Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Particularly if you support Trump, you need to oppose an amnesty sellout

Particularly if you support Trump, you need to oppose an amnesty sellout

Amnesty is the gateway drug to a failed Trump presidency.

On July 13, 2015, long before it was clear or even likely that Trump would be the Republican nominee, much less president, I wrote at National Review how central the issue of illegal immigration was to Trump’s rise.

My post was Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:

Donald Trump has rocketed to the top, or near the top, of the Republican-primary field by focusing on illegal immigration and border security….

The media fell all over itself to denounce Trump, as did many Republican candidates and pundits. Trump was called incendiary, insensitive, a clown, not serious, damaging to the Republican “brand,” not what “we” are about, and so on.

But something happened on the way to the denunciations and purges. Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city….

Illegal immigration and open borders have made voters increasingly angry because they reflect the growing lawlessness of society and the willingness of Republicans to capitulate to leftist identity politics. The sense that we are losing control of our own country, by the design of politicians, is creating a fury — and an opening for a politician willing to recognize that the problem poses an existential threat to our own freedoms.

I focused on a sentence in Trump’s Phoenix speech which correctly identified the problem as being whether we have a country or not:

When I started . . . I didn’t think the immigration thing would take on a life like it has. I made some very tough statements about people flowing through, because that’s one of the things, to make our country great again, we have to create borders, otherwise we don’t have a country.

Do we have borders and a country?

I never had any illusions that Trump was a conservative, and strenuously argued during the primaries that he not only was not conservative, but was a bigger government type. But once he was the nominee, and Hillary was the only other choice, whatever weaknesses Trump had paled in comparison to Hillary.

There is nothing Trump has done since taking office that has disappointed conservatives that Hillary wouldn’t have done 10x over. So whatever disappointments have taken place need to be kept in that perspective.

Trump was unprepared for the political culture that would surround his taking office. He’s like someone surrounded by a swarm of mosquitoes, without netting.

We have watched the Trump administration being picked apart person by person, issue by issue. Sometimes by the media, sometimes by Democrats, sometimes by establishment Republicans. Sometimes Trump’s own mercurial personality was to blame.

The team that got him there mostly now is gone, replaced by Generals and others acceptable to D.C. but hostile to the people who elected Trump.

The risks of a failed Trump presidency are as great as the risks of a failed general election campaign, something I wrote about in Being anti-anti-Trump is no vice, at least not now:

The choice now is between Trump and the conspiracy theorists, Antifa street thugs, campus anti-free speech police, Soros-funded front groups, deceptive anti-Trump media, Democrat obstructionists, and illegal leakers in the permanent bureaucracy who consider themselves above the electoral process.

You don’t need to be pro-Trump to be against those who collectively are a greater threat to our liberty than Trump.

I’ve been willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but that comes to an end if Trump signs onto an amnesty deal. It’s not that we didn’t see that as a possibility; to the contrary, a sell out always was a concern.

But now it’s here.

Trump is on the verge of turning a temporary Obama policy deferring enforcement against people here illegally into a full-blown amnesty, which may even go beyond people brought here as children.

Amnesty is the issue on which to oppose Trump, particularly if you support Trump generally. It will kill his presidency, something Schumer and Pelosi correctly diagnosed. Democrats want amnesty for all illegal immigrants and open borders, they’ll take 800,000 as the way to open the door. And they’ll use even the slightest sellout to seek to separate Trump from the people who elected him so as to defeat him on other issues.

Amnesty is the gateway drug to a failed Trump presidency.

NeverTrump Republican are particularly ecstatic on social media today. They want nothing more than for Trump to fail so they can proclaim “I told you so.” They thrive on being out of power. Schumer and Pelosi are NeverTrump Republicans’ best friends right now.

When Trump was elected, my reaction was that there was great opportunity, and I’d support him when his policies were good, and oppose bad policies. Amnesty is a bad policy. It goes to something more than the rule of law, it goes to whether we have a country.

Particularly if you support Trump and want his positive policies to succeed, you need to oppose an amnesty sellout.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The worst thing about this is that Rags will be insufferable.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to snopercod. | September 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

    “will be”??? LOL.

    Truly the irony is that Amnesty would probably hurt Dem voting demographics more than GOP. We’e approached the inevitable point in democratic politics where all politics is identiy, just as Lee Kuan Yew observed. But there’s no way to change anyone’s minds about in the red/blue fight with its battle-lines drawn from Boomer politics. That kind of re-calibration only seems to follow existential crisis, which we still appear to be on track for, whatever form it takes.

    katiejane in reply to snopercod. | September 14, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Hard to imagine he could be worse,but I might have tregret some of those down votes I’ve given him.

    smfoushee in reply to snopercod. | September 14, 2017 at 11:58 am

    People who openly mocked individuals on our side for pointing out how much of a fraud Trump was and how he was going to betray the Right on nearly every issue deserve to feel a little uncomfortable today. In the words of that wise prophet, John McClain, “Welcome to the party pal!”

      thalesofmiletus in reply to smfoushee. | September 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm

      And yet, with the stock markets up, jobs up, manufacturing up, housing sales up, illegal immigration down 70%, NATO spending up, regulations down, 150 executive orders, Neil Gorsuch, and most importantly, Hillary Clinton still not president, I still can’t find the part where I’m supposed to shake my fist at Trump or beat myself up over some alleged fantasy Trump haters told me I’m supposed to have.

        Just curious, other than the EO, regulations, and Gorsuch did you praise Obama for similar “achievements”? Or did you question the validity of those numbers and claim his policies were toxic for American? Were you okay with soaring stocks in exchange for Obamacare? Were you fine with manipulation of the unemployment rate in exchange for DACA? If so, then at least you’re being consistent.

      DaveGinOly in reply to smfoushee. | September 17, 2017 at 1:55 am

      One has to wonder if that’s only because of the resistance he has faced from his (nominally) own party. And/or the unprecedented “resistance” from the left/MSM. It must be acknowledged that the flak Trump is catching is unprecedented. (He wore the wrong hat in Houston? Really? He stared at the eclipse without the proper glasses? No, he did not. Melania wore the wrong shoes? You’re kidding, right? Everything he says is followed up with an article “What Trump Got Wrong.” How many “What Obama Got Wrong” articles do you think Google turns up?)

    Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | September 14, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    I manage a constant state of “insufferable” by just pointing out various facts and asking good, hard questions.

    I know. I am a real stinker…


    Milwaukee in reply to snopercod. | September 14, 2017 at 9:35 pm

    I would guess there is an inverse relationship here. Those who were the biggest, loudest, and most annoying supporters of Donald Trump will find anything Mr. Rags. says to be hard to take. Especially if old Rags is up to his tricks of stating facts and truth telling. Those who agreed with him, but, with a little vomit in the backs of our throat, voted for Mr. T, will find it a little easier to take. Most likely, Rags’ response will be proportionate to the bile heaped on him.

    Dennis Prager suggests clarity over agreement. Rags has been crystal clear.

Make your opposition known, but don’t fall for media or Democrat spin either. We don’t trust them, no need to start now.

1) There is no deal yet.

Nancy Pelosi’s caucus email says there is an agreement on a plan to work on a deal.

Wow. Well that’s pretty definitive.

2) Wall is excluded – really?

He already has legal approval to build the wall. He does need funding. He can still get that a lot more easily than a DACA law gets passed.

I think he holds a lot of cards and I don’t think Democrats have made anything stick yet. I don’t see Pelosi and Schumer with an upper hand on a finished deal yet.

3) I do think unfortunately some kind of amnesty is coming for the DACA kids. He has signaled this.

There are a lot of problems with this. But I will wait until a full deal is proposed to criticize it. There are sympathetic cases and there are plenty of gang members and everything in between.

However I wouldn’t underestimate Trump yet on this and say he got nothing in a deal that isn’t done. He got outplayed on some inside baseball tactics on the Meuller probe, but we will see where this lands.

Until then, I reserve judgment. And make your feelings known.

Prof. Bill, you should have written this about a month ago.

Donald Ducks is clearly “out” with regard to DREAMERS, and I don’t see any way he can pack that toothpaste back into the tube.

He’s instructed the Congress to institutionalize the DACA monstrosity, and he’s indicated he’s comfortable with it being Obama/T-rump DACA in full contradiction of Session’s statement that it’s unconstitutional (which it is).

If conservatives want to screw Der Donald, while also being true to their principles, they’ll block any DACA legislation and push for the courts to find DACA null and void.

Then we’ll see some really interesting stuff…

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    He’s instructed the Congress to institutionalize the DACA monstrosity, and he’s indicated he’s comfortable with it being Obama/T-rump DACA in full contradiction of Session’s statement that it’s unconstitutional (which it is).

    It won’t be unconstitutional if Congress passes it.

    I have no problem with DACA itself. I’m even for a full amnesty — once the border is secure. But until that happens it’s poison to even talk about a future amnesty, because it encourages more people to come before the deadline; only when we’re in a position to stop that can we openly talk about what to do with those who are already here.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | September 14, 2017 at 12:38 pm

      Wul, duh, Milhouse.

      BUT what he’s signaled is the he’ll continue DACA (hell, is IS continuing it for at least six months) in contravention of the Constitution.

      Just damn…

      Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | September 14, 2017 at 9:40 pm

      Milhouse: you’re also cool with allowing parents who have their daughters genitals mutilated retain custody of said daughters. You’re opinions are occasionally interesting. Your morals aren’t.

buckeyeminuteman | September 14, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Amnesty, letting Obamadon’tcare stay around, and not building a wall are unforgivable sins. Then again, it seems Congress vermin of both parties support all three.

First, Crazy pelosi’s version of events is different than Trump’s. And of course, the democrat media is trying to influence us negatively. Don’t buy it.

Second, don’t underestimate Donald Trump. Think about who is playing who here: Trump is using crazy pelosi and schumer to get at the GOPe rats selling us all out – namely ryan and mcconnell. Be patient.

In other important news:

Hillary Clinton demonstrates ‘alternate nostril breathing:’

BUT – here’s her real nostril technique:

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to | September 14, 2017 at 1:13 pm


    RE: “First, Crazy pelosi’s version of events is different than Trump’s. And of course, the democrat media is trying to influence us negatively. Don’t buy it.

    Second, don’t underestimate Donald Trump. Think about who is playing who here: Trump is using crazy pelosi and schumer to get at the GOPe rats selling us all out – namely ryan and mcconnell. Be patient.”

I know that there were people who actually voted FOR Pres. Trump, but I think that a large percentage of us voted AGAINST Hilary Clinton. Many of us knew very well that there was a risk that he was merely saying what he had to say to get elected, but we also knew that we were definitely going to get worked over by a Pres. Clinton.

I am extremely disappointed at where this presidency is headed, but I can’t say that my expectations for it were all that high. I am BLISTERINGLY angry at the GOPe for, once again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The time to take charge and use the opportunity provided by a Republican president (albeit a flawed one) was at the VERY START of his term. Instead, they were too busy falling all over themselves to virtue signal and preen for the media to actually, you know, WORK and get things done. There is NO EXCUSE for the health care debacle. There is NO EXCUSE for not being ready on immigration.

I have zero expectations of policies with which I agree coming from Democrats. I had hope for a Trump presidency. The Republicans, however, purported to represent my interests and values and THEY LIED. I am completely and utterly disgusted. I just keep repeating to myself, “Justice Gorsuch”; this crappy situation is still better than the available alternative.

    JoAnne in reply to Anonamom. | September 14, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    I agree with everything you said. I am cautiously optimistic that Mr. Trump understands the seriousness of the situation but I’m terrified that the swamp is too deep and polluted for him to have any effect.

    I, too, am so angry with the GOP that I’m almost sick. I have never felt this way. So discouraged and disconnected. I watch my beautiful country becoming an absolute cesspool and I worry for my grandkids. I don’t know what to do.

      Close The Fed in reply to JoAnne. | September 14, 2017 at 7:44 pm

      What to do? I suggest running for office, giving to conservatives running against Rinos (Moore in Alabama, Ward in Arizona, Nehlen in Wisconsin, etc.).
      I’d also suggest for those open to employment transition, to get in a field that influences culture: teaching, news business, et cetera, government employment….

    So, what do suggest that trumps do to “take charge”? He has no support at all from the Dems. No support at all from the GOP. No support at all from Congress. No support at all from the DC bureaucracy. And, with the exception of Carlson and Hannity, no support from the press. I suppose he could march troops on the Capitol and disband Congress, similar to what happened to other governing bodies over the centuries. But, that would not produce the answers that his supporters want.

    The problem is that Trump is NOT the Republican President. He is the anti-Establishment President. All of the politicians in DC are part of the Establishment. Almost all of the bureaucracy are members of the Establishment. In the past, Republican Congresses worked with Republican Presidents, because they were all members of the Establishment and were not going to do anything which the Establishment did not want done. As the GOP has proven since Trump was elected, they are as supportive of Obamacare as the Dems who passed it. The only leverage that Trump has is to get his constituents, many of whom are Republicans, to put pressure on the Establishment Republicans in Congress to give him some of what he wants.

    “I am BLISTERINGLY angry at the GOPe for, once again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…”

    Honestly, did you expect anything else? Have you completely accepted the GOPe is a scam and merely an arm of the democrat party?

    No time to be mad: it’s time to destroy the GOPe with advocacy, money and votes.


Scott Adams teaches you all the persuasion tricks President Trump is using on wall/DACA 2017.09.14

The notion that the President might actually do something constructive about the crime wave on the southern border is, indeed, the issue which put Trump on the map. Without that, he’d have been just a curio. But he was the only candidate willing to even admit that it was an important issue. And as we found last November, it seems to have been a decisive one.

So, what happened? Trump went to Washington, where he is surrounded by forces—including, obviously, both major parties—who are opposed to the idea of reversing the illegal tsunami. And people who doubtless consider themselves terribly clever predict that he’ll fail. And, considering the odds he faces, that’s hardly a courageous prediction.

Leaving aside the prominent part that’s mere fraud, politics is reality. It’s what one can mange to get done when more than one person is involved. And since we’re stuck with politicians, and don’t have the options of magicians or dictators, the best we can even fantasize about getting is a stop to the major chunk of the tsunami. If anyone can manage to stop any of it, it will be a huge improvement over what we have now, or in what future America has if the rest of Washington gets its way. So, what is a negotiator willing to give up so that he gets to keep what he’s not willing to give up? That’s where politics—reality—comes in.

“Slippery slope” arguments are the opposite of politics (i.e., reality). If you don’t get it all, that’s tantamount to getting nothing. Shoot, I’d like to “get it all” as much as anybody else. But I don’t see wall-to-wall Sturm und Drang when I don’t get it all.

So, what of DREAMers? Trump was never particularly enthusiastic about throwing them out—I don’t recall him ever saying otherwise. And it’s not obvious that they’re all that important. Less than a million of them … compared to 11 million illegals? That’s the official number; it’s probably more like 40 million now. That gigantic, indigestible lump is the problem. It must have been obvious to all but the most doctrinaire—either pro- or anti-Trump, still doctrinaire—that any subset of the illegal population is a bargaining chip, mere leverage to be used against the larger and greater menace. Again, this was OBVIOUS. Exactly how it would be used is not so obvious, but we can speculate. And I might speculate that if the D’rats think they’re getting something which Trump voters hate—like, say, amnesty for DREAMers—they’ll be more likely to swallow the bait.

And if that’s the case, then over-the-top hysteria, gloom & doom, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth on the part of the punditocracy are an essential part of the show.

So … keep up the good work. The more hysterical and over-the-top, the better.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | September 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    “But he was the only candidate willing to even admit that it was an important issue.”

    That is just patent bullshit.

    What he did, in fact, was co-opt a key issue for several of the candidates. He’d taken the REVERSE position WRT Romney’s immigration policy, declaring it

    “He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal,” Trump said. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote … He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

    THAT is Der Donald, pre campaign conversion.

Let’s take a rational look at this situation.

If Trump wants to pass amnesty for the illegal alien Dreamers, he does not need the Dems to do it. There is enough GOP support for that to pass a bill. And, if Trump really wants to give the Dreamers a pass, he can sign such a bill. So, why go to the Dems? He doesn’t need them for Dreamer amnesty. He is never going to get enough Dems to vote for a wall to pass a bill authorizing that, over RINO recalcitrance. So, what does he need the Dems for? Answer, nothing.

So, what is the most logical reason for dining with the Dem leadership? To short circuit just what everyone is now accusing him of, giving amnesty to the Dreamers. Sure, the GOP can pass such a bill, but now it would have the active support of the Dems. If the RINOS appear to be in accord with the Dems, this is political suicide for many of them. Traditionally when a liberal Dem runs against a liberal Republican, the Dem wins. Why accept liberal light, when you can have the real thing?

This may do two things. First, it sends a signal to the GOP that Trump may be willing to work with the Dems, in order to achieve his campaign goals. Second, it places the GOP in the position of supporting the Dems. Something that could cost those RINOS who run as conservatives a big problem in 2018.

I am willing to take a wait and see attitude about this. Especially considering the source of the “report” and the number of time Trump has been accused of reneging on his campaign promises in the past, which turned out to be false. It is unlikely that Trump would take the one action which would very likely6 strip him of his power base. Without his base, he has absolutely NO LEVERAGE in DC. Neither party would listen to him at all, if that were the case.

Stay calm and wait to see what happens.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    Let’s take a look at reality…

    Donald Ducks…

    “The wall will come later”.

    To DREAMERS, at the behest of Nanny, “Don’t worry, be happy”.

    To the Congress, “Pass into law DACA. Or I’ll “revisits it”.

    To everyone, “That ‘wall’ thingy…yeah, really not so much…PSYCH…!!! Eat shit, my myrmidons!”

      So, what does this all mean, Slick?

      First of all, has the Congress done anything to give the Dreamers amnesty, since 2012? No. Why? Because the majority of the constituents of the GOP Congressmen, will not support it.

      Second, has the Congress made any attempt to fund the building of the wall? No. Why? Because the Establishment does not want a wall, or any other curb on immigration of cheap labor and Democrat voters.

      Has the Republican Congress done anything which will significantly change Obamacare, since Trump took office? No. Why? Because the Establishment wants single payer, government funded healthcare.

      And, finally, what leverage does Trump have on Republicans? Their constituents. He knows that the majority of many Republican Congressmen are against amnesty, even for the Dreamers. So, he has put them in the position of either putting up, and drafting and passing amnesty legislation, or shutting up. How does he make it even more difficult for the RINOs to pass Dreamer amnesty? Make it look like doing so has the active support of the Dems. Would trump trade amnesty for the Dreamers for a wall? maybe. Then again maybe not. It depends upon the feelings of HIS constituents.

      What the Congress, and the rest of Trump’s enemies, are finding out, is that what he says is not always what he is going to do. It is very confusing. However, a look at Trump’s short track record seems to show that he is keeping his campaign promises to the extent that he is able. So, I wouldn’t be too quick to declare Trump to be a traitor to his constituency. Let’s see how this plays out.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm

        “First of all, has the Congress done anything to give the Dreamers amnesty, since 2012? No. Why? Because the majority of the constituents of the GOP Congressmen, will not support it.”

        You’re full of shit, and you either know it and lie about it, or you’re really as stupid as I think you are sometimes.


        Provided you’re stupid assertion, the majority of the majority won’t support Der Donald in HIS amnesty!

        But the polling says differently.

        Now, I am NOT in favor of DREAMER amnesty, BUT I’m prepared to be in the minority on that topic.

        How ’bout you, “slick”?

          It is true that the polls say people support anything from allowing the “Dreamers” to stay legally to full on amnesty with citizenship*.

          But if the polling was actually correct, the Congresscritters likely would have passed legalization already when they had a President more than willing to sign such a bill. We know issue polling often brings incorrect results on issues where people think they need to provide the “correct” answer, and today’s robo-call polling doesn’t help either.

          I doubt you and I are in a minority by opposing amnesty.

          * I believe if any effort is made to legalize Illegal Aliens with some sort of bar to citizenship the courts will strike down the provision barring citizenship.

          Polling data? Well, it depends upon exactly WHEN you choose to look at the polling done on the issue.

          Back in 2015, most polling showed that 56-70% of the voters in this country were against the DACA. Now, suddenly, the “polls” show that ~60% of the PEOPLE polled are in favor of some form of amnesty for those under DACA. Now, we have seen exactly how polling is used to create a false picture of public opinion in the 2016 elections. What changed the minds of all these people?

          In the first place, politicians care what VOTERS think, not what illegal aliens, who can’t vote for them, think. So, we have to look at the breakdown of those polled as to voter status, location, national origin, age, political affiliation, etc. I would venture a guess that, just as was done in the election polling, the groups polled are weighted heavily in favor of support for Dreamer amnesty. But, I’m not going to waste my time researching it.

          There is a reason why the DACA was not normalized through legislation. If it was popular, as the election of DJT showed was not the case, then the Congress would have passed it long ago.

        Interestingly, Congress has tried for many years for another sweeping amnesty (after the ’86 mess). It gets held up not because Republicans aren’t on board with it (they are, including many who are not full-blown RINO’s), but because the Dems won’t give on securing the border first. That was the discussion for years leading up to 2016. YEARS.

        This is not some issue Trump pulled from the ether; it’s something that has been on and off the front burner in DC for ages. Remember the McCain-Kennedy amnesty push? The one Bush 43 would almost certainly have gleefully signed had it made its way to his desk? Remember the Gang of Eight? That monster amnesty bill that effectively killed Rubio’s chances of ever being president? Why’d it die?

        The answer to that question is what Trump latched on to with great effect: securing the border. In Trump parlance, building the wall. He’s clearly never been in favor of ousting DREAMers, but he’s also clearly signaled that he will sign any bill that hits desk legalizing them all.

        I’m all for seeing how this plays out, just as I have been since Trump won, but that doesn’t mean I’m not aware that he’s pushing for letting the camel’s nose in the tent via DREAMERs.

        This is a deal-breaker for all but Trump’s most devoted acolytes.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | September 14, 2017 at 4:56 pm

          BAM. There it is. Trump, like the GOPe, is fine with amnesty, he just hopes to get it without citizenship.

          Trump talks about walls, but show me a wall that doesn’t have gates in it. The idea of The Wall is meaningless unless and until we know how its gates would be formed and operated.

          Not quite accurate. The reason why immigration reform was never passed was because the VOTERS are largely against it. The GOP CAN’T sell immigration reform without increased border security, even though the GOP doesn’t want a secure border either.

          What keeps the status quo with immigration law is the VOTERS, not the politicians.

Let us return to the Professor’s post…

Does Prof. Bill believe that Der Donald is going all moist on DREAMERS?


Does Prof. Bill remember the promises of Der Donald’s ‘campaign conversion’?

Seems clear he does.

Does Prof. Bill need any agoliga from Scott Adams or Dim Jim Hoft or any-flucking-T-rump sucker to deal with reality?

I’d say not.

So, T-rump sucker cultists, reluctant voters, and anyone who cares about this immigration amnesty in prospect…

instead of lying, excusing, rationalizing, or otherwise hiding your head in the sand, what are YOU prepared to do about it.

(“Untouchables” reference in thar somairs.)

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    I see haters hating.

    I don’t see an argument.

    As so often the truth.

      Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | September 14, 2017 at 9:45 pm

      “…instead of lying, excusing, rationalizing, or otherwise hiding your head in the sand, what are YOU prepared to do about it..”

      Precisely correct question. Trump needs some channeling. Unfortunately, the RINO Republican leadership forgot that, while he is relatively new to elected office, Donald Trump is President of the United States. If they want to stall him, the Democrat leadership will talk to him. Remember, his book was “The Art of the Deal.” That’s what he does.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | September 17, 2017 at 2:09 am

      Has it occurred to you that people are down-voting your comments for your lack of civility, you broad-brush attacks on Trump supporters, and your general lack of respect for people with opinions different from your own?

Hi. Just popping in to see how the diehard Trumpkins whose unreasoning abuse of anyone who was Trump-skeptical managed to make this blog’s comment such an unpleasant place last year are handling this latest backflip.

As AG_Conservative on Twitter muses, “Maybe you should stop listening to the people who told you to trust Trump and start listening to those who warned you about who he is?”

Alas, it looks like he could still commit the apocryphal shooting on Fifth Avenue and y’all would still find a way to blame it on those darn RINO GOPe Cucks & Traitors, rather than finally admit we might’ve been on to something.

We could have had a real conservative as GOP nominee, but you were too enamored by the big government progressive with the bad hair and the big mouth and an unerring ability to convince the rubes that THIS time, he was on THEIR side. Oh well. Roll on 2020.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | September 14, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    You’ve been missed, Amy!

    I hope you faired well in Irma.

    Don’t be a stranger…!!!

      Today is my sixth day with no power. But I finally got off the island today and found gas for my car, so my dogs and are are sitting out here charging the ol’ iPad and enjoying the a/c. And yes, engaging in some absolutely shameless schadenfreude 😉

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | September 14, 2017 at 2:21 pm

        Sorry to hear it!

        So take all and such pleasures that you may. I hope life returns to normalcy very, very soon for you and the critters.

    See, just as the die-hard man-made global warming alarmists see Hurricanes Harvey and Irma as inarguable proof that man-made global warming is a proven fact, so too do the neverTrumpers see dinner with the Dems and certain tweets by Trump as inarguable proof that Trump is going to betray his constituency. The fact that this is the fifth or sixth time that this claim has been made, since his inauguration, and has still not come to pass, seems to be irrelevant to them. The neverTrumpers are so desperate for Trump to fail that they make the claim before the President has taken any action to support their charges.

    It might be a good idea to wait and see what happens here. It could go either way.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 2:19 pm

      Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..
      —Donald Ducks

      I dunno. Being able to read, I think I see a clear trend here.

      I mean, coupled with all he’s said for over a year on the subject…

      Whadda YOU “think”, pard…???

        I think that what Trumps says and what he does are sometimes entirely different things. So, I look at his track record. So far, he has attempted to do everything that he promised, regardless of what he has said or tweeted. That is what drives people up the wall. And, the neverTrumpers adamantly believe that Trump, unlike every politician in the world, means exactly what he says. Rule number one in politics; NEVER listen to what a political figure says. Look at what he does.

        What you are still trying to do is undermine Trump by pretending to believe everything he says which may agree with your theory. However, if Trump was a liar during the campaign, then why should he be believed now? Your logic is incredible. Let’s see what Trump actually does here, not listen to what he says.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 3:07 pm

          Fine. What he HAS done is sustain DACA months past “day one” of his administration. In contravention of his PROMISES.

          He HAS made it clear he’s for legalizing the DREAMERS.

          AND he’s continuing a program we all know is unconstitutional at least for six months.

          (Any of you idiot down-thumbers can refute those FACTS aaaaaaalllllll you want. They will stand.)

      In a January 2007 interview after the Democrats won the 2006 midterms election in landslide, Trump praised Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Charlie Rangel. He also expressed his high hopes for a Democrat-controlled Congress.
      “I know Nancy Pelosi,” Trump said. “I actually got to meet her through a great friend of mine, and really a great man, Charlie Rangel. Charlie introduced me to her. I got to like her a lot. I’ve been with her a little bit. I think she’s going to be terrific. I think Charlie and the Democrats, I think they’re going to do a very good job.”

      Trump has always been a Pelosi admirer, child. You just didn’t want to hear it when we first tried to warn you.

        You are still in the last political century. It is no longer republicans v Democrats. It is now the Establishment v the anti-Establishment. Trump ran as the anti-Establishment candidate. Since he has been in officer he has done everything in his power to roll-back the actions of the Establishment over the last 12 years. Remember that, it is important.

        So, Trump has an anti-Establishment agenda which he is pursuing. He is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. So, he will make alliances and deals with anyone who will help him advance his anti-Establishment agenda. Now, do you really think that Nancy Pelosi is going to go against the Establishment? Pat attention to what Trump does, not what he says. And, so far, his actions support his campaign promises. Why would he suddenly do a 180 now?

        Just as an aside, Ted Cruz was all set to run as the anti-Establishment candidate in 2016, despite his close ties to the Establishment through Goldman Sacks and the Bushes. Was he lying to the American people?

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 3:03 pm

          You are simply delusional. (See the period?)

          You had an acid test in Iowa, when Mr. Establishment came out FOR the ANTI-science, ANTI-market BIG CORN interests for few measly caucus votes.

          What a maroon.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 14, 2017 at 3:33 pm

          “…as an aside, Ted Cruz was all set to run as the anti-Establishment candidate in 2016, despite his close ties to the Establishment through Goldman Sacks and the Bushes.”

          As an aside, you moron, how many T-rumpians (including Bannon) were/are Godlman-Sachs alumini AND/OR Deemocrats…???

          How many Obamic hold-overs still hold office under Mr. Establishment, INCLUDING John Koskinen?



          “Trump ran as the anti-Establishment candidate.”

          Yes. Yes, he did.

          “So, Trump has an anti-Establishment agenda which he is pursuing.”

          No. No, he doesn’t.

        “It is no longer republicans v Democrats. It is now the Establishment v the anti-Establishment. Trump ran as the anti-Establishment candidate. Since he has been in officer he has done everything in his power to roll-back the actions of the Establishment..”

        Absolutely correct.

    Well, that was helpful. You might as well have called us deplorables. There are few real conservatives in D.C. and you know it. I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary but you better believe I’m rooting for him now. He is our only hope. Your way just made things worse. The establishment GOP is just there for the goodies they’ll get in the end, not to do anything that will help me. Healthcare debacle proved that. How dare they not have an agreed upon plan to implement the minute Trump took office. They didn’t have it because they planned on losing. Easier to bitch about the Dems than actually do anything.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Amy in FL. | September 17, 2017 at 2:11 am

    Remember Hillary Clinton? The voters had a choice between Clinton and Trump. Do you think they picked unwisely? Trump is still BTH (Better Than Hillary).

The real problem is that McConnel and Ryan are worse than worthless. When Trump talks to them, nothing happens.

When Trump talks to Schumer, things are possible.

The whole Republican Party is the problem. What’s the point of even having a Republican Party if Schumer is going to be in charge of legislation no matter what the election result? Is a Democrat party willing to give us 20% of what we want legislatively better than a Republican Party that will give us 0%? Plus siding with the Democrats over Ryan and his ilk calls off the media attack dogs.

Obviously, you would prefer to have Republican representatives who represent their voters, but that doesn’t seem to be possible these days.

    Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | September 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Are you saying “Justice Merrick B. Garland” right now?

    Is T-rump the guy who made that impossible?

    How’s that national gun control working out fer ya?

    Yeah, the legislative branch has been PAST a disappointment, but so as the “leadership” of Mr. Establisment.

    “McConnel and Ryan are worse than worthless…”

    Worthless to us, but very valuable to the Swamp.

“Well, I think that I’m going to be able to get along with Pelosi. I think I’m going to be able to — I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve never had a problem.”

Let’s assume that Trump has made a deal with Dems to codify DACA …

Has anyone considered that the folks who are most under the gun right now are the party who has the numbers to kill it?

“Hey, look, I think I’ll be able to get along well with Chuck Schumer. I was always very good with Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways. It’s important that you get along… That’s the problem that you have with Ted Cruz. He is a guy that nobody likes and nobody trusts, and he is a nasty guy. He says things that are very nasty. So I have to be nastier than him. It’s just one of those things.”

He told us himself where he stood, back in January 2016. Schumer’s the good guy. It was Cruz who was the enemy.


    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | September 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    Mr. Estlabishment also CONTRIBUTED to Schumer.

    Never to Cruz. I don’t know of any real conservative he donated to (though I could be overlooking someone).

    Pelosi, too. Five of the Gang Of Eight, as I recall.

    Swell “conservative”….

And Professor Jacobson, I respectfully take issue with your verdict that “Schumer and Pelosi are NeverTrump Republicans’ best friends right now.”

Read the glowing Trump quotes about Schumer and Pelosi I’ve pasted above. Schumer and Pelosi were TRUMP’S best friends. Which is why so many of us were Trump-skeptical in the first place.

Unlike Trump, I haven’t changed my mind back and forth and back again. I’ve never liked nor trusted Schumer and Pelosi. I didn’t then, and I still don’t now.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | September 14, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    The use of “NeverT-rump” still is, frankly, stupid and lazy.

    Nobody is “NeverT-rump”, the election being over.

    And Nanny and Chuck are never, were never, and never will be “friends” of anyone here who posts conservative posts.

      Some people were, I think, true “#NeverTrump,” to the extent that not only were they deeply opposed to him getting the GOP nomination, but once he did, they vowed to vote for Hillary over him in the general election. Those people are idiots, and I really don’t have much time for them.

      I think a lot more of us were deeply opposed to him getting the GOP nomination, and died a little bit inside when he did win it, but were resigned to the fact (and it’s still a fact, to me at least) that “well it’s going to be a bit of a train wreck, but at least he won’t be as bad as Hillary would be.”

      What I’m still really cross about is the fact that thanks to his deluded base, we didn’t get a chance to elect any of his eminently more worthy GOP opponents. And the hysterical, foul abuse of anyone who tried to point out his big government, progressive liberal leanings during the primaries. Who can forget that “Gary Britt” character and some of his cohorts, or the crazy flood of Conservative Nuthouse & Trumpbart shriekers? TED CRUZ’S FATHER KILLED JFK AND HIS WIFE IS CRAZY UGLY TOO! YOU CUCK!

      That’s why I prefer the “Trump-skeptic” tag for myself. I was always skeptical that Trump had changed his spots, or that he had any intention of giving his base any of the things he was promising them.
      Really ::eyeroll::

      “The Art of the Deal” my foot. It’s finally starting to become unavoidably apparent just who got played here. Those of us who were Trump-skeptical saw it coming all along. And no, it’s not pretty to gloat. But there we are ¯_(ツ)_/¯

      As soon as the contractors get my neighbor’s boathouse roof off my front porch, I’ll get back to clean-up duties and real life and leave y’all be. xoxo

I think we need to see where this “framework” goes, even Schumer backtracked today from saying it was a “deal”, before saying that Trump has abandoned his base. I don’t think he is that stupid or that deceitful. Time will tell but the media, the Dems, the anti-Trumpers all have a vested interest in him being one or both.
Big midtake allowing Schumer/Pelosi to be the first out of the gate with a report on the meeting.

Just sent another message to the White House and said if he passes amnesty his base will disappear faster than a snowball in Death Valley. I believe it was Bishop E.W. Jackson who gave the following example, and I’ll add a current event setting. Say you’re in the gas lines trying to flee a vicious hurricane and man with his young daughter in tow breaks in line. I’m not okay with that. Go to the back of the line and follow the rules.

Let me point something out. To abandon Trump at this point is to promote President Kamilla Harris and her selections to replace Bryer, Ginspburg and Kennedy.

Trump has acquired the very establishment position on amnesty for illegal aliens. The GOP wants amnesty to provide cheap labor for the party’s major corporate donors, but cannot admit that openly because of the political costs. The Democrat Party wants amnesty so as to add to their voting rolls by taking credit for said amnesty.

Here’s the rub – the GOP wants illegals here on work permits, but with no path to citizenship to deny Dems new voters in large numbers. Dems want/need the whole baby – amnesty with citizenship so they can vote.

Trump is trying to split that baby by endorsing amnesty without citizenship, which is exactly what the GOPe (and its donors) wants – and they’ll be perfectly happy letting Trump take the political heat for it. Trump and the GOPe are pretend enemies playing Kabuki theater for the benefit of Trump supporters and GOP voters as a whole.

I mentioned many times during the 2016 campaign that Trump would eventually break the hearts of his supporters by revealing himself to be just another lying, calculating politician. We are seeing the beginning of that. Trump is moving to the center to engage/please Dems and to develop a new base coalition for his 2020 reelection, because his pivot leftward will eventually cost him his old base. That has already begun. Once/if reelected in 2020 he’ll have no more electoral concerns and will move totally leftward from there. The media will love that, of course, and Trump will love them right back, and his cultish supporters, no longer needed, will be left to go suck eggs.

I do not and did expect the wall to be built tomorrow.
I expect a lot of things will have to happen. I check every so often and see news stories about how parts of the wall are actually progressing.

Trump has one major problem though and that is that until Congress gets behind the progress will be slow.

As for giving up on the wall. I’ve seen it before. The press says Trump is going back on a position, then he announces that he is even stronger behind the position. All I can say is we will see.

As for DACA. Those are not the people on the top of my list of deportations. Get the others out first, worry about these later. If we do grant amnesty to those serving in the military or getting STEM degrees, I won’t mind. I will mind if we let the Humanities students stay though.

The Formula:

If you agree with and support Trump, it’s because you’ve got access to the proper info and know how to evaluate it.

If you do not agree with or support Trump, it’s because you’ve don’t have access to the proper info and probably couldn’t evaluate it if you did, you NeverTrumper piece of shit.

Henry, I support Trump and my position is wait and see. Wait until the “deal” is made, the legislation is passed. Until then, it is all speculation. If he screws his base, there will be a lot more anti-Trumpers than there are now.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to TPHobbit. | September 14, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    So, if Trump fails to get amnesty for DACAs and others, as he says he wants to do, then he’ll have been saved by his political incompetence on the matter?

    ‘Wait and see’ is the only position available, of course.

      Its win win for Trump. If Congress and the Senate create laws, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE, that makes illegal aliens legal INSTEAD of doing it via Obamas pen then that is a win for Trump (since Congress and the Senate will own that).

      If Congress and the Senate do not pass a law then Trump wins (since no law was passed.

      Either way, THIS IS THE WAY Obama should have done things, via Congress.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to mailman. | September 14, 2017 at 5:45 pm

        And whom do you suppose will SIGN said legislation into law, and thereby owning it?

        C’mon. You are WAY smarter than this, judging by your record of posts. I hope it isn’t Trump blindness.

          The legislation will be owned by EVERY SINGLE congressman and Senator who voted for it. BUT this is what SHOULD have happened from the get go instead of leaving it up to The Black Baby Jesus’s mighty pen!

          If Congress can’t sort this out in 6 months then thats it. If Congress can sort this out in 6 months then people will start asking questions around how they could do this in such a short amount of time BUT couldn’t sort out the failing Obama care that is actually hurting AMERICANS!

          Every single Congressman and Senator who supports this bill will wear it like a nose around their necks and with elections coming up next year that makes this a very touchy subject for some of these at risk lifetime politicians. So, well played Trump…well played indeed…HAHAHAHHAHAHAA 🙂

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 15, 2017 at 6:54 am

          Again, the conservatives in Congress should block this at every turn.

          The governors and state AGs should press the courts to declare this null an void (which it is).

          Screw Donald Ducks to the wall on this issue. Smoke him out even further.

          My bet is he’ll throw in with the Collectivists to push it. Big time.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 15, 2017 at 6:57 am

          “…like a nose around their neck…”


          Whut an idiot…!!!

          Well played.

        “As [Congress] should have”? Yes, amnesty is something that must be done in Congress, but unless I miss my mark, Congress, even a Democrat-controlled Congress under Obama couldn’t get amnesty through because (gasp!) the American people reject it.

        Remember, the reason that Obama resorted to his pen and phone was that Congress couldn’t pass such unpopular legislation.

        Surely we’re not celebrating Trump for either a.) falling into a well-set Democrat/Obama trap: this group always makes the tiniest baby steps, who can object to children being saved from deportation? Who can object to people with pre-existing conditions being deprived of a robust healthcare package guaranteed by the state? And on. And on.; or for b.) getting what he’s wanted all along in terms of amnesty? Trump hasn’t spoken out against amnesty. Ever. Instead, he talks about the wall, about upending DACA (i.e. on legal/Constitutional terms) and essentially enshrining it in a law duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

        So here we find out who is right. The GOPe lines up to support enshrining DACA in law (they control both houses of Congress, after all), and the new amnesty breezes onto Trump’s desk in a matter of weeks or months. These skeezy swamp creatures are finally getting their fondest wish!

        Or, and this is much more likely, the GOP holds up any amnesty for DREAMERs until it dies a timely and welcome death.

        Trump is flailing along. He wants to make deals, but the way DC works is unlike anything he’s seen before. He doesn’t get it. He’s not an ideologue, but many of the people he is working with (including in his own admin) are.

        Trump seriously can’t see that he’s being used and commandeered by progressives on both sides of the aisle. Anyone who gushes over him and proclaims their undying devotion to his brilliance is an immense influence. Ego, hubris, and a desire to be surrounded by fawning acolytes has led Trump to make some unfortunate decisions.

        And now it manifests as a sad, quite pathetic grasp for acceptance: He tweets assurance to DREAMers after Pelosi asked him to. Does it matter if her plea prompted that? Of course not. He’s become a puppet, and he’s only done so after he got rid of the people who got him where he is.

        The prof is right, this is the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. Honestly, I hate to see it.

          This wasn’t a “COULDNT” moment. The Democrats OWNED Congress, The Senate AND the Presidency for 2 years after the Black Baby Jesus was anointed President. So don’t give me this bollocks about not being able to pass wind!

          The reason Democrats didn’t WANT to pass legislation is quite simple…each Senator and each Congresscritter would have owned that legislation like a fat chick owning a packet of crisps on a saturday night! This legislation would have had their names and faces plastered all over it making them vulnerable for such an unpopular piece of legislation.

          So it comes down to Politics. Let the bringer of light, the new Messiah if you will, sign DACA in to existence like the God he is and the people will rejoice and bask in his glory.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | September 15, 2017 at 7:07 am

          What part of England are you in?

          You’ve referred to “pounds” with the symbol as what your daughter makes, and here you refer to “crisps”. Are you an American at all?

          And how could we possibly believe your answer?

Politi-Speak ‘tell’ coming from Trump:

Since the accurate term ‘amnesty’ carries a deeply negative connotation among Trump’s base, and among conservatives, they are using Obaman/Orwellian reterminology. Trump isn’t working towards amnesty, you see, they’ve renamed it as ‘a responsible path forward’. Gosh, who wouldn’t be all for a responsible path forward?

No amnesty for illegals. Period.
I will treat betrayal with vengeance.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Matt_SE. | September 14, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    Amnesty is already a foregone conclusion, with only the how and how long it will take them to receive citizenship in question.

    Just as Obamacare was the opening move towards Single Payer, Trump’s DACA move is the opening towards full, comprehensive amnesty for all.

    Think of all the wonderful things Trump said about DACAs currently in the US. You watch – in short order, Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, et al, will be describing all illegals in the same euphemistic way, tugging at heartstrings and kissing babies like we wouldn’t believe.

Well, I think I’ve discovered one issue Trump, Schumer, and Pelosi discussed at their dinner – what euphemistic language to use instead of the poisoned term ‘amnesty’. While Trump is going with ‘a responsible path forward’, the talking point term device being used by Pelosi and Schumer is ‘an earned path to citizenship’.

‘Earned path’ in this context is synonymous with ‘responsible path’ and neither is talking about going backwards, you know, to the actual immigration laws.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 14, 2017 at 6:13 pm

The potential number of new Dem voters that amnesty will generate is staggering. Daniel Horowitz is throwing some numbers around, and they could be high or low. But any way about it, a surrender on the issue and a grant of amnesty is going to be devastating to the country and the GOP.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | September 14, 2017 at 6:35 pm

    “The potential number of new Dem voters that amnesty will generate is staggering.”

    Those voters are part of the new coalition Trump will try to assemble for his 2020 reelection campaign. Since amnesty will kill his old base, he’ll cut them loose and move left towards a bipartisan moderate base. Of course, he’ll have to accept a great deal of the Democrat agenda to do it, while simultaneously abandoning much of the GOP and/or conservative agenda.

      Well, Trump won’t be forced to accept a Democrat agenda he’s spent his millions on for decades. I don’t think Trump is an ideologue, but if he is, his core is regressive. Trump fans like to dismiss his using his influence and power to, as a private citizen, somehow evoke eminent domain in numerous cases. NONE of which has a thing to do with somehow helping residents of the area. Instead, he wanted a parking lot designated for limos on his property. He didn’t respect the propery-owner’s insistence on retaining her childhood home. Instead, he attempted to oust this elderly woman from her home so he could lay out a limo parking lot. He did the same thing in Scotland.

      And if you think Trump is being “forced” to adopt a Democrat agenda, you also believe that you voted for a weakling who bows readily to a “swamp” he cannot control. Fine, that’s your guy. If only, I had known that Trump would find no support in DC? Um, you didn’t know this? He is now flailing around with Dems, trying to pass his well-known desire for amnesty.

      The question is: is that the guy you voted for? How far are you willing to twist and contort yourself and your ideals to support this president?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | September 14, 2017 at 7:59 pm

        “Yes, Trump DID promise to build a wall and repeal Obamacare and drain the DC swamp, but when he got to DC he ran into political opposition! It’s not his fault! I mean, who could have seen that coming?!?”

Let’s think here a bit outside the box of this commentary.

Suppose the Obama/T-rump DREAMER bill is passed, and it gives DREAMERS some kind of legal status so they can stay here.

Who is so gullible they think they won’t be offered citizenship in a mere few years? Or do you believe they’ll be left in “the twilight” when some Deemocrat could make hay out of that?

Next, are we deporting their parents? Or is that too cruel, too? Can we, under current immigration law?

Sending Mommy and Papaw sud into Mexico or Honduras or wherever would split up families.

So, kiddies, let’s think this through. It implicates some multiple of 800,000 people.

Regardless all the comments, every morning I wake up. I fire up the computer and go to my news sites.
And EVERY morning I’m so damn glad I don’t read about President Hillary and her latest craptastic legislative offer.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | September 14, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    Well, if they had to, most people would prefer to eat only two pounds of shit rather than four, but that doesn’t turn the two pounds into pancakes.

      Neil Gorsuch was the syrup on the shit pancakes.
      Compared to the alternative I’ll live with Trump syrup over the bitter hildabeast cyanide.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | September 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm

        Yes, two pounds of shit with maple syrup, much better.

        About five of the GOP nominees would have named Gorsuch, someone just like him, or someone better. Then again, John Roberts looked like a nice conservative choice at the time, lol.

I’ll still take him over Hildebeeste.

And Rags knows, even if he’ll never admit it, that Hildebeeste was the alternative.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to SDN. | September 14, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Are you seriously suggesting Rags has never acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was Trump’s opponent? You seem to be speaking literally, because it makes no sense as allegory.

    Better spend that ad hominem judiciously or you’ll run out.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 14, 2017 at 9:47 pm

      In fairness to SDN, and not meaning to put any words in his mouth, I think he meant that nobody but Der Donald could beat Hellary.

      And, in fairness to my position for these many months, I don’t agree, we’ll never know, and it is a national tragedy that is true.

      I think most of the contenders could beat Hellary handily.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2017 at 1:28 am

        just to carry your logic to its conclusion. On Nov 8, only Trump was in a position to defeat Hillary. You wanted to defeat him. The logical conclusion is that you thought she was more desirable as president.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2017 at 7:15 am

        Thought you’d trott out that old wheezing lie one more time.

        I understand. It’s all you’ve got, and your T-rump suckage drives you to tell any lie at hand.

        In about July of 2016, I knew Der Donald was a despicable human being I would never vote for for any office. I also knew that there was NO Collectivist of either party who I could vote for, labeled R or D, and that was confirmed and reinforced throughout the campaign.

        When you know there isn’t a person who you can vote for in the running, the analysis is over. Mike drop. Move on to other, unresolved questions.

It’s worth noting that there are multiple ways to deal with DACA. You can rightly declare the regulation to be unconstitutional. You can also change the underlying immigration law. Trump chose to do the latter, and told congress to fix it. It’s perfectly legal and constitutional for him to do so. That changes this from a law enforcement issue to a policy debate – which is scary to some people.

Prof said:
NeverTrump Republican are particularly ecstatic on social media today. They want nothing more than for Trump to fail so they can proclaim “I told you so.” They thrive on being out of power. Schumer and Pelosi are NeverTrump Republicans’ best friends right now.

We talk about the dems and the GOPe, but no one talks about the 900 pound swamp gorilla in the republican room – the far right that became the #NT movement.
The hatred of Trump by right wing #NTers is visceral and at a level far beyond the contempt they had for even Obama. It is so malignant that they preferred Hillary to him. With no alternative to offer, they invented the fiction that anyone was better than Trump. Why?
I think their anger comes from the fact that Trump’s election displaced them from the centers of power. Prior to Nov 9, the conventional wisdom was that a republican couldn’t be elected without the support of the hard right. The hard right practicing conservativism as defined by them – the self proclaimed keepers of the flame. That gave them a controlling veto. But, not only did Trump get elected without their support, he did it in the face of their strong opposition. In the hours while the votes were counted, the power and influence of the hard right were destroyed. The republican party found out they don’t need them. They can win without them. It would be nice to have them, and conservative ideas are still welcome, but without the baggage. Despite their attempt to stab him in the back, Trump still gave the hard right power in the WH, and took their advice on early legislative initiatives. But they don’t believe the other guy gets a bite of the apple, and the legislation failed because of their intransigence. Their answer was to blame Trump for not being intransigent enough – their definition of lacking leadership. They criticize without offering any alternative to Trump or explaining how Hillary would be better. There is a realignment in American politics happening. The extremists of the left and right are being rejected. He’s moving beyond them and they aren’t happy. So now they’re trying to regain what they lost. Like Hillary, it’s not their fault – they don’t have to change. Since they won’t compromise, he must be destroyed. Nothing else achieves their goal of power without surrender. Electing him must be shown to be a huge mistake that can only be rectified by returning to the position before Nov 9. And if Conservativism be damned by their actions, well it’s only worth saving if they control it, and if we suffer, well – toldja. They love power and they were willing to elect Hillary if that’s what it took to defeat Trump and stay in power. And they’re willing to harm conservativism to regain power.

Prof said they thrive on being out of power. That’s true in that, like the GOPe, they are better at criticizing than governing. But, within the party, they want the veto power that comes from opposition. They are haters who take great satisfaction in tearing down the other guy and are happiest when they can do a ‘toldja’, but who refuse to accept the result of a policy debate that doesn’t lead to the conclusion they want.

    Can you give some examples of members of this movement you repeatedly refer to as “the far right” and “the hard right”?

    Most of the Trump-skeptic Republicans I come across in real life are either right-leaning libertarians (or libertarian-leaning conservatives) or moderate conservative squishes. I’m having trouble picturing who it is you consider “the far right”.

      mailman in reply to Amy in FL. | September 15, 2017 at 4:06 am

      I think that, you know, smart liberal talk for neo nazi white racist supremacists or something? You know how liberals like to use labels for everyone these days!

        So commenter VaGentleman is a liberal?

          mailman in reply to Amy in FL. | September 15, 2017 at 11:42 am

          I get suspicious the second anyone talks about this “hard right” racist hate group who supposedly makes up the core of Trump supporters. Funny how no one ever talk about the racists who voted for the black baby jesus purely on the colour of his skin (which in all honest is ALL they had to go on since they couldn’t vote on a track record…or a DOCUMENTED track record).

          Read VaGentleman’s comment, the one to which I was responding. HE is the one who is bringing up “the far right” and “the hard right.” I’m simply trying to get him to clarify. Holy guacamole, READ, people!

      VaGentleman in reply to Amy in FL. | September 15, 2017 at 4:20 am

      Sure. As I said: they preferred Hillary to him. With no alternative to offer, they invented the fiction that anyone was better than Trump.

      That would include rags for example.

      Now, please answer a question for me. You speak of ‘conservative squishes’. In your mind, are the requirements for conservativism rigidly monolithic or is there a range of beliefs and behaviors that qualify? I’m trying to determine if squishiness is just your opinion or if there is a written set of rules one can refer to.

        No, “conservative squishes” is just an arbitrary, personal value judgement of mine. I’d put candidates like Jeb! and his ilk in that camp.

        But if I may ask you again: Can you give some examples of members of this movement you repeatedly refer to as “the far right” and “the hard right” who are stymying Trump? Obviously, you’d have more examples on the national stage than just a pseudonymous contributor to the good professor’s blog. Thanks so much!

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | September 15, 2017 at 7:26 am

        You lie, and are a lying SOS, which you know.

        I’ve stated my position so often that people can likely recite it.

        I won’t (wouldn’t and never will) vote for a lying, narcissistic, pathological Collectivist fraud.

        You COULD, and did, and you called ME a “traitor”, “taliban”, and a “coward”.

        Here you are…AGAIN…dragging MY name through YOUR shit in order to sell your loopy T-rump suckery.

        Who’s the “hater”? You’re not a gentleman. You’re a cultist.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | September 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

    This long, delusional, lie-filled, and simply wrong diatribe is classic VAPigman.

    Witness his continuing insistence that only those who jump the impossible bar he sets (you have to provide an alternative to T-rump AND show how Hellary would be better) MAY validly critique the POTUS. This is, of course, irrational and actually quite evil.

    He’s used this same crap since before the election, and now that T-rump IS POTUS he’s clinging to it still. He thinks it’s a killer argument. It never has any merit EXCEPT as a piece of his bag of corrupt shutupery. It has much less now, since T-rump is POTUS, and there is no alternative to him as long as he holds that office. Ergo, nobody can criticize him according to this immoral, lying cultist.

    IF he were a conservative (and he knows he is NOT), he could tell you what a conservative IS…simply by stating his own convictions. But he’s playing a game of “gotcha” that he simply adores. Don’t bother. Just know him for who he is.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 17, 2017 at 3:33 am

      I will combine my answers to both your replies.

      On Nov 8 we had an election. We hold elections to choose those who will govern us. The means we use to choose them is by voting. To be valid, any selection criteria must lead to a choice among the candidates (or a write in) that allows you to vote, and it must conform to reality. Not voting is the same as not having the right to vote. By not voting, you give up one of your rights as a citizen. A selection criteria that doesn’t lead to a choice is a flawed method. Your method, ‘I won’t vote for a collectivist’ is flawed. It only leads to a choice in the subset of elections where there is a non collectivist candidate. Given Cruz v Clinton, your method works (assuming you think Cruz is not a collectivist). However, such elections are only a subset of reality. The more general case is when the candidates are flawed (both have some collectivist properties). In that case, your criteria fails to produce a choice and you give up your rights as a US citizen to have a voice in selecting your leaders. Your criteria ignores reality by makes the narrow case the only case. Not voting is NOT a choice – its a non choice. No one cared that you chose to sit out the election – it happened anyway. A leader was selected despite your absence. You gave up any influence you could have had on the selection. On that day, you gave up your right as a citizen. That’s another flaw in your selection criteria. It forces you to give up your right to vote. How can you possibly claim it’s a good system?

      Modifying your criteria to read: ‘I won’t vote for a collectivist if I have that choice, but if I don’t I will vote for the candidate that does the least harm (the better candidate)’, would move it from a narrow, flawed selection criteria to one that fits the general case. That’s what the adults that you refer to as boobs and T-rump suckers did. They recognized the flaw in your criteria and voted for the candidate they thought was the best of the choices available. Using a selection criteria that included the general case, they easily met what you call ‘the impossible bar’. They recognized the reality that the only alternatives on Nov 8 were Trump or Clinton and that she was worse, and they voted accordingly. You’re the one who ignores the consequences we would have to deal with if Trump had been defeated, not them. They recognized reality and dealt with it rather than hiding behind a flawed criteria. They don’t deserve the insults you level against them. Your system is the one that’s flawed, not theirs. Your system is the one the Taliban uses – you can only be governed by the pure of faith. They enforce theirs with guns, you do it with insults and ‘toldja’s’. You chose to give up your right to vote. Now you criticize those who exercised their right. You’re the one who should be ashamed.

      There’s another problem with your criteria – it’s self serving. It always produces the answer you want. You don’t want to vote for a collectivist and your criteria always produces that result. But there’s no feedback to tell you if that is a good (proper) choice. The only test is, did I vote for a collectivist? You commit the error of making the means the end. If the process is good, the result is meaningless. That’s why you admit that, once you decided that both Trump and Clinton were collectivists, you never gave any thought to the needs of conservativism (which candidate would be better for conservativism – least harm analysis). Your process ends with collectivism. That’s why I keep asking you how Hillary would be better; because a valid process gets feedback from the results, and she was the result if he lost. Your process doesn’t produce guidance for the election, just an excuse to do what you want to do anyway.

      I could go on with other examples about how giving your opponents a free election victory is a long term form of political suicide and other flaws in your system, but I have a busy day ahead.

      The questions I asked you are not to shut you up. They are clarifying questions designed to give context to your criticism of Trump and to point out that he was not elected in a vacuum, that Hillary was the alternative, and that your selection criteria was and is flawed.

“..Trump is on the verge of turning a temporary Obama policy deferring enforcement against people here illegally into a full-blown amnesty, which WILL even go beyond people brought here as children”

Yep. As predicted.

“Nobody really believed T-rump. His base doesn’t care about amnesty.”

Listening to Rush yesterday, he wondered if Trump had any idea how his move toward amnesty would affect his base, how tone deaf he appeared to be. I felt like yelling at my radio that, hell yes Trump knows how his base will react. He just doesn’t care anymore. They’ve already served their purpose in Trump’s mind – they got him elected. Trump is in office now and doesn’t need them anymore. He’s off to try to secure a new base made up of moderate GOP, Democrat, and indy voters, needed to support the leftward drift of his actual agenda.

Donald J. Trump


The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!
5:54 AM – Sep 15, 2017

10,257 10,257 Replies
12,942 12,942 Retweets

Anybody here could be as effective as the Bitch-In-Chief.

Remember all that winning we were going to get so tired of…???

Yeah, he really meant “whining”. Who controls policy, Donald Ducks?


Rush was on about a new Public Policy poll that showed that 67% of T-rump voters were cool with his DREAMER advocacy.

We are assured here by various T-rumpians that immigration was THE key and wonderful POLICY issue that T-rump brilliantly exploited. It was what they voted for.

Ergo, if the poll numbers are anything like correct, the MAJORITY…by far…didn’t care a fig about policy.

That just leaves them voting for the man. Just like Obama voters.

    Or voting against Hillary.

      Ragspierre in reply to JoAnne. | September 15, 2017 at 6:43 pm

      Sure. Those too.

      Assuming you are one of those, do you care about the new and totally betraying T-rump position on DREAMERS?

      It’s a yea or no question, and I’m not being a meanie…

        Of course I care. I’ve cared long before now. I cared when the Dems sabatoged Reagan. I don’t know what to do about kids who have been here almost all their lives. My son played soccer with those kids. I watched as a 13 y/o boy drove a car to practice with three of his friends riding with him. I liked their parents even though I vehemently disagreed with what they were doing.

        I don’t think we can just deport those kids. But neither do I think they should be citizens. I don’t want them voting, I don’t want them bringing their relatives here. I want this disgraceful era of unchecked illegal immigration ended. I want the immigration system overhauled. I want people who come here because they want to be Americans and have something to offer. I don’t want them on the welfare system.

        Trump is between a rock and a hard place. And all this bickering isn’t helping.

          Jackie in reply to JoAnne. | September 16, 2017 at 9:24 am

          Tough situation. Other than his base and a few real Republicans Trump has no support for deporting them. Contrary to what the media says these aren’t children, but many have been here for decades and it’s their only home. On the other hand Trump can’t reward a criminal act by their parents and they can never be citizens. What disturbs me is Trump is not getting funding for the wall in exchange for any deal. This is his only chance at getting the Dems to cave on funding the wall. Without dem support Ryan and McConnel will never support the wall and it will never happen.

          Ragspierre in reply to JoAnne. | September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am

          But, Jackie, Mr. Establishment PROMISED millions he would MAKE Mexico pay for the wall.

          To barrow a phrase from the execrable Hellery…

          “What happened…???”

          IF T-rump is allowed to give DREAMERS amnesty, they WILL become citizens and they WILL bring in whole families who will…sure as there are carts to horses…become citizens, too.

          BTW, anyone who registers as a Republican is a “real” Republican. Conservatives are different.

I could accept this move on DACA if it ended all illegal immigration.

1) Make being an illegal immigrant a felony, prevented future legal entry to the USA and citizenship.
2) Make providing government aid to illegals a felony.
3) Make failure to enforce our immigration laws a felony.
4) Make hiring an illegal alien directly or indirectly a felony.

    ConradCA in reply to ConradCA. | September 16, 2017 at 9:56 am

    5) Pass a constitutional amendment that stops anchor babies. Children of illegals who are born in the USA no longer are citizens.

      artichoke in reply to ConradCA. | September 16, 2017 at 4:22 pm

      You don’t need an amendment for this, just legislation to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The history on this issue is complicated and I don’t remember it, but it’s clear that legislation would suffice.

    Ragspierre in reply to ConradCA. | September 16, 2017 at 10:16 am

    I agree with the spirit of your arguments.

    I also see that legal and political impediments that will block them from ever being realized.

    Amnesty for DREAMERS is the gate in the dam holding back open borders, and Donald Ducks has kicked it open.

Everyone’s going wobbly over comments by the New York Times The Washington Post Schumer and Pelosi. Once you wait a few weeks and see what actually happens you’re going to feel stupid.