The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

Lol. Black unemployment lowest levels in history and all the black liberals are sitting on their hands and not clapping.

Probably because:

[thethe]

But it's...legal immigration.

But Americans overwhlemingly do not support it.

[thethe]

Probably because:

So they should still sit for that?

[Runnin]

So they should still sit for that?

They should sit for applauding Trump for that, since he has had nothing to do with it. But also because he is pretending that he deserves ALL the credit for 9 years of steady growth. It's a lie (as everything with Trump is) and it's disrespectful to his predecessor, who inherited a catastrophic economy and turned it around.

[thethe]

They should sit for applauding Trump for that, since he has had nothing to do with it. But also because he is pretending that he deserves ALL the credit for 9 years of steady growth. It's a lie (as everything with Trump is) and it's disrespectful to his predecessor, who inherited a catastrophic economy and turned it around.

Worst recovery in history. All trump did was reverse Obama era regulations and the economy exploded. Obama policies held us back buy America is resilient and still grew.

[thethe]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/31/...mpression=true

[57Brave]

I have a feeling we will be seeing some actual wage growth this year.

And then I have a feeling it will be described as crumbs

you have a lot of feelings

[goldfly]

chain migration isn't a term

[57Brave]

"The Trump administration continues to display its admirable commitment to corruption, but Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, managed to go a little too far.

The CDC’s mission is to protect public health, including preventing smoking and getting smokers to quit.

So having it come out that the CDC director invested personal money in a tobacco company,

as Fitzgerald did after taking the job, is enough to prompt a resignation even in corruption central"

[Hawk]

So let me get this straight; Democrats are 'weak and ineffective' on immigration (because they are the minority party, having lost the election), but Republicans can't fill the not weak and effective void because they didn't win the popular vote (and thusly, can't claim popular mandate ... despite being representative of the majority).

...

[thethe]

chain migration isn't a term

Ok

[sturg33]

Ok

You gotta admit he made a good argument

[bravesnumberone]

1. Infrastructure spending (not what the fed should be doing)

2. End the sequester of military spending (we spend d way too much already)

3. Sounded like he wants to expand the war on drugs

4. Said he wants to force drug prices down

5. Sounded WAY too hawkish on military

6. Applauded decision to keep GITMO open

7. Investment in job training (not fed job)


Many others I'm sure.

I was just laughing when Dems were sulking about the celebration of low unemployment, etc.

2-3 and 5-6, I think a lot of liberals would agree with you. Point 1 I guess is where they have the highest hopes of finding common ground with him though I'm not convinced his idea of infrastructure goes beyond the wall. The last part is par for the course for these theatrical productions. He ticked off some stats that have been continuing to trend up since the previous administration. Republicans did the exact same thing during Obama's addresses. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to these.

[Julio3000]

So let me get this straight; Democrats are 'weak and ineffective' on immigration (because they are the minority party, having lost the election), but Republicans can't fill the not weak and effective void because they didn't win the popular vote (and thusly, can't claim popular mandate ... despite being representative of the majority).

...

I have a narrow objection to the reasoning--which you, Jaw, and thethe have all used, to some extent or other--that America wants hardline immigration policy because Donald Trump won the election. He lost the popular vote to an unpopular candidate who was running a "third term" race. It doesn't strike me as a great place to plant the flag.

As for the rest, I dunno. Seems like a "not weak" and "effective" position could have done a deal fairly expeditiously with the WH and both chambers in their control.

[goldfly]

I have a narrow objection to the reasoning--which you, Jaw, and thethe have all used, to some extent or other--that America wants hardline immigration policy because Donald Trump won the election. He lost the popular vote

not only did he lose the poplar vote in general election

he didn't win a majority of the vote in the GOP primary either

so, it's silly to act like his platform is widely wanted on immigration or anything else

[thethe]

I have a narrow objection to the reasoning--which you, Jaw, and thethe have all used, to some extent or other--that America wants hardline immigration policy because Donald Trump won the election. He lost the popular vote to an unpopular candidate who was running a "third term" race. It doesn't strike me as a great place to plant the flag.

As for the rest, I dunno. Seems like a "not weak" and "effective" position could have done a deal fairly expeditiously with the WH and both chambers in their control.

Americans do not want chain migration. Almost all polling reflects this.

[Julio3000]

Americans do not want chain migration. Almost all polling reflects this.

If you want to give me an example, we can discuss it.

[thethe]

If you want to give me an example, we can discuss it.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/23/fresh-harvard-poll-majority-want-an-end-to-chain-migration-n2438617

[Julio3000]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/23/fresh-harvard-poll-majority-want-an-end-to-chain-migration-n2438617

Right, so the relevant question in the poll is about priority. Right now the allocation system is biased towards families. According to this poll, a sizeable majority favors prioritizing skills and education. That's not the same thing as a zero-sum "do you support ending family-based migration." And it's worth noting that even that number is quite fluid depending on how the question is asked.

[Hawk]

I have a narrow objection to the reasoning--which you, Jaw, and thethe have all used, to some extent or other--that America wants hardline immigration policy because Donald Trump won the election. He lost the popular vote to an unpopular candidate who was running a "third term" race. It doesn't strike me as a great place to plant the flag.

As for the rest, I dunno. Seems like a "not weak" and "effective" position could have done a deal fairly expeditiously with the WH and both chambers in their control.

Trump brought conservative immigration policy to the forefront of the primary process, prevailed in that arena despite his position being incomprehensibly misconstrued (which, given the ideological dynamics of primaries, probably ended up serving him better than his detractors would like to admit), and won the general with a signature association of "build the wall". He fomented the national debate on immigration. And he won (or barely won, or didn't win, or whatever other other denigratory couching of that reality makes you feel better). That doesn't mean that he gets to fashion legislation carte blanche, but it does mean that he gets to inject a healthy dose of conservative ideology into the equation. He's got the mic.

Not weak and effective positions that expeditiously produce legislation (on the back of a super majority) is quite the siren song, but we've just seen the dismantling of the last piece of hallmark legislation enacted using these means.