Octopus Overlords

An interesting case that Trump is all about getting a deal...any deal, regardless of content.

There’s a reason his famous book is titled The Art of the Deal and not The Art of Carefully, Slowly Outflanking Your Negotiating Partner: The president’s bias is often toward action, not about the details of the deal that emerges. In part, that’s a remnant of his days in real estate, where development deals were often mutually beneficial, and everyone wanted them. But that’s not the case in politics, where obstruction is often the most profitable course. In this case, it’s also a byproduct of Trump’s ideological agnosticism on many issues, which produces an indifference to the substance of any deal, so long as it’s struck.

...

Trump entered the negotiation saying he wanted to repeal and replace Obamacare, but he also wanted to expand coverage and lower premiums—a more or less impossible mandate without expanding government’s role, a no-no for Republicans. During the process, he was apt to whipsaw in his view, for example throwing a Rose Garden party to celebrate the passage of a House bill and then blasting it as “mean” as he spoke to Senate Republicans.

This vacillation was impossible for Republicans to understand, because many of them had actual desires for what the bill would accomplish. Trump’s greatest interest was simply getting the bill, and being able to say he repealed and replaced Obamacare.

Helps put some of his erratic qualities in perspective.

Zarathud wrote:Once unauthorized immigrants arrived in the US, they decided to stay. (Not) Shocking!

For the total number of unauthorized immigrants to fall by 1 million since 2007, more had to die or leave than arrive. How can anyone call this a border emergency?

Because they are all criminals, and criminals are by definition, bad.

That's what illegal means.

I'm not sure that some people understand that laws are created by other people and thus mutable.

Kraken wrote:An interesting case that Trump is all about getting a deal...any deal, regardless of content.

The personality meltdown when he realizes that the media and democrats won't suddenly leap to his side with praise and loyalty after this will be EPIC.

Only a child billionaire could have so little understanding of how the world works.

Scoop20906 wrote:

LordMortis wrote:I dislike Trump more than the next guy but I must be missing something. You are slamming him and praising Democrats for him stepping up to the plate in spite of the GOP for the good of the Union and for compassion to those affected by Harvey.

+1

This is the compromise I've been waiting for. More of this please Mr. Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm skeptical of the motive. I don't see a reason to celebrate. I see it as a an "alpha business" move. His allies didn't kowtow to him so he's doing a deal with their opposition to remind them of his value.

Everything he does, he does because he thinks it will benefit him personally.

hepcat wrote:

LordMortis wrote:I dislike Trump more than the next guy but I must be missing something. You are slamming him and praising Democrats for him stepping up to the plate in spite of the GOP for the good of the Union and for compassion to those affected by Harvey.

No, I'm slamming him for his history of being a complete and utter moron with the ego of a 4 year old. If the Mangerine had a history of doing the right thing...hell, even the somewhat right thing...I might be as easily convinced as you that he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart. As it stands, it's going to take more than one act of humanity (that may or may not have been due to his being swayed by the Dems appealing to his fragile sense of self worth) before I start singing his praises.

Rip wrote:I am surprised at you surprise.

I fully expect everything he does undesirable will be attributed to his evilness and anything good to his ignorance.

He could give every illegal immigrant in the country amnesty in the morning and most of the left would find a way to disparage him for it.

Tis the world we now live in.

If you hadn't started threads in the past dedicated almost solely to your love of calling Hillary Clinton ugly, blaming her for things easily proven not to be her fault, and slamming Obama for things that you now praise Trump for, I might not find this attempt at taking the high road so laughable. You've been living in the world you now complain about since 1993, with a brief pause from 2001 to 2008, before moving back in in 2009.

There were several times I spoke well of Obama and things he did.

Fair Sentencing Act was a good move.
He wisely pushed for broadband coverage.
Killed the F-22

Clinton has never done anything worth complimenting her for or I would.

Calling Trump a puppet was a highlight, and worthy of praise.

Rip wrote: Clinton has never done anything worth complimenting her for or I would.

I rest my case.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Calling Trump a puppet was a highlight, and worthy of praise.

You are probably right, that is the highlight of her accomplishments......

Rip wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:Calling Trump a puppet was a highlight, and worthy of praise.

You are probably right, that is the highlight of her accomplishments......

Says the man who only understands a politician's accomplishments if they come in the form of headlines. Bonus points if they piss off the appropriate side of the aisle.

30 years in the public service of the country you live in and the highlight of her accomplishments is calling names.

You're a moron.

Bam. Where do I sign up for my speaking engagements?

Daehawk wrote:Trump sides with Dems and shell shocks Repubs

You must be very excited, posting without keeping up on this very thread.

Freyland wrote:

Daehawk wrote:Trump sides with Dems and shell shocks Repubs

You must be very excited, posting without keeping up on this very thread.

True, but at least he's talking about Drumpf in a Drumpf thread. I think Rip's last words on his death bed will be something like "...and she wasn't very attractive".

I most appreciate the irony of Republicans playing politics with the debt, then crying foul over Trump desperately making a deal with the Democrats.

Trump acted out of self interest. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would endanger low interest rates and Trump's real estate deals.

Freyland wrote:

Daehawk wrote:Trump sides with Dems and shell shocks Repubs

You must be very excited, posting without keeping up on this very thread.

Im not sure I understand your meaning. Is it humor? A cut down? I scan the thread off and on for interesting news bits. When I saw this one I checked to see if you guys had seen it already, didn't think so, and posted it thinking you all might enjoy seeing it as the lean seems to be anti Trump.

I meant no harm or meaness in it.

Hell, I repost things I myself wrote earlier that day sometimes.

Listen Rip, I don't mean to pick on you, but

a) you rarely engage in a sincere way anymore. I realize over the years this is not a right-friendly place, and that can wear you down enough that you feel it's not worth engaging. We've lost many of our right leaning posters through no one's fault except fatigue, probably.

b) I often read the comments sections of news articles I read, to see how people are reacting. As is common knowledge, it's a wasteland of partisan hackmanship. I'm sick of it. You occasionally personify this mindset, and this mindset is absolutely toxic. Toxic to debate, toxic to the people who hold it, toxic to those who must engage it and toxic to the health of america. It really is. And that has nothing to do with the politics behind it. There aren't any politics behind it, except "winning" and defeating". Us vs Them with no consideration about what makes "us" or what makes "them". This has resulted in white supremacy (as one example) beginning a come back, and the president of the united states unable to condemn them, because they come out on his side of the aisle. Toxic.

c) Hillary is not the anti-christ. There are many and fair criticisms of her, but the sheer vitriol coming out of the right, after years of mudslinging is obscene. Obscene. Drumpf deserves every cow pie thrown his way. Not because of his politics (if anything, he's been more left than right his entire life) but because he is a terrible, terrible human being. Clinton is just a politician on the other side of the aisle that the republicans recognized as a powerful opponent (rightly so, imo) and therefore campaigned for decades to undermine her. She's gone now. Enough.

It's not you personally, but it is me, personally. I'm just sick of it.

Take this as the closest thing as an apology I can bring myself to write right now. It's not much of one, I know.

GreenGoo wrote:c) Hillary is not the anti-christ. There are many and fair criticisms of her, but the sheer vitriol coming out of the right, after years of mudslinging is obscene. Obscene. Drumpf deserves every cow pie thrown his way. Not because of his politics (if anything, he's been more left than right his entire life) but because he is a terrible, terrible human being. Clinton is just a politician on the other side of the aisle that the republicans recognized as a powerful opponent (rightly so, imo) and therefore campaigned for decades to undermine her. She's gone now. Enough.

She's not gone. She continues to find ways to stay in the news and attempting to be relevant. Oh, as for being a terrible human being: Vince Foster.

She gone enough that she is no longer a threat to republicans. She may come back, and probably will. But Geezus, you've got a sitting president basking in the glory of a great turn out of hurricane survivors, trying to sell them hats.

There are bigger problems.

Daehawk wrote:

Freyland wrote:

Daehawk wrote:Trump sides with Dems and shell shocks Repubs

You must be very excited, posting without keeping up on this very thread.

Im not sure I understand your meaning. Is it humor? A cut down? I scan the thread off and on for interesting news bits. When I saw this one I checked to see if you guys had seen it already, didn't think so, and posted it thinking you all might enjoy seeing it as the lean seems to be anti Trump.

I meant no harm or meaness in it.

Humor, teasing. No harm or meaness either.

GreenGoo wrote:

Kraken wrote:An interesting case that Trump is all about getting a deal...any deal, regardless of content.

The personality meltdown when he realizes that the media and democrats won't suddenly leap to his side with praise and loyalty after this will be EPIC.

Only a child billionaire could have so little understanding of how the world works.

Democrats could leverage his desperation for any deal to stymie the Republican agenda, since that is not Trump's agenda and there's a lot of ill will between Trump and Republican leadership. If Trump just wants to notch wins and to hell with the details, his new pals Nancy and Chuck can deliver some wins.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

You're still thinking this is anything but a petulant man-child. The second someone speaks non-praisingly of him he's gone, and you think the rep leaders aren't going to slap that newspaper right in front of him the second it happens?

Yeah, you're right; the political graveyard is filling up with the bodies of those who thought they could use Trump. I'm the sort of person who sees everything in terms of logic and reason, and there are pockets in the universe where those just don't work.

Kraken wrote:Yeah, you're right; the political graveyard is filling up with the bodies of those who thought they could use Trump. I'm the sort of person who sees everything in terms of logic and reason, and there are pockets in the universe where those just don't work.

Me too, but this guy has got to be almost pathologically controlled by his emotions.

Every time I hear someone talk about the deep strategy and double think of Drumpf I laugh my ass off. He couldn't strategize out of a wet paper bag. He's a billionaire who's daddy gave him wealth and made his first deals for him, and he has spent his life surrounding himself with yes men and wielding his wealth like a sledgehammer. He's about as subtle as a brick and twice as thick. Art of the Deal should be called "Steal from those with too little money to sue you, bribe the rest".

I...only disliked him greatly. Then he became the most powerful man in the world. Now I really greatly dislike him.

Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

Holman wrote:Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

Wow.

"if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Trump can be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential reckoning is required."

That part of the article in particular is powerful. Completely agree that liberals in general are putting our heads in the sand about this. The truth is too ugly to face. Look at OUR attitudes for the past 60 years! Not conceivable that we are still experiencing racism to such a degree in 2017, so look for scapegoats and a specific class to blame instead of the idea that it's much more pervasive than we could have imagined.

In "there's a Trump tweet for that", chapter 1,056:

The worst negotiators in history (otherwise known as Republicans) have just offered to suspend debt ceiling for four months. Pathetic!

Holman wrote:Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

That has to be the most horseshit I have ever read in one article.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Holman wrote:Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

Wow.

"if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Drumpf can be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential reckoning is required."

That part of the article in particular is powerful. Completely agree that liberals in general are putting our heads in the sand about this. The truth is too ugly to face. Look at OUR attitudes for the past 60 years! Not conceivable that we are still experiencing racism to such a degree in 2017, so look for scapegoats and a specific class to blame instead of the idea that it's much more pervasive than we could have imagined.

In my opinion, liberals can be just as racist as the right but they hide it behind polite words but it is there allowing them to feel better about themselves. Until the left starts to grapple with some if it's own racism problem how can either side start to mend wounds cut so deeply in our past?

Trump isn't POTUS because of racism.

This is why he is POTUS.

http://nypost.com/2017/09/06/cluelessne ... y-clinton/

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

That has to be the most horseshit I have ever read in one article.

I thought it started off well and I was nodding along, and then it took a left turn and rambled on about how 'The White Man' has been keeping minorities held back for centuries and I lost interest. I get that there are morons out there who happen to be white and are racists, but I've lost interest in having people try to rub my nose in how evil my skin color is.

Trump isn't the distilled essence of generations of racism. He's an ignorant asshole, who happens to be a racist, and was allowed to capture the highest office in the nation through the disconnected snobbery of his opponents and gluttonous self-aggrandizement of his own party. He is a complete failure of decent people taking action and vermin streaming out of the woodwork to try and spread disease.

Rip wrote:Trump isn't POTUS because of racism.

This is why he is POTUS.

http://nypost.com/2017/09/06/cluelessne ... y-clinton/

If he were African American or Latino or Asian or Jewish, he would not be president today. Period.

Trump is a backlash, not a thoughtful choice.

Paingod wrote:

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Ta-Nehisi Coates: The First White President.

The whole article is powerful stuff.

That has to be the most horseshit I have ever read in one article.

I thought it started off well and I was nodding along, and then it took a left turn and rambled on about how 'The White Man' has been keeping minorities held back for centuries and I lost interest. I get that there are morons out there who happen to be white and are racists, but I've lost interest in having people try to rub my nose in how evil my skin color is.

Trump isn't the distilled essence of generations of racism. He's an ignorant asshole, who happens to be a racist, and was allowed to capture the highest office in the nation through the disconnected snobbery of his opponents and gluttonous self-aggrandizement of his own party. He is a complete failure of decent people taking action and vermin streaming out of the woodwork to try and spread disease.

While I agree with you mostly. If institutionalized racism wasn't a culture wide thing. We wouldn't have the prison industrial complex we do, the segregation, the disparity in income, the school to prison pipeline, the voter suppression, etc.
I get annoyed by the tone of a lot of the left, and the tendency to use scapegoats to mask self victimization, and the refusal to admit that racism is a global human trait. BUT, color based inequity exists beyond just adjusting for economic status.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur wrote:If institutionalized racism wasn't a culture wide thing. We wouldn't have the prison industrial complex we do, the segregation, the disparity in income, the school to prison pipeline, the voter suppression, etc.

I wish I could even fathom a fix. I think that in general, humanity throughout history has always sought to retain a measure of segregation - often self-imposed. It's very hard to accept groups of people that differ from you without slotting them into bins in your own mind. That bin ends up with a label, and that label expands to include a description.

Groups of Somalian immigrants come to Maine and huddle together for familiarity in an unusual place. People around them find them to be off-putting because of their differences. I wouldn't go out of my way to discriminate against them for that, but I have developed a generalization based on first-hand experience - My first experience was in an apartment building with a Somalian neighbor downstairs who thought his music needed to be loud and often, and to me it was just jarring, rude noise. It seems to me that this group of people tend to hold their noses high and look down on others while displaying nothing that sets them apart or above from other poor people. The matriarchs tend to get heavy and waddle through grocery stores, expecting everyone to get out of their way. The men tend to be rail-thin and seem to like dated styles of clothing. I have pretty good accuracy identifying them based on their particular style of poor driving skills, somewhere in the realm of 70 to 80%.

I don't want to call myself a racist - but I've got these folks in a bin and that bin has a label, and that label has a description. I've never gone out of my way to associate with anyone in that group - never worked with them, never talked to them, never sat next to someone in a movie theater - and they've never gone out of their way to associate with me. For me it's not their skin color that I key in on, but rather the way they act. I think that if I had a positive interaction with a Somalian that came across as polite and engaging, I'd end up creating a new smaller bin for that person instead of adding those descriptors to the larger, more generalized bin.

I have bins for everyone, though. The rural folks, the fishermen, the very rural people, people that wear pants on their thighs, politicians, etc. I tend to use behaviors first and skin color as a footnote, if at all.

Racism as we're discussing seems to me to be a concept strictly limited to skin color. I don't know if I have the capacity to break people apart by just that trait. I see a big difference between a white guy in a business suit that speaks calmly and concisely and a white guy with his pants down to his thighs, walking like he's holding in a massive dump, and slurring at me in broken uneducated English that's barely decipherable without a translator. Now replace white with any other color. They all go in the same bin in my head, not different ones.

I suppose that's why I get offended when people complain about white people holding down black people, or other people. For me, skin color has nothing to do with it. I think that for a lot of people, it does, and that's all kinds of stupid. I don't like being lumped into your racist bin based on color, dear article-writer, so you lost me as soon as you did.

I think I derailed myself there.

I enjoyed the honesty of your post. I think we all have some form of prejudice based on personal experience, or passed onto us by family and friends. It's whether or not we let them dictate our actions, or view them as positives instead of negatives that determines whether or not we're truly racist, or just humans who want to be better.

Paingod wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:If institutionalized racism wasn't a culture wide thing. We wouldn't have the prison industrial complex we do, the segregation, the disparity in income, the school to prison pipeline, the voter suppression, etc.

I wish I could even fathom a fix. I think that in general, humanity throughout history has always sought to retain a measure of segregation - often self-imposed. It's very hard to accept groups of people that differ from you without slotting them into bins in your own mind. That bin ends up with a label, and that label expands to include a description.

Groups of Somalian immigrants come to Maine and huddle together for familiarity in an unusual place. People around them find them to be off-putting because of their differences. I wouldn't go out of my way to discriminate against them for that, but I have developed a generalization based on first-hand experience - My first experience was in an apartment building with a Somalian neighbor downstairs who thought his music needed to be loud and often, and to me it was just jarring, rude noise. It seems to me that this group of people tend to hold their noses high and look down on others while displaying nothing that sets them apart or above from other poor people. The matriarchs tend to get heavy and waddle through grocery stores, expecting everyone to get out of their way. The men tend to be rail-thin and seem to like dated styles of clothing. I have pretty good accuracy identifying them based on their particular style of poor driving skills, somewhere in the realm of 70 to 80%.

I don't want to call myself a racist - but I've got these folks in a bin and that bin has a label, and that label has a description. I've never gone out of my way to associate with anyone in that group - never worked with them, never talked to them, never sat next to someone in a movie theater - and they've never gone out of their way to associate with me. For me it's not their skin color that I key in on, but rather the way they act. I think that if I had a positive interaction with a Somalian that came across as polite and engaging, I'd end up creating a new smaller bin for that person instead of adding those descriptors to the larger, more generalized bin.

I have bins for everyone, though. The rural folks, the fishermen, the very rural people, people that wear pants on their thighs, politicians, etc. I tend to use behaviors first and skin color as a footnote, if at all.

Racism as we're discussing seems to me to be a concept strictly limited to skin color. I don't know if I have the capacity to break people apart by just that trait. I see a big difference between a white guy in a business suit that speaks calmly and concisely and a white guy with his pants down to his thighs, walking like he's holding in a massive dump, and slurring at me in broken uneducated English that's barely decipherable without a translator. Now replace white with any other color. They all go in the same bin in my head, not different ones.

I suppose that's why I get offended when people complain about white people holding down black people, or other people. For me, skin color has nothing to do with it. I think that for a lot of people, it does, and that's all kinds of stupid. I don't like being lumped into your racist bin based on color, dear article-writer, so you lost me as soon as you did.

I think I derailed myself there.

I get what you are saying and it sucks to be lumped in with all the evils that this country has performed. It sucks but I think you are on the right track. I think a huge problem for people is that instead of acknowledging the things that have happened in our history, honestly accept that they were wrong, and also acknowledge that the evils of the past are still being perpetuated today. If the left could admit to that and honestly say we are sorry, take ownership for our part in it (yes, part. we all today reap the benefits of generations of human slavery and cruelty just by living here) then I feel like it would be great first step to moving into a solution. Trying to whitewash history only furthers the pain into the future. We need to deal with this today.

The White House was partially built by slaves. Past presidents have owned people. PEOPLE! Its our history. Our legacy. No matter your skin color you are part of that history today. Make a choice to acknowledge it, maybe say yeah, that was terrible and I am so sorry our past treated human beings like that and then maybe it bother you so much that people try to lump you in.

Paidgod, sorry didn't mean to preach to you. Just wanted to share how I feel about that what you said.

If the left could admit to that and honestly say we are sorry, take ownership for our part in it (yes, part. we all today reap the benefits of generations of human slavery and cruelty just by living here) then I feel like it would be great first step to moving into a solution.

No Scoop no no. This is the problem. We dont move on from the past. We can acknowledge it and yes it was wrong. But apologize? No. Ive never owned a slave, Ive never known a slave. My family never owned a slave. And no one around has ever been a slave. I dont owe anyone an apology. Apologizing for something no one has done simply perpetuates the hate and hurt feelings on both sides. One side will feel owed for something they dont deserve and the other will feel they paid something for what they never had or did.

What we need is to simply stop hate right now and move on with our future together in a world of kindness and understanding. It seems everyone in the world is racist to some extent today. Id like to drop it all and just live life. We dont get long on the stupid planet. We all need to treat each other equal and fair. No that doesn't happen but it should have a long time ago.Keeping hurt feelings and passing them down generation after generation is not solving anything.

I dont like being involved in race stuff...reading this for the fun Trump stuff...but the apology BS is one thing that has always pissed me off.

Daehawk wrote: simply stop hate

There is absolutely nothing simple about that endeavor.

hepcat wrote:

Daehawk wrote: simply stop hate

There is absolutely nothing simple about that endeavor.

I think it's a question of economics. Everyone wants more and we generally see it as someone has taken from us. This is where the left have it right. There needs to be an economic shift from the top. Then we need to recognize that the no matter the hardship, we have institutionalized an economic barrier to the black and latino communities and we have a responsibility to remove that barrier. So far, we've shown we don't know how, so it is our responsibility to learn how. I think denying the need to even figure this out or jumping right to things like reparations or boostrap pulling is a mistake on all levels.

LordMortis wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Daehawk wrote: simply stop hate

There is absolutely nothing simple about that endeavor.

I think it's a question of economics. Everyone wants more and we generally see it as someone has taken from us. This is where the left have it right. There needs to be an economic shift from the top. Then we need to recognize that the no matter the hardship, we have institutionalized an economic barrier to the black and latino communities and we have a responsibility to remove that barrier. So far, we've shown we don't know how, so it is our responsibility to learn how. I think denying the need to even figure this out or jumping right to things like reparations or boostrap pulling is a mistake on all levels.

Hep - Thats a huge understatement..I agree. Stopping hate is impossible while parents still teach it to their children because they were taught it themselves or learned it in the world trying to simply live.

Lord - I know. It seems we ..or rather our Government....can spend billions $$$$ on wars and things but when it comes to actually helping our people they would rather raise taxes and cut a program to help those who dont need the help. When they do 'help' they help other countries while our homeless and hungry children who number in the hundred thousands stay hungry, sick, and die with nothing.

Take Aids...they fight it everywhere but do you see anything here about it? Do you see TV commercials with any info? Do they teach it anywhere? I never hear a thing about it unless the Gov is sending so and so this and that much aid to help them.