Trump didn't entirely shoot his own foot though, he also got people who didn't like Dems or were neutral enough to be more against Dems. The Dems didn't come out of this unscathed, lot of workers are still affected, and many people likely think if the Dems acquiesced to Trump (which in their eyes is a bad move because Trump is just trying to protect us), then they wouldn't be in such a pickle.
Independents want someone who is borderline socialist, at worst, and many want Dem candidate/s who support Palestine.
I don't see any way in which the shutdown wasn't an easy win for democrats. trump didn't get what he want, rather he keep settling for less when it comes to the wall. And the biggest evidence that this was a huge defeat for trump is that he didn't double down after the shutdown ended. This was such a catastrophe for trump that not only he didn't get the funding he wanted but also he had to settle for less than what he was offered earlier. Trump ended up taking blame for the shutdown and got nothing to show for it. And honestly, only deranged people think demons acquiesced to trump.
I'm not against Trump, but the end of the shutdown was definitely a big loss for Trump and Americans. The amount of money he got for the wall is a pretty big leap down from already significant comprises he made to his demands, but the money isn't insignificant. However, the money can only get used to build the wall in areas where the local government allows him to build it... If they wanted a physical barricade for their cities, then they would have made a lot more noise about it. If they're different to the issue, then, chances are, it'll come down to partisan politics: What position benefits me the most. If that wasn't bad enough, ICE's holding capacity got reduced by 25%.
That deal was a +1000 page L and another appearance of one of Trump's biggest weaknesses: Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump isn't a cold-hearted, ruthless racist. For better or for worse, he cares a great deal more about people and their opinions of him than people realize. His activity on his twitter makes that much obvious..
All that being said, I hope he can get his act together because some of his platforms do have merit and, as tragic as it is, the people on mounting on the horizons are looking notably worse.
All that being said, I hope he can get his act together because some of his platforms do have merit and, as tragic as it is, the people on mounting on the horizons are looking notably worse.
I'm not against Trump, but the end of the shutdown was definitely a big loss for Trump and Americans. The amount of money he got for the wall is a pretty big leap down from already significant comprises he made to his demands, but the money isn't insignificant. However, the money can only get used to build the wall in areas where the local government allows him to build it... If they wanted a physical barricade for their cities, then they would have made a lot more noise about it. If they're different to the issue, then, chances are, it'll come down to partisan politics: What position benefits me the most. If that wasn't bad enough, ICE's holding capacity got reduced by 25%.
That deal was a +1000 page L and another appearance of one of Trump's biggest weaknesses: Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump isn't a cold-hearted, ruthless racist. For better or for worse, he cares a great deal more about people and their opinions of him than people realize. His activity on his twitter makes that much obvious..
All that being said, I hope he can get his act together because some of his platforms do have merit and, as tragic as it is, the people on mounting on the horizons are looking notably worse.
If he had his act together, we'd be in a far worse position than we are right now. Trump understands the basic tenants of human psychology and is very, very good at manipulating the media. But that's about it. Everything Trump touches dies.
I am not sure I have ever seen anything about trump that makes me think he has any shred of empathy for anything or anyone tbh. honestly, when I hear him speak all he sounds like to me is someone trying to scam you. And occasionally straight up like a mob boss. What he says and how he says it simply does not appeal to me so at least that bit of the trump phenomenon remains confusing to me.
As far as trump understanding the basic tenants of human psychology.... God no. Trump absolutely knows how to sell himself, how to posture, how to ride a crowd. Trump sells himself by basically using his money as bait. But that is a far cry from being such a master manipulator or anything like that. I'd argue you can more or less see this via most people who have ever worked with trump and then quit. IIRC there have been a few people who have made the point they are enthralled by how big everything around trump seems along with promises of wealth and then when trump screws them they realized they have been cheated. Trump has been doing this for so long you even see it in his mostly failed foreign policy. Just look at north korea... How many times has promised that if nk cooperates with the US then NK will become a wealthy paradise or make a craptop of money? Trump in that sense seems like a one trick pony to me. He tried selling himself in the past election, people took the bait of his genius because of the perception he had the midas touch and then trump went with it. And that happened to coincide with democrats electing hillary clinton which at the time polls showed was literally the most viciously hated politician in the US. But this wouldn't have worked 8 or 16 years earlier... Which is by itself not all that different from what goes on with candidates on any election. That said, trump is also excellent at trolling the media. though to some extent I'd fault the media for this considering at least several of the times they have been trolled by trump could have been avoided with some more scrutiny.
First off, thanks for asking and not trying to just beat your opinion into me.
Well, I think it's a good thing that we're taking China, North Korea, and Russia a lot more seriously now, NK in particular. Before he took office NK was a joke and China was hardly relevant, even after NK developed nukes. China is another massive world power with more than enough reason to oppose America; historical motivation, vastly differing ideologies, monetary gain, land disputes. However, politicians hardly mentioned despite national debt and outsourcing being big talking points. That being said, I can't say I'm a fan of his attempts at sweet talk with the 3, especially Russia. It just makes Americans and allies question him even more and the three powers think of him as weak, damaging the lose cannon persona he tried to develop. It's kinda funny: The only people who really seem to buy that at this point are fellow Americans and entrenched "progressives."
Another one of his main platforms that have merit is the one I posted about before: border security and dealing with illegal immigration. I'm really not sure why the idea that physical barricades don't work got so much traction. If you're trying to secure and regulate access to anything, then having a physical presence, some barrier to actually hold, is extremely beneficial, to say the least. Regardless, we need to know who's in our country. Some people south of the border have legitimate extenuating circumstances that they're trying to leave. Many south of the border also have plenty to offer our country and would be model citizens. However, many south of the border are neither. The fact of the matter is, there's people that are taking advantage of our lacking security and the big pushes, the caravans, trying to enter the country. Even if there weren't, anyone that comes in need to assimilate and that takes time. Additionally, getting large numbers of people from the same place doesn't work. That results in clashes, tribalism. Besides, Hispanics are far from the only people that want to come here and assimilate. People all around the world want to come here and work, escape dire situations, or just make a better life for themselves just because they can, but we cannot get people that want to be Americans and have worked hard to become Americans if we cannot control access.
I don't see any way in which the shutdown wasn't an easy win for democrats. trump didn't get what he want, rather he keep settling for less when it comes to the wall. And the biggest evidence that this was a huge defeat for trump is that he didn't double down after the shutdown ended. This was such a catastrophe for trump that not only he didn't get the funding he wanted but also he had to settle for less than what he was offered earlier. Trump ended up taking blame for the shutdown and got nothing to show for it. And honestly, only deranged people think demons acquiesced to trump.
It wasn't because Democrats were blamed for the shutdown by the right and many of centers/independents. Trump's made it look like the Democrats were letting people go unpaid because they don't care about the security of the country. Him settling for less can be spun to him being forced to negotiate with the evilness of Democrats to ensure the government workers can start getting their money again.
And it looks like the Dems may do badly next election as well.
Another one of his main platforms that have merit is the one I posted about before: border security and dealing with illegal immigration. I'm really not sure why the idea that physical barricades don't work got so much traction. If you're trying to secure and regulate access to anything, then having a physical presence, some barrier to actually hold, is extremely beneficial, to say the least. Regardless, we need to know who's in our country. Some people south of the border have legitimate extenuating circumstances that they're trying to leave. Many south of the border also have plenty to offer our country and would be model citizens. However, many south of the border are neither. The fact of the matter is, there's people that are taking advantage of our lacking security and the big pushes, the caravans, trying to enter the country. Even if there weren't, anyone that comes in need to assimilate and that takes time. Additionally, getting large numbers of people from the same place doesn't work. That results in clashes, tribalism. Besides, Hispanics are far from the only people that want to come here and assimilate. People all around the world want to come here and work, escape dire situations, or just make a better life for themselves just because they can, but we cannot get people that want to be Americans and have worked hard to become Americans if we cannot control access.
Statistics say more illegal immigration comes from people coming here legally but overstaying. The wall is not only a horrible idea, it also wastes money unnecessarily and harms the environment when all it'll do is just delay people coming into the country for few days or months.
Assimilation shouldn't be the goal, people come to this country because we've hyped it up as a great country with opportunities, where people can go from being poor to becoming successful (which is mostly bullshit anyway). Their goal is to get settled and make sure their families have shelter and food.
Who do you guys think will go for the 2020 elections?
Here on Brazil, many people that I talk to (History college people) think that either Michelle Obama or the Rock would easily take it (not that they WILL candidate, mind you, but they would be strong ones)
I have also noticied some Bernie Sanders memes....which,after Trump, we can´t 100% ignore
I would like to say Biden, but ole Joe has a history of weird public gaffs that might cost him in some way. Some liberals would probably enjoy derailing whatever career he has left over something irrelevant... Of course our current President would never be held to even remotely the same kind of standard, and unless there's a stronger choice Dems will cost themselves the election in such a case because they really, really love to eat their own.
It wasn't because Democrats were blamed for the shutdown by the right and many of centers/independents. Trump's made it look like the Democrats were letting people go unpaid because they don't care about the security of the country. Him settling for less can be spun to him being forced to negotiate with the evilness of Democrats to ensure the government workers can start getting their money again.
And it looks like the Dems may do badly next election as well.
you make it sound as if any non zero amount of people believing anything trump is a huge and crushing defeat for democrats... But that is not how this works at all. Trump started the shutdown and the majority of people at the US blamed trump for it. That's simply what polling shows. Add to that that every time trump doubled down on this he got increasingly worst deals from democrats. And trump took the worst deal out of all the ones he got. Add to that he them simply not doing another shutdown. trump has been historically unpopular through his presidency and even that took a dive during the shutdown (though it didn't reach its lowest point and it has recovered to his usual still historically low levels).I am not sure what your problem is with trump's base supporting him when everyone who is not part of his base is less than happy with him. That is easily good enough.
I would like to say Biden, but ole Joe has a history of weird public gaffs that might cost him in some way. Some liberals would probably enjoy derailing whatever career he has left over something irrelevant... Of course our current President would never be held to even remotely the same kind of standard, and unless there's a stronger choice Dems will cost themselves the election in such a case because they really, really love to eat their own.
Quite a few potential candidates seem gaff prone this time around. Bernie uses the socialist label for reasons i still do not quite understand since his policies are usually more in line with standard social democracy. Warren can't take two steps without tripping on her gaffs... I like her basic platform personally (reform capitalism) but I have seen her in a few interviews where she sounds pretty much like your average deflecting politician on some issues. And it kinda feels like the pocahontas thing could really cost her an election (the whole thing seems vastly overblown to me). As far as biden goes it sounds like if he makes it to the presidential run there are 40 years of somewhat racists gaffs that could haunt him. I don't really know all that much about other candidates but I kinda get the impression at least o rourke might (and biden) might make the mistake of trying to appeal to conservatives rather than their own bases. b
Well, I think it's a good thing that we're taking China, North Korea, and Russia a lot more seriously now, NK in particular. Before he took office NK was a joke and China was hardly relevant, even after NK developed nukes. China is another massive world power with more than enough reason to oppose America; historical motivation, vastly differing ideologies, monetary gain, land disputes. However, politicians hardly mentioned despite national debt and outsourcing being big talking points. That being said, I can't say I'm a fan of his attempts at sweet talk with the 3, especially Russia. It just makes Americans and allies question him even more and the three powers think of him as weak, damaging the lose cannon persona he tried to develop. It's kinda funny: The only people who really seem to buy that at this point are fellow Americans and entrenched "progressives."
I'm not sure what you mean by taking them more seriously now. From what I've seen so far NK seems like a glorified publicity stunt without much being accomplished. I really don't know how Russia is being taken seriously either. In fact, I think this administration has stood in the way of a lot of measures such as sanctions being put in place against Moscow due to their election tampering.
Another one of his main platforms that have merit is the one I posted about before: border security and dealing with illegal immigration. I'm really not sure why the idea that physical barricades don't work got so much traction. If you're trying to secure and regulate access to anything, then having a physical presence, some barrier to actually hold, is extremely beneficial, to say the least. Regardless, we need to know who's in our country. Some people south of the border have legitimate extenuating circumstances that they're trying to leave. Many south of the border also have plenty to offer our country and would be model citizens. However, many south of the border are neither. The fact of the matter is, there's people that are taking advantage of our lacking security and the big pushes, the caravans, trying to enter the country. Even if there weren't, anyone that comes in need to assimilate and that takes time. Additionally, getting large numbers of people from the same place doesn't work. That results in clashes, tribalism. Besides, Hispanics are far from the only people that want to come here and assimilate. People all around the world want to come here and work, escape dire situations, or just make a better life for themselves just because they can, but we cannot get people that want to be Americans and have worked hard to become Americans if we cannot control access.
Because we already have barriers. When Trump was campaigning he was talking about building a "great wall", and in order to do that you'd have to take land from American citizens.
And I think the notion of physical barricades not working got traction because it's a discussion of its value proposition. How much illegal immigration would something like that prevent for that kind of investment, even if it ever could be built?
And it's downright perplexing to me that he waited for the GOP to lose control of congress to really try to push this through if he was actually interested in doing what he said. It looks like a poorly conceived political play, one that has large consequences every time he shuts down the government or threatens to.
Quite a few potential candidates seem gaff prone this time around. Bernie uses the socialist label for reasons i still do not quite understand since his policies are usually more in line with standard social democracy. Warren can't take two steps without tripping on her gaffs... I like her basic platform personally (reform capitalism) but I have seen her in a few interviews where she sounds pretty much like your average deflecting politician on some issues. And it kinda feels like the pocahontas thing could really cost her an election (the whole thing seems vastly overblown to me). As far as biden goes it sounds like if he makes it to the presidential run there are 40 years of somewhat racists gaffs that could haunt him. I don't really know all that much about other candidates but I kinda get the impression at least o rourke might (and biden) might make the mistake of trying to appeal to conservatives rather than their own bases. b
I don't blame Bernie for doing that, simply because enough Americans have no idea what socialism is and don't realize the most popular government program ever is exactly that (social security). The problem is he shouldn't be so willing to die on that hill either.
I liked Warren, but but her whole recent situation is so cringeworthy that I think she'd be a liability if she won the nomination.
The Biden thing is sort of my point. That they'll rake him over the coals even if he's the best chance to beat Trump.
I don't really get that with Beto, he's got this weird Tom Joad-esque thing going on that he seems to be going with. Wouldn't really fall inline with him praising Mike Pence or something like that.
you make it sound as if any non zero amount of people believing anything trump is a huge and crushing defeat for democrats... But that is not how this works at all. Trump started the shutdown and the majority of people at the US blamed trump for it. That's simply what polling shows. Add to that that every time trump doubled down on this he got increasingly worst deals from democrats. And trump took the worst deal out of all the ones he got. Add to that he them simply not doing another shutdown. trump has been historically unpopular through his presidency and even that took a dive during the shutdown (though it didn't reach its lowest point and it has recovered to his usual still historically low levels).I am not sure what your problem is with trump's base supporting him when everyone who is not part of his base is less than happy with him. That is easily good enough.
It may not be a huge and crushing defeat, but it can snowball into a defeat. it certainly doesn't help the Democrats if they aren't doing anything to prove that Trump's full of shit or that they actually are pro-America.
I'm more worried about non-Trump supporters not supporting Democrats or an actual decent Democratic choice. I"m sure tons of people didn't vote for Hillary, and look at what happened. If Hillary wasn't horrible or at least, a good liar, she probably would have been the president instead of Trump.
I don't blame Bernie for doing that, simply because enough Americans have no idea what socialism is and don't realize the most popular government program ever is exactly that (social security). The problem is he shouldn't be so willing to die on that hill either.
I don't blame Bernie for doing that, simply because enough Americans have no idea what socialism is and don't realize the most popular government program ever is exactly that (social security). The problem is he shouldn't be so willing to die on that hill either.
I liked Warren, but but her whole recent situation is so cringeworthy that I think she'd be a liability if she won the nomination.
The Biden thing is sort of my point. That they'll rake him over the coals even if he's the best chance to beat Trump.
I don't really get that with Beto, he's got this weird Tom Joad-esque thing going on that he seems to be going with. Wouldn't really fall inline with him praising Mike Pence or something like that.
He shouldn't be anywhere near on that hill. he could just say he is a social democrat which would be less confusing to.... everyone. If he says socialism people think soviet union, venezuela, cuba.... Which is actually very fair. If he says social democracy people think germany, norway, denmark.... Which is exactly what he wants. Unless he actually wants cuba like stuff, this whole thing sounds like shooting your own foot.
Yeah, in this sense its almost a shame people on the left are so willing to turn on each other. Sure, trump can ride the pocahontas thing all he wants but that is only an issue if democrats take the bait and don't support her over that. Which is not to say that what warren did was ok but come on, the most ordinary of apologies should be enough for the the left to let it go....
He shouldn't be anywhere near on that hill. he could just say he is a social democrat which would be less confusing to.... everyone. If he says socialism people think soviet union, venezuela, cuba.... Which is actually very fair. If he says social democracy people think germany, norway, denmark.... Which is exactly what he wants. Unless he actually wants cuba like stuff, this whole thing sounds like shooting your own foot.
Yeah, in this sense its almost a shame people on the left are so willing to turn on each other. Sure, trump can ride the pocahontas thing all he wants but that is only an issue if democrats take the bait and don't support her over that. Which is not to say that what warren did was ok but come on, the most ordinary of apologies should be enough for the the left to let it go....
Even if they think Europe, it's still something that is taboo here among most circles.
Trump will invent lies to take someone to task and it works among too many people, giving him that sort of ammunition with Warren would deliver him his second term with a bow on it IMO.
Which is fine, depending on the circumstance. But there's an attitude with some on the left that apologies aren't really worth anything. "Cancel" culture is a real thing.
Yeah, that is annoying, and people need to realize that others can change and grow, as long as they either prove it or don't do anything fishy like secretly go on a racist tirade.
I am not sure I have ever seen anything about trump that makes me think he has any shred of empathy for anything or anyone tbh. honestly, when I hear him speak all he sounds like to me is someone trying to scam you. And occasionally straight up like a mob boss. What he says and how he says it simply does not appeal to me so at least that bit of the trump phenomenon remains confusing to me.
As far as trump understanding the basic tenants of human psychology.... God no. Trump absolutely knows how to sell himself, how to posture, how to ride a crowd. Trump sells himself by basically using his money as bait. But that is a far cry from being such a master manipulator or anything like that. I'd argue you can more or less see this via most people who have ever worked with trump and then quit. IIRC there have been a few people who have made the point they are enthralled by how big everything around trump seems along with promises of wealth and then when trump screws them they realized they have been cheated. Trump has been doing this for so long you even see it in his mostly failed foreign policy. Just look at north korea... How many times has promised that if nk cooperates with the US then NK will become a wealthy paradise or make a craptop of money? Trump in that sense seems like a one trick pony to me. He tried selling himself in the past election, people took the bait of his genius because of the perception he had the midas touch and then trump went with it. And that happened to coincide with democrats electing hillary clinton which at the time polls showed was literally the most viciously hated politician in the US. But this wouldn't have worked 8 or 16 years earlier... Which is by itself not all that different from what goes on with candidates on any election. That said, trump is also excellent at trolling the media. though to some extent I'd fault the media for this considering at least several of the times they have been trolled by trump could have been avoided with some more scrutiny.
Trump made an interesting remark in an article you can read here. It’s mostly about Donald Trump’s infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” remark, but there’s also this about the summer of 2015, right after Trump announced his candidacy:
In the days, weeks and months to follow, I was highly critical of the idea of a Trump presidency. The man who once told me — ironically, in another off-camera conversation — after I called him out for inflating his ratings: “People will just believe you. You just tell them and they believe you,” was, I thought, not a good choice to lead our country.
This is a very shrewd remark from Trump. And while it’s not an insight unique to him, he’s certainly taken it to far greater lengths than we’re used to.
The vast majority of people—not cynical political junkies like us, but normal people—basically just believe whatever politicians say. It’s an interesting contradiction. In surveys, huge majorities say that politicians are horribly untrustworthy charlatans, but in real life they uncritically accept nearly anything they say. Their past records don’t matter much. The unlikelihood of what they’re promising doesn’t penetrate. Even fairly obvious insincerity isn’t a deal killer. If you say you’re going to cut taxes and reduce the deficit, they believe. If you say you’re going to provide universal healthcare without raising taxes on the middle class, they believe. People believe pretty much anything.
Or maybe not. It’s also possible that they don’t believe so much as they simply discount everything and treat promises as mere declarations of a candidate’s values. The fact that Trump approves of cutting taxes and reducing the deficit is all that matters. The fact that Bernie Sanders approves of universal healthcare and funding it solely by taxes on the rich shows that he’s a true progressive.
In the end, Trump may turn out to be less right than he thinks. But he’s still pretty close to right: “You just tell them and they believe you.” It’s not true of everyone, and it’s not true all the time, but it’s true for most people most of the time.
The irony of that is that it was a white racist from Australia who committed that act of terrorism, and on top of white mass shooters in USA, we should be more worried about white people than immigrants or migrants. And a cool thing is that after the shooting, New Zealand in a day or two put a ban on assault rifles or guns, whereas USA won't even do much despite the fact that kids have been killed due to mass shooting.
The irony of that is that it was a white racist from Australia who committed that act of terrorism, and on top of white mass shooters in USA, we should be more worried about white people than immigrants or migrants. And a cool thing is that after the shooting, New Zealand in a day or two put a ban on assault rifles or guns, whereas USA won't even do much despite the fact that kids have been killed due to mass shooting.
