The Trump Card...

[skyraider]

Here is what I want: gas/diesel fuel,,,one buck a gallon, milk- one buck a gallon, ice cream, one buck a gallon, What a Burgers w/cheese meal deal, 2 bucks, a decent auto, ok small one like an old 67 Beetle with air- 3000 bucks and a 10 year bumper to bumper warranty. My stocking is hung.....lol,,, oh yea--build the wall, lots of folks working again.

 

[Turtle]

Here's an article that I think mostly sums up well Trump's picks thus far, and the reasons behind those picks.

 

[ATeam]

I'm not going to parse every political nuance or debate the meaning of this word or that. My point is simple. A certain number of Iowa Trump supporters are counting on him to preserve the ethanol mandate. Political forces are in motion that will put that mandate up for debate sometime in the near future. As these events develop over time, we will be able to gauge the value of Trump's word by his subsequent actions, and we will be able to gauge how much a lost or diminished mandate will cost Trump in political support if the mandate is lifted.

There is nothing for me to further argue or defend here. There are simply developments to observe as the story plays out. The mandate will survive or it won't. Iowa supporters of Trump and the mandate will react in one way or another. If the mandate is lifted, a (large or small) number of the people in question will pull their Trump support or they won't. If they do so in large numbers, an impeachment initiative will be easier to advance by those who wish to do so.

This is the case with every promised action Trump stated in the campaign. The ethanol mandate serves as a convenient example because his support for the mandate and the people who want it has been made very clear by Trump himself. The issue itself is clearly defined. You don't have to argue about what "wall" really means. The ethanol mandate already exists. It is clearly defined in existing regulations. Thousands of people do not need to be seen crossing back into Mexico to know a change has been made. The ethanol mandate can be modified with a role call vote and/or the stroke of a pen.

Remember, I'm not arguing for or against Trump. I'm watching Trump's base for signs of continuing or declining support. You said it yourself, Turtle.

Like I said before, it will take far more than hurt feewings to get Trump impeached - he'll have to do something remarkably egregious, and tank in the polls, before anything happened.

That's what I have my eye on. For me, it's not about what happens day to day in the next few months. It's about the state of things six months or more from now; and especially about the state of Trump's base six months from now.

Trump held his final thank you rally today. Do not be surprised to see him find a reason to continue such rallies soon. It is very much to his advantage to keep his base fired up. It's not like millions of additional supporters are coming out of the woodwork to support him after the election.

A good way to get a Washington-insider Republican to think twice about crossing Trump is to demonstrate the ability to bring 10,000 to 15,000 voters together in one arena in that Republican's state or district. It would make an even more powerful impression if Trump could mobilize those supporters to do something as a group.

Trump has a massive opportunity here that is going unused. If I was on his team, I'd advise him to continue the rallies but to combine them with something like a food drive or, better yet, a neighborhood clothing drive. The more things you get these people to do, and the more complex these group tasks are, the more effective the group becomes at working on projects together. The better-organized group you have at your disposal, the less likely it is that opposition will rise from a Republican opportunist Washington insider who lays in wait.

I am by nature a grass-roots kind of guy. This predisposition skews my perspective. When interpreting and predicting political events, I tend to look less at the elected officials and more at the voters and activists on the ground. For me, it's not about what Trump himself will do or not do in the next six months, it's about what his supporters will do or not do.

 

[Turtle]

people in question will pull their Trump support or they won't. If they do so in large numbers, an impeachment initiative will be easier to advance by those who wish to do so.

This is the case with every promised action Trump stated in the campaign.

The same thing can be said about every promised action by every President in history. It applies no more and no less to Trump than to anyone else.

 

[ATeam]

people in question will pull their Trump support or they won't. If they do so in large numbers, an impeachment initiative will be easier to advance by those who wish to do so.

This is the case with every promised action Trump stated in the campaign.

The same thing can be said about every promised action by every President in history. It applies no more and no less to Trump than to anyone else.

The first part of your statement is correct. I differ with the second part.

Numerous presidents have been abandoned by their support bases throughout history but the impeachment tipping point for them was much further away. Trump did not enter Washington with a base of popular support developed over the years and with a large number of lifelong political establishment friends on his close-contacts list. He deeply offended many of the people who have the power to impeach. With trusted-gentleman Pence available to replace Trump, Republican policies and powers would remain essentially in place if the deed was done. That lowers the cost of impeachment when a cost/benefit impeachment analysis is done by insider operatives. Trump's business interests create conflicts and exposures on a scale no previous president had. Trump's willingness to be frequently politically incorrect keeps the insiders off balance and uncomfortable, thereby making the impeachment option that much more attractive.

The likelihood of Trump doing "something remarkably egregious, and tank in the polls" is high. Indeed, numerous presidents have seen that happen. The difference is they have staying power that Trump does not. Trump is essentially alone in Washington. Democrats would vote to impeach Trump in a heartbeat. Most of Trump's new Republican Washington insider friends (elected officials who have the power to impeach) are fair-weather opportunists.

I believe that if Trump's popular support erodes, a sufficient number of Republican representatives and senators will move to dump Trump and bring in Pence. Because the Democrats would already vote to impeach, the number of Republican votes does not have to be large to obtain the needed totals. If Ryan and McConnell give the nod, the deed is done.

That's my view and prediction. We'll need to look again in six months to see how on target or off these are.

I'm not saying Trump will be impeached within six months. I'm saying six months need to pass before we can compare today's post-campaign/pre-innauguraton realities with the lay of the land then. It will take time to see what kind of president Trump will turn out to be, how the disposition of his fair-weather friends will change and how Trump's base responds to what Trump says and does.

 

[Turtle]

The loss of fair-weather friends, or even his base, wont be enough, to to mention the deeply offended, deeply hurt feewings of Republicans and Democrats alike. To overturn the rule of the American people in the general election you have to have real substantive cause (not just egregious, but a cascade of egregiousness) to do it. A wet finger in the wind won't decide things, even if Congress is polling higher than than Trump. Nor can it just be political. It can’t be arguably gray between the two positions. It’s got to be really definitive, a slam dunk. Two-thirds in the Senate is a really high bar, and one that's never been reached.

House Representatives contemplating impeachment will also want to consider the consequences should Trump manage to escape their trappings. It's something to seriously consider when you take into account he managed to escape the clutches of mocking a handicapped reporter and saying all the other things he's said during the primaries and the general election. He could very well emerge even stronger and a more formidable foe of the Washington establishment. That's why it's got to be a slam dunk from the start.

Impeachment itself may be an inside the beltway, Washington battle, and despite the deeply hurt feewings of a few Republican bedwetters, it is really something that the American public gets to decide first. If the American people see a hint of politics as usual (the way they did with the Clinton impeachment), they won't be having any of it.

 

[Pilgrim]

I can't see Trump being forcefully removed from office. This country needs to heal and come together after the mess of this election year. Also, I don't see Trump running for a second term. He, like Jesse Ventura will get bored or overwhelmed with the job and Pence will head the Republican ticket in 2020.

Trump will not be impeached - period. The petulant losers (Democrat Party) and the MSM will probably be promoting a reason/crime of the week for the next four years to advance this cause, but Trump along with his team of advisers and lawyers will keep him out of trouble. Making politically incorrect statements and offending the Iranians and Chinese are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Democrats and talking heads all seem obsessed with what Trump's first egregious mistake will be, but no one seems to be speculating about his first success and how soon that will happen. With that in mind, what if Trump hits a home run his first time at bat - something that would be hugely popular with the American public in general and his base in particular? Something that can be implemented in a fairly short time and makes him bulletproof at least until the mid-terms, such as some immediate changes to ObamaCare to make health care more affordable and tearing up the Iran nuclear deal? Of course he'll throw some red meat tidbits to his conservative base such as returning the Churchill bust to the Oval Office and invite Netanyahu to the White House for a love-in. He will of course, circumvent the MSM as he does this and continue to drive them nuts in the process.

His first 100 days will likely be a series of surprising achievements, not impeachable offenses. That term will most likely continue to be associated with Bill Clinton, who richly deserved it and should have been removed from office by a spineless GOP controlled Senate.

 

[Moot]

A wet finger in the wind won't decide things, even if Congress is polling higher than than Trump.

Nor will a damp cigar.

 

[ATeam]

The Democrats and talking heads all seem obsessed with what Trump's first egregious mistake will be, but no one seems to be speculating about his first success and how soon that will happen. With that in mind, what if Trump hits a home run his first time at bat - something that would be hugely popular with the American public in general and his base in particular?

Fair points. Because they are talking about future possibilities, Trump critics and Trump supporters are both limited to speculating about future outcomes. As I said above it will take time for a track record to develop.

We could spill a lot of ink in this forum talking about what we think Trump's big successes or big failures will be. I'm not going there. I'm content to let the answers appear on their own over the next six months.

 

[ATeam]

...With that in mind, what if Trump hits a home run his first time at bat - something that would be hugely popular with the American public in general and his base in particular? Something that can be implemented in a fairly short time and makes him bulletproof at least until the mid-terms, such as some immediate changes to ObamaCare to make health care more affordable....

I think it would be wonderful if Trump made "some immediate changes to ObamaCare to make health care more affordable." If he did, the entire country would benefit and Trump's popularity would rise even among some of those who voted against him.

The trouble is, there is no talk of doing that so far. If my view of the news from all sources is correct (and I'm open to the suggestion it is not), all we have heard so far is Republican talk about a quick repeal of Obamacare with the effective date of the repeal to be some years off, meaning Obamacare will remain in effect through the midterm elections.

This illustrates my point exactly about the difference between doing well in a campaign and doing well in office. It's one thing to stand at a podium in front of thousands of cheering supporters and tell them you will quickly repeal and replace Obamacare. It is something quite different to actually make such a thing happen once you are in office.

In the campaign, a repeal and replace proclamation is met with cheers. In office the very same proclamation will be met with strong and well-organized opposition from some in the House and Senate, certain highly-skilled and highly-funded special interests and significant segments of the general public.

It's one thing to get elected. It's something quite different to serve.

 

[Turtle]

I think it would be wonderful if Trump made "some immediate changes to ObamaCare to make health care more affordable." If he did, the entire country would benefit and Trump's popularity would rise even among some of those who voted against him.

The trouble is, there is no talk of doing that so far. If my view of the news from all sources is correct (and I'm open the suggestion it is not), all we have heard so far is Republican talk about a quick repeal of Obamacare with the effective date of the repeal to be some years off, meaning Obamacare will remain in effect through the midterm elections.

You're right in that's all we've heard. The Republicans need to huddle up and get their act together. They've actually taken a full vote in the House to fully repeal Obamacare half a dozen times, and 54 times they've voted to pick apart this or that measure of the ACA. In all of those 54 times they have had specific plans in place for the replacements of the piecemeal repeals, but no one has ever sat down and put them all together in a complete package bill. That's all they need to do at this point, and it shouldn't take 2-4 years to do it. I don't think it's going to take that long, especially with them knowing they need to get it done quickly. Baring a catastrophe, the Republicans aren't really in jeopardy of losing the majority in 2018, but that shouldn't be a sign to sit back and coast. I think Trump and some key House and Senate members will put pressure to get it done.

Some key changes, like being able to buy health insurance from out of state will certainly help in the short term. But I think long term, what will be required is to put federally mandated caps on healthcare services and pharmaceuticals, and rein in insurers, as well. That's what they do in some other countries. Drug prices around the world are relatively cheap, because of government regulations, so the pharma companies just stick it to the American people to make up the difference, and the insurance companies go along with it because they helped author the ACA in order to jack up prices and deductibles and get government reimbursements for any shortfalls. That kind of regulation will take years more than Trump will have, even if he gets a second term.

 

[Ragman]

what will be required is to put federally mandated caps on healthcare services and pharmaceuticals, and rein in insurers, as well.

Some would consider that price control, which the Repubs have been historically against, wouldn't you say?

 

[skyraider]

Just let us have the same health care policy that the House and Senate have,,,bet its the best...

 

[Turtle]

what will be required is to put federally mandated caps on healthcare services and pharmaceuticals, and rein in insurers, as well.

Some would consider that price control, which the Repubs have been historically against, wouldn't you say?

Yep, that's the term, and yep, they're against it. And it would need to cover everything from the price of a heart transplant to an angioplasty to the price of a Tylenol and the prices of medical equipment, all of which has become a golden goose riding a gravy train. And, it would also need to constrain severe limits on malpractice insurance and jury awards.

 

[Pilgrim]

What the heck - armchair quarterbacking is fun and so is speculation. But back to what Trump can do soon is cancel burdensome regulations and make sensible legislative proposals that can be introduced in Congress and put them on the hot seat to pass them. After all, he's not king but his popularity is growing and that of Congress still ranks about the same as tapeworms. He can also start referring to American Healthcare as "Healthcare", only using "ObamaCare" as a term of derision and ridicule. My first speculative thought is that Trump will redefine the presidential bully pulpit: he will bypass the MSM, rendering them more insignificant than they already are and will continue to reinvent lines of communication with the American public. For example: these "victory tours": I'll speculate they'll continue for the next four years, but an improvement over the way Obama was continually in campaign mode during his two terms as POTUS.

 

[Ragman]

what will be required is to put federally mandated caps on healthcare services and pharmaceuticals, and rein in insurers, as well.

Some would consider that price control, which the Repubs have been historically against, wouldn't you say?

Yep, that's the term, and yep, they're against it. And it would need to cover everything from the price of a heart transplant to an angioplasty to the price of a Tylenol and the prices of medical equipment, all of which has become a golden goose riding a gravy train. And, it would also need to constrain severe limits on malpractice insurance and jury awards.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[ATeam]

China steals a U.S. Navy drone submarine in international waters and Trump says they should keep it. I know Trump is a deal maker but this this kind of creates an incentive for more thefts, does it not?

I have been searching the news sites since this "keep it" tweet was made to learn more about why Trump said what he did and what he really meant. So far, the silence is remarkable. Not even his critics are offering an explanation. I thought the Sunday morning talk shows would be all over this. Few mentions of the keep-it tweet were made and those that were were brief. No news organization that I know of has said they contacted Trump's office for an explanation.

For those of you who like to speculate in the absence of known information, and/or explain the true meaning of Trump's words, what exactly did Trump mean when he said in a tweet that China should keep this stolen drone submarine? Why do you think he said what he said? Why did the media say almost nothing about this beyond reporting that the tweet was made?

 

[xiggi]

Do you really think Trump knows what he means sometimes?

 

[Turtle]

what exactly did Trump mean when he said in a tweet that China should keep this stolen drone submarine?

"Go f*ck yourself, China. Go ahead, keep it, ya big baby. But you're gonna pay for this yoooge!"

Trump is sick and tired of China screwing us over for years, from everything from currency manipulation, on trade, and with China thinking it can steal our technology with abandon. With that Tweet, in combination with the dripping-with-sarcasm "unprecedented" Tweet, he cut off at the knees any potential threat of intimidation or one-upmanship by China, removed any perceived bargaining chip they thought they'd get out of it, and put them on notice that he's not going to bend over for them like Obama and his predecessors have done for decades.

It's a continuation of the phone call with Taiwan. It's all part of the same classic negotiating position of, "Whatever you want to do, whatever you want me to do.... NO!" Historically, international diplomacy is nothing more than a tour de force in political correctness so as to not offend anybody. But this is business, this is about jobs, trade, money. Eventually the table will be set for more equitable deals.

 

[ATeam]

Political rectitude is a two-way street. China does not appear to be particularly intimidated by Trump. How politically correct is it to steal a submarine, conduct live-fire military exercises in strategic waters for the first time in a very long time, publicly state that Trump is "as ignorant as a child," and say Trump "has no sense of how to lead a superpower?"

China has done all of these since Trump was elected. It is reported today that China's state-run newspaper said, "Since he has not taken office, China has kept a calm attitude toward his provocative remarks. But if he treats China after assuming office in the same way as in his tweets, China will not exercise restraint.”

If live-fire exercises and a submarine theft are examples of restraint, I worry a bit about what non-restraint might look like. China has the ability to deeply harm U.S. interests. At will, they could trigger a panic in the bond market by signalling the intention to dump some of the U.S. bonds they now hold. At will, China could blockade Taiwan, instantly presenting Trump with a crisis to manage that far outstrips any notion of making a deal and instantly destroying any perception that China is somehow intimidated by Trump.

Less consequential to world events but still problematic for Trump, China could signal its displeasure by suspending the export of the cell phones and tablets that are manufactured there. That would hurt China financially for a time but it might hurt Trump politically more. What would the public response be if China announced that America can import it's phones and tablets again if Trump apologizes for a particular tweet?

Again, political rectitude is a two-way street. I hope Trump proves to be more judicious in his international relations than he has been at his campaign rallies and in his tweets. Trump can crow all he wants to about China. He would do well to remember that China can crow back.China has not been issuing statements about Obama as they make their shows of force. It's Trump they have been responding to. If he wants to pick a fight, China appears ready to rumble.

Of the two, the U.S. is the financially bankrupt country. China is not without significant advantages to use if a major conflict develops. Sometimes, diplomacy is not so bad.