Who's stopping immigration reform?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You say that "perhaps" you're the model "American Man." If the model is to be as indecisive as you demonstrate with your constant barrage of questions that you don't answer or answer with inscrutable comments or with more questions, it is a wonder how this supposed "American Man" accomplished anything over the past 75 years for Trump to destroy.

"American men" did it by cooperating in teams with one another toward a common goal, unlike the current president who has shown no ability to lead, only bully and threaten.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you saying that two weeks before Trump proposed to grant the 1.8 million a path to citizenship, he reneged on the plan? He reneged before he made the proposal?

I'm saying on the 9th he agreed to something and on the 11th he reneged.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm saying on the 9th he agreed to something and on the 11th he reneged.

Pardon me. I thought you were addressing my point about the 1.8 million path to citizenship that Trump offered and was rejected. It seems like a sneaky change of subject.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"American men" did it by cooperating in teams with one another toward a common goal, unlike the current president who has shown no ability to lead, only bully and threaten.

American men and women have been doing this since the founding of this nation and are continuing to do so. And they do it more freely and abundantly when they are not regulated by government beyond the bounds that the Constitution allows.

The past 75 years you mention are almost the exact period of time that Progressives have been creating and expanding a regulatory system that threatens to eliminate those constitutional bounds. Trump's roll back of regulations is a starting point toward retrenching the regulatory administrative state which has been progressively limiting the ability of American men and women to achieve their diverse goals rather than being herded into a unitary system of centralized corporatism joined in bed with large centralized government. A system, btw, which slowly strangles the middle class which you bemoan the disappearance of.


Trump has been leading this deregulation and leading the Republican party out of it's timid fear of media condemnation.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

American men and women have been doing this since the founding of this nation and are continuing to do so. And they do it more freely and abundantly when they are not regulated by government beyond the bounds that the Constitution allows.

The past 75 years you mention are almost the exact period of time that Progressives have been creating and expanding a regulatory system that threatens to eliminate those constitutional bounds. Trump's roll back of regulations is a starting point toward retrenching the regulatory administrative state which has been progressively limiting the ability of American men and women to achieve their diverse goals rather than being herded into a unitary system of centralized corporatism joined in bed with large centralized government. A system, btw, which slowly strangles the middle class which you bemoan the disappearance of.


Trump has been leading this deregulation and leading the Republican party out of it's timid fear of media condemnation.

I have seen little in what he has done to reduce the power and economic advantage of corporations, other than hating Bezos.
Are you saying that he agrees with Senator Warren on reform of corporate controls? Or are corporations just going to act better because they have more money?

We'll likely see how Don the Cons leadership has worked in a few weeks.
After all he has said the election is all about him, unless they lose, then it's all on them.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have seen little in what he has done to reduce the power and economic advantage of corporations, other than hating Bezos.

It's not the constitutional business of the federal government to reduce the intrinsic power and economic advantage of corporations or any other legitimate business entity. It is the constitutional duty of the federal government to stay clear of unconstitutional regulations. And to especially avoid what is essentially a partnership with corporations by creating burdensome costs on business which drive out small businesses which can't profitably afford them thus favoring larger, corporate entities which can.

That you don't "see" this is a matter of what you think government should be. The way you put it, as if the government should have the right to reduce (or grow) private business competitive advantages, is the very Progressive notion that the power to direct the private sector, our lives, is ultimately held by bureaucratic government, not by the people.

Are you saying that he agrees with Senator Warren on reform of corporate controls? Or are corporations just going to act better because they have more money?

I don't think he believes that the federal government should "control" business.

We'll likely see how Don the Cons leadership has worked in a few weeks.
After all he has said the election is all about him, unless they lose,
then it's all on them.

So then, you "see" that Don the Con is showing leadership,

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So then, you "see" that Don the Con is showing leadership,

Being a bully is not good leadership.

We have supported many authoritarian regimes in the past and paid the price with lives in Vietnam and the Middle east, the current refugee crisis from central america is the result of our support of failed dictators that we approved of because of what they were not.

We now have one of our own, who thinks that he is what makes America great.

In his words:
"I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor."

Pointing to his head, he said: "Because without this thinking, you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe in reverse."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Pardon me. I thought you were addressing my point about the 1.8 million path to citizenship that Trump offered and was rejected. It seems like a sneaky change of subject.

[wdmso]

US President Donald Trump has threatened to use military force to completely close the US-Mexico border.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Being a bully is not good leadership.

Because you keep repeating that he is a bully does not make it so.

We have supported many authoritarian regimes in the past and paid the price with lives in Vietnam and the Middle east, the current refugee crisis from central america is the result of our support of failed dictators that we approved of because of what they were not.

Trump was not involved.

We now have one of our own,

So now are we switching from bully to dictator?

who thinks that he is what makes America great.

"great again"--returning it to its greatness not some greatness that Trump invented.

In his words:
"I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor."

Pointing to his head, he said: "Because without this thinking, you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe in reverse."

It's "thinking" that he has learned from experience and economic advisers, maybe even from a study of American history. He didn't magically or from dictatorial impulse come up with novel ideas that never were tried. The "thinking" in his head are the store of knowledge he has learned/not created.

It's very easy to turn Trump speak into whatever you want it to mean. Picking low hanging fruit is easy but not impressive. Certainly not convincing to more than simple-minded "thinking."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That was a waste of 45 minutes. Can't bring myself to say "thanks."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You post a video in response to my post regarding the 1.8 million path. But the video which is not about the 1.8, which he proposed a couple of weeks later. And the video shows Trump being "presidential" and being respectful and willing to deal rather than being your characterization of him being a bully.

Is your point that he said, in the video that he would sign a bill they came up with. He also had the caveat that the bill must include the cost of building a wall and that border security had to be addressed (in a meaningful way, no doubt).

There was Feinstein chirping in that they should pass a clean bill which dealt with the DACA issue first and then take more time on the security issue later in a comprehensive immigration reform. That's the same old trick the Dems pulled before. Get what they want up front, renege on the rest later.

Trump said that his version of a clean bill was security and DACA, then the immigration reform later. He said that he trusted the Congress to create such a bill and that he would sign it. Was such a bill that immediately funded the wall in full and seriously addressed border security, as he stipulated, proposed?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You post a video in response to my post regarding the 1.8 million path. But the video which is not about the 1.8, which he proposed a couple of weeks later. And the video shows Trump being "presidential" and being respectful and willing to deal rather than being your characterization of him being a bully.

Is your point that he said, in the video that he would sign a bill they came up with. He also had the caveat that the bill must include the cost of building a wall and that border security had to be addressed (in a meaningful way, no doubt).

There was Feinstein chirping in that they should pass a clean bill which dealt with the DACA issue first and then take more time on the security issue later in a comprehensive immigration reform. That's the same old trick the Dems pulled before. Get what they want up front, renege on the rest later.

January 23, 2018: After a contentious 69 hour U.S. government shutdown, the shutdown finally ends. The breakthrough in the impasse finally came after Democrats reluctantly voted to provide temporary pay for resumed government operations through February 8, 2018. Democrats relented on this issue in return for Republican leaders promises to soon address the issues of the currents struggle of Dreamers and other hot-button issues. Congress has until February 8, 2018 to find a solution to these issues or the government will shut down again.

Trump said that his version of a clean bill was security and DACA, then the immigration reform later. He said that he trusted the Congress to create such a bill and that he would sign it. Was such a bill that immediately funded the wall in full and seriously addressed border security, as he stipulated, proposed?

How much will a wall cost? What will the extent of the wall be? How high will it be? Whose land will the wall go on? What will the land cost?
Nobody knows, but you think Congress should give Trump a blank check. Is this based on Trump's business record?
I do not trust Trump.
I think we could find more productive ways to spend 50 billion dollars or more.
The GAO issued an opinion with concerns in August
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

Here is a piece by a noted "liberal" institution
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How much will a wall cost? What will the extent of the wall be? How high will it be? Whose land will the wall go on? What will the land cost?
Nobody knows, but you think Congress should give Trump a blank check. Is this based on Trump's business record?
I do not trust Trump.
I think we could find more productive ways to spend 50 billion dollars or more.
The GAO issued an opinion with concerns in August
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

Here is a piece by a noted "liberal" institution
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

I didn't ask for your opinion on how much the wall would cost, nor about how you think the money would be better spent. Or about whether you Trust Trump or not. You claimed that Trump promised something and then he reneged on it. Which, I guess, is supposed to prove what a crappy person he is. Even though that has been a pattern in political policy negotiations forever. Certainly by the Democrats re border security.

How did Trump renege on his promise here?

[Pete F.]

Read his tweets
They are self explanatory
After listening to him justify the murder of Khashoggi by saying Saudi Arabia will pay us 110 billion, I wonder how much the world would raise for Trumps head
What value would be acceptable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Read his tweets
They are self explanatory
After listening to him justify the murder of Khashoggi by saying Saudi Arabia will pay us 110 billion, I wonder how much the world would raise for Trumps head
What value would be acceptable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Earlier in this thread you asked me a series of 4 questions which I answered.

Then, in response to your assertion that "Every time a bipartisan solution was proposed he [Trump] changed the goal", I noted how Trump actually offered to double the number of immigrants to get path to citizenship if his demands for border security and a wall were met. But his offer was not accepted

To which you replied that he made an offer and the Dems said yes, and then that T reneged.

I didn't recall the yes. To which you replied "Try January 11 of this year for when Trump reneged." I suggested that date was two weeks before T made the offer and questioned how could he have reneged on something he had not yet proposed.

So you later posted a video of Trump negotiating the immigration issue with a bipartisan committee which was not about his more than generous offer to grant twice the number that Dems were asking for if they would agree to his wall and border security. So, by this, you dodged my point that it was not he that reneged on the deal which we were discussing, and you moved (the goal posts) to a new supposed example of his reneging.

So then I asked how he reneged on something in that video. And, again, you dodged that with a non-answer and bringing up Khashoggi and what would the world pay for Trump's head.

So I answer directly to your questions as asked, but you can't directly answer two simple questions by me. Instead, you dodge and weave like Barry Sanders avoiding contact.

Earlier in the thread, you implied that I didn't answer your questions because each was a "Pretty difficult question I guess."

I guess my questions were too difficult for you. Or you are as untrustworthy and prone to reneging as you accuse Trump of being.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Earlier in this thread you asked me a series of 4 questions which I answered.

Then, in response to your assertion that "Every time a bipartisan solution was proposed he [Trump] changed the goal", I noted how Trump actually offered to double the number of immigrants to get path to citizenship if his demands for border security and a wall were met. But his offer was not accepted

To which you replied that he made an offer and the Dems said yes, and then that T reneged.

I didn't recall the yes. To which you replied "Try January 11 of this year for when Trump reneged." I suggested that date was two weeks before T made the offer and questioned how could he have reneged on something he had not yet proposed.

So you later posted a video of Trump negotiating the immigration issue with a bipartisan committee which was not about his more than generous offer to grant twice the number that Dems were asking for if they would agree to his wall and border security. So, by this, you dodged my point that it was not he that reneged on the deal which we were discussing, and you moved (the goal posts) to a new supposed example of his reneging.

So then I asked how he reneged on something in that video. And, again, you dodged that with a non-answer and bringing up Khashoggi and what would the world pay for Trump's head.

So I answer directly to your questions as asked, but you can't directly answer two simple questions by me. Instead, you dodge and weave like Barry Sanders avoiding contact.

Earlier in the thread, you implied that I didn't answer your questions because each was a "Pretty difficult question I guess."

I guess my questions were too difficult for you. Or you are as untrustworthy and prone to reneging as you accuse Trump of being.

How much is his head worth?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How much is his head worth?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not seeing how that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Nor even related to anything I've said on it. Seems like yet another deke.

But, for what it's worth, probably a lot more than yours. The subject of Kathy Grffith's infamous severed head was recognized by many millions more than would recognize yours.