Donald Trump and US politics

Dali still sticking to the 80927859849847600 D chess eh? Naw you elected a guy who has broken every promise he's ever made to his wives, his bankers, his partners, his sub-contractors and to you. Trump became president these last few weeks. A Democratic President. Enjoy.

I'll name my next kid Mueller if he finds something to get rid of this tard.

@DurianMcgregor We dont need immigrants of any sort with million of homeless. We can't even take care of people we got let alone more. Let alone amnesty for those who illegally came here which is unfair to people who went through proper channels. You are either a nation of laws or laws are meaningless and we live in a lawless society and I don't think anyone wants that. Disaster relief is paying people to build in unsafe areas. You may be fine with subsidizing stupidity (and rich in many cases) but I'm not at least not without building moratoriums attached.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Dali still sticking to the 80927859849847600 D chess eh? Naw you elected a guy who has broken every promise he's ever made to his wives, his bankers, his partners, his sub-contractors and to you. Trump became president these last few weeks. A Democratic President. Enjoy.

I think it's a critical error to make claims of 4D chess when one cannot see the moves oneself; in such instances, claims are made on faith rather than on evidence. Realizing McConnell is shit and working with Actual Senate Majority Leader Schumer is one thing, caving to him so easily on DACA, the Wall and Iran is another thing entirely. This is artless dealing.

The only instance where the principles of the Art of the Deal apply to Trump's current behavior is if applied to renegotiating with his base. Step 1 is the Big Ask, and no DACA and no Wall sure is a doozy as far as broken promises go.

If this is indeed 4D chess, then the only logical reaction Trump expects from his actions here is the scorn reserved of traitors, directed from his own base onto himself — a renewed political fervor among his base, focused on the issues. If you're a 4D true believer, you should be mock-crucifying him; if you're not, you should be crucifying him. For the most part these are the same thing.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Dali still sticking to the 80927859849847600 D chess eh? Naw you elected a guy who has broken every promise he's ever made to his wives, his bankers, his partners, his sub-contractors and to you. Trump became president these last few weeks. A Democratic President. Enjoy.

I'll name my next kid Mueller if he finds something to get rid of this tard.

@DurianMcgregor We dont need immigrants of any sort with million of homeless. We can't even take care of people we got let alone more. Let alone amnesty for those who illegally came here which is unfair to people who went through proper channels. You are either a nation of laws or laws are meaningless and we live in a lawless society and I don't think anyone wants that. Disaster relief is paying people to build in unsafe areas. You may be fine with subsidizing stupidity (and rich in many cases) but I'm not at least not without building moratoriums attached.

Law or lawless? It's never been a black and white choice. Republicans have tried to make it so in recent years. DACA is an example of how you cannot make complicated issues simple. DACA happened because immigration has been a complicated issue for many years.

We are a nation of laws and what that actually means is that we are a nation of gray areas to be discussed in court (if you have the means). Is tax law black and white? How about criminal law? We could always look at contract law too. None of it is black an white. The whole Russia probe will tax the legal system in new ways clearly showing how much gray there is in our nation of laws.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Dali still sticking to the 80927859849847600 D chess eh? Naw you elected a guy who has broken every promise he's ever made to his wives, his bankers, his partners, his sub-contractors and to you. Trump became president these last few weeks. A Democratic President. Enjoy.

I'll name my next kid Mueller if he finds something to get rid of this tard.

@DurianMcgregor We dont need immigrants of any sort with million of homeless. We can't even take care of people we got let alone more. Let alone amnesty for those who illegally came here which is unfair to people who went through proper channels. You are either a nation of laws or laws are meaningless and we live in a lawless society and I don't think anyone wants that. Disaster relief is paying people to build in unsafe areas. You may be fine with subsidizing stupidity (and rich in many cases) but I'm not at least not without building moratoriums attached.

Maybe you don't understand what DACA actually is. Here's a primary source for you: Guidelines

You may request DACA if you:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

As you can see it only applies to useful people who came here illegally as children. You can still have a society with laws without punishing people for things they were not responsible for and which happened when they were children. I'm not going to argue your point on the disaster relief though because I don't really disagree with it entirely.

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Maybe you don't understand what DACA actually is.

That isn't what it is, that's what it's pretending to be. DACA is a DHS memorandum that declared certain forms of illegal immigration deferred from prosecution. It is not legislation and it is not even an Executive Order. The idea that certain illegal immigrants were (and until October 5, still are) paying fees to avoid prosecution for current crimes is, in my view, bribery; DHS is engaged in organized crime.

I can understand the position that people effected by DACA should receive some form of amnesty through legislation, although I don't necessarily agree that they should. But that is what DACA could be, not what it is. What it could be is the decriminalization of circumstances that certain illegal immigrants couldn't easily remedy themselves (because Mexico doesn't want them either). But what it is, is a brazen disregard for rule of law.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Maybe you don't understand what DACA actually is.

That isn't what it is, that's what it's pretending to be. DACA is a DHS memorandum that declared certain forms of illegal immigration deferred from prosecution. It is not legislation and it is not even an Executive Order. The idea that certain illegal immigrants were (and until October 5, still are) paying fees to avoid prosecution for current crimes is, in my view, bribery; DHS is engaged in organized crime.

I can understand the position that people effected by DACA should receive some form of amnesty through legislation, although I don't necessarily agree that they should. But that is what DACA could be, not what it is. What it could be is the decriminalization of circumstances that certain illegal immigrants couldn't easily remedy themselves (because Mexico doesn't want them either). But what it is, is a brazen disregard for rule of law.

We usually change our laws when it suck though. The congress prefer useless bickering and power mongering over solving problem. If your congress don't carry out sensible immigration reform, what do you do? Do you prefer blatantly disregard of immoral rule of law or do you like rigid inflexible upholding the immoral rule of law? Why would people want to uphold laws that isn't moral or to their benefits?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Maybe you don't understand what DACA actually is.

That isn't what it is, that's what it's pretending to be. DACA is a DHS memorandum that declared certain forms of illegal immigration deferred from prosecution. It is not legislation and it is not even an Executive Order. The idea that certain illegal immigrants were (and until October 5, still are) paying fees to avoid prosecution for current crimes is, in my view, bribery; DHS is engaged in organized crime.

I can understand the position that people effected by DACA should receive some form of amnesty through legislation, although I don't necessarily agree that they should. But that is what DACA could be, not what it is. What it could be is the decriminalization of circumstances that certain illegal immigrants couldn't easily remedy themselves (because Mexico doesn't want them either). But what it is, is a brazen disregard for rule of law.

You're making this seem way too black and white and are disregarding the main issue here. The problem is that you're suggesting we should punish people for something their parents did to them as children. These people deserve the chance to be here as much as you do. The only real argument I can think of against is that it could encourage people to bring their children here illegally as an immigration vector, and I don't really have the data to evaluate the validity of that. Maybe there are some other arguments, but I can't take your post seriously when you call it "a brazen disregard for rule of law."

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Maybe you don't understand what DACA actually is.

That isn't what it is, that's what it's pretending to be. DACA is a DHS memorandum that declared certain forms of illegal immigration deferred from prosecution. It is not legislation and it is not even an Executive Order. The idea that certain illegal immigrants were (and until October 5, still are) paying fees to avoid prosecution for current crimes is, in my view, bribery; DHS is engaged in organized crime.

I can understand the position that people effected by DACA should receive some form of amnesty through legislation, although I don't necessarily agree that they should. But that is what DACA could be, not what it is. What it could be is the decriminalization of circumstances that certain illegal immigrants couldn't easily remedy themselves (because Mexico doesn't want them either). But what it is, is a brazen disregard for rule of law.

You're making this seem way too black and white and are disregarding the main issue here. The problem is that you're suggesting we should punish people for something their parents did to them as children.

The current law — that is, legislation, as opposed to DHS memoranda — orders their punishment for something their parents did to them as children. You strangely seem to act as if DACA was ever legitimate; it never was. It is a bribery scheme. In that sense, I see this in black and white.

In terms of what the legislation should be, I don't see things in black and white at all. I have sympathy for those who are here illegally solely as a result of a crime committed by their parent(s) while they were a minor. However, I have zero sympathy for the parents of DACA recipients, and as far as the parents are concerned there is only one valid response:

This is not possible if DACA recipients are granted full amnesty of citizenship. At that point, as relatives of citizens, parents of DACA recipients would have their foot in the door and ultimately be rewarded, not deported*, for their illegal immigration.

This means that granting any form of amnesty to DACA recipients ultimately will force them to choose: their family, or the United States. With proper reforms to ensure parents (and extended family) of new citizens do not necessarily gain citizenship themselves, I wouldn't have much issue granting DACA recipients (meaning: those who receive benefits by either bribing the DHS or claiming financial hardships such that no bribe is demanded) a path to citizenship. However, this would mean staying here while their parents got their just desserts, and I imagine relatively few would actually value country over family. I acknowledge it's a bit of a sadistic choice.

Most, I presume, would take it as an insult. For them, DACA never was about legitimizing the children of illegal immigrants; it was about justifying their parent's past behavior and thus legitimizing illegal immigration in general. The predictable response from the Left would be to shift goalposts from children to parents and demand amnesty not just for DACA recipients, but their entire extended families as well, to include those who willfully circumvented legal immigration procedures in the first place.

Thus, I find myself opposed to any form of DACA amnesty. I think the partial, no-family amnesty would be an acceptable compromise, but it would be foolish to include as initial offering -- the Left will push hard for the maximum number of new Democrat voters. Trump's initial position should be no amnesty and an expression of feels for DACA recipients -- in other words, what he's been doing, for the most part. Any talk of DACA amnesty should be met with fierce opposition from his base -- and it has been, people have been burning MAGA hats in protest of #AmnestyDon.

* TL;DR: That'll be my sign when I protest, btw: parents of dreamers should be deported, not rewarded.

"

Trump should have proposed this deal: Dreamers and parents of dreamers build the wall in exchange for legal citizenship.

Would the base have gone for that one?

No. Obviously.