September 14, 2017

"A lot of folks have come out of meetings with Trump thinking they had a deal, only to find they were wrong."

"That may be what happened here, or the Dems may have been trying to spin the press coverage. Stay tuned and don’t believe every headline."

Says Glenn Reynolds.

The link within the post goes to the NPR article, "Trump Denies He Made A Deal With Democrats On DREAMer Protections."

I'm thinking: Why would the Dems go public saying they had a deal if things were not yet at the stage where Trump would want the deal publicly announced? It's possible that part of what they agreed to was that the Dems would say there was a deal and Trump would deny it. But what's the advantage in that?

It's possible that Trump's idea of what counts as a "deal" is different from the Dems. Trump's tweets on the subject are:

1. "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."

2. "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," and...

3. "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!"

One could read that to mean there is one term that must be firmed up — the extent of the new border security (it must be "massive"!) — but we've got a deal — with that contingency — to continue DACA and to abandon the big idea of THE WALL across the entire border.

129 comments:

Ralph L said...

Trump had better be careful with this issue. He could lose his base, who won't care about losing the House then, effectively destroying the party, part of which has defied its voters for decades.

rehajm said...

Determining if you have a deal with Trump is an art.

zipity said...

From Instapundit. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/275523/



MICKEY KAUS: Don’t buy all the PR-style hooey about ‘dreamers.’

Compared with the general population, dreamers are not especially highly skilled. A recent survey for several pro-dreamer groups, with participants recruited by those groups, found that while most dreamers are not in school, the vast majority work. But their median hourly wage is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed lower-skilled Americans.


The dreamers you read about have typically been carefully selected for their appeal. They’re valedictorians. They’re first responders. They’re curing diseases. They root for the Yankees. They want to serve in the Army. If dreamers are the poster children for the much larger undocumented population, these are the poster children for the poster children.


Still, taking the dreamers as a whole, not just the dreamiest of them, they represent an appealing group of would-be citizens. So why not show compassion and legalize them? Because, as is often the case, the pursuit of pure compassion comes with harmful side effects.

Plus:

Under “chain migration” rules established in 1965 — ironically as a sop to conservatives, who foolishly thought that they’d boost European inflows — new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws, until whole villages have moved to the United States. That means today’s 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers, who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who, in theory, are at fault.

Mickey was an immigration hawk before it was cool.


31 Posted at 7:22 am by Stephen Green

Chuck said...

Haha! If Senators Graham and McCain made such a deal, they'd be scolded as "amnesty sellouts." Or worse. Let's see how the immigration hawks react. The non-Trumpist immigration hawks. Because Sean Hannity and Rush and the professional Trump apologists won't criticize Trump.

But Ann Coulter will. Laura Ingraham might. I've seen Rep. Steve King already drawing lines with Trump over this.

tim in vermont said...

Mickey is a liberal who cares about working class Americans.

tim in vermont said...

In Hilary's book she describes McCain as distraught over the election. What a tool.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Why would the Dems go public saying they had a deal if things were not yet at the stage where Trump would want the deal publicly announced?"

-- Because it undermines him. Resist, BAMN.

Unknown said...

Anyone who believes Trump will make deals in good faith is a fool. And Trump is a fool if he thinks that there will be absolutely nothing that can touch him, the more broken deals, the more lies, the more the public sees who this man is, except for that 33%.

Laslo Spatula said...

DREAMERS, because Black Lives Matter.

I am Laslo.

Henry said...

Trump's tweets reveal a wildly pragmatic centrist position. Not bad.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If Senators Graham and McCain made such a deal, they'd be scolded as "amnesty sellouts.""

-- I'm open to some deal, but given how frequently the right has given up a lot, and the left has turned around and altered the deal. Which makes it hard to decide what I'd be willing to give up for what, since I know I'll probably not get anything for any concession.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Tweet 3 is casually deceptive. Those, on either side of this issue, prone to knee-jerk responses may interpret it as Trump caving. But it could just as well mean that if a Dreamer (and by extension all illegals) isn't in college, the military, or gainfully employed, they're out of here. As part of the Trump base, I'm here to tell you that that lines up perfectly with what the Trump base wants.

Darrell said...

Show me the deal, Chucker.
Can't? Then shut your fucking mouth.

tim in vermont said...

Unkown Troll is sounding of desperation.

tim in vermont said...

"I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further."

Bay Area Guy said...

Just because Schumer & Pelosi SAY they have a deal, it doesn't necessarily mean there is, in fact, a deal.

They both hate Trump and will try to play him.

Mary Beth said...

Anyone who believes Trump will make deals in good faith is a fool.

Anyone who believes a discussion is the same as a deal is a fool.

rcpjr said...

This what Pelosi emailed to her House colleagues after the meeting:

"Tonight, Leader Schumer and I had a productive meeting with President Trump where we agreed to a plan to work out an agreement to protect our nation’s DREAMERs from deportation."

Sounds like they have an agreement to have a meeting to work out a deal, not an actual deal, otherwise she would have said 'We have a deal and here are the terms...'

It also sounds like Schumer and Pelosi are "normalizing" Trump. The bigots...

traditionalguy said...

Scott Adams goes to the heart of this deal. Trump exchanges a Dreamers status Legislation (which was 99% sure to pass Congress anyway unless Trump vetoed it and upheld the veto despite a pro immigration GOP) for " Massive funding of a "Border Security System including walls " that will not be called a wall.

The ONLY LOSER is the GOP Congressional Majority guys who are cut out of selling their votes for mega bucks, which corruption they feel entitled to...The Party...The Party...save the Party.

And Trump laughs.

Caligula said...

Trump's style of negotiating is that even when there's an apparent agreement, he just never stops trying to get more.

Negotiating with someone who acts like that can be infuriating, but, you still might be glad to have someone like that on your side. Yes, sometimes that sort of hardball negotiating will cause the other side to quit in disgust, but more often it results in an agreement from which every possible advantage has been extracted, leaving absolutely nothing on the table.

Unclebiffy said...

"Why would the Dems go public saying they had a deal if things were not yet at the stage where Trump would want the deal publicly announced?" Because the Dems know that they can lie with impunity and the MSM will not call them on it unless they are forced to do so with overwhelming evidence. At that point they would grudgingly admit that they Dems were mistaken due to nefarious reasons that would be Trumps fault. Once the Brouhaha was over the MSM would continue to insinuate that Trump had lied and that the Dems were misled... See repeat of lie that Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords due to a campaign flyer.

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Left Bank of the Charles said...

A lot of Trump voters are waking up from the dream that they came out of the voting booth with a deal ... "they can say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ..." One likely way this could end is with an impasse in Congress and Trump extending Obama's executive order. Who would that help most, Democrats in Congress, or Republicans?

Humperdink said...

This is hilarious. There is NO deal. Scheemer and Perogi leave the meeting telling the world there is a deal to force Trump's hand. Ain't gonna happen.

Ann Althouse said...

It's not like it's a contract and the question is whether it can be enforced in court.

The term "deal" is simply political rhetoric, to be used when it serves some purpose. When the term is used, try to understand why. It's not a question of whether there is or is not a deal but that it's a word that one set of parties in a legislative process has chosen to use and somebody else, the President, is holding back from using it. I wouldn't assume they're not in cahoots.

Ann Althouse said...

The legislation can't happen without participation from Republicans, and I think this deal-no-deal noise is intended to stir them up out of their stubborn poses.

Bob Boyd said...

We're all dreamers now.

Rick said...

Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote."

I don't understand how this is a "deal". We're already living under this agreement.

I also don't understand why people feel good about this "deal". They are already living under these conditions but both groups think the results are awful.

Wayne Martin said...

The third item is the most interesting. If a job or participation in the military, and a clean criminal record are made a requirement for continued 'deferral', Trump could put both conservatives and leftists in a bind. Conservatives would have to concede that these are productive people; the left would have trouble pushing to keep unemployed criminals in the country.

AJ Lynch said...

I am part of Trump's base and he loses me if he gives any illegals the right to future citizenship. My vote should not be diluted by those who came here illegally nor by their families via chain migration.

I would be OK with legalizing some of the illegals if they agree, in writing, they can never ever be a citizen and they can never ever vote in any local, state or federal election. But chain migration for all green card holders must be ended too.

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
Show me the deal, Chucker.
Can't? Then shut your fucking mouth.

The "deal" was what Pelosi and Schumer claimed. Do you not like that supposition? Fine! Let's then presume that Pelosi and Schumer lied about any "deal." Then why invite them to dinner anymore? Go back to your Republican majority; denounce Pelosi and Schumer and describe in detail the discussions and how Pelosi and Schumer mischaracterized them.

Problem with Trump is that he has a long record of claiming things were "mischaracterized" when they weren't. See, e.g., the debacle in which Senator Blumenthal quoted then-Judge Gorsuch, and then Trump tweeted that Blumenthal "mischaracterized" the judge, and then when Gorsuch testified in his SCOTUS confirmation hearing, we find out that Blumenthal had used the exact right words, confirmed by Gorsuch, in his original description.

In other words, in a liar's contest, Trump's own record is just about the worst one in town.

LYNNDH said...

If there is a deal and it involves the dreaded "Amnesty and Citizenship" then Trump has effectively removed the dreamers from the Dem play list. No more beating the Republicans like a drum. Face it, the Republican "leadership" lost this argument a long time ago and are just holding on to it for campaign money. I said this on another Blog, the real fight is TAXES.

HT said...

The advantage is that, once Trump reneges (which he inevitably will, it's who he is), they will have something to use against him, paint him as an incompetent which he is.

We're just going back and forth (see healthcare) without making progress. At least for the short-term.

HT said...

I would be OK with legalizing some of the illegals if they agree, in writing, they can never ever be a citizen and they can never ever vote in any local, state or federal election. But chain migration for all green card holders must be ended too.

This is what I completely do not understand. Isn't granting a huge number of people status less than full citizenship weakening our country? I do not like the idea of non-citizens being granted the right to vote for that reason. We want FULL participants in our country, no? We have way too many people living here who are not fully committed, via citizenship. That's a problem.

AReasonableMan said...

It would take a lot to convince me, at this point, that Trump's main interest in life isn't just jerking people around. He seems to quite enjoy it and now, with the considerable power of the presidency, he has whole new vistas in which to jerk people around.

Darrell said...

The "deal" was what Pelosi and Schumer claimed.

Only a Vichy Republican would say that. A deal is between two parties. They teach that in good schools.

rcocean said...

What an absurd "deal". So we're 100% sure the Democrats will get what they want - Amnesty. And the American people - well, we might get something like a wall or some sort of "border security" or we might not.

Romney/Pence could have made that deal.

HT said...

It would take a lot to convince me, at this point, that Trump's main interest in life isn't just jerking people around. He seems to quite enjoy it and now, with the considerable power of the presidency, he has whole new vistas in which to jerk people around.
You got it.

rcocean said...

The problem is trump 3. Once, you agree that under no circumstances is DACA going to be repealed what is there to negotiate?

The Democrats get what they want - no matter what. The Dems can just play hardball and Trump and the American people will just shit in return.

Darrell said...

Perhaps Trump was just seeing how much he could trust Democrats. The answer in minutes was two.

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
The "deal" was what Pelosi and Schumer claimed.

Only a Vichy Republican would say that. A deal is between two parties. They teach that in good schools.

I thought I made it quite clear, Darrell. You are free to choose to think that there was never any deal at all, and that Pelosi and Schumer are lying about all of it. I said that it was fine if you wish to believe that. For the sake of argument, let's presume that to be true; there was and is no deal, and the two Dem leaders are lying.

Then why deal with them? Why invite them to dinner? Why open yourself up to a national discussion that now you, as President Trump, are going to be actively working for compromises with Democrats as a means of trying something new? Why do any of that?

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
Perhaps Trump was just seeing how much he could trust Democrats. The answer in minutes was two.

Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan could have told Trump that in a 30-second phone call. Trump should have those guys over for dinner. Burgers and beers. Trump can have a bottled water and a taco salad.

Fernandinande said...

zipity said...
The dreamers you read about have typically been carefully selected for their appeal. They’re valedictorians. ...


Anecdotes are for selling, which is the opposite of informing or knowing.

Darrell said...

Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want the same thing that Pelosi and Schumer want. I'd block them on my phone.

Bob Boyd said...

I wonder if this means Trump has already decided not to run for re-election.

David Begley said...

I well recall a story about Trump during the primaries. He was at the closing for the purchase of a golf course. Ivanka was with him. At the closing table he alleged there were problems with the real estate. A total lie. He made it up. He lowered the price by a big number and avoided a lawsuit.

Nancy and Chuck have never dealt with the likes of Trump.

AReasonableMan said...

Chuck said...
Then why deal with them? Why invite them to dinner? Why open yourself up to a national discussion that now you, as President Trump, are going to be actively working for compromises with Democrats as a means of trying something new? Why do any of that?


Because the Republicans have proven incapable of getting anything substantial done?

HT said...

No, that's not (entirely) why, ARM. The reason is that Trump truly does not know what he's doing, and this is just part of his pattern.

To assign meaning, lofty meaning, to Trump is just Trump Derangement Syndrome seen from another lead.

Darrell said...

Trump told the Republican Congress to fix immigration and send him the Bills to sign. The ball is in their court. Do Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want to fix the abortion of the 1965 immigration act? Fuck no. They are the enemies of the majority of voters along with he Democrats. Amnesty? Si!

Nonapod said...

So two parties come out of a meeting. One party says a deal was made, the other party insists there wasn't. Which party do you believe? Both parties have told lies for political gain in the past. Who is more trustworthy in this situation: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer or Donald Trump? I think pretty much everyone who is familiar with these people has an instinctual response to that.

Michael K said...

"It would take a lot to convince me, at this point,"

Of anything that conflicts with the left's world view.

There are no "Dreamers" in the military. I examine recruits.

A deal would be those brought here by parents before the age of 12 could be legalized if they have clean records.

A lot of "Dreamers" came here as "unaccompanied minors" and, like the European Muslims, are adults and should be sent back.

We'll see what happens.

I have again quit reading "chuck"'s comments.

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want the same thing that Pelosi and Schumer want. I'd block them on my phone.

Then really, just sod off. You're not a Democrat. You're not a Republican. You're a Trumpist. Trumpists have mostly nothing. They have no funding for a border wall. No REPEAL! of "Obamacare." No Muslim-ban. No greatest-in-history tax cut.

You don't have a majority in Congress; you don't even have a minority? Who wants to even talk to you?

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
Trump told the Republican Congress to fix immigration and send him the Bills to sign. The ball is in their court. Do Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want to fix the abortion of the 1965 immigration act? Fuck no. They are the enemies of the majority of voters along with he Democrats. Amnesty? Si!

Well, uh, no.

You can't get an immigration bill through a Senate filibuster, unless it has the "amnesty" that Democrats demand. (An "amnesty" that a very few Republicans very reluctantly agreed to, with other concessions from Dems, once upon a time. And those Republicans have largely all stepped away from that compromise. An intelligent, hawkish, business-friendly bill could SAIL through a Republican-only Congress. So don't blame Republicans.)

I don't like the Democrats' position on that. I'd like a confidence-inspiring President use the bully pulpit and a very disciplined and coordinated legislative attack to force the Dems' hand on that resistance. But it won't be easy.

Mike said...

rcpjr said...
This what Pelosi emailed to her House colleagues after the meeting:

"Tonight, Leader Schumer and I had a productive meeting with President Trump where we agreed to a plan to work out an agreement to protect our nation’s DREAMERs from deportation."

Sounds like they have an agreement to have a meeting to work out a deal, not an actual deal, otherwise she would have said 'We have a deal and here are the terms...'

It also sounds like Schumer and Pelosi are "normalizing" Trump. The bigots...


Seems like a good idea to reference the actual claim made by Pelosi. Like rcpjr I do not see a declaration of a deal. Pelosi is simply working her side toward that end. Of course only a true LLR can look at these three (Pelosi, Schumer and Trump) and only see ONE of them as relentlessly untruthful. Republican indeed.

tim in vermont said...

Trump can't extend the order. It's exactly like another program that the SCOTUS overturned. It's doomed and only Congress can extend the program.

Thorley Winston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

I have no problem with helping the small number of DREAMers who are not in the program by fraud,not on welfare, and have no criminal records, but Trump better get the wall.

Mike said...

It would take a lot to convince me, at this point, that Trump's main interest in life isn't just jerking people around.

Because you, like Chuck, are an insufferable asshole. This is called projection, and is a chronic psychological ailment on the left, especially as far left as you are (I can't explain why Chuck is afflicted).

Do you really think "jerking people around" is how one negotiates international real estate development? Do you think that is why his longest-serving employees are so loyal to Trump? You know what fits the description of someone whose "main interest in life isn't just jerking people around"? Asshole commenter is exactly the job for you!

Thorley Winston said...

I don't like the Democrats' position on that. I'd like a confidence-inspiring President use the bully pulpit and a very disciplined and coordinated legislative attack to force the Dems' hand on that resistance. But it won't be easy.

I don’t think it’s likely because as we saw during the debate over repeal and replace, Trump was just as likely to support a bill one moment and then go on twitter and attack it the next. Immigration is an even more volatile issue and very few members of Congress are going to want to stick their necks out on supporting a bill that they can’t be sure would even be signed into law.



dreams said...

I'm feeling good about Trump and it's good to see the Dems finally coming to terms with reality.

"He couldn’t have pivoted earlier, when the Democrats thought they could impeach him and were listening to the lunatics in Hollywood and the media."

"Doesn’t anyone get it? McConnell and Ryan don’t hold the balance of power between the administration and the Democrats, and it isn’t a matter of a durable and late “pivot” by the president. His accusers have fallen on their faces and he is prepared to go easy on the Democrats if they will work with him in policy areas, especially tax reform, which he is bringing on now. He couldn’t have pivoted earlier, when the Democrats thought they could impeach him and were listening to the lunatics in Hollywood and the media. As the mood deescalates and the system finally starts to work, he will hold the balance of power between the congressional parties and factions, and he will use it."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451296/donald-trump-democrats-pivot

rcocean said...

"You can't get an immigration bill through a Senate filibuster, unless it has the "amnesty" that Democrats demand."

You pass a border security bill in House, you take a vote and you MAKE the Democrats filibuster. Make it clear they ARE AGAINST BORDER SECURITY.

Then you campaign in 2018 against. Its politics 101.

So why don't R's do it? Its because McConnell and Ryan don't want border security anymore than Shumer or Pelosi!

rcocean said...

And you make the Democrats do a REAL filibuster. Make them get up on the Senate floor and talk for hours about how they don't want border security and Love Illegal aliens.

tim in vermont said...

Chamber of Commerce wants the cheap labor.

Michael K said...

"And you make the Democrats do a REAL filibuster. "

We haven't had a real one since the 1957 Civil Rights bill. Grand Kleagal Byrd changed the rules from real filibuster (2/3 vote) to 60% then made the threat just as real until now it just takes 60 votes to do anything and no one makes the opposing side get up and do it.

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
"You can't get an immigration bill through a Senate filibuster, unless it has the "amnesty" that Democrats demand."

You pass a border security bill in House, you take a vote and you MAKE the Democrats filibuster. Make it clear they ARE AGAINST BORDER SECURITY.

Then you campaign in 2018 against. Its politics 101.




I actually agree with all of that more than you can imagine.


So why don't R's do it? Its because McConnell and Ryan don't want border security anymore than Shumer or Pelosi!


That part I don't agree with, and I am aware of no evidence to support your claim. None.

khematite said...

Several FDR biographers have noted that he was a master of ambiguity. There are many stories of aides or cabinet secretaries coming out of a meeting with FDR certain that the president had agreed with them--only to find that other aides or cabinet secretaries with whom they disagreed strongly on the matter in question were just as certain that the president had supported their views.

Chuck said...

Wait! So now Trump essentially confirms what was said by Schumer and Pelosi last night, and says they are very close to a deal, and Trump is not insisting on any immediate "WALL" legislation or funding...

?

wtf:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/donald-trump-vows-work-democrats-legalize-dreamers/

Joe said...

Chuck is right in this regard; Trump's denied there was a deal, as in something all but complete, but then agreed with the claims of the deal.

My own take is that there was a deal. There was immediate backlash and now Trump is trying to reframe the deal so he doesn't look two-faced. So, fine, there was no "deal", just an agreement on what a deal would contain.

Alex said...

Trump had no choice. Most Americans do not support deportations of 'dreamers', but support building the wall. The art of the compromise, frankly I'm surprised Trump was capable.

Birkel said...

Politics is the art of the possible.
Republicans believe it is possible to betray its voters and remain in power.
Democrats believe they are getting what they want and will likely regain power Republicans are abdicating.

Chuck cheers the ascendancy of Schumer.

dreams said...

I heard a stock guy(Dem)on CNBC say this morning that he thinks it's good that Trump is dealing with the Dems and he thinks a lot moderate Dems and independents will like it too. He also said that Trump is a man who has been known to brag about getting politicians to do what he wants them to do. I say a lot Trump voters will like it too because they want him to get things fixed which he has been doing by reducing regulations. To quote Martha Stewart "it's a good thing."

Alex said...

Democrats are up 9 points in the generic Congressional ballot for 2018. If Trump & the GOP don't turn things around in the next 14 months, it will be a bloodbath. The Democrats will take back both the House & Senate and you can kiss Trump goodbye in 2020 as well.

Alex said...

Birkel - the Democrats definitely do not want the wall to be built and yet it's happening. Or do you think that they will get Trump to cave on the wall soon as well?

Matthew Sablan said...

On the bright side, maybe if Trump cuts another deal or two, they won't call him a Nazi any more.

Birkel said...

Alex,
Democrats are always up in the generic congressional ballot. According to that poll, Democrats already have large majorities of all everything, everywhere and for all time.

Also, Trump will lose 40 states in 2016.

dreams said...

"Wait! So now Trump essentially confirms what was said by Schumer and Pelosi last night, and says they are very close to a deal, and Trump is not insisting on any immediate "WALL" legislation or funding..."

So what, Trump gets the job done.

Chuck said...

Alex said...
Democrats are up 9 points in the generic Congressional ballot for 2018. If Trump & the GOP don't turn things around in the next 14 months, it will be a bloodbath. The Democrats will take back both the House & Senate and you can kiss Trump goodbye in 2020 as well.

I've never had a kind word for Trump, but that just isn't true. There are barely enough competitive House races such that if the Dems won all of them, they might not get back to a majority.

And the Senate map for 2018 is horrendous for Dems. Now, I must grant you that the room for error in the Senate is tiny. The majority is as slim as you could imagine. But 2018 isn't the race for Dems.

2020 might be, however. And 2020 is when the decennial redistricting occurs. And unlike 2010, it is a presidential year. When all the Obama voters turn out. (They were AWOL in the 2010 Tea Party midterm year.)

2020 is the year to watch.

Matthew Sablan said...

Eh, it sounds like it was reporting problems. Democrats apparently were saying that a framework was being developed, which got reported as " A DEAL HAS BEEN MADE! "

Alex said...

Keep whistling past the graveyard. Democrats are going to do very well in 2018 at all levels. They are already +7 in 2017.

walter said...

Yes..they do cherry pick the examples of dreamers.
But though admittedly anecdotal, I heard a "dreamer" caller into Levin the other day who when pressed really had a difficult time accepting any specific limitations or enforcement on immigration.
Made me wonder if all the "dreamers" were anonymously polled on this what that would reveal.
Again, in the era of "fair share", "privilege" etc, it's disgusting that the term "dreamers" applies to those smuggled in, not those waiting on/wading through the legal immigration process around the world.

Matthew Sablan said...

How many + were they in 2015?

Bob Boyd said...

The Democrats have to portray this as getting everything they want, a total Trump cave. And Trump has to give them some cover in that regard if he wants them to be able to work with him. After all, they're making a deal with a pussy-grabbin', Putin-smoochin', Hitlerian monster.

It's too early to say how this will all shake out. I think most people would be okay with non-criminal "dreamers" staying as long as border security is increased such that we won't just have the same problem again in a few years and the chain migration issue is addressed.

rcocean said...

"And the Senate map for 2018 is horrendous for Dems."

Yes, but McConnell is doing everything he can to demoralize the base and suppress Republican turnout.

100-1 that in November 2018, all the Senate Republicans will have done is passed tax cuts for the rich and amnesty.

Dave Hunter said...

"Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!"

Yes, I do. I want them thrown out so my son, a college graduate with a 3.5 GPA can get one of the jobs these illegal aliens have had handed to them by the left. How about that?

Dave Hunter said...

rcocean said..."100-1 that in November 2018, all the Senate Republicans will have done is passed tax cuts for the rich and amnesty."

I'll take that bet. My prediction is they'll get absolutely nothing done, except a budget reconciliation act.

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
"And the Senate map for 2018 is horrendous for Dems."

Yes, but McConnell is doing everything he can to demoralize the base and suppress Republican turnout.


LMFAO. I honestly don't know who spends more time bashing Republicans; Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

dreams said...

Come on people!

"Everybody who panicked about this Fake News was a fool.

That includes Representative Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, whom I like.

A lie travels around the world before the truth puts its shoes on.

People who railed against President Trump for "caving" made two mistakes.

They believed Pelosi and Schumer.
They believed the media.

Me? I trusted President Trump."

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/09/no-trump-did-not-cave.html

Mike said...

...Ryan don't want border security anymore than Shumer or Pelosi!

That part I don't agree with, and I am aware of no evidence to support your claim. None.


Well, except for Paul Ryan saying so explicitly.

I accept Tom Tancredo's word for it.

Chuck said...

Mike -

You just equated Paul Ryan's saying "Only one person [in the federal government] wants a wall," with Ryan "not wanting border security."

You can't possibly be so stupid as to seriously equate the two.

Your post is the Trumpiest thing in this thread; the notion that if you're not for Trump's campaign-version "WALL", then you must be in opposition to "border security."

Even Trump now doesn't seem to be much sold on any immediate need for a WALL. Ryan's "one person" might be down to zero.

gadfly said...

Donald Trump actually listed his goals to accomplish if president. In addressing actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law he said he would cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama - which of course, would include DACA.

During an August 16, 2016 campaign speech, Trump presented a hard-line immigration policy that “there will be no amnesty.”

“Our message to the world will be this: you cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country,” he said.

Apparently, Ivanka and the hurricanes (not a new singing group) got to his easily changeable mind which considers only today and never the past or future. So "Amnesty Don" is singing another tune and what would we will we do "if he sings out-of-tune?"

I'll get by with a little help from myself - because with Trump, who needs enemies?

Annie C said...

Funny how the dems are backing off on the "deal" with weasel words now.

walter said...

Chuck,
Think Ryan still has Guitierrez on speed-dial?

walter said...

gadfly said...I'll get by with a little help from myself.
--
Whatever gets you through the night. Just keep those hands clean.

tim in vermont said...

All Alex is threatening us with is what the reality would be right now had Hillary won.

Earnest Prole said...

Dreamers are going nowhere. Their deportation is favored by 10-15 percent of the electorate; it would be hard to find a public policy that has less support, except perhaps the unlocking of our prisons to let all the prisoners go free. The sole question for Trump is what he can get in exchange for making them legal.

Mike said...

Chuck, what I did was take you from "zero evidence" that Paul agrees with Nancy to one data point more than zero. Do with it what you wish. Maybe you can aim your stupid-detector at Speaker Ryan, who has claimed disingenuously that the bills he already supported this year have "fully funded Trump's wall" even though the bills in question died in the Senate and are not law.

By the way, your buddy Schumer is backing the hell away from his "deal" claim now too. Nice going there, choosing the loser side once again.

eric said...

If he wants to lose supporters like me (and this goes for the GOP also) they will give the Dems what they want, amnesty (even by some other name) for future promises of border security.

Even if we get some seeming border security, but, it comes with millions of new citizens who came here illegally, they will lose me.

This doesn't work. It never works. I get why people think it might. Clean up the mess and move forward from there. But that's not what happens. Ever.

Instead, it encourages millions more to come here illegally. Many trying to pretend they've already been here. And because bureaucrats want to push the program, instead of enforcement, checking for legit vs illegitimate applicants gets thrown to the side for expediency sake.

If you start with 800,000 you end up with 8 million new citizens and 20 million new illegals flooding over the border hoping to get in on the next one.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
Chuck, what I did was take you from "zero evidence" that Paul agrees with Nancy to one data point more than zero. Do with it what you wish. Maybe you can aim your stupid-detector at Speaker Ryan, who has claimed disingenuously that the bills he already supported this year have "fully funded Trump's wall" even though the bills in question died in the Senate and are not law.

By the way, your buddy Schumer is backing the hell away from his "deal" claim now too. Nice going there, choosing the loser side once again.

My buddy Schumer?!?

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/08/insider/07dc-cong3/07dc-cong3-master768-v2.jpg

Michael K said...

The Democrats will take back both the House & Senate and you can kiss Trump goodbye in 2020 as well.

Hope is such a cute theme. If only it were true.

My mother used to say, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Francisco D said...

Bill Clinton was considered a political genius for reneging on verbal deals with Republicans like Newt Gingrich.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have watched enough Judge Judy shows to know that it is not a deal until both parties create an explicit verbal or written contract. An agreement to consider a deal is not a contract.

Earnest Prole said...

If wishes were fishes, we'd all be swimming in the ocean.

walter said...

Someone find Howie

Khesanh 0802 said...

The Dems seem to think they have an easy target in Trump and that they have bamboozled him. So far he has gotten them to agree to the outline of a "Dreamer" act which they will have a hard time backing away from while he has said - essentially - "we are making progress". Who's being played?

Khesanh 0802 said...

Score one for Trump that he actually has Democratic Congressional leaders talking about a "deal." This is a negotiation. As Ann says above until you have it in writing it's not a deal>

Matthew Sablan said...

Democrats in Congress *always* talk about a deal, but whereas Republicans tend to phrase it as, "What can we give up to reach a middle ground?", they are much more aggressive negotiators and look at it from, "What do you have to give up to reach a more appealing position for us?"

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

There was a famous deal between George Bush the Elder and the Democrats. According to said deal, Bush stupidly agreed to various tax hikes in exchange for spending restraints other than defense cutbacks. The revenue legislation passed. Bush signed them into law in contravention of his own pledge to the electorate. And the dealt for restraints never materialized. Democrats got everything they asked for and paid nothing for the goods. And they gained something worth more politically than income transfers from the working class to the dependent class — they gained a stick to flog the President's back. The Democrats and their lackeys had a jolly old time playing back his shrill "Read my lips..." speech. Bill Clinton rode that pony into the White House, thus setting the stage for all the misery and corruption that has plagued this Republic ever since.

Trump is signaling he has a good memory. If Pelosi and Schumer want a deal they must pay it forward. Trump ain't taking no checks.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Bill Clinton rode that pony into the White House, thus setting the stage for all the misery and corruption that has plagued this Republic ever since."

-- Well, that and Ross Perot.

rcocean said...

"According to said deal, Bush stupidly agreed to various tax hikes in exchange for spending restraints other than defense cutbacks."

IOW, he was stupid and a liar. Of course, what it really was is that Bushwas always a moderate Republican who talked conservative on the 1988 campaign trail because he wanted to get elected. Like Ford or McCain, he believed campaigning was just saying whatever you needed to say to get elected. And once in office you forgot about all that "campaign rhetoric" and "governed".

According, to his authorized Biography he didn't want to run in 1992, but was convinced by his aides to do so. Which why he was looking at his watch during the debates.

Bad Lieutenant said...

LMFAO. I honestly don't know who spends more time bashing Republicans; Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

I wonder which of them you like/dislike more.

Unknown said...

http://dilbert.com/strip/2003-03-15

Chuck said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
Score one for Trump that he actually has Democratic Congressional leaders talking about a "deal." This is a negotiation. As Ann says above until you have it in writing it's not a deal>

It was also a negotiation, when the Senate Gang of Eight worked on immigration. I didn't really care for that product, myself. I was disappointed in the result; that the Republicans weren't tougher.

But what I didn't do was to suggest that the four Republicans were for "open borders." I never wanted to primary any of them.

So now let's see how much of an "open borders" Republican Donald Trump is. And whether or not it will be possible, in any final deal, to say that Trump is for "amnesty." If he's making any sort of deal with Dems, it is pretty much assured that Trump will be agreeing to some form of amnesty. Otherwise, Dems won't deal at all.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Dreamers" is some real good propaganda.

Who could be opposed to young people who dream?

Are you against dreaming of a better future? Do you want to squash their dreams?

ok, ok, I'm sorry, Yes, let the Dreamers in. Full citizenship. My bad.

The problem, of course, is that these illegal aliens aren't some special group of "dreamers." That's just a nice, propagandistic label. Mickey Kaus bursts thru the sloganeering.

Michael said...

The advantage to the Dems is to be able to say that Trump is lying. Either that or they do not recognize what constitutes a "deal."

Jim at said...

Democrats crowing about making deals with, literally, Hitler.

Michael K said...

Another reason why the lefties will be crying again in 2018 and 2020.

Of course, there's no mention that none of these books are actually neo-Nazi. The fact is that they simply posit a political position the author disagrees with. Still, because they're all pro-Trump in some way, shape, or form, they of course should be lumped in with neo-Nazis.

There's just one problem with using Thump for that. Its author:

Whoops.

That's right, folks. Timothy Lim is Asian, which means that even if he wanted to hang with white supremacists, they wouldn't have him.

Meanwhile, The Mary Sue is doing everything it can to help Trump get a second term as president. After all, one thing people really love is being called racists and neo-Nazis for disagreeing with someone's political positions. There's no way that will backfire, right?


It's just like Lucy and the football, only this time Trump is Lucy.

walter said...

Well..if they set him up as having made the deal and then "renegs", it keeps the Hitler meme alive.

Yancey Ward said...

I have written it before, and I will do so again. The goal of the Democrats is to get Trump impeached, and this can't be done without the Republicans' help. That is why Pelosi and Schumer might well have decided to tell a lie, and it costs them nothing to do so either.

Yancey Ward said...

There is a deal to be made for the so-called Dreamers, but it will involve a compromise that basically removes all chain-migration linked to them, and it should be a one-off in that no one entering after a certain date gets to take advantage of the legislation. Ideally, if I were Trump, the deal would be to eliminate chain-migration for every legal immigrant.

Jim at said...

"They are already +7 in 2017."

Losing all four special elections to replace an incumbent Republican makes them +7?

On what planet?

Khesanh 0802 said...

I am just as much in favor of restricting immigration to those we need/want and not rewarding illegals as anyone. I am also pragmatic enough to know that deporting these DACA people en masse is a ridiculous and losing idea. Those that think they are going to be deported without a giant fight and a huge Democratic win are delusional. Trump knows what the boundaries of this fight are and he is going to get as much from the Dems as he can while gaining credit for LEGALLY removing a burr from the under the Republican saddle.

Why does every political fight have to be "I win/you lose"? If we are thinking about what's best for all the American people then, granting a conditional welcome to these so called "dreamers" is a good thing. Culling the rotten apples can be much more easily - and peacefully - accomplished after the mass of acceptable people have been dealt with.

JAORE said...

We've seen this game many times before, even on immigration. Deal includes something for each side. The part the left wants gets approved. The part the right wants.... not so much. So the deal might be, approve the Dreamers, but agree to build the wall.

Does ANYONE think the left will say "No" to the Dreamers until the border is secure?

Time to build the wall/deploy drones/install sensors >>>>> time to legalize Dreamers.

Game, set match to the left.

Again.

Angel-Dyne said...

Khesanh 0802: Trump knows what the boundaries of this fight are and he is going to get as much from the Dems as he can while gaining credit for LEGALLY removing a burr from the under the Republican saddle.

Let's hope so. "As much from the Dems as he can" better be a damned substantial "much", not the usual "Here's a bone of some immigration enforcement and restriction that we are not, as a matter of fact, ever going to enforce. Hahaha fuck you, base." This time with a little extra fuck-you: "Enjoy watching the DACA darlings and all their chain-migrating relations receive affirmative action preferences over your own children, losers."

I'll believe when I see it.

Why does every political fight have to be "I win/you lose"?

On immigration, the "base" is understandably snarly and skeptical. McConnell/Ryan would be happy to give the Dems everything they want with nothing in return, and would do just that if they could get away with it, electorally. The GOPe doesn't want any "win win", they want the uniparty to which they belong to win and they want the "deplorables" to lose and get nothing.

Culling the rotten apples can be much more easily - and peacefully - accomplished after the mass of acceptable people have been dealt with.

I'd prefer it if the "rotten apple" barrel included anybody with a penchant for waving a Mexican flag around while bitching about the (white, Anglo) Man oppressing them, regardless of their being otherwise "acceptable". We need less, not more, of that garbage in this country.

Comanche Voter said...

Frankly I hope that each time Schumer does a deal with Trump that Schumer wakes up the next morning and finds his pants around his ankles---figuratively speaking of course. Ol' Chuck You deserves a lot of payback.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Angel -dyne I agree that if this were left in the hands of McConnell/Ryan it would be all over - game, set, match! They are hopeless and helpless. I will be very surprised if Trump disappoints in a big way. McConnell and Ryan have already been out- maneuvered. So far it appears that the Dems are conceding every category of border security, but the wall. Can Trump get the Wall in this bill (whatever it is) ? Maybe not, but the more money he secures for other facets of border control the cheaper the Wall itself is going to look.

My central point is what Bismarck said "“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Politics is not the art of the 'perfect; it is the art of the "POSSIBLE". The result of a good negotiation is that no one goes away completely happy. We have forgotten that, particularly with Obama's unwillingness to even entertain compromise.

If the Dreamers distribute along a bell curve , as most humans do, then the rotten apples are going to be a small number, easy to identify and, if Trump lands a good deal, easy to get rid of.

If I am wrong, I will say so but I think we are being too pessimistic about where things are headed.

Angel-Dyne said...

Khesanh 0802: I agree that if this were left in the hands of McConnell/Ryan it would be all over - game, set, match! They are hopeless and helpless. I will be very surprised if Trump disappoints in a big way. McConnell and Ryan have already been out- maneuvered.

Oh, I'm not as hopeless as I might sound. I put not my trust in princes, but I'm a pessimist, not a no-hoper. (Look at it this way - if Trump disappoints, it's not like we're any worse off than we would have been otherwise, right?)

My central point is what Bismarck said "“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Politics is not the art of the 'perfect; it is the art of the "POSSIBLE". The result of a good negotiation is that no one goes away completely happy. We have forgotten that, particularly with Obama's unwillingness to even entertain compromise.

I agree, and I don't know anybody who really thinks "no compromise at all" is feasible (regardless of Lifelong Republican's inane ramblings on that point). It's just that it would be nice if/that somebody is negotiating for our side at all for a change, lol. (It's not as if anybody's "unwillingness" to compromise is set in stone. It just means nobody will (or wants to) force them to the table.)

Francisco D said...

@ Michael K

Does anyone here read Chuck's comments except for the opportunity to show what an insipid phony he is?

He is a very sad and hateful little man. Let's leave it at that.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Angel-Dyne As I said, I hold out hope that Trump is more interested in accomplishing what he thinks is for the general good than in the political gotcha game that the R and D establishment(and MSM) are playing. I am extremely cynical where politicians are concerned, but remain optimistic about the effect Trump is going to have. Trump has, indeed, forced both Schumer/Pelosi and Ryan/McConnell to the table twice in the last week.

And yes, Hillary is not President! Rejoice!!!

Michael K said...

Blogger Francisco D said...
@ Michael K

Does anyone here read Chuck's comments except for the opportunity to show what an insipid phony he is?


About the time I give up, he comes up with some insightful comments.

I think it is just TDS,