathering information on jaywalkers so that the local authorities can prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law? Because if not, you’re going to have to explain to me the theory of criminal justice that motivates a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for undocumented residency on the grounds of ‘it’s a crime’ but not doing everything possible to prevent/prosecute every other crime.

Sorry, that’s not an anecdote.

Edit:

Nope. My argument is that enforcement policies should take into account costs and benefits.

All of them, I would say.

1 Like

Strawman much?

The same way the GOP pushes abstinence-only birth control, tries to forbid teaching evolution in school and only pays lip service to the opioid epidemic rather than looking at real solutions? Is that so they constantly have a fresh crop of GOP voters?

1 Like

I totally understand local police ignoring immigration status. I wouldn’t want a victim of a crime who was illegal to be afraid of the police. Extreme TV show example could be I murder tons of illegals. Then the local police deport the witnesses and I go un-caught.

Or some illegal is motivated to get into a high speed get a way over some traffic violation, rather than just stop.

Also, I can see why some local sheriff doesn’t want to spend his scarce local resources to keep illegals in his already overcrowded jail, for extra time, waiting on ICE.

To me, that seems reasonable. I don’t really like the highly political outright defiance of the President, using this issue. If the Real Goal is making the public safer and law enforcement more effective, I think we need some kind of compromise.

Local cops shouldnt round illegals up. But no sanctuary for violent criminals. Treat non-scarry illegals differently, so there can be less paperwork and BS, and ICE and locals can cooperate to get rid of scary foreigners.

2 Likes