Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

recedite

circadian wrote: »

It seems ICE are being used to suppress political dissent of Dreamers. If they see their community leaders get picked up, more people will be reluctant to come forward and speak up.

Would these "community leaders" actually be illegal immigrants, by any chance?
Otherwise I can't see why ICE would be picking them up.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Would these "community leaders" actually be illegal immigrants, by any chance?
Otherwise I can't see why ICE would be picking them up.

Well let's be rational here. Some of these illegal immigrants who might choose to speak up, really should belong here in my humble opinion. Some are highly contributive members to our society - doctors, lawyers, teachers, even military. Yes, military. While normally undocumented immigrants would not be eligible to serve, DREAMers are eligible under a provision in the MAVNI program (Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest)

The MAVNI program is also restricted to healthcare professionals or experts in certain key languages with associated cultural backgrounds. Applicants in the healthcare professional recruit category must:

• Fill medical specialties where the service has a shortfall
• Meet all qualification criteria required for their medical specialty, and the criteria for foreign-trained DoD medical personnel recruited under other authorities
• Demonstrate proficiency in English
• Commit to at least 3 years of active duty, or six years in the Selected Reserve
  
  Applicants in the language recruit category must:
  
• Possess specific language and culture capabilities in a language critical to DoD (full list of languages here)
• Demonstrate a language proficiency
• Meet all existing enlistment eligibility criteria
• Enlist for at least 4 years of active duty

And yet these are the same type of people that ICE is going after.

If you ask me, these people deserve to come forward and state their case without immediate reprisals. How else are they supposed to assert what should be their right - if not to citizenship, at least to permanent residency?

Overheal

Federal Judge issues scathing court order for release of Ravi Ragbir for ICE custody

https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/federal-judge-slams-ice-compares-them-to-regimes-we-revile/

"There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye. That is, the freedom to hug one’s spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time. It ought not to be—and it has never before been—that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home, and work. And sent away."

"We have a law higher than any that may be so interpreted–and that is our Constitution. The wisdom of our Founders is evident in the document that demands and requires more; before the deprivation of liberty, there is due process; and an aversion to acts that are unnecessarily cruel. These fundamental rights are at issue in this case."

“Constitutional principles of due process and the avoidance of unnecessary cruelty here allow and provide for an orderly departure. Petitioner is entitled to the freedom to say goodbye.”

Overheal

And would you look at that - no new Russia sanctions, an odd play given how overwhelmingly the related legislation passed through Congress.

State Dept trying to say they aren't needed because 'the threat of sanctions' is enough.

https://www.snopes.com/2018/01/29/trump-administration-no-russia-sanctions/?utm_content=news&utm_source=socialflow&utm_medium=facebook

Leroy42

Its funny how the WH will spin this. Despite an overwhelming vote in Congress, the WH has decided not to sign the legislation. Whilst that may technically be right, the issue is that Trump has spent the last year bemoaning that the voting rules in Senate are too strict and don't allow the simple majority (51) to get what they want (they need 60). Yet in this case he is deeming that despite this agreement in congress the WH doesn't care.

How anybody can continue to think the A) Trump isn't compromised on Russia or is a good negotiator that is MAGA, when this clearly shows that either one or both of these is not true.

Trump is basically saying that he is afraid to put in sanctions.

spacecoyote

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its funny how the WH will spin this. Despite an overwhelming vote in Congress, the WH has decided not to sign the legislation. Whilst that may technically be right, the issue is that Trump has spent the last year bemoaning that the voting rules in Senate are too strict and don't allow the simple majority (51) to get what they want (they need 60). Yet in this case he is deeming that despite this agreement in congress the WH doesn't care.

How anybody can continue to think the A) Trump isn't compromised on Russia or is a good negotiator that is MAGA, when this clearly shows that either one or both of these is not true.

Trump is basically saying that he is afraid to put in sanctions.

Very true. And it's particularly pointed given how much he loves a good old-fashioned signing ceremony & photo-opp.

demfad

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Donald claimed in an ITV interview that the polar ice caps aren't receding and that they have never been bigger. The US electorate have a lot to answer for.

The problems are deeper than the electorate: The Koch brothers will make $1billion (annually) from the Tax deal. $400 million of that will go back into the 2018 mid terms. That money will have a sizable interest on any electorate especially in an era where 'truth' earns no respect and can be easily lost in lies.

The Citizens United ruling needs to be reversed.

jobbridge4life

demfad wrote: »

The problems are deeper than the electorate: The Koch brothers will make $1billion (annually) from the Tax deal. $400 million of that will go back into the 2018 mid terms. That money will have a sizable interest on any electorate especially in an era where 'truth' earns no respect and can be easily lost in lies.

The Citizens United ruling needs to be reversed.

Would that even be enough though. I genuinely think that America may be beyond the fixing stage at this point.

demfad

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Would that even be enough though. I genuinely think that America may be beyond the fixing stage at this point.

Several things need to be done in order. This would be one. I am assuming that the Republicans do not win the 2018 election in which scenario it will indeed be too late.

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/29/brussels-prepared-for-trade-war-with-us-if-it-restricts-eu-imports

"In his interview with Piers Morgan, Trump had spoken of his own experience dealing with the EU. He has previously complained to its leaders that, as a businessman, the bloc had made it difficult for him to set up golf courses."

• It should be difficult to pass hurdles and get licences in these instances. Someone might be wishing to use the golf course for money laundering activities for example
• He shouldnt be drawing attention to his golf courses.

eire4

demfad wrote: »

The problems are deeper than the electorate: The Koch brothers will make $1billion (annually) from the Tax deal. $400 million of that will go back into the 2018 mid terms. That money will have a sizable interest on any electorate especially in an era where 'truth' earns no respect and can be easily lost in lies.

The Citizens United ruling needs to be reversed.

There is no question that democracy in the US was struggling to survive before citizens united so a constitutional amendment to repeal that horrific ruling is badly needed but that will not be a panacea. Having said that citizens united has notably increased the pace at which democracy has been curtailed in the US with the US government now arguably a full on oligarchy as a direct result of citizens united IMHO. Never mind the fact that citizens united has also undermined the security of their own country as now foreign corporations and individuals have easy access to pouring in foreign money to buy whatever it is those foreign corporations and or individuals want.

Manic Moran

david75 wrote: »

They actually played the imperial march/Vader’s theme from Star Wars at trump while he stood there at Davos. Amazing.

https://www.facebook.com/jboehmermann/posts/1832669753432206

No, they didn't. They played the Coburger March, someone dubbed the Imperial March on top of the video. Apparently it was intended as a special honor.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-eted-welcome-military-band-greets-US-12527890.php

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — Call it Davos, military-style: When the World Economic Forum found out that U.S. President Donald Trump would come this year, they wanted to do something special.

So forum founder Klaus Schwab called in a Swiss marching band dating back to the Napoleonic era 214 years ago to serve up a fanfare-like welcome before his speech.

The rare, if not unprecedented, performance by the "Landwehr of Fribourg" band at the Davos gathering of academics, executives, officials and other elites drew a puzzled if not hostile reception from some in the capacity crowd of around 1,500 on hand for Trump's highly anticipated address to the WEF on Friday.

Wearing feather-tipped hats and long-tailed jackets as part of their red-and-blue uniforms, the 37-member ensemble belted out "The Coburger March" by Michael Hadyn, as Trump stood calmly for the 3-1/2 minute rendition.

Alain Deschenaux, the Landwehr's president, said by phone that Schwab's wife, Hilde, contacted him on Jan. 15 after the WEF founder decided he "wanted to do something extraordinary for President Trump."

It is... unfortunate that some might think that was a real video.


That said, it would be kindof awesome if he requested the Imperial March be played. If I make Lieutenant Colonel and am given a battalion (One more rank to go), I'm definitely going to try to get it on during the 'arrival of the official party.'

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they didn't. They played the Coburger March, someone dubbed the Imperial March on top of the video. Apparently it was intended as a special honor.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Trump-eted-welcome-military-band-greets-US-12527890.php

The sound does not see to be working on that link. It seems odd that the real recording is extremely difficult to find, yet there are several versions floating around the internet in which people have dubbed their own sound onto the video. No wonder DT has a dislike for large sections of "the media"; they are only interested in showing him if they can show him in a bad light.

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

Well let's be rational here. Some of these illegal immigrants who might choose to speak up, really should belong here in my humble opinion. Some are highly contributive members to our society - doctors, lawyers, teachers, even military. Yes, military. While normally undocumented immigrants would not be eligible to serve, DREAMers are eligible under a provision in the MAVNI program (Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest)



And yet these are the same type of people that ICE is going after.

If you ask me, these people deserve to come forward and state their case without immediate reprisals. How else are they supposed to assert what should be their right - if not to citizenship, at least to permanent residency?

That's a fair point. However it has to be seen in the context of the democrats blocking funding for the wall. DT wants to do a deal; basically legalise dreamers and most of those who are already in the US and making an honest go of it, in return for agreement to clamp down on future illegal immigration and drugs smuggling.
If the democrats thought that the dreamers were untouchable anyway, then DT would have no leverage regarding his other proposals.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

That's a fair point. However it has to be seen in the context of the democrats blocking funding for the wall. DT wants to do a deal; basically legalise dreamers and most of those who are already in the US and making an honest go of it, in return for agreement to clamp down on future illegal immigration and drugs smuggling.
If the democrats thought that the dreamers were untouchable anyway, then DT would have no leverage regarding his other proposals.

Knowingly or unknowingly, you are arguing for a false quid pro quo. There should be no deal, no agreement. Here's the problem. Trump is wrong to build the wall and wrong not to legalise Dreamers.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Knowingly or unknowingly, you are arguing for a false quid pro quo. There should be no deal, no agreement. Here's the problem. Trump is wrong to build the wall and wrong not to legalise Dreamers.

No doubt that will be the view of the first mexican-american US president. In the meantime, there is Trump. And he was elected because he has a different view.

Manic Moran

recedite wrote: »

The sound does not see to be working on that link. It seems odd that the real recording is extremely difficult to find, yet there are several versions floating around the internet in which people have dubbed their own sound onto the video. No wonder DT has a dislike for large sections of "the media"; they are only interested in showing him if they can show him in a bad light.

Sound works fine, just for some reason the Associated Press seems to default its video to 'mute'. Click the 'unmute' in the bottom right. I found links to the video on various websites from the local newspaper in Scotts' Bluff Nebraska to San Antonio, though SFGate which I linked to is my local San Francisco major news portal.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

No doubt that will be the view of the first mexican-american US president. In the meantime, there is Trump. And he was elected because he has a different view.

Nope, 62% of Americans oppose the building of the wall, while 87% are in favour of DACA. Like I said, a false quid pro quo.

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sound works fine, just for some reason the Associated Press seems to default its video to 'mute'.

OK thanks. Probably a lot of people quietly surfing these links while they are meant to be working
It wasn't a great performance really, just a bit of local colour. The Donald looked quite bored.

Slightly better than this (even lower budget) welcome he received back in 2014 though....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9i1HHTdcXU

Varik

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope, 62% of Americans oppose the building of the wall, while 87% are in favour of DACA. Like I said, a false quid pro quo.

What's with the "nope"

Everything he said was true, and those figures have literally nothing to do with it. Trump go elected on among other things anti immigration and "build that wall"

Professor Moriarty

Varik wrote: »

What's with the "nope"

Everything he said was true.

Just pointing out that The Donald's nasty little 'deal' is unsupported by Americans and both elements are morally wrong. Apart from that, you're spot on.

Varik

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just pointing out that The Donald's nasty little 'deal' is unsupported by Americans and both elements are morally wrong. Apart from that, you're spot on.

Good thing that's how elections work, and not at all about maintaining their base support.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope, 62% of Americans oppose the building of the wall, while 87% are in favour of DACA. Like I said, a false quid pro quo.

Your statistics don't negate what I said; he was elected on a political policy platform, one which has not fundamentally changed since he became president.
That in itself is unusual; a politician who actually tries to keep an election promise. It has surprised a lot of people.

As for the polls, they vary.

the latest polling suggests President Trump’s bargaining position may be strong.A Harvard-Harris poll taken in the run-up to the shutdown found Americans strongly support granting citizenship rights to illegal immigrant Dreamers. But they also back Mr. Trump’s three demands for a border wall, limits to the chain of family migration and an end to the Diversity Visa Lottery.
Most striking of all is the public’s demand for lower overall legal immigration — a position that has little traction on Capitol Hill but one that is overwhelmingly popular across the country.

Professor Moriarty

Varik wrote: »

Good thing that's how elections work, and not at all about maintaining their base support.

Indeed. Hope The Donald keeps on crapping all over the GOP base until they're down to the alt-right and the hillbillies.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Your statistics don't negate what I said; he was elected on a political policy platform, one which has not fundamentally changed since he became president.
That in itself is unusual; a politician who actually tries to keep an election promise. It has surprised a lot of people.

As for the polls, they vary.

And here's an article explaining why The Washington Times article is misleading. It also references myriad polls supporting the fact that a large majority of Americans don't want the wall and support the Dreamers.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And here's an article explaining why The Washington Times article is misleading.

And that article itself is misleading, if not outright bull$hit. It basically says that whenever the respondents gave the answer this author doesn't like, the people did not understand the question and/or it was a confusing question.

Whenever she likes the answer the people gave, she thinks they must have understood the question perfectly.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

And that article itself is misleading, if not outright bull$hit. It basically says that whenever the respondents gave the answer this author doesn't like, the people did not understand the question and/or it was a confusing question.

Whenever she likes the answer the people gave, she thinks they must have understood the question perfectly.

Well, that's not actually true or else you didn't read it properly. There is nothing wrong with the poll except that it asked very different questions to the vast majority of other polls. Basically, The Washington Times compared apples with oranges.

Anyway, her points (and mine) are substantiated in January 2018 polls by: Quinnipiac, Pew, ABC News,/Washington Post, CNN and CBS. There are even more substantiating polls here.

Christy42

Varik wrote: »

What's with the "nope"

Everything he said was true, and those figures have literally nothing to do with it. Trump go elected on among other things anti immigration and "build that wall"

Trump got elected to avoid Hillary getting into power. There is only so much of a mandate he can claim from a slim victory against an opponent who was deeply unpopular (the most unpopular pair to go for the position). This is also why the American system does not vote in a dictator for 4 years each time. It has representatives from across the country who seem less willing to put up a wall. Many of them did not campaign on the policy of a wall or even campaigned that Trump's wall was a bad idea, would you ignore all their voters?

Remember that they are up for election next and have to satisfy the voters. They have to be able to influence proceedings as to how they think voters will treat them in 10 months time (hence why polls tend to be relevant at this point in time). Trump winning the election does not mean whatever he promised before the election has to happen. Otherwise we would have seen much less opposition to Barack attempting to close Guantanamo Bay. It was something Obama had campaigned on but faced political opposition from others on. The wall is the same thing (well a much worse idea but you get the point).

oscarBravo

Varik wrote: »

Trump go elected on among other things anti immigration and "build that wall"

He also got elected on the assertion - repeated loudly and often - that Mexico would pay for the wall. For anyone to defend him shafting Dreamers until the American taxpayer coughs up for the wall on the basis of fulfilling an electoral promise... well, I guess nothing's surprising anymore, but that doesn't make it any less hard to swallow.

Manic Moran

In fairness, although it can certainly be debated how many people are in support of spending $20bn on a wall, I would think there is a substantial number who would be favour of putting that $20bn into CBP to tighten the border whatever way it happens. That still makes a DACA trade/quid-pro-quo relevant and supportable.