Trump Caves

[JimL]

Not really.

Most likely Democrats are going to continue to dig their heels in and refuse to sit down at the bargaining table despite Trump's numerous concessions. At the end of three-weeks, if Democrats still don't have a deal, and they most likely won't, it will give Trump the opportunity to say, "I did everything I could to reach a comprise, but the Democrat leadership has left me with no choice but to declare a state of emergency."

One of the easiest ways to defeat your opponents is to let them think they're winning.

They're not going to refuse to bargain, only Trump is guilty of that. The dems are simply not giving in to Trumps (to be paid for by Mexico) wall which they have every right and power to do. Trump doesn't get to take hostage the U.S. government simply because as a wannabe tyrant he doesn't have the numbers on his side. He doesn't have the numbers, he loses. Elections have consequences, remember?

[Cow Poke]

...Trump’s white supremist base...

Are you trying to compete with Tassy for Drama Queen of Tweb?

[Cow Poke]

They're not going to refuse to bargain...

You're calling Pelosi a liar?

[carpedm9587]

You, for the most part, are in hostile territory here.

And that mans that my communication skills suddenly atrophy? Seriously, CP, you're kind of making my point. I have this issue in one place: here. My impression is that the folks here are so rapid to hold onto their position, they almost automatically interpret my posts to align with messaging from the left and far left, and then respond to that with their "boxed-and-ready" responses. When I point out that they are responding to arguments I have not made, they essentially double down, in Trump-like fashion.

Despite the apparent impression left that I am not self-reflective, I actually have taken the critiques here seriously. Some of them I have acknowledged and continue to work on - with more or less success (verbosity is not one of my more successful areas). Most of them I have brought to others - family, friends, even other online acquaintances from an array of backdrops. When they affirm what is being said abut me - I try to adjust. When they scratch their heads (as I do), I don't.

I know.

Oh, you wouldn't fool me in the least!

Feel free to enlighten me? It's not a classroom setting where you have the fate of the students in your little grade book?

No. I teach telecommunications to adults in the telecommunications industry. I teach sales people (where I am probably "god" for the technology part, but certainly not "god" for the selling part). I teach engineers and operations personnel, where I am usually talking about their own infrastructure (which they work with every day) and their own products (which they are launching or enhancing), and many of these are young, hot-shot 30-40 year-olds with certifications from various parts of the industry. When I teach in a classroom, I walk into "hostile territory" in a regular basis, as I have to convince a room full of people used to the "typical corporate facilitator" of my bonafides and capabilities. And many participants in each class are there because "their boss made them," and they start the program with a "this guy is about to waste my time" attitude. I also teach online in a variety of venues including webinars, college like e-courses (where you never actually see the facilitator and all exchanges are via the written word), and pre-recorded interactive eLearning, where I don't even get to see who the participant is and/or how they are reacting.

Aw, come on...... you're seriously taking this personally?

Actually, not really. Indeed, I am further down the road of "defending myself" than I want to be. But it's you - and I have a pretty positive view of you, overall. So what the heck!

After the last pile-on, I made a pledge to myself that I was going to focus on arguments and ignore personal comments. I've started the practice of simply deleting them from posts so the actual arguments are the focus of the responses. I debated putting a "the poster's comments have been edited for the purposes of focus" qualifier, given my dislike for people altering my own posts - but then decided all it would do is put focus back on the very thing I was looking to remove focus from (trailing preposition intended ).

I have to admit that posting here is personally challenging - so it's rather good for me. I get to practice patience (I give myself a C-), listening to positions "outside the bubble" (I give myself a C+), refraining from "reacting" (I give myself a D-, but getting better), and limiting verbosity (that one earns me an F...and I'm not sure it's improving as this post attests). Basically, a lot of areas where I need to improve.

But I chuckle a bit when people here accuse me of a lack of objectivity, poor judgment, jumping to conclusions without the facts, or having a partisan bias. There is no other place I interact with where the people are more partisan, more blind to their own poor judgment, or more willing to accept thin evidence if it means they get to hold on to their existing position. And there is no other place I visit that is more vitriolic. I suspect it is partly because of the portions of the site I visit (i.e., civics, apologetics, etc.). But I still have to wonder, even in those venues, how any part of what I see reflects the good of Christianity. The anger and hate is palpable.

[Cow Poke]

And that mans that my communication skills suddenly atrophy?

wow

I'll get back to this later.

maybe

[carpedm9587]

They're not going to refuse to bargain, only Trump is guilty of that. The dems are simply not giving in to Trumps (to be paid for by Mexico) wall which they have every right and power to do. Trump doesn't get to take hostage the U.S. government simply because as a wannabe tyrant he doesn't have the numbers on his side. He doesn't have the numbers, he loses. Elections have consequences, remember?

I think the emphasized part needs a bit more qualification. The Dems (i.e., Pelosi) are indeed refusing to budge on the wall part of the discussion. Personally, I think that is a mistake. I am not in favor of Trump's broad, undetailed, useless "700-900 miles of additional concrete border." I AM in favor of a data/fact-based deployment of barriers in strategic locations. An absolute "no walls" position is preposterous and is as much Pelosi and Schumer playing to their base as Trump's "big beautiful wall" is playing to his base (OK - that sentence could have been constructed better ). Beyond that, both sides have actually offered compromise positions. They simply have not arrived at a compromise (yet) that both sides can live with. Pelosi and Schumer are falling into the same trap Trump fell into: taking such a hard stance against a position that they have left themselves no way out without appearing to "cave."

[firstfloor]

Are you trying to compete with Tassy for Drama Queen of Tweb?

The ever readable Tassman is a great contributor to Tweb; Tweb Royalty indeed, a bit like your goodself.
Please keep listening to Rachel; while she saves America.

[Cow Poke]

The ever readable Tassman is a great contributor to Tweb; Tweb Royalty indeed, a bit like your goodself.
Please keep listening to Rachel; while she saves America.

You did make me laugh, ff. Bless your heart.

[carpedm9587]

wow

I'll get back to this later.

maybe

Don't worry - it was a badly proofed post. "Mans?" "Rapid?"

Sheesh...I need to write less and proof more.

[Cow Poke]

Don't worry - it was a badly proofed post. "Mans?" "Rapid?"

Sheesh...I need to write less and proof more.

It's that verbosity thing!


(kidding)



(kinda)

[carpedm9587]

It's that verbosity thing!

(kidding)

(kinda)

No you're not...

...and it's fine. When you're right, you're right.


But boy - when you're wrong... you are really wrong...

[JimL]

I think the emphasized part needs a bit more qualification. The Dems (i.e., Pelosi) are indeed refusing to budge on the wall part of the discussion. Personally, I think that is a mistake. I am not in favor of Trump's broad, undetailed, useless "700-900 miles of additional concrete border." I AM in favor of a data/fact-based deployment of barriers in strategic locations. An absolute "no walls" position is preposterous and is as much Pelosi and Schumer playing to their base as Trump's "big beautiful wall" is playing to his base (OK - that sentence could have been constructed better ). Beyond that, both sides have actually offered compromise positions. They simply have not arrived at a compromise (yet) that both sides can live with. Pelosi and Schumer are falling into the same trap Trump fell into: taking such a hard stance against a position that they have left themselves no way out without appearing to "cave."

The Democratic compromise is more funding for border security, which includes some monies for shoring up some existing wall, but not a penny for Trumps wall which was to be paid for by Mexico. It's called democracy, the democrats have the numbers, they have the majority of the american people on their side of the issue as well, so why on earth would they cede their position to Trump just so that he could pretend to have fulfilled a campaign promise. Btw, Trump had majorities in both the House and the Senate for 2 years and didn't get his wall, nor could he pass his repeal and replace Obamacare, another of his campaign promises which he said would be so easy to do. Conservative/Republicans must be getting so tired of winning!

[carpedm9587]

The Democratic compromise is more funding for border security, which includes some monies for shoring up some existing wall, but not a penny for Trumps wall which was to be paid for by Mexico. It's called democracy, the democrats have the numbers, they have the majority of the american people on their side of the issue as well, so why on earth would they cede their position to Trump just so that he could pretend to have fulfilled a campaign promise. Btw, Trump had majorities in both the House and the Senate for 2 years and didn't get his wall, nor could he pass his repeal and replace Obamacare, another of his campaign promises which he said would be so easy to do. Conservative/Republicans must be getting so tired of winning!

So - my response is "because it's the right thing to do." Where there is a significant incidence of border crossing, a barrier can be an effective first-line of defense. It does not eliminate the entire problem - and it needs to be done based on hard data. It should be done for valid reasons - and not trumped up ones (very old pun intended). It also eliminates ANY valid claim by those on the right that the Dems are purely obstructionists out to defeat anything Trump wants simply because Trump wants it.

Leaders should lead - not mindlessly follow the callings of their "base." If the Dems do the latter, they are no better or worse than Trump (in that regard).

[JimL]

So - my response is "because it's the right thing to do." Where there is a significant incidence of border crossing, a barrier can be an effective first-line of defense.

According to who? People disagree with that assessment and that other security measures wouldn't do a better job at a lesser cost. That is the Dems position. They are also providing monies for shoring up existing walls, but what they aren't willing to fund are new walls wherever Trump decides he want to build them.

It does not eliminate the entire problem - and it needs to be done based on hard data.

Well, Trump and the republicans should have provided hard data in support of their wall over other security measures, but they haven't, and the dems disagree with a border length wall.

It should be done for valid reasons - and not trumped up ones (very old pun intended). It also eliminates ANY valid claim by those on the right that the Dems are purely obstructionists out to defeat anything Trump wants simply because Trump wants it.

That's if they have valid reasons, which they don't.

Leaders should lead - not mindlessly follow the callings of their "base." If the Dems do the latter, they are no better or worse than Trump (in that regard).

I agree, but just because the majority of people agree with the dems, doesn't mean that they are mindlessly following them.

[carpedm9587]

According to who?

According to the data from the locations were walls/fences have been put up - including California, Arizona, Isreal, etc. The incidence of border crossing, across the board, drops when there is a physical barrier. The reasons would seem too me to be rather obvious. Note that I said "drop" - not "stop."

People disagree with that assessment and that other security measures wouldn't do a better job at a lesser cost.

They can disagree with that observation if they wish, but it is based on demonstrable facts. Other security measures can also be instrumental in reducing border incursions, and a wall by itself will not do the deed. As for "at a lesser cost," I would like to see hard data that establishes that as a fact. I know it is a common Dem talking point - but so far I have seen as little data from them as I have seen from Trump.

That is the Dems position.

Yes- I know.

They are also providing monies for shoring up existing walls, but what they aren't willing to fund are new walls wherever Trump decides he want to build them.

I have emphasized the part of the sentence that has my agreement - but that does not mean I do not support walls where the data indicates they would provide a strategic and tactical benefit.

Well, Trump and the republicans should have provided hard data in support of their wall over other security measures, but they haven't, and the dems disagree with a border length wall.

Yes- the Republicans should have. However, the proposed wall has never, as best I can tell, been suggested to be "border-length." At most, Trump has asked for 700-900 miles of new wall. 650 miles currently has a "wall" - of which over 300 miles is an obstacle to vehicle incursion and can easily be stepped over. That leaves 450-650 milles of border that Trump never intended to wall.

Don't get me wrong - I still think 700-900 miles without any data to substantiate the need is ridiculous. But "border-length" is simply not true.

That's if they have valid reasons, which they don't.

I agree that Trump and Republicans have greatly exaggerated to danger to make political hay. They've done the same thing with voter fraud, and immigration in general. It's not one of their prouder moments. But the Dems aren't innocent either.

I agree, but just because the majority of people agree with the dems, doesn't mean that they are mindlessly following them.

So far, I'm not seeing a lot of data-based justification from the Dems - anymore than I am seeing it from the Reps. I see a lot of platitudes and politically motivated speech. If the data aligns with what the masses want - then you are not "following the masses." But if you are aligned with the masses in the absence of data - one has to wonder what motivation might be present other than "appealing to the base."