Grunching a bit, but this is my view as well. If Trump gets his way by throwing a temper tantrum, he'll do it every time something doesn't go his way. Anyone with children knows you don't give into this behavior else it continues ad infinitum. Trump acts like a child and needs to be treated that way.

What if, hear me out here, every time he has one of those tantrums - you use it as an opportunity to get massive tangible benefits for your side and real people in the real world?

The last book I bought was O'Reilly.

This debate has gone on long enough but team rep is over thinking this... Trump is super impulsive and barely understands policy. If you can get him a room alone with Pelosi and Schumer they probably talk him into anything.

It's been shown that Trump gets off the phone with world leaders and immediately tries to implement policies that they recommended to him.

That's all we were suggesting, get Trump to tweet out "I am trading the wall, 25 billion dollars baby for X-Y-Z" and then have the GOP implode... would be hilarious!

Aren't these books nearly obsolete by the time they get published? I would recommend just doing a udemy tutorial (those get updated if they are popular, such as the Maximillian S or Stephen Grinder dudes)...

Books still come in handy imo, especially if you're a contractor like Microbet and you can write them off. The only ones I buy these days are cookbooks.

But yeah Udemy is amazing.

I've barely looked at it. Back in the day I had a bunch of O'Reilly books and thought I'd get this one. It's not obsolete or anything content-wise, it's more like books are obsolete for learning programming.

Can we stop throwing around DACA

If trump would give a permanent solution to DACA then it would be worth talking about


Be he won’t. Ever

So it’s not worth talking about


The better play is to tell him to get ****ed and make him sign the bill with $0.00 for the wall.

It's still worth talking about if you can dominate the news cycle by publicly offering it.

Yeah, it's obviously never happening but acting like that shouldn't be accepted is ****ing ridiculous.

Dems should use this opportunity to fix funding the government so each piece is not hostage to these things. Pass bills to fund one agency at a time and let the Republicans and Trump either sign or earn the very specific ire of each constituency one by one. Maybe pass something that funds things for more than one year at a time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/trum...everybody.html

Trump just pulled the troops from Syria which is like the least Republican policy decision in the history of the GOP.

You can talk him into anything if you get him alone.

And then someone else will talk to him and he'll reverse his decision.

Link didn't say that, but I searched for it a little and saw headlines...

WaPo: Trump's base did not elect him to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan

CNN: Elizabeth Warren aligns with Trump on Syria

Endless war and endless pining for Hillary Clinton from these people.

Are you just drunk all day every day during the shutdown?

I think so. We had yet to see a new politician come into office in DC that is a new deal/progressive/Bernie type, until AOC. I have been worried that Bernie's time on the planet was going to pass without any meaningful progressive ideas coming to fruition. If we keep getting candidates like AOC, however, we will see progressive progress in my lifetime. Maybe. I am 45 after all. Republicans are terrified and appalled that she would have an agenda backed by an overwhelming majority of the people.

Trump offers DACA solution and all he wants is permanent closure of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Take it?

I was at a hearing yesterday in federal court. My district is still humming along for matters not involving government litigants. Stuff involving the government is being continued. In the past, I've seen agencies request (and receive) indefinite stays of proceedings in the face of impending shutdowns. I don't think there is any particular protocol.

This seems reasonable. TSA agents are already dropping out, if airports start having disruptions, I can imagine it coming to a boiling point pretty quick. And tsa aren't the only ones. These 'essential' government employees can't keep working for free forever.

You could easily just get some philanthropists to fund and support those. So, probably.

I'm sure you could keep adding stuff and eventually the answer would be no, but you have a way to go.

There is no perfect solution. Regarding the executive I value a check on their power over them being more susceptible to undue outside influence. Individual legislators have much less power so I am fine with them make a lifetime career out of it.


(It's not like the president will take a lobbying job after they leave office anyway.)

Could we ever reasonably go back to having the executive branch be more limited in scope as it was intended or does the needs of a modern society and 100+ years of precedent make that a fantasy (like abolishing the IRS or going back to the gold standard or other dumb things people fantasize about)?

"Needs of a modern society" is definitely not a thing, all us countries with parliamentary democracies are doing fine. God knows how you would accomplish it though. It's hard to take power away from people once they have it.

After the failure of the 1999 referendum to make Australia into a republic (where people wanted to elect the president themselves, instead of letting hated politicians do it, apparently oblivious to the fact that directly elected positions are how you get politicians in the first place) there's talk of having a two-step referendum, where we vote yes or no to a republic and then vote on what kind of system we want. I'm going to have to vote for continued monarchy if that happens because I regard a directly elected president as a really bad idea, so I'm not voting yes to a republic without knowing what the system is.

Half speed Trump is best Trump. I feel like I'm at the townie bah.