Is Donald Trump Done for?

[rah]

Ah that must be it. I have never been on twitter or reddit. I was a Republican and a lot of my friends still are. But yes, anecdotal.

 

[Takhisis]

I found that to be especially alarming but it completely flew under the radar due to absurd volume of flak Trump & Co put in the air daily.

Yes, despots tend to do that. They flood the news so you cannot keep up with all their evil at once. It's too tiring and you have to live a life, work a job, study, clean the bathroom right there behind the sink where smelly mold tends to gather, raise children, take care of elderly relatives, play videogames or other hobbies, shop for groceries, sleep, go to the cinema, remember to close the windows 'cos it might rain tonight, etc. etc. etc. Rulers have a lot of people do all that stuff for them while they lift a finger and gi9ve a few orders and boom, down we commoners go.

So, for a new example of that: Faux News is considering the government shutdown a Trump v. Democrats thing (it's their actual headline and crawl).
See who's not mentioned, ever? The GOP/RNC.
If the Democrats win, it's Trump's fault.
If Trump wins, yay! and then they can later disown him safely when Mueller has him by the shorts.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Won't that just vindicate everything Trump stands for though? Bullying people who can't fight back, throwing a huge tantrum if that doesn't work and then claiming that you are a great deal-maker because half the government is literally prepared to let thousands die just to get your spoiled arse your white elephant?

For me, this is exactly why Dem's can't cave. It would validate Trump on many levels: that there's some value in the wall idea, that he's a great negotiator, that holding people's livelihoods hostage is acceptable. And if you validate that even one single time, he will use it against you every time. This is the time to take the stand. This is the hill to die on. In polls, the majority are blaming him. You have the video of him owning the shutdown, the promises that Mexico would pay for it. You've really got the high ground on this. And there's one more reason that this is the time to take an unwavering stand. Here's a little essaylet, I've started working on:

Spoiler :

The government has been shut down over Trump’s demand for five billion dollars to start on a wall. He’s dug in. Democrats seem pretty dug in as well. There’s a way in which it was all coming to this. He made this as a campaign promise. It was silly, but it became the centerpiece of his campaign. He wasn’t really serious about it. Or rather he was only as serious as he was about any of his positions. They were all fantasies, what-ifs, wouldn’t-it-be-cools, ya-wanna-know-what-we-oughta-dos. At some point, those were going to come up against a reality, here funding—actually spending actual people’s money for this never-fully-serious proposition. The promissory note that he issued with this campaign pledge now needs either to be paid or to bounce. He can’t sustain the fantasy any longer, as merely a fantasy. A real wall is something that either does or does not actually exist. There is actually a wall in a place or there is not a wall in that place. It can’t be the fantasy of a wall, the promise of a wall, the wouldn’t-it-be-cool-if-there-was-a wall—it can’t stay in that hypothetical mode forever. As we move toward the 2020 campaigning season, he will either have begun building a wall or he won’t have begun building a wall. He’d like nothing so much as having begun to build a wall, because then he could run on completing the wall. (Don’t change horses in mid wall.) He won’t be able to run on “no, really, we should build a wall this time.” It’s not just that Democrats want to deny him his signature “policy initiative,” though they should be happy to deny him that; they should gleefully deny him that. It’s that this is the moment for fantasy to meet reality. If Democrats cave, and give him any significant money toward a wall, for any reason whatsoever, with any return whatsoever, it will mean that he can continue to spin his fantasy, he can continue to keep people believing in the promise of this wall. They have to deny him this wall, and they ought to do so in these terms: “We are not putting real taxpayer money toward your fantasy of having a wall. Your idea of a wall across the Mexican border is a fantasy. We are not funding that.”

Part of what I’m trying to get at is the previous two years. At no time in the previous two years did Trump very vigorously press the Republican congress to give him money for the wall—not to the point of a government shutdown. He made at most feeble gestures. He, on some level, waited for this moment. On one hand for the simple reason that now the Democrats can be cast as the enemies, the opposition, a hostile WWE opponent irrationally, spitefully denying him a modest budgetary request. But beyond that, he actually on some level craves this moment where he could get fantasy to prevail over reality. If Democrats give any money at all, it will function as a sign that fantasy can drive reality, that if you push a what-if unstintingly enough, petulantly enough, temper-tantrumly enough, it can actually drive real things in the real world. And that’s the victory he wants: the triumph of the unreal over the real, alternative facts over facts. It’s his deepest “political” commitment, because if it prevails, it means unchecked power: the power to define reality through one’s own it-oughta-be-like-this. There was something authentic in his meeting with Schumer and Pelosi, when he said he would proudly own the shutdown. He is ready for this showdown. He thinks other people will cave because he knows in his heart how badly he needs this to go his way, so he knows he’s not going to cave.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Takhisis
Yup. McConnell is trying his best to sit this out and pretend he has no role in it.

Edit:
Also there have been a smattering of reports that he is considering using DoD funds and the army corp of engineers to build it and bypass Congress.

 

[FriendlyFire]

@Takhisis
Also there have been a smattering of reports that he is considering using DoD funds and the army corp of engineers to build it and bypass Congress.

US army Corp is already under a mountain of flood / hurricane / storm protection work and not enough funds to complete even a fraction of whats is requested.
This is why you need people like Mattis to keep a check on the ****** Moron.
Actually you know what, Deploreables can just urinate on the electrical fence

 

[FriendlyFire]

Heaven forbid that a politician breaks a campaign promise.

Theres campaign promise and then there is lying to start a botch invasion in the middle east.
The funny thing is that suckers elected G.W.Bush Twice and now Trump.

So now you get to experience a governing by gaslighting

 

[Zelig]

But at the end of the day hundreds of thousands of people are not getting paid or worse (like TSA staff), they have to work and they don't get paid.

I'm pretty sure forced labour isn't legal in the US.

 

[Hrothbern]

At no time in the previous two years did Trump very vigorously press the Republican congress to give him money for the wall—not to the point of a government shutdown. He made at most feeble gestures

yeah
I had that lingering thought during those two years. During that time the "why now" or "why not now" question.
But I related it to his NAFTA bullying/negotiating (still not completely finished), to have a threat (pay me) on Mexico he could ignite at will.

And very possible he saved up this ammo on the wall (as well) in case the Dems would get the House. Enough options to use it somehow.
He can campaign again these two years before 2020 with the wall, just like in 2016.
"Let me finish my job... let's build the wall !"

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, in politics what appears to be matters as much, perhaps more, than what is. This way he looks like he's trying to fulfill one of his central campaign promises. Could he have been devious enough to have postponed deliberately? I don't know, interesting question.

 

[Berzerker]

Pelosi called the wall an immorality. Does that mean she supports open borders or does she think fences and border patrol stopping people sneaking is immoral too?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Pelosi called the wall an immorality. Does that mean she supports open borders or does she think fences and border patrol stopping people sneaking is immoral too?

This is a false choice you're presenting. Its not an either-or ("border security" or "open borders"). That whole paradigm is a red herring.

When most people say its "immoral", they are talking about what they perceive to be the real motivation for folks wanting the wall rather than the stated reason of "border security". Obviously a wall is an inanimate object that doesn't have any "morals". What people consider immoral is more about the reasoning/motivation behind folks calling for the wall. So the choice for them isn't between "border security" and "open borders"... It's between creating a national monument to ethnic/racial prejudice/animosity and xenophobia, versus not building that monument/symbol.

"The Wall" is essentially the Anti-Statue-of-Liberty... with the latter symbolizing welcome, inclusiveness, hope, courage, trust, freedom... while the former symbolizes unwelcome, exclusion, restriction, fear, suspicion, prejudice ...The message that such a monument sends, along with the motivation/ideology of folks who want to build such a thing is what they view as immoral.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Most people don't cross the desert and rivers to get in.

They arrive with visas at airports and never leave.

The wall is pointless and @Sommerswerd is correct in calling it a monument in my opinion. I also concur the point of the monument is essentially racism - just like the previous runner-up trophies people erected all over the south 70-100 years after the confederecy burned.

The Democrats are offering up over a billion in border security funds - the wall itself is pointless. I personally do not support giving even that money to this issue but I don't think it is worth shutting the government down over.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Most people don't cross the desert and rivers to get in.

They arrive with visas at airports and never leave.

The wall is pointless and @Sommerswerd is correct in calling it a monument in my opinion. I also concur the point of the monument is essentially racism - just like the previous runner-up trophies people erected all over the south 70-100 years after the confederecy burned.

The Democrats are offering up over a billion in border security funds - the wall itself is pointless. I personally do not support giving even that money to this issue but I don't think it is worth shutting the government down over.

I wish the Democrats would have the courage to adopt the slogan "Not One Dime!" and begin taking the position that they will not agree to do anything but a continuing resolution to fund the government with border security funding at current levels and not a dime more. @Gori the Grey is right that if there was ever a hill to die on... its this one. Besides all the reasons Gori already gave... we should not be building monuments to racial/ethnic prejudice, we should be tearing them down.

 

[Berzerker]

This is a false choice you're presenting. Its not an either-or ("border security" or "open borders"). That whole paradigm is a red herring.

When most people say its "immoral", they are talking about what they perceive to be the real motivation for folks wanting the wall rather than the stated reason of "border security".

It's between creating a national monument to ethnic/racial prejudice/animosity and xenophobia, versus not building that monument/symbol. "The Wall" is essentially the anti-Statue-of-Liberty, and the message that such a monument sends, along with the motivation/ideology of folks who want to build such a thing is what they view as immoral.

Controlling immigration and stopping drugs is the motivation. Was it immoral to place fences and armed guards on the border to stop people? I think a wall would be more benign than people with guns.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Was it immoral to place fences and armed guards on the border to stop people? I

Yes. There are better ways to tackle this issue than armed force. If anything, closed borders have increased concentration of migrants by raising the cost of migration so high that circular migration broke down.

People crossed the border once and instead of going home at the end of the working season as they always had, they put down permanent roots and pulled in their families. They could not risk crossing again.

And of course this presupposes you think permanent or cicrular migration are bad things which must be controlled to begin with. I don't agree with that premise but you can still see this approach is retrograde to achieving that goal if you do.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

People are still discussing the wall seriously? It's literally bread and circus for our rednecks.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Controlling immigration and stopping drugs is the motivation.

No its not. The motivation is prejudice against Central and South Americans and sending a message to them that they are not welcome in this country. "The Wall" isn't going to "stop" or "control" anything and that's not the true purpose/motivation for it. The real purpose for wanting The Wall is to tell Hispanics/non-whites that you (the royal you) don't want them here, and that message is immoral. You (the royal you) can keep saying that the motivation is "border security" and we (the royal we) will keep saying that we don't believe you... you're lying about your motivation, either consciously to hide your racially prejudiced sentiments, or subconsciously, to yourself, because you've convinced yourselves that you're not "racist" despite harboring racial animosities that you've normalized behind subterfuge like "preserving our culture" and other dogwhistles. Either way... the claim that "The Wall" is for "border security" isn't the least bit credible. Its a lie. You (the royal you) can say "Nuh uh" as many times as you want and we (the royal we) will keep saying "Yeah huh".

Was it immoral to place fences and armed guards on the border to stop people? I think a wall would be more benign than people with guns.

Again, this is an irrelevant red herring. "The Wall" is an Anti-Statue-of-Liberty... a monument symbolizing unwelcome, exclusion, restriction, fear, suspicion, prejudice ...The message that such a monument sends, is immoral.

 

[Gori the Grey]

My essaylet morphed/blossomed into a letter to Pelosi and Schumer

Spoiler spoilered for length :

Please do not agree to give Donald Trump one penny of American taxpayers’ dollars to start building a wall across the Mexican border. There is much more at stake than simply the waste of taxpayer money.

There is a perspective I would like to offer you on these negotiations. You are right in the thick of them, whereas I have the advantage of being a detached observer.

There is much more at stake in this negotiation than whether the tax dollars of American citizens will be wasted on a wall that will make our country no more secure and will offend our southern neighbor (important as those considerations are). Donald Trump knows in his bones this deeper thing that is at stake, and you need to bear it constantly in mind as well.

What is at stake is the same thing that Trump has put in question in a myriad of ways throughout his presidency: which will prevail, reality or his reality, facts or alternative facts.

This is not a policy debate; this is a brute contest of wills.

Donald Trump doesn’t want the wall. He wants you to be seen capitulating to give him the wall. He wants someone who has publicly opposed the wall to give it to him anyway. Because if he can get that, in any measure and by any means, it will establish a larger and much more consequential point: that the reality of our governmental system will bend to his mere caprice, as long as he maintains his whims forcefully enough or long enough.

Donald Trump doesn’t believe in the wall. He himself knows the wall is useless. In fact, it is only by getting you to capitulate to something that everyone knows is useless that he can establish the more important point: namely, that he can force you to his will. If it were a serious policy proposal, you could present yourself as having eventually been persuaded to it by good arguments on its behalf. Rather, for it to work the way he wants, the argument has to be over something that everybody knows is an utter fantasy; getting a victory in such a struggle establishes the much more important, broader (and more dangerous) precedent that reality will bend to his caprice.

He took no real interest in getting the wall funded during the first two years of his presidency. That is one sign that he doesn’t really care about the wall. More importantly, it is a sign of what is at stake in this crisis he has manufactured. Getting the funding in the past two years, it would have been nothing more than a waste of money; it would have made no great show of domination to get Republicans to waste money on his behalf. It is only against an opponent with an expressly stated opposition to the proposal that it can function as a brute contest of wills.

Don’t regard his “proudly claiming the mantle of the shutdown” as a strategic misstep (though you can use the video of that against him). It’s an actual indicator of how much, and what, is at stake for him in this struggle. Don’t think he was only egged on to this by right-wing media personalities. He wants this fight. I’m not saying he sought out this fight in particular, but now that he’s in it, he knows just what kind of fight he’s in and he relishes that kind of fight. Don’t think he’s looking for some face-saving exit. He is looking to dominate you, and to be seen as having dominated you. And there is nothing he won’t sacrifice to get that win. Nothing. Because anything and everything follows from such a win, and a loss here is utter defeat for him.

You must not engage this struggle as the sort of public policy negotiation you have conducted during your career as a public servant: this for that, let’s see if we can find a compromise. Trump counts on you to mistake it for such a negotiation. The wall is not a serious proposal. It has never been advanced as such. No case, with evidence, has ever been made that it would achieve anything at all. Don’t mistake this for a policy debate; don’t engage it as such. It’s not that he’s a Republican who thinks something is a good idea whereas you, being a Democrat, disagree. Rather, he’s seeking to get you to publicly knuckle under to an idea that both you and he and everyone knows is a lousy idea.

It is a contest of wills and nothing more.

He knows that his whole presidency, and any chance of reelection, rests on his being seen to have won this contest of wills. His supporters adore this force of will in him, and there is a segment of the American population that will respect it in him even if they regard him poorly overall. Force of will is a characteristic in a political leader that resonates strongly with many citizens, independent of policy positions.

He has several significant advantages on you. He doesn’t care about the federal government operating. He doesn’t care about whether federal workers receive their paychecks or not. He thrives in chaotic situations, whereas most of us are anxious to return matters to a more stable condition—and will make concessions to achieve that. In fact, his main negotiating strategy is to make a situation chaotic so that the other side will make concessions simply to return to a state of neutrality. That is what he has done here. He is counting on you to grow anxious about the shutdown before he does—and he never will.

But here’s why this really, really matters. Trump, as all serious observers have seen, is a would-be despot. The despot works by imposing a false reality, his own favored reality, on the citizenry: “Reality is what I say it is.” Trump knows that that is what is at stake for him in this struggle. If you let this fantasy of a wall prevail over the reality of real Americans’ real tax dollars, get ready for much more of this from him, including, for example, a serious claim of voter fraud after the 2020 election goes to a Democrat.

The good news? If you stand up to him this one time, if you win this contest of wills as a contest of wills this single time, you will take all the wind out of his sails forever. Like the parent who unequivocally, without the shadow of a qualm, stands up to the tantrum-throwing child—lets that tantrum go on as long as it might and still says no. His fervent followers won’t say it, and outwardly they’ll find ways to deny it, but in their hearts they’ll know he’s a loser. Because they watched him lose. And he will know that he can’t beat you and will spend the remainder of his term looking for every way to avoid a fight. So you just have to win this once. But you have to win it as a contest of wills, and not as a political negotiation, where your side came out a smidge ahead.

You have to deal him a humiliating loss. No quarter. No fig leaf. None. I suspect that kind of thinking does not come easily to you; you seem like fundamentally decent people, disinclined to gloat over an opponent’s defeat. But America needs you to summon up that kind of fire this one time. There’s the video of him owning the shutdown, the videos of him claiming that Mexico would pay, and polls are on your side (though you have to stay strong if they swing), so you have the higher ground.

At the very least, be crystal clear that what is happening here is a brute contest of wills and not a public policy debate of the sort with which you are accustomed. With him, use language like “The Constitution gives us the ‘power of the purse’ and we are going to use that power on behalf of the American taxpayer.” Use power language. Make it nakedly a power-struggle, so that he sees that you understand it as such.

With the public: “A wall was always a fantasy. The thought that Mexico was going to pay for a wall was a bigger fantasy. And the thought that Americans are going to pay for a wall, with Democrats in charge of the power of the purse, is the biggest fantasy of all.” (You have to use some of his own verbally repetitive style of rhetoric against him.) (Use “a” not “the”; “the” gives it a feeling of actual existence rather than hypothetical existence)

 

[Sommerswerd]

My essaylet morphed into a letter to Pelosi and Schumer

Spoiler spoilered for length :

Please do not agree to give Donald Trump one penny of American taxpayers’ dollars to start building a wall across the Mexican border. There is much more at stake than simply the waste of taxpayer money.


There is a perspective I would like to offer you on these negotiations. You are right in the thick of them, whereas I have the advantage of being a detached observer.


There is much more at stake in this negotiation than whether the tax dollars of American citizens will be wasted on a wall that will make our country no more secure and will offend our southern neighbor (important as those considerations are). Donald Trump knows in his bones this deeper thing that is at stake, and you need to bear it constantly in mind as well.


What is at stake is the same thing that Trump has put in question in a myriad of ways throughout his presidency: which will prevail, reality or his reality, facts or alternative facts.


This is not a policy debate; this is a brute contest of wills.


Donald Trump doesn’t want the wall. He wants you to be seen capitulating to give him the wall. He wants someone who has publicly opposed the wall to give it to him anyway. Because if he can get that, in any measure and by any means, it will establish a larger and much more consequential point: that the reality of our governmental system will bend to his mere caprice, as long as he maintains his whims forcefully enough or long enough.


Donald Trump doesn’t believe in the wall. He himself knows the wall is useless. In fact, it is only by getting you to capitulate to something that everyone knows is useless that he can establish the more important point: namely, that he can force you to his will. If it were a serious policy proposal, you could present yourself as having eventually been persuaded to it by good arguments on its behalf. Rather, for it to work the way he wants, the argument has to be over something that everybody knows is an utter fantasy; getting a victory in such a struggle establishes the much more important, broader (and more dangerous) precedent that reality will bend to his caprice.


He took no real interest in getting the wall funded during the first two years of his presidency. That is one sign that he doesn’t really care about the wall. More importantly, it is a sign of what is at stake in this crisis he has manufactured. Getting the funding in the past two years, it would have been nothing more than a waste of money; it would have made no great show of domination to get Republicans to waste money on his behalf. It is only against an opponent with an expressly stated opposition to the proposal that it can function as a brute contest of wills.


Don’t regard his “proudly claiming the mantle of the shutdown” as a strategic misstep (though you can use the video of that against him). It’s an actual indicator of how much, and what, is at stake for him in this struggle. Don’t think he was only egged on to this by right-wing media personalities. He wants this fight. I’m not saying he sought out this fight in particular, but now that he’s in it, he knows just what kind of fight he’s in and he relishes that kind of fight. Don’t think he’s looking for some face-saving exit. He is looking to dominate you, and to be seen as having dominated you. And there is nothing he won’t sacrifice to get that win. Nothing. Because anything and everything follows from such a win, and a loss here is utter defeat for him.


You must not engage this struggle as the sort of public policy negotiation you have conducted during your career as a public servant: this for that, let’s see if we can find a compromise. Trump counts on you to mistake it for such a negotiation. The wall is not a serious proposal. It has never been advanced as such. No case, with evidence, has ever been made that it would achieve anything at all. Don’t mistake this for a policy debate; don’t engage it as such. It’s not that he’s a Republican who thinks something is a good idea whereas you, being a Democrat, disagree. Rather, he’s seeking to get you to publicly knuckle under to an idea that both you and he and everyone knows is a lousy idea.


It is a contest of wills and nothing more.


He knows that his whole presidency, and any chance of reelection, rests on his being seen to have won this contest of wills. His supporters adore this force of will in him, and there is a segment of the American population that will respect it in him even if they regard him poorly overall. Force of will is a characteristic in a political leader that resonates strongly with many citizens, independent of policy positions.


He has several significant advantages on you. He doesn’t care about the federal government operating. He doesn’t care about whether federal workers receive their paychecks or not. He thrives in chaotic situations, whereas most of us are anxious to return matters to a more stable condition—and will make concessions to achieve that. In fact, his main negotiating strategy is to make a situation chaotic so that the other side will make concessions simply to return to a state of neutrality. That is what he has done here. He is counting on you to grow anxious about the shutdown before he does—and he never will.


But here’s why this really, really matters. Trump, as all serious observers have seen, is a would-be despot. The despot works by imposing a false reality, his own favored reality, on the citizenry: “Reality is what I say it is.” Trump knows that that is what is at stake for him in this struggle. If you let this fantasy of a wall prevail over the reality of real Americans’ real tax dollars, get ready for much more of this from him, including, for example, a serious claim of voter fraud after the 2020 election goes to a Democrat.


The good news? If you stand up to him this one time, if you win this contest of wills as a contest of wills this single time, you will take all the wind out of his sails forever. Like the parent who unequivocally, without the shadow of a qualm, stands up to the tantrum-throwing child—lets that tantrum go on as long as it might and still says no. His fervent followers won’t say it, and outwardly they’ll find ways to deny it, but in their hearts they’ll know he’s a loser. Because they watched him lose. And he will know that he can’t beat you and will spend the remainder of his term looking for every way to avoid a fight. So you just have to win this once. But you have to win it as a contest of wills, and not as a political negotiation, where your side came out a smidge ahead.


You have to deal him a humiliating loss. No quarter. No fig leaf. None. I suspect that kind of thinking does not come easily to you; you seem like fundamentally decent people, disinclined to gloat over an opponent’s defeat. But America needs you to summon up that kind of fire this one time. There’s the video of him owning the shutdown, the videos of him claiming that Mexico would pay, and polls are on your side (though you have to stay strong if they swing), so you have the higher ground.


At the very least, be crystal clear that what is happening here is a brute contest of wills and not a public policy debate of the sort with which you are accustomed. With him, use language like “The Constitution gives us the ‘power of the purse’ and we are going to use that power on behalf of the American taxpayer.” Use power language. Make it nakedly a power-struggle, so that he sees that you understand it as such.


With the public: “A wall was always a fantasy. The thought that Mexico was going to pay for a wall was a bigger fantasy. And the thought that Americans are going to pay for a wall, with Democrats in charge of the power of the purse, is the biggest fantasy of all.” (You have to use some of his own verbally repetitive style of rhetoric against him.) (Use “a” not “the”; “the” gives it a feeling of actual existence rather than hypothetical existence)

You had me at:

Please do not agree to give Donald Trump one penny

Not One Penny!
Let the Church say Amen!

EDIT: OK I read the whole thing. Pleeeeease send this to a Congressperson, CNN, MSNBC, Slate, somebody.

 

[metalhead]

Controlling immigration and stopping drugs is the motivation. Was it immoral to place fences and armed guards on the border to stop people? I think a wall would be more benign than people with guns.

Wait, The Wall is part of the War on Drugs but you don't think it is immoral? Isn't the War on Drugs the worst thing the government has ever done?

Also, if undocumented immigrants are so dangerous that we need a wall to stop them, why does Donald Trump hire so many of them?