General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums788,000 people who grew up in American now have to leave
Thanks Trump, Stein and other third party/write-in voters. You've made America great again.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)So did they. I never want to hear the term "identity politics" again.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)is deeply disturbing.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)Because it's been very apparent for those paying attention
lunasun
(21,646 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)and ship away the gun humping, white supremacist, low information voting, trump supporters?
fierywoman
(7,706 posts)BainsBane
(53,129 posts)Different Drummer
(7,678 posts)VOX
(22,976 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Orrin Hatch and Paul Ryan, among many, tried to persuade Rump not to act, as this would toss this political hot potato to Congress. And they really don't need this at this time. Nearly 2/3 of Americans specifically support DACA, even more don't want to see innocent American teenagers deported.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I am all for it!
JHan
(10,173 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)Into the melting pot of America. Their morally deranged republican draft dodger in chief, has just taken a huge stinking piss into the body public.
sheshe2
(84,058 posts)Immigration advocates already have a march and rally planned for Tuesday afternoon outside the White House.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/daca-/story?id=49574463
Nice catch!
Thanks.
R B Garr
(17,013 posts)sheshe2
(84,058 posts)The protest or his speaking out? I think both may happen.
I seriously think they will both happen.
R B Garr
(17,013 posts)I was just thinking someone in his world would also sit Trump down about this.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Trump is trying to keep a promise he made to his base. What would be the
mechanism for taking these DACA folks away? A big roundup? Would
congress approve funds for this? Would the People of the US stand for this?
Where would they send these people? Bluster, Trump's strong suit.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)no work permits. No funding needed for that, and I would imagine that Federal funds for attending college would be denied to those who had registered for DACA.
As I've said on other posts, this is a bargaining position. The game is to make the DACA people more valuable to the progressives, so that they will give in on some other thing that the reich wing wants.
Ms. Toad
(34,127 posts)Prior to DACA, people lived in the shadows and it would have been nearly impossible to identify them all - let alone deport them.
Because of process of obtaining the protection DACA, the goverment now knows the names and addresses of the nearly 800,000 individual who took advantage of it. (See, e.g. file:///C:/Users/nlr22/Downloads/i-821d.pdf)
R B Garr
(17,013 posts)is who runs this country.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)and have been since Trump took office. I'm surprised he isn't having first responders do it in Houston.
sheshe2
(84,058 posts)They tried.
Amazing. Houston is drowning. LA on fire. Irma heading to the East coast.
What does he do? Pardons a racist. Threatens NK. Destroys a dreamers dream, all 800K of them. Deportation pending? Then does a campaign rally outside flooded Houston. Then goes to Houston once again with his stiletto shod wife for a photo OP.
President Donald Trump told reporters that he is seeing "a lot of happiness,"
"It's been really nice," Trump said of the visit. "Its been a wonderful thing. As tough as this was, its been a wonderful thing, I think even for the country to watch it and for the world to watch. Its been beautiful."
When Trump was asked about the flooding, he replied, "The flooding? Oh, yeah, yeah, theres a lot of water, but its leaving pretty quickly. But theres a lot of water, a lot of water, but its moving out."
And as he was leaving the NRG Center, Trump told survivors to "have a good time."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-hurricane-harvey-survivors-to-have-a-good-time-while-visiting-shelter-2017-9
Ah, then he huffs and puffs trying to load a few boxes in to a pick up truck. He was out of breath with the exertion of it all.
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)sheshe2
(84,058 posts)R B Garr
(17,013 posts)"Have a good time, everybody." He's such a freak show. Gawd.
sheshe2
(84,058 posts)Gawd help us.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)His base loves to see Obama look wounded.
R B Garr
(17,013 posts)Mattis did with the Transgender ban in the military.
Trump has no policies except the "liberal tears" that we see from the RW radio dittoheads. Anything to tick people off, doesn't matter what.
tblue37
(65,538 posts)before then, with a veto-proof majority.
Nah, that won't happen.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)My prediction: Any bill that would enact DACA into the law of the land will have a provision that the path to citizenship would be a citizenship that would not allow the DACA citizenship recipient to use that status as a means of bringing over family members, in particular the parent(s) who brought the young person across the border in the first place.
Coventina
(27,223 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)tblue37
(65,538 posts)Akoto
(4,267 posts)This will break down fast. For all intents and purposes, we're talking about people who are Americans in everything but paperwork, and to no fault of their own. It won't stand for the Democrats, and it's probably too politically lethal a decision for the Republicans to defend.
What do they plan to do? Order the military to hunt them down, round them up, and ship them out Nazi-style? What about resistance from the countries they're sent to? Oh, and there's Trump's promise that he won't split up families if he does this, so the families of these kids could be deported along with them (meaning a lot more than 800k people).
It's a disaster of a decision with no good at the end of the tunnel. I don't see how it doesn't get stopped. My bet is that Congress will move quickly within the six month margin to prevent this, if only for its own political salvation. Once they make it Congressional legislation, the argument can no longer be used that DACA is unconstitutional due to President Obama having enacted it unilaterally.
Initech
(100,143 posts)Nothing they have done is a good thing. And it's all to say fuck you to Obama. You'd think that the GOP would be interested in leading the country, not holding on to past grudges. Instead all they want to do is undo everything Obama did. It's fucking disgusting.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)They surrounded schools in my area, asking students and their parents for papers. They've been putting more and more people in internment camps. The DACA kids were sort of exempt from that. In six months they won't be.
So far we've seen little resistance to it. I've seen some self-proclaimed progressives (well, JPR, so take that with a grain of salt) defend Trump's immigration enforcement.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)betsuni
(25,798 posts)Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Trudeau promised an open door.
Johnny2X2X
(19,271 posts)Hundreds of thousands of families are about to be torn apart. Some of these people are going to start to resist violently.
What else is more worth fighting for but your families?
lpbk2713
(42,774 posts)JI7
(89,287 posts)and this is one of the biggest reasons.
i always said it was about the changing demographics in this country that they didn't like. it was always about white supremacy. it was never about unions , trade, health care , education etc.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)sheshe2
(84,058 posts)That is all it was ever about.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)For instance, DACA gets added to a replace Obamacare bill (which died this year), so to save DACA, politicians have to replace Obamacare? Which would they choose? Because DACA supporters were never Trump voters to begin with, but it would look bad for Democrats to vote against DACA.
And again, horrible, awful, evil.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)Not sure if they are going to renew that scheme again.
betsuni
(25,798 posts)IAMSPARTICUS
(17 posts)his only goal is to undo what Obama did because Obama embarrassed him at the correspondent's dinner years ago. i'm happy to provide a safe house for DACA kids. i need some direction.
pansypoo53219
(21,009 posts)Vinca
(50,328 posts)saving it and thinks that in the end his supporters will love him for ending it and everyone else will forget. We won't forget.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)He explains: I thought they played defence, especially once the Access Hollywood stuff [the infamous video in which Trump bragged about groping women] came out, which was: OK, this guy, it cannot happen, all we have to do is keep saying how terrible he is, instead of saying this is our agenda. And I think that also there was a piece with her agenda which was very listy and white papery and not from the gut.
Clinton was also accused of playing identity politics by embracing racial, religious and sexual minorities at the expense of the white working class in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all of which she narrowly lost. Franken blames the right for trying to drive a wedge between progressives and so-called economic populists like Sanders.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/03/al-franken-interview-donald-trump-comedy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Sounds like Franken believes the main reason we have a President Trump is we were outplayed at the top of our ticket and as a Party. Every time Trump does something appalling we have these told-you-so threads that fail to acknowledge the one really big thing that might have prevented all that: a better performance by our nominee. Carry on.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)She was only the most qualified, competent candidate to seek the office in a lifetime, but she wasn't perfect, which totally explains why the people you defend just had to vote for a Nazi apologist and sexual predator. She ran on "identity politics," but not the the right kind of "identity politics" that Trump did. She had the audacity to speak to the concerns of the poor, people of color, and the marginalized.
She didn't build a campaign around coddling the egos of privileged white men furious that they only earn 4x the average income of African Americans, that they only are in the upper.03% of global incomes. She dared to talk about poverty rather than cater to white male entitlement, and that made her imperfect, so imperfect that those voters just had to vote for a slate of racist policies.
Well, now that you explain it, it makes perfect sense that those people voted to deported 800,000 dreamers and countless more immigrants. Of course they had to put a billionaire con artist who promised massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Of course they just had to vote for a Nazi sympathizer supported by legions of White Supremacist who decried "Jew SA," and talked about how they would burn Jewish reporters in ovens. Voters bear no responsibility for their own choices. They were forced to vote to deliver the country to fascism because Hillary wasn't perfect. The "identity politics" made them vote to punish the dreamers, African Americans, LGBT Americans, and women. How can they be expected to tolerate a party that represents all Americans when they are the only ones who matter? How dare the Democratic Party act like Democrats when their responsibility is to recapture the days of the KKK, the party of Orvil Faubus, when the only "identity politics" was one of segregation, which is exactly what Trump and Stein voters chose.
I wonder what the remedy is to ensure that Democrats never again address the concerns of anyone who isn't white, male and propertied? I know. Make sure those identity politics Americans can't vote. Voter disenfranchisement, the very cause now being championed by Nomiki Konst: replace primaries with caucuses, the system with the lowest turn out, the system most prohibitive to voters of color---those "identity politics" Americans who just don't vote right. Make voting impossible for shift workers, the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and women with childcare obligations. Take a page from the GOP. Target the exact same voters for the exact same reasons. If you can't win with the electorate as it exists, make sure only the right sort of people can vote vote so white men don't have to be saddled with the horror of politicians who dare to speak to the interests of people whose lives just don't count--the majority of the population.
Yes, Hillary wasn't perfect. She has the wrong chromosomes, and she failed to cater to white male resentment. Of course those who voted for racist policies had no choice. And now, they have no choice but to ensure that the poor, shift workers, the disabled, elderly, and people of color are purged form the Democratic primary process, so that they can finally get an electorate that knows how to vote right.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Isn't it typical we've come full circle once again, isn't it typical that some Democrats are determined to prove what many PoC feared once Democrats lost the election - isn't it TYPICAL.
I am not at all surprised at all the hot takes. It was expected.
EDIT: They had to vote for a sexual predator, a racist and a vile human being, because at least he was being an authentic vile human being, at least he was authentically lying (?????????? )---------- the bullshit people tell themselves to rationalize fuckery.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)Have we seen any effort to curb corporate interests? Any proposal? What have we seen: arguments that the party should back away from civil rights and reproductive rights, and efforts to restrict the franchise in the primary process. And of course systematically targeting every person of color and woman in public office.
JHan
(10,173 posts)And where was it?
While Trump sledged an American judge of mexican heritage, called mexicans rapists, played to white grievance, The Democratic Platform focused on wages, Criminal Justice Reform, Education, Infrastructure investment..and YES jobs... etc etc etc ALL of those issues benefit white "working class" people.
... or was the problem saying "black lives matter" - is this what hardened them? talking about immigrants as though they were human beings instead of "aliens"....Talking about Trump's sexism - are these things not allowed now? Who benefits from not discussing these things, from not putting them on the front burner? Whose feelings get protected?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Via Jay Newton-Small, the author of Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works:
After more than 30 years in the national spotlight, Clinton was also perceived as an elite. And it didnt help that she ran her campaign as a third Obama term, hoping to piggyback on his popularity with young and minority voters. Exit interviews with Latina voters, who supported Obama to the tune of 76 percent in 2012 but Clinton with only 68 percent in 2016, showed they found her out of touch. In a year defined by anti-establishmentarianism, Obamas coattails and Clintons insider record conspired to turn off enough minority women voters at the margins to make a difference.
http://time.com/4566748/hillary-clinton-firewall-women/
JHan
(10,173 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:54 AM - Edit history (2)
1) nothing in that article refutes the germane points of Bains' post.
2) the UK, Israel and Germany are different systems of government - there is no electoral college. Clinton lost three critical states by 1 point and won the popular vote by 3 million ( or 2.9) As Nate Silver rightly observed, before the Comey letter hit Clinton looked as though she would win those states by 2 points. If she had she would have won the election and her strategy looks great. And that article you post would not have been written.
2) selectively choosing what a few people said in an exit poll is not the full picture - that's pushing a narrative and a meme. Clinton voters were hardly profiled last year- fact. I can find different, more positive, assessments of Hillary the candidate.
3) the "hectoring housewife" - you mean she dared ask how shit will get done in debate scenarios where the moderators, and media, couldn't be arsed to ask those questions and where the election itself became a shit circus show?
4) "it didn't help she ran her campaign as a third Obama term" "piggyback his popularity" - how did Bush Snr run his campaign after Reagan? Did he distance himself from Reagan? it was an election about the continuation of democratic leadership for a third term, it was about incumbency. How did this need to be pointed out? That article is antagonistic spin.
And none of this excuses mistakes the Clinton campaign made , as Charlie P wrote it was an average campaign but not the worst he's ever seen as some love to claim. Clinton herself admits to flaws. I wasn't happy with all of it , there were times I wanted Clinton to go more on the offense, there were times I wanted her to control the narrative better, EDIT: Most importantly, I wanted the Democratic Party to have a response to weaponized AI and data analytics used by the Mercers, we lost the meme wars...
...... but the reality also is that her opponent was and remains a fascistic sexual predator. Voters bear responsibility for the choices they make.
And Clinton herself was far from terrible - count me in as a young female who finds her an inspiration and women I knew who were even skeptical of her before the election grew to admire and respect her as the campaign wore on, particularly in the debates.
betsuni
(25,798 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)SunSeeker
(51,798 posts)That Guardian piece gushes about how "boring worked" to get Al Franken elected, but criticized Hillary for doing the same thing. When a man gets wonky, it's brilliant. When a woman gets wonky, it's an inadequate "performance."
We have tons of threads picking apart Hillary and expounding on the 2016 post mortem. They are all here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1251
Coming into this thread to malign Hilllary's "performance" as the "really big thing" that caused her loss is wrong on so many levels.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)"not supporting the lesser of 2 evils"...job well done stein supporters....and this is only 8 months into his admin with much much more to come....
Fla Dem
(23,881 posts)Until she announced to run for president, HRC received almost nothing but praise from many quarters for both her stint as a US Senator and as Sec of State. The RW machine set in motion the whole Benghazi fiasco and the email debacle. Those 2 mostly manufactured scandals hung like a noose around her neck and gave the media something to use to say "what about" when comparing a truly corrupt Trump and HRC.
Actually, I'm almost happy she didn't win. With a Republican congress she may not have been able to get her agenda through. The Republicans would obstructed everything she tried to do and then call her a failed President, just like they did with Obama. Yes we lost a SCJ seat (heartbroken over that and it was Obama's to appoint), and Trump has rolled back a number of significant Obama executive orders. But then again, Trump is slowly destroying the Republican party and that's a good thing.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)was calling her that, but was instead quoting the idiotic rantings from the 3rd party supporters.
samnsara
(17,660 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)A fleet of busses? A FEMA processing center? Tent cities? A refugee camp across the border? It just seems ludicrous.
And curse any citizens who lift a finger to help them do this.
BainsBane
(53,129 posts)and take it out of Trump's hands.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Anything related to this hateful idea will be hard to top.
I will be calling Congress all day tomorrow.