text: All you need do to refute my call is provide a (credible) source for your contention that "a good portion of the public had concluded that on 99% of the issues there was no difference between the elite in the two parties."  You even have the wiggle room of how much is "a good portion."
  
  I could easily be wrong on this, and that's fine. Go.
  
  You wrote:
  
  <<The article in the Washington Post simply notes that the net immigration is negative, not that the border was "secured".>>
  
  You appear to abide by the standard reductio ad absurdum offered by the INS agent that not until not one person breaches the border can the border be considered secured.
  
  I urge people to listen to the NPR broadcast and the series of concessions Steve Inskeep cornered border patrol agent Brandon Judd into making on Trump's mighty wall: "This whole debate has been about a couple of hundred miles of fence?"