Trump

[Tolvo]

Yep it's why in this video even Pence has a red tie.

Pelosi isn't who I would want, but she's probably the best we could actually get. And she has ties and pull that will help her accomplish things. She's pretty milquetoast but I think that's the best we're gonna get.

Honestly he could have probably had his wall if he himself had just compromised on things, the Dems offered it to him many times in exchange for other things like more protections for children of immigrants, but he wanted his wall with no concessions of his own. His unwillingness to compromise has really hampered his ability to do more of the things he's wanted, which I'm kind of thankful for.

[gaggedLouise]

Pelosi's reaction after the White House meeting - she feels that Trump is not truly a man and too eager to prove that he's the big guy.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi privately questioned President Donald Trump's "manhood" after a contentious meeting Tuesday about funding his wall at the southern border.

"It's like a manhood thing for him," Pelosi told Democratic members at a closed meeting of the Steering and Policy Committee on Capitol Hill, according to an aide in the room. "As if manhood could ever be associated with him. This wall thing."

Pelosi, in a feisty mood after the heated exchange with the President, also compared the President to a skunk.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/11/politics/pelosi-aide-trump-meeting-own-shutdown-wall-manhood/index.html

[Nachtmahr]

Honestly he could have probably had his wall if he himself had just compromised on things, the Dems offered it to him many times in exchange for other things like more protections for children of immigrants, but he wanted his wall with no concessions of his own. His unwillingness to compromise has really hampered his ability to do more of the things he's wanted, which I'm kind of thankful for.

I think we can chalk that one up to the fact that he isn't a politician. He isn't playing politics, he's trying to "win". Every sensible high school graduate knows that politics is a game of compromise, but he's clueless to that fact. He seems convinced that it's either his way or the highway.

He could've accomplished a lot more if he was willing to play the game instead of his brute force approach.

Pelosi's reaction after the White House meeting - she feels that Trump is not truly a man and too eager to prove that he's the big guy.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/11/politics/pelosi-aide-trump-meeting-own-shutdown-wall-manhood/index.html

Who wants to take bets that she didn't intend for that remark to stay private? All criticism aside, she's shrewd. She knows comments like that will get under his skin. If Trump wasn't Trump, and hadn't said and done the things he has, I'd want to call this out as childish, unhelpful and more than a bit sexist, but given the circumstances..

Actually, I'm not entirely happy with it. This is the level at which Trump wants to operate, and while I'm all for laying into him, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to bring the conversation down into the gutter. But it might score her some points if it blows up.

[Tolvo]

I guess to be fair, he has made remarks publicly about his penis before while campaigning. Using euphemisms to say he has a big penis and that he's bigger than other people. So it actually is something he himself has tied to his political platform before.

[Oniya]

There's no party-line on ties (not like schools in Britain), but I'm wondering if Donny-Boy might have read one of those fashion sites. 

Blue

Conveying trust, stability and confidence a blue tie is perfect for client facing or public speaking.  That being said, it’s no coincidence that politicians and salesmen are frequently seen in blue ties.  The lighter blue shade is softer and appears more approachable.  A darker shade of blue represents seriousness and matter-of-factness.

Because at this point, he's not going to convey 'stable' any other way.

[Regina Minx]

Second of all - a blue tie? I'm not actually American, nor an expert on American politics, but I'd have assumed that a Republican president wearing a blue tie would be a bit of a faux pax.

Let’s not go too far down that rabbit hole.

[Tolvo]

Oh yeah I should have clarified. It's like just wearing a tie people might think is a bit tacky. Not an actual political incident. And lots of presidents at times don't care too much if someone thinks they're wearing the red tie, as evidenced in the photos above. A lot of people just tend to prefer to wear ties affiliating with their party's colors. Beware the president in the black and red tie.

[Oniya]

According to the menswear site I looked at, red is considered the 'power tie'.

[Tolvo]

Well at least he hasn't worn a tan suit yet. Then they might really impeach them. We have a presidential fitness award and test we might as well have a presidential fashion show while we're at it. Though Trump might just show up covered in glitter and gold like his toilet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq7Eki5EZ8o

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-relishing-prospect-owning-government-shutdown-republicans-aren-t-n946761

Also it seems like Republicans are not happy about the idea of a government shutdown.

[Yvellakitsune]

Actually the entire Red=Republican and Blue=Democrat thing didn't start until 2000.  Colors initially didn't matter because TVs were black and white.  Then there was no standard and yellow and other colors were used.  Red and blue became more standard in the 1980s, but it still wasn't set.  Then in 2000 with Florida, the term "Red State" and "Blue State" took on specific meaning. 

Here is an article about it.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/red-vs-blue-a-brief-history-of-how-we-use-political-colors/?utm_term=.09aea84f3c37

The trend really hasn't been around long enough to symbolize anything in dress code yet and colors still have other meanings in fashion as some other posts mentioned.   

[Nachtmahr]

Let’s not go too far down that rabbit hole.

That's totally fair - as stated, I'm no expert. Just seemed odd to me.

[Tolvo]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/donald-trump-deport-vietnam-war-refugees/577993/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&utm_term=2018-12-12T19%3A26%3A40

What in the everloving fuck. I get this is the logical extreme of his beliefs on immigration. I just didn't expect Trump to push "Time to deport Vietnamese citizens who came here during and before the Vietnam War, many of them being refugees."

[Yvellakitsune]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/donald-trump-deport-vietnam-war-refugees/577993/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&utm_term=2018-12-12T19%3A26%3A40

What in the everloving fuck. I get this is the logical extreme of his beliefs on immigration. I just didn't expect Trump to push "Time to deport Vietnamese citizens who came here during and before the Vietnam War, many of them being refugees."

First of all, this is not a blanket deportation order of any kind.  It is specifically on persons with criminal records. 

Second, a question I have in general is, if they cannot return to Vietnam at all, why did they not apply for citizenship after 5 years?  Refugees are eligible for citizenship after 5 years or after 3 years if they are married to a US Citizen.  These are people who have chosen to stay in an immigrant/refugee status for decades.  They must have their reasons, but if they choose to do that, they subject themselves to consequences associated with that choice.  If they commit a crime, they are subject to those consequences as well, the same as any immigrant or refugee. 

But the article shows in two places this is only applied to a small group who have committed crimes and not all refugees from the Vietnam War who are still not citizens for whatever reason.  This is not anything extreme. 

[Tolvo]

The article is about how the new order removes the focus on only those with a criminal record and is now broadening to just mean Vietnamese people in general from before a certain time period. That is the crux of the article and focus of it.

[Yvellakitsune]

The administration last year began pursuing the deportation of many long-term immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia, and other countries who the administration alleges are “violent criminal aliens.”

Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for DHS said: “We have 5,000 convicted criminal aliens from Vietnam with final orders of removal—these are non-citizens who during previous administrations were arrested, convicted, and ultimately ordered removed by a federal immigration judge. It’s a priority of this administration to remove criminal aliens to their home country.”

When it first decided to reinterpret the 2008 deal, Donald Trump’s administration argued that only pre-1995 arrivals with criminal convictions were exempt from the agreement’s protection and eligible for deportation.

Note the "with criminal convictions were exempt..." in the third quote.  It does not say all Vietnamese refugees are subject to this.  Trump's argument stated in this article says specifically people with criminal records are exempt from the protection. 

[Tolvo]

Yes, that was how it did work, this article is about how Trump's admin is making a new push to make it be towards non-criminals as well. That is specifically what the article is about.

"This is the latest move in the president’s long record of prioritizing harsh immigration and asylum restrictions, and one that’s sure to raise eyebrows—the White House had hesitantly backed off the plan in August before reversing course. In essence, the administration has now decided that Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the country before the establishment of diplomatic ties between the United States and Vietnam are subject to standard immigration law—meaning they are all eligible for deportation."

"The White House unilaterally reinterpreted the agreement in the spring of 2017 to exempt people convicted of crimes from its protections, allowing the administration to send back a small number of pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants, a policy it retreated from this past August. Last week, however, a spokesperson for the U.S. embassy in Hanoi said the American government was again reversing course."

"Washington now believes that the 2008 agreement fails to protect pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants from deportation, the spokesperson, who asked not to be identified by name because of embassy procedures, told The Atlantic."

“The United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral agreement on removals in 2008 that establishes procedures for deporting Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States after July 12, 1995, and are subject to final orders of removal,” the spokesperson said. “While the procedures associated with this specific agreement do not apply to Vietnamese citizens who arrived in the United States before July 12, 1995, it does not explicitly preclude the removal of pre-1995 cases.”

[Skynet]

Note the "with criminal convictions were exempt..." in the third quote.  It does not say all Vietnamese refugees are subject to this.  Trump's argument stated in this article says specifically people with criminal records are exempt from the protection.

Given that 'criminal records' can include misdemeanors in addition to felonies, and given that many Vietnam veterans have struggled with poverty and homelessness and are thus more likely to be arrested, couldn't this still hit a large target?

[Yvellakitsune]

And the article still doesn't say refugees with no criminal record are being deported or planned to be deported.  The Trump Administration specifically said criminals.  You even quoted that yourself Tolvo.  This is not some blanket order to deport all refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  It does not say this is to target non-criminals.  Various interpretations and it appears apparently by the author.  The specific quotes from the administration cite criminals, not non-criminals.

Skynet...  Again, the administration specifically says "violent criminal aliens."  The specific people in question here are people who already have deportation orders.  Again, not all refugees from before 1995. 

Find specifically where the Trump Administration says it wants to deport the non-criminals refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  Not the author or an unidentified source, where the Administration says it.

[Tolvo]

I don't know what to say then if sources don't count from within the government. I guess I just can't convince you then that is what the article is talking about and saying.

[Yvellakitsune]

I do agree that the author and the unknown source are trying to imply it.  The article appears to take one thing the Administration and identified officials actually did say (that violent criminals are not protected) and then put in commentary and analysis by the author and an unknown source that leave out the "violent criminal" part.  "Non-criminal" does not even appear in the article.  The Administration talks about criminals specifically, the other parties talk about "refugees" in a general sense.  Neither actually says Trump is deporting non-criminals in the article.   

I do think we have reached the end of this and we respectfully disagree.  Maybe I'll catch up with you on another topic sometime.   

[Callie Del Noire]

And the article still doesn't say refugees with no criminal record are being deported or planned to be deported.  The Trump Administration specifically said criminals.  You even quoted that yourself Tolvo.  This is not some blanket order to deport all refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  It does not say this is to target non-criminals.  Various interpretations and it appears apparently by the author.  The specific quotes from the administration cite criminals, not non-criminals.

Skynet...  Again, the administration specifically says "violent criminal aliens."  The specific people in question here are people who already have deportation orders.  Again, not all refugees from before 1995. 

Find specifically where the Trump Administration says it wants to deport the non-criminals refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  Not the author or an unidentified source, where the Administration says it.

The administration has creatively interpreted and retroactively applied offense on folks before and deported them. Criminal offenses that the deported person had already served time for and paid their dept on as well as being misdemeanors. This is the administration that justifed separating families seeking asylum by charging the adults with illegal entry, which is a simple misdemeanor.

I trust them and their interpretation of ‘justifed criminal acts’ as far as I can throw the White House.

[Skynet]

And the article still doesn't say refugees with no criminal record are being deported or planned to be deported.  The Trump Administration specifically said criminals.  You even quoted that yourself Tolvo.  This is not some blanket order to deport all refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  It does not say this is to target non-criminals.  Various interpretations and it appears apparently by the author.  The specific quotes from the administration cite criminals, not non-criminals.

Skynet...  Again, the administration specifically says "violent criminal aliens."  The specific people in question here are people who already have deportation orders.  Again, not all refugees from before 1995. 

Find specifically where the Trump Administration says it wants to deport the non-criminals refugees from Vietnam before 1995.  Not the author or an unidentified source, where the Administration says it.

Again, this phrase can still be broad for all sorts of crimes. Many homeless people are very desperate and have to do all kinds of things to survive. Or even just get into a tussle with the law. As for the violent part, this can also include things such as one-time assaults, which aren't always a felony depending on jurisdiction.

[gaggedLouise]

With an inspired choice of words, Michael Cohen blamed his fresh jail sentence on Trump's "dirty deeds" (but he doesn't apologize to Stormy Daniels for having wronged and badmouthed her, while he offered apologies to many other people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAk4OAAzZBs

[Yvellakitsune]

The administration has creatively interpreted and retroactively applied offense on folks before and deported them. Criminal offenses that the deported person had already served time for and paid their dept on as well as being misdemeanors. This is the administration that justifed separating families seeking asylum by charging the adults with illegal entry, which is a simple misdemeanor.

I trust them and their interpretation of ‘justifed criminal acts’ as far as I can throw the White House.

This is not the only administration who separated families.  This is the administration that got called out for it.  There was almost total silence when previous administrations did it.  Jorge Ramos I think is about the only one who really talked about it previously.
 
The people in question here already have deportation orders from BEFORE the Trump Administration.  So as far as the article is concerned, it's not Trump's definition of "justified criminal acts". 

Trump is also not the only Administration who deported immigrants after they "paid their debt." 

If you want to believe unnamed sources, that is your choice.  As I said before, I see named sources saying one thing, and an unnamed source implying something else.  I see nothing that directly says non-criminals are being deported under this decision.

Again, this phrase can still be broad for all sorts of crimes. Many homeless people are very desperate and have to do all kinds of things to survive. Or even just get into a tussle with the law. As for the violent part, this can also include things such as one-time assaults, which aren't always a felony depending on jurisdiction.

Again, this was based on people who already had deportation orders, before Trump even.  Yes, it can mean there will be future ones.  Most criminals do their crimes to "survive" or make their lives better, citizens too.  This article and the statements provided are about people who already have orders for deportation though. So apparently we don't trust judges from before Trump now too? 

This policy really only existed under Obama.  Bush initiated it in January of 2008, so it was only really only practiced under Obama.  It's not really some long standing staple of national policy, effectively one administration in practice.    That is not really long in the big picture. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Again, this phrase can still be broad for all sorts of crimes. Many homeless people are very desperate and have to do all kinds of things to survive. Or even just get into a tussle with the law. As for the violent part, this can also include things such as one-time assaults, which aren't always a felony depending on jurisdiction.

Remember shoving a cop is assault. And that is ' a violent offense."