The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Schmidty]

Ok, now a little further. I am against corporal punishment, but I'm about to put y'all over my knee. Good gravy.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

T-14


I'm not optimistic there'll be a deal. I just don't see the GOP giving in on much if any. GOP will probably go with clean CR and dare the Dems to shut down the government.

Shutdown Risks Rise as Democrats Issue Ambitious Counteroffer

Huh?

U.S. Senate breakdown by party 53(R), 45(D), 2(I)
U.S. House breakdown by party 219(R), 213(D)

Clipped from another article

With a narrow Republican majority in the House, Republicans could approve a funding measure without support from Democrats, though it would require near-unanimous approval from the GOP conference. And a handful of Republicans have already pledged to oppose the measure.

Both parties make up the government so if the government shuts down, it will be because of both parties IMO. But if we have to blame one or the other and of course we have to blame one or the other, the one who has control of the House, Senate and the White House surely is responsible for the shutdown. Especially when a handful of members of the majority in the House pledged(lol) to oppose the measure.

If I remember correctly, the rule is the party in the majority is supposed to give the party in the minority what they want in the spirit of bipartisanship. If the party in the majority does not do that, they are the one who shut down the government.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Huh?

U.S. Senate breakdown by party 53(R), 45(D), 2(I)
U.S. House breakdown by party 219(R), 213(D)

From your response, I think you believe I am blaming the Dems if/when there is a shutdown?

Clipped from another article
:
Both parties make up the government so if the government shuts down, it will be because of both parties IMO. But if we have to blame one or the other and of course we have to blame one or the other, the one who has control of the House, Senate and the White House surely is responsible for the shutdown. Especially when a handful of members of the majority in the House pledged(lol) to oppose the measure.

If I remember correctly, the rule is the party in the majority is supposed to give the party in the minority what they want in the spirit of bipartisanship. If the party in the majority does not do that, they are the one who shut down the government.

I did not attribute blame to either party. I'm just stating I do not believe the GOP will cave in to the Dems demands, they'll go with a clean CR (or one that will appease all the GOP with some Trump threats), and both will play chicken.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, regardless of rules etc. what do you think will happen leading up to Oct 1? Do you believe a deal will be struck?



Oh ... T-13

[Ghost Econ]

I believe we are in crisis. The distance between what is said and what is known to be true has become an abyss. Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil. When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest.

Disney literally won an Emmy for this on Sunday.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

ABC Pulls 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' After Charlie Kirk Comments

We’ll soon be living 1984, but at least we got Roe overturned so it’s all good!

Late night comedy and political satire should be the last thing we restrict. If we can't laugh at ourselves now, we will just be crying all the time.

[RainMaker]

The government should not be restricting speech on anyone. It's blatantly unconstitutional and the shit two-bit banana republics do.

[JPhillips]

Our health system is now run by people who think kids should get chicken pox because it will make them healthier.

Madness.

[miami_fan]

GOP will probably go with clean CR and dare the Dems to shut down the government.

That is different that both parties playing chicken with a govt shutdown.

What do I expect to happen? I expect them to do the easy thing. Do a CR or two or whatever it takes to get through the next few months, take advantage of emergencies and/or declare emergencies when they are none to allow for supplemental appropriations bills to be put in place during that time and then six months before the election pass the the most basic omnibus bill so that something has been passed going into the midterms.

[kingfc22]

Madness is watching this orange clown from 2016-2020 and saying, yes more of that please. But this time with no guard rails.

[JPhillips]

I don't know how you make a deal with the GOP knowing that Trump will just not spend anything he doesn't like. The problem is SCOTUS says that's okay, so I'm not sure what the answer is.

[PilotMan]

You don't negotiate with a party (person, group) that isn't trustworthy.

[RainMaker]

I will tell you how it ends. The Dems will cave like always.

[Edward64]

GOP will probably go with clean CR and dare the Dems to shut down the government.

Going with a clean CR and daring the Dems to shut down the government is IMO ... playing chicken.

"Playing chicken" means to engage in a contest or challenge where each participant acts defiantly, hoping the other will back down or "chicken out" first, often to avoid a negative outcome or conflict. The idiom stems from a daredevil game where drivers steer their cars directly at each other, with the person who swerves first being labeled a coward. The term can apply to dangerous situations, mutual threats, or contests of wills, where a collision or conflict is undesirable but both sides are unwilling to yield.

T-12

[GrantDawg]

ABC affliate group Sinclair is demanding Jimmy Kimmel apologize to Charlie Kirk's family and send them a donation. Look at what he said again. Absolutely nothing about Charlie Kirk. It was about the shooter and MAGA. They have found a way to silence dissent, and they are jumping in with both feet.

[Lathum]

The issue I have with this Kimmel thing, and all the others, is that Kimmel will be fine. Colbert will be fine. they both have staffs that likely number in the hundreds that are caught in the crossfire of a petty, thin skinned, man baby. So much for the party of the working man.

[Ksyrup]

I saw an article yesterday that pointed out alarm bells should be ringing for slightly different reasons than most of the takes out there - unlike other situations in which big corporations have taken down entertainers for politics (like, Rosanne Barr, for instance), this is a clear situation in which Disney is acting against its self interest to appease Trump. They have a lot invested in Kimmel. Presumably he's done at Disney (not sure how he comes back - or wants to come back - from this). Someone like Rosanne didn't hurt the bottom line - Conners went on without her for like another 6 or 7 seasons. But Kimmel was good for Disney, and they caved in a way that hurts them. That's not a good sign (along with all of the other blaring alarm bells going off).

[cuervo72]

Right, it's not like Kimmel just hosts his show. He's done awards ceremonies, Millionaire, etc. Not that they can't get someone else for those, but he was more integrated into the network.

What I've been wondering vis a vis Sinclair -- is there a point where networks tell affiliates to pound sand? Like, ABC News just last night was airing from Miami, where they have a new affiliate -- because they had a disagreement with their old affiliate (the lone station owned by Berkshire Hathaway). I know Sinclair is larger (well, has a larger television footprint), but is there a point where the affiliate model starts to fall apart, especially with streaming? (Perhaps belongs in another thread; I assume Jon has thoughts on this.)

[Mota]

Everybody is trying to appease Trump. Look at all the governments of the world. It's like trying to deal with an impetulant child. He has hissy fits, but he's also in a position be able to destroy world economies. And he would have no problems doing that. He has no friends, only resource extraction sources. People hope that he'll turn his hissy fits on another source when the next shiny thing comes up, and for the most part it does happen. So give him these gifts that you have no intention of ever following up on. He's not going to follow through on his deals either.

I guess if the Dems play by the rules that Trump is creating now, they can get Hannity off the air, FOX cancelled, and start to mute Joe Rogan. Wow, that sounds so bad when I type that, but it's literally happening right now.

[JPhillips]

Dems were always going to have to cave on the budget, but they could have picked a fight that started the 26 campaign. Making this an argument over income-dependent tax credits for insurance policies purchased through exchange... is just typical Dem reliance on things that may be important but have no political potential. Imagine instead a world where Dems were today fighting over a demand to stop racial profiling or force votes on tariffs. Those are things they'd probably still lose on, but would be good for the 26 campaign.

Meanwhile, the party in NY is still fighting the 2016 primary.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Mota

I guess if the Dems play by the rules that Trump is creating now, they can get Hannity off the air, FOX cancelled, and start to mute Joe Rogan. Wow, that sounds so bad when I type that, but it's literally happening right now.

I hope it does happen.

Trump and a complicate GOP have changed the rules about this sort of thing. It's time for the Dems to fight fire with fire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Right, it's not like Kimmel just hosts his show. He's done awards ceremonies, Millionaire, etc. Not that they can't get someone else for those, but he was more integrated into the network.

What I've been wondering vis a vis Sinclair -- is there a point where networks tell affiliates to pound sand? Like, ABC News just last night was airing from Miami, where they have a new affiliate -- because they had a disagreement with their old affiliate (the lone station owned by Berkshire Hathaway). I know Sinclair is larger (well, has a larger television footprint), but is there a point where the affiliate model starts to fall apart, especially with streaming? (Perhaps belongs in another thread; I assume Jon has thoughts on this.)

Best I can tell, lately more stations are looking to dump the networks than the other way around.

CBS affiliation in Atlanta just changed from that exact sort of situation, Gray (third largest station ownership group in the country) dumped network ties entirely to go heavily local news produced in-house. (91 hours worth each week, which will make them more $ than CBS programming aside from SEC football has in years) The perceived value of network affiliation has never been lower than it is right now.

And if not for CBS actually owning a small, previously meaningless honestly, station in the market I'm not sure they'd have had any takers.

[Passacaglia]

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence after Kimmel suspension

I love the quote buried at the bottom here.

"When a person says something that a ton of people find offensive, rude, dumb in real time and then that person is punished for it, that's not cancel culture," said Dave Portnoy, who founded media company Barstool Sports.

"That is consequences for your actions."

Oh, Dave, that is so you.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Best I can tell, lately more stations are looking to dump the networks than the other way around.

CBS affiliation in Atlanta just changed from that exact sort of situation, Gray (third largest station ownership group in the country) dumped network ties entirely to go heavily local news produced in-house. (91 hours worth each week, which will make them more $ than CBS programming aside from SEC football has in years) The perceived value of network affiliation has never been lower than it is right now.

And if not for CBS actually owning a small, previously meaningless honestly, station in the market I'm not sure they'd have had any takers.

Interesting. So Len the Plumber, gutter helmet, Krystal Koons, and the local ambulance chasers make our locals more money than the networks then?

We watch one of our locals, but usually a) if my wife can't find a murder show she doesn't remember (getting harder and harder) and b) waiting for the national news to come on. And even that is shrinking some; after a while they start repeating stories so I'll just catch up on old Jeopardy! eps instead.

Our local NBC is apparently on 24/7 -- they have a channel on our Samsung lineup -- but we don't really see the point vs their "standard" broadcast schedule. (I'll throw in the caveat though that "local" is only marginally local in that it's DC, where we seldom go. They do cover our weather region though.)

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I hope it does happen.

Trump and a complicate GOP have changed the rules about this sort of thing. It's time for the Dems to fight fire with fire.

Right or wrong, explicit or implicit, there is still a standard of "When they go low, we go high." for the Democratic party from a significant portion of groups I named above. While I have little belief that most of the politicians could pull off fighting fire with fire, I have zero belief that the general public, their supporters or the others politicians on the left have the stomach for what comes with that tactic. We just saw this play out in real time. Hell, some have already begun to get a bit queasy of Gavin Newsom's social media tactics because they are "better than that."

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Right or wrong, explicit or implicit, there is still a standard of "When they go low, we go high." for the Democratic party from a significant portion of groups I named above. While I have little belief that most of the politicians could pull off fighting fire with fire, I have zero belief that the general public, their supporters or the others politicians on the left have the stomach for what comes with that tactic. We just saw this play out in real time. Hell, some have already begun to get a bit queasy of Gavin Newsom's social media tactics because they are "better than that."

I don't think it is even that principled. The leadership care about the donor class and only the donor class. They have to be pulled into doing anything by progressive members and they hate it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Right or wrong, explicit or implicit, there is still a standard of "When they go low, we go high." for the Democratic party from a significant portion of groups I named above. While I have little belief that most of the politicians could pull off fighting fire with fire, I have zero belief that the general public, their supporters or the others politicians on the left have the stomach for what comes with that tactic. We just saw this play out in real time. Hell, some have already begun to get a bit queasy of Gavin Newsom's social media tactics because they are "better than that."

Then they will continue to get curb stomped.

[JPhillips]

Dems should run hard on anti-corruption, but they won't.

[JPhillips]

dola

Trump's 15 billion lawsuit against the NYT is getting tossed on the grounds of, this complaint is PR bullshit and I'm not dealing with it. He has a month to submit a real complaint or the suit is dismissed.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Then they will continue to get curb stomped.

Theyre currently a loser party. Even Kamala likely knew she would lose but couldn't pass up the opportunity to write her book.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dems should run hard on anti-corruption, but they won't.

But they are corrupt too. How do you run hard against something you are?

Eh, dualism and that old play-out cognitive dissonance. Lack of nuance and "certainty". Derp Derp.

Same game....different day.

[Passacaglia]

You could just run on saying "we won't attack the guys trying to fix your roof"

https://abc7chicago.com/post/napervi...says/17838441/

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dems should run hard on anti-corruption, but they won't.

There's like a million things they could run on but won't. No more money for foreign wars and invest it back here in the states. Expand access to health care. Ending tariffs. Limiting private equity from buying single family homes.

Can probably throw out a 100 issues that have broad support on both sides of the aisle that they won't run on. Shit, the party won't even endorse the guy who won the primary to run the largest city in the country.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

You could just run on saying "we won't attack the guys trying to fix your roof"

https://abc7chicago.com/post/napervi...says/17838441/

Yeah, they're going around the suburbs terrorizing anyone who is brown. This was the other day in Elgin where they kicked in someone's door at 5am so Kristi Noem could do an Instagram video. Dude was a U.S. citizen.

Elgin man who is a US citizen was briefly detained in latest Chicago-area ICE blitz


It is a bit funny for how tough they are that they are terrified of doing this in the city.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

But they are corrupt too. How do you run hard against something you are?

Eh, dualism and that old play-out cognitive dissonance. Lack of nuance and "certainty". Derp Derp.

Same game....different day.

They'd certainly have to give up some things, but the scale of corruption between say my rep, Pat Ryan and Donald Trump is massive. Just this week we've learned that Trump got 2 billion in a crypto scheme with an Arab prince, he agreed to let NVIDIA sell top chips abroad for a cut of the profits, somebody or somebodies are paying hundreds of millions for the WH ballroom and we don't know who or why.

The American public hates corruption and there's a lane to run on eradicating some of it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

But they are corrupt too. How do you run hard against something you are?

Eh, dualism and that old play-out cognitive dissonance. Lack of nuance and "certainty". Derp Derp.

Same game....different day.

Remind me again about the time Joe Biden created a meme coin, made billions, then invited an unveted group of the top buyers of that coin access to a private event at the White House?

Sorry but the 'they both do it" argument doesn't fly with Trump. Anyone who doesn't see he breaks ethics clauses daily to make himself profit from the office is either very stupid or willfully ignorant.

[Lathum]

When Ted Cruz is the voice of reason things have gone terribly sideways

Kimmel's longtime hoops rival @tedcruz weighs in with worry about what @BrendanCarrFCC did pic.twitter.com/1GNXhRfA3M

— Sam Stein (@samstein) September 19, 2025

[RainMaker]

I think fighting corruption is a decent talking point but the current Dem establishment are not the people who can make that claim. Yeah, Trump has taken it to levels we've never seen before, but the argument that "we aren't as bad as them at corruption" isn't a great selling point either. Biden was corrupt and most of the leaders of the party are as well.

Works for new blood in the party, not for current members.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Anyone who doesn't see he breaks ethics clauses daily to make himself profit from the office is either very stupid or willfully ignorant.

Why not both??

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Interesting. So Len the Plumber, gutter helmet, Krystal Koons, and the local ambulance chasers make our locals more money than the networks then?

We watch one of our locals, but usually a) if my wife can't find a murder show she doesn't remember (getting harder and harder) and b) waiting for the national news to come on. And even that is shrinking some; after a while they start repeating stories so I'll just catch up on old Jeopardy! eps instead.

Our local NBC is apparently on 24/7 -- they have a channel on our Samsung lineup -- but we don't really see the point vs their "standard" broadcast schedule. (I'll throw in the caveat though that "local" is only marginally local in that it's DC, where we seldom go. They do cover our weather region though.)

It's an inventory issue as much as anything Next time you watch a network show, notice how little local ad time is in them. Typical is 90 secs in a 30 min sitcom, 3 minutes in a one hour show. And some programs are even worse, I know the network morning news shows sometimes allow as little as 1 minute an hour, the rest of the "local" time being eaten up by local weather inserts (which might get a :10 or :15 sec ad)

Compare that to an hour of locally produced news, which will have anywhere from 12 to 22 minutes of ads PER HOUR.

Further, with the exception of live sports a typical station's highest priced inventory is going to be in their primary local news coverage (5p, 6p, 10p, 11p ... whatever your market sweet spots are) AND the ratings are typically higher than most network fare these days.

In the specific case of Atlanta, the loss of the SEC deal probably sealed the decision for that local station. It was by far the most valuable network content for the station, and with it gone the math changed noticeably. I dare say they got more local revenue for their SEC packages (few as there were) in a few months than most network 3 hour blocks generate in a year. I'm talking (in several years old dollars since I'm basically retired now) about $10,000 - $15,000 per ad versus $500-$1000 per for even the highest rated primetime. And however dated my knowledge might be, trust me, the situation has NOT improved.

edit to add: Also keep in mind how most local media is bought. I've always been a huge outlier, I'm very program specific in the vast majority of my media planning. I want to know what's airing, where I'm being shown, all audiences are not created equal. But the vast majority of media is sold in broad rotations like "Mon-Fri 7p-11p" (or now honestly even Mon-Su 7p-11p", with few buyers being savvy enough to narrow that down any or even just block out specific programs (stations haaaaaate that). Over half, probably closer to 3/4 of that local revenue doesn't have a clue what they've actual bought. At most they might look at a number of two but that's averaged heavily with such a broad rotation. If I go in and say "gimme 1 in {insert high rated network prime show here}" then I get that (at a higher rate) BUT that person who bought the broad rotator doesn't get in there, meaning they get less audience than they thought they were paying for, cause I just removed the highest contribution to that average.

Point being, they don't care what you're showing, they just wanna spend the ad budget so it doesn't get cut.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think fighting corruption is a decent talking point but the current Dem establishment are not the people who can make that claim. Yeah, Trump has taken it to levels we've never seen before, but the argument that "we aren't as bad as them at corruption" isn't a great selling point either. Biden was corrupt and most of the leaders of the party are as well.

Works for new blood in the party, not for current members.

New blood is desperately needed across the board.

[JPhillips]

The new 100k H1B fee comes with the ability for Trump to make exceptions, so it's just more mafia-based government.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Going with a clean CR and daring the Dems to shut down the government is IMO ... playing chicken.

MAGAGOP has a majority of votes in both houses of Congress. If the CR doesn't pass, it's because members of MAGAGOP played chicken with other members of MAGAGOP.

It's like there are two people fighting over a steering wheel of a truck so each can drive it into a ditch and you're saying the person in the Camry on the overpass two miles away is daring both of them to do it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

MAGAGOP has a majority of votes in both houses of Congress. If the CR doesn't pass, it's because members of MAGAGOP played chicken with other members of MAGAGOP.

It's like there are two people fighting over a steering wheel of a truck so each can drive it into a ditch and you're saying the person in the Camry on the overpass two miles away is daring both of them to do it.

I may be missing something, but doesn't even a clean CR need 60 votes to pass in Senate?

(Hence, the need for some Dem Senators to cross over in the game of chicken)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ect-rcna232242

The Republican plan, which passed by GOP-controlled House by a vote of 217-212 earlier Friday, fell short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate: The vote was 44-48, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to vote yes, and Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republicans voting no.

A competing Democratic plan also failed to clear the 60-vote threshold. That vote was 47-45, along party lines, with seven senators — all Republicans — missing the vote.

[RainMaker]

The 60 votes is a made up rule they can eliminate at any time. They literally just did this to confirm nominees.

[RainMaker]

Sure everything is on the up and up

Just a moment...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The 60 votes is a made up rule they can eliminate at any time. They literally just did this to confirm nominees.

I've read from numerous sources that the 60 votes is needed in the Senate and your option was not mentioned. In addition to my above quote, a couple more sources ...

Just a moment...

With the Democratic proposal being rejected, the Senate will now vote on the House-passed stopgap bill, which funds the government until Nov. 21. That GOP-led proposal is also expected to fail because it will need 60 votes, which would require help from at least seven Democratic senators. It won a single Democratic vote in the House, from Maine Rep. Jared Golden.

Just a moment...

A vote on the Democratic plan failed 47-45 along party lines, while a procedural vote on the GOP plan failed 44-48. Sixty votes were required in both cases.

And if it was as easy as you say, more budgets would have been passed over the years where one party owned Presidency + both houses.

So, if you have other sources beyond twitter-and-like that believe GOP can/will do this, I would like to read them.

[RainMaker]

Raise a point of order, have Vance overrule the point of order based on existing Senate rules, then appeal that decision. Now you just need a simple majority vote. The Republicans literally just did this the other day to get nominees through.

Also we need to open the schools so people like you can learn the basics of how our government operates.

[sovereignstar v2]

Was the Oklahoma BOE porn mystery posted yet? It was an old Jackie Chan movie streaming lol

403 Forbidden

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Raise a point of order, have Vance overrule the point of order based on existing Senate rules, then appeal that decision. Now you just need a simple majority vote. The Republicans literally just did this the other day to get nominees through.

We are talking about Oct 1 funding bill.

Also we need to open the schools so people like you can learn the basics of how our government operates.

... and definitely for reading simple forum posts

So, if you have other sources beyond twitter-and-like that believe GOP can/will do this, I would like to read them.

But I will admit that dynamics have changed quite a bit. I can see the GOP Senate try this now with Trump pressure. But until then, the senators will be loathe to set the precedence and won't successfully do the nuclear option because of all the inherent challenges (e.g. we know its not as easy to do as you proclaim it is).

But as always with you, talk is cheap (e.g. US is not decoupling from China, Philippines is not a democracy, and my favorite ... its a violation of constitutional rights when "when asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration"). So, let's see on Oct 1 what happens (or not).


T-11

[RainMaker]

How have you followed politics for more than a week and not know what the nuclear option is? They can pass whatever the fuck they want with a simple majority.