Jump to content

US Politics: Shutbound & Down


DMC

Recommended Posts

Is Giuliani some deep mole?

Quote

President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on Sunday said that it's "possible" the president spoke to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, ahead of his congressional testimony.

"Which would be perfectly normal," Giuliani told CNN's "State of the Union." "So what?"

"As far as I know, President Trump did not have discussions with him," he added. "Certainly, no discussions with him in which he told him or counseled him to lie."n

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/426202-guiliani-says-trump-might-have-talked-to-cohen-about-his-testimony-so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Look, to be worth taking, any deal McConnell or Trump proposes that includes wall funding doesn't just have to be a good deal. It has to be sensationally good.

Why? Because right now Trump is as deep in a corner as he has ever been, and he painted himself into it. If he doesn't get this wall funding, politically he is deeply, deeply damaged. Maybe finished. His base will not forget it. This truly has the potential to be the thing that breaks his hold over quite a lot of them.

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more. His base is not so fixated on the wall that they'd ignore something like changes to immigration policy that allow people to walk through the gates. Also, I don't think one party being in a corner is a good analogy here: it implies that the other party has options whereas here nobody can give ground without losing face. A much better analogy is a pair of goats that have locked horns on a narrow bridge.

I'm watching the usual Sunday political interviews now and the pundits are refusing to speculate on how the shutdown will end. Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Well, if the President witness tampers, it's not witness tampering. But, he didn't do that anyway. If Russian prostitutes urinate on the President, it's not urine, it's liquid gold. No collusion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more. His base is not so fixated on the wall that they'd ignore something like changes to immigration policy that allow people to walk through the gates. Also, I don't think one party being in a corner is a good analogy here: it implies that the other party has options whereas here nobody can give ground without losing face. A much better analogy is a pair of goats that have locked horns on a narrow bridge.

I'm watching the usual Sunday political interviews now and the pundits are refusing to speculate on how the shutdown will end. Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

It's about much more to the Democrats than losing face or not. It's about not creating the precedent that Trump can extort the Democrats at any time he wants to get what he wants in the future. Trump is holding a gun to federal workers and demanding unlimited political power the rest of his term. 5 billion won't build the wall, so he will demand more later. He will likely demand to slash Medicaid at some point and who knows what else. 

Add to this, if the shutdown goes on for many months it will hurt Trump's election chances much more than Democrats, in particular the Democratic Presidential candidate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

I've read that congress has six months in which it must vote to end or continue the state of emergency, but there is nothing stopping Pelosi from having that vote immediately after Trump would declare it.  So she can shut it down, within six months or six seconds.  It would be a spectacular failure for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more.

BS.

Republicans and their voters don't give a damn about budgets or the deficits, when they have the oval office. They just whine about it, when the President is a democrat. Ask Paul "the numbers guy" Ryan, who proudly declared after they got their tax cuts the deficit was gonna blow up anyway.

Otherwise what other posters said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

Quote

Mr. Trump’s offer should be welcomed but not accepted as the final word. There should be room to talk about the amount of money; how border security will be defined and enhanced; which categories of dreamers and TPS beneficiaries are covered; what their legal status will be, and for how long. But to refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined federal workers and contractors.

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

I've read that congress has six months in which it must vote to end or continue the state of emergency, but there is nothing stopping Pelosi from having that vote immediately after Trump would declare it.  So she can shut it down, within six months or six seconds.

Yes, Congress can vote to terminate a SoE immediately.  The problem is the president can veto so you'd need an override majority in both chambers.

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Republicans and their voters don't give a damn about budgets or the deficits, when they have the oval office.

I think by "pays too much" Altherion was referring to what he gives up in exchange for wall funding.  Ann Coulter already called his proposal yesterday amnesty and compared Trump to Jeb Bush (which in bizarro Coulter world is a huge burn).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

It looks like the Democrats may make a counter-offer quite soon.

Quote

They seem ready to. Earlier on Saturday, The New York Times’s Julie Hirschfield Davis reported that Democrats had plans of offering a concession of their own. In the coming week, House Democrats intend to pass a spending bill that will include an additional $1 billion to address border-security needs, like improving infrastructure at ports of entry and hiring immigration judges.

Here’s Trump’s latest offer to end the shutdown — and why Democrats aren’t interested
The “deal” Trump is offering on immigration and DACA, explained.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189549/trump-shutdown-announcement-deal-daca-democratsa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

It looks like the Democrats may make a counter-offer quite soon.

As I said, that doesn't count:

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

Snivelry. The ram has touched the wall. 

No negotiation, no peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The ram has touched the wall. 

Had to look up that reference.  Anyway, the premise is wrong.  Ensuring the Dems maintain leverage on Trump is the best (and ultimately only) way to show no mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Had to look up that reference.  Anyway, the premise is wrong.  Ensuring the Dems maintain leverage on Trump is the best (and ultimately only) way to show no mercy.

I'm borderline educational. 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yes, Congress can vote to terminate a SoE immediately.  The problem is the president can veto so you'd need an override majority in both chambers.

I think by "pays too much" Altherion was referring to what he gives up in exchange for wall funding.  Ann Coulter already called his proposal yesterday amnesty and compared Trump to Jeb Bush (which in bizarro Coulter world is a huge burn). 

Ah ok, only returned home and my mind was/is still a bit busy with some other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

1. Donald's already solved that problem by taking responsibility for the mess.

2. Neither Trump nor Pelosi are going to give in here. The solution to this is entirely with McConnell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

1. Donald's already solved that problem by taking responsibility for the mess.

2. Neither Trump nor Pelosi are going to give in here. The solution to this is entirely with McConnell.

1. Relying on Trump's idiotic comments from over a month ago as a constant given going forward regarding responsibility attribution is a perilously complacent assumption.

2.  Nothing in my post had anything to with anyone giving in, but rather each side offering mutually unpalatable "compromises."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

.

2.  Nothing in my post had anything to with anyone giving in, but rather each side offering mutually unpalatable "compromises."

Compromise is over. Seriously, dawg. The Republic is compromised as I can bear to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Compromise is over. Seriously, dawg. The Republic is compromised as I can bear to see it.

This suggests you really don't get my point and are just treating the word compromise like Voldemort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...