The First 100 days

Something that may or may not occur in the future is not a fact now

 

about 10,999,633...I think we are definitely doing good things here and it is paying dividends for the future inflows but it can't stop here. It can't stop with just raids and rhetoric, or even the wall.

The GOP must do something about birthright citizenship and mandate E-verify. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them proceed strategically. BUT my vote will go to the team that actually does something legislatively to fix this problem in a permanent fashion.

 

The fact: you made a current promise about a future event
The lie (and also a current fact): you had no intention of keeping that promise

 

That article points out the claim that only convicted criminals are being swept up is a bit of PR spin as the sweeps are actually more broad than that

 

There is no choice under that scenario

 

First, intention is a slippery concept. You intend to eat better, to spend less money, to see your parents or children more often, to lose weight, to be a better person and so on. Did it become a lie later, when you failed to do those things? In court, intent is usually extremely difficult to prove. Often impossible.

Second, I asked the other poster to show what he meant with regard to Trump's actual "promises" on immigration and he refuses to come forth with anything. On the campaign, Trump often floated ideas to judge reaction. The Wall was a hard promise, I concede. His intent on deportation, however, was always more nebulous. It was in a constant state of evolution or improvement if you prefer. I think people here know this, they are just being stubborn, for whatever reason.

 

This is day 82 of the new administration --

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a warning Tuesday to people who break the nation’s immigration laws: If you cross the border illegally, you risk prosecution under the full force of the law.

Speaking from a border port of entry in Nogales, Arizona, Sessions vowed a dramatic Justice Department crackdown on illegal immigration that would include felony charges for people who illegally enter the United States multiple times or get married in order to gain legal status.

“For those that continue to seek improper and illegal entry into this country, be forewarned,” Sessions said in remarks prepared for delivery. “This is a new era. This is the Trump era.”

He continued: “The lawlessness, the abdication of the duty to enforce our immigration laws, and the catch and release practices of old are over.”......"​

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/jeff-sessions-immigration-crackdown-237109

 

He ran on deporting all illegal immigrants.

That is nonsense. Trump had control over what position he took. I don't have control over whether or not it rains.

 

But why use a euphemism like "modify?" What's the difference between a "modification" and a "flip-flop?" Or a "lie?"

 

That was an initial position modified subsequently
As a matter of fact, discussed in here at the time as such
I remember writing about his book at the time (Art of the Deal)

 

How about replacing two justices in one year?

 

Insisting campaign promises are statements of fact is the nonsense here.

Compounded by your application of a different standard to Trump than any other president in history. Why do you insist on doing this? Is it because you feel like you are coming from a position of weakness? Because this is what it appears as.

 

It's a stretch to consider evolving stances on a complex issue while still campaigning a lie. It's a lie if after winning they abandon any effort to act according to their final stance before the vote.

But we also must recognize why initial promises throughout history have frequently evolved as the campaign progresses.

With two elections (primary and general), candidates must court each audience accordingly to be successful and it often requires adjustments.

If one doesn't modify the hard line stances in the primary to lure broader support in the general they're naive on campaign strategy.

What works in the primary almost always evolves to gain more traction in the general. Preaching to the choir is much different than courting potential new parishioners.

If this election cycle was fair and the general debates asked HRC hard questions, we'd have seen her severely modify some of the nonsense she ranted on in primary debates.

I'd have paid money to hear her response as she squirmed to answer "all lives matter or black lives matter?" in a general debate.

 

I got it; Mens Rea, desire and probability, strict liability, the need for formal agreements like contracts. But proving intent is often possible as indicated by the prison population, especially the number of death row inmates.

Unfortunately, this seems to be true with almost every politician, which is why there is such low regard for politics.

Now that shows desire and intent to keep a promise. However, draining a little of the swamp is better than nothing, and we should celebrate incremental change because politicians are also subject to constraints.

 

Why don't y'all wait until DT's term as POTUS is over, or at least a few years old, before you decide if he is going to keep his campaign promises or not?

 

Because some of his promises are in conflict with one another. He can't keep them. If you promise that you're doing to deport all illegal immigrants and then later promise that you won't, then you can't help but break a promise.

 

The logical contortions you and Joe are doing to avoid calling Trump a flip-flopper and/or a liar are truly baffling. It's like hearing David Axelrod try to explain why "if you like your health plan, you can keep it" wasn't a lie.

 

Can't wait to see the spin on this...

 

Let me see if I can spin this. When he called it "obsolete," he meant it as ironic slang - sorta like when somebody says "he's bad" it actually means "he's good" or "he's cool."

My honest view is that Trump probably knew very little about NATO beyond that it helped defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Bannon probably told him it was obsolete with little or no explanation, and he probably just spouted his rhetoric. Now that he's president, he's probably hearing more views and learning things about it that he didn't know before. At least I hope that's true. Kinda sad that the President of the United States is learning this stuff on the fly, but I guess it's better than not learning it at all.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Germany told Trump to go to hell with his 2% of GDP contribution requirement. Oh well. He was just kidding.

 

Germany did pledge more money to NATO . It might not be the 2% but it is more than they had been giving for decades.
Others will likely follow
Maybe that is why Trump sees NATO in a better light?
At least he got something done

 

Again, how are people still so blind to DT's constantly repeated negotiation tactics? It's amazing.

With NATO he started off the negotiation with wild threats he intends to pull out because NATO is obsolete.

In reality he knew good and well (everyone does) that leaving NATO is not in America's best interest. What he really wanted was other countries to start carrying their load.

After knee-jerk outrage (just like we see here after every initial bold action or demand) and getting the conversation started, he walks it back to 'meet your 2% requirements'.

Since, movement has begun in that direction that hasn't taken place in several years. Plus, Rex is still hammering allies on the demand and did so at the recent G7 meeting.

Once again, bold initial threats resulted in progress achieving the real goal. Which in this case was making allies live up to their NATO agreement.

 

Merkel is generally supportive of going to 2 percent but doing it gradually, which is frankly, pretty reasonable under the circumstances. Her opponent (Martin Schulz from the center-left SPD) is pretty much running against Donald Trump, and he says he's going to tell NATO to go to hell on the 2 percent figure. However, it's worth noting that he's also the former President of the European Parliament and a big supporter of creating a European Union army. If Schulz wins, I would assume that pushing an EU army at the expense of the Bundeswehr (Germany's national defense forces) would be his focus.

 

Of course, he also created an opportunity for someone who's basing his candidacy heavily on being an American enemy to become the next German chancellor. Just FYI - that's a bad thing both economically and militarily.

 

Not really

 

No shortage of drama

 

Please remember, you won the business law award including a subscription to the WSJ, not the criminal law award with a file baked into a cake as the prize.

 

fair enough

 

"Fear of Trump Makes Migrants Disappear From Mexican Border" Their border town shelter used to be full of migrants on their way to the United States. Now it stands nearly empty, thanks to Donald Trump.

"NOGALES, Mexico—In the 35 years Gilda and Juan Francisco Loureiro have been running a shelter in northern Mexico for undocumented immigrants, they’ve never seen a week like this one.

The shelter, called Albergue San Juan Bosco, is perched on a steep hillside looking over the busy border town of Nogales, Mexico. Its walls are painted bright turquoise and tangerine, and its wide-open double doors look west over low hills and Highway 15. Since they opened it, upward of 1 million people have slept there on their way to the U.S. But on the day I visited, it was almost empty.

It didn’t used to be this way, Gilda and Juan Francisco, known as Paco, explained. In the decades since they opened the space to give migrants a place to shower and sleep before crossing the border, the shelter—with separate rooms full of bunkbeds for men and women—would regularly house 100 migrants per night. Sometimes, that number would hit 300 or more, and Gilda and Paco would pull out thin mattresses to fit everyone on the floor.

But today, those mattresses are neatly stacked in a closet, untouched. And the shelter is almost empty—no women travelers, and fewer than a dozen men. That’s despite the fact that April, with its mild weather, should be the busiest time of year for migrants. The place is all but dead. Gilda and Paco have never seen anything like it.

They can only think of one explanation: President Donald Trump......"​

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-migrants-disappear-from-mexican-border.html