"DACA is not a bargaining chip, it's a wedge."

[archer75]

People who disagree with Trump's idea that there are good people marching in KKK rallies? Anyone with a Mexican-sounding name? The possibilities are endless.

I agree that there is such a thing as an SJW, where SJW = "person who is mostly worried about appearing to be for social justice." But that group is not identical to the group of those who are actually for social justice (which includes a lot of Christians).

SJWs are certainly vocal, but in the end, not all that numerous.

I am not aware of cat ladies as a voting bloc.

Ethnic agitators have not been explained, so for this thread, I need to dismiss the notion. I'm not aware of Czech nationalists as a powerful political force doing grassroots organizing in the USA.

"The rest of that ranting crew" is not specific at all.

So we're left with SJWs as the people to whose words the objection is made. Well, I know a couple such people, but not many. And if I were to use the most hypocritical crazies among self-styled conservatives as a stand-in for "the whole crew," people on CF would take umbrage.

All that said...SJWs tend to be attuned pretty well to the democratic party. They don't want to go off and be some "Crazy Leftie," for the most part. They'll find a way tovote for the democratic candidate. So I don't see the attempt, if it is one, to drive a wedge between the DNC and the "SJWs" as likely to succeed.

 

[LoAmmi]

I agree that there is such a thing as an SJW, where SJW = "person who is mostly worried about appearing to be for social justice." But that group is not identical to the group of those who are actually for social justice (which includes a lot of Christians).

SJWs are certainly vocal, but in the end, not all that numerous.

I am not aware of cat ladies as a voting bloc.

Ethnic agitators have not been explained, so for this thread, I need to dismiss the notion. I'm not aware of Czech nationalists as a powerful political force doing grassroots organizing in the USA.

"The rest of that ranting crew" is not specific at all.

So we're left with SJWs as the people to whose words the objection is made. Well, I know a couple such people, but not many. And if I were to use the most hypocritical crazies among self-styled conservatives as a stand-in for "the whole crew," people on CF would take umbrage.

All that said...SJWs tend to be attuned pretty well to the democratic party. They don't want to go off and be some "Crazy Leftie," for the most part. They'll find a way tovote for the democratic candidate. So I don't see the attempt, if it is one, to drive a wedge between the DNC and the "SJWs" as likely to succeed.

It seems to just be buzzwords to dismiss an entire side of the political spectrum. We've got some crazies on our side and they have crazies on theirs. I don't like screaming college students or Antifa myself as I think they hurt the cause, but in no way are they the majority of the tens of millions of liberals in the country. But buzzwords and dismissing people is easy.

 

[archer75]

It seems to just be buzzwords to dismiss an entire side of the political spectrum. We've got some crazies on our side and they have crazies on theirs. I don't like screaming college students or Antifa myself as I think they hurt the cause, but in no way are they the majority of the tens of millions of liberals in the country. But buzzwords and dismissing people is easy.

When the shoe fits, I think it has to be recognized, at least. Admitting that there are "SJWs" (i.e. - liberal-sounding hypocrites) is appropriate. But yeah, they hardly speak for the huge population that believed in generally liberal or even leftist ideas.

 

[Almost there]

Yeah, then we turn into old codgers yelling about religion while voting for racists, womanizers, authoritarians, and pedos.

I haven't voted "for" a candidate since 1980, with one exception: Bevin. And he meets none of the attributes on your list.

 

[archer75]

I haven't voted "for" a candidate since 1980, with one exception: Bevin. And he meets none of the attributes on your list.

Do you mean that in other instances, you've voted, but considered yourself to be voting "against" a candidate?

 

[Almost there]

Again, DACA is not a bargaining chip, it's now a wedge.
And Dr. President Trump is going to put it on the fault line between sensible Congressional Dems and their bitter, idiotic, lunatic voters and hit it as many times as he can with a sledgehammer.

Just so we are clear, do you consider the "gang of six" Democrats be "sensible" Congressional Dems?

Dick Durban
Mark Warner
Kent Contrad

or how about their GOP counterparts (who, after all, negotiated in good faith...only to be undermined by the POTUS)?:

Tom Coburn
Saxby Chambliss,
Mike Crapo

And do you consider me to be a "far left nutcase" if I, and over 80% of other Americans think the Congress should pass legal protections for children who were brought into the country illegally?

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. I think there are very few americans that don't think that there are some that were brought into this country as young children that should be allowed to stay. The problem is that the devil is in the details.

We all agree that nobody should be poor, either. But, again, the challenge comes when we try to agree on a way to address it.

 

[Almost there]

Do you mean that in other instances, you've voted, but considered yourself to be voting "against" a candidate?

Exactly. It's the "voting for lizards" paradigm most of the time for me.

 

[wing2000]

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. I think there are very few americans that don't think that there are some that were brought into this country as young children that should be allowed to stay. The problem is that the devil is in the details.

We all agree that nobody should be poor, either. But, again, the challenge comes when we try to agree on a way to address it.

My questions were clear.

And I did review the "details"....bi-partisan solutions were offered and summarily rejected by those representing a small minority of our country. The author seems to celebrate using children as a wedge issue...

 

[Almost there]

My questions were clear.

And I did review the "details"....bi-partisan solutions were offered and summarily rejected by those representing a small minority of our country. The author seems to celebrate using children as a wedge issue...

That's not how I'm seeing it.

Also, it is important to point out that these people are not his constituency. They are not who he was elected to represent.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

We all agree that nobody should be poor, either.

Not sure about that it seems the Bible teaches and I agree that if an able-bodied person is too lazy to work then they should be poor and they might even have a hard time eating occasionally.

M-Bob

 

[mark46]

The Gang of Six is now irrelevant. It is the Gang of 25 (24?) meeting in the offices of Senator Collins.

The proposal of the Gang of Six is a non-starter. It gave permanent status to those who came under emergency status from Guatemala, Haiti and El Salvador (and presumably Syria). It give permanent status to DACA parents. And it gives very little money for the wall.

The Group Of 25 needs to propose and pass something that Ryan will feel that he must bring to the floor. Presumably this would need to include lots of funding for the wall.

The HARD stuff involves whether this legislation ends the lottery system and greatly limits chain migration. This would have the effect of reducing total immigration unless a merit-based system is set up. Democrats would likely vote against all of this. And why? Obviously, they prefer chain migration from Mexico to merit-based immigration which would end up with lots more immigration from Africa and Asia.

Again, DACA is not a bargaining chip, it's now a wedge.
And Dr. President Trump is going to put it on the fault line between sensible Congressional Dems and their bitter, idiotic, lunatic voters and hit it as many times as he can with a sledgehammer.

Just so we are clear, do you consider the "gang of six" Democrats be "sensible" Congressional Dems?

Dick Durban
Mark Warner
Kent Contrad

or how about their GOP counterparts (who, after all, negotiated in good faith...only to be undermined by the POTUS)?:

Tom Coburn
Saxby Chambliss,
Mike Crapo

And do you consider me to be a "far left nutcase" if I, and over 80% of other Americans think the Congress should pass legal protections for children who were brought into the country illegally?

 

[Almost there]

Not sure about that it seems the Bible teaches and I agree that if an able-bodied person is too lazy to work then they should be poor and they might even have a hard time eating occasionally.

M-Bob

Yep. This is why we don't all agree. Some think we should help them too.

 

[mark kennedy]

This article so well articulates what was going on with the DACA debacle that I just had to share.


Don Surber: "DACA is not a bargaining chip, it's a wedge."

It points to the whole thing summed up in 30 tweets regarding why the Democrats lost, and why this does not bode well for them.

One interesting meme is the strongly implied point that what is happening is a separation of the "normal" democrats from the far left nutcase base. You know, the precious snowflakes, SJW's, women's rights advocates, BLM folks, LGBTQXYZ folks, etc. The normal ones are already trying to distance themselves. Trump just needs to give them excuses and they may just switch, like Kim Davis did.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, took funding for the wall off the table. the Democrats don't get DACA Trump doesn't get funding for the wall.

 

[Almost there]

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, took funding for the wall off the table. the Democrats don't get DACA Trump doesn't get funding for the wall.

And vice versa.
Trump's Wall Should Be a Bargaining Chip on Immigration

And remember, DACA recipients are not Trump's constituency. Those benefiting from the wall are, however, his constituency. For which should he choose?

 

[mark46]

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, took funding for the wall off the table. the Democrats don't get DACA Trump doesn't get funding for the wall.

Sure, Trump's deal with Trump is off the table. Negotiations can't start at that point. The Gang of 25 is negotiating and will deliver a bill to the Senate.

What the DACA kids get is all up to Trump. After all, he can veto anything. What is voted on is up to McConnell and Ryan. They can stop any legislation from even being discussed on the floor of the Senate and House. The Democrats have very limited power. The Democrats might end up paying a lot just to get the DACA kids permanent status. They may accept a 1 year extension of DACA.

 

[mark46]

Trump's base matters a lot when considering 2020.

Trump's base matters little in 2018 when the districts of Trump's base are not at issue. They are safe districts for the Republicans. The only part of his "base" that matters is the donors to the various campaigns.

And vice versa.
Trump's Wall Should Be a Bargaining Chip on Immigration

And remember, DACA recipients are not Trump's constituency. Those benefiting from the wall are, however, his constituency. For which should he choose?

 

[wing2000]

And vice versa.
Trump's Wall Should Be a Bargaining Chip on Immigration

And remember, DACA recipients are not Trump's constituency. Those benefiting from the wall are, however, his constituency. For which should he choose?

The eighty plus percent of Americans who support DACA recipients ARE his constituency.

 

[wing2000]

As I have written here before, if Trump really wants a wall, tap the defense budget to build it. Cancelling a few white elephant projects will cover it...

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure, Trump's deal with Trump is off the table. Negotiations can't start at that point. The Gang of 25 is negotiating and will deliver a bill to the Senate.

What the DACA kids get is all up to Trump. After all, he can veto anything. What is voted on is up to McConnell and Ryan. They can stop any legislation from even being discussed on the floor of the Senate and House. The Democrats have very limited power. The Democrats might end up paying a lot just to get the DACA kids permanent status. They may accept a 1 year extension of DACA.

It will probably turn out something like that, Trump can't claim any kind of a victory without that wall. DACA has popular support, close to 90 percent of Americans support it. It seems to me if the votes in Congress matched to consensus of their constituents they could override a veto. Then what is Trump going to use to leverage to get funding for his promised 'big beautiful wall'?

 

[Almost there]

It will probably turn out something like that, Trump can't claim any kind of a victory without that wall. DACA has popular support, close to 90 percent of Americans support it. It seems to me if the votes in Congress matched to consensus of their constituents they could override a veto. Then what is Trump going to use to leverage to get funding for his promised 'big beautiful wall'?

It's not that DACA has popular support. It is that "coming up with some sort of solution that is humane" has popular support.