President Trump- The Implications

[rebound]

Just as long as I don't have to pay more for poutine, screw the Canadians.

Oh sure, Blame Canada...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYB6ZSwdrvM

[heironymouspasparagus]

This has been the problem (or "issue", call it what you want...) from the start.  In terms of actual political positions, I could get behind any number of his campaign points (Immigration: Yes, we definitely need tighter borders and a firm plan for dealing with immigrants.   Trade: Yes, we should clean up any imbalances.  Etc. Etc.) 

But Trump is a Deal guy.  Specifically the deal that is right in front of him at the time.  He has to win on that particular deal, regardless of the long-term outcomes or political consequences.  He is, as you note, transactional.  Which is great for a salesman, but not a President.

Which is why it is both funny and also discouraging to see some on this forum talking about "all the winning" right now.   Kudos to Trump for Korea (so far), but for most of the other stuff, well, don't count your chickens just yet. 

Immigration is a BS issue.  We have a "firm plan" - a program for temporary workers - in particular labor work - called H2x, where x is A or B depending on the type work.  It has been around for a long time and would "solve" any imagined problem we have with illegals coming here and taking jobs from Americans.  Which everyone with a brain knows they are not.   So why don't companies use it??  And why don't we as a nation enforce the laws that already exist??  Well, that is easy - it would cost companies more to obey the law.  And your strawberries and avocados would cost a little more...   And it would reduce the chances of getting food borne illness due to poor sanitary conditions in the fields - oh, wait...that would be a good thing - never mind!  And we would have better control of the borders.   And it would cost more...   So with a wink and a nod, companies are not just allowed, but encouraged to put out the invitation to people to come here illegally.   


"Which is great for a salesman, but not a President."   And it's equally valid corollary - running business like a business is great for business, but not for government.


As for the chicken counting - poultry is the upper mental limit of those going on about that.  For Obama's term it was all about Chicken Little - the sky is falling!  It wasn't - actually the opposite.  And now, it's all about counting non-existent chickens.   Kudos for Korea - for actually achieving less than the previous 4 Presidents.  At least they all had actually signed agreements of one form or other.  And had visible, verifiable delaying effects on NK's ongoing programs.  This was a kindergarten note to say we might talk some more later.  It did elevate the tin-horn dictator.  It did get us to call off military exercises.  And it meant Un could keep on working on his missile program - which he is doing.  And it encouraged China to start pushing us in the UN to reduce/eliminate sanctions.  All not wins for us.   But kudos... 


Again, for the non-Minions...valid trade information!

Canada
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html


Russia
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html


China
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

[rebound]

Immigration is a BS issue.  We have a "firm plan" - a program for temporary workers - in particular labor work - called H2x, where x is A or B depending on the type work.  It has been around for a long time and would "solve" any imagined problem we have with illegals coming here and taking jobs from Americans.  Which everyone with a brain knows they are not.   So why don't companies use it??  And why don't we as a nation enforce the laws that already exist??  Well, that is easy - it would cost companies more to obey the law.  And your strawberries and avocados would cost a little more...   And it would reduce the chances of getting food borne illness due to poor sanitary conditions in the fields - oh, wait...that would be a good thing - never mind!  And we would have better control of the borders.   And it would cost more...   So with a wink and a nod, companies are not just allowed, but encouraged to put out the invitation to people to come here illegally.   

Respectfully, we do not have a firm plan.  I don't disagree with any anything above, but the current situation is not sustainable and must be addressed.   There are numerous options and aspects that will need to be incorporated into a cohesive whole, and a strong, secure, border is one of them.

Also, do not misconstrue my advocacy of a secure border to be anti-immigration, as that is not the case.  Personally, I think it should be made easier, particularly for migrant and temporary workers.  But regardless of specifics, a secure border is required to stabilize the overall situation.

As for the chicken counting - poultry is the upper mental limit of those going on about that.  For Obama's term it was all about Chicken Little - the sky is falling!  It wasn't - actually the opposite.  And now, it's all about counting non-existent chickens.   Kudos for Korea - for actually achieving less than the previous 4 Presidents.  At least they all had actually signed agreements of one form or other.  And had visible, verifiable delaying effects on NK's ongoing programs.  This was a kindergarten note to say we might talk some more later.  It did elevate the tin-horn dictator.  It did get us to call off military exercises.  And it meant Un could keep on working on his missile program - which he is doing.  And it encouraged China to start pushing us in the UN to reduce/eliminate sanctions.  All not wins for us.   But kudos... 

You seem to discount the "(for now)" piece of my response.  I give him kudos for engagement, as that is something I think was sorely needed.  The past four Presidents obviously didn't fix things, so perhaps taking this path will.  Note that I don't give Trump any credit for thinking this through strategically, as I am sure he did not.  His thought line was probably, at best, "if I can talk to him, I can win him over" or similar. Which won't work, but hey, worth a shot. Engagement is better than non-engagement, so good for him, but Trump still has far to go before any real success can be claimed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Respectfully, we do not have a firm plan.  I don't disagree with any anything above, but the current situation is not sustainable and must be addressed.   There are numerous options and aspects that will need to be incorporated into a cohesive whole, and a strong, secure, border is one of them.

Also, do not misconstrue my advocacy of a secure border to be anti-immigration, as that is not the case.  Personally, I think it should be made easier, particularly for migrant and temporary workers.  But regardless of specifics, a secure border is required to stabilize the overall situation.

You seem to discount the "(for now)" piece of my response.  I give him kudos for engagement, as that is something I think was sorely needed.  The past four Presidents obviously didn't fix things, so perhaps taking this path will.  Note that I don't give Trump any credit for thinking this through strategically, as I am sure he did not.  His thought line was probably, at best, "if I can talk to him, I can win him over" or similar. Which won't work, but hey, worth a shot. Engagement is better than non-engagement, so good for him, but Trump still has far to go before any real success can be claimed.

I am not arguing with you about your stance or saying you are anti-immigration.  I am using this part of the thread to point out the gross unfairness, the arbitrary and capricious approach we have to immigration, and the facts of how we ignore the law when 'convenient' - hence my previous comments about how we are NOT a country of rule of law.

We do have a very firm plan - that is being ignored by all involved.  H1 and H2 programs have been around for decades.  They are the intended vehicles for temporary immigrant labor.  By definition.  And since it would cost corporate America more they continue going around the law and continue breaking the law - for decades.  A secure border is much more achievable just by the simple act of enforcing the law.  If there was no open invitation by way of "wink and nod", there would be a vastly smaller number of illegals here.  They come for the jobs, so make corporate America obey the law.  

This reminds me of the gun control debate - since we choose to ignore thousands of gun laws, the call is to just outlaw them completely.  This is very similar - the H visa program, plus other immigration laws that can elevate to felony for a company to employ illegals are ignored to the tune of millions of individual times.  Including thousands of times by our very own Pedophile in Chief.  You cannot blame people for coming to this country illegally when you have an open invitation for them to do so.  It is vile and pernicious to try.  Not to mention 180 degrees opposite our expressed "values" - "truth, justice, and the American Way."  


This part is my reply to your comment about 'for now'.

No, I am not discounting that - I get where you are coming from, and I have mentioned back in here a ways that I think it is a good thing to engage.  I have even mentioned that I think stopping the war games might be a good thing to try.  Reaching out a little bit.  

The thing we cannot lose sight of is that this is nothing new - has been done repeatedly.  The RWRE would like for you (everybody in the country 'you') to believe otherwise.  My reminder goes to a caution that this has certainly changed the dynamic of the NK dictator, and has also encouraged China to push forward on this front as response to our idiotic tariff carp going on now.  Trump doesn't have the mental "deal making" capability for this kind of deal - this is 3D chess and he can't play regular chess.  And he has proven his approach of putting his Russian business buddies ahead of the US interests, and is working that direction with China, and there is no doubt that Kim Jung Un and he talked about golf resorts in the north as a form of detente' during this meeting trip.   Caution is needed.  He has none.

[patric]

Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-wants-warren-prove-her-native-american-heritage-n864446


...since the last birther distraction worked so well.

[guido911]

Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-wants-warren-prove-her-native-american-heritage-n864446


...since the last birther distraction worked so well.

Trump got elected. Apparently birtherism didn't hurt. As for Warren, she "birthered" herself. Trump is hilariously trolling her.

[patric]

It's been a little quiet in this forum this week. I believe I know why...

Yes, winning.  Trump was unable to get a single conviction from the people arrested for protesting his inauguration.  It seems prosecutors were unable to prove that it was any of the defendants that rioted and not the undercover cops uniformly dressed as Black Bloc anarchists.
But hey, winning.

[cannon_fodder]

Trump got elected. Apparently birtherism didn't hurt. As for Warren, she "birthered" herself. Trump is hilariously trolling her.

I was curious about the Warren situation,  I had heard of the Native Heritage "controversy" because Trump keeps bringing it up.  So I wanted to know what it was all about, get the facts and all of that.

It appears she responded "yes" when asked by her employer (U Penn or Harvard?) if she had Native American heritage in the 1980s (she did not claim minority status when applying for school).  She was also listed as Cherokee in a Native cookbook her cousin asked her to contribute to in Oklahoma.  The person who granted her tenor (also a US Solicitor General under Reagan) said she was never given consideration as a minority for hiring or promotion purposes. I think that's the entire basis for the "controversy."

When asked, she explained that growing up she was told by her mother that her great-great-grandparents (or something) were of Delaware and Cherokee heritage, so family members were forbidden from getting married and had to elope. She never asked for documentation, she never ran a genealogy tree.  She just took the family story at face value.  Some family members recalled the stories as she did, others modified versions, still other's didn't remember them at all.

I've been told that my family is of German origin and that pretty much all involved immigrated after the civil war but before the turn of the century and ended up in various majority German farming communities. I've run with that as my family origin story. The family history that we are aware of starts with my great-grandparents on either side (who we think were born in the USA) and documents from them or their siblings. Some relatives have tried to search back, but names were "Americanized" so it gets murky fast. Most people don't pull older documents now, let alone someone doing it before the internet was really a thing.  It might turn out I'm actually of Saxon or Slovak or something else entirely.

If it turned out my lineage is not German in origin, why would that be hilarious to troll? How many non-tribal Member Oklahoman's claim Native American heritage based on family stories?
I get that its cheap political points, like pointing out the Woody Guthrie song about Trump's dad or the birther conspiracy with Obama. Maybe the point is that one should not self identify with an ethnic group without proof? But unless we are going to make fun of everyone who relies on a family origin story, it seems very petty and irrelevant to someones character.  

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

"My family has a narrative that we're Choctaw, but we don't have any proof of that," Larry O'Dell, the Oklahoma Historical Society's director of special projects and development, said when asked about tracing Native heritage. "My boss and I were talking earlier, and he has the same kind of narrative. It's just sort of the way it is in Oklahoma."

Smolenyak, who has traced former first lady Michelle Obama's family back to slaves and former President Barack Obama's ancestors to Ireland, said one of the biggest myths in genealogy is how many families believe their ancestor was a Cherokee princess.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-wants-warren-prove-her-native-american-heritage-n864446

I found this interesting too:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/10/cherokee_blood_why_do_so_many_americans_believe_they_have_cherokee_ancestry.html

[Hoss]

I was curious about the Warren situation,  I had heard of the Native Heritage "controversy" because Trump keeps bringing it up.  So I wanted to know what it was all about, get the facts and all of that.

It appears she responded "yes" when asked by her employer (U Penn or Harvard?) if she had Native American heritage in the 1980s (she did not claim minority status when applying for school).  She was also listed as Cherokee in a Native cookbook her cousin asked her to contribute to in Oklahoma.  The person who granted her tenor (also a US Solicitor General under Reagan) said she was never given consideration as a minority for hiring or promotion purposes. I think that's the entire basis for the "controversy."

When asked, she explained that growing up she was told by her mother that her great-great-grandparents (or something) were of Delaware and Cherokee heritage, so family members were forbidden from getting married and had to elope. She never asked for documentation, she never ran a genealogy tree.  She just took the family story at face value.  Some family members recalled the stories as she did, others modified versions, still other's didn't remember them at all.

I've been told that my family is of German origin and that pretty much all involved immigrated after the civil war but before the turn of the century and ended up in various majority German farming communities. I've run with that as my family origin story. The family history that we are aware of starts with my great-grandparents on either side (who we think were born in the USA) and documents from them or their siblings. Some relatives have tried to search back, but names were "Americanized" so it gets murky fast. Most people don't pull older documents now, let alone someone doing it before the internet was really a thing.  It might turn out I'm actually of Saxon or Slovak or something else entirely.

If it turned out my lineage is not German in origin, why would that be hilarious to troll? How many non-tribal Member Oklahoman's claim Native American heritage based on family stories?
I get that its cheap political points, like pointing out the Woody Guthrie song about Trump's dad or the birther conspiracy with Obama. Maybe the point is that one should not self identify with an ethnic group without proof? But unless we are going to make fun of everyone who relies on a family origin story, it seems very petty and irrelevant to someones character.  

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-wants-warren-prove-her-native-american-heritage-n864446

I found this interesting too:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/10/cherokee_blood_why_do_so_many_americans_believe_they_have_cherokee_ancestry.html

I have no roll card in Tahlequah.  However, I do know pretty well that I am descended from Cherokee.  My great-great grandmother (paternal side) was full blood Cherokee.  I know this how?  I didn't know this until I did some genealogy into my past.  My grandmother (maternal side) was heavy into genealogy research.  She has a published book of her family lineage.  She helped me on my dad's side of the family.  It was difficult because my dad never knew his real father.  Never met him, never spoke with him.  I tracked him down and found all about that side of the family through him.  My newly found relative was nothing like my dad.  A lot of family dirt that kicked this poor guy to the curb, I found out years later.

I'm rambling.  My point is, I found out via Census reports and one lone photo I have of this woman.  She looks full blood.  Cherokees made it so that in order to have a card, you only needed to have 1/512 Cherokee blood (which is less that 0.2 percent).  Who is to say the Senator doesn't?  I didn't know my heritage from my dad's side and found out that I'm at least 1/16 Cherokee.  Who knows?  It's all in what is considered "Native American".  If he's betting a million dollars, he might want to think twice if they decide to use the Cherokee Quora rule.

Or not.

[swake]

I have no roll card in Tahlequah.  However, I do know pretty well that I am descended from Cherokee.  My great-great grandmother (paternal side) was full blood Cherokee.  I know this how?  I didn't know this until I did some genealogy into my past.  My grandmother (maternal side) was heavy into genealogy research.  She has a published book of her family lineage.  She helped me on my dad's side of the family.  It was difficult because my dad never knew his real father.  Never met him, never spoke with him.  I tracked him down and found all about that side of the family through him.  My newly found relative was nothing like my dad.  A lot of family dirt that kicked this poor guy to the curb, I found out years later.

I'm rambling.  My point is, I found out via Census reports and one lone photo I have of this woman.  She looks full blood.  Cherokees made it so that in order to have a card, you only needed to have 1/512 Cherokee blood (which is less that 0.2 percent).  Who is to say the Senator doesn't?  I didn't know my heritage from my dad's side and found out that I'm at least 1/16 Cherokee.  Who knows?  It's all in what is considered "Native American".  If he's betting a million dollars, he might want to think twice if they decide to use the Cherokee Quora rule.

Or not.

Not completely true. To become a Cherokee Tribal citizen there is no set blood quantum at all. But to be a member you must have a provable ancestor on the Dawes Rolls.

http://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship/Citizenship

Elizabeth Warren does not have that. Does that absolutely mean that her family stores are wrong and she has no Cherokee history at all? No, but according to genealogists that have looked into her family history it's very unlikely.

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/elizabeth-warren-s-genealogical-challenge-d6CwvV21j0i5Ctvuo6p_XQ/

But there is a long history of white people that claim to have a Cherokee Princess (great) grandmother. It's really odd actually, this is a very specific claim that people make to the point that it's become a joke among natives. One way to tell a fake native is someone claims to have a Cherokee Princess grandmother.  

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/10/cherokee_blood_why_do_so_many_americans_believe_they_have_cherokee_ancestry.html

Hoss, that's not to belittle your research. It's just a strange quirk of history that so many people have these false family stories about being Cherokee. These people are often the "Indians" that in public surveys that say they are fine with crap like the team name "Redskins". Actual natives are not ok with it.

I urge you to document this lady, her name and birth information and find her or her relative on the Dawes Rolls for the Cherokee Nation. Then you will need to your link yourself to her generation by generation and submit it to the Cherokee Nation.

[Hoss]

And my research into my family on my Dad's side had nothing to do with finding out if I was Native American or not.  I was trying to find out about my Dad's side of the family and that came out.  I don't really look Native American (aside from the high cheekbones).  Look more Anglo.  But hey, it's interesting to find out where you descend from.  I could care less about being on the Dawe's Rolls but I was interested in finding out where my ancestors came from.  It turns out from France and Scotland on my mother's side, and my Father's side has some German and the Cherokee Tribe in it.  They initially migrated to North Carolina in the 1600s and moved to Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1800s.  Late 1900s that part of the family moved to a town (name escapes me now) just outside of Eufaula.  They then moved to South Dakota and back to Oklahoma in the early 1900s.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Say it ain't so....  Ivanka is getting a pass on tariffs for her product lines.  None of which have ever been Made in America...

Minions gotta be so overjoyed!!


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ivanka-trumps-chinese-made-products-spared-from-tariffs/ar-AAzLWEH?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

[Red Arrow]

If it turned out my lineage is not German in origin,

you might need to trade in your Lederhosen for a kilt.

[patric]

Say it ain't so....  Ivanka is getting a pass on tariffs for her product lines.  None of which have ever been Made in America...

Minions gotta be so overjoyed!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ivanka-trumps-chinese-made-products-spared-from-tariffs/ar-AAzLWEH?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Even the MAGA hats are not all made in USA.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-made-in-america_us_596f9be6e4b01696c6a24918

[patric]

President Donald Trump Monday slammed a New York Times article about U.S. opposition to a World Health Assembly resolution encouraging breastfeeding.

Calling the story "fake news," he tweeted, "The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don't believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty."

The president's tweet seems to mischaracterize the resolution, which was introduced in May and sought to encourage member nations to support breastfeeding.
The resolution spoke to the health benefits of breastfeeding and included ways that member nations can support mothers who want to breastfeed.
It did not encourage them to limit access to formula.

The New York Times reported Sunday that the United States "upended deliberations" by arguing in the interest of infant formula manufacturers. The Times also reported that the United States threatened Ecuador, which was planning to introduce the measure, with trade sanctions and the removal of military aid.

In the face of the reported threat, Ecuador dropped the resolution. It was eventually sponsored by Russia, which, the Times reported, did not receive similar opposition from the United States.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-responds-york-times-article-us-opposition/story?id=56467569