Can he Govern?

[Doom]

.these are all things Republicans largely agree on. It shouldn't be hard

So, you're saying that all we need is for Republicans to say they agree on something, and it'll be done?

Ask every Republican, and most Democrats, that the national debt is insane and we should not have it so high, starting with RONALD REAGAN. Every single one will resonate with agreement that spending needs to be put under control.

I take it you are aware the national debt is quite high now? Despite all that verbally given "agreement."

I could go on with just about every policy regarding US wars and entitlements and yet we still have problems there.

If this is your standard of why Trump is not a good governor, I cede the point...but every President we've had since 1980 or so (and probably quite a bit earlier) has been just as bad, so there's that.

and I think if a more competent Republican were in office, at least two of those would have been achieved.

And I appreciate you have an opinion here, I'm just trying to modify it a little. Trump is no Republican, he just showed himself to be better than anything the Republicans could put forward as a candidate. That's what gave him the Republican nomination.

What gave him the presidency was he had one very important quality: "Not Hillary Clinton." As long as he can maintain that quality, he'll have some support, but it won't be with Democrats, and it won't be with Republicans (keep in mind, the Bush crime family spoke in open support of Hillary..."a bit" of an outsider, indeed...). His support will be with the people who are tired of being played for suckers by the faux "2 party" system that's been looting this country for decades now.

But these people could only vote, and don't have the reigns of power.

[Doom]

Sure. You just cited this:

"CNN admitting on camera that the Trump/Russia story is bullshit".

The link was to a Trump supporter ranting to the camera about CNN. If you can't tell the difference, then you are a fool.

Uh, there is video evidence in that link. Watch it with your own eyes.

Seriously, lift up your eyelids, take your fingers out of your ears, stop shouting "la la la la" and pay attention. If you don't have the 5 minute attention span to see with your own eyes, well, that speaks for itself:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcprZ26qhvQ
 
Sure, this particular host is hostile to the Leftist Hate media, but it's a short video. I guess I could give more sources, but I know the drill: every source gets attacked, and if I provide a mountain of evidence, I'll be called names. So, watch or not...but you've been openly called out all the same.

[Doom]

Doom you really, really, really need to step outside of whatever echo chamber your in if this is your argument. This is sophistry. The Republicans clearly, demonstrably have a majority. Saying they don't, because you think they aren't real republicans is just nonsense. Pure, complete, nonsense.

I'm sorry you disagree, but I've pointed out the multiple cognitive disconnects necessary for you to have that opinion. Not much more I can do than that. Do note that other people in this thread have tried to help you with your misconception.

Please, I encourage you to open up your exposure to other points of view, to *think* about things a bit. I'm trying to help you by assisting you in getting a coherent point of view...and you're insulting me with "echo chamber" allegations.

Please, consider whether logic and reason, or insults, is the better way to resolve an issue.

[-E.]

For example, what? You've kinda checkmated yourself with this one. If it's basic Republican stuff as you say, and he has Republicans voting his way because he's the president as you say, then these things you allege should have happened. Cognitive disconnect much?

It's not cognitive disconnect -- you don't appear to understand the role the President is supposed to play in driving legislation.

A big part of the President's job is to lead the party -- even when everyone agrees generally, there's work to do and compromises to be made on the specifics. The President needs to have an informed point of view that congressmen can align around and explain to their constituents. When the President isn't able to do that, it doesn't give Congress a lot of cover to make the kinds of compromises required for governance.

A good example of this is the astonishing health-care debacle.

It's true, a lot conservatives were (and remain) confused about what happened with health care. They had been told by their media that Obamacare was a nightmare, that it was failing, that no one wanted it, and that all they needed to do was vote in a bunch of Republicans and a Republican president, and the Nightmare of Obamacare would be repealed and replaced by "something better."

The problem is, this view of reality isn't true.

For one thing, it turns out that a lot of people (including Republicans) rely on Obamacare. And while it can be killed through neglect, it's not-failing enough that Republicans representing broad districts are willing to replace it with nothing. This created an unexpected (and, to the base, unexplained) problem with getting a majority of Republicans to support it.

Worse, the Republican party can't agree on what to replace it with. Parts of Obamacare are very popular, but cost a lot of money. If you're from the fiscal conservative wing, you don't want to cover a ton of people at a low cost. If you're from the more populist wing, or represent people who would suffer (and vote your ass out) if you took away their pre-condition rules, you want/need to spend that money.

And that kind of uncertainty plays hell with the markets, so if you're invested any any funds that include the big health insurers, you don't want a half-assed repeal-and-replace... eventually bill that will create so much uncertainty your stocks might tank.

So the problem isn't that the Republicans aren't generally agreed they want to remove Obama's signature achievement -- the problem is that it's hard to come up with something better and the absolute lack of vision or leadership from the White House more or less ensured that the folks fumbling around on the floor weren't likely to come up with something.

(Also, Obamacare was largely based on Republican plans from guys like Romney and '94 house; Obama took the good ideas they had, leaving them with not much else, it seems).

Trump's manifest inability to lead our party into some kind of compromise is exactly the sort of thing that raises the question, "can he govern" and creates uncertainty and worry about upcoming issues where compromise may be needed (like the Debt Ceiling).

And it's a failure of Republican messaging because a lot of people (including people here, apparently) pretty confused by what didn't happen. If all you're told is that Obamacare is a horrible blight upon the land and no one wants it, and you're an unsophisticated consumer of political news (apparently a LOT of Republicans) it becomes hard to parse what's going on in Washington and why.

Cheers,
-E.

[Ulairi]

Trump cannot govern because he has no interest in governing or the political process. He's an arrogant sad little man that only cares about settling scores. Good thing for him that a lot of Republicans really only care about pissing off Democrats and not actually passing any sort of conservative agenda. Trump has spent more time watching political talk shows than actually trying to pass legislation. He doesn't try to build consensus amongst the party and when he is out of office most of what he done can be replaced by more executive orders. He's shaping up to be a failure of a President because next year is an election year and then in 2019, it's time to run for reelection all over again.

He's got 4 months to get something done and it won't happen.

The reason why the Republicans don't have a replacement ready for Obamacare is that when Trump won the primary they didn't think he'd win so there was nothing written.

Everything Trump has accomplished would have been done under a Rubio, Cruz, or Bush administration but they'd actually be able to get more things done because they aren't as incompetent as Cheeto Jesus is. Bush Jr had major tax cuts passed during the summer of his first year and was on his way to passing No Child Left Behind, in addition to the Medicare expansion. That was with two wars during his first term.

What is Trump nearing passing? NOTHING. No tax reform. No immigration reform. No wall. Nothing. He was elected to piss off Democrats. Congrats! You are pissing off Democrats and destroying the Republican party in the process. Which was the goal according to Steve Bannon and the knuckle dragging mouth breathing racists that work at Reichbart.

If you still support Cheeto Jesus at this point you are either stupid or an awful person. He has no redeeming qualities to offer a so called "conservative". He is the chief of the white grievance party.  You cannot support Trump and call yourself a conservative. It is not possible. He is everything you ever said Obama was or Clinton was and much worse. He's arrogant, all about himself, not interested in the details of getting things done, morally indefensible, and much more.

Again: If you still support this baffoon you are either stupid or a terrible person.

The only thing that scares me more than Trump is that the Democrats are doing everything in their power to get him reelected.

Trump and his enablers are awful people. He is an awful person. His true believers are awful people. I'm glad he's swindling these people. The media that enabled him and the party that turned a blind eye to all the racists and other rodents that moved into the party. Fuck Trump and fuck the GOP. I don't understand why anybody would want to be associated with the likes of Trump, Riechbart, Hannity, and all the other awful people.

If the polling didn't say that Hillary was up by 9% in Wisconsin I would have voted for her. It's going to be really hard to get me not to vote for any warm body the Democrats put up in 2020. Hopefully he's out of office before then.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I'm sorry you disagree, but I've pointed out the cognitive disconnect necessary for you to have that opinion. Not much more I can do than that.

Please, I encourage you to open up your exposure to other points of view, to *think* about things a bit. I'm trying to help you by assisting you in getting a coherent point of view...and you're insulting me with "echo chamber" allegations.

Please, consider whether logic and reason, or insults, is the better way to resolve an issue.

Doom, I look at all kinds of media these days (including conservative media and including things you post). I am definitely further to the left than you. But I find I am generally not as surprised by things as much as most other people on my side of the fence because I do keep abreast of what the right is saying. But I think anyone who can't recognize some pretty obvious shortcomings in Trump's leadership is having a much harder time than me being open minded.

[DocJones]

And he got caught staring directly at the sun.

And then the sun blinked out.

[Bedrockbrendan]

So, you're saying that all we need is for Republicans to say they agree on something, and it'll be done?

.

Of course not. But it is generally the case that when you have a party in power and the president belongs to that party, you should be able to get things done. It is a lot easier to showcase their leadership skills in that situation than if say, Trump controlled the presidency but the democrats controlled congress. The conditions are about as good as they can get for an executive in office. If he can't win in those conditions....he probably isn't good at governing.

[TrippyHippy]

Uh, there is video evidence in that link. Watch it with your own eyes.

Seriously, lift up your eyelids, take your fingers out of your ears, stop shouting "la la la la" and pay attention. If you don't have the 5 minute attention span to see with your own eyes, well, that speaks for itself:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcprZ26qhvQ
 
Sure, this particular host is hostile to the Leftist Hate media, but it's a short video. I guess I could give more sources, but I know the drill: every source gets attacked, and if I provide a mountain of evidence, I'll be called names. So, watch or not...but you've been openly called out all the same.

Yeah, trying to explain the difference between primary and secondary evidence is what you might do in a Primary school. Again, if you cannot tell the difference, then you are a fool. It's selective to an extreme and predetermined in it's analysis. Your second link is yet another guy talking over the top of coverage with his own loudmouth opinion, again. You are living in a bubble.

[Ulairi]

Of course not. But it is generally the case that when you have a party in power and the president belongs to that party, you should be able to get things done. It is a lot easier to showcase their leadership skills in that situation than if say, Trump controlled the presidency but the democrats controlled congress. The conditions are about as good as they can get for an executive in office. If he can't win in those conditions....he probably isn't good at governing.

Even compared to Obama in 2008-2010 when he had majorities in government, including 59 Democrats, and he still had to horse trade with members of his own party.

Trump isn't interested in that. It's how governing is done and he won't do it.

[Lynn]

He ran as a republican. Granted he ran as a very unconventional republican (and a lot of people pegged him as a democrat). A lot of the issues he wants to get through, shouldn't be hard with republican majorities. It may involve some compromise on his part, he might not get everything he wants, but he has to deal with the political reality that he exists within and he should be able to manage something. That is part of governing.

He isn't a Republican in belief or practice, even though he got on the ticket.

The system as it is gives significant advantages to Democrat and Republican campaigns, and both parties like it that way. Would be candidates that want to win therefore join one of the two parties. He ran as a Republican because the party is small enough to be steamrolled.  There are way, way too many different types of cats-in-a-bag in the Democratic Party for that to happen in a similar way, and many  are there for one of two reasons:

- They don't want to be in a party destined to lose, like Libertarians or the Green Party or creating some new party that fits their platform, because they want a chance to win
- They dislike the Republican party worse or, there's no common ground there possible

The Democratic Party did more to elect Trump than the Republican Party because of in-fighting and corrupt practices that became too painfully apparent during Hillary vs Bernie. Those disillusioned Bernie voters didn't really turn out for Hillary - are they really members of the Democratic Party? And try as they might, the Obama crowd didn't seem very enthusiastic either, though some got over it.

Too bad they didn't think ahead on that one, but it is a typical sort of miscalculation that comes from believing one is on the side of right, and how can people not vote for the side or right?

[Doom]

Of course not. But it is generally the case that when you have a party in power and the president belongs to that party, you should be able to get things done. It is a lot easier to showcase their leadership skills in that situation than if say, Trump controlled the presidency but the democrats controlled congress. The conditions are about as good as they can get for an executive in office. If he can't win in those conditions....he probably isn't good at governing.

And now we add Lynn to the chorus of people trying to fix your misconception.

Granted, a chorus does not determine truth, but the sad fact is Trump only nominally belongs to that party as factually demonstrated (cf McCain, Wikileaks, etc), so you can't come to a legitimate conclusion from the false assumption of him having party support. We empirically know that simply having a party agree they want something ("no more deficits!") does not let that thing happen. Logic and empirical facts are relevant, but I concede that's just an opinion by me.

That said, I agree with you, by your latter standard, Trump is not good at governing, but every president in my lifetime is also not good at governing by this standard.

[Doom]

Yeah, trying to explain the difference between primary and secondary evidence is what you might do in a Primary school. Again, if you cannot tell the difference, then you are a fool. It's selective to an extreme and predetermined in it's analysis. Your second link is yet another guy talking over the top of coverage with his own loudmouth opinion, again. You are living in a bubble.

But...you're in my bubble?

In any event, the announcer of the video is irrelevant: anyone can see with their own eyes videos of CNN employees acknowledging the Trump/Russia collusion story is bullshit...and CNN (among many others) still pushes it all the same.

Now, I don't want to let Trippster derail the thread, so let's finish up here: absolutely, feel free to investigate the Trump/Russia collusion story, but the Left Hate media has fallen for what, half a dozen hoaxes now, wildly inflating the most ridiculously infinitesimal "link"...and they're still falling for it because their hate won't let them think straight.

On this alone, it's fair to question if the reason we only heard bad things about Trump is because Trump only does bad things.

[TrippyHippy]

But...you're in my bubble?

In any event, the announcer of the video is irrelevant: anyone can see with their own eyes videos of CNN employees acknowledging the Trump/Russia collusion story is bullshit...and CNN (among many others) still pushes it all the same.

You are in a bubble because you are selecting what you want to see, and who you want to listen to as some sort of irrefutable 'evidence'. The sources you cite, and the stance you take from them, prove it.

[jeff37923]

In any event, the announcer of the video is irrelevant: anyone can see with their own eyes videos of CNN employees acknowledging the Trump/Russia collusion story is bullshit...and CNN (among many others) still pushes it all the same.

I thought that CNN was starting to pivot back to "Trump is a racist!" since the Russian collusion story is not being paid attention to anymore.