Jump to content
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: It’s beginning to look a lot like Rescission

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'd like to think he would take that, but my suspicion is that he won't. His entire thing is about actually building a physical wall, as stupid and ineffective as it'll be in most of the places - especially without all the support and tech required to actually utilize it. No one thinks it's smart - and while Republicans are willing to spin it as the above, Trump continues to not. 

But this gets to the heart of it - someone as candidate promises something that is ludicrously stupid and obviously will not work. But he makes it a central promise, a central saying of his candidacy. Now they're holding the government hostage for it. How can you let them save face while still making sure that they don't actually get this stupid-ass thing?

By shouting over and over and over that the money won't build even a gddmed picket fence but go into the pockets of the nazi's corporate overlords as 'contracts' to build a wall.  Like he builds shyte that literally either doesn't get built by him, or falls apart and never gets finished.  Well, that's one thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

How can you let them save face while still making sure that they don't actually get this stupid-ass thing?

The Dems don't really have to.  As @Zorral said Trump's already started changing the goalposts on what would constitute "winning."  Now he just has to whittle that down to basically nothing.  The Dems have no reason to budge because you didn't need a poll to know this was going to go bad for Trump - even before he claimed responsibility in the Oval Office meeting.  Last (this?) January a clear majority did not support shutting down the government for DACA, which is popular.  Obviously even a stronger majority is going to be against shutting down the government for wall funding, which is unpopular - especially considering it's very likely there's more economic anxiety now than then. 

Trump did this to cater to the base because the Coulter/Limbaugh crowd goaded him into it.  And to be fair, that's perfectly logical - Trump is a base politician and those voices, when they all get together, are just about as strong as him to the base.  Of course, judging by his approval nadir thus far, this is a purely 35/37% base move, which gives the Dems every reason not to budge.  But, eventually, the Coulter/Limbaugh crowd will just go back to demonizing the Dems.  Same thing happened in 2013.  Ted Cruz and the proto-House Freedom Caucus shut down the government for 17 days to make a point.  The only "face saving" gesture was stricter income verification rules for the ACA.  How long will Trump last before he comes to this inevitable conclusion?  I ain't predicting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find myself wondering...

In the not so distant future, the democratic house is going to be in a position to unleash all kinds of grief on Trump through various investigations.  Probably not enough to get impeachment going, but still enough to hurt him bad, possibly even in the eyes of his base.

 

So...suppose the leading Dem's strike a sort of devils bargain:

Trump will sign certain pieces of meaningful  legislation or the Dem's ramp the investigations up a couple notches. Trump cooperates, and the investigations go on the back burner.  Trump can spout off all he wants on other things, even complain or steal credit for the bills in question, but if he doesn't go along, the investigations take a highly uncomfortable (for Trump and family) turn. 

Edited by ThinkerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I do find myself wondering...

In the not so distant future, the democratic house is going to be in a position to unleash all kinds of grief on Trump through various investigations.  Probably not enough to get impeachment going, but still enough to hurt him bad, possibly even in the eyes of his base.

 

So...suppose the leading Dem's strike a sort of devils bargain:

Trump will sign certain pieces of meaningful  legislation or the Dem's ramp the investigations up a couple notches. Trump cooperates, and the investigations go on the back burner.  Trump can spout off all he wants on other things, even complain or steal credit for the bills in question, but if he doesn't go along, the investigations take a highly uncomfortable (for Trump and family) turn. 

That would be dumb. The emails and Benghazi(!) were only successful because they provided a steady drip drip drip of stories for years and year and years on end. With investigating trump, democrats don’t need to turn on the tap of investigations and turn off the tap, they just need a drip drip drip of reportage upon the investigations. The constant repetition of the investigations is far more valuable than the content of the investigations, as republicans have repeatedly proven when deploying this tactic.

thisnisneven true of watergate, thenconstant drip drip of a new watergate story made the whole thing vastly more damaging than it ever would have been otherwise.

giving up investigations would be one of the best things democrats could do to improve trumps reelection prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×