The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

[The Don]

But it's not just about Trump. It's also about Senate and House Republicans. They don't share Trump's seeming invincibility. They might be primaried if they support DACA. That's why a deal on DACA might be a good thing to do and should not be seen as conceding something for nothing.

The modern-day GOP never, ever trades anything away that it wants. If they allow DACA to form part of a deal then they wanted it in the first place.

The GOP process seems to be as follows:

The Democrats want 1, the GOP wants 5. After a certain amount of wrangling a temporary solution based on 3 is the result.

When the time comes to re-negotiate the GOP squeals about how it was so unfair last time and how the Democrats always get their way so the new position is that the Democrats want 2, or maybe even just the status-quo but now the GOP position is that they want 8, another temporary solution of 5 is agreed.

Finally things come to a head and a permanent solution has to be found. The Democratic position is now 3 or 4 but the GOP position is now 10 - their justification being that they had to compromise so much the last two times. Eventually the Democratic Party gives some huge concession on some other subject to fix the final position on 6 and the GOP make such a big deal over how much ground they gave from their 10 position.

The Democrats claim a huge victory and justify giving up so much other stuff because they got more of their way in the final negotiation. What they fail to notice is that the end point is more than the GOP ever wanted in the first place.

I'm despondently confident that whatever permanent position the US ends up with w.r.t. DACA is something the GOP would have been very happy with at the outset and in the process they will have got funding for the wall, all kinds of concessions over immigration and a host of other things in the bargain. It's the way they roll and it has nothing to do with President Trump's deal-making and everything to do with the GOP's willingness to keep moving the goalposts until they get what they want.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes and polls show that americans think foreign aid should be 2-3% of the federal budget but no one is talking about that kind of massive increase. OF course they also think we spend to much while supporting a much higher percentage of the budget.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/nov/09/john-kerry/yep-most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/

It is almost as if such polls are totally useless and say more about the propaganda they public receives than anything of merit.

Yep.

If I look at a topic and see progress that I'm not satisfied with, I'm naturally going to assume that the level of effort going into that topic is insufficient and needs to be higher. Without knowing what the actual level of effort is, I may suggest an upper limit that's actually lower than the current level. But that doesn't mean I actually want less effort put into that topic.

It's a worthless poll for suggesting that "there's too much immigration, and lots of people think so."

 

[uke2se]

The modern-day GOP never, ever trades anything away that it wants. If they allow DACA to form part of a deal then they wanted it in the first place.

The GOP process seems to be as follows:

The Democrats want 1, the GOP wants 5. After a certain amount of wrangling a temporary solution based on 3 is the result.

When the time comes to re-negotiate the GOP squeals about how it was so unfair last time and how the Democrats always get their way so the new position is that the Democrats want 2, or maybe even just the status-quo but now the GOP position is that they want 8, another temporary solution of 5 is agreed.

Finally things come to a head and a permanent solution has to be found. The Democratic position is now 3 or 4 but the GOP position is now 10 - their justification being that they had to compromise so much the last two times. Eventually the Democratic Party gives some huge concession on some other subject to fix the final position on 6 and the GOP make such a big deal over how much ground they gave from their 10 position.

The Democrats claim a huge victory and justify giving up so much other stuff because they got more of their way in the final negotiation. What they fail to notice is that the end point is more than the GOP ever wanted in the first place.

I'm despondently confident that whatever permanent position the US ends up with w.r.t. DACA is something the GOP would have been very happy with at the outset and in the process they will have got funding for the wall, all kinds of concessions over immigration and a host of other things in the bargain. It's the way they roll and it has nothing to do with President Trump's deal-making and everything to do with the GOP's willingness to keep moving the goalposts until they get what they want.

Again, I understand your cynisism, but it's just rather too convenient to say that if the GOP made a deal for DACA they wanted it all along. It's simply a bad argument.

I do believe a certain number of Republican politicians wouldn't personally mind DACA. I don't think all of them are soul-less monsters. I also think all GOP politicians are beholden to their voters, and the most fired up part of their voters is Trump's base who, as we have established, oppose DACA. That means GOP politicians are beholden to Trump's base. That, in turn, means that they will not pass a DACA deal if they can get away with it.

If the Democrats can find a deal that will save DACA, it will be a win for - apart from human decency - the Democrats. That said, there are deals that might not be worth it. For example, funding a pointless and super expensive wall might be a non-starter for many Democrats.

It seems to me that you are painting the GOP senators as some sort of evil geniuses, and I think you're giving them far too much credit.

 

[The Don]

It seems to me that you are painting the GOP senators as some sort of evil geniuses, and I think you're giving them far too much credit.

I don't think they are evil geniuses, they are just stubborn, refuse to yield ground willingly and are prepared to take a more extreme position in the next round of negotiations - which is why they like temporary rather than permanent deals, it gives them another bite of the cherry.

The ACA is an excellent example of the GOP at work. The Democratic Party wanted UHC but after years (decades ?) or work were finally persuaded that a Republican idea gave at least something that the Democrats wanted and would likely be acceptable to most Republicans.

Instead the Republicans portrayed it as a Democratic Party attempt to destroy healthcare, undermine the market and introduce socialism. They have attempted to undermine it at every turn and repeal it despite not having a viable replacement.

If the Democratic Party do come to some kind of deal which accepts some or all of the Republican changes (opt-outs, interstate coverage and so on) to get temporary coverage, you can bet that the next time things come up for negotiation, there'll be a new set of Republican demands.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Kimberly-Clarke to cut 13% of its workforce - will pay for the restructuring with GOP tax cut

 

[The Don]

Kimberly-Clark to cut 13% of its workforce - will pay for the restructuring with GOP tax cut

Yeah, but the majority of those jobs will be lost overseas so it's a net win for the U.S.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think they are evil geniuses, they are just stubborn, refuse to yield ground willingly and are prepared to take a more extreme position in the next round of negotiations - which is why they like temporary rather than permanent deals, it gives them another bite of the cherry.

The ACA is an excellent example of the GOP at work. The Democratic Party wanted UHC but after years (decades ?) or work were finally persuaded that a Republican idea gave at least something that the Democrats wanted and would likely be acceptable to most Republicans.

Instead the Republicans portrayed it as a Democratic Party attempt to destroy healthcare, undermine the market and introduce socialism. They have attempted to undermine it at every turn and repeal it despite not having a viable replacement.

If the Democratic Party do come to some kind of deal which accepts some or all of the Republican changes (opt-outs, interstate coverage and so on) to get temporary coverage, you can bet that the next time things come up for negotiation, there'll be a new set of Republican demands.

To my knowledge, the Democratic party didn't want UHC. Many Democratic politicians did, and many voters, but I haven't seen it evidenced that the party line was for UHC. For many moderate Democrats, the ACA was a good compromise.

I think it's wrong to look at the US political situation as a tug-of-war between an extreme right position and an extreme left position. Instead, there's a continuum. A lot of economic conservative Democrats simply don't want UHC.

The Democratic leadership is also playing a long game. They know that what matters this year is to win Congress, not who "wins" a government shutdown. Trump is the one desperate for minor victories. It might be prudent to give him a couple if it can secure you advantages in the future.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It seems to me that you are painting the GOP senators as some sort of evil geniuses, and I think you're giving them far too much credit.

They don't have to be geniuses.

 

[NoahFence]

1. Do you understand what people are talking about when they use the term "Trump's base"?
2. Do you understand what people are talking about when they use the term "Trump voter"?
3. Do you understand that there is a difference between the two terms?
4. Do you understand what the difference is?

1) Racist, sexist, xenophobic morons.
2) Morons.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.

 

[The Don]

To my knowledge, the Democratic party didn't want UHC. Many Democratic politicians did, and many voters, but I haven't seen it evidenced that the party line was for UHC. For many moderate Democrats, the ACA was a good compromise.

My understanding was that UHC was an aspiration but that the ACA was the compromise which was as close to the GOP position as the Democratic Party could stomach.

I think it's wrong to look at the US political situation as a tug-of-war between an extreme right position and an extreme left position centre right. Instead, there's a continuum. A lot of economic conservative Democrats simply don't want UHC.

FTFY, the left wing has no active position in US politics IMO.

The Democratic leadership is also playing a long game. They know that what matters this year is to win Congress, not who "wins" a government shutdown. Trump is the one desperate for minor victories. It might be prudent to give him a couple if it can secure you advantages in the future.

A lot of battle losers tend to say that losing a battle is worth it to win a war, then again a good way to win a war is to win a series of battles. The Democrats are playing a long game they are bound to lose unless they fundamentally change the way they are playing it.

There are good reasons to suppose that the GOP will retain control of the Senate and House. In the Senate, electoral maths has made the job nigh-on impossible for the Democratic Party and the GOP majority in the House would already be nearly unbeatable but when you factor in active gerrymandering and voter suppression it makes the job far harder.

IMO this position is made worse by the fact that the major message that the Democrats are pushing is that the are "Not Trump". That's not going to enthuse people to turn out in sufficient numbers to overcome the inbuilt advantage that the GOP have built for themselves.

I also despair at the quality of the Democratic Party messaging. The shutdown was a good example of the GOP getting out there with the attack ads and the White House answerphone message which not only spun events their way but also ensured extensive media coverage of their message. Meanwhile we've heard next to nothing from the Democratic Party.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, to succeed electorally, the Democratic Party needs strong messaging and attractive policies delivered bu charismatic and attractive candidates. I'm not close enough to the US to see whether this is happening at grass roots level but if it is, news of it isn't making its way across the Atlantic. Far from it, one way or another all we tend to hear about is the GOP.

 

[uke2se]

1) Racist, sexist, xenophobic morons.
2) Morons.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.

Bingo!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

1) Racist, sexist, xenophobic morons.
2) Morons.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.

Life must be a lot easier when everything is painted in terms of black and white.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Life must be a lot easier when everything is painted in terms of black and white.

You think it's easier now, wait until the black starts getting stopped and frisked for being in the wrong neighborhood without you even having to lift a finger.

 

[NoahFence]

Life must be a lot easier when everything is painted in terms of black and white.

Sure is. The racism, sexism and xenophobia that the morons used to try to hide isn't even being hidden anymore. So yea, it IS easier these days.

Thanks for noticing!

 

[Minoosh]

The shocking thing is that 30-40% of the US electorate take a completely opposing view. They see the Dreamers as foreigners, in this country illegally, who ought to be deported. If President Trump deports the Dreamers then his support among that 30-40% will harden.

I'm not sure how unconditional support can "harden." I see how it can be eroded, though. No one is going to tell a pollster, "Yeah, I supported Trump, but I no longer do." They're going to say, "Hell yes I voted for Trump and I'd do it again!" But I'm not sure that's going to bring out midterm voters and I don't think many Republican politicians really want to rely on disgruntled white people to keep sweeping them into office. There are too many white people who can't stand Trump.

That's why I think that if President Trump and the GOP deported the Dreamers their numbers would get a bump because a proportion of the "don't cares" would take it as a sign of strong leadership.

Their numbers aren't going to get a bump for deporting Dreamers. I don't have any polls to back that up, I just think people are tired of this guy. I think his own family is sick to death of him. White supremacy isn't a demographic that's going to grow. At this point I'd just as soon see Trump in the White House vs. Mike Pence. There's something incredibly creepy about Pence.

 

[Toontown]

Not really, no. And it seems that you can't explain who it's supposed to describe, either.

I am yet to be convinced that it's a meaningful term.

Instead of waiting for someone convince you it's a meaningful term, why not take a look at it?

 

[The Don]

I'm not sure how unconditional support can "harden." I see how it can be eroded, though. No one is going to tell a pollster, "Yeah, I supported Trump, but I no longer do." They're going to say, "Hell yes I voted for Trump and I'd do it again!" But I'm not sure that's going to bring out midterm voters and I don't think many Republican politicians really want to rely on disgruntled white people to keep sweeping them into office. There are too many white people who can't stand Trump.

It hardens by moving from "Approve" to "Strongly Approve"

Your suggestion was that deporting Dreamers would result in President Trump's approval numbers dropping to the teens. I think you are incorrect because I think that the 35% or so who approve of President Trump will continue to do so regardless of what happens to the Dreamers.

Furthermore I think he might even experience a slight bump in numbers because there'll be a number of people who don't particularly care one way or another about the Dreamers but who will approve of him for being decisive.

Their numbers aren't going to get a bump for deporting Dreamers. I don't have any polls to back that up, I just think people are tired of this guy.

President Trump's approval numbers don't seem to bear that out. They've settled at 35%ish and don't seem to be moving. You may think people are tired of the guy but the polls don't seem to indicate that. He can still motivate a large and raucous minority.

I think his own family is sick to death of him.

You may think that, but even if it is true, so what ?

White supremacy isn't a demographic that's going to grow.

Possibly, but there's a rich vein of working-class disaffection to be mined and diligent efforts by the GOP to suppress the vote and gerrymander can fight a rearguard action against unfavourable demographics for years, possibly even decades to come.

At this point I'd just as soon see Trump in the White House vs. Mike Pence. There's something incredibly creepy about Pence.

I agree, I'd rather have an incompetent person with no real beliefs or agenda and who doesn't know how to operate the levers of power as President if the party I don't support has the Presidency and both houses. President Mike Pence would get a lot further in advancing his agenda.

 

[Segnosaur]

Life must be a lot easier when everything is painted in terms of black and white.

A decade ago, it might have been wrong to express things in such black-and-white terms. There were moderates on both sides, Republicans were willing to work with the Democrats, etc.

Back when Bush Jr. was president, I thought it was rather dumb to label him a "nazi". There might have been significant problems with his policies, but he never acted in a petty or overly racist manner (at least not that I can remember).

But things have changed. A combination of almost a decade of Republican obstructionism, and the rise of Trump (who can't even seem to maintain a veneer of integrity and openly expresses bigoted views), along with a GOP party that seems to enable Trump means that such a black-and-white view is more accurate than not.

When the majority of the GOP openly opposes Trump, when they stop voting lock-step to approve his appointments and stop voting for his legislation and do more than just give empty rhetoric (I'm looking at you, Flake), then perhaps we can say that the Republicans deserve to be treated as more than just cartoon villains.

 

[Stacko]

So much for the special relationship.

During formal phone calls between the two leaders, May finds it almost impossible to make headway and get her points across, one person familiar with the matter said. Trump totally dominates the discussion, leaving the prime minister with five or ten seconds to speak before he interrupts and launches into another monologue.

In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.

May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Instead of waiting for someone convince you it's a meaningful term, why not take a look at it?

What do you mean by "take a look at it"? Do you believe that this is the first time I've ever encountered it? And why do you think that people who use a term should be unable to explain why it's meaningful or, indeed, what they actually mean when they use it?