The meeting took place because Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin had a plan to present. The "shithole" (fake?) quote has overshadowed the details of the plan, but we need to look at what that was to have an idea of why Trump might have said "shithole countries" or why someone might have misquoted him.
Sources familiar with the bill said it would offer a generous pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrant Dreamers that goes well beyond just the 700,000 people currently protected under the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty.Presumably, if Trump made the remark (or something like it), it was questioning why we ought to want that new amnesty. I could see, in private, trying to get somewhere in the negotiation by breaking up the formality and making everyone laugh by reacting to that proposal by saying, "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" It's surprising, and it puts Graham/Durbin on the spot to explain why it really is a good idea. They could have responded in good humor and given a good answer and tried to move forward.
The proposal also eliminates the Diversity Visa Lottery, as Mr. Trump demanded — but it uses those visas to create a new amnesty for hundreds of thousands of other would-be illegal immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and other countries who have suffered from natural disasters and have been living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status....
“President Trump called on Congress to solve the DACA challenge. We have been working for four months and have reached an agreement in principle that addresses border security, the diversity visa lottery, chain migration/family reunification, and the Dream Act—the areas outlined by the president,” [Graham and Durbin] said in a statement.
And maybe they did, and somebody else at the meeting is the one who went public with Trump's pushback (quoting it correctly or incorrectly). It could have been someone who didn't like the progress Graham and Durbin were making.
So who benefits from derailing the coming together over this deal or something close to it? Who's better off in the 2018 elections if there is no immigration deal? It seems obvious to me that the Republicans are better off.
The other people in the room, all Republicans, were Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the majority leader; Senator David Perdue, Republican of Georgia; Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas; and Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
AND: No sooner did I write "It seems obvious" than I began to feel that it is not obvious. Maybe everyone is better off politically if there is no deal. I'm only talking about the politicians as they face the 2018 elections. But we could also talk about whether the American people and the people of the world are better off with or without new legislation. And it's possible that some of the politicians are actually thinking in those terms. When I think about the possibility, the first name that comes to my mind is: Trump.
Posts
122 comments:
Who benefits? One or another of the branches of the Republican party. I don't see any way this benefits the dems. Open borders only does well with the very far left.
To answer this question you need to know whether someone wants a solution, or an issue.
I've been surfing in some of those countries and taught children from those countries as a techer of immigrants and refugees. The people are wonderful - their countries are shitholes. They will even tell you that if not using the exact term "shithole". That said, many parts of the United States are "shitholes" too. With a higher murder and crime rate to boot.
Cui bono?
Trump. The Dems will lose seats in 2018.
I had to laugh about Senator Tammy Baldwin of WI whining on MSNBC today complaining about a tough race. Her possible GOP opponents are all "nobodies." If the Dems are worried about her losing to a no-name person in WI, then they are in bigger trouble than I imagined.
Why don't Mexicans fix Mexico? Why don't Haitians fix Haiti?
If the countries were fixed then people wouldn't want to leave.
I am hoping the fall elections will turn on trade and immigration reform, which is Trump's best chance to increase his support in Congress. I wonder if he is planning it that way?
Oh, I couldn't say, who benefits from "no deal on immigration." But if "no deal on immigration" was the goal, then what the heck was that ridiculous dog-and-pony show on live TV?
Maybe, "no deal on immigration" is good politics, somehow, for Trump. In which case, he is the greatest used-car-selling liar to sit in the White House in anyone's memory.
Dems and GOPes. They don't want a DACA for Wall deal, they want to continue with unfettered illegal immigration. But they want to blame Trump for deal failure, so they're having fake hysterics over his [unconfirmed] mean word about Haiti.
who, exactly, reported -what- was said? do we trust the source?
Fritz has it.
Fritz is right and both the solution and the issue cut both ways. Benefiting isn’t about a deal/no deal, it’s about who can make themselves heard. As long as they are convincingly seen to be trying to limit illegal immigration, the issue is a natural winner for Republicans. Unfortunately, the impulse to signal virtue is a bipartisan one.
Politically, Dems benefit when immigration remains a gray area of unenforced laws. And they benefit whenever Trump's admin can made to look dysfunctional. And a legislative deal undermines that portrayal.
I don't think Dems and establishment GOP will ever stop fighting construction of a southern wall. Because then they would have to physically dismantle it, or parts of it, later, which would be bad optics, as they say.
if the election is about immigration, trump wins...every time. the regulars among us americans understand how mass immigration has changed over the last 20 years.
Any deal the Democrats sign onto will be a disaster for the Republicans in 2018.
Metym
No, we do not trust the source.
Until President Trump or an official spox says, on the record, that he used that specific word, I call Bullshit.
President Trump has been in the limelight for 40 years. Do we have any evidence of his using any of the 'seven dirty words" before?
If not, then people should stfu. (not you, tym)
John Henry
meTym said...
who, exactly, reported -what- was said? do we trust the source?
After about a hundred of these stories -- sourced quotes from Trump -- along with the stuff that Trump actually does on live television or in front of groups of people -- isn't the question, "Do we trust Trump's denials?"
I don't.
The salient part of this particular kerfuffle is that Trump (never shy about criticizing the media, immediately on Twitter) hasn't actually denied saying "shit hole countries." No one has denied it.
So who benefits from derailing the coming together over this deal or something close to it? Who's better off in the 2018 elections if there is no immigration deal? It seems obvious to me that the Republicans are better off.
The shithole comment was not needed to derail a deal offering "10% of Trump border wall, 3% cut to chain migration." Or am I missing something?
The US military loses if we don’t get a proper new budget deal. The 7th Fleet is in tatters and the budget is fukt. So I guess China wins, and Dems and GOPe cuckservatives are ok with that.
Perhaps Ann Coulter will calm down now.
Since Trump ran on enforcing immigration laws, as long as he is seen as doing that (7/11 raids) then rebuffing a deal that is seen as benefiting illegal immigrants rebounds to his favor.
The Graham/Durbin/Flake "deal" was not serious. They had to know it was unacceptable. Among other things, there was only about a billion dollars for border security. I think Durbin knows this, so I conclude Durbin thinks no DACA deal benefits Democrats. Flake just wants to make trouble for Trump. I don't know what the hell to think about Graham.
I don't doubt that Trump used that word but about 50 years ago it was the liberal culture that started including foul language in movies and even TV shows. The liberal Dems are hoping they have something to finally bring down Trump. The liberal Dems really do have a low opinion of the average person whereas Trump has respect for average people and it's obvious that he does love our country unlike the anti-America Obama who worked to transform/weaken the USA.
Althouse, my own feeling (and I appreciate yours) is that Graham in particular felt emboldened by that "TV" meeting with Trump, to use the occasion to push the 2013 Senate deal though, on the basis that Trump can sell anything to his base. And that they'd get the 2013 Senate deal, and follow it up with funding for a scaled-down border wall.
I think Graham felt like he was learning how to play Trump. And I am thinking that Graham is going to get a very painful lesson on this.
And fwiw, I loathe anything in immigration reform that confers citizenship on illegals. That's a deal-breaker for me, and I hope it is for all other Republicans. I disagree with the Lindsey Graham cadre on that. Absolutely, I do.
But again it all goes back to that meeting, the one that you, Althouse, was so great and which I thought was a policy disaster.
It is a perfect example of our differing views of Trump and Trumpism.
Is anyone taking odds re the time until Althosue posts jabber re searching the Wolff book re related key words?
Put me down for 84 minutes.
For a number reasons I would really like to see improved border security. While a border wall may be a partial solution, I keep being reminded of the Maginot Line. Well intended, well built, but ultimately ineffective in achieving its purpose.
And it's the liberal reporters and the Dems who are going on TV and saying shithole, I think they're stinking up their own image
My understanding of the "deal" was that the DACA children, who everyone insists on pointing out were innocent of coming here illegally, could turn around and bring in their parents!!!. You've got to be fucking kidding me! (can I say 'fucking'?)
Perhaps Ann Coulter will calm down now.
I have a theory about Coulter's intense, relentless criticisms. Not that you asked, but...
1. She knows the window of opportunity for a border wall/reduction in legal/illegal immigration is tiny and shrinking. This could be the last year to achieve it, ever.
2. If she gets enough people to pressure Trump from the right, with a stance more hardline than his, she might make provide him with cover by making it look like Trump is the moderate between the Far Right and Far Left. It might be a play on her part.
I repeat, PB&J is a partisan of your enemies.
We certainly don't want the American people - including ordinary Americans, to benefit. No way.
Perhaps the people who benefit most are the people who want to bury the Fusion GPS story from getting coverage.
If they know they’re not getting Trump to sign off on their ridiculous proposal, perhaps they can use its destruction to keep the oxygen from other stories?
You have to start with the premise that the democrats will never give Trump victory, real or perceived.
The democrats will never compromise and will push too far. Trump wins if he gets what he wants. Trump loses, bigly, if he caves to the democrats. Everything comes back to The Wall.
No wall-Trump loses
wall-Trump wins.
PB&J is an independent player, but he is a fan of the Total Information Control "them". A very perverse POV if you think about it, but entirely predictable.
I'm not going to underestimate Trump, let the liberal loser Dems do that to their own detriment.
Trump (never shy about criticizing the media, immediately on Twitter) hasn't actually denied saying "shit hole countries."
Trump did deny it. No one actually present will confirm the use (even anonymously)
Do try to keep up.
Why do you assume the quote is fake? Not only is it totally in character with a person who equated Mexican as rapists when he announced his candidacy, said a Latin American judge was biased because of his surname, is surprised when he finds out Puerto Rico is in the ocean, calls the racists in Charlottesville good people and, above all, constantly drops these slurs when Mueller and company are nipping at his heals. Now you're going to see his fellow bigots on the right jump to his defense, the common sense Republicans like Mia Love forced out of the party, and the world get even smaller for President Pumpkin Spice being in it.
I hope he did say it. It would be the only honest statement from a President since Eisenhower's farewell address.
We don't need and don't want shithole people from shithole countries. I would totally shut down all immigration, and put the illegals into concentration camps until they could be deported. You wouldn't actually have to put them all in concentration camps. Once you start most of them will run like rats back home.
"Chuck said...
Oh, I couldn't say, who benefits from "no deal on immigration." But if "no deal on immigration" was the goal, then what the heck was that ridiculous dog-and-pony show on live TV?
Maybe, "no deal on immigration" is good politics, somehow, for Trump. In which case, he is the greatest used-car-selling liar to sit in the White House in anyone's memory."
Of all the people to ask this, we have Chuckles, whose GOPe has lived on the "no deal" platform for all the fucking Obama years regarding healthcare and immigration, and who proved to be eunuchs the second they had the majority, and the POTUS, to actually do something.
Many, many will comment about question Trump allegedly raised. Few will answer it.
If she gets enough people to pressure Trump from the right, with a stance more hardline than his, she might make provide him with cover by making it look like Trump is the moderate between the Far Right and Far Left.
That is a possibility. I think she acts that way because she is so used to the GOPe stabbing their voters in the back and expecting to be praised for it. Trump has a televised meeting so that the voters can see that he is in control and not suffering from dementia, unlike Nancy Pelosi, and says some stuff and she freaks out and Chuck starts telling us, "he lied, he lied, he lied!" Like no politician has never lied before. The question is who do the lies benefit.
I don't think that the time frame for building a wall and fixing immigration is diminishing. Democrats are doing everything they can to prevent it because they know that it is a winner. Lots of new Republicans are going to be elected over the next few years, in some surprising places, running on those issues.
Trump is succeeding in pushing the win/loss onto the Dems - at least as far as Dreamers are concerned. He has made it clear that he wants something done for them, but the Dems and the Grahams keep messing up the deal by trying to expand the terms. You would think that they would pay more attention to Trump's negotiating terms, but they are too full of themselves to figure out what Trump's baseline is - even though he has been making that clear for at least six months.
BTW, Chuck, Trump has denied using the term "shithole". Happy?
Who benefits in 2018 from no deal on immigration? Interesting analysis, Althouse. Dead wrong, but interesting. Let’s look at this from a different perspective. The present system was put in place by an extremely partisan Democrat president with the enthusiastic support of Congressional Democrats. So who benefits from leaving it in place as long as possible? I think the obvious answer is Democrats.
Trump is in a win win position. If nothing happens he just has to enforce the laws on the books and start sending people home. He has 60-75% support on this issue with legal voters.
The democrats can shut down the government with a republican in the White House if they want. I think they will find out how much power the president has in that situation and regret it. Remember how Obama chose to shut down things meant specifically to make Americans upset. I don’t think the federal employees will fair too well this time around.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Trump (never shy about criticizing the media, immediately on Twitter) hasn't actually denied saying "shit hole countries."
Trump did deny it. No one actually present will confirm the use (even anonymously)
Do try to keep up.
First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
Second, Trump hasn't actually denied saying "shit holes." Trump said he used "tough language" and he denied saying that we needed to "take the Haitians out" or words to that effect.
Anyway, I love these things when they happen to Trump. All I want to know is whether Trump said it, as long as Trump denies he said it. I don't care about much else. Orrin Hatch says that he is going to get clarification. I hope that a Deseret News reporter sleeps in Hatch's office until Hatch gets crystalline clarification of exactly what was said.
Khesanh 0802 said...
BTW, Chuck, Trump has denied using the term "shithole". Happy?
Excellent. Now, we can ask Kevin McCarthy, Tom Cotton and Jeff Flake about it.
Chuck is under the impression that people who support Trump and moderate voters care whether or not Trump called Haiti a shithole. I personally don't know of anyone who does not think Haiti is a shithole.
Campaign promise: Juan and Pablo gotta go AND pay for a wall to keep them out.
Best current love offering : Juan and Pablo get to stay AND I get to pay for a wall to keep them here.
Trump IS like a stable genius if he sells this to Fifth Avenue Trumplicans.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
Chuck is under the impression that people who support Trump and moderate voters care whether or not Trump called Haiti a shithole. I personally don't know of anyone who does not think Haiti is a shithole.
Then why deny it? Why not announce it?
The American political conflict is in several ways far worse than the politics of the authoritarian dictatorships of my youth. Those countries were run by cliques that did so, in the end, in my time, in order simply to preserve their own positions, or to enrich themselves. Their ends were limited.
The American problem is worse by far. This is not simply a matter of power and wealth for some clique, but it is a genuine social-cultural-tribal one, and the ends/goals are not limited. This is much more Hutu-Tutsi.
JFK was once in negotiations with John Diefenbaker, then PM of Canada. JFK passed a note, which was intercepted, in which he allegedly called Dief an asshole. JFK denied it, said that instead he had called him a prick.
"We have been working for four months and have reached an agreement in principle"
You have been working on this? Where? Certainly not in any open and public hearings. You have been working on this? If so, only in secret, in back rooms, in private, while the rest of the world (and 95 percent of Congress) waits to see what your little conclave presents. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Instead of these negotiating sessions -- whether it is this or ObamaCare or tax cuts (the latter two of which crashed and burned or otherwise generated opposition precisely because of the secret proceedings) -- how about they broaden their discussion group just a bit? There is even a perfect place for them to meet, a rather prominent building with a huge dome, in which there are a couple of rooms that would do quite well.
One room can accommodate 100 senators, as well as many members of the public, and the other room can fit 435 representatives with a public gallery also. There are also rooms in this facility where witnesses can be heard and evidence to back up people's assertions can be presented. And they can show it all on cable TV.
Enough of this s**thole back room dealing.
The Dems want a steady, persistent, massive influx of illegal immigrants into the US. They have made the political calculation that it helps their electoral process.
Whether it depresses blue collar wages, expands the welfare state, increases crime, or continues to fragment our cultural heritage, they don't really care.
And then also there was, in those places, in my time, cultural unity, no matter the political side. In Spain both left (which existed, quite visibly) and right read Cervantes.
In the US this is not true. The intellectual-cultural split at the top is profound. Neither side has common backgrounds anymore. Older people here may not really get this, as it wasnt so in their day.
I am sorry to see the narrative change from what makes a sensible immigration policy to 'Trump is a racist' based on correct identification of countries where living conditions are bad enough that people don't want to live there.
The hidden question that ought to be brought to the table 'is bad living conditions in a country adequate reason to accept immigrants from that country,' followed by second question (if the answer is yes) then what is the criteria for a level of immigration from those counties is sustainable (sustainable meaning how may per year within the criteria).
I am also curious, considering all the countries where the majority of citizens would not be part of the minority population in the U.S., are there any where the citizens of that country are risking life and limb to get out and illegally immigrate to other countries?
Then why deny it? Why not announce it?
Good question. Because if he did say it, he knew it would be leaked. So he said it deliberately. Basically I think he is signaling that he is going to remain tough on immigration while distracting the press from something else with the dog and pony show. The press and Democrats are running around like their hair is on fire screaming, "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!" while everyone else is thinking, "yep, pretty much."
Just saw Durbin on TV. He's offended that the President uses the term "chain migration"! I think that's a window into his thinking right there. He doesn't want a DACA fix, he wants the issue.
Ah, Dick Durbin. Sure I believe every word that falls from his lips.
Enough with the deals. Write a bill, put the bill in the hopper, debate it, and vote on it.
The Maginot Line worked. The French stopped building it at the Belgiian border, because Belgium was “neutral.” Hitler went around the Maginot Line and through Belgium.
@ Fritz Schrank - That is *exactly* it.
You can't fundraise off a solution.
Says this Cook County resident, who knows what he's talking about: Dick Durbin is both a slithering snake and a rank mediocrity. A dullard progressive cog in the Illinois Democrat Party machine, a tool of Mike Madigan.
In the US this is not true. The intellectual-cultural split at the top is profound. Neither side has common backgrounds anymore. Older people here may not really get this, as it wasnt so in their day.
When the people running university English departments are denigrating Shakespeare and you can be an English major at prestigious universities without taking a single class that focuses on his writings, you are screwed.
I read a short science fiction story a couple of decades or so ago. In it the government was actively attempting to discourage learning in order to more readily control the citizenry. So the truly rebellious, the types who joined street gangs and defied authority, took up learning as a means of rebellion.
Countries where white people are still desperate or "highly motivated" to leave -
I think there are some.
South Africa -plenty have left; a lot of the lower-middle/working class is stuck there.
Argentina
Brazil
Ukraine
Moldova
Belorussia
Russia
Romania, Poland, etc. (they are EU and have flooded the rest with "Polish Plumbers", etc., so they do have an outlet, but I suspect there are a lot who would apply for US immigrant visas if this was a realistic prospect.
The simple question that Trump's (maybe)"shithole" comment underscores is: Why should the US be responsible for rescuing people from their own countries' incompetence and primitivism?
I was thinking this went a totally different direction. At the televised meeting Trump said he would be happy to take the heat on this so that something could get passed. By releasing that comment he trolled everyone and made them so mad they will all want to pass any immigration bill just to spite him and quell the outrage. Mission accomplished.
Then why deny it? Why not announce it?
Perhaps, just perhaps...he really didn't say it.
"Rance Fasoldt said...
The Maginot Line worked. The French stopped building it at the Belgiian border, because Belgium was “neutral.” Hitler went around the Maginot Line and through Belgium."
France and England anticipated this...the problem was that they left the Ardennes Forest unguarded because they assumed the terrain would be a deterrent. Germany knew this and rapid moved through this opening.
David Begley said...
Cui bono?
Paul David Hewson?
First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
Every Republican I know absolutely trusts and supports Dick Durbin, especially when it makes a Republican look bad. Durbin would never lie about a Republican, or try to sabotage immigration reform. I mean seriously, what would Durbin possibly have to gain by lying about this?
The French spent many months fortifying the banks of the Meuse, at Sedan for instance, across from the Ardennes. The German advance-guard broke through the river defenses against numerically superior forces.
Another WTF Cares moment and Trump wins again.
Leftists only care about the process and whine “OMG Trump said shitholes” “OMG Trump is so unpresidential and incompetent and insane he must be impeached!”
Meanwhile, the rest of America cares about substance and thinks “Trump called these shitholes ‘shitholes’ ? Sounds about right. MAGA!
Althouse in the last few minutes, the NY Post is reporting that Durbin was specific:
“And then he went on when we started to describe the immigration from Africa that was being protected in this bipartisan measure. That’s when he used these vile and vulgar comments, calling the nations they come from ‘shitholes.’ The exact word used by the president, not just once, but repeatedly,” he said.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/senator-confirms-trumps-shithole-remark-says-there-was-so-much-more/
"Shithole" was "the exact word used by the president, not just once, but repeatedly."
What I was uncertain about, was whether it was "shit hole" as two words or "shithole" as one word.
I expect that the White House denials were all based on the fact that Trump feels they are two words, and that he did not use any single word such as "shithole."
I am so happy to help out and clarify that for the benefit of the Althouse blog. Makes me feel so good; such a part of the community.
Chuck-
WTF Cares. Trump is winning. Leftists keep talking about what words he used as if it’s treason.
Rest of America? “Yup, shitholes” sounds about right. MAGA.
Unknown said:
"The hidden question that ought to be brought to the table 'is bad living conditions in a country adequate reason to accept immigrants from that country,' followed by second question (if the answer is yes) then what is the criteria for a level of immigration from those counties is sustainable (sustainable meaning how may per year within the criteria)."
We might also ask:
(1) Will the proposed immigrants bring their country's dysfunction with them?
(2) Will the proposed immigrants assimilate?
(3) Is the culture of the proposed immigrants compatible with ours (Sharia Law for example)?
(4) Can the proposed immigrants be vetted in a meaningful way prior to entering the USA?
Gahrie said...
First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
Every Republican I know absolutely trusts and supports Dick Durbin, especially when it makes a Republican look bad. Durbin would never lie about a Republican, or try to sabotage immigration reform. I mean seriously, what would Durbin possibly have to gain by lying about this?
Years ago, the WSJ led off a scathing editorial on Durbin with a little story. Capitol Hill reporters were all asked, of all of the hundreds of lawyers in Congress, if you had to hire one of them as your own lawyer, who would you hire? Who's the smartest, toughest, meanest, trickiest, nastiest SOB on the hill, who is also a JD?
The runaway winner was Dick Durbin. Who started off life as a real, true, practicing plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyer in central Illinois.
He might be my choice too, if I didn't hate him so much.
Gahrie; this is why I keep wanting/praying/pleading/demanding that every Republican in the room be confronted on the same question.
LLR Chuck immediately flexes to the lefty fall back position now that we know that ALL of the initial reports by LLR Chuck's lying lefty media types was completely mischaracterized.
All of Africa is a s***-hole.
Just ask The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/333429
"Hopeless Africa"
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck: "Gahrie; this is why I keep wanting/praying/pleading/demanding that every Republican in the room be confronted on the same question"
We already have the walk back from Tapper.
Just as expected.
Precisely as expected.
MSM and Chuck hardest hit.
AlbertAnonymous said...
Chuck-
WTF Cares. Trump is winning. Leftists keep talking about what words he used as if it’s treason.
Rest of America? “Yup, shitholes” sounds about right. MAGA.
THEN WHY DENY HAVING SAID IT?!?
In the story, the POV character is an elderly man. He is able to avoid a mugging, and possibly much, much worse, by being able to discuss Shakespeare and other learned subjects with some gang members. The gang then befriends and protects him. It seems very few elderly people at that time had any knowledge of their cultural heritage and the young resented the loss.
Believe it or not, this was not alt-right propaganda. I think it was in Omni Magazine but I may be wrong. Perhaps it was in Playboy. The venue would have been liberal, because at one time it was leftist dogma that the right was populated by evil people who wanted to keep everyone dumbed down to better rule them. It was the smart liberals that wanted everyone to study Shakespeare and the founding documents of the United States. You know, like the Federalist Papers and Thomas Paines' Common Sense.
#CNNStrongDefender Chuck: "THEN WHY DENY HAVING SAID IT?!?"
Because your lying pals at CNN already admitted it was mischaracterized.
Their talking point now, naturally, is its still just as bad.
LOL
The political danger for Trump if he becomes soft or ineffective on immigration is that another Republican can run against him on that issue in the primary elections in 2020.
In the 2016 primary election race, Cruz advocated a hard line on immigration. I was a one-issue voter on the immigration issue, and I voted for Cruz over Trump. I would do so again in 2020.
If Republican voters perceive that Trump has been merely playing around with the immigration issue, then some other Republican politician will have an opening to defeat him in the 2020 primaries.
I hope we do take the Haitians out. Not because they are a negroid race, but because they are Haitians.
Mike Sylwester: "The political danger for Trump if he becomes soft or ineffective on immigration is that another Republican can run against him on that issue in the primary elections in 2020."
Correct.
LLR Chuck and his lefty allies are going to keep this up because its always worked on republicans in the past.
Something tells me Trump will be different. So expect LLR Chuck and his lefty allies to continue to "up the outrage" in order to achieve democrat strategic goals.
Durbin said: "“And then he went on when we started to describe the immigration from Africa that was being protected in this bipartisan measure. That’s when he used these vile and vulgar comments, calling the nations they come from ‘shitholes.’ The exact word used by the president, not just once, but repeatedly,” he said.
So, Durbin wants the issue not the deal. Not that, IMO, this was ever in doubt.
The problem is strategic, and the only decisive policies are offensive. Like the German plan in 1940, designed by Manstein.
The Chuck approach is exclusively defensive and minutely tactical, designed by a French conscript corporal digging ditches by the Meuse.
“Because your lying pals at CNN already admitted it was mischaracterized.”
YOU of all people are complaining about others mischaracterizing others comments? Jesus. The irony.
Do you people have any decency left?
buwaya: "The Chuck approach is exclusively defensive and minutely tactical, designed by a French conscript corporal digging ditches by the Meuse"
Well, some think its more fundamental and conscious than that.
Hence, "Vichy Chuck".
Inga: "YOU of all people are complaining about others mischaracterizing others comments? Jesus. The irony"
I'm sorry that Jake Tapper's "clarification" has upset you.
Perhaps you could curl up with your p****-hat and p****-Snuggie (now available at WalMart) and light some incense until the next outrage rescues you from the truth of this situation.
The good news is that for you, history begins anew every morning, thus, by this time tomorrow you won't even remember it!
So things are looking up!
Of course now you have the Washington Post publishing crackpot theories about Jesus never existing which are right up there with claims concerning a flat earth and reptoids in credibility. But since rationality and logic are tools of white supremacy, its all good.
Is that little dog wearing a pussy hat?
Or is that a pussy suit?
I thought those things were banned now.
buwaya: "Is that little dog wearing a pussy hat?
Or is that a pussy suit?
I thought those things were banned now"
Inga is perfectly safe wearing them indoors at home, where no "women with penises" can see her.
Perfectly safe.
I wouldn't mention it publicly of course. No no no! That would be ....problematic.
Speaking for other psychologists, I would like to thank Chuck for using this site to spew his obsessive anti-Trump venom.
We typically do not like to talk about politics in session. It is better to talk about what a person can and cannot control in their lives.
This last year has been miserable for my business. A large percentage of very neurotic and personality disorder patients have been obsessively talking about how Trump is going to ruin their lives. Their level of hatred is palpable.
Chuck said:
"First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
You trust the word of a Democrat who once called American troops "Nazis."
I wonder why people doubt you when you say (for the 10000th time) that you are "conservative." Could it possibly be because you say things no conservative would say?
exiledonmainstreet said...
Chuck said:
"First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
You trust the word of a Democrat who once called American troops "Nazis."
I wonder why people doubt you when you say (for the 10000th time) that you are "conservative." Could it possibly be because you say things no conservative would say?
...And then Durbin did that crazy crying thing on the Senate floor to apologize for the dumb "Nazis" comment. Don't forget that.
No, I hate Durbin. I hate Durbin because ordinarily ("Nazis" aside), he is the toughest, smartest SOB the Dems have in the Senate. Makes me glad we've got McConnell there to counter him.
I happen to think that Durbin is not lying. And that Trump is lying, if we can even figure out if Trump is really denying saying "shitholes."
I'm sure that Durbin has lied on some big things. He just doesn't do it on a daily basis.
I'm laughing out loud about Althouse parsing Durbin's statement (it ain't so nuanced anymore, Ann) but not parsing Trump's tweets on the subject. But that's the Althouse blog for ya. Kinda selective, on that sort of thing.
Mark at 9:42 AM
You have been working on this? Where? Certainly not in any open and public hearings. ... Enough of this s**thole back room dealing.
Great comment.
THEN WHY DENY HAVING SAID IT?!?
Two reasons: First, Trump's not the most honest guy in the world. Second, it clearly annoys people that are intent on missing the big picture.
“My understanding of the "deal" was that the DACA children, who everyone insists on pointing out were innocent of coming here illegally, could turn around and bring in their parents!!!. You've got to be fucking kidding me! (can I say 'fucking'?)”
Not just their parents or siblings, of course, but also cousins, and ultimately entire villages from 3rd world countries. All mostly illiterate and unskilled at much of anything useful in our knowledge based society. But skilled at having newly hatched American citizens at 16, once they get here. Of course, many of the parents are already here illegally - they brought the “Dreamers” with them. But then, those are probably the better ones - the ones who came without parents often turned out to be adolescent gang members.
And that is part of the problem here - Trump, his voters, and many of the Republicans might be willing to trade some sort of improved status, and maybe even a route to citizenship, for, among other things, an end to chain migration. Continued chain migration is a deal killer with Trump and many of his voters. DACA for the “Dreamers” has always been the camel’s nose under the tent, because of chain migration. It is now out in the open.
" Of course, many of the parents are already here illegally"
Which was my specific point - allowing the parents to stay obviates the feel-good argument that the Dreamers aren't at fault.
"Trump, his voters, and many of the Republicans might be willing to trade some sort of improved status, and maybe even a route to citizenship, for, among other things, an end to chain migration. Continued chain migration is a deal killer with Trump and many of his voters. DACA for the “Dreamers” has always been the camel’s nose under the tent, because of chain migration. It is now out in the open."
Which probably explains why Durbin is out there now claiming the very term 'chain migration' is racist. Unlike most politicians, however, Trump is unlikely to be cowed by this old lefty tactic.
Who wins, and who loses? As I pointed out yesterday, I think that Republicans win, and Democrats lose. The Dems need the votes of illiterate unskilled unassimilated immigrants in order to counter their loss of working class whites to the Republicans. They are losing those voters faster than they are picking up Woke (or waking) upper middle class voters. Making things worse - their voters are getting more and more concentrated in Blue States, where the middle class is fleeing and has fled. They can win the National popular vote all that they want, but it won’t do them a lot of good if the Republicans can hold the Senate and Presidency with their less concentrated voting base. The smart ones are seeing this and starting to panic.
The Dems might just well get a “clean” DACA bill passed in the Senate, with some Republican help. I don’t see that passing the House or being signed by Trump. I expect the House to maybe counter with DACA+ending chain migration+wall funding. Which the Dems in the Senate are going to kill, for the reasons above - they are better off demographically with the current situation. Which leaves the leverage of a government shutdown by them to get their way. Good luck. Bring it on. They are the party of big govt, and it is that big govt that they want to shutdown. We saw what Obama and his people did with a govt shutdown - what happens when the EPA, IRS, depts of HHS, HUD, Education, etc get shutdown in their entireties? A lot of Republicans will likely be cheering them on. And, of course, Trump can frame it as the Dems attacking our military, endangering the country, just so that the Dems can bring in more illegals to pad their voting rolls.
This is an election year, with a lot more Dem seats up for election this year than Republican seats. And if the Republicans can just swing the Trump State Dem Senate seats their way, they will be approaching the 60 vote filibuster proof level, which would allow them to finally get the budget under control, etc. Right now I see Schumer and Turbin forcing their troops to vote as directed, just as the Dem leadership in both Houses forced them to vote for Obamacare. Voting to shut the govt down (and endanger us through limiting military funding) over chain migration may be the thing that gets a lot of Dem Senators out of office come November. But, I don’t think that the Dems really have much choice here - Trump asked them what they wanted very publicly, and they made it clear. I think that they are committed, and won’t be able to resist. We shall see.
Well, @Althouse, now that it appears Durbin was probably the source of the leak, are you planning to revisit your analysis and conclusions?
”THEN WHY DENY HAVING SAID IT?!?"
Am I the only person who realizes that by denying he said “shithole countries” Trump appears to have smoked out the probable source of the leak?
Chuck said:
"THEN WHY DENY HAVING SAID IT?"
We call it WINNING. Let me 'splain it to you Chuck.
Step 1: Use a private meeting discussing immigration to refer to certain shitholes as "shitholes." Watch the MSM and Leftists (BIRM) blow a gasket for 12 - 24 hours calling you a racist based on a Dem leak.
Step 2: Make a public statement neither confirming nor denying that you called the shitholes "shitholes". Watch the MSM and Leftists (BIRM) blow another gasket for another 12 - 24 hours, this time setting up shop outside the White House so they can shoot video of the windows and report live that Trump must be inside somewhere amidst the "White House in chaos".
Step 3: Park a white box truck in front of the White House. Watch the MSM and Leftists (BIRM) blow yet another gasket for yet another 12 - 24 hours, this time running wall to wall coverage of the Racist, Chaotic, Administration inside the White House refusing to allow the free press to report to the people in a transparent way.
Step 4: Send Sarah Huckabee Sanders to the White House Briefing Room for a press conference, and have her take the first question from Jim Acosta. Watch Jim Acosta and the MSM and Leftists (BIRM) blow still yet another gasket....
Step 5: Watch as average citizens all over the country, in their local bars after work, talk about how Trump is just speaking the truth, those places are shitholes, the Media is fake news and Trump is MAGA...
Lather Rinse Repeat...
Lather Rinse Repeat...
Here is the deal on immigration that can be passed and can be signed by Trump:
Amnesty for the DACA cohort with citizenship pathway coupled with an end to chain migration altogether. It doesn't even need to be coupled with the wall funding which I have never believed was really necessary anyway- Trump can cut the illegal immigration flow by simply enforcing the federal laws against employers any time he wants to.
The Senate proposal that was described cannot be passed in the House, in my opinion, and certainly would not be signed by Trump. This was probably what Durbin and Graham were told yesterday that led to the leak that may have been completely true or not. If Durbin thinks this detail will put pressure on Trump and the House, he is badly mistaken.
I covered the Durbin statement in the update to the previous post and wrote this post fully aware of it.
Blogger Yancey Ward said..."Here is the deal on immigration that can be passed and can be signed by Trump:
Amnesty for the DACA cohort with citizenship pathway coupled with an end to chain migration altogether. It doesn't even need to be coupled with the wall funding ..."
I'd say amnesty for the DACA cohort without citizenship pathway with an end to chain migration altogether. Including a pathway to citizenship would cost funding for the wall.
The previous post is the one on the subject of whether Trump really said it.
This post is on the politics of blowing up the deal.
It would help if the comments were kept separate in that way.
"Then why deny it? Why not announce it?"
Trump's under no obligation to play with their loaded dice and, unlike the LLR's, refuses to. That's whats really driving the Left batshit.
Mike,
You could be right- I was laying out the minimum that would have to be provided to get the "Dreamers" citizenship, which I think is the minimum for the "Dreamers" that the Democrats would accept as a standalone issue.
I don't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I think another commenter pointed out that the Democrats really aren't willing to give up anything to get DACA enacted in statute, so the current law may be preferable to them than a deal.
As for whether or not Trump really said it- either "shitholes" or the part singling out the Haitians- I don't take Durbin's word as gospel since it is quite likely he could lie with impunity here since even his Republican colleagues may be unwilling to call him out on it.
"I don't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I think another commenter pointed out that the Democrats really aren't willing to give up anything to get DACA enacted in statute, so the current law may be preferable to them than a deal"
Yeah, I don't think the democrats are willing to give up anything either.
I hate Durbin because ordinarily ("Nazis" aside), he is the toughest, smartest SOB the Dems have in the Senate.
"Friends, Romans, countrymen, give me your attention. I have come here to bury Durbin (and every other Democrat), not to praise him."
LLR Chuck: "I'm sure that Durbin has lied on some big things. He just doesn't do it on a daily basis"
LOL
Why don't you bravely get up in his "grille" and put him under oath and get to the bottom of that?
Don't worry Chuck. We understand your "strong stance" on Durbin....(wink wink)
LLR Chuck: "...he is the toughest, smartest SOB the Dems have in the Senate. Makes me glad we've got McConnell there to counter him."
LOL
He is an idiot.
He depends on the greater stupidity of the LLR brigade to gain victories. And he is rarely disappointed in that.
Hey, do you have some oppo research that you need to suck a republican chump in on to give the oppo research more credibility? You do? Well, here's John McCain's direct number....
LLR Chuck: "Maybe, "no deal on immigration" is good politics, somehow, for Trump. In which case, he is the greatest used-car-selling liar to sit in the White House in anyone's memory."
"if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period."
LOL
LLR Chuck hardest hit! Again!
You are hilariously inept! Keep up the good work!
I covered the Durbin statement in the update to the previous post and wrote this post fully aware of it.
Then I don’t understand how you arrive at the conclusions you did. If it was in the interest of Republicans in general and Trump in particular to have no deal then why would Durbin try to blow up the deal with his leak? Why would the Democrats’ bootlicking lackeys at CNN and the Times make such a fuss? I have little enough respect for Democrats’ Intelligence, but can they be that stupid less than ten months from the election?
"First, at least Dick Durbin (and more, I expect) are absolutely confirming that Trump said "shitholes."
If Dick Durban says it's a sunny day, get thee to a window. It isn't above him to lie to make a point.
Trump said."shitholes" and you're offended.
Maybe Inga has a dress your size.
What if Trump leaked the shithole comment?
Would Chuck's LLR universe fold back on itself until it disappeared?
LLR Chuck: "I'm sure that Durbin has lied on some big things. He just doesn't do it on a daily basis"
Chuck is used to putting up with the occasional big lie to keep his LLR status intact.
"Read my lips, no new taxes."
It's the constant stream of small exaggerations which cause his political senses to malfunction.
“Then I don’t understand how you arrive at the conclusions you did. If it was in the interest of Republicans in general and Trump in particular to have no deal then why would Durbin try to blow up the deal with his leak? Why would the Democrats’ bootlicking lackeys at CNN and the Times make such a fuss? I have little enough respect for Democrats’ Intelligence, but can they be that stupid less than ten months from the election?”
Which leads to the logical conclusion that it is Turbin and the Dems who don’t want the deal. Ok, if they could get their dream (clean DACA, no end to chain migration, no wall funding), they would be happy, knowing that that would go a long way towards compensating electorally for losing the white working class to Trump and maybe the Republicans. But they aren’t going to get that. Best they are going to get this year is DACA relief plus end to chain migration. That latter is now very publicly important in any legislation the Republican House passes or Trump doesn’t veto. And the Dems hate it because it has always been their invisible camel’s nose under the tent. Why they so want DACA relief, so that the “Dreamers” can bring in their entire families, and then villages from back home, into this country, and, ultimately, into the Democratic fold.
As I have suggested earlier, I think that the Dems were seeing themselves up against the wall here in the upcoming election with the immigration debate. All it was going to do for them, come November, would be to pad the Republican majorities in Congress, and, in particular, the Senate, where forcing Dem Senators to openly vote for the progressive immigration wet dream might end up giving the Republicans the 60 vote cloture enabling majority they so want. And then, Katy bar the door, we might see major budget and welfare reform. All without it actually having a chance at enactment.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the party of big govt threatening to shut down the government if they don’t get their way on this issue. Trump has already put his shot across their bow, by making a shutdown about imperiling national defense and threatening our brave military fighting in shitholes around the world for our safety. Not where the Dems want to be in an election year, caught between their left wing base demanding action, and the electorate over this subject, with Trump driving the national security aspects, with maybe half their Senate caucus up for reelection this coming November. They desperately don’t want to be the party that tried to, or even did, shut down the govt in an election year. Much better if they can claim they can’t work with Trump because he is so obviously a racist, sexist, misogynistic bigot.
The Democrats believe they have no reason to compromise. That's why they gave Trump 10% of what he asked for.
Why? They believe time is on their side.
First, Federal judges might discover a "new constitutional right" just like they always do.
Second, Mid-terms might give the Dem's congress.
Third, Shithead RINO's like Graham/Flake/McConnell will NEVER stop working for Amnesty.
Fourth, Trump has already wobbled on issue, maybe in 2019 he'll cave completely.
Fifth, Trump might lose or not run in 2020. In which case we'll have POTUS Oprah - and Amnesty.
Would Chuck's LLR universe fold back on itself until it disappeared?
Chucks universe is a Mobius strip.
Don't worry Chuck. We understand your "strong stance" on Durbin....(wink wink)
1/12/18, 1:24 PM
More like a "wide stance" IYKWIM, AITYD.
Post a Comment