The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress

It just occurred to me how Trump can advance the cause of term limits in a truly meaningful and effective way.

To establish term limits, the U.S. Constitution must be amended. There are two ways to do that. One way is by 2/3 vote in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. The other way is to call a constitutional convention. That can be done if 2/3 of the state legislatures pass bills that call for such a convention. The states seat the delegates. If 3/4 of the states (38 states) ratify an amendment, the amendment becomes the law of the land, without involvement of Congress. (This is a time when all those red states could come in handy.)

In the campaign, Trump proposed a six year cap for U.S. Representatives and a 12 year cap for U.S. Senators. If I was on the Trump team, I'd advise him to draft the proposed amendment and proceed on both fronts.

In Congress:

Start now to line up as many term limit bill co-sponsors as possible. In the present state of things, it is reasonable to expect that every Republican House and Senate member can be invited/encouraged/pressured to sign on. Then lobby/pressure/horse-trade with targeted Democrats to get the necessary votes.

In the Nation:

Initiate action in all 50 states to call for a Constitutional Convention. Once such a convention is called, anything can be added to the agenda. That thought would terrify the now-seated House and Senate members enough to come on board as co-sponsors of a term limit bill that has that as its single objective. Better to keep things to one amendment than open the country to the constitutional chaos a constitutional convention may create, they would reason (methinks).

This is not as far-fetched as some may think. It stands to reason that at this early point in the game, Trump could rally his base to support term limits. Among Democrats and independents, a fair amount of support also exists for term limits. Term limit actions have been tried before, but never when the president is solidly behind the initiative and his party controls both houses.

If Trump focused primarily on this issue and left the others wait a bit, there are HUGE organizational benefits to be gained. With this initiative, Trump could expand his support base to include term limit supporters of all stripes. At the grass roots level, term limits supporters would have to work together to get this done, regardless of party affiliation and regardless of their opinion of Trump.

By working together, these term-limit supporters become better acquainted and more tightly knit. Their job at the local level is to recruit additional volunteers and lean heavy on their state and federal elected officials to support the amendment.

There is not a single other issue on the Trump agenda that has the potential to unite the country better than this one. By focusing on a single issue with parallel efforts in all 50 states, grass-roots Trump supporters could be more united than ever. By working on this issue, they would form the relationships, skills, and practical techniques that would enhance their state organizations in a major way. With these grass-roots organizations so enhanced, Trump would find it easier to advance the other items on his agenda.

Of all the items on the Trump agenda, term limits alone has this profound, organization-building, political muscle-flexing potential. Additionally, this issue gives Trump the initiative. It's not like the others where he'd introduce legislation and it falls to representatives and senators to decide what happens next. A term limits bill consists of one sentence. Unlike a bill that can get buried in a committee, this one is immediately everywhere in the country once it is introduced. This is why Trump should make term limits first and foremost in his first 100 days as president.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Double Bonus! Trump himself can spend his time bouncing from rally to rally promoting term limits and blasting the corrupt establishment politicians who oppose this reform (something he loves to do). That in itself may be enough to convince the opponents to take the pain and vote for the amendment. The alternative is to face that well-organized group of skilled voters when they are up for reelection. .

Let the other stuff wait. Amend the constitution to truly reform the USA., then, with more grass-roots political power behind you than ever before, rock and roll on the rest.

The other issues on the Trump agenda are more divisive. If Trump focuses on them first or simultaneously, he blows this opportunity of a political lifetime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ftransit

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Then I'm not sure there will ever be any shared facts or data which will satisfy such a perception.

Satisfy such a perception? What do you mean by that?
Your perception of "seems to be getting some results" is that of being "showmanship on the front porch" simply because no verifiable hard data came with the show.

In every government program the financials are available to see.
As ever-changing as some of the numbers are, particularly when it comes to government contracts for products and yet to be delivered. That's especially the case with defense contracts where the hard numbers are there for all to see, until the cost overruns change the numbers completely. Another glaring example is the Obamacare web site (HealthCaredotGov) that had hard numbers of a cost of $800 million, which is a ridiculous number to begin with, then the cost overruns set it and doubled that figure to $1.6 billion, then it didn't work, and it's ended up costing $2.142 billion and counting. So looking at the facts and the, ahem, credible data, might not be all that beneficial.

When this defense contractor talks about getting the costs down, I'm not looking for something to see that is impossible to provide.
Actually are, since what you are looking for doesn't actually exist.

I'm looking for the kind of information an ordinary citizen would expect to see. How much did it cost before? What does it cost now? What is the cost difference?
Well, as for what it cost before, even though before hasn't actually happened yet, according to the Pentagon, the OMB and Boeing, the estimated cost for research, development and delivery of two planes for the Air Force One program is approximately $4 billion dollars, give or take. (the history of defense contracts under previous Presidents suggests that figure to be half or a third of the final bill) That's as hard as the "before" data is going to ever get. As for what it costs now, according to the Boeing CEO, "less than that." That's as hard as the "now" data is ever going to get. As for the difference, no one can possibly know until the final bill is paid, but based on the next President's history with regard to building things, on-time and under-budget is a pretty good bet.

These are the questions asked by every citizen who is concerned about fiscal responsibility in government. These questions are fair and reasonable to ask when someone says he/she intends to reduce the cost of something and you want to verify it actually happens.
As it is impossible to verify that something actually happens until it happens, they are not at all fair and reasonable in the context of "seems to be getting some results." They are hair-splitting, quibbling pedants designed to treat "seems to" dismissively as unworthy of serious consideration or acknowledgement.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Two posts I absolutely disagree with by appointing dinosaurs....
EPA....Scott Pruitt....climate change denier...now does he believe its man made or Natural change? or worse yet not changing at all?. .....Not speaking of the global warming stuff...
and Labor..Puzder..worse choice yet with a high conflict of interest.....CEO of Restaurant chain....of course he is against any financial gain of minimum wage employees
 

RoadTime

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Now we have it ... proof positive that Donald Trump does not have a CDL. ;)

Trump's driver's license casts doubt on height claims

c3ebdb4118b19e021120d54fde519138.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
"...Trump’s license, obtained by POLITICO through an open-records request..."

Wow. Just.... wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
"...Trump’s license, obtained by POLITICO through an open-records request..."

Wow. Just.... wow.

Par for the course. Part of the game. Obama was subject to similar scrutiny. So were prior presidents. Just part of the game.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Warming up: 51% of voters now view Donald Trump favorably, Rasmussen poll says

News story excerpt:

Multiple national polls revealed this week that American optimism and good feeling is on a marked upswing as the nation heads for 2017. Now voters appear to be warming to President-elect Donald Trump as well.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday finds that 51 percent of likely U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of Mr. Trump — a number which includes 29 percent who view him “very” favorably. The landmark finding follows weeks of rising poll numbers for the incoming president. His favorability numbers among all voters have increased on average from the low-30 percentage point range to the mid-40s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
He so far hasn't picked a bunch of crazy people for his cabinet so maybe that helps and people are feeling more comfortable with him. That might change during the confirmation process but time will tell. Personally, I like what he has done so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I think it's a little amusing how back right after the election and in the first few weeks after that, when Trump had really bad favorable ratings, the NYT and CNN had that as a regular front page news item and as Breaking News, respectively. Now that Trump has cracked 50% they are silent on the Rasmussen Reports survey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and RoadTime

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
11 Times Donald Trump Looked Like He Was Done For

Article excerpt:

"Some politicians seem to have nine lives, constantly evading scandal and overcoming the odds. But this past year, now-President-elect Donald Trump may have had more than that.

"Many things he did would have been the death knell for any other candidate's political hopes — mocking a disabled reporter, bragging about groping, disparaging a Gold Star family and even boasting of the size of his "manhood" during a national debate.

"But every time political pundits and reporters thought Trump was done for, he seemed to rise, like a phoenix from the ashes. And on Election Night, his unlikely win proved he may well have been the ultimate Teflon Don candidate."
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
I think it's a little amusing how back right after the election and in the first few weeks after that, when Trump had really bad favorable ratings, the NYT and CNN had that as a regular front page news item and as Breaking News, respectively. Now that Trump has cracked 50% they are silent on the Rasmussen Reports survey.

Wow! You are right. A Google search today for news stories about these Rasmussen poll results produces a nearly blank page. Even Trump-friendly Fox news does not appear in the search results. A search of the Fox News site produces many mentions of Rasmussen but none about this 51% poll result. Same for Breitbart news.Trump himself has always been one to shout favorable poll results from the rooftops. Even he is silent. Trump surrogates are on the FOX, CNN and MSNBC news shows several times a day, but nary a word from them about this either.

This is not about NYT and CNN alone. Of the organizations and people you would expect to talk about this, almost none are. What's up with that?
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
This is not about NYT and CNN alone. Of the organizations and people you would expect to talk about this, almost none are. What's up with that?
I think it's a combination of things. I singled out CNN and NYT because historically they can be counted on to run the Rasmussen weekly favorability polls, even if it's just a single paragraph buried on page 26 or something. It may only be a couple of inches, in newspaperspeak, but on the Web it's content, and you can't have too much of that.

The right leaning media outlets have never really been much on reporting the regular weekly favorability polls, be they good or bad (probably because of the last 8 years, and they don't want to keep giving Obama any press that can be seen as favorable <snort>). During the run up to the election, of course, everybody ran with nearly every credible poll out there. But run-o-the-mill weekly favorability polls generally aren't newsworthy, and certainly not front page news, unless something changes dramatically from week to week or unless they are particularly good or bad.

Over the last few weeks the MSM (largely led by the NYT) managed to make the polls "newsworthy" by comparing and contrasting Trump's numbers with that of prior president-elect's numbers, to show how Trump's were lower than any other president-elect in, like, ever. But this week's poll put Trump on par with most others, so the momentum is kinda taken out of that spin.

While 51% is a "landmark" according to Rasmussen, it's still not particularly newsworthy, especially considering the accompanying 47% unfavorable rating. That's why Fox News, et al aren't reporting it, and the surrogates aren't touting it. And it's why it's not a prominent mention at the NYT and CNN. Still, it's odd that it's not mentioned at all, anywhere, on either of those two outlet's Web sites, given their history of reliably reporting it.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Over the last few weeks the MSM (largely led by the NYT) managed to make the polls "newsworthy" by comparing and contrasting Trump's numbers with that of prior president-elect's numbers, to show how Trump's were lower than any other president-elect in, like, ever. But this week's poll put Trump on par with most others, so the momentum is kinda taken out of that spin.

For reference, here's results from one of the previous polls. Both may be correct (more or less as any poll is). They were done at different times.

A Pew Research opinion poll conducted between Nov. 30 and Dec. 5, after the election had cast the usual victor’s glow on Donald Trump, indicated that only 37% of Americans thought Trump was well-qualified for the presidency, just 31% deemed him moral, and a mere 26% viewed him as a good role model. On the other hand, 62% thought he had poor judgment and 65% considered him reckless.

Regarding the Rasumssen poll, your explanation is interesting but not persuasive. The silence -- especially from Trump himself -- about that poll from virtually all quarters is a curiosity indeed.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Regarding the Rasumssen poll, your explanation is interesting but not persuasive.
Well, I really wasn't trying to persuade anybody of anything. I simply stated why I think it's not being reported and/or touted. Others are free to chime in with their thoughts. But I'm apparently the only one with any thoughts on the matter.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
I posted the Trump-positive article ("11 Times Donald Trump Looked Like He Was Done For") and the Rasmussen poll results above to establish a baseline. Today's baseline is the point from which Trump's future support can be measured.

While I may be wrong, and am open to that possibility, I continue to believe that after Trump serves for a while, Pence will come to be seen the better alternative and the Republicans who have the power to do so will impeach Trump to get Pence. That will happen when Trump's negative chickens come home to roost and the popular support he now enjoys declines to the point that impeachment presents a low political risk for those in a position to initiate the impeachment process.

Full disclosure: I am not emotionally engaged in Trump's success or failure. I will not feel better or worse if he is impeached or if he serves his entire term. I do not identify with him like I identify with my NFL team of choice. When my NFL team wins or looses, it affects my mood. I am emotionally engaged with them. Not so with Trump (or with Obama before or any other candidate for any office).

Trump is for me a fascinating study in political dynamics. My ramblings here are fun break from work and other life activities. It's like taking a break to play a computer game. I have spun the wheel (predicted president Pence) and now wait to see what the result will be. As the wheel spins, the discussion here is pleasant and fun.

That said, I had some thoughts about compassion and respect as the spirit of Christmas came into focus. I realize there are millions of people who are emotionally engaged with Trump. To varying degrees, they feel great when they hear something positive about Trump and have a negative emotional response when they hear something negative. In making my Pence prediction, I mean no ill will or disrespect to those who are emotionally engaged with Trump.

For me, it has never been about the candidate. It has been about whether that candidate is good for the country (state, county, city). It's not about my guy (or gal) winning or losing and by extension me feeling like a winner or loser.It's about my idea of what is good for the country and whether or not a given candidate can help bring that about.

There is a difference between the president and the policy. In general, the policy is bigger than the man because the policy requires more to exist than the man alone. While White House occupants come and go, and while they have a policy impact, the policies and the men are distinctly different things with distinctly different lives of their own.

My Trump talk here is a form of entertainment for me. It's about the man and the political drama regarding him. Policy is more serious business. Policy determines how much tax I pay. Policy establishes the building code under which we operate our business. Policy determines if my government tends to provide me with access to public records or tends to cover them up.

To affect a policy or proposed policy with which I am emotionally engaged, I do not babble away in an online forum for the fun of it. I act at the ballot box, with letters to my elected officials, by showing up at meetings, and addressing public officials and with grass-roots activism.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
While I may be wrong, and am open to that possibility, I continue to believe that after Trump serves for a while, Pence will come to be seen the better alternative and the Republicans who have the power to do so will impeach Trump to get Pence. That will happen when Trump's negative chickens come home to roost and the popular support he now enjoys declines to the point that impeachment presents a low political risk for those in a position to initiate the impeachment process.
That's certainly a very valid, rational and even logical opinion. It makes sense, and I wouldn't be all that surprised to see such a scenario happen. But my thoughts on that are tempered by those "11 Times [and all the others] Donald Trump Looked Like He Was Done For."

FWIW, my NFL team of choice is the Bengals, so I've learned to not to have very high hopes and expectations. When they lose, as they so often do, it doesn't affect me much, as it was more or less expected. When they win, it's a pleasant and unexpected surprise. They lost a playoff-clinching game at the end of last season to the Steelers in spectacular fashion. They've lost 6 games in a row this season simply because of missed PATs. It's not a matter of whether they win or lose, it's a matter of just how creatively they can manage to lose. They aren't the Bungles for nothing.

It would be easy to take the same pessimistic view with Trump, except he really doesn't have a stellar record of creatively failing, but more the opposite. I'm rooting for Trump, not because I'm emotionally invested, but for the same reason I was rooting for Obama to succeed - when the president fails, the county (and the world) is worse off for it.

While Obama really put my opinion to the test more than I could have imagined, I'm still of the belief that there's only just-so-much-damage one man can do as president, what with all the checks and balances we have, both in and out of government. For me, as well, it's not about Trump as much as it is about what's good for the country.

Politics is fun to discuss, even though it sometimes can get heated, because I find it fascinating how different people can perceive things, how their own biases and prejudices can color their perceptions, and how facts and reality can so often take a back seat to confirmational bias. I find great interest in how people will selectively admit and reject facts to make the narrative fit their biases. For example, there are people right now, today, who will tell you with absolute certainty that Trump bragged about assaulting women. This, despite the fact that he absolutely did not. It's a narrative that many in the press continue to push. And because of my interest in journalism, I look for the honest brokers of the news and take note of those who do not honor that pledge. So my interest in the election and in Trump's presidency falls more along the lines of what's good or bad for the country, and in how the biases and prejudices of human nature write the narrative of it all.
 
Top