Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:35 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 206 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
The Art of No Deal 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1354
Thanks: 1416
Thanked: 672 times in 546 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
The only way I see for Trump not to lose again is for the Democrats to stick with "not one dollar for a wall." If they're willing to fund border security to the tune of 5.5 billion, it's stupid, or just nakedly political, to insist that none of that could be spent on fencing.

I don't think it is either stupid or nakedly political to fund border security but not a wall.

If building a wall was not a problem, it would have been funded by now. But the symbolism is all about excluding brown-skinned people. No, you might argue, it's just about slowing down illegal immigration and drugs and other toxicity. After all, Israel has a wall. But it turns out Israel doesn't mainly rely on a wall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/opin ... egypt.html
Sensors matter more to deterrence than cement does. But with symbolism, it's the other way around. Sensors can be turned off when the flow of migration subsides. Walls stay. Dear Leader wants to put up a permanent "Not Welcome" symbol.

As with his position on global warming, he wants to stick it to the next generation for daring to think. And a certain network is happy to goad him on, because they have built an audience of people who want to stick it to the next generation for daring to think.

The Democrats have already agreed to funding the equivalent of the cost of the wall, although a large chunk of that would go to beefing up the processing of asylum claims so that we are not separating children from their parents or putting claimants to work for $1 per day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opin ... rants.html
They have also agreed to serious fencing. The purely political side is all Dear Leader and his hecklers.



Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:30 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2051
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 77
Thanked: 771 times in 596 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
If they're willing to fund border security to the tune of 5.5 billion, it's stupid, or just nakedly political, to insist that none of that could be spent on fencing.

During the campaign, Donald Trump promised nearly on an hourly basis (and supporters chanted) "MEXICO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL!" American taxpayers should not be negotiating budgets for the wall, we should be demanding "Where are the Pesos!" Words matter. Actions matter more. Trump is too weak to make that happen. We must hold Trump to it!
#wherearethepesos



Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:52 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6274
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1812
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
LanDroid wrote:
DWill wrote:
If they're willing to fund border security to the tune of 5.5 billion, it's stupid, or just nakedly political, to insist that none of that could be spent on fencing.

During the campaign, Donald Trump promised nearly on an hourly basis (and supporters chanted) "MEXICO WILL PAY FOR THE WALL!" American taxpayers should not be negotiating budgets for the wall, we should be demanding "Where are the Pesos!" Words matter. Actions matter more. Trump is too weak to make that happen. We must hold Trump to it!
#wherearethepesos

Yes, everyone knows Mexico paying was bullshit.

Here's my reasoning on why the Democrats need to budge. We have already about 650 miles of some kind of barrier along the border. Democrats don't claim that all of this barrier is useless or shouldn't be maintained. It is conceivable that additional useful border fencing could be added, or, even if you insist that it all would be useless, why not compromise on that in order to avoid another shutdown? Recall also that less than a year ago, Democrats were willing to give Trump all the wall money he asked for--25 billion--in exchange for DACA protections and a path to citizenship. If they fund 5.5 billion now with most of it going for non-wall security, that seems a good deal to make. I hope they can reintroduce the DACA protections as well.

The public won't understand the Democrats' intransigence on zero wall funding. I'm also somewhat concerned that the Democrats might want to push Trump to declare an emergency in order to get his money from the military. That would not be a successful move for Trump, thus damaging him more politically. But the country would also suffer from the needless disruption.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
Quote:
DWILL

We have already about 650 miles of some kind of barrier along the border. Democrats don't claim that all of this barrier is useless or shouldn't be maintained.


Granted that may be true, but can you point to any democrat that has talked specifically about maintaining, preserving, or upgrading any of the border security that's in place now, needs replacement, or needs security in place sooner rather than later?



Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2051
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 77
Thanked: 771 times in 596 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
^^ Quite a few bills have been written to do just that, but denied because they lack the $5.7 Billion USD from US taxpayers. IIRC these bills have passed the House and been put to sleep in the Senate.

DWill wrote:
Yes, everyone knows Mexico paying was bullshit.

We cannot let that go so flippantly. To move from Mexico funding to shutting down the Gov't over US taxpayer funding is just beyond... Trump and his supporters disagree with your statement. A few days ago Ann Coulter stated Trump would extract funding from money immigrants send home to Mexico, enough to pay for the complete wall in ten years. All righty then, force Trump to detail status of Mexican payments and the plan moving forward. Or force Trump and his supporters to admit it was BS.
#wherearethepesos



Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
To her credit Coulter (not a Coulter reader) has withdrawn total support for Trump's pie-in-the-sky campaign promise about wall funding.
Such quixotic campaign promises are pretty common for both sides of the political spectrum.

Lefties are less likely to withdraw support from their chosen spokespersons even in the face of utter stupidity. We are seeing that now with Ocasio-Cortez.
It's likely due to the fact that lefties are much more wrapped up in self righteousness and gross over-simplifications.



Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:43 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6274
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1812
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
ant wrote:
Quote:
DWILL

We have already about 650 miles of some kind of barrier along the border. Democrats don't claim that all of this barrier is useless or shouldn't be maintained.


Granted that may be true, but can you point to any democrat that has talked specifically about maintaining, preserving, or upgrading any of the border security that's in place now, needs replacement, or needs security in place sooner rather than later?

What matters in terms of my argument is the absence of Democrats saying that the border wall is useless or that it should come down. I'm not aware that any have said that. That being the case, it doesn't make logical sense (not the same as political sense) for Democrats to hold fast to zero dollars for any new fencing. They could structure a bill in which a percentage of the 5.6 billion could be available for fencing if certain criteria were met. That would guarantee that only a very small amount of the wall that Trump wants would be built, which I realize you don't agree with. Perhaps it would be enough for Trump to save face. My main goal is to keep the government open. I would hold Democrats just as responsible as Trump if their refusal to offer anything caused another shutdown. They were willing to give him 25 billion 9 months ago. The facts haven't changed much since then. The only thing that has changed is that they control the House.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
I granted your argument as true.

What about my question now... do any elected democrats have a position with any substance about border security, or is attacking your opponents position a declaration that border security is a non issue?



Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:26 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 806
Thanks: 35
Thanked: 462 times in 353 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
Not one penny for a wall or fencing. Let Trump shut the govt down again. Let him. His presidency is dying anyway so let him deliver the coup de grace himself. Not one fucking penny, Not one!



Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:03 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 806
Thanks: 35
Thanked: 462 times in 353 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DWill wrote:
Yes, everyone knows Mexico paying was bullshit.


Then we shouldn't have elected him--period. Intelligent nations don't elect people they KNOW are lying. And being a stupid nation is no excuse.

Quote:
Here's my reasoning on why the Democrats need to budge. We have already about 650 miles of some kind of barrier along the border. Democrats don't claim that all of this barrier is useless or shouldn't be maintained. It is conceivable that additional useful border fencing could be added, or, even if you insist that it all would be useless, why not compromise on that in order to avoid another shutdown?


Three reasons: 1) Because future presidents will threaten to shut down the govt anytime they want something that Congress is unwilling to give them. If it works for Trump then they won't hesitate to do it too. Why not? We'd be allowing Trump to hold the country hostage until his demands are met. This should be against the law but we had a kind of honor system where decent, civilized people don't shut down the govt. Trump is neither decent nor civilized and is ruining this government.

2) Trump promised--PROMISED--Mexico would pay for it. The promise being made must be kept. You're as bad as a Trump supporter when you say that it doesn't matter that he promised it. IT DOES MATTER!!!! Or why bother to listen to any candidate for president talk? Pick one by eenie-meenie-miney-mo because if we let them bullshit and elect them anyway and don't bother to penalize them for lying, they'll all do it and they'll keep doing it and we'll keep excusing it. That's a sick, sad nation that conducts itself in this way. Isn't that what all the Hillary-haters claimed they hated about her?? But it doesn't matter if Trump does it?? It DOES matter!! Mexico must pay. That was the deal and, by god, he's gonna stick to it!!!! IF the dems give one tiny fraction of an inch and fund one single steel slat, I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP BEFORE I VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!

3) To give in on the wall after we made him back off on it TWICE would be the very worst sort of gutlessness and cowardice ever shown in American politics and that's really saying something. It would be making Ann Coulter the de facto president.

Quote:
Recall also that less than a year ago, Democrats were willing to give Trump all the wall money he asked for--25 billion--in exchange for DACA protections and a path to citizenship. If they fund 5.5 billion now with most of it going for non-wall security, that seems a good deal to make. I hope they can reintroduce the DACA protections as well.


They did that ONLY because they knew he wouldn't take it. Trump doesn't want to build the wall. Why do you think he keeps wimping out? He used the wall as a wedge issue that he hoped would deliver huge success in the midterms. If he accepted the offer, lazy ass conservatives wouldn't shown up at the polls. They barely did as it was. They were trying to prove that Trump really doesn't want to build the wall. I mean for christ's sake, he had two years of a republican-controlled congress to build that wall and never asked for a penny. But NOW it matters? I would think even a politician as bad as Trump knows that you make demands on Congress when it is the same party as you. That's how Clinton balanced the budget. That's how Obama got the ACA. But Trump waits until one half of Congress is dominated by the party he KNOWS perfectly well won't give a wall and then he starts demanding Congress fund his wall? And you want to reward this stupidity with a compromise??

Quote:
The public won't understand the Democrats' intransigence on zero wall funding.


Where are you getting this from??? The public DOESN'T want it!

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... all-227367

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 2d73efd31d

Quote:
I'm also somewhat concerned that the Democrats might want to push Trump to declare an emergency in order to get his money from the military. That would not be a successful move for Trump, thus damaging him more politically. But the country would also suffer from the needless disruption.


In case it's escaped your notice, we've been is a continual state of disruption for two years now. It's time for the big showdown. It's time to settle this once and for all. No folding. It's time to lock horns. The matador must slay the bull. ONLY then will the disruption cease.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
Harry Marks, Litwitlou
Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:49 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Droppin' Knowledge

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 380
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 196
Thanked: 173 times in 139 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
.
.
The wall is the least of Trump's problems. The main purpose of the wall is too distract, to obfuscate and confusticate. Folks, because Trump says there's a crisis on the the Mexican border that would be licked by a wall does not mean there's a crises on the Mexican border that would be licked by a wall. I'm for border integrity. Of course this country should know who is entering and how. But compare the effects of illegal aliens crossing the southern border with the effects of people who enter legally then overstay their visas. Drugs are smuggled in through underground tunnels and legal points of entry. Why would Congress fund a project that is, at its core, a monument to Trump's ego?


_________________
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38,39


The following user would like to thank Litwitlou for this post:
Harry Marks
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:28 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6274
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1812
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
ant wrote:
I granted your argument as true.

What about my question now... do any elected democrats have a position with any substance about border security, or is attacking your opponents position a declaration that border security is a non issue?

Are you restricting border security to The Wall? Clearly, even wall proponents think border security includes lots of technology. Democrats' favor using technology over building wall, because tech fixes promise to be more effective. So yes, Democrats have substantive positions on border security.

I think, by the way, that semantics may be playing a part in the arguments over barriers. Trump's promise to build a concrete wall from sea to shining sea rings in the ears of everyone who thought the idea was nonsense in the first place. When Democrats say "no wall" are they harking back to that pledge, while keeping some wiggle room on some other kind of barrier? Signs point to that being true.
Vox wrote:
In the previous spending package put together by the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democrats and Republicans had agreed on $1.6 billion in funding for pedestrian fencing, which is technically a physical barrier along the border. Trump, meanwhile, has asked for $5.7 billion for a wall in his most recent request.

“This is opening day,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Richard Shelby, of the meeting. Lawmakers and staffers from both sides will now begin to hash out differences in earnest, he added. “Thus far, all sides seem to agree that border security is important, but we cannot end there.”

Democrats are not ruling out a barrier — but they are putting the focus on tech and personnel.
While Democrats did not dismiss the possibility of including a physical barrier in a final deal, they repeatedly emphasized that they’d prefer a “smart” and “comprehensive” package that doled out more money for technology and personnel.

“Border security, however, is more than physical barriers,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA). “And Homeland Security is more than border security.”

Multiple Democrats emphasized that drones, sensors and other technology should play a central role in any border security investments. “We cannot focus on archaic solutions to address this very modern problem,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), who noted that equipment to scan vehicles at ports of entry would be key for tracking drug shipments.

Several lawmakers also warned that giving more money for any physical barriers would mean less money for other DHS resources provided by FEMA and the US Coast Guard. “Every dollar spent on ineffective proposals means one less dollar invested in measures that keep us safe,” Lowey said.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... urity-deal



Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:35 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6274
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1812
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:
Yes, everyone knows Mexico paying was bullshit.


Then we shouldn't have elected him--period. Intelligent nations don't elect people they KNOW are lying. And being a stupid nation is no excuse.

His unfitness was not really in question by a majority of voters
Quote:
Because future presidents will threaten to shut down the govt anytime they want something that Congress is unwilling to give them. If it works for Trump then they won't hesitate to do it too

Did it work for Trump? He got very bad political mileage from his shutdown. Such a tactic could be seen as a poison pill in the future.
Quote:
Trump promised--PROMISED--Mexico would pay for it. The promise being made must be kept. You're as bad as a Trump supporter when you say that it doesn't matter that he promised it. IT DOES MATTER!!!! Or why bother to listen to any candidate for president talk? Pick one by eenie-meenie-miney-mo because if we let them bullshit and elect them anyway and don't bother to penalize them for lying, they'll all do it and they'll keep doing it and we'll keep excusing it. That's a sick, sad nation that conducts itself in this way. Isn't that what all the Hillary-haters claimed they hated about her?? But it doesn't matter if Trump does it?? It DOES matter!! Mexico must pay. That was the deal and, by god, he's gonna stick to it!!!! IF the dems give one tiny fraction of an inch and fund one single steel slat, I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP BEFORE I VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!

Seems extreme to me. Politicians make promises both before they're elected and during office. GWH Bush--"Read my lips!"; Barack Obama--"You can keep your doctor." Sometimes the unkept promises mean defeat at next election, as was true for Bush, and I hope will be true for Trump--though he has a raft of disqualifiers instead of just one.
Quote:
To give in on the wall after we made him back off on it TWICE would be the very worst sort of gutlessness and cowardice ever shown in American politics and that's really saying something. It would be making Ann Coulter the de facto president.]

Giving in sucks to a degree. But he'd be getting a tiny part of what he wanted. He's still losing in my book, so I'm not worried about it.
DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:
Recall also that less than a year ago, Democrats were willing to give Trump all the wall money he asked for--25 billion--in exchange for DACA protections and a path to citizenship. If they fund 5.5 billion now with most of it going for non-wall security, that seems a good deal to make. I hope they can reintroduce the DACA protections as well.

They did that ONLY because they knew he wouldn't take it. Trump doesn't want to build the wall. Why do you think he keeps wimping out?

I don't agree with you, DB, on the D's motives. I don't think they'd toy with deserving immigrants' hopes like that. Trump wants the wall, but he happens to be feckless as far as achieving his goals, and the deal offered did offer him uncertain political advantage since the victory on the wall would be canceled by the concession on immigration.
Quote:
I mean for christ's sake, he had two years of a republican-controlled congress to build that wall and never asked for a penny. But NOW it matters? I would think even a politician as bad as Trump knows that you make demands on Congress when it is the same party as you. That's how Clinton balanced the budget. That's how Obama got the ACA. But Trump waits until one half of Congress is dominated by the party he KNOWS perfectly well won't give a wall and then he starts demanding Congress fund his wall? And you want to reward this stupidity with a compromise??

Would you say Trump is competent or incompetent in general? I go for the latter, so therefore these failures aren't that much of a puzzlement.
DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:
The public won't understand the Democrats' intransigence on zero wall funding.

Where are you getting this from??? The public DOESN'T want it!

If it comes to a shutdown happening because the Democrats refuse to see go up a meter of slats or pedestrian fencing or whatever, then yes, I don't think the public will understand why that is worth causing pain & suffering to so many govt. workers and others. What if there had been an in-air collision because of a lack of air-traffic controllers? There must be some compromise for the sake of the country. The point shouldn't be to exact every bit of political retribution the moment might allow.
DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:
I'm also somewhat concerned that the Democrats might want to push Trump to declare an emergency in order to get his money from the military. That would not be a successful move for Trump, thus damaging him more politically. But the country would also suffer from the needless disruption.


In case it's escaped your notice, we've been is a continual state of disruption for two years now. It's time for the big showdown. It's time to settle this once and for all. No folding. It's time to lock horns. The matador must slay the bull. ONLY then will the disruption cease.

Bending, not folding.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1354
Thanks: 1416
Thanked: 672 times in 546 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
ant wrote:
I granted your argument as true.

What about my question now... do any elected democrats have a position with any substance about border security, or is attacking your opponents position a declaration that border security is a non issue?

Border security is a non-issue. We have a system, some people want to beef it up, so we know how to compromise, but the issue is Trumped up. The impetus behind it is "I don't recognize my country any more." In other words, "What are all these brown people doing on television and in the White House?" Ann Coulter wants you to believe Sharia Law in the U.S. is just around the corner. She is a pusher for the drug of White Anxiety.

Democrats have strongly signaled that they are willing to compromise on border security and immigration. The Freedom Caucus, not so much. The Democrats are willing to spend money on fencing, if that is what the other side wants, in exchange for some of their priorities. That is what we call "governing". But they are not willing to give Dear Leader his symbolism because he throws a temper tantrum. And I agree with that. That is also what we call "governing."



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
Litwitlou
Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:13 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1354
Thanks: 1416
Thanked: 672 times in 546 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Art of No Deal
DB Roy wrote:
IF the dems give one tiny fraction of an inch and fund one single steel slat, I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP BEFORE I VOTE FOR A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!
That's crazy talk.

DB Roy wrote:
3) To give in on the wall after we made him back off on it TWICE would be the very worst sort of gutlessness and cowardice ever shown in American politics and that's really saying something. It would be making Ann Coulter the de facto president.
There's giving in and there's giving in. Containment is sufficient, and if that sometimes means you let the fascist tanks get away with stuff, it isn't all about gutlessness. But I do think priority 1 should be making it clear that the Ann Coulter clique is not getting their way by temper tantrum.

DB Roy wrote:
Trump doesn't want to build the wall. Why do you think he keeps wimping out? He used the wall as a wedge issue that he hoped would deliver huge success in the midterms. If he accepted the offer, lazy ass conservatives wouldn't shown up at the polls. They barely did as it was. They were trying to prove that Trump really doesn't want to build the wall. I mean for christ's sake, he had two years of a republican-controlled congress to build that wall and never asked for a penny. But NOW it matters?

You have put your finger on the nub of the issue. Actually, Dear Leader did ask for wall money from the Republicans, but he did not yell and scream and jump up and down and close the government. This is the way narcissists work - symbolic victory is everything. What good would a symbolic victory over Republican centrists be?

On the other hand, I don't think it's true that he doesn't want to build the wall. It's just worth a lot more to him if it comes as a victory than if it just gets built.



Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:27 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 206 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm


Recent Posts 
• Why reading is a good habit

Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:34 pm

princesscookie19

• What are you reading these days?

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:46 am

princesscookie19

• Young Debut Author: "Timestamp: Musings of an Introverted Black Boy"

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:04 am

MarcusGranderson

• Poll: What to do about climate change?

Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:00 am

Robert Tulip

• Buy American Character today and join the discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:51 pm

Chris OConnor

• Please "Check In" here to the American Character discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:46 pm

Chris OConnor

• Please check in here if you're going to join the "The Four Horsemen" discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:43 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 1: Maintaining Freedom

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:41 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 2: Two Paths to Tyranny

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 3: The Rival Americans

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 4: The Elite and the Masses (1607 - 1876)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:39 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 5: The Rise and Fall of Laissez-Faire (1877-1930)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:38 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 6: The Rise and Fall of National Liberalism (1933 - 1967)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:37 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 7: Dixie Takes Over (1968 - 2008)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:37 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 8: Rise of the Radicals (2008-)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:36 pm

Chris OConnor


Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank