Not happening. Appointing judges and justices was one of the reasons for many to vote for Trump vs. Clinton. He bails on that, or if he bails on the wall or other immigration enforcement, he might as well pull an LBJ and not even show up for the election.
What I could see him doing is trading some form of gun control for the wall. Trump isn’t a gun guy at all, and has publicly delighted in defying the NRA in the past. How does a federal UBC—make every transfer go through an FFL—and/or ‘red flag law’ in exchange for wall funding sound? I don’t think you could get an assault weapons ban through—Trump’d be OK with it, but a lot of Senators and Reps wouldn’t be—but that’s the sort of concession I think you could reasonably try to pry out of Trump.
While I’m fine with assuming Trump gets desperate enough, I don’t think we can take it further to “Trump can actually be trusted to do what he says.” So anything about things he “will” or “won’t” do is out. Those are promises he will renege on.
I like the idea of tacking it onto HR1. And the way you said to implement it is brilliant. Tacking it onto a bill Dems want and Pubs don’t makes it where the Dems either get a win or are no worse off.
What’s more, I think that, if Trump wanted to, he could sell his base on HR1 quite easily, since he actually ran on reducing corruption in government. If he does, the Pubs can either grow balls and not agree with him, or agree with him and give the Dems what they want.
If this was some other forum, I’d have said RTFirefly won the thread. But maybe some of you can come up with something even better.
If he doesn’t take a fair deal, then fuck it. He can run for re-election on getting the wall built – why should I sign up for a deal where he gets the wall AND his appointees AND who knows what else? His campaign is his problem.
Cool. If you have a problem with judicial nominees, complain to the Senate. Expecting absolutely no new judges or justices to be appointed over the next two years is frankly silly, and you would have had zero problem telling me the same thing if I were to advocate such during, say, the last two years of Obama’s Presidency. I was suggesting things that the Democrats could likely push for and get in exchange for giving Trump his big stupid, typically populist, public works project that won’t do a damned thing to forestall illegal immigration.
I’m sure there are other concessions he’d likely make. Trump isn’t a doctrinaire conservative. I’m not sure he could even spell Buckley, Kirk, or LOL Goldwater, never mind know who they were. Ask for things he’s likely to give you, even if a typical Republican wouldn’t dream of giving them to you.
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy’s fault?
I dunno about “always”, but nobody with even the barest hint of an awareness of the current situation can honestly claim this shutdown isn’t squarely at the feet of the Trump himself.
I don’t know that they are. The 2013 shutdown and the current one are clearly a case of the Republican party wanting to change something (repeal the ACA, build a wall), not having enough votes/the presidency to accomplish it, and refusing to continue funding normal operations. Plus in both cases, there’s a main figure from the Republican party (Cruz, Trump) on video threatening to shut down the government if they don’t get what they want. So that seems fairly clear.
The one a year ago could arguably be placed at the feet of the Democrats, who refused to continue normal funding until DACA was considered.
Wikipedia is a bit too sparse and I don’t remember enough of the specifics either way to know how best to attribute the Clinton/Gingrich era shutdowns.
Trump’s publicly saying that he’s willing to keep the shutdown going as long as it takes in order to get his wall. He’s saying that he’s the guy who decides and he can end the shutdown when he wants to.
Of course, Trump is also publicly saying that the shutdown is entirely the Democrats’ fault. Which means he’s saying that he has no control over the shutdown or when it ends.
How does Trump believe both of these things at the same time? I don’t know.
Did you say this when the Republicans said Obama couldn’t appoint any new justices in the last year of his presidency? Or is this a new rule you adopted after Trump got elected? Or is the line separating silliness and not-silliness drawn somewhere between one and two years? Can you tell us how many months it is?
That’s not an impasse. All it means is that you need the deal to be completed before the laws are passed so he can sign, or the deal baked into the text of the law as he signs it.
Or the HR1 idea, which pins whatever Trump gets to him actually keeping his promise. He has to be willing to sign that bill and get his Republicans on board if he wants to get his wall funding.
You can still make deals with untrustworthy people. If you couldn’t, capitalism would grind to a halt.
It just requires making reneging undesirable or actually to your benefit.
Even if one could trust Trump, which of course you can’t, there is nothing the Democrats could get from him that’s worth it.
The single best thing the United States of America can do for itself is get Donald Trump out of office. No other extant issue is that important. Getting him his stupid wall vastly increases the likelihood he will remain in office.
The reason I think it is a fair offer is that the no appointments proposal is just as silly as Trump’s wall. That’s why it’s a fair deal. If Trump thinks his farts don’t smell and he doesn’t think it’s a fair deal, then he can reject it and shove the wall where it belongs.
Donald Trump wants two scoops of ice cream, and then gives everyone else one. In his mind, that’s a fair deal. Nobody else should find that a fair deal. So basing my expectation of a fair deal on the basis of what Donnie Two Scoops is willing to give up is inherently a laughable metric.
In the words of an old comedian, Republicans campaign for office on the basis of government not working, then once in office they do everything they can to prove it. With the exception of that aborted shutdown a while back where Dems wanted DACA and shut down government for like a weekend, Republicans have deliberately shut down government to achieve their agenda. So, if the shoe fits…
Oh please Nemo. You and I have been around here long enough to know that’s not the case, and that I’ve had plenty of things I’ve found wrong with Trump, and W before him. The ‘rule’ about not seating a judicial candidate in the last year or so of a lame duck President’s term, when the Senate is divided, goes back to Fortas and LBJ, if not further. Biden, when he was Judiciary Chair, famously wanted to prevent a SJ nominee at the end of the HW Presidency. If you want someone to blame, take it up with Harry Reid’s idiotic idea to change the number of votes from 60 to a simple majority in the case of judicial nominees. Probably thought the Democratic Party would never lose another majority. Oops.
No, my comment on the shut down comes from the media-driven perception that whether it’s a GOP Congress and Dem President, or it’s a Dem Congress and GOP President, any shut down is automatically the Republican’s fault. Be he Gingrich, or Ryan, or Trump.
You know, compromise usually means giving the other side some of what they want, along with you getting some of what you want. Compromise is not supposed to be you getting half of what you want, while the other side goes and pounds sand. Give Trump his stupid wall. It’s just going to be torn down when your lot wins in 2020 anyway. Or, better yet, as I keep writing here, ask for something that a populist like him would be happy to give away, in exchange for whatever governmental pocket change his silly pet project is going to end up costing. Don’t worry, I’m sure the wall will work as well at interdicting the flow of Democrat-voting human cargo, about as well as the rest of the border’s security works to interdict other contraband.
I’m of two minds. A shutdown is a terrible thing to waste, and offers a bargaining opportunity to ram a whole load of unpalatable gains like DACA down Trumps throat. (I’m also not a nitwit, so this is structured as an irreversible hard deal and not some bullshit trumpy promise.)
On the other hand, Trump the shutdown owning terrorist has completely backed himself into a corner, and this could the right time to play hardball all the way.
Who else laughed out loud at Trump the Actor storming out of the meeting with Pelosi? Almost as Oscar award winning as Pence storming out of the NFL game with players taking a knee. Both totally spontaneous because “they couldn’t tolerate” such indignities to the US of A. If this was a Hollywood movie, it would be panned as so unrealistic.
Give him money to go away. That’s it. No wall; don’t do that to property owners on the Rio Grande. Just give him more money than he’s ever seen in his life (which would be, AIUI, a bit less than half what he’s asking for the wall) to leave. He must agree to no longer be President, renounce his US citizenship, move to Europe, and never pester us again. And he has to take young Stephen Miller with him.