The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest fires that, with proper Forrest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!"


This should be criminal. If he actually does this, and who knows if he can, it will cost lives and property. This is nothing but a gotcha because he wont get his funding. How on earth can people continue to support him?

Because his base hates California as much as he does-didn't vote for him in 2016 and his party in the midterms-has all those actors who think they are "empowered" to comment on his actions, has all those Hispanic immigrants, etc. I don't agree with his actions here at all, but CA is where the most opposition to his Presidency can be found, so is it really any surprise that he singles them out?

[PilotMan]

The funny thing, is that the majority of those lands are managed by the NFS.

https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproje...-lands-n942581

[molson]

They can't win there but you'd think California would still be a very important state for Republicans - so much wealth and population and many wealthy conservatives in rural areas, and many impacted by wildfires.

It's not really worth trying to analyze anything Trump says or does much though.

[albionmoonlight]

Another simple point that people have made that I have overlooked.

Trump probably wants the wall. But he doesn't really care.

What Trump really wants is to keep FIGHTING over the wall. It energizes his base, keeps the focus off other things, and he likes the chaos of a fight.

So part of the problem for Dems is that they are negotiating with someone who would rather keep negotiating than end the negotiation.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Another simple point that people have made that I have overlooked.

Trump probably wants the wall. But he doesn't really care.

What Trump really wants is to keep FIGHTING over the wall. It energizes his base, keeps the focus off other things, and he likes the chaos of a fight.

So part of the problem for Dems is that they are negotiating with someone who would rather keep negotiating than end the negotiation.

Probably accurate initially. The idea of the wall was to keep Trump focused on immigration and help him stand out in a crowded field on immigration reform. It played so well with the far right base that he's used it to keep them engaged. Although I do think this push is sincere simply because if he fails with the wall then some of his base will lose interest in his message for 2020.

Trump has painted himself into a corner on this and has no way out. This shutdown is simply a temper tantrum because he pissed away the one chance he had to get the wall built and now he doesn't have the leverage to get it done. But he's a deal maker...

[Thomkal]

House Intelligence Committee restarts the Russia probe and who will be the first person they subpoena? Don Jr.

[Thomkal]

Well this surely won't make Trump happy:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...minary-ratings

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Didn’t watch it because it was obvious as to what it would be...a misinformation campaign. Good to hear that his economic advisors still haven’t explained to him that his NAFTA 2.0 deal does not mean Mexico is paying for the wall.

Going in with identical expectations, It was even more boring, redundant and meaningless than I expected. Misinformation was less than usual(though certainly not absent), as he really didn't say anything of substance.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Another simple point that people have made that I have overlooked.

Trump probably wants the wall. But he doesn't really care.

What Trump really wants is to keep FIGHTING over the wall. It energizes his base, keeps the focus off other things, and he likes the chaos of a fight.

So part of the problem for Dems is that they are negotiating with someone who would rather keep negotiating than end the negotiation.

did you ever watch celebrity apprentice? He was batshitcrazy then too.
he'd just never shut up with his evaluations of the contestants and then fire someone he wasn't even talking about for 20 minutes

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So part of the problem for Dems is that they are negotiating with someone who would rather keep negotiating than end the negotiation.

This is actually an honest to goodness, negotiation tactic. If you don't like the deal, keep negotiating. But it's only effective if time isn't part of the equation. You could say that applies here, but in talking about 350m Americans who are waiting for some resolution you have to believe that his BS will be called long before he gets a deal he wants. The people who are correct about this situation are the ones who point out that trump hasn't left himself any wiggle room. Short of getting his money there will be a group that chastises him and that group is in the significant minority, but it's his group. His use of the Oval Office, and the lack of pop it's received, have pretty much been the last of his leverage. Graham isn't wrong when he points out that trump will be substantially neutered if he doesn't ride this rocket into the ground. Of course, it may kill him (politically) before he gets there too.

[Bee]

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I think the longer the shutdown goes on the better it is for Trump. There has been no evidence that his core base will turn on him in the last 2 years even if they suffer personally. The rest of the country is already blaming him, but as the shutdown continues I think they will start to blame both sides more and more that no deal is happening until the Dems feel enough pressure they will cave. Of course, I'm probably wrong like I have been about so much during the last 3 years.

[jeff061]

The GOP will turn on him and I suspect privately threaten him, even with impeachment if necessary.

And no, this will be "Trump's shutdown" until the very end. He made sure to emphasize that point.

[jeff061]

Dola,

Not even getting into the PR nightmare and perceived security concerns around the TSA and such being forced to work without pay. That's been covered slightly, but hasn't been milked for total effect yet.

God forbid a terrorist attack actually occurs, Trump may legit end up in prison as everyone scrambles for a scapegoat. Another point the GOP will likely remind him.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Bee

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I think the longer the shutdown goes on the better it is for Trump. There has been no evidence that his core base will turn on him in the last 2 years even if they suffer personally. The rest of the country is already blaming him, but as the shutdown continues I think they will start to blame both sides more and more that no deal is happening until the Dems feel enough pressure they will cave. Of course, I'm probably wrong like I have been about so much during the last 3 years.

If Trump had any discipline, I could go along with this line of thinking. As it is, I think the Dems can sit tight and wait for Trump to declare an emergency. He can have his wall, but he's going to have to look like Senator Palpatine in the process of getting it.

[Ben E Lou]

What in the bloody blue hell???

The Daily Beast on Twitter: "WATCH: Trump argues that we need a border wall to stop migrants just driving right across in their "unbelievable vehicles... stronger, bigger, and faster vehicles than our police have, than ICE has"… https://t.co/nqrwAp4bby"

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Bee

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I think the longer the shutdown goes on the better it is for Trump. There has been no evidence that his core base will turn on him in the last 2 years even if they suffer personally. The rest of the country is already blaming him, but as the shutdown continues I think they will start to blame both sides more and more that no deal is happening until the Dems feel enough pressure they will cave. Of course, I'm probably wrong like I have been about so much during the last 3 years.

Lungs is right here. The longer this goes on, the more the pressure amps up on Congress to look after their constituents, and the more it looks like trump is actually failing to fulfill his oath of office.

[Thomkal]

Tom Steyer won't run against Trump in 2020-instead will pump about 40 million more into his Impeach Trump organization.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

What in the bloody blue hell???

The Daily Beast on Twitter: "WATCH: Trump argues that we need a border wall to stop migrants just driving right across in their "unbelievable vehicles... stronger, bigger, and faster vehicles than our police have, than ICE has"… https://t.co/nqrwAp4bby"

Hey, we may be closer to Mad Max than we think!

[JPhillips]

It's all on McConnell. If he allows votes, bills will pass and then Trump will have to veto. Rather than looking for Trump to crack we should be looking at McConnell.

[Jas_lov]

Why don't Collins, Murkowski and Gardner switch to D for a few days and Schumer could bring the bills to the floor.

[Jas_lov]

And why can one man stop a bill supported by the majority of the body? It doesnt make any sense. McConnell was going to block the criminal justice reform bill that got 87 votes. One man can stop a bill supported by 87 senators? Not even the President could stop that.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's all on McConnell. If he allows votes, bills will pass and then Trump will have to veto.

This is the thing that annoys me the most. McConnell is treating this like "Trump's regular temper tantrums are bad enough; we don't want to have to deal with the tantrum he'd throw if we actually overrode a veto, so we're not gonna have a vote. Even if it would pass 92-6, again. No matter what damage is done to the country in the meantime, it's not worth the Mega Trumptrum that would ensue."

No. Fuck that. Smack his hand and tell him "no, President Asshole, you cannot has. Not yours."

[Atocep]

Proposed this thought to a couple friends last week: McConnell has done more damage to the government and our country than any politician in the past 40 years. Trump wouldn't be nearly this bad if he didn't have McConnell enabling him to protect the party.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Bee

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I think the longer the shutdown goes on the better it is for Trump. There has been no evidence that his core base will turn on him in the last 2 years even if they suffer personally. The rest of the country is already blaming him, but as the shutdown continues I think they will start to blame both sides more and more that no deal is happening until the Dems feel enough pressure they will cave. Of course, I'm probably wrong like I have been about so much during the last 3 years.

So far the numbers are still moving toward Trump for blame (blame has shifted about 4 points his way over the past 3 weeks), but he still trails GOP congress according to polls.

For once, Dems are actually in a pretty good spot on this IMO. Everyone is willing to move forward and open the government right now except Trump and the more GOP Senators come forward and publicly ask for the government to reopen the more pressure it puts on Trump and McConnell.

[PilotMan]

This was the best exchange from the meeting with the D leadership.

He {Schumer} at one point asked Trump, "Why won't you open the government and stop hurting people?"


Trump responded bluntly, "Because then you won't give me what I want."

Just so you know why we have a shutdown. Imagine Obama giving that answer to McConnell and Ryan. It's comical.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump wouldn't be nearly this bad if he didn't have McConnell enabling him to protect the party.

Toss in Ryan also.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Bee

I know I'm in the minority about this, but I think the longer the shutdown goes on the better it is for Trump. There has been no evidence that his core base will turn on him in the last 2 years even if they suffer personally. The rest of the country is already blaming him, but as the shutdown continues I think they will start to blame both sides more and more that no deal is happening until the Dems feel enough pressure they will cave. Of course, I'm probably wrong like I have been about so much during the last 3 years.

I do think this is a "fair" possibility. Fascinating to watch this game of chicken.

[JPhillips]

Steve King embraces being a white supremacist. From NYT:

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said.

[Atocep]

Considering the army of attorneys the President of the United States just hired it's looking likely the Special Council is going to find he committed crime(s) and Trump is going to try to bury the report under Executive Privilege.

[PilotMan]

All I have to say is that DACA for the Wall better not be a thing they are considering. It's a shit deal. I'd be in favor of better tech, bodies, and equipment for border security all day long, but not for an expensive, useless monument to failure.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

All I have to say is that DACA for the Wall better not be a thing they are considering. It's a shit deal. I'd be in favor of better tech, bodies, and equipment for border security all day long, but not for an expensive, useless monument to failure.

I wanna see the House go "we'll offer $5 billion for border security for DACA" but explicitly exclude a wall or any variation thereof from the bill's definition of 'border security.'

See if you can get Trump to jump at the number before he realizes 'wait I have to use this on more agents or drones?'

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I wanna see the House go "we'll offer $5 billion for border security for DACA" but explicitly exclude a wall or any variation thereof from the bill's definition of 'border security.'

See if you can get Trump to jump at the number before he realizes 'wait I have to use this on more agents or drones?'

That's essentially the limitations they put on the money they allocated in the previous spending bill. It couldn't be used for new structures. Only increased security and repairs to existing structures.

[molson]

Do you think Trump would settle for something like his face on the $100 bill, or a big bronze statute of him at one of the immigrant detention centers? Like when you're tired and you distract a kid or a dog with something stupid you can give them so they forget about what they want and can't have?

[thesloppy]

I feel like there is a pretty large chance that Trump is continuing to shut the government down simply because it significantly reduces his daily work load, and he'll be more than happy to keep it up as long as he possibly can.

[RainMaker]

Trump on how the wall will be paid for, 4/13/16: "[Mexico] may even write us a check." pic.twitter.com/G1DBrgNWwO

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 10, 2019

[Thomkal]

Michael Cohen set to testify publicly Feb 7 before the House Oversight Committee. Get your popcorn ready

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I wanna see the House go "we'll offer $5 billion for border security for DACA" but explicitly exclude a wall or any variation thereof from the bill's definition of 'border security.'

See if you can get Trump to jump at the number before he realizes 'wait I have to use this on more agents or drones?'

Hell, offer 10 billion and see if he's serious about border security or just wants his wall. I think we know the answer.

[Thomkal]

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin giving a classified briefing to the House after Democrats demanded to know why he lifted sanctions on a Russian oligarch:


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Hell, offer 10 billion and see if he's serious about border security or just wants his wall. I think we know the answer.

Here's a couple things. First, the construction cost is somewhere between 25-40Bln. Five or 10 ain't gonna get it done. It's a nominal commitment to an activity that requires more help down line, but trump will make you believe it's the all-up price. Second, if he goes down the emergency declaration road, he is going to piss of libertarians everywhere due to his decision to use eminent domain to seize lands. It's going to be a joining of sides like he's note experienced before in his presidency, not to mention the court challenge that will certainly follow.


PS...edit to add, it's creating another project with a substantial overhead cost each year to operate and maintain as well. Discussing this as a one off and it's done kind of program isn't right. There's also the environmental damage that it will cause to the region, namely for animals. The existing border fence is a good example of the problems that have been caused. All of this is known.

[Atocep]

I think what happens is Trump eventually gets talked into declaring an emergency, government reopens pending lawsuits, and it gets struck down. Trump hopes this allows him to play the victim and maintain his base without the shutdown continuing to sink his approval ratings.

[PilotMan]

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsb2_BsA...d=b6lbjh55gd94

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think what happens is Trump eventually gets talked into declaring an emergency, government reopens pending lawsuits, and it gets struck down. Trump hopes this allows him to play the victim and maintain his base without the shutdown continuing to sink his approval ratings.

Quite possible scenario also. I don't think Trump will "concede" without some sort of concession from the Dems to save face. Don't think that will happen. He's building up to the emergency declaration and will let the cards fall where they will.

I am disappointed that Mueller hasn't released his findings. I do think its doubtful there will be a smoking gun tying Trump to it directly, he's got a lot of indians/workerbees to take the hit and/or lots of "grey" to play with.

[PilotMan]

What's disappointing about it? I mean, he's just not moving fast enough, or what? Or you just want to hear what he's got right this very minute? I do like the way that he's handled the entire thing. The thing that the D's need to accept is that the most important thing out of this entire process, is that the job get done, and that no matter the outcome, that justice, and the process were done correctly. It can't be any other way. Let's say that trump is completely exonerated by the investigation. That is a win for the justice system. The process saw it's end, and the conclusion was reached. An innocent man doesn't rush the findings if he knows he innocent. He works to assure his innocence. trump hasn't acted like a man working to assure his innocence, if you ask me.

As far as the shutdown, the negotiation tactic of, I took away your thing, and if you want it back, you have to give me what I want, doesn't endear people to negotiate with you. If you've taken away, what used to be mine, I have no need to negotiate with you until you are willing to give back what you've taken away. Once that happens, progress can begin. In this case, using DACA as a leverage just isn't there, imo. It was there, it was removed, you can't give it back and say you gave me something, and let me feel like I got something out of it. It's either got to be on trust, or a legitimate give and take.

If the stance is I took it away and now you don't have what you want, so give it to me or else, is used. I have no use for the negotiation. As soon as I agree to one thing, you'll take another thing away that I desire. Again, there's no boundary in which you won't cross, so it's in my best interest to refuse to grant you any of what you wish. If that means I lose the other thing, at this point, so be it. It's on you for removing it in the first place, and I was powerless to change that. This is simply Negotiation 101.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What's disappointing about it? I mean, he's just not moving fast enough, or what? Or you just want to hear what he's got right this very minute? I do like the way that he's handled the entire thing. The thing that the D's need to accept is that the most important thing out of this entire process, is that the job get done, and that no matter the outcome, that justice, and the process were done correctly. It can't be any other way. Let's say that trump is completely exonerated by the investigation. That is a win for the justice system. The process saw it's end, and the conclusion was reached. An innocent man doesn't rush the findings if he knows he innocent. He works to assure his innocence. trump hasn't acted like a man working to assure his innocence, if you ask me.

Its disappointing that we don't have a conclusion yet. Before mid-terms, some was saying Mueller was close but did not want to release so as to not impact the mid-terms.

Re: an innocent man doesn't rush the findings if he knows he innocent? I disagree. An innocent man wants to rush the findings if he knows he is innocent so he can get the albatross off his shoulders and move on. Doesn't have anything to do with Trump, pretty simple motivation for an innocent guy.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

As far as the shutdown, the negotiation tactic of, I took away your thing, and if you want it back, you have to give me what I want, doesn't endear people to negotiate with you. If you've taken away, what used to be mine, I have no need to negotiate with you until you are willing to give back what you've taken away. Once that happens, progress can begin. In this case, using DACA as a leverage just isn't there, imo. It was there, it was removed, you can't give it back and say you gave me something, and let me feel like I got something out of it. It's either got to be on trust, or a legitimate give and take.

If the stance is I took it away and now you don't have what you want, so give it to me or else, is used. I have no use for the negotiation. As soon as I agree to one thing, you'll take another thing away that I desire. Again, there's no boundary in which you won't cross, so it's in my best interest to refuse to grant you any of what you wish. If that means I lose the other thing, at this point, so be it. It's on you for removing it in the first place, and I was powerless to change that. This is simply Negotiation 101.

In typical business negotiations, you want to try get to a win-win, not a I-win-you-lose. Now, one side may win-more-than-the-other but the underlying philosophy is win-win where both sides benefit. We aren't there yet with Trump or the Dems in this most recent series.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Quite possible scenario also. I don't think Trump will "concede" without some sort of concession from the Dems to save face. Don't think that will happen. He's building up to the emergency declaration and will let the cards fall where they will.

I am disappointed that Mueller hasn't released his findings. I do think its doubtful there will be a smoking gun tying Trump to it directly, he's got a lot of indians/workerbees to take the hit and/or lots of "grey" to play with.

The thing is, the Mueller investigation isn't about "getting" Trump. I think that's the thing a lot of Trump haters maybe miss on this.

I think a lot of them think that Trump's behavior is strongly indicative that there IS some there, there.

But Mueller's job isn't to get the goods on Trump. It's to run down leads to find out the who, what, where, when, and how on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It may well be that Russia's interference was unilateral, and the Trump campaign's predilection for hiring sleazebags just ended up making them "look" complicit.

It may be that Mueller's investigation will turn up a lot of damning circumstantial evidence suggesting that Trump and/or his campaign aides were balls deep in the Russian muck, but nothing actionable.

It may be that Trump and/or his campaign aides were not only balls deep, but so breathtakingly incompetent that Mueller is going to end up being able to roll up much or all of the whole damn thing.

There's a spectrum there, and rushing the end of the investigation means making the investigation about Trump and his exoneration or guilt, rather than about "what exactly happened, how did it happen, who are the guilty individuals (even if that just ends up being a bunch of Russian nationals), and how can we secure our elections against foreign influence in the future?"

And, finally, the political realities of the moment - Mitch McConnell is refusing to bring a set of bills up for a vote that previously passed the chamber with an overwhelmingly veto-proof majority just to appease Trump - are such that it doesn't fucking MATTER what Mueller finds out, nor how rock-solid the proof. He isn't getting removed from office.

If he is, everything related to him is fruit of the poisoned tree. Every one of the judges he nominated that Republicans rushed to confirm? Tainted. How do we know Russian kompromat wasn't used to twist Trump's arm into picking those specific judges?

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Tainted. More so than they already are.

Such legislation as the GOP Congress sent to Trump to sign in his first two years? Tainted.

Mike Pence as the successor to the Presidency? Tainted.

The fallout would be radioactive because everything Trump touched in his first two years as President would fall under the "did Russia leverage him into that?" microscope.

Voting to remove him from office after a solid two years of the GOP doing everything in their power to protect him and discredit the investigation would be tantamount to admitting "yep, he was a traitor, but he gave us what we wanted and now he's not useful anymore."

I just don't see a scenario where Senate Republicans think their best interests lie in voting for removal, rather than acquittal (I've long since lost any faith in them as having the best interests of the nation at heart).

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In typical business negotiations, you want to try get to a win-win, not a I-win-you-lose. Now, one side may win-more-than-the-other but the underlying philosophy is win-win where both sides benefit. We aren't there yet with Trump or the Dems in this most recent series.

Obviously, but it takes trust between the sides and some kind of an end goal to get there. If the history of trump has shown us anything, it's that he's an exceptionally disingenuous negotiator. DACA was already used as political leverage last year and the Rs promised to bring it up for consideration, didn't happen. His own business history is littered with his failure to fulfill his obligations. So here, the idea that some solution that involves that as a gain for the Ds falls flat. As far as any win-win goes, when trust is lost, and you're negotiating from the lesser position, playing hard ball doesn't cost as much as getting screwed by the other side. trump has never had any interest in getting to a happy medium. He's shown his cards since before he took office, which is why he doesn't really have any leverage left.

[JPhillips]

How do you negotiate with a guy that doesn't even know what he wants? Does anyone have a clear understanding of what Trump is demanding? It sure seems like the objective is a pile of money that he can spend on whatever catches his fancy.

[albionmoonlight]

The GOP had control of both houses and the WH for two years and didn't fund a wall. At no point did the WH or the GOP attempt serious negotiations with Senate Dems to get a wall. Funnily enough, it was the Dems who came to the table with a wall deal, only to have it rejected because it was a win-win instead of a GOP-gets-everything deal.

The wall is politically unpopular. The GOP just lost historic mid-terms running on the same baseless fear-mongering underlying the wall (remember the CARAVAN?). The GOP hasn't actually offered anything in exchange for Dems giving the GOP the Wall. And the whole thing is one of the more transparent political stunts in recent memory.

But, sure, it is technically correct that the Dems won't give the GOP everything it wants in exchange for nothing when the Dems have the political upper hand. So BOTHSIDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do you negotiate with a guy that doesn't even know what he wants? Does anyone have a clear understanding of what Trump is demanding? It sure seems like the objective is a pile of money that he can spend on whatever catches his fancy.

All he wants is to win. He doesn't care what he has to do, who he has to do it to, as long as it's his policy. Of course, he doesn't know what that means, but it sounds real nice. After 2 years of his campaigning it might be nice mr prez if you'd actually pull that big brain out of your ass and use it for something other than polishing furniture (how else does he get that shiny glow?)

[Thomkal]

It would not surprise me to have the Mueller report come out before Barr is confirmed for Atty General. I think they have been kind of hinting that's it nearly done with Rosenstein again saying his leaving, etc. If he's concluded Trump has colluded with Russia or any other crime like obstruction, election fraud, etc, It may very well be in his best interest in handing it out before Barr gets his hands on it. Whitaker right now has control (I think) of its release, and given his status as a not confirmed acting AG-it might be the best time legally to release it.