If a system of fences can get the same job done, better, for less money, and be built quicker, why would anyone who voted for him complain? I would expect we'd be pleased that he's not only willing to be flexible in terms of prioritizing function over form, but that he values taxpayer dollars enough not to waste them on a vanity project.
There were always problems with the idea of a wall spanning the entire border, including but not limited to dealing with water ways and run-off from rainfall, and animal migration patterns.
Some have pointed out that Hillary's answer to the border problem was a fence, and now Trump's solution is probably going to look more like Hillary's fence than a "big beautiful wall." I will deal with that when addressing the second point.
2) The Illegals:
First off, some would argue that being in the country illegally makes you a criminal.
However, I'm sure that's not what he meant. But even if he only wants to "mass deport" illegals who commit crimes other than entering illegally, that's a good start. Shouldn't these types of illegals be the first priority?
It also doesn't mean other large scale deportations won't end up happening at some point, or that there won't be ongoing deportations of otherwise law-abiding illegals while the "mass deportations" of "criminal illegals" is being carried out.
A mass deportation would be a targeted program of finding and rounding people up, and then booting them.
Unless he's going to grant amnesty, "noncriminal" illegals not targeted can still be deported on an case by case basis as they are discovered, no special action required. "The police have instituted a special program of dedicated officers aimed at clamping down on street racing," does not translate to, "The police have stopped handing out speeding tickets to commuters on the freeway."
Regardless, even if he allowed otherwise law-abiding illegals to stay and seek citizenship, so long as they weren't rushed to the front of the line ahead of the people doing it the proper way, I wouldn't be unhappy.
The main problem with illegals is that their status is illegal. The fact that they're illegal means they're easily exploited by employers who can pay them less than they'd have to pay citizens, which in turn drives all wages down. Illegal status leaves workers vulnerable to poor workplace health and safety standards, because they're unable to complain to authorities without fear of being deported. A large population of people with illegal status isn't good for anyone, including, in some ways especially, illegals themselves.
As for Hillary's fence, and now Trump's fence/wall, again, it's less about form and more about function. Trump has addressed the current policy of "catch and release" as inadequate. It's one of the reasons border guards supported him--they're sick of having to deal with the same people over and over, trying to get in. You catch them, kick them back out, and next week, you do it again, and then again. Until they get smart enough to not get caught just once, and then your border (wall or fence) has failed to perform its function.
I saw nothing from Hillary about changing "catch and release" to "catch and incarcerate". And I saw nothing in the 60 Minutes interview with Trump that indicated he'd changed his general stance on illegals. Just that the first order of business would be to get rid of the illegals who are engaged in crime on American soil. He clearly said that once that's done, and the border is secure, then he'd make a determination as to what to do about the otherwise law-abiding illegals living on American soil.
This seems entirely sensible to me.
So basically, he's keeping the good parts of Obamacare, that are most likely to help working class Americans, the very people he claimed to champion throughout his campaign. The horror!
Why the criticism? Because he should have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, just like he said he would.
You do realize that most Republican objection to Obamacare isn't about mandating that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, but about the 20,000 pages of regulations that go along with the legislation, right? There are doctors who voted for Trump because the 20,000 pages of regulations that were not embodied in the bill itself but arrived in the mail a week later are insanely costly and onerous. Every goddamn clinic needs its own personal Rainman just to make sure the paperwork is filed correctly, ffs.
Trump never said he would get rid of universal or affordable health care. He said he would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with a system that worked. It would be absolutely ridiculous to think that there isn't a single thing about Obamacare that isn't good or can't be made to work.
This is kind of like gloating, "Obamacare covered broken bones, and now Trump's health plan is also covering broken bones. He totally went back on his promise to get rid of Obamacare, because they both cover broken bones! Take that!"
Why would working class Americans be upset with this? Libertarians might, but libertarians aren't the only people who voted for Trump, either.
This point just smacks of an assumption that Trump was going to rip up Obamacare for no other reason than to stick it to the darkie president, and that this was the entire reason anyone supported Trump's promises of health care reform.
4) Same Sex Marriage:
Trump's primary objection to the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision was always that he believed it was an issue for the individual states to decide. This was why he disagreed with the decision, but I've never heard him come out and promise that he'd try to overturn it.
And if he did ever manage to have that decision overturned or repealed, it would fall back to individual states to decide on the issue. It would not mean a blanket US ban on same-sex marriage. States would continue to adopt same-sex marriage, one at a time, as had already been happening, slowly but surely.
Also, since 2000, he's supported legal unions that would grant same sex couples all the same rights and privileges of married couples (without the word "marriage"), and again in 2000 he supported including LGBTQ status in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something that didn't happen until 2015. And again in 2000 he stated that if he ever made a run at the presidency, he'd have no problem appointing LGBT people to his cabinet.
Also, in 2015, Pence pissed off a huge number of evangelicals in his state and elsewhere by taking guidance from business leaders and LGBTQ rights groups and changing the language in the Religious Freedom Reform Act he'd recently signed that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays. Pence lost a ton of his base support for acting to prevent legal discrimination against gays.
Oh, and then there was that moment when Trump got a huge audience of Republicans listening to his RNC acceptance speech, to cheer and applaud him for pledging to support and protect the rights and the safety of LGBTQ Americans.
I'm pretty sure some Trump supporters (evangelicals and similar) might be pissed about this, but I'm certainly not. Nor was I offended by Trump's suggestion that the same-sex marriage question really should have been an issue of states' rights. Arguably, it should have been.
Nothing I've seen from Trump indicates to me that he's a homophobe. And while Pence might be, he's demonstrated himself willing to put his duty as an elected representative (which means representing all your constituents, not just those who voted for you, and not just those who are most likely to give you money, and not just those with whom you most agree) ahead of his personal feelings.
5) Roe v Wade:
I don't know how this will be managed, given we're talking about a SCOTUS decision. Neither Congress nor the POTUS has the power to overturn a SCOTUS decision. There are only two ways to do it--through a Constitutional amendment, which requires the support of 3/4 of the state legislatures, or through SCOTUS overruling its prior decision.
That requires an individual or group to bring a federal case, have that federal case accepted by the court, and then win it.
Previous attempts at overturning Roe v Wade have largely failed because of SCOTUS's heavy reliance on precedent. Deeply pro-life Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has twice voted against quashing Roe v Wade based on the bench's staunch adherence to precedent.
Granted, Roe v Wade seems like a shaky decision, with not much substance and a lot of legal gymnastics to it. I actually think there are better and more substantive arguments in favor of abortion rights (bodily autonomy, bans on forcible servitude) that could be made before a court than the one (privacy) that formed the basis of Roe v Wade.
Regardless, even with a majority of conservative judges, or even a majority of pro-life judges, on the bench, it's not guaranteed.
And it would take more than overturning Roe v Wade to make abortion illegal across the US. States that want it would keep it, states that don't wouldn't, and until an argument is made and affirmed by SCOTUS that abortion in and of itself is in violation of the Constitution, the worst that will happen is that a woman's right to abortion will be upheld in some states and vitiated in others.
Meh. You're talking to a horrible, awful, no good, really bad "Islam apologist" here. Despite this, Islamic terrorism is a worry for me, as it is for many of the moderate Muslims I know here in Canada. Perhaps tightening immigration rules (or even just enforcing the ones the US has already) would help more than a blanket ban.
Again, it will probably piss off some of the people who voted for him, but backpedalling on a blanket ban doesn't bother me, and I suspect it doesn't bother a lot of other people who supported Trump (including the Muslims who've told me they voted for him).
Is Trump backpedalling on his stance that the refugee targets set by Clinton are way too high? Not that I've seen. Has he suggested that he's no longer worried about ISIS's promises to sneak operatives into the west among legitimate refugees? Not that I've seen.
Were all the anti-Trump Muslim American citizens who were, with the help of their "white guilt" allies, whipping everyone into a frenzy of Chicken Littling prior to the election HAPPY with this turn of events? Relieved?
Hard to say, given how the response to this softening of his attitude is more about savoring the predicted outpouring of salt from all 59.6 million rabid, irredeemable Islamaphobes who voted Trump, an outpouring that has failed to substantially materialize as yet.
"U mad, bro?"
"Hahahahahaha! Your butthurt is so delicious! Your anus is so stretched right now! How does it feel to be betrayed by that bigot you voted for??!!!"
"Um.... well, firstly, I never thought he was a bigot. I wouldn't vote for someone I thought was a bigot. And second, I don't feel betrayed. It's not like he was calling for a perma-ban on Muslims entering the country during his campaign. He said, 'until we know what the hell is going on'. I really don't think he's stopped being concerned with Islamic terrorism. But I have Muslim friends who are decent people, and it's not like I wanted them deported, or whatever."
"OMG, the salt! THE SALT! You're great leader has gone back on his promises! All you Islamaphobes are so butthurt, it's glorious!"
"Dude, what are you even talking about?"
"Cry some more, Islamaphobe!"
These people are too busy gloating to even consider the possibility that Trump might not be an Islamaphobe, and neither are many of his supporters.
You'd think they'd be happy, but they can't seem to let go of their preconceptions of Trump and his supporters long enough to actually wonder if they might have been wrong about us.
And how is this a problem? Was a "war against cannabis" a big thing in Trump's campaign? If so, I must have missed it. Also, shouldn't that be appropriately considered a states' rights issue?
Trump has consistently supported states's rights. You can see it in his primary objection to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, which he thought should be an issue of states' rights. You can even see it in his objection to Roe v Wade, which he came out and said that if it was overturned, it would be a states' rights issue.
Why would he see legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis as something that DOESN'T fall under the umbrella of states' rights?
The libertarians who supported Trump would support this, given most see individual rights as paramount, the war on drugs as a waste of taxpayer money that only consolidates power centrally, and mass incarceration for non-violent, victimless crimes to be in violation of their principles.
I doubt Tea Partiers, even if they're anti-cannabis, care very much one way or the other. If it will shrink centralized government and lower taxes, even the most anti-drug faction of the Tea Party would probably be willing to hold its nose and focus instead on the silver lining.
And half the "alt-right" internet "bigots and haters" who post dank Hitler memes and worship at the altar of Pepe when they aren't surfing 4chan are probably knee deep in reefer themselves. I'm sure they're outraged by the idea of one day being able to get a joint at the 7/11. They sell Mountain Dew and Doritos there too. One stop shopping, yo.
But yes, everyone who supported Trump is butthurt because some states put cannabis on the ballot, and now it's legal in more parts of the country than ever?
I mean, what the everloving?
Are you people so obsessed with partisanship that you can't conceive that any person who would prefer Trump to Hillary might actually agree with you on anything?
"HuffPo fucking TOLD you that Trump wanted to mass murder kittens! And you VOTED for him, which obviously means you wanted to see kittens die by the millions! And now he's backpedalled on his totally 100% accurately reported kitten murder campaign promise! U mad, bro? How does it feel to be betrayed by the monster you voted for, you kitten hating monster???!!!"
"Well... uh... when did Trump mention kittens? I must have missed that. Anyway, I feel pretty good about what he's said he's going to focus on since he got elected."
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Cry some more, bigot!!!!! Your great leader was less of a bigot than you thought he was, and now he's betraying you!!!!!!!!! Wait, I didn't mean that quite the way it came out. Your great leader was less of a bigot than I thoug... wait no, that's still not right... hmmm.... Your great leader is still a total bigot, but THE WALL!!!! Hahahahahaha! You're not getting your wall!!!!!! Oh, the butthurt! The SALT!!!! So tasty! You got screwed!!!!!!"
You know. For someone who apparently got screwed, the butthurt has never felt so good.
EDITED TO ADD: My apologies about the bizarre paragraph breaks and font changes. I have tried 5 times to repair the wonky formatting, and all blogger wants to do is replicate the blog post every time I try to correct, without implementing the corrections.