Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Tale of Two Donalds
Donald Trump delivered two major speeches Wednesday, one in Mexico City and one in Phoenix. They might as well have been delivered by two different candidates.
Earlier in the day, Trump held a joint appearance with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in which the GOP nominee delivered a meek, conciliatory message stressing friendship. Trump spoke as much of Mexico’s need for job security and border enforcement as he did of America’s. He abandoned his threat to leave NAFTA, and instead proposed the countries work together to improve the trade agreement.
“A strong, prosperous, and vibrant Mexico is in the best interest of the United States,” Trump said. “Both of our countries will work together for mutual good and most importantly for the mutual good of our people.” He also stressed the importance of protecting manufacturing jobs not just in America, but throughout “our hemisphere.” Trump’s muted voice and bowed body language demonstrated even more contrition to the country he had spent a year inveighing against.
Pundits and journalists applauded the Mexico City speech as evidence of the heralded “Trump pivot.” He was kinder, gentler — presidential even. They should have resisted the “New Trump” reviews until more details trickled out of Los Pinos and until he spoke later that night. While standing next to the President of Mexico, Trump said that the two “didn’t discuss payment of the wall.” A couple of hours later, Peña Nieto said they had. “At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump,” the Mexican President said, “I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.”
Once he was safely back in the US, Old Trump was back. Before taking the stage, his supporters tossed slab after slab of red meat to the yelling crowd. Sheriff Joe Arpaio bragged about the illegals he’s locked up. Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Sessions spoke angrily of our broken border while sporting “Make Mexico Great Again Also” hats. A parade of moms shared one by one how illegal immigrants “slaughtered” their family members while a dad noted how an illegal “shot my son in the face.”
By the time he took the stage, the crowd was hungry for an anti-Mexico stance and Trump delivered. Instead of the promised policy speech on immigration, it was another rally for his biggest fans. When in Mexico, Trump didn’t discuss payment of the wall, but in Phoenix he said, “Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me — 100 percent — they don’t know it yet, but they will pay for the wall.” He claimed President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” deportation plan didn’t go far enough. Trump promised he would deport 2 million criminal aliens on “day one, my first hour in office.”
He insisted “there will be no amnesty” and joked that his anti-immigration force might also deport Hillary Clinton. As part of Trump’s “extreme vetting” he now will require “an ideological certification” to ensure new immigrants are properly pro-American. The 74-minute speech ended with Trump calling the moms back to the stage so they could detail again how illegal immigrants killed their family members and publicly endorse the GOP nominee.
As I noted between the two speeches, if Trump played contrite in Mexico and bombastic in the US, it would make him look vacillating and weak. An actual tough guy will take on a skeptical audience as well as a supportive one. Even if the tone is different, he would communicate the same message to wildly different crowds.
Instead, we saw Trump pander to whichever audience he was with at the moment. In Mexico he was servile; in Arizona he swaggered. In Mexico, diplomacy; in Arizona, derision. Presidential when meeting a president; outrageous when meeting the outraged.
Which Trump will we get if he makes it to the White House? We just can’t know.
Published in Immigration
I believe I have, and what’s more the OP seems to agree with me. I can’t force you to recognize reality.
Weak.
True but at least he fights. Gabriel I mean…
That would reinforce my point that the claim of a reversal is unfounded.
If you want to say that you can’t evaluate Trump’s plan, that’s a reasonable statement. That would be softer than the usual opposition which would be more like “He can’t do that!”
That also misses the basis for Trump’s support. People who supported him during the primaries weren’t looking for detailed plans. They felt like no one was even trying to be on their side of immigration and trade policies, so just pointing in the right direction made Trump a huge improvement.
True, and still true. Detailed plans of candidates are nonsense in the American system. Goals are the critical thing. What will they try and achieve? After it gets into the system of President, House and Senate, the goal is the only thing you can measure. Plans are forgotten.
I’ve been a Trump supporter for some time now but must admit to having reservations along the way with some of his rhetoric That said, yesterday cemented my belief that he can be an excellent president. His remarks in Mexico were measured and very appropriate. The first half of the Phoenix speech had me smiling and clapping my hands. It was a little long, but that’s okay too. We’ll get both Trumps as president, and that’s okay too.
Oh yes!!
It is my imagination or are a lot of our new members pro Trump? If so, I love it. We need you and welcome you.
I recognize the reality that we are in disagreement. If you’re trying to leapfrog the actual debate and simply declare that I’m wrong because have my “own facts” and can’t “recognize reality” then you are arguing from a very weak position. I have quoted Trump to bolster my arguments. What have you done to bolster your argument?
I have stated my case that Trump arguing for keeping manufacturing “in our hemisphere” is a shift from his previous position of keeping manufacturing in America. If you can find me a quote prior to yesterday where Trump advocates the hemisphere policy I’ll recant and stand corrected. Quotes from the same speech do nothing to disprove the notion that the hemisphere policy is a shift away from his America only policy.
For example Carrier – if Trump was abiding by his hemisphere policy prior to yesterday why did he make a big deal about it moving to Mexico? That’s the same hemisphere right? (Then again so is China depending on which geographical definition you’re using)
I tried to get some understanding of what is thought to be going on with NAFTA in #35 but no response.
I answered you in #37. If you find that insufficient then perhaps you should clarify your question.
My bad. Please accept my apology. You did answer and also referred me to James of England for more. I guess the one part I still have trouble with is why a trade agreement is better than nothing. Why isn’t nothing being done to infringe trade between parties free trade?
Jamie, Trump said he wants what’s best for America. You seem not to be willing to accept that. I don’t see how it’s contradictory to want Carrier to stay in America and to also talk about America and Mexico wanting what’s best for our hemisphere.
I’m a Red Sox fan. If they don’t make it to the World Series, I root for the American League team.
Because absent an agreement usually nothing is done amount tariffs created by domestic regimes. Rarely do countries eliminate tariff’s unilaterally (Hong Kong and Singapore are the only examples that come to mind).
I knew there was something wrong with you.
“To one who loves his country in all its parts, it is natural to rejoice in whatever contributes to the prosperity and honor and marks the stability and progress of any portion of its people.”
So did Jefferson Davis.
You probably like cricket or something. ?
Really?
The point is that that’s a goofy thing to say because you can say it about anybody and it means anything.
I do like cricket, but for baseball I’m a Giants fan.
I think he meant that ’80s doll with the tape recorder in her back.
It’s not a goofy thing to say in the context of our discussion.
Your comment is goofy.
Not quite how I’d characterize our conversation but ok…
Quite.