Who's stopping immigration reform?

[Pete F.]

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
Hard to believe that with thousands of people from South of the Border, walking unimpeded toward our country in the form of large Caravans, that the Democrats won’t approve legislation that will allow laws for the protection of our country. Great Midterm issue for Republicans!

6:45 AM - 17 Oct 2018

Has he forgotten that the Republicans hold both Congress and the Presidency?
How is it the democrats fault that he can rarely get enough of his party to agree on anything to pass it?
The republicans had years to come up with plans to accomplish things while they were doing the easy job of being the minority party playing the delay card and then holding Congress, obstructing and delaying for more years
Now holding all the cards, he is such a weak baby, he can't get what he wants done.

In June a bipartisan immigration bill was working it's way thru Congress and Trump responded in an obstructing tweet

Jun 22, 2018 06:06:30 AM Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Has he forgotten that the Republicans hold both Congress and the Presidency?
How is it the democrats fault that he can rarely get enough of his party to agree on anything to pass it?

They don't have a filibuster proof majority in the senate.

[Pete F.]

There are very low odds that the republicans will get to 60 votes in the midterms.
The republicans have not had a filibuster proof majority in close to the last 100 years.
If you won't consider compromise, you may not be a great negotiator.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There are very low odds that the republicans will get to 60 votes in the midterms.
The republicans have not had a filibuster proof majority in close to the last 100 years.
If you won't consider compromise, you may not be a great negotiator.

A great negotiator realizes the difference between compromise and surrender. If caving in on immigration, the key item that won Trump the Presidency, is not the surrender that Dems want, what do they wish to accomplish? The solutions that have been offered as compromise on immigration are basically the same solutions that led to further and greater illegal immigration. Sounds like surrender.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A great negotiator realizes the difference between compromise and surrender. If caving in on immigration, the key item that won Trump the Presidency, is not the surrender that Dems want, what do they wish to accomplish? The solutions that have been offered as compromise on immigration are basically the same solutions that led to further and greater illegal immigration. Sounds like surrender.

What immigration reform would increase illegal immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What immigration reform would increase illegal immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Path to citizenship for illegals before necessary border protections and penalties for those caught are instituted.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Path to citizenship for illegals before necessary border protections and penalties for those caught are instituted.

How does having a path to citizenship for people here increase the number of illegal immigrants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Pretty difficult question I guess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty difficult question I guess
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah . . . I guess . . . if you call for compromise but don't know what to compromise on . . . that would be pretty difficult . . .

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah . . . I guess . . . if you call for compromise but don't know what to compromise on . . . that would be pretty difficult . . .

Perhaps trump should say what he wants then
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps trump should say what he wants then
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you shouldn't bring up the suggestion that Trump should compromise (you brought it up, not him) if you don't have a clue as to what there is to compromise on.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Perhaps you shouldn't bring up the suggestion that Trump should compromise (you brought it up, not him) if you don't have a clue as to what there is to compromise on.

Every time a bipartisan solution was proposed he changed the goal.
That’s what he did
Great negotiator
Currently he’s showing us his impressive leadership skills with the Saudi incident, remember it’s all about jobs
He has a different opinion of what Buy America means than I do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You also left out Nixon
Though I would think you would like him he had a big authoritarian side also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You also left out Nixon
Though I would think you would like him he had a big authoritarian side also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I didn't leave him out. In the middle of my post I said "Nixon very often acted as a Progressive. "

[Pete F.]

Who said this? "Rather than talking about putting up a fence," the future president said. "Why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems?"
And this
"Many undocumented workers walked mile after mile, through heat of day and cold of the night. Some have risked their lives in dangerous desert border crossings," "Workers who seek only to earn a living end up in the shadows of American life."
Hint not Dems
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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."

[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."

[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.