unrepentant 11:20I'm still waiting for you to tell us what bill had
partial funding for the wall in it.Did you just make that up, or
Assume it? Or was it a real bill.You said, "Trump has
repeatedly been offered parital funding for his wall by the leaders of both
parties"...In what bill? I want to look it up.I
heard Chuck Schumer on TV this morning saying "We are not funding the wall
in any way shape or form"...That doesn't sound
conciliatory, or a willingness to compromise. In fact.. it sounds like the
exact opposite of those.But Trump's the one who won't
unrepentant 11:20RE: The recent squabble between Trump and Opposition
Party Leaders in the Oval office... "Who started a squabble and who lied
repeatedly during that interchange? (Trump, as usual)"...---The
clips I saw on National News didn't show who started it. Or who lied
repeatedly. But they were just clips, so you could be right. But they
clearly showed Pelosi and Schumer's inability to tolerate Trump's
consistent request to fund construction of the security wall on the border.
Same wall Congress passed a law to build when Clinton was President. Same wall
Congress required be built when Bush was President.The border wall
isn't new. First sections were built in 30s. Clinton added to it. Bush
added to it. But Ds can't tolerate Trump doing the same now. It needs
to be drawn out till next election and used as a tool. To get the Hispanic
vote.===RE: "Trump has repeatedly been offered
partial funding for his wall"...---What bill was that? I want
to google it and read it, and see if you are telling the truth.Did
it pass?If it didn't it's not a real offer. It's
just a bargaining chip, a show for the cameras. Not a real offer.
If I may read between the lines here, the editor is suggesting that our
politicians "go along to get along."Regarding immigration,
that means de facto amnesty, with decades of "comprehensive reform"
rumors that went nowhere.Laws on the books that went unenforced in
the face of regular immigration violation "hits" in our county jails.
Quarterly ICE round-ups in major cities, netting 50 criminal aliens, while
300,000 remained at-large.Pre-Obama, worksite raids amounted to
enforcement theater. (Those ended in 2009.)If you could go back to
that system, why would you?The EU has seen terrorism imported along
with migration. Separate enclaves now have separate laws.Is the
editor calling for a global end to national identity?What are
readers supposed to think?
Those voting for Brexit were tired of a vast unelected bureaucracy in Brussels
deciding the laws and regulations. The same as we have here though Mr. Trump
has had some success in limiting their activity. We have not even been able to
fire a Federal worker for any reason, but that is also changed.
RE: "Brexit is a warning sign for the Trump administration"...---What warning? That if we don't do what the Socialists want
they will revolt and bring violence and mayhem to our streets (like the
insurrections in France and UK)?What warning? That Trump better do
what they want, or else? Or else what?
The divisions mentioned in America are not new to the Trump
administration's time in office. America has been divided for some time
now. There is a congressional lunch room that used to be very busy - regularly
frequented by politicians from both sides of the aisle - where they would put
aside politics, or at least the most rancorous aspects of it, sit together,
develop good relations and discuss issues outside the glare of the spotlight. A
great deal of work got done here - people learning how to work together,
learning about both sides of the issues, and figuring out how to get the work of
the people done.Today, that room stands empty most of the time. The
voters, who used to understand what Reagan used to say - "it's better
to get 80% of what you want than 100% of nothing" - now seem to refuse to
accept anything less than 100% of their way. So good people get voted out for
trying to reach across the aisle, and not much gets done.If
something big does get done, its support is one-sided, and once that side loses
power the other side works to tear it down (e.g., the ACA). Until voters let
politicians work together, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.
@UtahBlueDevil:"Hannity will never let it happen. " Just
curious: Why did you leave out Maddow? Largely because I have never
watched Maddow. I have seen that her ratings are now almost matching Hannity
during their shared block. At the club I go work out in the
evenings they have CNN and FoxNews on TVs next to each other so as I treadmill
I watch both. Its a real interesting contrast. CNN is truly obsessed with
all things Trump - poking at him daily.But the difference between
them and Fox and the radio talking heads is the latter are actively campaigning
for a person/party. The CNN personalities don't show up at events as
participants. They don't appear on stage with candidates. They
occasionally saw stupid things, but they don't cross that line into overt
activism towards a person. Hannity, Limbaugh et al go there on a regular basis.
Hannity/Limbaugh/Culture actively portrayl the other side disparaging and
demeaning light.On the other hand FoxNews online.... more balanced.
According to my British friends and relatives, the current Brexit squabble is
more about buyer's remorse than anything.Now that the Brits
fully come to understand what Brexit means, many regret their votes to exit the
European Union. A lot of "I told you so's" from Brexit critics.
Those holidays in the South of France and Portugal become all the more onerous
to make. And the cheap goods from these and other countries won't be so
cheap anymore.PM May still has nominal control over her party which
holds the Parliamentary majority. However, many members of her party, who
supported Brexit, have discovered that their constituencies have changed their
mind once the effects become known. Therefore, this and future Parliamentary
squabbles will continue unless/until the Brits declare a time-out on Brexit.
Time to reflect on all the consequences of an ill-considered vote.This is not unlike the changed minds Americans have now over electing Trump to
the Presidency. The ramifications of that ill thought-out vote are now readily
apparent to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Vermonter - England is no longer a power base for industry. Most of their
biggest companies are owned by foreign interest. The banking powerhouse that
used to be there is moving to Germany and France. Their currency has been
loosing ground to the Euro since the announcement. Other than oil, there is
nothing that the UK produces that can't be produced elsewhere cheaper.
The UK is in a very perilous position. Their ability to drive the agenda has
diminished considerable.Their best export right now is music and the
Premiere League. The UK's contribution to the overall EU GDP is only
about 15%. Canada's GDP to US (1.9 Trillion to 19 Trillion), about 10%.
So technically you are right..... but not by very much. Of the top ten
corporations in the EU, only one is a British company... (BP plc). The majority
are French and German.So I will stick with my analogy. It's as
if Florida left the Union.... it would be a bummer but we would do just fine.
@SC Matt. I’m largely with you on this one. Everybody should have
the right to sell their labor to the highest bidder, globally. Like free trade,
this is called free labor mobility. Sovereign borders largely get in the way.
This is why I’m for relatively open borders, with security to
keep out criminals and terrorists. I’m also for legalization and even
permanent residency for most immigrants, minus citizenship, voting rights
and the right to hold a an elected or non-elected government job. After all, all
that most immigrants want is a better life.
@UtahBlueDevil:"Hannity will never let it happen. "Just curious: Why did you leave out Maddow? Do you have some reason to
believe that only conservatives are unreasonable, or that only conservatives
play to a narrow audience instead of trying to find some sort of middle ground?
"Can you imaging viewers/listeners tuning in to hear messages of
"the other side is right sometimes too"?"I don't
even see that here all that often, never mind major TV networks. Our
politicians don't listen to us. They talk at us. Same with TV
personalities.And this is exactly what happened in 2016. "Toxic
political outcome" pretty much describes the election of Trump. And it
happened because both parties, for a long time, ignored the needs of rural
America. They feel threatened by immigration. They're trying
to work and support themselves, but they feel left behind because somebody else
is willing to do the same job, but do it better and cheaper than they can. I count myself among those who didn't listen. I don't *care
more* about an American trying to get ahead than I do about somebody born in
another country. But Trump did. So he won.
Dear opinion,Isn't it great that a newspaper such as yourself
has the freedom to express your opinion. But please don't let
facts get in the way, as you silently ridicule Trump and conservatives on the
whole brexit mess and the US decision to abandon the climate conference and
globalism!GB voted to leave, it has not because of May who is a
Hilary Clinton twin!GB will leave, so will Italy, and Macron has an 18%
approval rating because he is dragging France kicking and screaming into a
communist high tax democratic party!The world is so much better when
small govt thrives, and countries have strong effective borders and economies!
n8ive American;Brexit is more like a warning to the republican
party. Quit dividing America!(see how easy that was?)
Brexit is more like a warning to the democratic party. Quit dividing America!
To the Editor:This article is about 4 years too late. In case you missed
it, the majority of Americans today describe our politics as
“toxic.”@marxist. Trump (and his trade and
immigration policies) are the answer to “the central issue of our
time—the status of hired labor in capitalism.” In case you missed
it, Trump won in 2016 by carrying most of the unionized Midwest (i.e.
“hired labor”).@Utah Blue Devil.The Great Britain
= Canada analogy crumbles when you realize Great Britain’s economy is a
much greater portion of the EU economy than Canada’s is as part of the
North American economy. It also crumbles to dust if France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Hungary and Austria or any combination of them decide to
leave the EU. All of the above are grumbling to one degree or another about
their continued membership in the EU.
Great Britain is going to be to the European Union what Canada is to the US.
Not necessarily a bad thing. I like Canada. But the British hardliners need to
understand their independence will come at a cost, and that will be having a
minimized voiced in the region. This was a vote of pride over long
term economic strength. No one needs what the UK produces.... even their brent
crude will diminish in influence over time. But they will still have their
Pound and their monarchy.
How can you come to this conclusion: "The recent televised argument among
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Trump documented an
inclination by all three leaders toward argumentative redlines over compromise
on immigration."?Who started a squabble and who lied repeatedly
during that interchange? (Trump, as usual)Who repeatedly asked for
the exchange to be off camera? (Pelosi, trying to protect the image of the
office of the Presidency)Who talked over the new Speaker of the
House dismissively? (Trump, like he always does)Who maintained a
degree of poise throughout, and acted like an adult? (Pelosi, Schumer)The Ultimate Red Line was put out by the President (Shut down the government),
not by the Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House. Trump has repeatedly
been offered parital funding for his wall by the leaders of both parties. His
ego won't allow him to say yes to a compromise.I can not
believe that any rational person could see it otherwise. IMHO, the nation was
shocked to its soul viewing the President's temper tantrum, and marks the
beginning to the end of his political future.
The Brexit mess is a cautionary tale. EU was intended to create a coalition
similar to the United States. But open borders, regulation and extreme left
policies made it advantageous for Britain to go it alone.The danger
for us can be seen in sanctuary states. If some states don't want to
enforce immigration law, give illegals drivers licenses and in-state tuition,
provide welfare, even allow them to vote...it is not unreasonable to expect
backlash from some states.This is NOT a matter of a few extremists,
as the editorial suggests. Brexit won on 52% of the vote. The turnout was over
72%. (There is no evidence of Russian collusion;).)The editor
suggests that Londoners chose rightly and that rubes in the countryside
didn't know what they were doing. I find that notion offensive.This editorial is extreme globalism.
"The Brexit process should serve as a warning sign that this kind of
governance is both corrosive and unsustainable. The path forward for polarized
political contexts is not to double down; it is to soften — listening to
the needs of citizens and constituencies before they reach the boiling point of
toxic political outcome."Soft and consoling words these, but
they ignore the central issue of our time - the status of hired labor in
capitalism. BREXIT resulted from a British working class stretched beyond the
point of endurance. Labor in Britain, in the U.S., in the world is
desperate. So Deseret News, offer them something.
Second sentence: "Since the referendum was called by nationalists agitating
for a succession from the European Union ..."Surely you mean
"agitating for *secession*."
"The path forward for polarized political contexts is not to double down; it
is to soften — listening to the needs of citizens and constituencies
before they reach the boiling point of toxic political outcome."Will never happen. Not with today's shock-jock politics. Hannity will
never let it happen. Limbaugh will never let it happen..... there is way too
much money in dividing people than there is pulling people together. Can you
imaging viewers/listeners tuning in to hear messages of "the other side is
right sometimes too"? The whole genre of media is about slamming someone
else.Not going to happen until Americans get board by nasty
entertainment... entertainment that gives them a sense of superiority over
others. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Yet another example of the citizens making a decision at the ballot box only to
be overruled by the losing party’s politicians.