More winning - can't stop the Trump Train

Weems

New Member
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...to-move-quickly-on-daca-without-linking-it-to

President Trump told lawmakers Wednesday that Republicans will move quickly to shelter hundreds of thousands of “Dreamers” facing an uncertain future after the president gutted a program granting legal rights to those same immigrants.

He also promised he would not seek to link funding for his proposed border wall to legislative action on the program.

Trump last week rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA), giving Congress a six-month deadline to come up with a legislative solution. But in a White House meeting with centrist lawmakers from both parties, the president said he doesn’t want to wait that long, according to one of the participants.

...Because this doesn't much seem like winning for Americans. It seems like winning for the globalists.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Yep. I read the article.

What legal rights did he take away? The right to continue living here?
 

Weems

New Member
Yep. I read the article.

What legal rights did he take away? The right to continue living here?

I don't much care about "rights" for people who are not authorized to be here, but anytime Trump is cutting deals with Pelosi and Schumer I'd say it's a bad deal for our rights.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I don't much care about "rights" for people who are not authorized to be here, but anytime Trump is cutting deals with Pelosi and Schumer I'd say it's a bad deal for our rights.

Sooner or later, he will have to.

Both of them but especially Nancy have shown they have no idea whatsoever what "bipartisan" means. Pelosi has said in the past that getting a supermajority would get things moving on more "bipartisan" legislation, which just means, we'll get to pass all our stuff without anyone hindering us.

But both sides have their leaders who adhere to a single principle - ANYTHING to the right/left of me is capitulation. Moderation is just incremental loss.
When you have two sides that are diametrically opposed to one another in the wanted outcome, you cannot have compromise unless at least ONE side gives up something.

In Washington, the game is to get the votes so the side that gives up something - is always the other guy.

I'm still wait and see. A con artist makes you THINK you like the deal until it's over. A good dealmaker has you still satisfied with it afterward.
 

Wishbone

New Member
Republicans have always been the ones to have to compromise ...... Democrats NEVER do

And compromise IS incremental loss because they always come back for another bite of the pie.

If you keep giving them a little slice, eventually its gone.
 

Weems

New Member
Sooner or later, he will have to.

Both of them but especially Nancy have shown they have no idea whatsoever what "bipartisan" means. Pelosi has said in the past that getting a supermajority would get things moving on more "bipartisan" legislation, which just means, we'll get to pass all our stuff without anyone hindering us.

But both sides have their leaders who adhere to a single principle - ANYTHING to the right/left of me is capitulation. Moderation is just incremental loss.
When you have two sides that are diametrically opposed to one another in the wanted outcome, you cannot have compromise unless at least ONE side gives up something.

In Washington, the game is to get the votes so the side that gives up something - is always the other guy.

I'm still wait and see. A con artist makes you THINK you like the deal until it's over. A good dealmaker has you still satisfied with it afterward.

Pragmatically speaking, you are correct.

Trump isn't supposed to have been a politician.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Pragmatically speaking, you are correct.

Trump isn't supposed to have been a politician.

No - but I tend to think the "deals" politicians make usually are either one-sided or complete con jobs - hence, the reference.

Trump's reputation is presumably being able to come up with solutions that both sides can agree to, rather than EACH side trying to overpower the other.
For most of the past several terms, that's the only way anything gets done in Washington, and it's damned little.
 
Here is my take on it so far... and based on my understanding of what he is proposing, I'm all for it.

800k dreamers already documented in DACA will have a path to citizenship. I'm willing to assume there will be requirements that they have no criminal records (other than the fact that they were brought here illegally) and are employed and/or working on completing an education path that will lead to gainful employment. I consider this a 'win' compromise because these 800k will already be 'vetted' and the bad eggs will get the boot. The dems are always spouting about the 'innocents' and with this concession the dems will have to concede that the criminal elements will not get to stay. WINNING.

As for the wall, despite the sound bites from Pelosi and Shumcryer... the other concession that will have to be a part of acknowledging the DACAs already here is to halt the massive influx of more to come... both parties will have to acknowledge and concede to the wall efforts. I continue to believe it is already in the works and will continue to be 'worked'.

As for the rest of the millions here illegally... they are not part of this particular conversation. I believe we have made progress by allowing authorities to again do their work using existing laws on the books.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
I don't much care about "rights" for people who are not authorized to be here, but anytime Trump is cutting deals with Pelosi and Schumer I'd say it's a bad deal for our rights.

Yeah, because the support he got from the Republicans has been wonderful...

As our country continues to suffer from Obamacare...
 

Weems

New Member
No - but I tend to think the "deals" politicians make usually are either one-sided or complete con jobs - hence, the reference.

Trump's reputation is presumably being able to come up with solutions that both sides can agree to, rather than EACH side trying to overpower the other.
For most of the past several terms, that's the only way anything gets done in Washington, and it's damned little.

Sure, he has that reputation in business. But politics isn't really the same sort of business that Trump is used to.

If very little gets "done" in Washington, I think that's a net win for the taxpayer, so I will be fine with it.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
This really has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Try to pay attention, kid.

Actually it does..

The Obamacare vote NOT passing pointed out the need for Trump to have to negotiate with the Democrats..

Obamacare has EVERYTING to do with him coddling up to Schumer and Pelosi.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I'm willing to assume there will be requirements that they have no criminal records (other than the fact that they were brought here illegally) and are employed and/or working on completing an education path that will lead to gainful employment.



yeah about those DREAM'ers


Research on Dreamers Contradicts Public Image

I have found only one source of credible, useful information for policymakers about the DACA population. It is an ongoing project of Harvard University researcher Roberto G. Gonzales, called the National UnDACAmented Research Project. There are important (self-acknowledged) caveats to the findings: The research is based on an online survey of just over 2,000 self-described DACA-eligible respondents and about 200 follow-up interviews. Gonzales believes that for a variety of reasons, the respondents are more educated and well-off than the DACA population as a whole.

Nevertheless, the findings are interesting. Here is a sample:

73 percent of DACA recipients he surveyed live in a low-income household (defined as qualifying for free lunch in high school);
22 percent have earned a degree from a four-year college or university;
21 percent have dropped out of high school;
20 percent have no education beyond high school and no plans to attend college;
59 percent obtained a new job with a DACA work permit, but only 45 percent increased their overall earnings;
36 percent have a parent who holds a bachelor's degree; and
51 percent were already employed before DACA.


None of this is to suggest that these individuals should not be considered for an amnesty or legalization program, but to suggest that the arguments in favor of such a program are largely political rather than economic. Immigrants who are not highly educated and who are working in low-paying jobs are more likely to access welfare and other public assistance programs over the course of their lives. If Congress decides to enact an amnesty program, which I think is likely, then it would make sense from a fiscal standpoint to cut other forms of legal immigration, such as the chain migration categories, that also tend to strain our public coffers.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
McCain and the RINOS like him have put the Republican Party in this position.. NOT Trump.

:yay:

I was thinking the past 25 yrs ........ going back to Bush in the 90's


any bill that republicans wanted to get pasted required them to compromise NOT democrats

except for that short window durning the Clinton yrs - Contract for America
 
yeah about those DREAM'ers
I am okay with those statistics because I want concessions in return that are more important than a percentage of 800k becoming citizens albeit in the lower class rather than the middle class where I am. I was raised by what your stats would consider to be "lower class" and I'm middle class. I got that way because I didn't want to live a lower class lifestyle. As U.S. citizens no longer under the "refugee" umbrella, if they want bigger and better lifestyles they can and some will work for it and get there on their own.

I want the border secured (as much as humanly possible) and I want the criminal elements gone.

On another note, I never could understand how the left can shout outrage at both "let them stay because our country is stronger on the backs of those willing to do the low pay jobs us Americans won't do!" and "America is so horrible because they used to have slavery!"

Flooding our country with undocumented workers who are not getting the protection of employment laws is a form of slavery.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I want the border secured (as much as humanly possible) and I want the criminal elements gone.

fair enough ....

if there were IRONCLAD assurances of a border wall and deportations of criminals I'd be willing to compromise on 800k of dreamers


but as soon as the dreamers get a pass, lucy will pull the football
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
fair enough ....

if there were IRONCLAD assurances of a border wall and deportations of criminals I'd be willing to compromise on 800k of dreamers
but as soon as the dreamers get a pass, lucy will pull the football

You might want to read Ann Coulter's latest.

She's made the observation that every time some issue comes up towards amnesty or citizenship - the hard and fast requirements quickly dissolve into NOTHING.
Make no mistake - if they go ahead with a path for citizenship for qualified Dreamers - Congress will water it down to mean nothing at all.
 
Top