Donald Trump 2019

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Sure, his campaign slogan is basically "Trump, but without all the batshit crazy."  It's why his op-ed is focused completely on "character," instead of policy.  He applauds taking a hardline with China on trade.  Hell, he even gives a shout out to unions. 

To me what is significant about the op-ed is that is a strong sign that Romney is staking out a position as the Plan B for the GOP.  Plan A is that Trump will weather the Mueller Report with some political viability, and will carry the banner in 2020.  But Republicans have to consider the possibility that the Mueller report will be completely cripple Trump as viable candidate.  Romney certainly is. At a time when Democratic politicians are deciding whether to throw their hats in the ring, Romney has clearly decided to draw attention to himself as a potential replacement to Trump.  He's not going to do shit other than be another Flake/Sasse/Corker if Trump still looks viable in 6 months.  But, even though vultures don't attack, it's generally not a good sign if several of them are circling you in the desert. 

This is really good analysis.  

I think the GOP as an organization is crippled to the point that they can’t even make decisions in their own interest because they don’t share a common vision or reality behind closed doors. I think this internal rupture will become more visible as 2020 approaches. 

They’re just putting on a front and fighting the democrats because it’s all they know.  They’re in survival mode now. They’re not even trying to grow the party or appeal to a broader audience.

[Dbeasy 15095]

If you TRULY want to solve illegal immigration, you address the visa overstays.  You actually punish employers that hire undocumented workers.  You take away the incentive that draws these people to our country.
A wall solves none of this.  It's nothing more than a giant, expensive, ineffective, statue of a middle finger pointed at the South.  It just says "we don't want your kind" without actually addressing the issue at all.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I interpreted her comment differently, and I suspect many others did as well.

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.

I do think there is a reasonable debate about border security and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a wall that doesn’t have to include racial discrimination as part of the debate. I wish the two sides would keep the argument confined to that because bringing race into it is inflaming both sides. The argument could be won just on the merits of building a wall vs more effective actions to ensure border security. I guess I understand why she said it because it’s Trump.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I interpreted her comment differently, and I suspect many others did as well.

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.

I do think there is a reasonable debate about border security and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a wall that doesn’t have to include racial discrimination as part of the debate. I wish the two sides would keep the argument confined to that because bringing race into it is inflaming both sides. The argument could be won just on the merits of building a wall vs more effective actions to ensure border security. I guess I understand why she said it because it’s Trump.

There's a reasonable debate to be had about border security.  No reasonable person thinks a wall is an effective means to more border security. 

 

The GOP could also start a debate about whether we should put lead back in gasoline, whether we should invade Canada, or starting a Space Force. Reasonable people don't debate nonsense, ineffective policy ideas just because one political party makes up its own alternative facts in support of a useless, costly, stupid "policy."

[Brisketexan 105438]

Sure, his campaign slogan is basically "Trump, but without all the batshit crazy."  It's why his op-ed is focused completely on "character," instead of policy.  He applauds taking a hardline with China on trade.  Hell, he even gives a shout out to unions. 
To me what is significant about the op-ed is that it is a strong sign that Romney is staking out a position as the Plan B for the GOP.  Plan A is that Trump will weather the Mueller Report with some political viability, and will carry the banner in 2020.  But Republicans have to consider the possibility that the Mueller report will be completely cripple Trump as viable candidate.  Romney certainly is. At a time when Democratic politicians are deciding whether to throw their hats in the ring, Romney has clearly decided to draw attention to himself as a potential replacement to Trump.  He's not going to do shit other than be another Flake/Sasse/Corker if Trump still looks viable in 6 months.  But, even though vultures don't attack, it's generally not a good sign if several of them are circling you in the desert. 

Romney is just positioning himself as the guy who can pick up the baton if trump and pence get taken out by Mueller, resignation, etc. He’s the backup QB, showing off his throwing arm. But it’s only relevant if Trump and Pence have a Theisman-type injury. If they don’t, then he’s just a guy who said some stuff.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I interpreted her comment differently, and I suspect many others did as well.

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.

I do think there is a reasonable debate about border security and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a wall that doesn’t have to include racial discrimination as part of the debate. I wish the two sides would keep the argument confined to that because bringing race into it is inflaming both sides. The argument could be won just on the merits of building a wall vs more effective actions to ensure border security. I guess I understand why she said it because it’s Trump.

Chuckie was spot on. And the problem with your take is that you believe what Fox News says folks who oppose the wall stand for (“open borders! No security!”), when that truly is a fringe belief.
“The wall” as Trump speaks of it has minimal value as something that actually enhances border security (we already have physical barriers most everywhere that it makes sense), but HUGE value as a big middle finger to our southern neighbors, and as a monument to Trump’s egotistical stupidity. That’s a terrible reason to spend billions of dollars and damage the relationship with one of our largest trading partners.
It’s dumb, pointless, and mean. And costs a shitload of money.
The things Chuckie posted are none of those. Yet Trump doesn’t talk about them at all. Because they don’t accomplish the most important aspects of “the wall” - saying fuck you to Mexico so his moron base can cheer, and building a monument to Trump’s stupidity and ego. So, they have zero value to Trump.

[G650 14278]

13 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.
 

 

I don't think anyone interpreted it that way.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Romney is just positioning himself as the guy who can pick up the baton if trump and pence get taken out by Mueller, resignation, etc. He’s the backup QB, showing off his throwing arm. But it’s only relevant if Trump and Pence have a Theisman-type injury. If they don’t, then he’s just a guy who said some stuff.

I think Romney was not so subtly telling Trump, "You need me a whole lot more than I need you."

[Brisketexan 105438]

I think Romney was not so subtly telling Trump, "You need me a whole lot more than I need you."

Nope. He’ll vote as he’s told by the party. When it comes to action, he’s a Trump man.

[4th&Five 41599]

 

[lemonlime 5503]

JFC.  Can someone please explain to him who pays tariffs for fuck's sake.

[Biff Tannen 45750]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

JFC.  Can someone please explain to him who pays tariffs for fuck's sake.

Surely at this point he's just saying it because he knows his base of deplorables doesn't know any better.  Surely someone in his cabinet has pulled him aside and explained it.  RIGHT?!?!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope. He’ll vote as he’s told by the party. When it comes to action, he’s a Trump man.

Not talking about votes. Why this obsession with votes?

Trump is only vulnerable in the court of public opinion.  I get it, you think he's not and nothing matters but Trump doesn't know that yet.

Romney was saying, "I can hurt you if I want to."  Romney was creating political leverage for himself. 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32431]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Surely at this point he's just saying it because he knows his base of deplorables doesn't know any better.  Surely someone in his cabinet has pulled him aside and explained it.  RIGHT?!?!

Yes to both, but getting him to comprehend is a completely different matter.

[Francisco 2.0 32431]

Here's the President's schedule for Thursday January 3:

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-daily-guidance-and-press-schedule-for-thursday-1831447077

Quote

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 2, 2019
DAILY GUIDANCE AND PRESS SCHEDULE FOR
THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2019

In-Town Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP, NYT
TV Corr & Crew: NBC
Print: Politico
Radio: VOA

EST

11:00AM In-Town Pool Call Time
###

============================================================

Which is good.  Less chance of him fucking something up.

[Chuckie Finster 22752]

44 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I interpreted her comment differently, and I suspect many others did as well.

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.

I do think there is a reasonable debate about border security and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a wall that doesn’t have to include racial discrimination as part of the debate. I wish the two sides would keep the argument confined to that because bringing race into it is inflaming both sides. The argument could be won just on the merits of building a wall vs more effective actions to ensure border security. I guess I understand why she said it because it’s Trump.

It is very hard to have this discussion when one of the parties insists on "WALL!" and won't budge an inch.  There have been countless articles, videos, TV specials, speeches, etc. outlining why the wall is a completely ineffective solution to illegal immigration, yet here you go "both sides"-ing it.  And this isn't a personal attack, I know you are a thoughtful poster. 

The fact that you (and millions of others, I'm sure) assumed Pelosi's "anti-wall" comments are synonymous with "anti-border security" goes to show how effective Trump can be with his bullshit messaging.  

[Blotto 23584]

16 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Yes to both, but getting him to comprehend is a completely different matter.

There's usually a pretty good homeless encampment under 183 at my exit. Couple of crazy characters in that lot, one in particular likes to drop trou and take a shit about 15 feet from the frontage road. You would have more luck successfully explaining tariffs to the pile of shit he  birthed than you would Trump.

[4th&Five 41599]

Dow down almost 600. Is he done taking credit for that now?

[mdmost 43056]

It's just a glitch.

 

[happyfunball 481]

Hugo's analysis is spot on about Romney like he was about Flake... 🙄

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

37 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

JFC.  Can someone please explain to him who pays tariffs for fuck's sake.

No one can explain anything to him. Except for other autocrats. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

No one can explain anything to him. Except for other autocrats. 

Oh they can explain it.  He just can't understand it.  Other than what money lines his pocket, what women he can get in bed with him, or how much praise they're giving him.  All he understands is his id.

[Grandioso 2592]

The neurosyphillis and genetically-inherited Alzheimer's/dementia is fiercely eating his brain at this point. 

Unfortunately, Fred Trump live to be 93 so Donald has the long life genes. Good times.

[Hank Kingsley 21059]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I interpreted her comment differently, and I suspect many others did as well.

It could have been interpreted as her saying that doing things to keep the border secure was not inline with our values as Americans. That would be a ludicrous statement.

 

The only reason it could be interpreted that way is because Fox News and Republicans have constantly LIED saying liberals want "open borders". 

Again, this is why the GOP and its supporters are fucking dead to me.  Every argument is disingenuous. 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Oh they can explain it.  He just can't understand it.  Other than what money lines his pocket, what women he can get in bed with him, or how much praise they're giving him.  All he understands is his id.

Uh, semantics. That's my definition of 'they can't explain it.' 

[retread 2951]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Hugo's analysis is spot on about Romney like he was about Flake... 🙄

It's hard to explain how this type of political warfare works because we've never been in a situation where the vocal dissent against the authoritarian resulted in the admonishment of the critic from all sides of the political spectrum. 

This works FOR the authoritarian and against the population because it suppresses any would be voices of dissent. 

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Grandioso 2592]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

 

Remember when Obama retweeted retarded half-baked 4chan memes about his political adversaries? I'm surprised he didn't get crucified for that.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It's hard to explain how this type of political warfare works because we've never been in a situation where the vocal dissent against the authoritarian resulted in the admonishment of the critic from all sides of the political spectrum. 

This works FOR the authoritarian and against the population because it suppresses any would be voices of dissent. 

 

I'm not criticizing him for speaking out.  I'm criticizing him for being silent when trying to get the Secretary of State position and when running for office. For criticizing him, but not using his position to actually do anything positive to stop trump.   That's not dissent--it's naked  political opportunism. Romney doesn't get a gold star for writing a tepidly critical op-ed.  

[happyfunball 481]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It's hard to explain how this type of political warfare works because we've never been in a situation where the vocal dissent against the authoritarian resulted in the admonishment of the critic from all sides of the political spectrum. 

This works FOR the authoritarian and against the population because it suppresses any would be voices of dissent. 

 

So you are willing be to be consistently wrong, because your inability to notice how no Republicans have truly broken ranks on anything of substance?

[Mo Horn 8855]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Surely at this point he's just saying it because he is a fucking idiot.  RIGHT?!?!

Fify

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

So you are willing be to be consistently wrong, because your inability to notice how no Republicans have truly broken ranks on anything of substance?

The behavior of the Republicans is inexcusable and I’m all for their demise.  However, I’d prefer their demise not result in the consolidation of power for the authoritarian.  Romney sucks but I appreciate the reality that he has some influence to move his party in the direction away from the current nihilistic path they’re on. 

I guess what I’m saying is I’m a realist.  

The quickest way for the current mutation of the GOP to burn down is to have more Romneys chip away the leadership from the inside.  

Yeah, it would be wonderful if five GOP senators grew a soul and defected to the democrats, but that shit ain’t happening and even if it did, would you give them credit or harangue them for not acting sooner? 

No matter what a Romney or Flake does, it will never be good enough for the vast majority of us and that’s why we’re truly fucked.

There is no incentive for them to act. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 21059]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The behavior of the Republicans is inexcusable and I’m all for their demise.  However, I’d prefer their demise not result in the consolidation of power for the authoritarian.  Romney sucks but I appreciate the reality that he has some influence to move his party in the direction away from the current nihilistic path they’re on. 

I guess what I’m saying is I’m a realist.  

The quickest way for the current mutation of the GOP to burn down is to have more Romneys chip away the leadership from the inside.  

Yeah, it would be wonderful if five GOP senators grew a soul and defected to the democrats, but that shit ain’t happening and even if it did, would you give them credit or harangue them for not acting sooner? 

No matter what a Romney or Flake does, it will never be good enough for the vast majority of us and that’s why we’re truly fucked.

There is no incentive for them to act. 

Hugo, you're a political optimist, not a realist.  Romney has absolutely zero influence to move his party away from Trump. 

Of the 40% of the electorate that supports Trump, how many of them do you think are wealthy, "normal" Republicans that can be swayed away from Trump? 1%? 2%? Because the rest of them are not going back to what everyone deems an "acceptable" Republican party. 

 

[David Dennison 18951]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Donald Trump 2019:

Government is shut down: Mostly bad, but some can say that's good because the government is bloated with apparatchiks. 

Unemployment: 49 year record low at 3.7% with job growth surging despite fears of a slowing U.S. economy.

Tax Return Season: The poor WT are gonna love him even more

Twitter Game: Meme'ing and being a troll. Kinda funny but absolutely not presidential. Leave the clapbacks and sass to people trying to make their political name for themselves, not OG's

What surge in job growth? 

[GRHorn 105]

36 minutes ago, retread said:

 

Now that’s an effective use of twitter. 

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

Corporations aren't people, my friends. Fuck Mitt Romney. He's a shitty Reagan wannabe with even more love for the rich and an even more batshit crazy religion behind him. And, unlike Reagan, he might be an actual believer. 

Why can't Kasich get any traction? I've seen a lot of posters in this community saying they voted for Kasich in the primaries. Were they no more genuine than all the professed Gary Johnson voters?

 

[jimmyjazz 46225]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What surge in job growth? 

The 'pubs love to tout job growth in one or two sectors while ignoring job destruction in several others, which ultimately leads to . . . not much in the way of overall job growth.

Witness the recent crowing about a "10X increase in manufacturing hiring" (which was an asinine exercise in statistical nonsense in and of itself).

[Js1 85602]

9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Hugo, you're a political optimist, not a realist. 

It took Hugo almost 2+ years to finally realize Jeff Flake was a flake.  He sees the "good" in these Republicans who have no good inside them.

[G650 14278]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

Why can't Kasich get any traction? I've seen a lot of posters in this community saying they voted for Kasich in the primaries. Were they no more genuine than all the professed Gary Johnson voters?

 

I voted for him in the primaries here. Voted McMullin in he general.

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/03/december-private-payrolls-rise-271k-vs-178k-est-adpmoodys.html?__source=iosappshare|com.linkedin.LinkedIn.ShareExtension

Companies added way more jobs than expected in December: ADP/Moody's

Private payrolls rose by 271,000 in December, smashing Reuters estimates of 178,000, according to an ADP/Moody's report.

The gain was the highest since February 2017 and brought the monthly average for 2018 to 203,000.

The report comes amid worries that the U.S. economy is slowing.

That is hardly a surge. But spin it however you want. He needs all the help he can get because his presidency is failing.

[Upgrayedd 5821]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Corporations aren't people, my friends. Fuck Mitt Romney. He's a shitty Reagan wannabe with even more love for the rich and an even more batshit crazy religion behind him. And, unlike Reagan, he might be an actual believer. 

Why can't Kasich get any traction? I've seen a lot of posters in this community saying they voted for Kasich in the primaries. Were they no more genuine than all the professed Gary Johnson voters?

 

I don't get why Kasich can't get traction either.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Hugo, you're a political optimist, not a realist.  Romney has absolutely zero influence to move his party away from Trump. 

Of the 40% of the electorate that supports Trump, how many of them do you think are wealthy, "normal" Republicans that can be swayed away from Trump? 1%? 2%? Because the rest of them are not going back to what everyone deems an "acceptable" Republican party. 

The 40% are malleable.  Just as they were indoctrinated into the religion of Trumpism, they can be indoctrinated into something else.  They are suckers.  They are ignorant and vulnerable. 

They are not evil. 

[David Dennison 18951]

7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

okay my bad, not a surge. Not sure what would qualify as a surge but don't want to twist you around the axle based on the adjective.

I should have just said "jobs growing" so that you can't find some way to argue about it lol

Private payrolls rose by 271,000 in December, smashing Reuters estimates of 178,000, according to an ADP/Moody's report.

 The gain was the highest since February 2017 and brought the monthly average for 2018 to 203,000.

The report comes amid worries that the U.S. economy is slowing.

The economy hasn't fundamentally changed in nearly a decade. The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he hasn't fucked it up.

Yet.

[Bama Chick 28596]

“If you can find The Vatican on a map right this second, I’ll give you the money for your wall. Oh, you can’t? Well, fuck off then.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It took Hugo almost 2+ years to finally realize Jeff Flake was a flake.  He sees the "good" in these Republicans who have no good inside them.

Flake’s messaging had value.  Y’all view politics through a prism of people or parties that are either good or bad.  I do not.  I view politics as an art of shaping the world and society. 

All politicians are mostly in it for themselves at the end of the day.  Some choose to shape the world for the betterment of society.  Some choose to wield their power for the destruction of others.  The messaging and actions are big indicators of which masters they serve. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 21059]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The 40% are malleable.  Just as they were indoctrinated into the religion of Trumpism, they can be indoctrinated into something else.  They are suckers.  They are ignorant and vulnerable. 

They are not evil. 

The 40% are sick and tired of the establishment in DC, both Rs and Ds.  They got duped into Trump, and are too stubborn to realize or admit he's a complete failure and not "draining the swamp".  They are not going back to the establishment Rs like Romney again. 

[Js1 85602]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Flake’s messaging had value.  Y’all view politics through a prism of people or parties that are either good or bad.  I do not.  I view politics as an art of shaping the world and society. 

All politicians are mostly in it for themselves at the end of the day.  Some choose to shape the world for the betterment of society.  Some choose to wield their power for the destruction of others.  The messaging and actions are big indicators of which masters they serve. 

This was liked by the currently biggest troll on the board, so....

No.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The 40% are sick and tired of the establishment in DC, both Rs and Ds.  They got duped into Trump, and are too stubborn to realize or admit he's a complete failure and not "draining the swamp".  They are not going back to the establishment Rs like Romney again. 

The 40% will go wherever Fox News and Rush lead them.  It’s all they know.

[Biff Tannen 45750]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The 40% are sick and tired of the establishment in DC, both Rs and Ds.  They got duped into Trump, and are too stubborn to realize or admit he's a complete failure and not "draining the swamp".  They are not going back to the establishment Rs like Romney again. 

I'm sick and tired of the establishment too.  I also was smart enough to not vote for a reality TV con man. 

[yaqdum 182]

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The 40% are malleable.  Just as they were indoctrinated into the religion of Trumpism, they can be indoctrinated into something else.  They are suckers.  They are ignorant and vulnerable. 

They are not evil. 

that's exactly right.  the frustrating thing is these are basically good people, but the only reality they understand is their made-up reality.

over and again they've been a great boon to this nation, starting with its inception.  problem is in a great many ways they are dumb as a hammer and just as destructive in the wrong hands.  rupert murdoch spotted them immediately on his setting foot on plymouth rock and set out to use them against the nation.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

22 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

okay my bad, not a surge. Not sure what would qualify as a surge but don't want to twist you around the axle based on the adjective.

Good lord, do some research.  That one month spike is noise in the big picture.  Here's a longer perspective:

[Hank Kingsley 21059]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The 40% will go wherever Fox News and Rush lead them.  It’s all they know.

LOL. And do you actually believe Fox News or Rush will return to pro-establishment GOP? Or down any path that is actually productive or beneficial to this country?