Did Trump end-run his party again?

I'm as ambivalent and as dispassionate about the guy as I ever was, but the budget deal and this DACA thing are a couple of interesting turns of events.

https://apnews.com/5ac2b359ee2a48ce8c9b08d5c77ae253/Democrats-say-they-have-deal-with-Trump-on-young-immigrants
«1

Comments

  • Presidents can't MAKE those deals.

    At best they can get his approval for a hypothetical piece of legislation.

    As to what's actually happening, who knows? I pretty much assume anything that comes from mainstream media is bullshit until proven otherwise.
  • MC Escher said:

     I pretty much assume anything that comes from mainstream media is bullshit until proven otherwise.

    One of Trumps genuine talents is spreading that perception of the mainstream media.  The amazing thing is that they have a counter-move (becoming more reliable less biased sources of information) that they show no sign of undertaking.
  • edited September 14
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41267926

    So, the Pelosi based report was fake news?

    You know what is never the hallmark of a successful negotiation?  The parties running out to tell the world different versions of the "agreement".
  • You know what will right all of Trump's wrongs w/re to the end run dealing with the Dems? A big tax cut. Immigration and the border wall have been disposable issues all along and at the end of the day, only the most xenophobic types really give a damn about it. If he's seen to be flexible on that, I think Chuck and Nancy will have a hard time saying no to tax relief.

    But why would they do that? GHWB tried to negotiate and got his hands burned. It doesn't work, right?

    Not necessarily. The Dem party back then didn't have a hardcore far left wing (Sanders, Warren, Booker, etc...) trying to steal the narrative.
  • You're wrong about who cares about the wall.
  • edited September 14
    The notion of the wall is the dumbest and most emotionally driven (not logically driven) issue on the right. If there are truly that many people who want it, beyond just a subset of thick necked blue collar workers in states that don't actually host the majority of immigrant workers, then the GOP is doomed.
  • Seabird said:

    You know what will right all of Trump's wrongs w/re to the end run dealing with the Dems? A big tax cut. Immigration and the border wall have been disposable issues all along and at the end of the day, only the most xenophobic types really give a damn about it. If he's seen to be flexible on that, I think Chuck and Nancy will have a hard time saying no to tax relief.

    But why would they do that? GHWB tried to negotiate and got his hands burned. It doesn't work, right?

    Not necessarily. The Dem party back then didn't have a hardcore far left wing (Sanders, Warren, Booker, etc...) trying to steal the narrative.

    Bird, Schumer and Pelosi, Manhattan and San Francisco, aren't exactly the Democratic Leadership Council of the 1990s.  They both have constituents in their district/state and in congress for whom punitive taxation of productivity is an important value.

    Also, the wall is at least partly metaphorical, a place marker for a serious policy on border enforcement.  The policy isn't about an irrational fear of foreigners but misgivings about how letting any population who can make it here become voters has the potential to change the country permanently.  I'm not an immigration hard liner; we need people to come here and work.  However our policy is extremely liberal.  When the public policy discussion is about who is going to legalize current illegal immigrants and people who call for border enforcement are tagged as racists, a moderation that chooses a midpoint between the two loudest points in the public conversation isn't actually moderate.

    I'd like to see the issue of whether someone born here is automatically a citizen re-visited.  It wasn't always that way historically and going to something that doesn't automatically confer citizenship, doesn't mean we need to all the way to some sort of blood right like Israelis or Germans.  Being born in the US as a direct result of failure to submit to US jurisdiction may suggest that one isn't subject to US jurisdiction at birth.
  • edited September 14
    zuk - The people to whom Pelosi and Schumer are now accountable would benefit from a tax cut as much as any productive right winger. The demographic makeup of their constituencies have changed dramatically in the last two decades (especially in the Bay Area). I think their voters will forgive them. Especially if they're seen as being victorious on what they regard as liberal social issues (like immigration). FTR, I view immigration as an economic issue, but they don't.

    And I don't think most people who supported Trump because of his border wall promises view those promises with the same sort of nuance that you do. Do we need to have a discussion around border security. Yes. Are we about to be overrun by parasitic brown people trying to take er jerbs? No.
  • One more thing... I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump start to make a lot of noise about abortion in the run up to the mid-terms, only to "back down" on the issue afterward in exchange for a fiscally conservative concession from the left.
  • edited September 14
    Seabird said:

    zuk - The people to whom Pelosi and Schumer are now accountable would benefit from a tax cut as much as any productive right winger. .




    I agree that they would benefit, as would most writers for the NYT. That doesn't mean that they have don't have contrary values though; if values simply reflected self-interest, the NYT would have endorsed Reagan and not been so tolerant of communism. Where people vote on their values, it makes sense to account for those values.
    Seabird said:

    I think their voters will forgive them.




    You think the kind of voters who turn out to work campaigns will forgive a betrayal of the core mission of the democrat party for the last 90 years, taking money from productive people and placing it under the control of the government? If you were Nancy or Chuck, why would you take that risk, or even risk letting DJT describe himself as a success?
    Seabird said:

    FTR, I view immigration as an economic issue, but they don't.




    I do as well, but it also has future political consequences.
    Seabird said:

    And I don't think most people who supported Trump because of his border wall promises view those promises with the same sort of nuance that you do. Do we need to have a discussion around border security. Yes. Are we about to be overrun by parasitic brown people trying to take er jerbs? No.




    I think a lot of people who voted for DJT took him seriously but not literally. They voted for him for many reasons, including but not limited to how repellent, insulting, cold, synthetic and gratuitously mendacious his opponent was, and how DJT's transgressive demeanor serves to defuse the sort of social pressure that makes reasonable policy discussion in places like Google impossible.  (This may mirror the population who voted for HRC because of how crass, inarticulate and unreflective DJT's public commentary can be).

    I am not an immigration alarmist, but when you frame the question in terms of being about to be overrun I think you misdescribe the issue. If something like 10% of the total population are immigrants who have not complied with immigration law since the RWR amnesty, then the scale of the problem is significant.
  • Bird,

    Your comment about thick neck xenophobes is emblematic of why Trump got elected.
  • I am not suggesting that immigration isn't an important issue or that middle America's concerns aren't valid. I am saying that the issuance of blame and the framing of the issue as one of our cultural identity being threatened are both wrong.
  • No, you're suggesting that the wall is some kind of joke. It isn't.

    Also, our cultural identity IS being threatened.
  • edited September 15
    What cultural identity?

    And yeah, I think the wall is bullshit. Slight of hand. Pablum. A distraction from real immigration reform.
  • A) Yes, I know you think the wall is bullshit. That's why I've mentioned it several times. The point that seems to be eluding you is that most of the people who voted for Trump don't share that opinion. Neither does Trump.

    B) What cultural identity? Were you under the impression we didn't have one?

    C) Real immigration reform? "Real" as in "not imaginary" or "real" as in reform that you like and agree with?
  • People usually have difficulty seeing their own biases would be the point I am trying to make.
  • I don't know if a wall, or some virtual iteration thereof, will get built. I don't really care other than I think that it would be a gobsmacking waste of time and resources. And I think the notion that such a thing will have any appreciable effect on immigration, jobs, the economy, or our national security is wrong.

    How do you characterize our cultural identity? That's what I meant by my earlier question. Is it in the food we eat? The language that we speak? A particular set of social and political values that is uniquely American? What is it?

    Real immigration reform as in "effective" and with a net positive social and economic result for this country.




  • It's hard for me to say that people in the US have any one overarching cultural identity.

  • edited September 15
    dgm said:

    It's hard for me to say that people in the US have any one overarching cultural identity.


    I think we do.  Cultural ID is somewhat onion like.

    My view on this involves having had european immigrants introduced into the family since we got here.  Forgive the context; it does culminate in a point.

    At the risk of sounding antique, there is a very conventional american cultural identity that is waspy, thrifty, industrious, independent and thoroughly protestant.  The first fellow with my name here was a hessian who stayed after the revolution and became a dunkard minister.  (As nearly as I can tell, dunkards were like the amish back when everyone rode a horse; nutty pacifist protestants.)  His brother was a VA slave holder, but I believe dunkards were abolitionists.  He traded his original VA land grant for a much larger place in PA, which he traded for a much larger place in OH.  Within his lifetime, his children and grandchildren discovered their talents for commerce and clearing indians.

    In the 18th century, socially anxious americans of a certain type sought people with euro titles to buttress their social rank.  They did that.  It isn't a big deal; seems as if euro titles were reasonably common; even the original hessian's father had one.

    The problem is that it got them in with prussians and an anglo-russian crowd.  They can live here, but (pre-WWII) europeans have a different wheel in their heads that prevents them from making a completely successful assimilation.  Euros see their standing as a static thing one jealously defends; an affront from an inferior invites retribution.  I've met some sorts of latin americans who have this too.

    Despite this sort of thing in his background, my grandfather's cultural mode was american.  He spent lots of time in europe and India, but detested the formalised rank of the army combined with scarce competence.  I am told that he could visit a project and have a conversation with an equipment operator in a completely fluid and natural way.

    His sons attended gymnasium and university in Germany and never had that.

    I do business with arabs and jews who do business with one another.  I do business with people from irish ghettoes from whom funds came to kill my relatives.  Part of the american character is that we don't go looking for a reason to be out of sort with someone.  If you're an arab from palestine, the jew whose grandparents came from poland straight to the US aren't your enemy, especially if they are smart productive people.  Everyone is here to stay, and leaving behind your "old country" BS is part of the bargain.

    Americans, RC, jewish and protestant, almost invariably practice a sort of baptist theology in which they decide what is true and right and wrong and treat clerics and churches like a consumer product.  They reflexively support freedom of speech and social equality even if they don't actually like either when you make them think about it.
  • edited September 15
    Seabird said:

     A particular set of social and political values that is uniquely American? What is it?

    I think the question is poorly formed.  Leftists don't want to defeat an American mono-culture, they want to destroy all the alternatives that resist their assertions of power.  They want to undermine all the various heterodox cultural institutions that impede their ideas of progress.

    Federalism (pretty much the opposite of a mono-culture) is very American and one of the things Leftists tend to undermine.  The English language is perhaps the most ubiquitous aspect of our culture (even more common than first-world sewage and garbage management) and Leftists are constantly abusing it or undermining it for their own ends.

    Americans don't overcome threats by underestimating them.  To the contrary we tend to overestimate threats, but maybe that why we generally over come them (Leftist culture war being the notable exception, post-McCarthyism.)
  • edited September 15
    That's a view. I too came from a WASPy family from Middle America (Nebraska and Iowa). German/Dutch on mom's side, English on dad's. But I spent most of my life in a state with cities and towns of Spanish, German and Czech provenance. Most of the SE Asian diaspora of the early 70s came here, to my corner of the world. I just don't see the threat that others do.

    Edited to clarify...
  • edited September 16
    Seabird said:

    But I spent most of my life in a state with cities and towns of Spanish, German and Czech provenance. Most of the SE Asian diaspora of the early 70s came here, to my corner of the world. I just don't see the threat that others do.




    How many of those people break into a sprint if someone yells "immigration!!!"?

    There may be a qualitative difference between a czech engineer and vietnamese boat person who fled a collectivist threat and jumped through all the hoops necessary to live and work here legally, and a mexican farm hand who comes here illegally because picking grapes or standing in the help wanted line at Home Depo pays better than anything back home.

    That isn't a denigration of the mexican farm hand; he is behaving rationally and, I would argue, admirably in many respects. We need the mexican at least as much as he needs us. The issues in public policy are:

    1. Should the US enforce a border? There are people opposed to the endeavor, or who stammer if asked whether the US should have the power to enforce it.

    2. If the US is to maintain legal control of immigration must it treat immigrants of whatever circumstance or legal status as a legal and desired additions to the voting pool? Are we ultimately obligated to grant citizenship to everyone physically here?
  • Thank you. Clear and pointed questions and I don't disagree with anything you said. Your comments actually apply to why I dismiss all the rhetoric around a border wall. Effective immigration control should account for the migrant worker looking for jobs on the farm or packing houses. No free passes, no amnesties, but a recognition and accommodation for their existence and our need to have them. Like so many of our laws, immigration rules and processes are in desperate need of updating in a way that accounts honestly for the mutual need on both sides.

    Yes, I get that the left sees immigrants as a way to swell their own political base, but that is just as much the fault of the GOP as anything else. For the most part these people are very socially conservative and could find a home on the right if the right would stop antagonizing them.
  • edited September 18
    Seabird said:



    Yes, I get that the left sees immigrants as a way to swell their own political base, but that is just as much the fault of the GOP as anything else. For the most part these people are very socially conservative and could find a home on the right if the right would stop antagonizing them.




    I agree that many of these people are likely to be socially conservative by current suburban standards, but then so were most people who backed the democrat change in what our government was from the 1930s to the 1970s. If these people are low skilled workers apt to see some sort of justice in a neo-marxist economic message, that's a problem, and not one that arises from "the right" antagonising them. Where social conservatism consists of valuing the family and following RCC authorities, that isn't a proxy for political conservatism.
  • Really? Because that's certainly been a consistent message I've heard from the GOP for the last several decades.
  • The river tells no lies, though standing on the shore, the dishonest man still hears them.
  • I'm not sure if what you're saying is in alignment with Goldwater's warnings about the evangelical right taking over the party, but I'm onboard with that.

    Who wants to let them know?

    But the point remains... Conservatism will continue to evolve as an increasingly exclusive ideology if it can't find commonality with the undeniable change in demographics.
  • Because it is so clear it takes a long time to see.
  • Seabird said:

    I'm not sure if what you're saying is in alignment with Goldwater's warnings about the evangelical right taking over the party, but I'm onboard with that.

    Who wants to let them know?

    But the point remains... Conservatism will continue to evolve as an increasingly exclusive ideology if it can't find commonality with the undeniable change in demographics.

    That begs the question of whether we would allow citizenship to every low skilled latin refugee who can make it here.  Hispanics are not undesirable per se.

    Hysteria about the evangelical right taking over the repub party is just that.  Parts of the country in which evangelical were politically powerful exerted their influence variously as dems or repubs.  Where the dems have effectively driven out  ordinary bible belters with litmus tests on abortion and feminism, their acceptance into the repub party over the last 40 years speaks to repub tolerance of people not previously associated with the party.

    Religion in politics isn't new; it just wasn't met with as much pearl clutching when it came from the left.
  • Immigration isn't the only source of Hispanic and Latino voters in this country. I suspect that we have more natural born citizens who claim that ancestory. These are the people I speak of. Immigration is a separate issue but related in that those who are citizens feel a kinship to those immigrants and also perceive varying degrees of racism in the right's hostility toward immigration.

    That the Democratic Party has become less tolerant of religion in the past few decades isn't a response to a large swath of the GOP pivoting toward a fundamentalist base that maintains litmus tests of its own.
Sign In or Register to comment.