Doug:
Usually, candidates pivot during the general election: they usually temper their red-meat, base rhetoric during the general election. Trump did not. Now that he is President-Elect, he has started to walk-back his rhetoric, and pivot to more general-election-style positions:
Perhaps he felt that if pivoted during the general election, then people would not trust him, and he might lose their vote. But that would possibly cost him moderate votes. Do you think that this is part of a conscious political gamble that he played? Or did he just stumble into this winning strategy? He started walking back almost immediately, and his team seems to already know it. Was this the plan all along?
David:
Trump was never a true conservative. In many aspects, he really was somewhat of a third-party candidate within the Republican fold. I believe he has been a Democrat longer than he's been a Republican convert. Republicans pulled him in because they felt he would take away votes if he ran as an independent. He fought as much with Republicans during the campaign as he did with the Democrats. No one should be surprised that he's holding some middle ground.
Doug:
Never a conservative?! That will be a shock to half the country. And I guess I am confused. I thought last week you said "But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance." What do you want him to do, and why do you want us to give him a chance on his liberal agenda? His infrastructure spending plans look more socialistic than Clinton's. And he is threatening to cut taxes. That can only mean one thing: increased deficit. That is the "spend and don't tax" option... worse than "tax and spend."
David:
Did you not follow any of this past election? The reason Trump was supposed to fail was Republicans were not going to vote for him. As it turns out, he had more registered Republicans come out to vote for him that Clinton had Democrats support her. His policies are a mix of ideologies. And that bodes very well for at least some bipartisanship. But he certainly does not have a liberal agenda. As far as taxes, I doubt we'll ever agree with the differing philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have never met a tax they don't like, and can't spend enough, while Republicans promote decreased taxes to promote a growing economy, by letting individuals keep their own cash. It's the same old argument, and the correct answer is a balance, as we have both tended to agree on in the past.
Doug:
Your characterization of Democratic philosophy is comical, and is easily checked to be false. Some of these years that were controlled by Democrats were the most prosperous in our country's history. Why do I think when Trump runs up the deficit you'll blame his "liberal agenda"? No, doesn't work that way. Republicans will get the blame they will deserve.
Are Trump's policies a mix or a mix up? I think you can forgive me for not knowing what Trump is going to do, and not sure why you are for him. I thought he was for repealing Obamacare. I thought he was going to "lock her up." I thought he was going to build a wall. I thought he ran on the Republican ticket. So you admit that he has separated Republicans from conservatism? I said that last week about the Republican bloc, and you disagreed. But I do know that he did not pivot during the general election. That is the question at hand. Do you think that was by design?
David:
As Reagan said," The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor". I voted for Trump because of all of the things that go with a Republican agenda, that would have no chance of succeeding under a Clinton administration. As far as all of these Democrats rioting and crying over his election, he's likely to be much more of a compromiser than anyone we've seen in the White House in quite some time. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, Democrats should be giddy they have President Trump. There are some things he promised that will get done, like some type of barrier to secure the borders, and repealing Obamacare, but he will be open to re-introducing the parts of Obamacare that were needed (under the new-and-improved name: Trumpcare).
Doug:
First of all, people aren't rioting. They aren't even really protesting. They are just marching around. Good for them. I think that this election might shock a drive to organize into a complacent generation. Secondly, the Democrats and Obama always wanted to make some changes to Obamacare. Let's just agree that if the ACA keeps the protection of the pre-existing conditions, low costs, and the mandate, we will forever call it Obamacare. We can also agree that if it is better to have all three branches under one party, we should make sure that happens in the future. For example, if the next Democratic candidate looks like a winner, people should vote straight-ticket Democrats.
What is it about this con-man that makes people like you believe that he will do what you want, but compromise on those things that you don't really care about?
David:
You've packed quite a bit of nonsense into a small paragraph. Where to begin?
The Republican replacement plan has been promoted to continue both the protections for pre-existing conditions and for young people to stay on their parents plans. But the costs have not been lowered. Perhaps you should listen to Bill Clinton honestly discuss this crazy system that Democrats crafted. It remains to be seen if the mandate will survive. I have not heard a single Republican mention it, although Trump said he thought it was a good idea. We'll see if that ends up in the final plan. I doubt it. What we will see is insurance available across state lines, and on the internet, just like car insurance. You can pick and choose what coverage you need based on the amount you want to spend. You'll be able to compare prices between carriers, with many more carriers.
As for all branches of government belonging to one party? The people have spoken. Eight years ago they placed all three branches in Democratic hands, and they pushed through Obamacare, which is now an albatross for Democrats at all levels. Since that bill passed, Democrats have lost more than 900 legislative seats across America, and Obamacare is more unpopular than ever.
Remember when you and the media were predicting Trump supporters would behave this way when they lost. Now that it's Clinton supporters, smashing windows and throwing rocks at police is just "walking around". The Mayor of Seattle labeled it a riot. If you can't be honest about this little fact, we're going to have a hard time discussing the real world.
Doug:
If you get your news from an unreliable source, I agree that you are going to have a hard time discussing the real world. There are thousands of people walking around, including those in my city of Philadelphia. I have not see anything but walking around. Marching. They are there right now. Some people were yelling. Turn on your TV. People brought their kids. The kids have signs. This is a march. This is protected by our first amendment rights. Remember the Tea Party?
David:
Then call it protesting, not meandering around the streets. And when they start smashing store windows and attacking police, call it a riot. The charges against several of those arrested was "rioting", not walking around.
Doug:
But this is not what Trump supporters were threatening if he lost. He was talking about not transferring power. We may want to talk about false equivalency.
David:
You're absolutely wrong about that. He never said anything about transferring power. The question was if he would concede, and what he said was,"“I will look at it at the time.” When pressed moments later, he added, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense.” He later clarified further that he was considering an outcome like the one in 2000, which was not an unreasonable consideration with the polls all tied up, and several states listed as toss-ups. Remember when Al Gore conceded, and then rescinded the concession, and then went to the courts for a month? When Gore did it, it was the right thing to do, but when Trump even considers the possibility, Clinton called it, "horrifying". Double standard.
Doug:
But you haven't answered any of these questions. I take it that you just don't care about him pivoting, before, during, or after the election.
David:
I'm going to predict that he'll call off the investigations into the emails, but will wait to see what comes of the Foundation probe. Or he'll use information about other countries that gets uncovered from the FBI Foundation probe to leverage other countries (like the Saudis) to make deals, in return for keeping that information under wraps.
Doug:
Blackmail them? What a lovely picture you paint of our new leader. How does it make you feel that you really don't know what else he may walk back on? Or do you think it won't matter because of the House and Senate Republican control? But anyway, you realize that he is just the President... he doesn't call the shots at the FBI. So, he can't "call off" the investigation. That isn't his job. If it is under his power, tell Obama now! He has another month to "call on" investigations. I can think of a foundation that needs some probing.
David:
Good. Comey is not a Republican hack who stole the election from Hillary. It seems that had become a new talking point among Democrats. And the Justice Department, which did not allow the FBI access to a grand jury, or subpoenas, or any of the other tools of usual law enforcement, is under the control of the President, so an FBI investigation can be hamstrung.
Doug:
If Comey had done to Trump want he did to Clinton, we would be in a very different place today. Comey is a Republican. And I expect some changes will be made to prevent someone from being able to disrupt future elections in that way. There are already rules in place. We need to enforce them.
David:
Ah, yes. Back in July, when Comey wiped Clinton's slate clean (with a cloth, or something), he was a hero to the left. Now he's a partisan crook.
Doug:
You really project a lot into the minds of people that you refuse to try to understand. I am very willing to believe that Comey made a mistake. It does not have to be that either he is a Hero or Evil. Why does it have to be so black and white to you? And why do you project such simpleton thinking onto others?
David:
I think that things will work a lot more smoothly than people think. He's likely to bring in both Washington outsiders and business people to the executive branch, who have few ties to lobbyist and political parties. His team may be much more willing to make pragmatic concessions than we've seen in a while. Pence knows many in Congress, and both Republicans and some Democrats appear willing to work with him. Overall, things will still move in a more conservative direction.
Doug:
So you don't mind his liberal leanings? Could it be that Trump could go back to some of his more liberal positions on other items, such as his previous positions on abortion? Could it be that Obama just needs to have another 1-hour talk with him? Could it be that Trump ends up being the liberal ally?
David:
He does have a few liberal leanings. I do think that he'll compromise and be more pragmatic than his predecessors. I'm happy to have someone who agrees with me on 80% of issues, even though he may give on some issues. To accomplish anything, he'll have to have the Republican Congress on board, so don't expect him to wander too far from the right.
Doug:
So, you think he will end up sticking to some ideas, and some he'll flip-flop on? And you magically come up with 80% (because that is Reagan's magic breakpoint)? What if it is 60%? Or 40%? Or 0%?
David:
Funny that when someone becomes pragmatic or offers compromise to break through the Washington grid-lock, he becomes a flip-flopper. If Obama had become a pragmatic flip-flopper in the same vein, and worked with Republicans even just a little, he wouldn't be a position where all of his legacy (based on executive orders and taking states and individuals to court) could so easily be undone by a new president.
Doug:
Your view of Obama is so wrong, it must be a strategy: "Never admit that Obama was actually a reasonable President. Keep denying it, and maybe, just maybe, someone will believe you." Many on the left believe that Obama was always too conciliatory. The ACA was right out of the Republican playbook, literally. Making people buy insurance from private insurance companies? How much freaking compromising could he have been?
David:
I think Trump will make concessions to both sides. His entire campaign didn't fit either party, despite him running as a Republican. With both houses of Congress on the same page, he should have an easier time pushing through tax cuts and easing regulations on businesses. He'll likely make moves to ease restrictions and regulations that have thwarted infrastructure projects for the past eight years, but he'll also likely embrace several liberal ideas as well. Remember when he said he liked the Obamacare mandate? He was elected to shake up Washington, and I expect that's what he'll do. As far as abortion goes, he's already put together a list of candidates for the SCOTUS who were all pro-life, and he has Pence on his team, so I don't see him switching to a new position there.
Doug:
New position? You mean his old position? You crack me up that you think you can predict which of his positions on abortion he'll take. Will it be the last position where he promised that there would have to be a punishment for the women? Or the last last position where the doctors would be punished? And I see no reason he wouldn't have an "amended" list of SCOTUS candidates. Then how will you feel? What if he ensures that Roe v. Wade stands? What does he have to do to finally convince you that you were conned? What will it take for you to "riot"?
David:
Why so angry? I know Mike Pence, and I know that the people he's already begun to surround himself with are conservatives. The Congress is in charge of Republicans.
Oh wait, now I understand why you're so angry. Your views were repudiated. Your candidate lost. The Senate was returned to Republicans, as was the House. And now the Supreme Court is likely going to be returned to it's prior balance, rather than become a liberal rubber stamp. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences". I guess when you've lost everything, and most of the country doesn't like your ideas, rioting in the streets seems like a good idea. (At least, that's the response when 3 year-olds don't get their way.)
Doug:
Let's be clear: this was a very even divide between the votes cast between Trump and Clinton. In fact, Clinton won more votes. A lot more. It looks like she will win more votes than any in any election ever, except for Obama. Looks like the difference could be 2 million votes or more, when all the votes are counted. But, Trump won more Electoral College votes---actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19. Clinton's views are not repudiated. You don't even know what your President Elect will do. And most of the country didn't even vote, so you can calm down a couple of levels.
Of course, I suspect any group of people would be disappointed to see that their candidate won by 2 million votes, but end up losing the election because of some esoteric accounting put in at the end of the civil war.
But my questions are about Trump's pivot. And I wonder how far he can betray those who voted for him, before they, too, are frustrated, or even angry?
David:
Um, once again you're complete lack of understanding of the Constitution is interfering with your facts. You're doing just what Trump did during the campaign: saying things that sound right, but are not true. The Electoral College was created in the original Constitution Convention of 1787, not post-civil war. The College was designed so that candidates need to appeal to everyone in all of the states, not just big population centers. It makes sense than Democrats don't like this, because they would have to appeal to people outside of just big cities, something they failed to do this year. You also don't take into account that Democrats have continued to mount losses in every year since Obama took office, all over the country. Blue states went red this year, and swing states went red. Just look at the map by counties across America. All of the red areas did not go for Clinton. Would you still say that the dense areas in the few blue counties should dictate to the rest of the country? Should you be able to be president if you only appeal to those slivers?
Doug:
If only the election could be determined by square miles rather than people! Those "slivers" are land. If you visualize the map proportional to the number of actual humans (which is who votes) then you get the reality of where people live and who they vote for:
David:
Distorting and warping reality is the only way your arguments ever make sense. Come over here to the real world once in a while. It's nice. You might like it.
Your description of what you guess he will do makes him sound like he has many of the same positions as Obama. In fact, Trump has said as much on immigration and now Obamacare. If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, why are you so happy to compromise with Trump?
Doug:
If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, won't you feel a little foolish? Or perhaps your issues weren't with Obama's positions, but him as a person? How can you happily vote for a person who is just like Obama? So confused. I am not happy to compromise with Trump. He is a reprehensible person that speaks in sexist, racist ways, and knows nothing about politics, science, or anything. But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country.
David:
So you'll vote for good ideas, that are good for the country, but not if Trump presents them? Nice attitude. Again, if you think Trump has the same positions or will push Obama's agenda, you may need to seek some professional help. You're sounding delusional, but I suspect that you're actually just in a state of denial.
Doug:
I just freaking said the exact opposite. I said "But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country."
David:
Taking two ideas from Obamacare, and tossing the other 15,000 pages doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Securing the border sounds like good sense, and deporting the criminals seems like a good idea. Obama didn't have any of those as positions. Not even close. Trump is not Obama, nor does his proposed agenda resemble Obama's.
Doug:
"Proposed agenda"--- you are imaginative. If we apply your logic to your operating system, I don't think your computer would work very well. "Hey, I just deleted 15,000 lines of code. Much better!" Laws work a lot like code. You bought into Trumps cons because they sound good. "Free money? Work from home? Sounds like a great idea!" Maybe Trump is from Nigeria... perhaps you want to see his birth certificate.
David:
Doug:
To me, the ends do not justify the means. But I have principles. One of which is that saying whatever will get you elected is not a justifiable means. Can you think of anyone that has flip-flopped on more issues than Trump?
David:
Um, Hillary Clinton? Even Barack Obama said she would say anything to become President.
Doug:
Again false equivalency makes it pretty much impossible for you to see how different Trump is from .... everyone. I will admit that I have new-found respect for Mitt Romney, and many other Republicans. Or are they still Republicans? I have no idea what it means to be a Republican now.
David:
In the upcoming months and years we'll have to see what it means to be a Democrat. They may be out of power for a very long time, because they were more concerned about the rest of the world, rather than average middle-class American. Even Obama mentioned this fact in a speech this week. (I do need to admit that the President has been very gracious since the election.)
Doug:
Wow! I see you had to put that Obama complement in a parenthetical just to be able type it. Baby steps. Perhaps your strategy is weakening.
David: The bigger question is what happens with foreign policy, which is not so easy to control. Again, I see him working with whomever he sees as the person to accomplish the goal at hand, be that the Russians, or our traditional NATO allies, or both. Either way, He'll likely look to both Democrats and Republicans for support.
Doug:
Not having any idea who he may team up with makes for scary times.
David:
Not having any idea means you have no idea what he will do, but you insist it won't be what he said.
Doug:
How could it be what he said, when he has contradicted himself so much? He can't do anything without contradicting something he said. Of course, it will also agree with something he said.
David:
Let's take a deep breath, and see how things shape up. He's not even been sworn in yet. Let's follow the Democrat's mantra from before the election and pull together as a country around our new president. At least until he's done something worthy of protesting.
Doug:
He has already done a lot worthy of protesting! But, I am willing to put the candidate's statements into election context. But I don't think it will be Democrats protesting; I think it will be the 20 million people that lose their healthcare (for example) that will be protesting. Let's let his policy speak for itself. But I still wonder: was this late pivot planned, or is Trump just a Chauncey Gardner?
Some believe Trump felt that he needed to pivot somewhat before the Electoral College votes on December 19. We'll see if he pivoted enough.
David:
I'm sure he will keep us in suspense. At least until he's inaugurated.
Usually, candidates pivot during the general election: they usually temper their red-meat, base rhetoric during the general election. Trump did not. Now that he is President-Elect, he has started to walk-back his rhetoric, and pivot to more general-election-style positions:
- He now claims that he is open to "amending" Obamacare. He now is considering keep parts after discussing with Obama. Such as making sure those with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage. But this is what makes any plan expensive!
- He now claims that he hasn't "thought much" about jailing Clinton. Good, but such talk makes us sound like a Banana Republic.
- He may not build that wall, or have Mexico pay for it. Newt Gingrich (Trump adviser) cast doubt this week on whether the new president would seek to have Mexico fund Trump’s proposed border wall: "He'll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device," Gingrich said.
Perhaps he felt that if pivoted during the general election, then people would not trust him, and he might lose their vote. But that would possibly cost him moderate votes. Do you think that this is part of a conscious political gamble that he played? Or did he just stumble into this winning strategy? He started walking back almost immediately, and his team seems to already know it. Was this the plan all along?
David:
Trump was never a true conservative. In many aspects, he really was somewhat of a third-party candidate within the Republican fold. I believe he has been a Democrat longer than he's been a Republican convert. Republicans pulled him in because they felt he would take away votes if he ran as an independent. He fought as much with Republicans during the campaign as he did with the Democrats. No one should be surprised that he's holding some middle ground.
Doug:
Never a conservative?! That will be a shock to half the country. And I guess I am confused. I thought last week you said "But I hope everyone does give Trump a fair chance." What do you want him to do, and why do you want us to give him a chance on his liberal agenda? His infrastructure spending plans look more socialistic than Clinton's. And he is threatening to cut taxes. That can only mean one thing: increased deficit. That is the "spend and don't tax" option... worse than "tax and spend."
David:
Did you not follow any of this past election? The reason Trump was supposed to fail was Republicans were not going to vote for him. As it turns out, he had more registered Republicans come out to vote for him that Clinton had Democrats support her. His policies are a mix of ideologies. And that bodes very well for at least some bipartisanship. But he certainly does not have a liberal agenda. As far as taxes, I doubt we'll ever agree with the differing philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have never met a tax they don't like, and can't spend enough, while Republicans promote decreased taxes to promote a growing economy, by letting individuals keep their own cash. It's the same old argument, and the correct answer is a balance, as we have both tended to agree on in the past.
Doug:
Your characterization of Democratic philosophy is comical, and is easily checked to be false. Some of these years that were controlled by Democrats were the most prosperous in our country's history. Why do I think when Trump runs up the deficit you'll blame his "liberal agenda"? No, doesn't work that way. Republicans will get the blame they will deserve.
Are Trump's policies a mix or a mix up? I think you can forgive me for not knowing what Trump is going to do, and not sure why you are for him. I thought he was for repealing Obamacare. I thought he was going to "lock her up." I thought he was going to build a wall. I thought he ran on the Republican ticket. So you admit that he has separated Republicans from conservatism? I said that last week about the Republican bloc, and you disagreed. But I do know that he did not pivot during the general election. That is the question at hand. Do you think that was by design?
David:
As Reagan said," The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor". I voted for Trump because of all of the things that go with a Republican agenda, that would have no chance of succeeding under a Clinton administration. As far as all of these Democrats rioting and crying over his election, he's likely to be much more of a compromiser than anyone we've seen in the White House in quite some time. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, Democrats should be giddy they have President Trump. There are some things he promised that will get done, like some type of barrier to secure the borders, and repealing Obamacare, but he will be open to re-introducing the parts of Obamacare that were needed (under the new-and-improved name: Trumpcare).
Doug:
First of all, people aren't rioting. They aren't even really protesting. They are just marching around. Good for them. I think that this election might shock a drive to organize into a complacent generation. Secondly, the Democrats and Obama always wanted to make some changes to Obamacare. Let's just agree that if the ACA keeps the protection of the pre-existing conditions, low costs, and the mandate, we will forever call it Obamacare. We can also agree that if it is better to have all three branches under one party, we should make sure that happens in the future. For example, if the next Democratic candidate looks like a winner, people should vote straight-ticket Democrats.
What is it about this con-man that makes people like you believe that he will do what you want, but compromise on those things that you don't really care about?
David:
You've packed quite a bit of nonsense into a small paragraph. Where to begin?
The Republican replacement plan has been promoted to continue both the protections for pre-existing conditions and for young people to stay on their parents plans. But the costs have not been lowered. Perhaps you should listen to Bill Clinton honestly discuss this crazy system that Democrats crafted. It remains to be seen if the mandate will survive. I have not heard a single Republican mention it, although Trump said he thought it was a good idea. We'll see if that ends up in the final plan. I doubt it. What we will see is insurance available across state lines, and on the internet, just like car insurance. You can pick and choose what coverage you need based on the amount you want to spend. You'll be able to compare prices between carriers, with many more carriers.
As for all branches of government belonging to one party? The people have spoken. Eight years ago they placed all three branches in Democratic hands, and they pushed through Obamacare, which is now an albatross for Democrats at all levels. Since that bill passed, Democrats have lost more than 900 legislative seats across America, and Obamacare is more unpopular than ever.
Remember when you and the media were predicting Trump supporters would behave this way when they lost. Now that it's Clinton supporters, smashing windows and throwing rocks at police is just "walking around". The Mayor of Seattle labeled it a riot. If you can't be honest about this little fact, we're going to have a hard time discussing the real world.
Doug:
If you get your news from an unreliable source, I agree that you are going to have a hard time discussing the real world. There are thousands of people walking around, including those in my city of Philadelphia. I have not see anything but walking around. Marching. They are there right now. Some people were yelling. Turn on your TV. People brought their kids. The kids have signs. This is a march. This is protected by our first amendment rights. Remember the Tea Party?
David:
Then call it protesting, not meandering around the streets. And when they start smashing store windows and attacking police, call it a riot. The charges against several of those arrested was "rioting", not walking around.
Doug:
But this is not what Trump supporters were threatening if he lost. He was talking about not transferring power. We may want to talk about false equivalency.
David:
You're absolutely wrong about that. He never said anything about transferring power. The question was if he would concede, and what he said was,"“I will look at it at the time.” When pressed moments later, he added, “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense.” He later clarified further that he was considering an outcome like the one in 2000, which was not an unreasonable consideration with the polls all tied up, and several states listed as toss-ups. Remember when Al Gore conceded, and then rescinded the concession, and then went to the courts for a month? When Gore did it, it was the right thing to do, but when Trump even considers the possibility, Clinton called it, "horrifying". Double standard.
Doug:
But you haven't answered any of these questions. I take it that you just don't care about him pivoting, before, during, or after the election.
David:
I'm going to predict that he'll call off the investigations into the emails, but will wait to see what comes of the Foundation probe. Or he'll use information about other countries that gets uncovered from the FBI Foundation probe to leverage other countries (like the Saudis) to make deals, in return for keeping that information under wraps.
Doug:
Blackmail them? What a lovely picture you paint of our new leader. How does it make you feel that you really don't know what else he may walk back on? Or do you think it won't matter because of the House and Senate Republican control? But anyway, you realize that he is just the President... he doesn't call the shots at the FBI. So, he can't "call off" the investigation. That isn't his job. If it is under his power, tell Obama now! He has another month to "call on" investigations. I can think of a foundation that needs some probing.
David:
Good. Comey is not a Republican hack who stole the election from Hillary. It seems that had become a new talking point among Democrats. And the Justice Department, which did not allow the FBI access to a grand jury, or subpoenas, or any of the other tools of usual law enforcement, is under the control of the President, so an FBI investigation can be hamstrung.
Doug:
If Comey had done to Trump want he did to Clinton, we would be in a very different place today. Comey is a Republican. And I expect some changes will be made to prevent someone from being able to disrupt future elections in that way. There are already rules in place. We need to enforce them.
David:
Ah, yes. Back in July, when Comey wiped Clinton's slate clean (with a cloth, or something), he was a hero to the left. Now he's a partisan crook.
Doug:
You really project a lot into the minds of people that you refuse to try to understand. I am very willing to believe that Comey made a mistake. It does not have to be that either he is a Hero or Evil. Why does it have to be so black and white to you? And why do you project such simpleton thinking onto others?
David:
I think that things will work a lot more smoothly than people think. He's likely to bring in both Washington outsiders and business people to the executive branch, who have few ties to lobbyist and political parties. His team may be much more willing to make pragmatic concessions than we've seen in a while. Pence knows many in Congress, and both Republicans and some Democrats appear willing to work with him. Overall, things will still move in a more conservative direction.
Doug:
So you don't mind his liberal leanings? Could it be that Trump could go back to some of his more liberal positions on other items, such as his previous positions on abortion? Could it be that Obama just needs to have another 1-hour talk with him? Could it be that Trump ends up being the liberal ally?
David:
He does have a few liberal leanings. I do think that he'll compromise and be more pragmatic than his predecessors. I'm happy to have someone who agrees with me on 80% of issues, even though he may give on some issues. To accomplish anything, he'll have to have the Republican Congress on board, so don't expect him to wander too far from the right.
Doug:
So, you think he will end up sticking to some ideas, and some he'll flip-flop on? And you magically come up with 80% (because that is Reagan's magic breakpoint)? What if it is 60%? Or 40%? Or 0%?
David:
Funny that when someone becomes pragmatic or offers compromise to break through the Washington grid-lock, he becomes a flip-flopper. If Obama had become a pragmatic flip-flopper in the same vein, and worked with Republicans even just a little, he wouldn't be a position where all of his legacy (based on executive orders and taking states and individuals to court) could so easily be undone by a new president.
Doug:
Your view of Obama is so wrong, it must be a strategy: "Never admit that Obama was actually a reasonable President. Keep denying it, and maybe, just maybe, someone will believe you." Many on the left believe that Obama was always too conciliatory. The ACA was right out of the Republican playbook, literally. Making people buy insurance from private insurance companies? How much freaking compromising could he have been?
David:
I think Trump will make concessions to both sides. His entire campaign didn't fit either party, despite him running as a Republican. With both houses of Congress on the same page, he should have an easier time pushing through tax cuts and easing regulations on businesses. He'll likely make moves to ease restrictions and regulations that have thwarted infrastructure projects for the past eight years, but he'll also likely embrace several liberal ideas as well. Remember when he said he liked the Obamacare mandate? He was elected to shake up Washington, and I expect that's what he'll do. As far as abortion goes, he's already put together a list of candidates for the SCOTUS who were all pro-life, and he has Pence on his team, so I don't see him switching to a new position there.
Doug:
New position? You mean his old position? You crack me up that you think you can predict which of his positions on abortion he'll take. Will it be the last position where he promised that there would have to be a punishment for the women? Or the last last position where the doctors would be punished? And I see no reason he wouldn't have an "amended" list of SCOTUS candidates. Then how will you feel? What if he ensures that Roe v. Wade stands? What does he have to do to finally convince you that you were conned? What will it take for you to "riot"?
David:
Why so angry? I know Mike Pence, and I know that the people he's already begun to surround himself with are conservatives. The Congress is in charge of Republicans.
Oh wait, now I understand why you're so angry. Your views were repudiated. Your candidate lost. The Senate was returned to Republicans, as was the House. And now the Supreme Court is likely going to be returned to it's prior balance, rather than become a liberal rubber stamp. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences". I guess when you've lost everything, and most of the country doesn't like your ideas, rioting in the streets seems like a good idea. (At least, that's the response when 3 year-olds don't get their way.)
Doug:
Let's be clear: this was a very even divide between the votes cast between Trump and Clinton. In fact, Clinton won more votes. A lot more. It looks like she will win more votes than any in any election ever, except for Obama. Looks like the difference could be 2 million votes or more, when all the votes are counted. But, Trump won more Electoral College votes---actually the Electoral College doesn't vote until December 19. Clinton's views are not repudiated. You don't even know what your President Elect will do. And most of the country didn't even vote, so you can calm down a couple of levels.
Of course, I suspect any group of people would be disappointed to see that their candidate won by 2 million votes, but end up losing the election because of some esoteric accounting put in at the end of the civil war.
But my questions are about Trump's pivot. And I wonder how far he can betray those who voted for him, before they, too, are frustrated, or even angry?
David:
Um, once again you're complete lack of understanding of the Constitution is interfering with your facts. You're doing just what Trump did during the campaign: saying things that sound right, but are not true. The Electoral College was created in the original Constitution Convention of 1787, not post-civil war. The College was designed so that candidates need to appeal to everyone in all of the states, not just big population centers. It makes sense than Democrats don't like this, because they would have to appeal to people outside of just big cities, something they failed to do this year. You also don't take into account that Democrats have continued to mount losses in every year since Obama took office, all over the country. Blue states went red this year, and swing states went red. Just look at the map by counties across America. All of the red areas did not go for Clinton. Would you still say that the dense areas in the few blue counties should dictate to the rest of the country? Should you be able to be president if you only appeal to those slivers?
Doug:
If only the election could be determined by square miles rather than people! Those "slivers" are land. If you visualize the map proportional to the number of actual humans (which is who votes) then you get the reality of where people live and who they vote for:
David:
Distorting and warping reality is the only way your arguments ever make sense. Come over here to the real world once in a while. It's nice. You might like it.
Your description of what you guess he will do makes him sound like he has many of the same positions as Obama. In fact, Trump has said as much on immigration and now Obamacare. If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, why are you so happy to compromise with Trump?
Doug:
If he ends up making the same choices as Obama, won't you feel a little foolish? Or perhaps your issues weren't with Obama's positions, but him as a person? How can you happily vote for a person who is just like Obama? So confused. I am not happy to compromise with Trump. He is a reprehensible person that speaks in sexist, racist ways, and knows nothing about politics, science, or anything. But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country.
David:
So you'll vote for good ideas, that are good for the country, but not if Trump presents them? Nice attitude. Again, if you think Trump has the same positions or will push Obama's agenda, you may need to seek some professional help. You're sounding delusional, but I suspect that you're actually just in a state of denial.
Doug:
I just freaking said the exact opposite. I said "But I hope that our elected officials will compromise when it is for the good of the country."
David:
Taking two ideas from Obamacare, and tossing the other 15,000 pages doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Securing the border sounds like good sense, and deporting the criminals seems like a good idea. Obama didn't have any of those as positions. Not even close. Trump is not Obama, nor does his proposed agenda resemble Obama's.
Doug:
"Proposed agenda"--- you are imaginative. If we apply your logic to your operating system, I don't think your computer would work very well. "Hey, I just deleted 15,000 lines of code. Much better!" Laws work a lot like code. You bought into Trumps cons because they sound good. "Free money? Work from home? Sounds like a great idea!" Maybe Trump is from Nigeria... perhaps you want to see his birth certificate.
David:
I think Trump is whomever's ally he needs at that moment to accomplish whatever goal he has at that moment. I may not agree with all that he does, and you probably won't either.
Doug:
To me, the ends do not justify the means. But I have principles. One of which is that saying whatever will get you elected is not a justifiable means. Can you think of anyone that has flip-flopped on more issues than Trump?
David:
Um, Hillary Clinton? Even Barack Obama said she would say anything to become President.
Doug:
Again false equivalency makes it pretty much impossible for you to see how different Trump is from .... everyone. I will admit that I have new-found respect for Mitt Romney, and many other Republicans. Or are they still Republicans? I have no idea what it means to be a Republican now.
David:
In the upcoming months and years we'll have to see what it means to be a Democrat. They may be out of power for a very long time, because they were more concerned about the rest of the world, rather than average middle-class American. Even Obama mentioned this fact in a speech this week. (I do need to admit that the President has been very gracious since the election.)
Doug:
Wow! I see you had to put that Obama complement in a parenthetical just to be able type it. Baby steps. Perhaps your strategy is weakening.
David: The bigger question is what happens with foreign policy, which is not so easy to control. Again, I see him working with whomever he sees as the person to accomplish the goal at hand, be that the Russians, or our traditional NATO allies, or both. Either way, He'll likely look to both Democrats and Republicans for support.
Doug:
Not having any idea who he may team up with makes for scary times.
David:
Not having any idea means you have no idea what he will do, but you insist it won't be what he said.
Doug:
How could it be what he said, when he has contradicted himself so much? He can't do anything without contradicting something he said. Of course, it will also agree with something he said.
David:
Let's take a deep breath, and see how things shape up. He's not even been sworn in yet. Let's follow the Democrat's mantra from before the election and pull together as a country around our new president. At least until he's done something worthy of protesting.
Doug:
He has already done a lot worthy of protesting! But, I am willing to put the candidate's statements into election context. But I don't think it will be Democrats protesting; I think it will be the 20 million people that lose their healthcare (for example) that will be protesting. Let's let his policy speak for itself. But I still wonder: was this late pivot planned, or is Trump just a Chauncey Gardner?
Some believe Trump felt that he needed to pivot somewhat before the Electoral College votes on December 19. We'll see if he pivoted enough.
David:
I'm sure he will keep us in suspense. At least until he's inaugurated.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!