SingleMalt made the claim that “There is little point in meeting with Trump, as he has demonstrated that he is willing to renege on any deal that Ann Coulter disapproves of.” I think it’s a pretty absurd claim, and one for which he didn’t provide any evidence, but he’s on Team D AFAICT, so presumably you believe him. If you really think Ann Coulter’s blessing is a necessary precondition to getting a deal with President Trump, it’s not such a wild and crazy idea to go have a sit-down with Ann Coulter and find out what she thinks is acceptable.
I’m not sure it’s “absurd” given that it’s a factual claim about his behavior that’s supported by his actual behavior. Or did you mean that the behavior itself was absurd? In which case I agree.
Try to negotiate with the CFO of Sprint a lower phone bill and see if he thinks returning your calls is worth his time.
At the end of the day, Trump has to sign that damn thing. That’s required.
The events on December 20-22 should make it abundantly clear that even if Trump has appointed a team of negotiators, has announced that those negotiators represent him, and has agreed publicly and privately to everything the negotiators say at all stages, that he could still pull the rug out by not signing and there’s not one thing those “negotiators” can do to stop him. So no matter who he sends to the party on his behalf, the negotiator is Trump.
Now, for a normal president we could blur definitions, because we might expect a normal president to go along with whatever a party of negotiators comes up with if he says he will. So we could say that those negotiators have the (unofficial) power to speak on his behalf. But trusting that is a fool’s errand with Trump, because he can (and as shown, will) upend everything until his own signature makes that impossible for him.
Тяцmр strikes back, quoting from The Guardian just a couple of minutes ago:
No, WE do not govern by temper tanТяцmр! This is becoming interesting…
Lovely demographic for the dims to covet so highly.
Well, the Racists, Rednecks, and Russians coalition government we currently have is not doing a good job, so why not try Convicts, Communists, and Cortez?
Тяцmр, not Tjschmp.
That’s written Mock Russian for “Trump”.
You don’t believe in serving time and starting over? I’m sure Trump’s supporters will appreciate the chance.
Assuming you mean “The Democrat Party”, do please be aware of who they are - overwhelmingly black, including 20 percent of all adult blacks in the state. The ban law was enacted as part of Jim Crow, so it includes a requirement for Massa in the Governor’s Office to approve a restoration of rights (and you can guess what Scott’s record there was). Also, please be aware of the low threshold for a crime to be a felony in Florida, and of the large racial disparities in sentencing that persist even today.
Some of us still believe in justice over partisan advantage, and that includes the two-thirds of Florida voters who approved the amendment.
I suspect that Trump himself will appreciate the chance.
The Federal Government is generally prohibited from accepting volunteer services from private citizens, especially when it relates to “core” government functions. There are, however, numerous exceptions.
Which specific exception do you believe allows the President to have his underage son act as an agent of the Executive Branch?
Ah, so you’re expecting it with no basis at all. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but some people like to have opinions that are supported by evidence, and I was curious if that was how you formed your opinions.
Since Anne torpedoed the last agreement, it wouldn’t be the worst idea to find out what she would agree to. Of course, since Trump is the one who cares about her opinion, he should probably be the one checking and then negotiating accordingly.
Of course, to large extent that is what is happening. Anne says “wall or bust” and Trump is dancing to that tune.
Is there an exception for being smarter, less criminal, and more mature than the President? If so, I pick that one.
This reveals a thoroughly rotten view of how democracy should work: rather than governing in a way that respects human rights, you govern like you’re playing a Euro-style board game where you try to collect the most meeples in your scoring area.
Demographics don’t get “coveted” by folks who want good government. And a person who can only see politics through this filthy lens can never make politics better.
Here’s some evidence: