Trump’s White House drew a hard line at 12:01am: no negotiations over immigration until government funding is restored. The deal has changed. This will likely earn Trump and the GOP votes this November.
“We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands. This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on immigration reform.” - Sarah Sanders (the text is also in Mick’s screenshot above)
The narrative about Trump may be about to change. The new narrative may be that he’s not hapless. The new narrative may be that he actually has bona fide leadership skilz.
Indeed. Trump has been working on branding the Democrats anti-American for a while, with a little exaggeration (and help from Democrats shutting down the government over illegal immigrants) slogans like, “Democrats call Americans deplorable’s, illegal immigrants are dreamers” write themselves.
At the risk of hijacking the thread, Democrats have done a great job branding themselves anti-American throughout their history, starting when the Democrats skirted treason in the presidential election of 1864.
Aside from 2012, when President Obama was (handily) reelected with an enormous effort, the Democrats have had their asses handed to them consistently since 2010. It’s been terrifically enjoyable to watch.
Actually, the majority shareholder is far-right angel Rupert Murdoch, who is himself, an immigrant.
You know, oddly, if you are having this discussion decrying the evils of immigration, and you live in TW and you cannot claim ROC citizenship, then you yourself are an immigrant displacing local talent.
Here is one I did not expect. Funny I find myself agreeing with a Kristol rag. The enemy of my enemy, I guess.
Ah, the old bones of the democratic party trick. At least they had a reckoning. Anti-American? I do not remember Obama denigrating his opponent in 2008 by calling him a loser and a traitor.
However, I do believe standing up against this current treasonous wretch is more American than goose-stepping behind him in support.
If we are going to play to this logic, then I guess all GOP supporters are anti-civil rights and anti-voting rights, since, well, the GOP has consistently voted against such legislation. State’s Rights you say? What rights? Rights to what? Who can and cannot vote in them? Who can and cannot attend their schools?
I believe this is all code for “there is enough damning information to completely decimate both sides in this document, we must drag this along until the whole thing goes away!” Which it will. It just seems too much like a diversion at this point.
Yup, Slim sold a fair chunk of his share last year.
Immigrants =/= illegal immigrants. At which point did I say the immigration is the downfall of a country? I’ve always very clearly referred to illegal immigration, is the strawman virus spreading around?
You know what else is funny?
You:“Tax cuts are bad because they favor large companbies at the expense of the working class”
Also you:“Illegal immigration is good because it provides benefits for large-scale economy and companies at the cost of the local working class”
Dear JB_IN_TW, you seem to think you and I are each wearing pince-nez glasses and playing a chess match over brandy snifters or something. I believe this is the second time you’ve started a reply to one of my posts with “Ah, the old …”.
Don’t do that, man, it’s weirding me out.
And by the way, while I find the Democrat party super frustrating etc., I don’t mean anything personal by it. At least, I hope I don’t cause any actual offense to sympathizers. I certainly don’t mean any personal offense to you (also strongly suspect you didn’t mean any).
Back on topic. It’s the Democrats who’ve defined themselves in reaction to Trump. They’re against him - and the horse he rode in on. Trump’s narrative is less defined by Democrats, so further D vs R sidebars may make it hard for me to stay on topic in this thread.
Tax cuts for employers → more money available to be invested in the workforce, more hirings, more investments, more competitive ability to produce/offer services → a general boost to the economy that has effects on the working class as well, which is able to receive part of the tax cuts, salary bonuses and better working conditions as a result of the investments
If you don’t know how this kind of stuff works, start studying Keynes. Some of his ideas are not exactly up to date as they were developed as a result of the great depression, but the foundations are solid. Once you get accustomed with Keynes, you can start reading Milton Friedman, who’s models are more elaborate and up to date.
If after reading Friedman’s work and the effect he (indirectly) had on Chile (compared to Venezuela) you still think there’s no proof regarding the benefits of tax reduction, then you simply don’t want to learn.
In before:“I read this quote on the internet that says otherwise” → I had to study Keynes, Friedman and a few other wankers for years. I don’t expect you to study this stuff now so I’m not expecting a productive opinion regarding this topic, but if you don’t know about something then simply saying:“There’s no evidence to support this” means that you’re brainstorming for ideas that will fit your narrative, regardless of their correctness.
In before:“I studied Keynes, Friedman and X,Y,Z” → no, otherwise you’d know about the evidence supporting the benefits of tax cuts.
Ah yes, too many people are drawing dire parallels between Trump and American disaster. In fact, a year into Trump’s first term and the American left has become something of a Pavlova of the Parallel (bars).
Your a victim of theories, I am a victim of reality.
Kill the patronizing tone, I get the theories and the ideas. The concept of trickle-down economics (tax cuts for the wealthy…blah, blah) are supposed to create more jobs and wealth. In theory. In reality, they do not.
Let me re-word this. I know what they are supposed to do. But, the reality is that it does not.
Real life example. In 1981 Reagan was spewing this whole Laffer supply-side nonsense, stating that there would be like 10 jobs per American. Not exactly that, but he built it up as a miracle. Guess what? Didn’t happen. The tax cuts did happened, and for sure some did benefit. But massive economic growth was never realized…until…he reversed course, raised taxes and increased government spending for various military projects. (Cold war thing) His successor, cut spending and we entered into a recession until…taxes were raised and spending was increased.
I am reminded of a quote from GE capital CEO when they did a mass layoff of US workers and moved some operations to Brazil. He was asked what effect it would have on his business “we do not need to American market anymore.”
These tax cuts may increase some manufacturing, but job increases will be minimal. Most likely investments in automation. Some factories in Asia might fire up, though.
"Ah, the old closet ploy"at 1.30