Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump facing right-wing backlash for caving in on the shut dow

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 26 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump facing right-wing backlash for caving in on the shut down

Suddenly Trump finds himself under attack from those his loudest backers. Coulter blasts Trump over shutdown deal: 'Biggest wimp ever to serve as president' | TheHill https://t.co/TPOXnHh9tA

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    edited January 26
    As long as Fox News sticks with him I think he's OK. Trump is the Grand Priest of Trumpism, his base trusts him over his new critics, and Ann Coulter and others who feel let down by this hate the mainstream GOP anyway. They will attack him for this climbdown, but they won't agitate for a primary challenge. Short of someone ever more Trumpian than Trump appearing and painting him as the establishment figure, but how likely is that?

    Trump is the nominee unless he is impeached or chooses not to run, that's my firm belief.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,389
    Just watched the first episode of Korean zombie series Kingdom on Netflix.
    V. good, if you enjoy that sort of thing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,075
    Jennings not good enough...it’s the same every time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,389
    Pelosi played Trump brilliantly.
    All sweetness and light at the White House meeting, until he took the bait. Hoist by his own misogyny.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,912
    Quincel said:

    As long as Fox News sticks with him I think he's OK. Trump is the Grand Priest of Trumpism, his base trusts him over his new critics, and Ann Coulter and others who feel let down by this hate the mainstream GOP anyway. They will attack him for this climbdown, but they won't agitate for a primary challenge. Short of someone ever more Trumpian than Trump appearing and painting him as the establishment figure, but how likely is that?

    Trump is the nominee unless he is impeached or chooses not to run, that's my firm belief.

    They have nowhere else to go...

    Dangerous words in the long term but for Trump only the next go round matters.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 839
    edited January 26
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1088888030901882880

    That's recently deceased, Distinguished Flying Medal winning, former President George H.W. Bush. Stay classy, Ann.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Nigelb said:
    If he is sensible O'Rourke will focus on winning the next the next Senate or Governor race in Texas and aim for 2024 (though he might have competition from Congressman Joseph P Kennedy III).

    Beating an incumbent president after only one term of their party in the White House is still a huge ask, especially for someone who lost their last race, which is why it has happened only once since WW2 in 1980. If O'Rourke ran and lost in 2020 he is likely done.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    edited January 26
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
  • HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    edited January 26

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
  • HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

    Secondly, remember that this crisis arose from Trump's unwillingness to compromise in December... when the GOP controlled both houses.

    He hasn't changed his fundamental approach, and won't. All he's done is belatedly take the only route out of a dire situation which was entirely of his own making.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Sure he does, I think you are making a small but crucial logical leap. He has no choice but compromise *if* he wants to get legislation passed, but that isn't a given. He can keep his no-compromise approach and use the GOP Senate majority to continue appointing judges, act more on foreign policy where he has freer reign, and use executive orders to enact quasi-legislative reform (lest we forget that the 'Muslim Ban' was implemented in some form without any new law going through Congress). It will be much less legislatively productive than the alternative, but it's an option. And he'd blame the Democrats for the lack of legislation.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

    Secondly, remember that this crisis arose from Trump's unwillingness to compromise in December... when the GOP controlled both houses.

    He hasn't changed his fundamental approach, and won't. All he's done is belatedly take the only route out of a dire situation which was entirely of his own making.
    Bill Clinton arguably caved in to the GOP on welfare reform, it still helped him get re elected.

  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    I am not going along with bigging up of Pelosi. Trump took a big mouthful of something he couldn’t chew and swallow, the result plopped into Pelosi’s lap.

    Wiki leaks clearly an intermediary in a heinous crime. Is it time for wiki leaks defenders to see not freedom fighters but anarchists and traitor to liberal and libertarian cause?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Sure he does, I think you are making a small but crucial logical leap. He has no choice but compromise *if* he wants to get legislation passed, but that isn't a given. He can keep his no-compromise approach and use the GOP Senate majority to continue appointing judges, act more on foreign policy where he has freer reign, and use executive orders to enact quasi-legislative reform (lest we forget that the 'Muslim Ban' was implemented in some form without any new law going through Congress). It will be much less legislatively productive than the alternative, but it's an option. And he'd blame the Democrats for the lack of legislation.
    Judges do not come up that often and that area is now largely settle anyway in Trump,'s favour.

    On foreign policy the likes of Romney in the Senate may limit his manoeuvre to sign treaties and foreign policy rarely wins elections, domestic policy does and the House is key to that
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    I do think the GOP should worry about this, but their base did turn out in the midterms. It was just that the Dem base did too, despite coming from demographics who often don't, and Independents sided with the Democrats.

    I'm not saying the kind of massive blue-collar turnout that Trump needed to win in 2016 is a given, I'm just saying I think it's the third biggest risk to his re-election hopes (after, in order but only just, Independents/Suburbs going blue and high turnout from the Dem base).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    edited January 26
    Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (and one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,353
    Embryonic Yellow Vest 'party' wants direct democracy, with a lot more referendums:



    They should take a look at the mess that is the UK before going down that road...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Sure he does, I think you are making a small but crucial logical leap. He has no choice but compromise *if* he wants to get legislation passed, but that isn't a given. He can keep his no-compromise approach and use the GOP Senate majority to continue appointing judges, act more on foreign policy where he has freer reign, and use executive orders to enact quasi-legislative reform (lest we forget that the 'Muslim Ban' was implemented in some form without any new law going through Congress). It will be much less legislatively productive than the alternative, but it's an option. And he'd blame the Democrats for the lack of legislation.
    Judges do not come up that often and that area is now largely settle anyway in Trump,'s favour.

    On foreign policy the likes of Romney in the Senate may limit his manoeuvre to sign treaties and foreign policy rarely wins elections, domestic policy does and the House is key to that
    The Senate appoints circuit court judges, not just Supreme Court, and there has been a deliberate (and open) attempt to appoint judges at twice the rate of the Obama years to try and get politically aligned judges in place. Given those judges also stay in place for an extended period it's a political play which will have significant impact for some time.

    As for foreign policy, I agree it might not win him an election. I'm saying he has an alternative to compromising on domestic policy - not that it's the smart move.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    kinabalu said:

    Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

    They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,253
    I'm totally on the other side of this bet.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get any legislation passed now without compromise. Ironically the Democrats gaining the House may have ensured Trump's re election as was the case for Bill Clinton after the GOP took Congress in 1994, prior to that Clinton's approval rating was almost as bad as Trump's
    Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

    Secondly, remember that this crisis arose from Trump's unwillingness to compromise in December... when the GOP controlled both houses.

    He hasn't changed his fundamental approach, and won't. All he's done is belatedly take the only route out of a dire situation which was entirely of his own making.
    Bill Clinton arguably caved in to the GOP on welfare reform, it still helped him get re elected.

    That's not analogous at all.

    Clinton said "okay, you've elected a GOP Congress to do some things including welfare reform... so I'll agree a package with them that delivers that, which I can sign, and that tames their wilder instincts". He vetoed two bills, before negotiating a somewhat more moderate (albeit still conservative) alternative. He therefore came across as respecting the midterms, and being moderating and reasonable.

    Would he have passed the welfare reforms had he not needed to deal with a GOP Congress? No. But would it have gone further if Gingrich had had a colleague in the White House? Yes - and the vetoed bills did go further.

    In this case, Trump has come across as unreasonable, essentially saying, "I'll shut the government down for years if necessary unless I get my wall money". And he's come across as weak because his bluff was called and he got nothing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,635
    Quincel said:

    kinabalu said:

    Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

    They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.
    What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    Quincel said:

    They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.

    You are making them sound like ordinary voters.
    :-)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083

    Quincel said:

    kinabalu said:

    Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

    They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.
    What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.
    That's a good point. Trump looking like a strongman is as important as him being one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    Quincel said:

    kinabalu said:

    Feel a bit sorry for the Don on this one. He works tirelessly to impress his alt right constituency and at the first sign of a wobble (one which he can hardly be blamed for) they dump on him. It makes you wonder who on earth these people want in the White House if this president is not good enough for them. Like, would Alex Jones suffice?

    They want someone who can deliver everything they want, despite what they want being at times literally impossible and at other times politically impossible (separation of powers etc). The backlash isn't about Trump, it's about their dream hitting reality.
    What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.
    Gingrich often humiliated Bill Clinton, House Speakers have arguably more power than the President domestically so no surprise there. Again though Clinton was able to win back independents by pitching himself against the extreme Congress
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,008
    What is the difference between a forward defensive by Keaton Jennings and the Loch Ness Monster?

    There are people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).
    He can just blame Congress for blocking funding
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).
    He can just blame Congress for blocking funding
    And he no doubt will, but it doesn't change the fact that people who want a wall can't feel as confident that Trump will deliver it as they could have in 2016.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    More generally on this topic, can we talk about the huge spread of prices on 2020 GOP Nominee? Ladbrokes has Trump as 1/2, Betfair has 3/5, WillHill 1/4, and PP 1/6. That seems a lot, and Shadsy normally knows what he's doing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    Perhaps, but if Trump was willing to do that I don't think the shutdown would have happened at all. This could be the start of him changing tack, but past experience suggests probably not. Trump hasn't really changed his approach at any point since announcing his run in 2015.
    He has no choice, given the Democrats control the House he cannot get ump's
    Firstly, he didn't compromise on this - he caved in.

    Secondly, remember that this making.
    Bill Clinton arguably caved in to the GOP on welfare reform, it still helped him get re elected.

    That's not analogous at all.

    Clinton said "okay, you've elected a GOP Congress to do some things including welfare reform... so I'll agree a package with them that delivers that, which I can sign, and that tames their wilder instincts". He vetoed two bills, before negotiating a somewhat more moderate (albeit still conservative) alternative. He therefore came across as respecting the midterms, and being moderating and reasonable.

    Would he have passed the welfare reforms had he not needed to deal with a GOP Congress? No. But would it have gone further if Gingrich had had a colleague in the White House? Yes - and the vetoed bills did go further.

    In this case, Trump has come across as unreasonable, essentially saying, "I'll shut the government down for years if necessary unless I get my wall money". And he's come across as weak because his bluff was called and he got nothing.
    Clinton would not have implemented welfare reform without being forced to by a GOP Congress, so again opposition control of Congress was pivotal for forcing him to the centre and boosting his re election chances in 1996 by becoming more fiscally conservative. Trump similarly has had to accept Government shutdown is not a price most American voters will accept to fund the wall, so again that shifts him more to the centre as a result
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,993
    edited January 26

    Embryonic Yellow Vest 'party' wants direct democracy, with a lot more referendums:



    They should take a look at the mess that is the UK before going down that road...

    Switzerland works perfectly fine on that basis - the difference is the people can petition for referendums and if enough people sign up they are held and politicians are actually expected and indeed compelled to implement the result. That is direct democracy!

    Which is a bit different to politicians deciding when to hold them and on what topics (generally restricting them to constitutional matters on the rare occasions they are held) and then making them advisory in case they don't want to implement the decision of the voters. That isn't direct democracy!
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Trump's whole USP was "You've had loads of vague promises from politicians who don't deliver. Here's a (literally) concrete promise from a businessman who knows how to get things done".

    For many, it wasn't the Wall as such but the idea of a bloke doing something they can understand - success you can see.

    That's why "I'd still like to build a wall but, y'know, it's been tricky because Nancy has been nasty to me" just doesn't motivate in the same way.

    I don't think he's dead, incidentally. The economy is going reasonably well (stuttering a bit but historically decent), and there's no guarantee by any means that the Democrats will come out of the primaries with a candidate who is strong and relatively undamaged by months of fighting with colleagues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    edited January 26
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown wng now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college educated white men can easily find something better to do on a Tuesday in November than going down to vote for someone who just got his ass handed back to him by an elderly Democrat woman. They are highly unlikely to vote for anyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Yeah, but is "I still intend to build a wall, but haven't been able to for 4 years" as exciting a proposition to vote for as "I'll build a wall"? Presidents often struggle to excite their base for re-election, there's no reason Trump shouldn't have the same problem to some extent (albeit not as bad as normal due to hyper-partisanship these days).
    He can just blame Congress for blocking funding
    And he no doubt will, but it doesn't change the fact that people who want a wall can't feel as confident that Trump will deliver it as they could have in 2016.
    So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

    Remember the only President to have lost re election after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Carter in 1980, did so after his party won the 1978 midterms despite losses. Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama all saw the opposition win Congress in their first midterms and all were re elected
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    HYUFD said:



    So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

    Because, as SirNorfolk says, someone supporting something isn't as compelling as someone promising to deliver something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never nd give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    The polling though suggests the shutdown was hitting him with independents and he cannot win without those (in 2016 Trump won independents with 48% to 42% for Hillary). His base will still vote for him anyway even if they are grumbling now
    I'm not sure "his base will still vote for him" is right.

    Non-college nyone else, but motivation matters.
    They will still turnout for him, Trump has not abandoned his commitment to the wall even if he is not prepared to shutdown the Government forever over its funding.

    Plus unless Democrats find a candidate who can appeal to bluecollar workers in the rustbelt Trump still has a good chance of winning the Electoral College again
    Trump's whole USP was "You've had loads of vague promises from politicians who don't deliver. Here's a (literally) concrete promise from a businessman who knows how to get things done".

    For many, it wasn't the Wall as such but the idea of a bloke doing something they can understand - success you can see.

    That's why "I'd still like to build a wall but, y'know, it's been tricky because Nancy has been nasty to me" just doesn't motivate in the same way.

    I don't think he's dead, incidentally. The economy is going reasonably well (stuttering a bit but historically decent), and there's no guarantee by any means that the Democrats will come out of the primaries with a candidate who is strong and relatively undamaged by months of fighting with colleagues.
    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405

    What they want in cultural terms is someone to humiliate the people they don't like, so being humiliated by Pelosi is just about the worst thing for him.

    Terrible optics. Could hardly have been worse - although I suppose Pelosi could have been Mexican. Not writing Trump off yet though. I see dangers in him being forced by a split congress into behaving less like an infant. Might muddy the waters for WH2020 if that happens.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:



    So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

    Because, as SirNorfolk says, someone supporting something isn't as compelling as someone promising to deliver something.
    Yet the point remains Trump can now blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case had the Republicans held Congress
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,820

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    HYUFD has been predicting Trump pivoting to the centre since the middle of the GOP primaries.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Is brexit male or female?
  • HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:



    So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

    Because, as SirNorfolk says, someone supporting something isn't as compelling as someone promising to deliver something.
    Yet the point remains Trump can now blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case had the Republicans held Congress
    No, the point is he's failed to do it. I'll say it again - his USP was "canny, unconventional business tycoon who gets things done", not "fat bloke who broadly supports things you like but will fold embarrassingly when confronted with an elderly lady from California".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,093
    Mr. Glenn, I'm amused at the outrage, given the EU/Republic of Ireland seems to think they should have the right to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory (a nonsense with which May's dreadful deal has colluded).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    edited January 26
    dots said:

    Is brexit male or female?

    No Deal is 100% bloke.

    Norway Plus, however, is a girl. That's why our Head Girl - her maj - is getting behind it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pelosi is a brilliantly effective Speaker and legislator for the Democrats much as Gingrich was for the Republicans when he also took the House in 1994.

    However Bill Clinton came back by shifting to the centre and making compromises with Congress if necessary e.g. on welfare reform and pitching himself against them when required too.

    By ending the Government shutdown and not dying in a ditch over wall funding Trump could also be shifting to the centre post midterms with an eye on re election, gambling his base is already locked up

    He's been forced to back down humiliatingly from a dispute he never needed to have. That cannot possibly be some kind of smart pivoting.

    He's already been hammered by moderates who think he shouldn't have picked the fight; now he's getting it from conservatives who think he's weak for backing down.

    And remember, he didn't need to have this fight and give Pelosi an early win - there was a deal on the table in December, when Congress was fully in GOP control.
    HYUFD has been predicting Trump pivoting to the centre since the middle of the GOP primaries.
    I said it would happen if the Democrats took Congress and it has now started
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,196
    edited January 26
    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,280
    Theresa May's decision to scrap the fee for EU nationals to apply for stay in the UK after Brexit will cost up to £1.95m in refunds, the Lib Dems say.

    EU citizens who want to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021 were facing a £65 fee.
    But the PM said on Monday she would waive the fee and give refunds to those who had already applied. Home Office Minister Caroline Nokes said more than 30,000 people had signed up in a pilot programme for the scheme.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:



    So what, Trump still backs the wall but he can blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case were the Republicans still in control of Congress.

    Because, as SirNorfolk says, someone supporting something isn't as compelling as someone promising to deliver something.
    Yet the point remains Trump can now blame the Democrats for refusing to fund it which would not have been the case had the Republicans held Congress
    No, the point is he's failed to do it. I'll say it again - his USP was "canny, unconventional business tycoon who gets things done", not "fat bloke who broadly supports things you like but will fold embarrassingly when confronted with an elderly lady from California".
    Trump has banned immigrants from large numbers of Muslim countries, deported significant numbers of Hispanics, his base can hardly say he has done nothing and it does not matter what his USP is he cannot fund anything with a Democratic Congress, this that enables him to pivot off them
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,280
    kinabalu said:

    dots said:

    Is brexit male or female?

    No Deal is 100% bloke.

    Norway Plus, however, is a girl. That's why our Head Girl - her maj - is getting behind it.
    Women can get things wrong, but to be a true d**khead requires a man?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,353
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    Tim Kane?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,877
    The Today Show lost more than 10% of its audience 17 to 18. I suspect the haemorrhage has continued.

    The problem is, Humphreys is undoubtedly popular with a majority - let’s say 52% - of the audience. The rest are voting with their feet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    edited January 26
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    Biden is still the Democrats best chance of beating Trump and winning the rustbelt, with Sanders or Klobuchar their next best shot.

    All the others, Harris, Warren, Gilibrand, Booker etc are yet more California, New York or Massachusetts elitist coastal liberals like Hillary or Kerry and are not going to be able to win back enough blue collar voters in the key states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Iowa and Ohio from Trump
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,196

    Mr. Glenn, I'm amused at the outrage, given the EU/Republic of Ireland seems to think they should have the right to commit a regulatory annexation of UK territory (a nonsense with which May's dreadful deal has colluded).

    The whole point about the Good Friday Agreement is that it did grant some (limited) oversight to the Republic over NI. Our present problem is derived from the insistence of Ireland/EU that this continues indefinitely, and that treaties should take this into account. The Gordian Knot solution would be to abandon the GFA, but everybody is still pretending it's still viable post-Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    Tim Kane?
    Jim Webb would be better
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,116

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1088888030901882880

    That's recently deceased, Distinguished Flying Medal winning, former President George H.W. Bush. Stay classy, Ann.

    Ooo. One of our most distinguished PB members has just had a selfie posted on Facebook with this particular 'lady'.

    I won't mention which one it is so long as he sends me a bottle of 2012 Bond St. Eden Napa Valley in the next week :)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,196

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    Tim Kane?
    Possibly.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,684

    The Today Show lost more than 10% of its audience 17 to 18. I suspect the haemorrhage has continued.

    The problem is, Humphreys is undoubtedly popular with a majority - let’s say 52% - of the audience. The rest are voting with their feet.
    Yes , I voted with mine.Used to listen to R4 in the early morning quite a bit.
    However stopped listening because of John Humphrys.

    When he asked Ed Milliband if he was to ugly to be PM.
    I thought it was time to give it a miss.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    SeanT said:

    I no longer follow American politics closely enough to either comment, or care. Indeed I wonder at our obsession with the White House. It was understandable when America ruled the world and was 50% of global GDP. Now it is around 20% and will fall further over time. It is one power amongst several. China is already more important to most people in the world, in terms of trade

    Relatedly, I had an intriguing Brexit debate with some liberal Americans and Canadians in Vietnam last week. They were quite urgently questioning me on Brexit - why are you doing it, why is it such a disaster, what has possessed you, &c

    Then I explained to them the basic rudiments of how the EU works: it is run by unelected commissioners, who cannot be thrown out by voters, the parliament only approves laws, does not propose, the Supreme Court works in a foreign language and sits in a foreign country, there is no obvious way to get EU laws repealed, etc etc etc

    They were utterly confounded. I turned them into eurosceptics in about 2 minutes. The common response was: why the fuck would you ever tolerate that?

    I relay this not to extol my eloquence, but as an example of how intelligent foreigners - even foreigners who speak the same language - can be incredibly ignorant of another country’s politics. I think this issue has bedeviled Brexit from the start. After 50 years we still don’t quite *get* the EU, and they don’t quite *get* us. Hence, Brexit.

    De Gaulle was right. A wise Frenchman.

    China is still effectively a dictatorship that is why, the next Chinese leader is known well in advance and simply affirmed at the annual Communist Party congress, there is no political theatre like US primaries and presidential campaigns.

    India is at least a democracy, once they start to be global contenders may be more interest there
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,420
    SeanT said:

    I no longer follow American politics closely enough to either comment, or care. Indeed I wonder at our obsession with the White House. It was understandable when America ruled the world and was 50% of global GDP. Now it is around 20% and will fall further over time. It is one power amongst several. China is already more important to most people in the world, in terms of trade

    Relatedly, I had an intriguing Brexit debate with some liberal Americans and Canadians in Vietnam last week. They were quite urgently questioning me on Brexit - why are you doing it, why is it such a disaster, what has possessed you, &c

    Then I explained to them the basic rudiments of how the EU works: it is run by unelected commissioners, who cannot be thrown out by voters, the parliament only approves laws, does not propose, the Supreme Court works in a foreign language and sits in a foreign country, there is no obvious way to get EU laws repealed, etc etc etc

    They were utterly confounded. I turned them into eurosceptics in about 2 minutes. The common response was: why the fuck would you ever tolerate that?

    I relay this not to extol my eloquence, but as an example of how intelligent foreigners - even foreigners who speak the same language - can be incredibly ignorant of another country’s politics. I think this issue has bedeviled Brexit from the start. After 50 years we still don’t quite *get* the EU, and they don’t quite *get* us. Hence, Brexit.

    De Gaulle was right. A wise Frenchman.

    Clearly foreigners are very gullible to to any half arsed misrepresentation. Not so different to Britons. .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,093
    A quick thought on leaving/rejoining:

    Germany, France et al. will be keen that no more satellites escape the orbit of Planet Euroland. Plus, almost all the remaining member states will be in our heading towards the single currency. They'll increase integration to try and entangle members all the more, who would struggle even more than we have (although probably with less shit leaders) to get loose.

    It'll work. But the same entanglement will make it more difficult for British eurofederalists to persuade the rest of us to rejoin (unless it's in a very few years).
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,444
    SeanT said:

    I no longer follow American politics closely enough to either comment, or care. Indeed I wonder at our obsession with the White House. It was understandable when America ruled the world and was 50% of global GDP. Now it is around 20% and will fall further over time. It is one power amongst several. China is already more important to most people in the world, in terms of trade

    Relatedly, I had an intriguing Brexit debate with some liberal Americans and Canadians in Vietnam last week. They were quite urgently questioning me on Brexit - why are you doing it, why is it such a disaster, what has possessed you, &c

    Then I explained to them the basic rudiments of how the EU works: it is run by unelected commissioners, who cannot be thrown out by voters, the parliament only approves laws, does not propose, the Supreme Court works in a foreign language and sits in a foreign country, there is no obvious way to get EU laws repealed, etc etc etc

    They were utterly confounded. I turned them into eurosceptics in about 2 minutes. The common response was: why the fuck would you ever tolerate that?

    I relay this not to extol my eloquence, but as an example of how intelligent foreigners - even foreigners who speak the same language - can be incredibly ignorant of another country’s politics. I think this issue has bedeviled Brexit from the start. After 50 years we still don’t quite *get* the EU, and they don’t quite *get* us. Hence, Brexit.

    De Gaulle was right. A wise Frenchman.

    I turned two of my relatives into Europhiles over lunch by explaining how the UK works, what it does for us and how much it spends (1% of our GDP). The better-educated party has the upper hand in these debates.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,353
    There'll alway be a place on PB for him in the home for distressed UK reunificators.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,196
    SeanT said:

    ...the [EU] parliament only approves laws, does not propose....

    It annoys me that this misconception is still widely held.

    The UK Parliament is the building in Westminster with a big clock. Apart from private member's bills it does not propose laws, and indeed Christopher Chope excused his blocking of the upskirting law by stating that only the Government can propose law.

    The UK Government is the buildings in Whitehall and other cities that house the UK Cabinet and ancilliary staff. It proposes laws but does not approve them.


  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,397

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1088888030901882880

    That's recently deceased, Distinguished Flying Medal winning, former President George H.W. Bush. Stay classy, Ann.

    Ooo. One of our most distinguished PB members has just had a selfie posted on Facebook with this particular 'lady'.

    I won't mention which one it is so long as he sends me a bottle of 2012 Bond St. Eden Napa Valley in the next week :)
    Er, Robert Smithson posted the somewhat less than alluring (him not her) selfie on a previous thread. Publish and be damned, sir.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,093
    Mr. HYUFD, I think China's going to be interesting to watch. Xi's purged rivals, ended the decades long truce over corruption, made himself pre-eminent rather than first among equals, beefed up the military, claimed disputed islands, and made a large land (well, sea) grab in the South China Sea.

    Now he's consolidated his position the atmosphere in China seems to be a bit less foreign-friendly. Military adventures seem far from impossible.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,075
    edited January 26
    England need less than 500 now to win...got to be odds on now....CricViz only has England at 1%, obviously total nonsense.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,083
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    The GOP rightly value the prospect of winning the Rustbelt, but holding it isn't a guaranteed ticket to Trump re-election. If the Dems begin winning the 'Sunbelt' such as Arizona/Georgia then the maths becomes tight even with a Rustbelt sweep. And the region needn't go all for one candidate.

    Trump won in 2016 because the shift of blue-collar whites delivered new states to the GOP before hispanics and white-collar whites delivered new states to the Democrats. But that needn't be the case in 2020, even if the first half still works for the GOP.

    What I'm saying is, a Biden candidacy aims at denying the GOP the midwest states they need to win. But the Dems could also go for the Obama coalition again and try to 'take' existing GOP states to make up for the Midwest instead, and that could work too. The key is not to get stuck in the middle of the road, but that's the difficulty of coalition-building generally.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    Mr. HYUFD, I think China's going to be interesting to watch. Xi's purged rivals, ended the decades long truce over corruption, made himself pre-eminent rather than first among equals, beefed up the military, claimed disputed islands, and made a large land (well, sea) grab in the South China Sea.

    Now he's consolidated his position the atmosphere in China seems to be a bit less foreign-friendly. Military adventures seem far from impossible.

    Xi is certainly shifting China in a more nationalist direction and pushing a more statist platform after the capitalist reforms of Chinese leaders since Mao
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,108
    If Donald Trump’s advisers had only watched The Wire, many of the president’s aides and associates might have saved themselves a great deal of legal trouble.

    A scene from the HBO crime drama shows a character named Stringer Bell trying to broker peace between rival drug dealers, and trying to get them to abide by Robert’s Rules of Order. When the meeting adjourns, Bell walks up to a subordinate, who is busy scribbling on a legal pad.

    “Motherfucker, what is that?” Bell asks.

    “The Robert Rules say we gotta have minutes for a meeting. These the minutes,” he replies.

    Astonished, Bell snatches the paper out of his hand. “Nigga, is you takin’ notes on a criminal fuckin’ conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking, man?”


    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-associates-keep-taking-notes-conspiracies/581299/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,093
    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,930
    viewcode said:

    SeanT said:

    ...the [EU] parliament only approves laws, does not propose....

    It annoys me that this misconception is still widely held.

    The UK Parliament is the building in Westminster with a big clock. Apart from private member's bills it does not propose laws, and indeed Christopher Chope excused his blocking of the upskirting law by stating that only the Government can propose law.

    The UK Government is the buildings in Whitehall and other cities that house the UK Cabinet and ancilliary staff. It proposes laws but does not approve them.


    So what you are saying is there is a mechanism for Parliament to propose its own laws?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,075
    Scott_P said:

    If Donald Trump’s advisers had only watched The Wire, many of the president’s aides and associates might have saved themselves a great deal of legal trouble.

    A scene from the HBO crime drama shows a character named Stringer Bell trying to broker peace between rival drug dealers, and trying to get them to abide by Robert’s Rules of Order. When the meeting adjourns, Bell walks up to a subordinate, who is busy scribbling on a legal pad.

    “Motherfucker, what is that?” Bell asks.

    “The Robert Rules say we gotta have minutes for a meeting. These the minutes,” he replies.

    Astonished, Bell snatches the paper out of his hand. “Nigga, is you takin’ notes on a criminal fuckin’ conspiracy? What the fuck is you thinking, man?”


    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-associates-keep-taking-notes-conspiracies/581299/

    Shhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiittttttttt....Greatest tv show of all time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Quincel said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    As long as Trump has a Democrat Congress to pitch against, an economy doing OK and ideally with another coastal liberal elitist Democratic candidate such as Harris or Warren he has a good chance of winning the Midwestern and rustbelt swing states again and re election

    Plausible. The Dems need somebody who can hit him where it hurts. That'll be a man or woman from a hardscrabble background who can mock his populism and out-macho him. All the Dem candidates appear to be nice middle/upper class people who get upset and outraged when challenged. It's not enough. If it wasn't for his creepy videos I'd say Biden had a chance, but they exist so he doesn't.
    The GOP rightly value the prospect of winning the Rustbelt, but holding it isn't a guaranteed ticket to Trump re-election. If the Dems begin winning the 'Sunbelt' such as Arizona/Georgia then the maths becomes tight even with a Rustbelt sweep. And the region needn't go all for one candidate.

    Trump won in 2016 because the shift of blue-collar whites delivered new states to the GOP before hispanics and white-collar whites delivered new states to the Democrats. But that needn't be the case in 2020, even if the first half still works for the GOP.

    What I'm saying is, a Biden candidacy aims at denying the GOP the midwest states they need to win. But the Dems could also go for the Obama coalition again and try to 'take' existing GOP states to make up for the Midwest instead, and that could work too. The key is not to get stuck in the middle of the road, but that's the difficulty of coalition-building generally.
    To win Arizona they need huge Hispanic turnout and Georgia they need huge black turnout and even Obama could not win Georgia. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania remain the likeliest route to a Democratic EC win
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,930
    IanB2 said:

    Theresa May's decision to scrap the fee for EU nationals to apply for stay in the UK after Brexit will cost up to £1.95m in refunds, the Lib Dems say.

    EU citizens who want to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021 were facing a £65 fee.
    But the PM said on Monday she would waive the fee and give refunds to those who had already applied. Home Office Minister Caroline Nokes said more than 30,000 people had signed up in a pilot programme for the scheme.

    How many seconds of government spending does that represent?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,157
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    edited January 26

    No, the point is he's failed to do it. I'll say it again - his USP was "canny, unconventional business tycoon who gets things done", not "fat bloke who broadly supports things you like but will fold embarrassingly when confronted with an elderly lady from California".

    Yes, his big plus points to his base IMO are:

    1. Saying Non PC (aka primitive and vulgar) things which echo their own baser sentiments.
    2. Being a hard ass Businessman Who Gets Things Done. A wheeler dealer. A doer.

    Where (1) means "He's just like one of us" and (2) adds on "But he's also a proven billionaire boss-man and so we look up to him and trust him to deliver on stuff".

    It was Trump's killer achievement to successfully present this duality in 2016 and I don't think he wins again if he loses either aspect. I think he needs both, which is a challenge for him.

    Of course (1) is quite easy to maintain or even burnish - just keep up the trash talk - but (2) not so much.

    And if he loses that, what then does he become? A rich superannuated bigot with a dirty mouth. That gets you places, of course it does, but it will not get you a 2nd term in the White House.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,157

    England need less than 500 now to win...got to be odds on now....CricViz only has England at 1%, obviously total nonsense.


    At least this time we are putting some miles in their bowlers legs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
    Vietnam is still the Far East really though
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,108
    kinabalu said:

    And if he loses that, what then does he become? A rich superannuated bigot with a dirty mouth. That gets you places, of course it does, but it will not get you a 2nd term in the White House.

    There may come a point, if he looks like he can't win, he pulls out.

    "I didn't want a second term anyway..."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    edited January 26
    kinabalu said:

    No, the point is he's failed to do it. I'll say it again - his USP was "canny, unconventional business tycoon who gets things done", not "fat bloke who broadly supports things you like but will fold embarrassingly when confronted with an elderly lady from California".

    Yes, his big plus points to his base IMO are:

    1. Saying Non PC (aka primitive and vulgar) things which echo their own baser sentiments.
    2. Being a hard ass Businessman Who Gets Things Done. A wheeler dealer. A doer.

    Where (1) means "He's just like one of us" and (2) adds on "But he's also a proven billionaire boss-man and so we look up to him and trust him to deliver on stuff".

    It was Trump's killer achievement to successfully present this duality in 2016 and I don't think he wins again if he loses either aspect. I think he needs both, which is a challenge for him.

    Of course (1) is quite easy to maintain or even burnish - just keep up the trash talk - but (2) not so much.

    And if he loses that, what then does he become? A rich superannuated bigot with a dirty mouth. That gets you places, of course it does, but it will not get you a 2nd term in the White House.
    2 Is not really true otherwise Romney would have won in 2012.

    It was being able to appeal to blue collar rustbelt voters in a way Romney could not that was pivotal to Trump's election, if the Democrats pick another liberal, coastal elitist Trump will win those voters again and the Electoral College
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,930
    Scott_P said:
    Fair enough. When are they going to start building those border posts?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,541
    Scott_P said:
    So it is Deal or Corbyn Brexit or No Deal or No Brexit, ERG no backstop Deal is a unicorn Brexit the EU will not accept
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,157
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
    My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

    Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

    The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.
    Interesting. I would have thought that their more natural ally was Japan.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,157
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
    My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

    Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

    The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.
    Interesting. I would have thought that their more natural ally was Japan.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,877
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
    My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

    Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

    The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.
    China seems to have a knack for pissing off its neighbours. It’s a soft power minnow.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,993
    edited January 26
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Theresa May's decision to scrap the fee for EU nationals to apply for stay in the UK after Brexit will cost up to £1.95m in refunds, the Lib Dems say.

    EU citizens who want to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021 were facing a £65 fee.
    But the PM said on Monday she would waive the fee and give refunds to those who had already applied. Home Office Minister Caroline Nokes said more than 30,000 people had signed up in a pilot programme for the scheme.

    How many seconds of government spending does that represent?
    Won't the Government be losing £200 million plus from abolishing the fee meaning the administration costs of the scheme will fall on the general taxpayer.

    In the end for a modest admin fee of £65 - less than the cost of 4 hours of home care most local councils charge our frail elderly - you get right of residency in the UK for the rest of your life. Perhaps we could have said the sums raised will be used to fund social care for our elderly and disabled - several hundred thousand of whom have suffered cuts in support since 2010 as we apparently have no money to help them.

    Should we allow Irish citizens here to claim back the 80 euro cost of their Irish passports (105 euro if you get a passport card too) as that is their means of evidencing their right to remain here under the common travel area? Given Windrush that might be needed.

    What about the £10 admin fee we charge the frail elderly and disabled for a blue badge. Surely cruel and inhumane - why not abolish it. Its not their fault they cannot walk far?

    Why don't we offer UK passports for free and abolish the £80 charge - surely its nasty to charge people an admin fee so they can travel abroad.

    Or the £20 those of working age have to pay for an eye test - or £30 for a dental check up plus another £50 for a filling or £7 for a prescription. Surely unfair and cruel on the sick and poorly sighted - its not their fault their filling came out or they need glasses?

    Indeed why not abolish all government charges for everything - cos they are so unfair.

    In the end if you are so uncommitted to the UK that you weren't prepared to pay £65 (the price of a meal for two in a decent restaurant) to get lifetime residency here so we can cover the admin costs of checking your eligibility - are you really committed to the UK that much?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,108
    SeanT said:

    I note that no one has risen to my challenge: tell us how you repeal an EU law, in two sentences.

    This is because it cannot be done. This is why Brexit.

    Name an "EU law" you think should be repealled
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 28,308

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder how much Western firms are regretting jumping over there, what with IP going walkies.

    No expert on China, but I'd guess that Xi is likely in a very strong domestic position in the short term. But growth is done (always happens with a rapidly expanding economy) and that could lead to political pressure. And, in the past, a way of distracting from that can be to wave the flag and go invade somewhere.

    China's notably been reticent to have military adventures. I think Tibet in the 1950s was the last such conquest (had to check, they were involved in the Korean War but didn't conquer the peninsula, obviously, and absorb it into China).

    An alternative could be more land-grabbing.

    Yes and Hong Kong too is facing a crackdown on the pro democracy opposition, the Communist Party still wants capitalism on its own terms.

    China is unlikely to expand military adventures much beyond its borders but Taiwan is the likeliest flashpoint. Russia is still far more willing to challenge the West with military expeditions to the Middle East etc than China is
    I recall them invading Vietnam with minimal success.
    My recent trip to Vietnam was remarkably illuminating. The highlight, politically, was my guide in Saigon. He was a handsome dude in his forties, recently married to his 3rd wife, and with 4 sons. He was keen to talk sex, and politics. I discovered his Dad was once the media minister for the Vietnamese government in Hanoi, and was something of a hero of the War against America

    Yet this guy railed against the commie government, said it was totally corrupt. He showed me apartments in central Saigon costing 1-3 million dollars. All owned or sold by communist party officials. He also explained how much Vietnam feared and loathed China, and felt increasingly encircled by it, as China has made Laos and Cambodia total satellites and puppet governments, and at the same time has built bases on islands all down the Vietnamese coast.

    The ironic peak was reached when he told me Vietnam needed and wanted a deep friendship with Trump’s America, to balance Chinese power. He was serious, and he was smart. It was fascinating.
    China seems to have a knack for pissing off its neighbours. It’s a soft power minnow.
    I think the trouble is that it’s increasingly hard power too.

    This “peaceful rise” stuff is a myth.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,116
    viewcode said:

    SeanT said:

    ...the [EU] parliament only approves laws, does not propose....

    It annoys me that this misconception is still widely held.

    The UK Parliament is the building in Westminster with a big clock. Apart from private member's bills it does not propose laws, and indeed Christopher Chope excused his blocking of the upskirting law by stating that only the Government can propose law.

    The UK Government is the buildings in Whitehall and other cities that house the UK Cabinet and ancilliary staff. It proposes laws but does not approve them.


    The Government consists of elected members of Parliament. Therefore it is still at least a subsection of the elected chamber. The same is not true of the European Parliament. It is you who are suffering under a misconception
This discussion has been closed.