Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

markodaly

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump ran in 2016 and cheated. That is a fact.

There was Russian influence. That is a fact.

Whether they colluded or not will hopefully be established, but since we are talking about mandates, let's remember those two facts when talking about 2016 and his mandate from that election.

SNIP. Any more sneering will result in a ban.


Anyone who thinks that Trump has no mandate is either Russian bot or are deluding themselves.

Last time I checked, the midterms were for seats in Congress and the Senate. Not the actual presidency itself. That will come in 2020.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

The polling says 82% of Republicans want the wall in the full knowledge that Mexico won't be paying for it. I doubt the figure was at 100% during the vote so not much support for it has been lost.

I'm not really seeing the point of arguing about this. Hypotheticals are all well and good but the polling is consistent.

From the Vox link you posted earlier

Only 29 percent of Americans think it would be “unacceptable” to reopen the government without substantially expanding physical barriers on the southern border with Mexico, a new Pew Research Center survey conducted from January 9 to 14 shows. Meanwhile, 58 percent of Americans still oppose the border wall altogether.

So 70% of the country are happy with the Government to re-open , wall or not and a significant majority of the overall population that the government is supposed to represent , don't want the wall.

So , what mandate is there for keeping the government shutdown until he gets his way?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Agreed. So the answer is both sides need to compromise. Wouldn't you agree?

Well it's a metal fence now, and did he not offer some three-year thing for Dreamers but it was rejected as it wasn't permanent?

You can't really compromise on a physical thing. It either exists or it doesn't. So the only way to compromise is to give the Democrats something else that they want in return.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

That clearly leaves both parties at fault. I've no idea how anyone can say this is all Trump's fault when the Democrats' are doing this as a matter of principal.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Do you think he's seeking the achieve the things I've mentioned? Has he actually tried to achieve any of them?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

I can't be bothered typing it up so that's what BBC had to say recently. Please don't argue that failure to deliver some negates his mandate for others.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's a metal fence now, and did he not offer some three-year thing for Dreamers but it was rejected as it wasn't permanent?

You can't really compromise on a physical thing. It either exists or it doesn't. So the only way to compromise is to give the Democrats something else that they want in return.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

That clearly leaves both parties at fault. I've no idea how anyone can say this is all Trump's fault when the Democrats' are doing this as a matter of principal.

By by your own standards Trump has no mandate for a fence!

The dreamers thing is nothing, the SCOTUS has already postponed any hearings for at least a year, by which time the US will be in full campaign mode.

The first, most important issue, is how to get the 800k people the payments they are due.

The Dems have put forward a bill to allow the government to repoen and get all these people paid, get local economies back on track and get things moving whilst agreeing that more talks on the wall are needed.

Trump has said that the government shutdown, that he took responsibility for, will last until he gets his wall.

Which do you think is the more reasonable position to be in?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well it's a metal fence now, and did he not offer some three-year thing for Dreamers but it was rejected as it wasn't permanent?

You can't really compromise on a physical thing. It either exists or it doesn't. So the only way to compromise is to give the Democrats something else that they want in return.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

That clearly leaves both parties at fault. I've no idea how anyone can say this is all Trump's fault when the Democrats' are doing this as a matter of principal.

No it means both sides should negotiate. Shutting down the government should never be used as a negotiating tactic. Trump refused to sign off on keeping the government funded. He's to blame for the shutdown. He accepted the responsibility for it before it even happened.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ads, nobody is saying that Trump must ditch the mandate for the wall. The Dems have put forward a vote in the Senate on Thursday which would end the shutdown and allow for further negotiations on the wall once the government is running again.

Trump will not accept that as he knows there is no basis for the wall, no support for it, and thus he is trying to leverage the 800k not being paid to get his way. Where was that as part of the campaign trail, I recall Build the Wall and Mexcio will pay, he even said if they refused to pay he would build it higher, but am struggling to recall when he stated that he would withhold payment on government workers unless he got it.

So there is an easy way out of this. Accept the Dems bill and go off behind the scenes to negotiate the wall. Either it will stand up to scrutiny of or it won't. Trump already knows the answer to that as he even accepts that concrete "beautiful concrete" is not the way to go. Which funny enough was another part of his wall mandate that you seem more than happy to let him go back on.

Why do people ruin good posts by adding unnecessary lies? There is huge support for it. It may not be a majority countrywide, but is a majority amongst Republicans.

I can't even be bothered to respond to the rest. I lose all interest when something like that is thrown in the middle, like I'm a schoolchild who won't notice. I've been perfectly reasonable here so respect that.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

By by your own standards Trump has no mandate for a fence!

The dreamers thing is nothing, the SCOTUS has already postponed any hearings for at least a year, by which time the US will be in full campaign mode.

The first, most important issue, is how to get the 800k people the payments they are due.

The Dems have put forward a bill to allow the government to repoen and get all these people paid, get local economies back on track and get things moving whilst agreeing that more talks on the wall are needed.

Trump has said that the government shutdown, that he took responsibility for, will last until he gets his wall.

Which do you think is the more reasonable position to be in?

I don't understand the first bolded part.

As for the second, I don't know.

Leroy42

What I meant was there was no support in congress. Otherwise the GOP would have given him the money during the two, years, when in reality they actively stopped him getting it.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people ruin good posts by adding unnecessary lies? There is huge support for it. It may not be a majority countrywide, but is a majority amongst Republicans.

I can't even be bothered to respond to the rest. I lose all interest when something like that is thrown in the middle, like I'm a schoolchild who won't notice. I've been perfectly reasonable here so respect that.

Trump is not President of the Republicans.

batgoat

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Trump is not President of the Republicans.

Yes I'm not sure why he keeps referring to Republicans as if they're the entire electorate...

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand the first bolded part.

As for the second, I don't know.

Your position is that Trump is right to hold 800k hostage because he has a mandate from the campaign. But given that the mandate was for a wall, not a fence. So where is his mandate for a fence coming from since you appear to give him the ability to do anything based on a mandate.

The second. You honestly don't know which is more resonable? In one, they are willing to reopen government but cointinue talking. In the other, they are willing to use 800k government workers are human weights in order to try to get what they want.

And you don't see any difference?

FreudianSlippers

The fact of the matter is that 51% of Americans oppose increased border controls; 56% oppose this border wall fence. That's the most recent polling.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

I can't be bothered typing it up so that's what BBC had to say recently. Please don't argue that failure to deliver some negates his mandate for others.

I'm not just saying he failed to deliver some of them, I'm saying he never had any intention of delivering some of them. But if it's his mandate, isn't he supposed to deliver them? Who decides which of his mandates he's supposed to try and deliver at all costs? Who decides which of his election promises can be fought for and which shouldn't be? Or, as I've said, are mandates malleable and should be changed or adjusted as situations warrant?

I'm not arguing that failure to deliver some negates his mandate for others. I'm saying the advantages and disadvantages of delivering those mandates are vital in determining whether to proceed with them. Right now, Trump caused a government shutdown, over a million federal workers are going without pay (not to mention the knock-on effect on other people's businesses and incomes because of that), and all because Trump wants to build a wall that the majority of the country does not want, that experts agree will cost far more than the initial 5.7bn, is largely ineffective, doesn't solve the problems Trump is trying to claim it will, and is nothing more than a vanity project for Trump.

Is following this particular element of his mandate such that it warrants all of that?

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

Would Manic or anyone else who appears to support Trump from time to time agree that the shut down should end with a deal that a fact based report be conducted to investigate the most effective way to protect the border occur and that both parties sign up for it?

Given that he's willing to lie through his teeth about the Dems wanting "open borders", that doesn't seem likely.

He's not interested in border security, he doesn't care what the Dems actually want. They've been running the line based on facts that their interests in border security revolve around where illegals actually come from, which are airports, people overstaying visas and that sort of thing, but his cultists won't be listening to that.

This is purely about his fragile ego at this point, and the stupidity that got him backed into this corner.

The longer it goes on, the more embarrassing the climbdown is going to be. Unless there's riots in the streets I can't see him backing down, but there absolutely should be at this point. Every single worker not getting paid in Washington should be yelling at him from outside the Whitehouse.

everlast75

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, I see you are doing your old, 'What I am saying is fact' type post again. The last time you did that you came out with egg on your face. Are you going for two in two days?

Anyone who thinks that Trump has no mandate is either Russian bot or are deluding themselves.

Last time I checked, the midterms were for seats in Congress and the Senate. Not the actual presidency itself. That will come in 2020.

Trump cheated in the election. He directed Cohen to make an illegal payment. he plead guilty to that and the Court accepted that.

Re Russia conspiring to make him win the election;
Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win
All of the Republican intelligence agencies concluded that there was interference by the russians to assist Trump in winning the election.

I take those as facts.

If you don't, that's your lookout.

As for the midterms being about Trump, again, I am well aware of when the presidential elections are. I made the valid point that Trump campaigned heavily for Republicans and therefore inserted himself into those elections. He even criticised those who lost their seats for not embracing him at their rallies.

spacecoyote

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand the first bolded part.

At a guess, I imagine he means that, at no point in the election did Trump say:

"We're going to put up a fence on the border"

He said:

"We're going to build a big, beautiful wall, and Mexico will pay for it" (slight paraphrasing)

So, delivering a fence along the border meets none of his pre-election mandate

PropJoe10

spacecoyote wrote: »

At a guess, I imagine he means that, at no point in the election did Trump say:

"We're going to put up a fence on the border"

He said:

"We're going to build a big, beautiful wall, and Mexico will pay for it" (slight paraphrasing)

So, delivering a fence along the border meets none of his pre-election mandate

If my memory serves me right, that's exactly what he said, word for word. It won't prevent him from coming out and denying that he ever said Mexico would pay for it, but that's the world we live in now.

MadYaker

That was pretty much what he said and he said it on numerous occasions there's videos of it all over the internet. Makes you wonder why he would then come out and say "I never said Mexico would pay for it" when everyone, every his supporters, knows he said it.

ancapailldorcha

MadYaker wrote: »

That was pretty much what he said and he said it on numerous occasions there's videos of it all over the internet. Makes you wonder why he would then come out and say "I never said Mexico would pay for it" when everyone, every his supporters, knows he said it.

What Trump actually says is all but irrelevant. Once he provides his base with the feeling of vindication they crave, he's got carte blanche to act as he sees fit.

Penn

PropJoe10 wrote: »

If my memory serves me right, that's exactly what he said, word for word. It won't prevent him from coming out and denying that he ever said Mexico would pay for it, but that's the world we live in now.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-
10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year

FreudianSlippers

PropJoe10 wrote: »

If my memory serves me right, that's exactly what he said, word for word. It won't prevent him from coming out and denying that he ever said Mexico would pay for it, but that's the world we live in now.

MadYaker wrote: »

That was pretty much what he said and he said it on numerous occasions there's videos of it all over the internet. Makes you wonder why he would then come out and say "I never said Mexico would pay for it" when everyone, every his supporters, knows he said it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM7mPl20GhQ

Real, high, big, beautiful, cheap and paid for by Mexico.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder if Trump will have the cajones to veto the Dem Bill if it passes the Senate....

If he does and the bill was passed by agreement between the Dem and GOP in both parts of congress, they can use this to over-ride his veto... Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, the president can veto a bill, but Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. As the parties passed the bill presented to the president, theoretically the only reason the GOP would be unable to veto his veto would be that his face is more important than the bill.

Manic Moran

B0jangles wrote: »

So, in a situation where someone grabs an innocent third party and threatens to do them harm unless all their demands are met, the responsibility is equal between the hostage-taker and those who refuse to give in to the demands of the hostage taker?

The correct and responsible thing to do is to 'just give him what he wants!!'

Really?

Is there a SWAT team standing by in the wings in case negotiations don't work here? To use your scenario, this is the equivalent to executing a prisoner every X many hours, not just holding a hostage. Democrats can't do a Flight 8969 raid and end it. As pointed out above, the Executive is equal to the Legislative, so the one doesn't need to accede to the other without some significant changes in attitude. What's the backup plan?

So, yes, sometimes the correct answer is to give him what he wants. (And if they can, they deal with the people later. I'm reminded of the French response to a pirate raid: They paid the ransom, got their captain back, then sent special forces in by helicopter to kill the pirates and get the money back.)
The payback is going to come for Trump in 2020. Unless the Democrats fluff it again, of course.

I'm genuinely curious: if the roles were reversed, and an obviously insane (and I mean can't-figure-out-how-to-use-an-umbrella insane) Democrat was in the White House, would Republicans be arguing that we should just give him whatever he wants in order to keep the government open?

Highly unlikely. I never claimed they were any more sensitive than Democrats are.

I ask again. Is there going to be any point in the next two years that the Democrats are going to be in a position to have this much leverage over Trump and Republicans in the Senate? What better opportunity do they have to achieve something significant from their manifesto? Not only do they see the end of the shutdown, but they get something done at the same time. And, who knows, if it's significant enough, it may well be a learning point to future Presidents not to try such a thing again, given how much it costs the party policy to stand on one point.

If he does and the bill was passed by agreement between the Dem and GOP in both parts of congress, they can use this to over-ride his veto... Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, the president can veto a bill, but Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. As the parties passed the bill presented to the president, theoretically the only reason the GOP would be unable to veto his veto would be that his face is more important than the bill.

They're just as interested in the next election as the Democrats are. There may be a number of Republican senators who are willing to flip over, but given the demographics of their constituencies, I'm not sure there are enough of them, and McConnell has them under a tight thumb. Similarly, CNN observes that there are enough Democrats in Trump constituencies to end the stand-off, but Pelosi has them under a tight thumb.

Muahahaha

So today is day 31 of the shutdown. Anyone want to hazard a guess how long this impasse can really last? Can it go to 50, 60 even 70 days? Are there any upcoming events that might bring it to a head?

Stallingrad

Can't see the Dems backing down, why should they? Trump will have to find some way out of this, or MM will have to allow a vote.

Having said that Trumps' ego may prevent him from doing so, and he appears all to happy to gamble with other peoples livelihoods.

Those 800,000 workers must be in a real hole now and thinking 'all this for a wall?'

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

B0jangles wrote: »

So, in a situation where someone grabs an innocent third party and threatens to do them harm unless all their demands are met, the responsibility is equal between the hostage-taker and those who refuse to give in to the demands of the hostage taker?

The correct and responsible thing to do is to 'just give him what he wants!!'

Really?

Is there a SWAT team standing by in the wings in case negotiations don't work here? To use your scenario, this is the equivalent to executing a prisoner every X many hours, not just holding a hostage. Democrats can't do a Flight 8969 raid and end it. As pointed out above, the Executive is equal to the Legislative, so the one doesn't need to accede to the other without some significant changes in attitude. What's the backup plan?

So, yes, sometimes the correct answer is to give him what he wants. (And if they can, they deal with the people later. I'm reminded of the French response to a pirate raid: They paid the ransom, got their captain back, then sent special forces in by helicopter to kill the pirates and get the money back.)
The payback is going to come for Trump in 2020. Unless the Democrats fluff it again, of course.

I'm genuinely curious: if the roles were reversed, and an obviously insane (and I mean can't-figure-out-how-to-use-an-umbrella insane) Democrat was in the White House, would Republicans be arguing that we should just give him whatever he wants in order to keep the government open?

Highly unlikely. I never claimed they were any more sensitive than Democrats are.

I ask again. Is there going to be any point in the next two years that the Democrats are going to be in a position to have this much leverage over Trump and Republicans in the Senate? What better opportunity do they have to achieve something significant from their manifesto? Not only do they see the end of the shutdown, but they get something done at the same time. And, who knows, if it's significant enough, it may well be a learning point to future Presidents not to try such a thing again, given how much it costs the party policy to stand on one point.

If he does and the bill was passed by agreement between the Dem and GOP in both parts of congress, they can use this to over-ride his veto... Under Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, the president can veto a bill, but Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. As the parties passed the bill presented to the president, theoretically the only reason the GOP would be unable to veto his veto would be that his face is more important than the bill.

They're just as interested in the next election as the Democrats are. There may be a number of Republican senators who are willing to flip over, but given the demographics of their constituencies, I'm not sure there are enough of them, and McConnell has them under a tight thumb. Similarly, CNN observes that there are enough Democrats in Trump constituencies to end the stand-off, but Pelosi has them under a tight thumb.

I am always amazed at how much blame you can put on Democrats for the Republican backed president.

Presumably Republicans will do their job and primary him with someone decent no? Given they are so against their policies (in spite of having the power to override his veto and refusing to do so).
I mean we have the president demanding billions (let's not pretend 5 will be the final bill either, that is just to get it started and to justify later grabs for cash) for a vanity project. Presumably the Republicans can do better?

B0jangles

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there a SWAT team standing by in the wings in case negotiations don't work here? To use your scenario, this is the equivalent to executing a prisoner every X many hours, not just holding a hostage. Democrats can't do a Flight 8969 raid and end it. As pointed out above, the Executive is equal to the Legislative, so the one doesn't need to accede to the other without some significant changes in attitude. What's the backup plan?

So, yes, sometimes the correct answer is to give him what he wants. (And if they can, they deal with the people later. I'm reminded of the French response to a pirate raid: They paid the ransom, got their captain back, then sent special forces in by helicopter to kill the pirates and get the money back.)
The payback is going to come for Trump in 2020. Unless the Democrats fluff it again, of course.

That's completely insane - you are arguing that it's better to give in to the demands of a hostage-taker and chance him doing it again and again and again, whenever he feels like it?

Trump remains president and retains the power to hold the livelihoods of millions of Americans hostage to get his vanity project built simply and solely because he has the Republican party backing him up.

This entire situation is his and their responsibility. Stop wheeling out the old 'both sides are as bad as each other' line. It's not fooling anyone who is already desperately trying to be fooled.

everlast75

He took this action initially because he said this was an emergency.

It is now into the 2nd month of the shutdown. If it was an emergency, then surely he should have declared it as such and dealt with it via military resources.

He has not. Therefore, its not an emergency.

Please explain why he has decided to not pay 800k people and shutdown the government over something that is not urgent and can be dealt with in the normal way?

Leroy42

And of course once the 5.7bn has been spent he will be back looking for another round, and the call from Trump supporters will be that without the extra money the Dems have wasted the 5.7 already spent. It is so obvious what the plan is.

When magically the crime hasn't stopped, drugs are still a problem, the reason will not because the wall didn't work but because they didn't build enough of it.