DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: World Current Events, Politics and News
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17069--------------------------------------------------
Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: NealC Date: June 23, 2019, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the vein of what Steven has been discussing in other threads
- can a businessman's instinct to 'make deals' be harnessed in
the service of international politics? The idea of giving a
businessman a chance as head of the U.S. was one of the things
that attracted me to Trump.
That being said these two articles give me hope. First, to
respond to Iran by US Cyber Command - genius. Targeted at the
control systems for the missiles, no human casualties, plenty of
aggravation. If they stopped the air strikes in favor of this,
I heartily approve and do hope it brings Iran back to the
bargaining table.
HTML https://apnews.com/f01492c3dbd14856bce41d776248921f
Second, Trump has been rabidly anti illegal immigration, we all
know that. The only real solution is a comprehensive measure,
ironed out in a compromise with a Democratic congress. Trump
threatened serious enforcement action this weekend, but stopped
due to a phone call from Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in
Congress.
If this is a signal that a deal is in the works, then bravo to
both sides. Might actually give me hope in the Federal
Government again.
HTML https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/22/politics/nancy-pelosi-ice-raids-house-speaker-called-donald-trump/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fdrudgereport.com%2F
#Post#: 17070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: Truman Overby Date: June 23, 2019, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1173.msg17069#msg17069
date=1561285226]
Second, Trump has been rabidly anti immigration, we all know
that.
[/quote]
Trump has been anti ILLEGAL immigration.
#Post#: 17071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: NealC Date: June 23, 2019, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I stand corrected, I will adjust the OP :-)
#Post#: 17075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: SHL Date: June 23, 2019, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=1173.msg17069#msg17069
date=1561285226]
In the vein of what Steven has been discussing in other threads
- can a businessman's instinct to 'make deals' be harnessed in
the service of international politics? The idea of giving a
businessman a chance as head of the U.S. was one of the things
that attracted me to Trump.
That being said these two articles give me hope. First, to
respond to Iran by US Cyber Command - genius. Targeted at the
control systems for the missiles, no human casualties, plenty of
aggravation. If they stopped the air strikes in favor of this,
I heartily approve and do hope it brings Iran back to the
bargaining table.
HTML https://apnews.com/f01492c3dbd14856bce41d776248921f
Second, Trump has been rabidly anti illegal immigration, we all
know that. The only real solution is a comprehensive measure,
ironed out in a compromise with a Democratic congress. Trump
threatened serious enforcement action this weekend, but stopped
due to a phone call from Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in
Congress.
If this is a signal that a deal is in the works, then bravo to
both sides. Might actually give me hope in the Federal
Government again.
HTML https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/22/politics/nancy-pelosi-ice-raids-house-speaker-called-donald-trump/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fdrudgereport.com%2F
[/quote]
Along the lines of what I already said, Neal, I agree with you.
This is encouraging, and what you are witnessing is just the
deal-making businessman Trump, applying his passion for business
to the arena of local and international politics. And, it might
work.
Most people never work with others in such a capacity as to see
this, business-owners making their deals, firsthand. Most folks
have their 9-5 jobs and never get close to management, but just
get a paycheck and go home.
But, I had the experience of working with a deal-maker in the
90s. I became very family with the „art of the deal“ as Trump
calls it (I‘ve not read his book. But, if it comes out in a
German translation I‘d read it). Trump‘s actions are just so
familiar to me. If you‘re the boss, you have to decide your
goals with your opponent (you never consider them an
„enemy“...that’s counter-productive), and then you have to
posture yourself to show your strengths, make your demands, let
the other side know what you want, always exaggerate what you
want to leave yourself margining room, and await a reply. I
learned the first rule of this game is, as the old man used to
tell me, „never negotiate against yourself.“ So, you always have
to ask for more than you know you are going to get. You can draw
lines in the sand, of course, like Trump with Iran saying they
have to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions. But, they’ve
pretty much already agreed to do that, and the European reports
I‘ve read say they’ve been keeping their agreement. I never paid
much attention to the arms deal when it went into effect, but
obviously Trump doesn’t like some aspects of it and thinks he
can make a better deal. So, he’s doing that.
Plus, there are certain lines you don’t cross in negotiations.
Like, Trump calling off a military strike at the last minute
because, according to a report, it could have cost 150 lives.
But, the drone was unmanned, and who really cares if it cost
hundreds of millions? When you are talking about killing people
over a piece of replaceable military hardware, you don‘t kill a
single person, let alone 150. Money just comes and goes, but you
can‘t put a price on a human life.
I think Trump knew he’d be crossing one of those lines you never
cross if you are really trying to make a deal with someone. All
a military strike would have done is shut the Iranians down to
any negotiations, and who knows what their response would have
been? So, Trump made the right choice there.
The cyber -attacking is also great. Again, just hardware, and
messing around with someone. No one is going to die from a
computer virus.
As to Pelosi, again, it‘s just Trump doing his favorite thing-
making deals. Another good sign, because he’s not drawn a line
in the sand. He’s got some wiggle room on the
immigration/illegal immigration issue, or he wouldn’t have
agreed to the two week delay in the ICE enforcement.
Keep in mind the States have always been more independent in the
US, than comparable states and regions in other countries. US
States have occasionally ignored federal laws they didn‘t like
for years and the feds just sort of tolerate it, more or less,
particularly when the States ignoring it have a reason. The
whole marijuana controversy is the best example. The Feds have
exclusive jurisdiction to decide what drugs are legal and which
are not. And marijuana is still Schedule 1, making it like
heroin, illegal. But, California, Washington, and Colorado (and
others probably too) have „legalized“ it locally for years.
First for medicinal reasons, and now for recreational use. Yet,
the States don’t have any legal authority to do so. So, how is
that supposed to work? But, they just do it anyway (on the
freeway near my town there’s a huge billboard which reads, „F
Street Dispensary- Davis“ and gives an address and a sketch of
marijuana leaf. Legal under State law, illegal under the federal
law, but will the feds do anything about it? I rather doubt it).
Davis, as a big University town, likely is why marijuana is
pretty popular over there.
So it is with illegal immigration. California is a „sanctuary
State“, with Oakland and San Francisco being sanctuary cities.
Yet, what did Trump say the other day? He’d be happy to send as
many of the illegal immigrants to San Francisco or Oakland as
the cities want? And he said he had an unlimited supply. Again,
he’s not drawing a line in the sand. He just wants to make a
deal.
#Post#: 17083--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: Irena Date: June 24, 2019, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the US has been doing (or at least trying to do) cyber
attacks against Iran for quite some time now. (Iran has probably
been doing - or at least trying to do - the same against the
US.) I'd be quite surprised if it turned out otherwise. And if
the US really is only starting to do these "cyber attacks," then
announcing that they (the cyber attacks) are just about to start
seems like a rather dumb move. Anyway, the whole thing sounds
like propaganda to me.
#Post#: 17084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: Irena Date: June 24, 2019, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trump's announcement that he's about to send illegal immigrants
to California isn't nearly as dumb as it might sound. As I
understand it, some states would love a lot more immigration,
whereas others would like a lot less, so why not give all sides
what they want?
It would probably be possible to pass some sort of immigration
reform that gives states more leeway to get the immigrants they
want, but with the understanding that those immigrants are
required to stay in that state for an extended period of time,
and possibly permanently.
#Post#: 17098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: SHL Date: June 24, 2019, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Irena link=topic=1173.msg17084#msg17084
date=1561360325]
Trump's announcement that he's about to send illegal immigrants
to California isn't nearly as dumb as it might sound. As I
understand it, some states would love a lot more immigration,
whereas others would like a lot less, so why not give all sides
what they want?
It would probably be possible to pass some sort of immigration
reform that gives states more leeway to get the immigrants they
want, but with the understanding that those immigrants are
required to stay in that state for an extended period of time,
and possibly permanently.
[/quote]
I agree, Irena, we need immigration reform. Why not just leave
it up the States what to do with undocumented workers/migrants
what they want. Let them live there and work if they want. Let
the feds just control the land borders and airports? Why not?
Just let the feds do that and forget about it.
HTML http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/sanctuary-cities
The map only shows California, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode
Island as full „sanctuary States“ , plus DC, but lists several
counties and many other major US cities as sanctuary cities. New
York, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, and several others are all on
the list. Again, California covers all of the State but some
cities were sanctuary cities long before the entire State, like
San Francisco, LA, Berkeley and Oakland. I say let the people
of those States and localities decide. It’s their economies and
communities.
Like stand up comic Doug Stanhope once said, if some guy
illegally crossing the border from Mexico, hungry, penniless, in
tattered clothes and not speaking the language is as qualified
for your job as you, you are a loser of epic proportions. And
then the dumb argument, „they are taking up our welfare
benefits“. Yeah, but about what you (American citizen) pumping
out 10 kids that the rest of us have to pay for when they pay
out your welfare benefits for your kids? Are we supposed to be
happy about it just because they are American kids? We‘re not.
#Post#: 17101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: Truman Overby Date: June 24, 2019, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SHL link=topic=1173.msg17098#msg17098
date=1561394818]
Why not just leave it up the States what to do with undocumented
workers/migrants what they want.
[/quote]
Steve, national borders are just that - national - borders,
ergo; people crossing illegally into the country are to be dealt
with at the federal level. { This is not a radical idea that
the US or Trump came up with. It's this way for every country in
the world. } The federal government controls the border, not the
various states. You can't just leave it up to the states. I
suppose you're just being provocative. That's my job on this
forum. It's best to leave the provocation to the expert. ;)
#Post#: 17102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: Irena Date: June 24, 2019, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I didn't so much think that the states should do as they
please with undocumented immigrants. What I meant was that the
states could be given much more of a say in who gets to
enter/stay legally. But if a state welcomes an immigrant
(possibly one that is currently illegal), then it's up to that
state to bear all the costs, and the person can't just pack up
and move to another state. Now, eventually, those state-bound
immigrants might become US citizens (and certainly, their
children would, or else expect trouble, including secession
movements), but that would be much later, when they've spent
quite a long time in their state, and aren't terribly likely to
leave anyway.
ETA: I understand Jerry's point about protecting borders. But
now you've got, what, 10-12 million illegal immigrants? That
sounds like a gigantic mess to me. Deporting them all would
cause massive disruption in more than one way. A deal whereby
some states effectively "sponsor" the legalization of a certain
number of currently illegal immigrants may be sensible. And then
in the future, they (the states) could be allowed to bring in
more state-sponsored immigrants, under certain conditions.
#Post#: 17103--------------------------------------------------
Re: Quite frankly, I am encouraged by this
By: SHL Date: June 24, 2019, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=The Artist formerly known as Truman Overby
link=topic=1173.msg17101#msg17101 date=1561399518]
[quote author=SHL link=topic=1173.msg17098#msg17098
date=1561394818]
Why not just leave it up the States what to do with undocumented
workers/migrants what they want.
[/quote]
Steve, national borders are just that - national - borders,
ergo; people crossing illegally into the country are to be dealt
with at the federal level. { This is not a radical idea that
the US or Trump came up with. It's this way for every country in
the world. } The federal government controls the border, not the
various states. You can't just leave it up to the states. I
suppose you're just being provocative. That's my job on this
forum. It's best to leave the provocation to the expert. ;)
[/quote]
That’s why I said the feds should control the borders. Yes,
that’s their job. And the emigration courts (federal) decide who
is legally entitled to be here. Of course.
But once these „illegals“ make it to a sanctuary State or city,
I‘d say just let them stay there if they can get a job and get
by on their own (which the normally do). Or if that locality
wants to give them local help, that’s up to them. Why not? Why
invade a sanctuary city to ferret them out and deport them? If
they are not hurting anyone, who cares?
If Irena says then they have to stay in the sanctuary locality,
I suppose that’s fine too but it‘s impossible to enforce. So, if
they leave the sanctuary city, they just are taking their
chances. Then the feds can grab them up and ship them off.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page