out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

I have been crazy busy this week, hearing alot of conflicting stuff
about Trump and the dems and Daca. Any opinions from trusted
Members?

plainlogic

Bottom line... The Democrats want to keep DACA in full, they want to keep and expand the 800,000 to stay; they will not compromise for anything else. Trump sees it as an illegal amnesty program Obama brought into action through executive order.

Where do you stand on socialism for this Nation? This is the Democratic agenda.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Trump has not granted amnesty to the DACA people but when I see the Chesire Cat grins on Peolosi and Schumer's faces I wonder if he didn't give away the store. They switched from idiot attack mode to fawning sycophants and I don't believe or like it. As far as what Trump's game is, here is Scott Adams' opinion:

"I Explain the Persuasion Techniques President Trump is using on The Wall and DACA"


"I Explain the Persuasion Techniques President Trump
is using on The Wall and DACA"
by Scott Adams

"You might enjoy my Periscope playback from this morning in which I describe the several persuasion techniques President Trump is using on the topic of The Wall and DACA. Here’s the quick summary:

Visual Persuasion: President Trump describes border security (a concept) with the word “wall” because you can visualize it. Our visual sense is our most persuasive path for influence. It would be weak persuasion to talk about border security as a concept without a visual.

Simplicity: Border security is a big topic, and the method you use to secure it will depend on the terrain and other factors. If President Trump mentioned all of that complexity each time he talked about border security it would be a big yawn. Simple messages such as “build a wall” always beat complicated (but accurate) conceptual arguments.

Strategic Ambiguity: In hypnosis class we learned to omit any details the subject might find objectionable. Following good form, President Trump doesn’t get too specific about the type of wall he wants. He lets us see the wall that makes the most sense to us. We see the same strategic ambiguity after his famous dinner “agreement” with Pelosi and Schumer. The Democratic leaders got to announce “no wall” while the President says “yes wall.” The reality is that both sides agree on spending for border improvements, some of which will undoubtedly be wall-ish sometime in the next few years. We citizens get to pick which version of reality we like best: wall or no wall. The ambiguity supports both views. And it is intentional.

Big First Demand: A good negotiator starts with an aggressive first demand so there is plenty of room to negotiate toward the middle. President Trump started his campaign promising to deport every undocumented immigrant. That first demand was so extreme that he has plenty of room to negotiate toward a reasonable center, such as allowing DACA folks to stay.

Likewise, the “Wall” idea is seen by many Trump critics and supporters alike to mean a solid wall for the entire border with Mexico. This was never a practical idea, and candidate Trump said so directly at least once, but he wisely didn’t emphasize the full range of solutions for the border. Now it will seem totally reasonable to build a solid wall wherever border security is most problematic, so long as it is not extended to the entire border.

Thinking Past the Sale: In this case, the “sale” is President Trump’s desire to tighten border security. Now both sides assume the border will be tightened and they are only debating the budget and the details. This is classic persuasion. The President never allowed the country to spend time debating whether or not we wanted better border control. Instead, he made us focus on how to do it. He made the sale before the country thought it had anything to buy.

Trading Imaginary Assets for Real Ones: If we believe initial reports from Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump, there will be some sort of deal for greater border security in exchange for allowing DACA folks to stay in the country. But realistically, the DACA folks couldn’t have been rounded up and deported without a civil war. So President Trump traded an imaginary asset (the idea of deporting the DACA folks) for something potentially real in terms of greater border security funding.

Pacing and Leading: Pacing refers to matching your subject in some way, either physically, verbally, or in terms of philosophy. Candidate Trump paced (matched) his base on immigration until he got elected. Now the base trusts that he is philosophically aligned with them. So if he finds he can’t do all the things they demand, they are likely to let him lead to whatever is practical and doable simply because they trust him on the topic. People don’t expect a politician to be magic, or to do the impossible. But they do want politicians to “get” them and to care about them and to fight for what they want. President Trump paced his supporters by understanding their needs and fighting for them. That group is likely to trust him when he says some form of “This is the best we can do for now.”

High Ground Maneuver: The high ground maneuver involves taking an argument out of the weeds and up to a level where everyone agrees. In this case, the weeds include a discussion of how best to handle DACA folks. President Trump tweeted that some are military veterans. The military is the high ground in the U.S., and any reference to them is likely to be a high ground play. In other words, President Trump is committing to keeping the DACA folks in this country. He just doesn’t want to say it until he gets his budget for border security.

Likewise, at some point soon President Trump will pivot from “the wall everywhere” to “effective border control.” Effective border control, and the job improvement for Americans that might come with it, are the high ground. The details of how to do it are the weeds.”
- http://blog.dilbert.com/

son of witless

What ever deal the Skunkocrats make they will renege on it the micro second they get what they want. I assume President Trump knows that ?

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

In The Video Track I Saw
Trump Said No Amnesty,
Parts Of The Existing Wall Is Being Refurbished
To Be Ready For New Sections
That Was Thur 9/14

tommymore

Yes, "alot" is not a word.

out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

Absolutely abhor socialism and I know that it is a democratic agenda. Just have been seeing from sources formerly supportive
of Trump, criticizing him for compromising with the Democrats on this issue. Not sure what to believe, but am hoping , either they are blowingtit out of proportion to discredit Trump with his base, or that it is part of his plan. I was looking for opinions, against which I can measure my own.

out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

Funny, I am aware of that, yet it slips into my speech frequently. Not sure why. Personally my pet peeve is when people, my children especially, say "anyways".

out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

So they are trying to create an issue, where none exists. What a surprise.

tommymore

You abhor socialism: do you know what it is? The most successful and prosperous nation on this planet have a combination of Capitalism and Welfare State. A Welfare State is not socialism. Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Has that definition sunk in? Do you understand now that does not mean unemployment insurance, Social Security, Food Stamps, SNAP, or welfare? (Or "Obama-phones"?) Can you comprehend that, by definition and reality, there is no socialism presently in America? I will highlight:

tommymore

You abhor socialism: do you know what it is? The most successful and prosperous nations on this planet have a combination of Capitalism and Welfare State. A Welfare State is not socialism. Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Has that definition sunk in? Do you understand now that does not mean unemployment insurance, Social Security, Food Stamps, SNAP, or welfare? (Or "Obama-phones"?) Can you comprehend that, by definition and reality, there is no socialism presently in America? I will highlight: "THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND EXCHANGE IS NOT--IS NOT--OWNED OR REGULATED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE." If it were, I would abhor socialism.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Welfare Is A Parasite That Needs It's Host (Hard Work Of Others) To Survive
Welfare Plays The Game With No Chips To Lose
(I.O.U.s And Increasing DEBT)

Capitalism Adjusts And Continues To Succeed In SPITE Of The Drains Welfare Attaches To It
So, YOU Are The One That Needs A Lecture

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

.

out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State

Thanks Pafret, yes that is what I thought, but as I raced through my days, kept picking up bits and pieces, mostly ominous statements about Trump losing his base, betraying the Angel Moms. Yah, yah yah yah, yah yah, yah yah... so weary am I of the media, and some of this was from sites I normally trust. So I just thought I would throw that out there, try to get a reading.

tommymore

I saw a great bumber-sticker the other day: "Work harder, Welfare needs you." Let me ask you a question: How about our last two devastating hurricanes, should we help? Should they get welfare or other assistance? Maybe fact-check if they are deserving: were you gainfully employed when this event took place? Affidavits? Neighbor testimony? Pay stubs? No? Sorry.

But that is really not my point. Areas get hit hard economically. Local industry closes. Look at the Steel and Coal Industry. Decent people who worked hard all their lives are now out of work and destitute. Like the Financial Crisis of Bush in 2008. Let them starve? These are not Welfare Queens or Young Bucks as Reagan claimed. Just fellow citizens in trouble through no fault of their own. Are they "parasites" to ask for or expect the help of their fellow Americans? If we, like I, have never faced such circumstances beyond our control, does that rule out empathy? Women abandoned by their husbands and left without resources are "parasites" to seek help for themselves and children? No leg up? Just tell them to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps"? A specials need child is a leech, a parasite? You are fathomless in your cluenessity.