A principled(?) series of ad hominem attacks isn’t good analysis. Its just Jonah being Jonah. A game theory approach to looking at the desires and statutory abilities to attain those desires is all you need to see why things played out the way they did.
It is a complicated situation but also has some clear lines when it comes to what either party can do legislatively. Jonah chooses to ignore the substansive and focus on his orange man bad routine.
And for those of you who think I can’t praise Trump when called for, let me say that I think the Trump administration has handled the Venezuela issue very well.
And?
His criticisms are always petty and shallow. He only includes some area he might agree on as a way to deflect. Anyone can see through it.
Jonah is a smart guy, but he is part of the problem we have right now with our media being terrible at providing information. He can do better. I want him to do better.
Er, he says Reagan was able to make deals with Tip O’Neil? Like when Reagan agreed to amnesty (worst decision he ever made) in return for border security that never occurred? This is the authors example of good dealmaking?
I’ve never believed Trump to be a good dealmaker. However, even the best dealmaker can’t get a deal when the other side is utterly unwilling.
But, did Trump bungle the showdown and shutdown in many ways? Yup.
To be fair to Jonah, who I don’t think deserves it much anymore; he was quoting Trump during a debate about Reagan dealing with Tip O’Neil. The thing is Reagan had the support of the GOP. Trump does not. That is why Trump’s approval is above 50%, while the GOP lost the House.
Still, what is more frustrating to me are the revelations coming out about the farce Russian Investigation, and how many Republicans/Conservatives have known the details yet have done nothing about the official abuse of power. Alas, our own host thought Trump Jr. meeting with any Russian for 20minutes was a smoking gun. When you have kneejerk bias like that; then it takes awhile to get people to realize they are being played.
The wall is getting built, and there is a tentative agreement between McConnell and Trump to have Senate support for it. At worse, perhaps we can get some of the 28 existing National Emergencies, declared by previous Presidents going back to Carter, dismissed. And for the Democrat threat of confiscating guns via “National Emergency”… HHAHAHA, give it a try.
I don’t think the Trump Tower meeting was “a smoking gun” (and I don’t think I’ve ever said it was). I do think it was stupid. But stupid is as stupid does.
I’m sorry; what you said was “the benefit of the doubt is gone“, or at least agreed with Jonah, who wrote it. I said there was no smoking gun, and you later updated your post to say the same. Which is odd, since a smoking gun isn’t needed when you have taken away the benefit of doubt, as you and Jonah had. You were clearer (emphasis yours):
” I came to this rational, objective position because Trump’s idiot namesake told me that he colluded with the Russians (albeit unsuccessfully in terms of getting the desired Hillary dirt), even if he didn’t use that word.”
What was that collusion? Trump Jr. just said he had a meeting that ended early with no agreement or commitment from either side. Mueller hasn’t found collusion, but apparently you and Jonah did. I grant, you walked back a lot since then, even in that same post. Jonah not so much.
The importance of this is that for 2 years, self proclaimed conservatives have been using the Mueller investigation as a means to hide behind not following through on their campaign promises. The border wall wasn’t necessarily a promise; but I don’t recall the conservatives voting to end Obamacare. Trump did that on his own with the help of some states and a judge.
And I also think those same conservatives have spent too long looking the other way to these official abuses of power by the FBI and DOJ. When we had the House and Senate; they did some fact finding, found some damning stuff, and then did nothing exceptional with it. The Democrats did more against Kavanaugh with far less to go on. Indeed, that act was what finally woke a few NeverTrumpers like Lindsey Graham to realize the real threat.
The Trump Tower meeting was the best bit of evidence for collusion but then we learned the Russian Lawyer was working for Fusion GPS and by proxy the DNC. When they needed evidence of collusion, they set up a sting. This is the same tactic they used at least two other times in order to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Now, there is the bit about Stone and Wikileaks but if what is already public is what this is all about, it doesn’t show collusion.
“That is why Trump’s approval is above 50%, while the GOP lost the House.”
Of the last about 150 polls trump has hit 50% only a few times.. and only one single polling company has ever had him at 50 and they were by Rasmussen Reports. When only a single company can come up with that .. I would be skeptical.. the running average off all polls is 43%
“I’ve never believed Trump to be a good dealmaker. However, even the best dealmaker can’t get a deal when the other side is utterly unwilling. ”
The problem here is that Trump was not one of the negotiators. GOP congress critters were and they weren’t necessarily interested in a wall. They caved at every opportunity.
And the GOP agreed to really terrible terms like de facto amnesty for everyone.
About the only positive thing for Trump was the fact that Pelosi said “Not one dollar” and he got 1.375 billion of them.
he got 1.375 billion of them
That’s key too. The argument against the National Emergency is that Congress forbade building the wall. But that haven’t actually done so. Indeed, they have never done so. Further, they have even offered to fund the wall to some extent.
Alas, Trump stepped on his own order with his tweet saying “I didn’t need to do this”. If you don’t need to act, what is the Emergency?
There is plenty of blame for Trump here. He could have participated as much as he wanted. I have no idea if the rumors are true about the poison pills but again, Trump signed it.
Trump’s biggest mistake was going into a no win situation without any leverage to get a deal. Democrats held all of the power and it was in their best interest that Trump lost. It didn’t matter what was offered.
You are totally right the GOP in congress are backstabbing their own party. They have done a terrible job on legislation even though they do have some nice accomplishments. Their are noisy people on Twitter who try and create the impression that the GOP hates Trump but he has a higher approval rating than congress from Republicans.
They got suckered into the Democrat’s effort to wedge the party during the campaign and are too big of sore losers to do what everyone does after a campaign, work together.
“In 2016, there were two central themes to the case for Trump. The first was that he was a fighter, a counter-puncher, a paladin against political correctness and all that. The second was that he was dealmaker who could cut through the stupid dysfunction in Washington. ”
I thought the main selling point was that Trump was the Destructor- and that he had best chance of beating Clinton.
The person you want to be a good deal maker is leader of Senate and/or Speaker of the House.
So Trump got NATO members provide more funding for their security.
Trade agreement with Mex and Can.
And caused Speaker of House to “force him” to declare national emergency with border. Which of course some idiot lefty district judge is going to incorrectly overturn, and supreme court is going to over rule this foolish judgement.
And think you got the New Green Deal, because of Trump the Destructor.
“And caused Speaker of House to “force him” to declare national emergency with border. Which of course some idiot lefty district judge is going to incorrectly overturn, and supreme court is going to over rule this foolish judgement.”
Yes SCOTUS will likely rule in favor of Trump. Also doing it this way unlike the “25 billion dollar wall funding deal including a DACA deal” mentioned in the link there is no DACA deal. Which means not only the wall will get built but the DACA people are fair game for deportations. Suppose Trump starts rounding them up & deporting them (along with other illegals) at the same time the border wall is being built during next (election) year? How will that play to Trump’s base and his chances of reelection?
“Suppose Trump starts rounding them up & deporting them (along with other illegals) at the same time the border wall is being built during next (election) year? How will that play to Trump’s base and his chances of reelection?”
If you legally immigrate to US and you commit a felony, you can be deported. It seems if you illegally immigrate and you commit a a felony, you likewise can [or should] be deported.
The US should increase the amount of legal immigrates and decrease the amount of illegal immigrates.
Trump says he wants to increase legal immigration, and most of his supporters agree with this. His opponents “seem” to want to increase illegal immigration.
There advantages of having illegal immigration, but other in some ways it is easier, the advantages are not for the immigrate, but for those who exploit the immigrate.
“If you legally immigrate to US and you commit a felony, you can be deported. It seems if you illegally immigrate and you commit a a felony, you likewise can [or should] be deported.”
Don’t misunderstand me…as far as I am concerned glad he didn’t sign the DACA deal. I was making the point that it is better this way; a wall built and no DACA deal opening the door to mass deportations of illegals likely insuring Trump’s re-election. Love also the way the idiot democratic candidates like Beto are saying they would tear down the wall including the barriers already built. Can’t understand how they could be stupid enough to think that will play with the electorate.
I think most people have a soft spot for DACA but would welcome going after people who overstay their visas. The colleges would throw a fit though.
Years go the Congress voted 25 billion to build a wall. But then didn’t allocate any money. Schumer and Pelosi both voted for it.
I don’t see why Trump has to declare a state of emergency. That law is still, I think, the law of the land.
So why can’t he just say, “Ok here I’ve found 3 billion from this pot and I am going to EXECUTE the letter of the law like the Constitutions says I’m supposed to do. I’m going to enforce the law that was passed years ago by Schumer and Pelosi.”
There is a difference between authorizing something, and appropriating funds for it. Congress holds the purse strings.
Except that Congress gave the Executive branch a lot of money with few or no strings attached to play with.A sort of slush fund.
So I cannot see the illegality of using the slush fund to finance a law Congress itself passed. I still don’t see the need for the Emergency declaration.
Essentially, that is what Trump is trying to do. Rand is correct about appropriations, but Congress appropriated money to the military to cover National Emergencies. We have had troops at the southern border for several months now protecting said border. Building a wall would allow those troops to go home. We have several large group of invaders, numbering in the thousands, attempting to overrun that border, but being stopped by a show of overwhelming force of the military.
That’s the argument at least. We will see how well it works.
Far more noteworthy, about 1/2 down: Gangsterism and Socialism
A principled(?) series of ad hominem attacks isn’t good analysis. Its just Jonah being Jonah. A game theory approach to looking at the desires and statutory abilities to attain those desires is all you need to see why things played out the way they did.
It is a complicated situation but also has some clear lines when it comes to what either party can do legislatively. Jonah chooses to ignore the substansive and focus on his orange man bad routine.
And for those of you who think I can’t praise Trump when called for, let me say that I think the Trump administration has handled the Venezuela issue very well.
And?
His criticisms are always petty and shallow. He only includes some area he might agree on as a way to deflect. Anyone can see through it.
Jonah is a smart guy, but he is part of the problem we have right now with our media being terrible at providing information. He can do better. I want him to do better.
Er, he says Reagan was able to make deals with Tip O’Neil? Like when Reagan agreed to amnesty (worst decision he ever made) in return for border security that never occurred? This is the authors example of good dealmaking?
I’ve never believed Trump to be a good dealmaker. However, even the best dealmaker can’t get a deal when the other side is utterly unwilling.
But, did Trump bungle the showdown and shutdown in many ways? Yup.
To be fair to Jonah, who I don’t think deserves it much anymore; he was quoting Trump during a debate about Reagan dealing with Tip O’Neil. The thing is Reagan had the support of the GOP. Trump does not. That is why Trump’s approval is above 50%, while the GOP lost the House.
Still, what is more frustrating to me are the revelations coming out about the farce Russian Investigation, and how many Republicans/Conservatives have known the details yet have done nothing about the official abuse of power. Alas, our own host thought Trump Jr. meeting with any Russian for 20minutes was a smoking gun. When you have kneejerk bias like that; then it takes awhile to get people to realize they are being played.
The wall is getting built, and there is a tentative agreement between McConnell and Trump to have Senate support for it. At worse, perhaps we can get some of the 28 existing National Emergencies, declared by previous Presidents going back to Carter, dismissed. And for the Democrat threat of confiscating guns via “National Emergency”… HHAHAHA, give it a try.
I don’t think the Trump Tower meeting was “a smoking gun” (and I don’t think I’ve ever said it was). I do think it was stupid. But stupid is as stupid does.
I’m sorry; what you said was “the benefit of the doubt is gone“, or at least agreed with Jonah, who wrote it. I said there was no smoking gun, and you later updated your post to say the same. Which is odd, since a smoking gun isn’t needed when you have taken away the benefit of doubt, as you and Jonah had. You were clearer (emphasis yours):
” I came to this rational, objective position because Trump’s idiot namesake told me that he colluded with the Russians (albeit unsuccessfully in terms of getting the desired Hillary dirt), even if he didn’t use that word.”
What was that collusion? Trump Jr. just said he had a meeting that ended early with no agreement or commitment from either side. Mueller hasn’t found collusion, but apparently you and Jonah did. I grant, you walked back a lot since then, even in that same post. Jonah not so much.
The importance of this is that for 2 years, self proclaimed conservatives have been using the Mueller investigation as a means to hide behind not following through on their campaign promises. The border wall wasn’t necessarily a promise; but I don’t recall the conservatives voting to end Obamacare. Trump did that on his own with the help of some states and a judge.
And I also think those same conservatives have spent too long looking the other way to these official abuses of power by the FBI and DOJ. When we had the House and Senate; they did some fact finding, found some damning stuff, and then did nothing exceptional with it. The Democrats did more against Kavanaugh with far less to go on. Indeed, that act was what finally woke a few NeverTrumpers like Lindsey Graham to realize the real threat.
The Trump Tower meeting was the best bit of evidence for collusion but then we learned the Russian Lawyer was working for Fusion GPS and by proxy the DNC. When they needed evidence of collusion, they set up a sting. This is the same tactic they used at least two other times in order to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Now, there is the bit about Stone and Wikileaks but if what is already public is what this is all about, it doesn’t show collusion.
“That is why Trump’s approval is above 50%, while the GOP lost the House.”
Of the last about 150 polls trump has hit 50% only a few times.. and only one single polling company has ever had him at 50 and they were by Rasmussen Reports. When only a single company can come up with that .. I would be skeptical.. the running average off all polls is 43%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls
“I’ve never believed Trump to be a good dealmaker. However, even the best dealmaker can’t get a deal when the other side is utterly unwilling. ”
The problem here is that Trump was not one of the negotiators. GOP congress critters were and they weren’t necessarily interested in a wall. They caved at every opportunity.
And the GOP agreed to really terrible terms like de facto amnesty for everyone.
About the only positive thing for Trump was the fact that Pelosi said “Not one dollar” and he got 1.375 billion of them.
he got 1.375 billion of them
That’s key too. The argument against the National Emergency is that Congress forbade building the wall. But that haven’t actually done so. Indeed, they have never done so. Further, they have even offered to fund the wall to some extent.
Alas, Trump stepped on his own order with his tweet saying “I didn’t need to do this”. If you don’t need to act, what is the Emergency?
There is plenty of blame for Trump here. He could have participated as much as he wanted. I have no idea if the rumors are true about the poison pills but again, Trump signed it.
Trump’s biggest mistake was going into a no win situation without any leverage to get a deal. Democrats held all of the power and it was in their best interest that Trump lost. It didn’t matter what was offered.
You are totally right the GOP in congress are backstabbing their own party. They have done a terrible job on legislation even though they do have some nice accomplishments. Their are noisy people on Twitter who try and create the impression that the GOP hates Trump but he has a higher approval rating than congress from Republicans.
They got suckered into the Democrat’s effort to wedge the party during the campaign and are too big of sore losers to do what everyone does after a campaign, work together.
“In 2016, there were two central themes to the case for Trump. The first was that he was a fighter, a counter-puncher, a paladin against political correctness and all that. The second was that he was dealmaker who could cut through the stupid dysfunction in Washington. ”
I thought the main selling point was that Trump was the Destructor- and that he had best chance of beating Clinton.
The person you want to be a good deal maker is leader of Senate and/or Speaker of the House.
So Trump got NATO members provide more funding for their security.
Trade agreement with Mex and Can.
And caused Speaker of House to “force him” to declare national emergency with border. Which of course some idiot lefty district judge is going to incorrectly overturn, and supreme court is going to over rule this foolish judgement.
And think you got the New Green Deal, because of Trump the Destructor.
“And caused Speaker of House to “force him” to declare national emergency with border. Which of course some idiot lefty district judge is going to incorrectly overturn, and supreme court is going to over rule this foolish judgement.”
Yes SCOTUS will likely rule in favor of Trump. Also doing it this way unlike the “25 billion dollar wall funding deal including a DACA deal” mentioned in the link there is no DACA deal. Which means not only the wall will get built but the DACA people are fair game for deportations. Suppose Trump starts rounding them up & deporting them (along with other illegals) at the same time the border wall is being built during next (election) year? How will that play to Trump’s base and his chances of reelection?
“Suppose Trump starts rounding them up & deporting them (along with other illegals) at the same time the border wall is being built during next (election) year? How will that play to Trump’s base and his chances of reelection?”
If you legally immigrate to US and you commit a felony, you can be deported. It seems if you illegally immigrate and you commit a a felony, you likewise can [or should] be deported.
The US should increase the amount of legal immigrates and decrease the amount of illegal immigrates.
Trump says he wants to increase legal immigration, and most of his supporters agree with this. His opponents “seem” to want to increase illegal immigration.
There advantages of having illegal immigration, but other in some ways it is easier, the advantages are not for the immigrate, but for those who exploit the immigrate.
“If you legally immigrate to US and you commit a felony, you can be deported. It seems if you illegally immigrate and you commit a a felony, you likewise can [or should] be deported.”
Don’t misunderstand me…as far as I am concerned glad he didn’t sign the DACA deal. I was making the point that it is better this way; a wall built and no DACA deal opening the door to mass deportations of illegals likely insuring Trump’s re-election. Love also the way the idiot democratic candidates like Beto are saying they would tear down the wall including the barriers already built. Can’t understand how they could be stupid enough to think that will play with the electorate.
I think most people have a soft spot for DACA but would welcome going after people who overstay their visas. The colleges would throw a fit though.
Years go the Congress voted 25 billion to build a wall. But then didn’t allocate any money. Schumer and Pelosi both voted for it.
I don’t see why Trump has to declare a state of emergency. That law is still, I think, the law of the land.
So why can’t he just say, “Ok here I’ve found 3 billion from this pot and I am going to EXECUTE the letter of the law like the Constitutions says I’m supposed to do. I’m going to enforce the law that was passed years ago by Schumer and Pelosi.”
There is a difference between authorizing something, and appropriating funds for it. Congress holds the purse strings.
Except that Congress gave the Executive branch a lot of money with few or no strings attached to play with.A sort of slush fund.
So I cannot see the illegality of using the slush fund to finance a law Congress itself passed. I still don’t see the need for the Emergency declaration.
Essentially, that is what Trump is trying to do. Rand is correct about appropriations, but Congress appropriated money to the military to cover National Emergencies. We have had troops at the southern border for several months now protecting said border. Building a wall would allow those troops to go home. We have several large group of invaders, numbering in the thousands, attempting to overrun that border, but being stopped by a show of overwhelming force of the military.
That’s the argument at least. We will see how well it works.
Far more noteworthy, about 1/2 down: Gangsterism and Socialism