Now that Trump's betrayed us on Immigration....

[Frankly]

We're only one politicized mass shooting from getting everything banned worse than Hillary would have done. If Newtown happened today then tomorrow Trump would be right out in front of Australian style gun control.

Beyond disgusted with myself for supporting him. We probably should have welcomed Hillary and had a predictable liberal to fight, at least you knew. Getting double crossed like this is just the start.

IDK maybe the Democrats have something on Trump that forces these concessions but for whatever the reason we're screwed. The only good Trump is doing is helping to keep the stock market up for our IRAs and rolling back some regulations and land grabs (and Gorsuch)... everything else is no different than any other managerial state politician.

What gets me is that for a guy who wrote the book on "The Art of the Deal" he isn't getting us anything for folding.

 

[REF]

We're only one politicized mass shooting from getting everything banned worse than Hillary would have done.

If Newtown happened today then tomorrow Trump would be right out in front of Australian style gun control.

Beyond disgusted with myself for supporting him. We probably should have welcomed Hillary and had a predictable liberal to fight. Getting double crossed like this is just the start.

IDK maybe the Democrats have something on Trump that forces these concessions but for whatever the reason we're screwed.

I agree 10000 percent. Him and his girlfriend Schumer can go fuck themselves. Cannot believe I supported this lying Indian giving piece of shit. He's being a typical politician now! This is just the beginning, you'll see, going to flip and flop on everything including gun control just like he's known for. Him and Schumer can go slide down a dry fiberglass slide butt naked with razor blades as rails into a pool of iodine with crocodiles in it.

 

[swilliams]

I've been trying to stay offline for a bit, I don't watch TV, and we don't get the newspaper. What did he do?

 

[Frankly]

I've been trying to stay offline for a bit, I don't watch TV, and we don't get the newspaper. What did he do?

Allowing "Dreamers" to stay, no deal to build the wall... in other words caving on his immigration promises.

A few days before he put you another trillion in debt, only $3000 per person.

 

[4excal]

I've been trying to stay offline for a bit, I don't watch TV, and we don't get the newspaper. What did he do?

Nothing. I fear the answer is nothing..as in nothing for the ones who got him in office...can't say he didn't try though eh?? Except anything for 2A freedoms, for that he definitely didn't try..

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Not sure, but perhaps you are jumping the gun.
Trump: 'No deal' yet with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA, wall will be built
The man is unpredictable by design. Probably told the dem leadership what they wanted to hear to get them out of the white house faster. Rope a dope.

 

[Frankly]

Not sure, but perhaps you are jumping the gun.
Trump: 'No deal' yet with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA, wall will be built
The man is unpredictable by design. Probably told the dem leadership what they wanted to hear to get them out of the white house faster. Rope a dope.

I hope you're right.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

View attachment 18664



I hope you're right.

Me too, lol. Look closely, Schumer looks drunk as fuck and Trump is either giving him a very fake smile or he's pinching a loaf.

That aside, I think Trump is acting and playing "low status" in order to manipulate.

 

[Phazer]

I've been trying to stay offline for a bit, I don't watch TV, and we don't get the newspaper. What did he do?

Lemme catch you up:

Aside from a few reasonable judicial nominations and rolling back some crazy federal regulations, President Trump has now gone full RINO:

• He has agreed to Democrat plans to tie a temporary increase in the debt ceiling to hurricane disaster relief
• He has failed to reign in any federal spending (still allowing funding of all welfare programs and Planned Parenthood)
• Admitted that he has no real intention to take action on deporting illegal aliens when he told DACA-eligible individuals that they "shouldn't worry"
• Has essentially asked Congress to legalize the Obama-era DACA illegal executive order
• Has not tied border wall funding to any compromises with the Democrats
• Is now in discussions with Schumer and Pelosi to forevermore remove the federal debt ceiling (which will completely strip Congress' power of the purse and allow unaccountable spending by the federal government)
• He has proposed a tax plan that will raise taxes on "the rich" and will (after expert analysis) probably raise taxes on a good number of "middle class" taxpayers
• He has embraced the Leftist class-warfare rhetoric by continually referring to "the rich" and the "middle class"
• He has failed to focus the discussion on health care reform and has lost ground to the single-payer-promoting Marxist, Bernie Sanders
• He has failed to effectively comment on the loss of freedom of speech at our nation's universities.
• He has refused to direct his Justice Department to investigate potential crimes committed by the prior administration (ex/unmasking of unintentionally surveilled private U.S. citizens and decided not to prosecute Lerner for IRS attacks on conservative groups)
• Has taken to propping up vulnerable Democrats in states that he won in the last election (ex/ Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota)

As I've said before: When the Democrats win elections we move Left quickly. When Republicans win elections we move Left slowly. Now, we've got Trump running on Nixonian principles (read: No real political philosophy or principles) and he'll do whatever it takes to get "good press" at this point.

Someone...please...tell me what I have to look forward to from this Trump administration.

 

[Phazer]

Not sure, but perhaps you are jumping the gun.
Trump: 'No deal' yet with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA, wall will be built
The man is unpredictable by design. Probably told the dem leadership what they wanted to hear to get them out of the white house faster. Rope a dope.

To me, this simply proves Trump's lack of foundational principles and a lack of leadership.

A principled constitutionalist would know exactly where they stand on the issues at all times. Their positions would not be subject to daily polls or accolades from a faux-fawning press.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

To me, this simply proves Trump's lack of foundational principles and a lack of leadership.

A principled constitutionalist would know exactly where they stand on the issues at all times. Their positions would not be subject to daily polls or accolades from a faux-fawning press.

Ideally yes, you are right. Remember the environment he is in though. He isn't dealing with really rational people who have the countries best interests at heart. He is dealing with a career gangster class. Sometimes force on force isn't the right play.

 

[Phazer]

Ideally yes, you are right. Remember the environment he is in though. He isn't dealing with really rational people who have the countries best interests at heart. He is dealing with a career gangster class. Sometimes force on force isn't the right play.

At this point, I disagree. "Playing nice" has gotten us nowhere for a long, long, time.

Reagan was hard line with regards to his tax proposals and his foreign policy. He accomplished a lot. Sure, he got rolled by the lying Democrats on amnesty. But, all in all, he tried and succeeded.

At this point, I see Trump as a football coach that likes to punt on first down.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

If I recall, Reagan had a hard time early on also. Not as hard a time as Trump has had though. IDk, honestly I'm as disappointed as everyone else.

 

[Phazer]

If I recall, Reagan had a hard time early on also. Not as hard a time as Trump has had though. IDk, honestly I'm as disappointed as everyone else.

I will clarify my position: I am disappointed in Trump. I hate the RINOs in congress.

 

[C3D]

The blame is more than Trump. The assholes in Congress headed by Eddie Munster have also done nothing to help advance any real party interests.

 

[Frankly]

I knew the Russian allegations were fake news and given the scrutiny he received during the campaign they never really dug up any dirt on him (even the pu$$y grabbing tape was a minor thing they exploited to the max)... so I figured he must have actually been clean. I've known a lot of businessmen like him, they do everything on the up and up because they know they're getting audited and there is no profit in cheating or shortcuts.

But I can't help but think that the Democrats have something over him to make him cave like this? I know he is NYC slick and made good deals but how is anything he's done lately been considered a good deal? It's 180-degrees from what he ran on and I am sure they are self-aware enough to know how much this is pissing off the base of his voters.

It doesn't matter why, only that we're losing here.

 

[swilliams]

Lemme catch you up:

Aside from a few reasonable judicial nominations and rolling back some crazy federal regulations, President Trump has now gone full RINO:

• He has agreed to Democrat plans to tie a temporary increase in the debt ceiling to hurricane disaster relief
• He has failed to reign in any federal spending (still allowing funding of all welfare programs and Planned Parenthood)
• Admitted that he has no real intention to take action on deporting illegal aliens when he told DACA-eligible individuals that they "shouldn't worry"
• Has essentially asked Congress to legalize the Obama-era DACA illegal executive order
• Has not tied border wall funding to any compromises with the Democrats
• Is now in discussions with Schumer and Pelosi to forevermore remove the federal debt ceiling (which will completely strip Congress' power of the purse and allow unaccountable spending by the federal government)
• He has proposed a tax plan that will raise taxes on "the rich" and will (after expert analysis) probably raise taxes on a good number of "middle class" taxpayers
• He has embraced the Leftist class-warfare rhetoric by continually referring to "the rich" and the "middle class"
• He has failed to focus the discussion on health care reform and has lost ground to the single-payer-promoting Marxist, Bernie Sanders
• He has failed to effectively comment on the loss of freedom of speech at our nation's universities.
• He has refused to direct his Justice Department to investigate potential crimes committed by the prior administration (ex/unmasking of unintentionally surveilled private U.S. citizens and decided not to prosecute Lerner for IRS attacks on conservative groups)
• Has taken to propping up vulnerable Democrats in states that he won in the last election (ex/ Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota)

As I've said before: When the Democrats win elections we move Left quickly. When Republicans win elections we move Left slowly. Now, we've got Trump running on Nixonian principles (read: No real political philosophy or principles) and he'll do whatever it takes to get "good press" at this point.

Someone...please...tell me what I have to look forward to from this Trump administration.

The only thing I can comment on right now is the debt ceiling, since that's the only thing I'm somewhat familiar with. In order to get money for Harvey, the debt ceiling HAD to be lifted. There's also never been a time since the debt ceiling was implemented that we haven't lifted it because it would be devastating to the economy. It's doesn't accomplish what was intended.

This quote is from an article on the subject. "Linking the two issues could make it politically difficult for lawmakers to oppose the debt-limit bill. ... The government’s cash reserves are running low because the debt limit has already been reached, and the Treasury Department is using various accounting measures to cover expenses." Lawmakers were never going to truly oppose the debt ceiling increase. They only make noise about it. We had no money for Harvey. Do we just say 'better luck next time' to those in that area? It's tempting, but we can't really do that because of the financial repercussions it would have on the economy.

What we need is for congress to come up with a budget. They need to stop dragging their damn feet and make some tough decisions, instead of hoping that if they delay long enough they can be reelected without having to chance making some constituents angry. I'm actually happy that he didn't give congress the eight months they wanted to come up with a budget. Git 'er done. Of course, it won't get done, and the ceiling will be lifted again, but I view it as at least he's trying to get a budget accomplished.

 

[togmaster]

Someone...please...tell me what I have to look forward to from this Trump administration.

Another conservative justice (or two)on the Supreme Court. That is what really counts.

 

[rsmitty]

 

[DoD1776]

Guys. Even if he does 10 percent of what's said it's still 150 times better than what would've happened if Hillary won..

 

[livingston]

Not sure, but perhaps you are jumping the gun.
Trump: 'No deal' yet with Pelosi and Schumer on DACA, wall will be built
The man is unpredictable by design. Probably told the dem leadership what they wanted to hear to get them out of the white house faster. Rope a dope.

President Trump on Thursday denied reports that he struck a "deal" overnight with top Democrats to protect so-called “Dreamers,” while insisting “massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent.”



Trump’s Twitter post was in response to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announcing after a dinner meeting at the White House that they had "agreed to a plan to work out an agreement to protect our nation’s DREAMers from deportation."

They also said "we would review border security measures that didn’t include building a wall."

The president clarified Thursday morning that he intends for the wall to be built -- and while he wants to helps Dreamers, there's no deal yet.

"No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote," Trump tweeted. "The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built."

Pelosi and Schumer called Wednesday night's dinner at the White House “very productive."


Shortly after their statement, the White House issued its own statement agreeing that the sit-down was productive, but the exclusion of the border wall "was certainly not agreed to."

Trump, before and after the dinner meeting, has voiced concern about the fate of the young illegal immigrants who had been protected under the Obama-era DACA program that he aims to reverse. The program shielded illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation. While Trump is rolling back the executive action that allowed it, he is giving Congress time to pass a legislative alternative -- a point he underscored Thursday.

"Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really! ... They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security," he tweeted.

Pelosi and Schumer, though, tried to dial down tensions by mid-morning, releasing a joint statement suggesting they’re actually all on the same page.

 

[dubleuhb]

Again I ask, how can you be making deals if you do not have control of Congress?

 

[livingston]

Again I ask, how can you be making deals if you do not have control of Congress?

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
He( Obama ) put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.

And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions pointed out this week, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Since most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens," Sessions said.

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."

Under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration. The president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens.

The DACA program suffers from exactly the same constitutional infirmities as DAPA. A number of states have threatened to sue the administration to stop the DACA program. In the face of that threat, Trump really had no choice. General Sessions' legal conclusion was that DACA "is vulnerable to the same legal and constitutional challenges that the courts recognized with respect to the DAPA program."

The place to have the debate about what to do about illegal aliens who were minors when they came to this country is in the halls of Congress, not the White House. Failure to correct this unilateral, unconstitutional overreach would set a dangerous precedent that weakens our constitutional balance of powers. As law professor Jonathan Turley said, "If a president can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense."

 

[dubleuhb]

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
He( Obama ) put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.

And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions pointed out this week, DACA "contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences." Since most DACA beneficiaries are now adults, "it also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens," Sessions said.

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."

Under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration. The president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens.

The DACA program suffers from exactly the same constitutional infirmities as DAPA. A number of states have threatened to sue the administration to stop the DACA program. In the face of that threat, Trump really had no choice. General Sessions' legal conclusion was that DACA "is vulnerable to the same legal and constitutional challenges that the courts recognized with respect to the DAPA program."

The place to have the debate about what to do about illegal aliens who were minors when they came to this country is in the halls of Congress, not the White House. Failure to correct this unilateral, unconstitutional overreach would set a dangerous precedent that weakens our constitutional balance of powers. As law professor Jonathan Turley said, "If a president can claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense."

I ask how those in the minority can broker a deal, maybe I'm missing something but if you don't have control of the House or Senate what is actually going on here?

 

[GuyMontag]

A principled constitutionalist would know exactly where they stand on the issues at all times.

Phazer, your expectation is a noble one, but there hasn't been a "principled" constitutionalist elected to the office of president in well over a century. Remember that law professor who used to live at 1600 Penn Ave, and repeatedly wiped his arse with the Constitution?! How much "leadership" can anyone muster when the leaders of your own party are effectively working AGAINST the agenda?

While I share your alarm over spending and debt, the truth is nobody really cares, nor does the market. Ask the average idiot what the savings rate should be, or how much should a 10yr Treasury historically yield, you'll hear crickets. Unfunded federal mandates are now well past 100 Trillion, and only gets worse if you ever dare raise interest rates to where they should be.

Where's the "outrage" over destroying the debt market and the home being the single most stable vehicle for storing and accumulating wealth? It's in the same place as those double digit interest rates for short term debt instruments! lol

Where he will lose me and others who voted for him is over the issue of Amnesty, and the wall. It's a deal breaker for sure, and will cost him deeply if he's foolish enough to cede this point. Reagan made the same fools bargain on immigration, and Trump will not be given the same latitude with voters today, he's setting himself up for one helluva re-election effort (particularly with the people who voted for him) if he gives in on Amnesty.

 

[Frankly]

I ask how those in the minority can broker a deal, maybe I'm missing something but if you don't have control of the House or Senate what is actually going on here?

Because without a super majority of 60/100 the Democrats can block most everything that comes up. Just like Republicans did to Obama, except when some RINOs broke ranks.

The Republicans could end the super majority and go back to a simple majority but they won't because they're afraid it could be used against them if the roles are reversed. But it's stupid because them Democrats will regardless of how nice and fair the Republicans are today.

This is why Mitch McConnell is an asshole.

 

[dwa12479]

Again I ask, how can you be making deals if you do not have control of Congress?

Precisely this ^^^^^^^^^^^

Trump can't do all these things alone. He doesn't have nearly the backing that he should from Ryan, Mcconnell and their ilk. It's a little different environment than when he was head of the Trump Organization. He had people that were actually on his team and fighting for his plan, and he could up and fire them if they didn't. Not the case with the so-called R majorities in the House and Senate.

 

[tirwin1]

Out in the midwest there were states that voted for obama twice and then switched to trump. I interpret that as a sign people tried mr. "hope and change" and when things continued to get worse switched to a non-politician in trump. If he reverses course on the major platforms that got him support I don't see how he gets re-elected. Who would the country elect when two supposedly "change" candidates have failed to make any meaningful change? As a student of history I am not very optimistic.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Precisely this ^^^^^^^^^^^

Trump can't do all these things alone. He doesn't have nearly the backing that he should from Ryan, Mcconnell and their ilk. It's a little different environment than when he was head of the Trump Organization. He had people that were actually on his team and fighting for his plan, and he could up and fire them if they didn't. Not the case with the so-called R majorities in the House and Senate.

This is the other thing I think gets forgotten a lot of times. There are two other branches of government to deal with. I think people have elevated the executive branch too much in their minds and think that the president should be able to do what he wants and congress and the supreme court are just always in the way. I get that the president is the head of his/her party, but as said above, members of the party aren't always with the president on things. Ideally they should all be doing the bidding of the people but it has developed or regressed, I should say, into what's good for the party. The party Trump leads, doesn't want him.

 

[timboy]

I have to admit that I am dissapointed with what he has done so far but I am still glad Hitlery is not potus.