Trump OKs DACA Amnesty: ‘This Is a Case of Heart’

[Garnier Fructis]

is the same as the rage you have now that Trump is doing things that classically the Liberals have done.

You're hilariously misunderstanding something if you think we're angry about this. We think it's great, but we're not about to pass up a chance to laugh at the people who did vote to get rid of them all.

[The Penguin]

You're hilariously misunderstanding something if you think we're angry about this. We think it's great, but we're not about to pass up a chance to laugh at the people who did vote to get rid of them all.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything, save the hostility from some posters.

They ought be thrilled by this. For me, I'll take a third option that is fair any day over what either party says.

[Mafic]

Trump is a master negotiator. And leadership often requires you make choices that are not popular in the short term but are important in the long term.

[The Penguin]

Trump is a master negotiator. And leadership often requires you make choices that are not popular in the short term but are important in the long term.

Exactly, and with how hyper triggered and partisan both the Left and Right are now I will gladly support anyone who tries to negotiate. It showcases elegantly who and what the real problem children in the Government are, and allows for their excision from said government in time by virtue of an election.

[Edge-]

Trump is a master negotiator. And leadership often requires you make choices that are not popular in the short term but are important in the long term.

Considering this is just him returning to one of his 5-6 stances on illegal immigrants in the US over the past year, I'm not sure how you can seriously say this.

[The Penguin]

Considering this is just him returning to one of his 5-6 stances on illegal immigrants in the US over the past year, I'm not sure how you can seriously say this.

Ok. We get it. You dislike Trump. Thanks for the contribution.

[Garnier Fructis]

Trump is a master negotiator. And leadership often requires you make choices that are not popular in the short term but are important in the long term.

The master negotiator that bungled the Taiwan Strait issue, then backed down. The master negotiator that got into a pissing match with his own party over healthcare, then lost.

The possibilities are 1) he has little to no clue what he's doing or 2) 4D chess. Keep believing in the 4D chess, I guess.

[The Penguin]

I feel as if a repeat is in order.

Ok. We get it. You dislike Trump. Thanks for the contribution.

[The Penguin]

OK. We get it. You can't stand Trump being criticized. Thanks for the contribution.

Try pointing out where my initial post was incorrect and I will concede.

You can't however because this is one of the cases where the facts speak for themselves.

[kasuke06]

The master negotiator that bungled the Taiwan Strait issue, then backed down. The master negotiator that got into a pissing match with his own party over healthcare, then lost.

The possibilities are 1) he has little to no clue what he's doing or 2) 4D chess. Keep believing in the 4D chess, I guess.

A part of negotiation is gambling. sometimes you get the flush, sometimes you get a pair of twos. You can try to stack the deck in your favor all you want, but if you play one hand wrong then the whole thing can come down around your ears.

[owbu]

Hillary does the same thing!!... Oh wait, wrong topic for this.

[Garnier Fructis]

A part of negotiation is gambling. sometimes you get the flush, sometimes you get a pair of twos. You can try to stack the deck in your favor all you want, but if you play one hand wrong then the whole thing can come down around your ears.

As you said, there's strategy to gambling. Trump's handling of these was like being dealt a two-seven and then thinking "hey, this is great! I'm all in!"

In fact, I think that's almost a perfect analogy for how the healthcare business went down. It was worth then what we've got now and it was hated by a plurality of voters. Who on Earth would bet on that, much less go all in? He ain't Tom Dwan.

[announced]

I look forward to all the Trumpsters opinion of this. Especially the ones saying people born of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens.

Technically they really shouldn't. Would you award a murderer for murdering people? how about cheering on a rapist and supplying him more victims? People breaking the law shouldn't be given anything, regardless of the crime. Especially since citizenship status takes forever for legal immigrants to obtain. In my opinion there should be a pathway to legal status made easier but with a few conditions;

1. Anyone applying for status cannot have a criminal record, and if they are found guilty of committing a crime, their citizenship status will be put under review
2. They can't be drug dealers or heavy drug users
3. They must work at least 30 hours a week and pay taxes for a minimum of 10 years
4. Even after the 10 year period they may still be deported if they are found committing crimes, or are involved in illegal activities

more conditions may apply, but that's the gist of it. Don't be a loser or a drug dealer and make sure you are working hard and not a criminal.

As for the kids. Kids are great for making points and they get used quite often but people don't think rationally when there's children involved. Trump included.

What always makes me laugh is when I see anti-trumpkins shitting on Trump every chance they get believing we must have agreed with every single one of his policies right down to the letter. The truth is maybe some people did agree with every single one of his stances, maybe they only agreed with a few of them? who knows. Just because your candidate has some great policies in one direction, that doesn't mean he have bad ones as well. Hopefully these kids turn out ok.

[kasuke06]

As you said, there's strategy to gambling. Trump's handling of these was like being dealt a two-seven and then thinking "hey, this is great! I'm all in!"

In fact, I think that's almost a perfect analogy for how the healthcare business went down. It was worth then what we've got now and it was hated by a plurality of voters. Who on Earth would bet on that, much less go all in?

He's a good negotiator, not a great gambler. while they're similar, they're not the exact same. he couldn't stack the deck in his favor well enough, and it blew up in his face.

[The Penguin]

Non sequitur.

Well Nixx. If that's the best you've got then ok. It's Ok.

- - - Updated - - -

What always makes me laugh is when I see anti-trumpkins shitting on Trump every chance they get believing we must have agreed with every single one of his policies right down to the letter. The truth is maybe some people did agree with every single one of his stances, maybe they only agreed with a few of them? who knows. Just because your candidate has some great policies in one direction, that doesn't mean he have bad ones as well. Hopefully these kids turn out ok.

This post is quite likely the most intelligent one I've read tonight.

The Anti-Trumpers lost the argument back in January when the country decided who #45 would be.

[Garnier Fructis]

He's a good negotiator, not a great gambler. while they're similar, they're not the exact same. he couldn't stack the deck in his favor well enough, and it blew up in his face.

If a part of negotiation is gambling and he's not a great gambler, then how can he be a good negotiator?

We have a simpler explanation: he has no clue what he's doing.

[Kiri]

He's a good negotiator, not a great gambler. while they're similar, they're not the exact same. he couldn't stack the deck in his favor well enough, and it blew up in his face.

To be honest, a lot of the great deals he's made in the past were less about gambling - and negotiating. They were about power. Trump usually went into negotiations wielding more power/money than the other side, enabling him to give them 'take it or leave it' deals without much repercussions. That is just how the American brand of capitalism works, very predatory.

Naturally, one would expect that tho translate well into the Oval Office. After all, the POTUS is often called the most powerful man in the world. But, as the healthcare bill thing and other incidents have shown is that there are people who can oppose him in some form. Just look at how he tried to strong-arm the Freedom Caucus into voting for the plan. He could not just give them money, like with Carrier etc, so he tried force. Did not work out the way he wanted it.

Thus, he is now working a different way in many respects, from Healthcare, to the Wall, to China. From the sidelines, it appears that he is only now beginning to seek compromise, the hallmark of someone who is actually a great negotiator in international and domestic politics. You compromise in such a way that you still get the best for yourself/your side. Just basically bullying a smaller business into giving you what you want is not. But that might be a cultural difference in view between Americans and people with different brands of capitalism.

[kasuke06]

If a part of negotiation is gambling and he's not a great gambler, then how can he be a good negotiator?

We have a simpler explanation: he has no clue what he's doing.

quite easily. to be a good negotiator is to make the gamble when the odds are best in your favor. to be a great gambler is to use a strategy in a fair game or when the deck is stacked against you. They're similar, but not the same. Negotiation is the art of stacking the deck before you gamble, and gambling is the art of turning a bad situation to your own favor in the moment.

[Felya]

quite easily. to be a good negotiator is to make the gamble when the odds are best in your favor. to be a great gambler is to use a strategy in a fair game or when the deck is stacked against you. They're similar, but not the same. Negotiation is the art of stacking the deck before you gamble, and gambling is the art of turning a bad situation to your own favor in the moment.

Another word for gambling, is being bad at math. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a gamble. You have a bizarrely positive view of gambling... there are support groups for that. Not even giving you shit.

[Felya]

That's a really bad way of thinking about gambling. Being good at math makes you a more effective gambler, but it doesn't generally remove the element of chance outright and so long as that element of chance exists, it's still gambling.

No, it really isn't. Betting against the house is always a mistake. The odds are always against you. They are stacked specially and explicitly against you. You can count cards and do similar tact, but figuring out the answer to a riddle, isn't a gamble.

Negotiations are far simpler to describe, but not easy to pull off. It selling someone on the idea of mutual benefit, while explicitly wanting to favor your self. Think about selling something you don't want, but setting the price at what one is willing to pay. Unlike a gamble, you actually see all of the cards on the table. The point is to find lethal...