Trump: Working Day 1 Explained

[Guest Godless]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

As a non-Trumpster but one who has been, on the balanced, positively impressed by him since his election, I can answer this one easily: Conservatives want government to act in the way government is supposed to act. Securing our borders is the primary function of our federal government, arguably more important than any other single duty. Currently, our southern border is absurdly porous. With people like blueskye wanting the franchise for non-citizens, it behooves those of us who actually love our country to see to border enforcement. Of course conservatives approve of expenses necessary to secure our border! Even liberals approve of it, if they love the USA.

Perhaps some believe there are more effective and less costly border enforcement alternatives than building a wall. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion. But no one who actually understands conservative thought will be baffled at conservative support for border security, even if it involves a large capital outlay.

I support increased border security, including Trump's initiative to increase the number of agents at the border. I do not support a border wall. It's a waste of money and resources that could be better used elsewhere. And his plan to "make Mexico pay" is going to be an economic disaster that will hurt American wallets, especially those of us who live in border states (people down here are already stockpiling Topo Chico, of all things).

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

I support increased border security, including Trump's initiative to increase the number of agents at the border. I do not support a border wall. It's a waste of money and resources that could be better used elsewhere. And his plan to "make Mexico pay" is going to be an economic disaster that will hurt American wallets, especially those of us who live in border states (people down here are already stockpiling Topo Chico, of all things).

Amen. Agree essentially word for word with what @Godless said. 

[Mike]

32 minutes ago, Godless said:

I support increased border security, including Trump's initiative to increase the number of agents at the border. I do not support a border wall. It's a waste of money and resources that could be better used elsewhere.

I agree with you. I suppose that there are also better ways of apprehending illegal immigrants who are already here and dealing with them on a case basis. I'm under no illusions. This could not be done effectively without increased costs--big time. But I prefer to spend my taxes effectively than with a wall.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Mike

[Guest Godless]

More on trade deficits from an industry associate of mine who taught economics at UTSA before building one of the most successful small businesses in San Antonio.

"Trade deficits aren't really a bad thing. This is from the CATO Institute, a very free-market think tank that Republicans used to listen to before they decided that winning elections was more important than actual free trade principles. "

Link

[Blueskye2]

20 hours ago, Vort said:

As a non-Trumpster but one who has been, on the balanced, positively impressed by him since his election, I can answer this one easily: Conservatives want government to act in the way government is supposed to act. Securing our borders is the primary function of our federal government, arguably more important than any other single duty. Currently, our southern border is absurdly porous. With people like blueskye wanting the franchise for non-citizens, it behooves those of us who actually love our country to see to border enforcement. Of course conservatives approve of expenses necessary to secure our border! Even liberals approve of it, if they love the USA.

Perhaps some believe there are more effective and less costly border enforcement alternatives than building a wall. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion. But no one who actually understands conservative thought will be baffled at conservative support for border security, even if it involves a large capital outlay.

Correct, I have not taken on the demonized view of PEOPLE. I reject it, whole heartedly and without reservation.

Since PC is so out and blasé I'll just say it, the wall is stupid, from the head of a extremely stupid man, who day by day shows the depth of his stupidly, to cheers of masses.

If it weren't so horrific to watch, I might be amused. 

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Correct, I have not taken on the demonized view of PEOPLE. I reject it, whole heartedly and without reservation.

Please note: Blueskye has freely confirmed that she believes non-citizens should be enfranchised.

[Guest]

On 1/25/2017 at 0:51 PM, MormonGator said:

You leave me alone, I leave you alone. 

Group snub! Awww...

[askandanswer]

I think a bit of a back log is developing. Day 1 is still being discussed nine days after the inauguration. 

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I think a bit of a back log is developing. Day 1 is still being discussed nine days after the inauguration. 

No kidding; let's talk about the ban! Hallelujah actually doing something to stop people who don't share our culture, don't share our values from coming here.  Thank you!!

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

My two cents about the ban (and I'm trying to avoid political arguments, so I'll leave it at this):

LDS Church issues statement after Trump Order that Would Block Refugees
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865672124/LDS-Church-issues-statement-after-Trump-order-that-would-block-refugees.html

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of all of God's children across the earth," the statement said, "with special concern for those who are fleeing physical violence, war and religious persecution. The church urges all people and governments to cooperate fully in seeking the best solutions to meet human needs and relieve suffering."

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

My two cents about the ban (and I'm trying to avoid political arguments, so I'll leave it at this):

LDS Church issues statement after Trump Order that Would Block Refugees
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865672124/LDS-Church-issues-statement-after-Trump-order-that-would-block-refugees.html

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of all of God's children across the earth," the statement said, "with special concern for those who are fleeing physical violence, war and religious persecution. The church urges all people and governments to cooperate fully in seeking the best solutions to meet human needs and relieve suffering."

I wrote a whole thing and it got gobbled up.  All I say is that I agree, but I don't think you and I agree on what the best solution means-and it sure as heck doesn't mean we let foreigners who don't understand American culture into this country.  The Syrian crisis is a US caused crisis from the idiot neo-con warmongers.  The best solution is just to leave them alone.  3000 miles of ocean and dozens of other countries that fit their culture better-absolutely no reason why we should let them into this country.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/27/2017 at 0:47 PM, Mike said:

Since the investigation is, as you say, to find illegal immigrants (at a lower cost) why should we believe an investigation into voter fraud will yield cost-effectively identified numbers of them? And since cost seems to be an important factor here, there are other cheap ways (not necessarily very American to the minds of some Americans) but traditionally effective to find people who don't look like they belong in a voting booth. Does he still believe that there were millions of them who cost him the popular vote, er, I mean poll?

Not sure if this has been brought up; but the latest info is that roughly 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary.  Not enough to swing the election; but certainly nothing to sneeze at.  (Source:  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ )

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not sure if this has been brought up; but the latest info is that roughly 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary.  Not enough to swing the election; but certainly nothing to sneeze at.  (Source:  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ )

According to blueskye and those like her, this is wonderful news. Having non-US citizens voting in US elections is exactly what they're all about.

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not sure if this has been brought up; but the latest info is that roughly 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary.  Not enough to swing the election; but certainly nothing to sneeze at.  (Source:  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ )

800k in the right places could definitely swing an election.  Trump won MI, WI, etc. by a lot less than that.  My guess is those 800k are concentrated in certain states and localities.

And I love this nugget:

The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manger John Podesta’s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote. He said immigrants should obtain driver’s licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens.

I haven't seen that wikileaks e-mail I need to dig for it.

[anatess2]

On 1/27/2017 at 2:47 PM, Mike said:

Since the investigation is, as you say, to find illegal immigrants (at a lower cost) why should we believe an investigation into voter fraud will yield cost-effectively identified numbers of them? And since cost seems to be an important factor here, there are other cheap ways (not necessarily very American to the minds of some Americans) but traditionally effective to find people who don't look like they belong in a voting booth. Does he still believe that there were millions of them who cost him the popular vote, er, I mean poll?

Once again, this is not about who won the election.  This is about illegal immigration.  And the reason this is out there is because the Trump team thinks Greg Phillips may have credible research.  He stated he already has the list.

The side benefit to this is the expected hit on the Democrat voting bloc.  The pattern exposed in the Jill Stein recounts is that the more scrutiny the election gets, the more damage it does to the Democrat voting bloc.  But, this is just something the campaign team (who are now disbanded because Trump chose not to run a 24/7 campaign after the elections) was hoping for and not necessarily what Trump cares about beyond the added support to his fight against the press war over legitimacy.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 1/27/2017 at 3:35 PM, MormonGator said:

Cost isn't an important factor for a president who wants to spend millions on a wall. This is the first time in my life I've seen conservatives (who are generally against government waste, correctly so) cheer such a massive government project. Big dig 2.0. 

That is silly.  The bill to build the wall passed with majority votes on both Repubs and Dems sides of the aisle waaaay back in the Reagan era and then again in the W. Bush era.  The Congressional approval to build the wall was the main reason Reagan, a Republican, signed a sweeping Amnesty.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:01 PM, MormonGator said:

And that my friend, is where we will have to disagree. First chance democrats get, this precious little wall will be gone. 

 

On 1/27/2017 at 5:17 PM, Vort said:

You may be right. If the "wall" gets built, we'll see. (I suspect the "wall" will be more like fortified fencing with armed guards posted at intervals.)

I don't know where you get this idea from.  Only the extreme leftists are for open borders.  Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama all signed the border security bill that included the wall (that used to be called barrier).  Ted Kennedy even wrote a bill with McCain on building the wall.  Ted Kennedy.  As die-hard Democrat as you can get.

The Hillary campaign did not run on open borders.  She never posited that the wall was a bad idea (she even bragged on her press interviews that she voted for the barrier multiple times).  But her campaign focused more on who she wants to let in (build bridges) than who she wants to keep out. 

[Mike]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not sure if this has been brought up; but the latest info is that roughly 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary.  Not enough to swing the election; but certainly nothing to sneeze at.  (Source:  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ )

I am certainly willing to dig deeper. But there's a lot to consider in terms of media bias here. I think the Washington Times is recognized as biased even farther to the right than, say, the Washington Post and New York Times are to the Left. I'm curious to know what other outlets are reporting this story. I think it's curious that the story is based upon a *blog* about a single polling effort (which also raises questions about a so-called consortium and what that actually is in this case) without reference to anything like peer review for objectivity, accuracy, and whether the polling can be truly considered "scientific". 

I will say that if what the Washington Times calls evidence is truly worthy of being called evidence, then I will agree the matter is worthy of pursuit. 

 

[anatess2]

@MormonGator @Godless @Just_A_Guy and those I forgot to mention that was in the trade discussion.

This is the difference between theoretical/ideological leadership and pragmatic leadership.  Somebody said Buckley is spinning in his grave right now.  That's an indication of the deep ideological grip people have that makes them blind to reality.  Sure, Free Trade is great.  But NAFTA is not free trade.  NAFTA is the fleecing of American dollars out of the US.  This fleecing has been going on for decades and nobody has the courage to stop it because the people who has the power to stop it has to fulfill campaign promises that are built on ideology... "If we say something against NAFTA they would think we're against Free Trade".  That BS has been crippling the USA for decades.  That's one of the reasons that Trump is the only guy who has the chance to fix it.  Because he doesn't run on ideology but pragmatism.  He, therefore, doesn't change his positions to win votes, rather he tells people what he believes, and he gets them to vote for what he thinks is the right path.  Ideologically, he believes Free Trade is great and he supports it.  But pragmatically, he recognizes the mess we are in with our "Free Trade" agreements so he's fixing it.

I'd like to remind you of this epic rant Dylan Ratigan - a rare conservative om a 3-year stint in MSNBC hosting its most popular show on the 4PM time slot beating CNN and even Fox - made back in August 2011 as a response to the passing of the Budget Control Act.  Note, this was a rant made in the early days leading into the 2012 primaries.  Things has just gotten worse since then.

 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Once again, this is not about who won the election.  This is about illegal immigration.

Right. I didn't suppose it was about the election. From your remarks I took it to mean it is about locating illegals in order to deport them. 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Right. I didn't suppose it was about the election. From your remarks I took it to mean it is about locating illegals in order to deport them. 

The logical conclusion is so that we can deport them... but the main issue is simply just documentation.  The Feds can't act on anything they don't know about.  They can't vet them, get a clear idea of the impact (negative or otherwise) they have on the US, etc. etc., unless they're documented.  That's why visa overstays is a smaller concern than undocumented illegals.  Every single person that has ever received a visa has been vetted, health screened, biometrics registered, background checked, financially checked, etc.

Right now, the only way we get these undocumented immigrants documented is when they commit a Federal crime.  There are so many places that, not only don't share documents with the Feds regarding illegal immigrants, they go so far as to make a point not to collect them.

But yeah, the Executive Order on enforcing immigration laws did include prioritization of deportation for those who illegally received government issued documents for the purpose of receiving benefits only reserved for citizens.  A voter's registration would fit that.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Okay, first week's Executive Orders count:

W Bush = 0

Obama = 6

Trump = 5

Yes, it's a high number.  And yes, some of those, like the one on immigration and the wall (except for the fed funding to sanctuary cities) can be done without an Executive Order especially since Kelly was already approved by the Senate so Trump could have called Kelly into the oval office and gave him the order instead of having to write an EO for it.  This particular EO, in my opinion, was made not necessarily as a means to instruct the executive branch on what to do but more to add strength to the enforcement of existing immigration laws - kinda like putting a line in a paragraph in bold font to add weight to it, so a phone call or a letter to Kelly does not quite have the same impact.

But the fact of the matter is... out of the 15 cabinet secretaries he needs to run the country, only 2 got approved by the Senate.  Obama had 10 approved in week 1, W Bush had 9 on Day 1!

So yeah, out of 700 crucial Executive Branch positions that require Senate confirmation, only 4 has been confirmed after week 1.  So... the EO's will continue because Trump is not waiting for his cabinet to be filled before he starts laying out his agenda.  There's nobody to call or send a mail to get these stuff started.  Of course, the Democrats in the Senate was hoping that delaying the confirmations would delay Trump.  Of course, eventually, it could grind the Executive Branch to a halt when there's nobody there to transform orders into actions.  But we'll see how this all plays out.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2