President Donald Trump

[revo]

I again state, if the President was any other person than Trump, the Dems would at least come and negotiate.

But you know why this is, right? Because he has no respect for them or their constituents, he consistently throws them under the bus, and he governs only for the people that voted for him.

Unfortunately, thats not what happened - and because the Dems fucked up and chose to run #Imwithher - well we have the Trumpshow and its insanity.

You keep saying this, but the people chose her. She was the heavy favorite for at least 3 years leading up to the '16 election. And why didn't the GOP fuck up by choosing Trump over Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, etc.?

[Art Vandelay]

Realistically, the Dems have no incentive to negotiate. They are winning in the court of public opinion. Would make no sense to give Trump a victory by negotiating. You might not like it, but I think that’s the reality of modern day politics.

Are they?

[nots]

But you know why this is, right? Because he has no respect for them or their constituents, he consistently throws them under the bus, and he governs only for the people that voted for him.




You keep saying this, but the people chose her. She was the heavy favorite for at least 3 years leading up to the '16 election. And why didn't the GOP fuck up by choosing Trump over Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, etc.?

GOP did screw up by nominating Trump. However, with so many candidates, he could win primaries with relatively a low% of the GOP voters. If the GOP allocated delegates as the Democrats do, we likely would have seen a contested convention, and probably a different nominee. Plus, you can thank (in part) Trump’s nomination to the several Billion $ of free advertising CNN (and others) gave him during the primaries. Mostly, because they thought he would be easier to beat by Hillary (oopsie).
As to your first point: how much respect have Democrats given to Trump? They rioted the night he won in a lot of cities, the clashed with police the day of his inauguration and they had giant anti-Trump marches in dozens of cities within the first week or two of his inauguration. The hate and disdain has been a two way street and it has served your party well.

[nots]

Are they?

Seems like it based on the polls I have seen.

[OaklandA's]

So you laugh that I give Trump credit for attempting to get some things done that other administrations havent, but have no concerns about the scorched earth games that are being played by our "leaders"?

In general, politicians on both sides want the same things - plentiful and high paying jobs, national security, good and affordable heath care, a good education system, etc, and both sides try to implement their ideas. But the two sides have different ideas on how to achieve those goals. Trump has tried to get some things done, but in almost every case, I think his strategy is the wrong path to achieve those goals.

Some specific ideas that I disagree with include:
1) Implementing a tax cut that greatly reduces taxes for corporations and the wealthy
2) First trying to ban all Muslims from coming to the U.S., and then switching to a plan to ban people from 7 Muslim-majority countries
3) Trying to end the DACA program
4) Trying to end the Affordable Care Act
5) Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement
6) Threatening to pull out of NATO, and in general not supporting our European allies, while backing dictators from countries like Russia, the Philippines, Turkey
7) Trying to end trade deficits by putting high tariffs on goods from China, Canada, and the EU
8) Trying to end NAFTA and the TPP
9) Ending the Iran nuclear deal
10) Not being willing to quickly condemn racists and white supremacists
11) Threatening to hold disaster relief funds from Puerto Rico and California
12) Saying that we need more guns in the classroom, and wanting to arm teachers
13) Vastly expanding offshore drilling
14) Reducing regulations on corporate emissions and dumping
15) Shutting down the government unless he gets a border wall (won't accept more fencing, border agents, and technology)

These are just policy disagreements off the top of my head; I haven't even mentioned his stupid personal attacks on politicians, athletes, entertainers, the FBI, or the Russia stuff or the sexual harassment stuff. So my problem is not "But Trump..." and has nothing to do with the 2016 election. My problem is that I disagree with almost all of his policies.

Instead of complaining about Democrats, why don't you state a specific policy where you think the Democrats are wrong, and where Trump is correct? Then we could try to intelligently discuss the policy. But I don't see any value in the "But both sides are to blame..." We need to be specific as to what policies we support and which ones we don't.

[OaklandA's]

This article from ABC seems to indicate that they will not open up votes if they dont believe Trump will sign them - which is why we are this standoff. I am tired of both sides playing scorched earth, if I havent made that clear enough.

Again, it is not both sides. Republican Senate Majority Leader McConnell said he won't open up votes if he believes Trump won't sign. The House has passed several bills to end this, and the Senate had unanimously passed a CR to reopen the government before Trump changed his mind and said he wouldn't sign it. If McConnell opened it up to vote, there would be a bill on Trump's desk today, that he could sign or veto (and there might be enough votes to even override his veto).

[baldgriff]

But you know why this is, right? Because he has no respect for them or their constituents, he consistently throws them under the bus, and he governs only for the people that voted for him.




You keep saying this, but the people chose her. She was the heavy favorite for at least 3 years leading up to the '16 election. And why didn't the GOP fuck up by choosing Trump over Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, etc.?

The people chose her?? Seriously?? The DNC's super-delegates would have made her the choice regardless of any vote - or dont we recall the discussions about how the super delegates had this pretty much pre-determined? The people chose her ---- keep telling yourself that. The Dem primary was a sham - and Bernie was able to keep some semblance of prominence by falling back in line.

They fucked it up, by thinking that they didnt even need to show up in some swing states.
They fucked it up, by making the election appear to be a choice between Man vs Woman #Imwithher - rather than about policy.
They fucked it up, by choosing to run a candidate that couldn't even appear to be honestly engaged or caring about the people in her constituency.
They fucked it up, by selecting a person that was more about "breaking the glass ceiling AND being the person to do it" than actually running on substance.
They fucked it up, by choosing a person to run the felt she deserved to be there.

Seriously.....

Now did the R's fuck it up by allowing Trump to run the party over - it is quite possible in the long run that Trump does great harm to the Republican party - time will tell.

However, the PEOPLE directly chose him in the primaries - NO SuperDelegates to make sure it goes a specific way. Oh and if winning the election is any determining matter in whether they fucked up - Trump won the electoral college. That one thing that keeps us as a Republic - rather than a "true" democracy. Its why the states in the Rust Belt and the Midwest matter.

Honestly though - you are going to point a finger at Trump and try to posit that he fucked up by winning the Presidency. He accomplished what he set out to do - without my vote. So if winning the Presidency is a measure of who fucked up - running a candidate that was a heavy favorite for at least 3 years leading up to the election and losing to what some say "is the worst candidate ever".

You tell me. How did the DNC not fuck it up??? All you had to do was beat Trump.

Nope #Imwithher was way more important.

[revo]

The people chose her?? Seriously?? The DNC's super-delegates would have made her the choice regardless of any vote - or dont we recall the discussions about how the super delegates had this pretty much pre-determined? The people chose her ---- keep telling yourself that. The Dem primary was a sham - and Bernie was able to keep some semblance of prominence by falling back in line.

Uhhh, Clinton received 55% of all the 2016 primary votes to Sanders 43%. Seriously.

Honestly though - you are going to point a finger at Trump and try to posit that he fucked up by winning the Presidency. He accomplished what he set out to do - without my vote. So if winning the Presidency is a measure of who fucked up - running a candidate that was a heavy favorite for at least 3 years leading up to the election and losing to what some say "is the worst candidate ever".

Trump didn't fuck up. The people who believed him did.

[baldgriff]

Again, it is not both sides. Republican Senate Majority Leader McConnell said he won't open up votes if he believes Trump won't sign. The House has passed several bills to end this, and the Senate had unanimously passed a CR to reopen the government before Trump changed his mind and said he wouldn't sign it. If McConnell opened it up to vote, there would be a bill on Trump's desk today, that he could sign or veto (and there might be enough votes to even override his veto).

Nothing will get completed until a discussion related to "The Wall" gets done. That is Trump's scorched earth policy - and the Dem's are not willing to give him anything. The leaders on both sides are playing scorched earth games - and its not benefiting anyone! McConnell likely knows if Trump will sign or not - and not giving him the choice prevents any such potential override. Honestly though, I dont think you are going to find enough people on the R side to jump ship and start voting against the President - so McConell is more than likely just not wasting people's time.

Trump needs to see progress in the area of immigration at the southern border - he wants the funds allocated. Whether he actually gets to spend the money on building it all the way across the border - well that is to be determined. I think most people agree that there are reforms that need to be made - so lets get a deal done.

Im glad I didnt vote for either of these parties - holy crap there is no willingness to come to agreement here.

[revo]

As to your first point: how much respect have Democrats given to Trump? They rioted the night he won in a lot of cities, the clashed with police the day of his inauguration and they had giant anti-Trump marches in dozens of cities within the first week or two of his inauguration. The hate and disdain has been a two way street and it has served your party well.

I think we both can agree Trump first drew the ire of Democrats when he started his racist Birther conspiracy against Obama, no? You're making it seem as if they only hated him because he got elected. He was hated well before that.

[revo]

McConnell likely knows if Trump will sign or not - and not giving him the choice prevents any such potential override\

Did he? Senate voted 100-0 on a stop-gap CR that they sent to him to sign. What happened there? Oh wait, Fox & Friends didn't like it and he was afraid his ego would be bruised.

[baldgriff]

Uhhh, Clinton received 55% of all the 2016 primary votes to Sanders 43%. Seriously.
.

Seriously - the super delegates had this in the bag before it was even started.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/polit...ion/index.html

""My problem is that the process today has allowed Secretary Clinton to get the support of over 400 superdelegates before any other Democratic candidate was in the race," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday on "State of the Union." "It's like an anointment.""

"Superdelegates are unpledged delegates who get to act as free agents in the Democratic nomination process by choosing which candidate to support irrespective of any primary or caucus results. They make up 15% of the total delegate universe, which makes it nearly impossible for any Democratic candidate for president to secure the nomination without the support of both pledged delegates and superdelegates."

"In fact, based on CNN's current delegate estimate, neither Clinton nor Sanders would have been able to secure the 2,383 delegates to clinch the nomination without the help of superdelegates."


Yep - the "people" voted for her..... Hard to imagine not being able to secure enough delegates by have the people vote for you.... Them damned SuperDelegates ultimately were a determining factor. Of course that's why the DNC is/has changed their rules regarding the SuperDelegate.

[nots]

I think we both can agree Trump first drew the ire of Democrats when he started his racist Birther conspiracy against Obama, no? You're making it seem as if they only hated him because he got elected. He was hated well before that.

Meh, he disavowed that several months before the election. I get the feeling that if he had never brought the birth certificate up, things would still be exactly the same as they are now. Most of this #Resistance BS Is in response to the with the way the GOP treated Obama, not with Trump.

[baldgriff]

Did he? Senate voted 100-0 on a stop-gap CR that they sent to him to sign. What happened there? Oh wait, Fox & Friends didn't like it and he was afraid his ego would be bruised.

Honestly though, I dont think you are going to find enough people on the R side to jump ship and start voting against the President - so McConell is more than likely just not wasting people's time. They may have voted 100-0 - I just dont see them voting against the Pres and McConnell isnt going to put them in that position - apparently.

[nots]

Seriously - the super delegates had this in the bag before it was even started.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/polit...ion/index.html

""My problem is that the process today has allowed Secretary Clinton to get the support of over 400 superdelegates before any other Democratic candidate was in the race," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday on "State of the Union." "It's like an anointment.""

"Superdelegates are unpledged delegates who get to act as free agents in the Democratic nomination process by choosing which candidate to support irrespective of any primary or caucus results. They make up 15% of the total delegate universe, which makes it nearly impossible for any Democratic candidate for president to secure the nomination without the support of both pledged delegates and superdelegates."

"In fact, based on CNN's current delegate estimate, neither Clinton nor Sanders would have been able to secure the 2,383 delegates to clinch the nomination without the help of superdelegates."


Yep - the "people" voted for her..... Hard to imagine not being able to secure enough delegates by have the people vote for you.... Them damned SuperDelegates ultimately were a determining factor. Of course that's why the DNC is/has changed their rules regarding the SuperDelegate.

I think that even without the Superdelegates, Clinton would have won at a contested convention eventually. Makes for an interesting ‘what if’ though.