President Trump will deliver a prime-time address Tuesday, 9PM

Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Lol. Nice.
So what we just need is more border fencing to cover the remaining open areas?
Where? You don't need to cover all areas.

Building fencing is accustomed with more border patrol after construction is complete, not less. It's strategic. I prefer we stick to that.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
That's exclusively Trumps fault, so add that to the cost of the wall.
Such a claim is very strong evidence that you are against the wall for the sole reason that you want him to fail, and that every other concern you have with the wall is being faked. Trump is no more (or less) responsible for trying to make good on campaign promises as Chuck and Nancy are.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Such a claim is very strong evidence that you are against the wall for the sole reason that you want him to fail, and that every other concern you have with the wall is being faked. Trump is no more (or less) responsible for trying to make good on campaign promises as Chuck and Nancy are.
Trump is exclusively responsible because he didn't sign the bi-partisan bill, because it didn't have the wall. That's what created the shut down.

Now he may have an alternate means of getting the wall through an invented crisis, but to make sure he has all of his ducks in a row first, so he still won't sign a bi-partisan bill without the wall.

The wall isn't popular, and the metrics are trending the right direction, so there's no dire need. So now, what can we do strategically?

Hold the entire U.S. hostage and in the wake creating unnecessary collateral damage.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
Trump is exclusively responsible because he didn't sign the bi-partisan bill, because it didn't have the wall. That's what created the shut down.

Now he may have an alternate means of getting the wall through an invented crisis, but to make sure he has all of his ducks in a row first, so he still won't sign a bi-partisan bill without the wall.

The wall isn't popular, and the metrics are trending the right direction, so there's no dire need. So now, what can we do strategically?

Hold the entire U.S. hostage and in the wake creating unnecessary collateral damage.
There has been no bill passed by both houses of the same Congress. If there were, all the news would be talking about is "Will Congress override the bill that Trump vetoed by not signing it?" You don't even fully grasp what you are talking about when you regurgitate this talking point.

Why won't you just admit you are against it to see Trump fail? It's clear as day man. You can't even admit that both parties are doing the EXACT SAME THING in this fight.
 
Likes: bigedole
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
263 miles of fence adds security measures to 263 miles of the border. Is that really so hard to understand? Really?
263 miles of fence still need to be patrolled in order to prevent break through, tunnels, climb overs, etc. The question is whether or not the security measures added by newer walls are worth the cost, particularly when they will be accompanied by new border patrol agents and new technologies anyway. The wall serves a singular purpose and requires maintenance to do so. Personnel and technologies can be leveraged for many purposes. This is touched upon in the article you claim to be meaningless, and expanded upon in detail in other 'meaningless' reports

As dictated by actual policy makers at a right-wing think tank
Border obstacles are expensive and require personnel. They should only be used where they are worthwhile investments. The question here is whether or not the proposed additional barriers are worth the investment, and that's a question that can't be answered without an understanding as to why new barriers are suddenly being proposed in these areas. Are these low melt point areas? I don't know

And post any article you want. They are meaningless. Anyone who has ever walked a path that is ultimately blocked by a wall, fence, gate, etc., knows that the path suddenly becomes more difficult to cross when they encounter the obstruction.
You may as well wear a T-Shirt that boasts 'I revel in ignorance'. Articles are not meaningless by default. If you find a biased one, point it out, don't pretend the written word has no relevance, lest we pretend your love of walls stems from your desire to drag us back to the stone age

You are also building a straw man here. The poster you are responding to is not arguing that walls don't make things difficult to cross (is anybody in this thread)? More disingenuity form you. He is arguing the effectiveness of the walls, the ROI on the cost.

According to the top search results on Google, the cost of a shut down will vastly exceed the amount of money that is being fought over. So 263 miles of fence will save money from that perspective alone.
more specious reasoning

by this logic, any time a president wants something that isn't popular enough to be properly legislated through congress, said president should shut down the government until the cost of shutting down the government exceeds whatever said president desires. You are now defending hostage tactics, and dismantling of checks and balances in our government

Once again, there are honest ways to argue in favor of a wall. This is not one of them. It impresses me how often you run to the least honest defenses of this proposal. You're doing well you actually explore the ROI on the specific mileage proposed.

And ironically, you are illustrating exactly why people like myself who are in favor of properly placed and maintained barriers may be opposing Trump's current proposal. Any cost incurred by Trump using government employees as a pawn to get what he wants is an addition to the cost of the wall. Giving in is a validation of dirty tactics, and will simply encourage their use in the future. This discussions should have been held in congress, not held over the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of workers and in the media with no solid information. Holding the discussion properly would have made it a lot easier for your side to paint democrats as alarmists over a few billion dollars, and a lot easier for my side to get properly sourced details about the efficacy of the proposal. Instead, we are stuck with dirt
 
Last edited:
Likes: Beerman462
Sep 4, 2018
1,499
1,432
235
"collateral damage"

just hearing that phrase takes me back to 2010 when the "collateral murder" video leaked on wikileaks showing US military gunning down journalists in Iraq, all under the Obama admin

https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/

but of course we can ignore that, and Dems certainly did at the time. half the population can feel safe writing it off as Fake News now that wikileaks is one of the spooky Russian puppets manipulating the US by showing us the shitty things we actually do

how many billions have we continued to pump into that very military? the same Dems stomping their foot now also voted for a defense budget increase.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
Where? You don't need to cover all areas.

Building fencing is accustomed with more border patrol after construction is complete, not less. It's strategic. I prefer we stick to that.
Lol. I’ll leave you to ruminate on your illogical arguments. You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times. Go back and read all what you’ve written. TDS is real.
 
Likes: pramod
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
There has been no bill passed by both houses of the same Congress. If there were, all the news would be talking about is "Will Congress override the bill that Trump vetoed by not signing it?" You don't even fully grasp what you are talking about when you regurgitate this talking point.

Why won't you just admit you are against it to see Trump fail? It's clear as day man. You can't even admit that both parties are doing the EXACT SAME THING in this fight.
There more politics to it than that right now. If it were that easy that would be great.
 
Likes: pramod
Aug 12, 2011
8,333
86
610
Trump is exclusively responsible because he didn't sign the bi-partisan bill, because it didn't have the wall. That's what created the shut down.

Now he may have an alternate means of getting the wall through an invented crisis, but to make sure he has all of his ducks in a row first, so he still won't sign a bi-partisan bill without the wall.

The wall isn't popular, and the metrics are trending the right direction, so there's no dire need. So now, what can we do strategically?

Hold the entire U.S. hostage and in the wake creating unnecessary collateral damage.
Yep, you cant say give me a wall or I shutdown the government and then blame others. He's taken the lively hood of government workers hostage.

Also noone is dumb enough to think $5B is enough for the wall. Estimates are much higher. $5B is a down payment on a money pit.
 
Last edited:
Likes: PkunkFury
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Why are you dodging a response to the point that you falsely asserted that Trump has vetoed some bill passed by Congress?
He did veto a bill pass by congress, and threatened to veto any bills that pass the Senate.

However the Senate is also playing a game to appease Trump, so they won't ram bills through, they won't even bring it to vote because they know that Trump will veto it. Why not force it? The Senate doesn't want to.

If Trump says fuck it, the Senate will pass it. The Senate fears reprecussions from voters like you because Trump still has a chance to win the next election.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
by this logic, any time a president wants something that isn't popular enough to be properly legislated through congress, said president should shut down the government until the cost of shutting down the government exceeds whatever said president desires. You are now defending hostage tactics, and dismantling of checks and balances in our government

Once again, there are honest ways to argue in favor of a wall. This is not one of them. It impresses me how often you run to the least honest defenses of this proposal. You're doing well you actually explore the ROI on the specific mileage proposed.

And ironically, you are illustrating exactly why people like myself who are in favor of properly placed and maintained barriers may be opposing Trump's current proposal. Any cost incurred by Trump using government employees as a pawn to get what he wants is an addition to the cost of the wall. Giving in is a validation of dirty tactics, and will simply encourage their use in the future. This discussions should have been held in congress, not held over the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of workers and in the media with no solid information. Holding the discussion properly would have made it a lot easier for your side to paint democrats as alarmists over a few billion dollars, and a lot easier for my side to get properly sourced details about the efficacy of the proposal. Instead, we are stuck with dirt
As I recall, Trump has been asking for wall funding for a few months, since the negotiations begun for the latest budget a few months ago. I think what Pkunk and others are arguing is that they thought both sides has reached an "agreement" a few days before Xmas to fund the government, only for Trump to refuse to sign it.

So anyway, no, Trump didn't just suddenly demand a wall a few days before the shutdown.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
He did veto a bill pass by congress, and threatened to veto any bills that pass the Senate.

However the Senate is also playing a game to appease Trump, so they won't ram bills through, they won't even bring it to vote because they know that Trump will veto it. Why not force it? The Senate doesn't want to.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you are a woefully uninformed regurgitator of Dem talking points. He never vetoed a bill to reopen the government. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/TrumpDJ.htm
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Jun 9, 2004
12,437
181
1,350
You know most undocumented immigrants are now coming in via airplane on visas and overstay . A wall wont stop someone. And it certainly won't address Mexico's issues with drugs and gangs .

.
I’m talking about a comprehensive policy. The wall would signify our intent and enforcement of the border plus adherence to labor and immigration codes would support it.

Neither Mexico nor Central America would be able to survive an enforced border without comprehensive reform. And that would benefit all parties.
 
Likes: weltalldx
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
Oh is that all you're hung up on? I'll use the right terminology.

Trump refuses to sign any bill that passes the Congress if it doesn't have the wall in it. Are you happy now?
I was already happy. You claimed something untrue. I said that's not true. You doubled down. I happily then provided proof I was correct, and was happy from that moment forward.
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
Looks like cracks are already forming in the Dems, at this point I actually think Trump should hold off on the emergency declaration, at least for another week. Looks like the national address and other PR efforts he did had some effect. The winds of opinion are changing and the Dems are starting to feel the pressure:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/10/democrats-crack-on-the-wall/
 
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
by this logic, any time a president wants something that isn't popular enough to be properly legislated through congress, said president should shut down the government until the cost of shutting down the government exceeds whatever said president desires. You are now defending hostage tactics, and dismantling of checks and balances in our government
To be fair it's not the first time a president shuts down the government to pass legislation.
 
Likes: PkunkFury
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
There is nothing disingenuous about my position. That you would accuse me of such for not marching to the drum of some "think tank" says a lot. Try harder next time.
Not your position, your posts.

One can take an honest position on building a wall. You, however, continuously resort to fallacy because you can't defend yours

This has nothing to do with you marching to the drum of some 'think tank', though the fact that you pretend people are against the wall for dishonest reasons while ignoring think tank policy they cite is indeed disingenuous

I barely have to try with you. List of disengenuity you've provided this thread since I joined it:

fallacy - pretending that a wall = peace and tranquility on the sole basis that Jim Acosta stood next to one for a minute
Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility. Just ask Jim Acosta.

strawman - pretending the poster moved the goal posts in order to ignore his post and tare him down. The user you replied to was refuting your claim "Put up a wall, and you get peace and tranquility." by suggesting immigration reform would still be required for peace and tranquility. He did not move the goal posts, you did. You are the one who invoked 'peace and tranquility' and claimed only a wall was required to bring it, he corrected you
Stop moving the goal posts with stupid claims like we can only build a wall if we pass amnesty with it, as suggested by your blatant attempt to muddy the waters by changing the subject to immigration reform.

fallacy - accuse all articles as being meaningless so you don't have to read or refute the ones that you are incapable of refuting. Of course you inherently know everything that needs to be known...
And post any article you want. They are meaningless.

strawman - Pretend the poster you are arguing has claimed walls don't make things difficult to cross, so you can tare that false position down, when he has never taken this position
Anyone who has ever walked a path that is ultimately blocked by a wall, fence, gate, etc., knows that the path suddenly becomes more difficult to cross when they encounter the obstruction.

fallacy - point out that building a wall will save money because it will stop the crisis which exists and continues precisely because the president refuses to budge on his demand for the wall
According to the top search results on Google, the cost of a shut down will vastly exceed the amount of money that is being fought over.

fallacy - projecting onto another poster when they have flat out explained to you why they dislike a wall
Such a claim is very strong evidence that you are against the wall for the sole reason that you want him to fail, and that every other concern you have with the wall is being faked.

strawman - pretending my criticism of your posts has been that you do not march to the drum of a think tank' so you can tare me down
That you would accuse me of such for not marching to the drum of some "think tank" says a lot. Try harder next time.

There were more I didn't bother with. You're basically averaging one per post. How many sourced and reasoned arguments are you providing?

The sad part is, I blatantly pointed some of these out for you before. Rather than correcting them and switching to taking an actual position, you simply pile on more.

Feel free to point out mine, happy to correct them. After all, I respect disagreement. Cherish it even. It helps advance our species. However, disagreement needs to be articulated genuinely.

To be fair it's not the first time a president shuts down the government to pass legislation.
oh, most certainly agreed
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
Ok, so you're in agreement with me about the whole situation then?
How did you formulate that belief? Did I miss the part where you finally admitted that you are against the wall because you want Trump to fail somewhere? And did I miss the other part where you admitted the Dems are just as much at fault for the shutdown as Trump? If you admit those two things then yes, we both agree on what the situation is, and merely disagree on what the best solution is.

@PkunkFury - if you could not recognize the jest in the "Just ask Jim Acosta" part, :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:, then :messenger_anguished:.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pramod
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
How did you formulate that belief? Did I miss the part where you finally admitted that you are against the wall because you want Trump to fail somewhere? And did I miss the other part where you admitted the Dems are just as much at fault for the shutdown as Trump? If you admit those two things then yes, we both agree on what the situation is, and merely disagree on what the best solution is.

@PkunkFury - if you could not recognize the jest in the "Just ask Jim Acosta" part, :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:, then :messenger_anguished:.
It's Trump's fault, exclusively.

And I don't see why we need the wal compared to maintaining the what we have now. What should be done is pass the budget stuff, and then compromise on a wall and immigration bill. Something for something. The wall for deferred action or so on.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
@PkunkFury - if you could not recognize the jest in the "Just ask Jim Acosta" part, :messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:, then :messenger_anguished:.
No!!!!!!!
this is more disingenuity form you.
You are free to be disingenuous, but I'm going to call it out.
You used the Acosta argument to deflect criticisms of your position twice (1, 2)
Holy shit, just read your post!
But facts are facts. Just yesterday CNN's very own Jim Acosta proved that walls work and are not mere vanity projects. You asked for proof, so I gave it to you.
You presented Jim Acosta standing by a wall as 'facts' and 'proof'! This is not a jest. You provided no other facts or proof.
Now you are gaslighting me, more disinginuity. You are just like your buddy @ConnorDuffy1977
And when I called out the lunacy of the Acosta argument, you doubled down by attempting to defend it. If you intended for the argument to be made 'in jest', you'd have told me then.
Never mind that throwing 'jests' into an argument you are insisting is serious is still disingenuous, because then you can disingenuously backtrack on shit you meant by claiming 'lol, I'm just trolling, you were triggered'.
But thank you so much for finally showing that you agree with me that your argument is fallacy, in your own roundabout and convoluted way

disagreement needs to be articulated genuinely.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
1,273
944
280
It's Trump's fault, exclusively.

And I don't see why we need the wal compared to maintaining the what we have now. What should be done is pass the budget stuff, and then compromise on a wall and immigration bill. Something for something. The wall for deferred action or so on.
We havent been able to reach a compromise on immigration for over a decade now. What makes you think trying to do things the usual way will work this time?
 
Nov 11, 2018
120
42
150
Democrats can't be so naive as to believe that this shutdown, with all of its resultant impact on the lives of our most vulnerable, isn't what Trump and his supporters - in Congress and the public - desire. They know exactly what is happening and relish the outcome. This is why I firmly believe that the Democrats, while clearly justified in their opposition to Trump's demands, are going to lose this battle. Trump has absolutely nothing to lose in this fight.
 
Jun 26, 2018
648
459
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
Never mind that throwing 'jests' into an argument you are insisting is serious is still disingenuous, because then you can disingenuously backtrack on shit you meant by claiming 'lol, I'm just trolling, you were triggered'.
Like claiming the wall is going to be border spanning, 30 foot high amd $30b? Like you did the other day?

LOL

Hello kettle, meet the pot here.
 
Feb 16, 2018
96
99
160
Remember when China, East Germany, the Roman Empire, the city state of Athens, the Byzantine Empire build Walls ?
Man, what a bunch of Fools.....
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Remember when China, East Germany, the Roman Empire, the city state of Athens, the Byzantine Empire build Walls ?
Man, what a bunch of Fools.....
- We're not under siege.
- All of those areas still got invaded no matter the security of the walls.
- Those walls had more to do with reassuring those who lived inside them, rather than with dividing self from outsiders.

No more bad comparisons please.
 
Likes: chaos789
Feb 16, 2018
96
99
160
Why do so many illegals come to the Usa ? (Some even say its an Invasion)
Because its so comparable easy ? (Not a lot of Wall between the Borders perhaps ?)
And bad comparisons ?
Because a security measure has to work 100% perfectly or else its not worth it ?
The Berlin Wall wasnt there to stop People ? (Granted, it was to stop them leaving, but same difference)
The poor Romans build Walls like the Limes or Hadrian's Wall to feel safe and not as an prevention against the Barbarians ?
The Great Wall of China wasnt build against the Invasion of Nomadic Tribes ?

Your Door doesnt stop 100% of all Robbers, neither can the Cops prevent every Crime, should we just remove all Doors and Cops ?
 
Likes: pramod
Nov 11, 2018
120
42
150
Remember when China, East Germany, the Roman Empire, the city state of Athens, the Byzantine Empire build Walls ?
Man, what a bunch of Fools.....
So, we should begin holding our standard on human rights to that of ancient civilizations? Interesting how anti-communists cite East Germany when seeking historical examples to support their xenophobia.
 
Last edited:
Feb 16, 2018
96
99
160
So, we should begin holding our standard on human rights to that of ancient civilizations? Interesting how anti-communists cite East Germany when seeking historical examples to support their xenophobia.
East Germany isnt "Ancient"
And whats exactly the Point of telling me that someone today tries the same than an Earlier Civilization ?
The Roman Empire build Roads, lets not build Roads ?
Its just a question if Walls work or not, maybe not 100% ,but they do.
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2018
2,347
1,111
280
Everyday the picture becomes clearer and clearer. Trump is pushing the wall to get money for the 17 new lawyers that he just hired and his re-election campaign.

He even setup a website that fooled his followers into thinking they were making donations for the wall but that money was really going to his re-election committee.

I knew his cause was self serving just didn't know exactly what he was going to use the money.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
This is not a dig against 538 at all. They are just aggregating 3rd party polls.

According to 538, Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning the election based on just the polls. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And also according to 538, the polls now show between 29% and 32% of people blame democrats for the shutdown. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...down-americans-still-think-trump-is-to-blame/

So, can anyone plausibly explain why Trump should be sweating these polls based on recent history? Even if they are true, what does Trump really have to lose in this fight besides his base if he caves?
 
Likes: pramod
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
This is not a dig against 538 at all. They are just aggregating 3rd party polls.

According to 538, Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning the election based on just the polls. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

And also according to 538, the polls now show between 29% and 32% of people blame democrats for the shutdown. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...down-americans-still-think-trump-is-to-blame/

So, can anyone plausibly explain why Trump should be sweating these polls based on recent history? Even if they are true, what does Trump really have to lose in this fight besides his base if he caves?
28% chance of winning is still a chance. Polling is complicated by the existence of the electoral college, and Trump ultimately only won by 100k votes spread out among three states. Also consider that he lost the popular vote by a comparatively wide margin and it's clear that polling still has to improve to factor in the electoral college, but that 538 polls weren't necessarily off

Concerning why Trump should sweat the polls, using your source's graph of Trump's approval ratings:


Can you tell when the shutdown started on that graph? I can.

It's the biggest/longest negative trend for Trump's numbers in over a year, and it's happening after a half year period of stable opinions (it seems like the initial overreaction to Trump had settled)
A single poll over a single day is valuable, but looking at trends is much more valuable, as taking measurements over time will help account for outliers and will show change via a consistent methodology. The trend here is something I'd worry about, if I were Trump

But does this trend implicate a direct effect on Trump's chances of re-election? Hard to say. Once again, the electoral college complicates things. If all of the new 'Disapproves' come from blue states, it won't change much. You can't directly compare the 40.8% here to the 28.6% in 538's election night polls. Same goes with comparing the 29%/32% polls you are citing to election night numbers. All of these polls are measuring different things. The election night polls were weighted to account for electoral victories
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
28% chance of winning is still a chance. Polling is complicated by the existence of the electoral college, and Trump ultimately only won by 100k votes spread out among three states. Also consider that he lost the popular vote by a comparatively wide margin and it's clear that polling still has to improve to factor in the electoral college, but that 538 polls weren't necessarily off

Concerning why Trump should sweat the polls, using your source's graph of Trump's approval ratings:


Can you tell when the shutdown started on that graph? I can.

It's the biggest/longest negative trend for Trump's numbers in over a year, and it's happening after a half year period of stable opinions (it seems like the initial overreaction to Trump had settled)
A single poll over a single day is valuable, but looking at trends is much more valuable, as taking measurements over time will help account for outliers and will show change via a consistent methodology. The trend here is something I'd worry about, if I were Trump

But does this trend implicate a direct effect on Trump's chances of re-election? Hard to say. Once again, the electoral college complicates things. If all of the new 'Disapproves' come from blue states, it won't change much. You can't directly compare the 40.8% here to the 28.6% in 538's election night polls. Same goes with comparing the 29%/32% polls you are citing to election night numbers. All of these polls are measuring different things. The election night polls were weighted to account for electoral victories
Wasn't digging at 538 at all. I understand what you are saying about them. And in general I agree with you on trends, etc., as well. In this case I think the only thing we disagree on is how much Trump should really worry about the polls. My position is he shouldn't, because polls have missed support for him before (and likely continue to do so), and most importantly because the blame going the other way suggests he is not losing people he could genuinely count on voting for him in 2020 regardless of what happens (by and large). For him politically, he stands more to lose if the base crumbles than by holding firm IMO. I just don't see a big enough swing in his approval rating to suggest he is losing more than he likely would by caving.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
Wasn't digging at 538 at all. I understand what you are saying about them. And in general I agree with you on trends, etc., as well. In this case I think the only thing we disagree on is how much Trump should really worry about the polls. My position is he shouldn't, because polls have missed support for him before (and likely continue to do so), and most importantly because the blame going the other way suggests he is not losing people he could genuinely count on voting for him in 2020 regardless of what happens (by and large). For him politically, he stands more to lose if the base crumbles than by holding firm IMO. I just don't see a big enough swing in his approval rating to suggest he is losing more than he likely would by caving.
yes, I agree, it is unclear that the change is enough to effect Trump's re-election prospects.

I should clarify that when I say "I'd worry if I were Trump", that's mostly because I'd care what the country as a whole thinks of my policies. If Trump is happy with an entrenched voter base in exactly the right spots that allows him a victory, he may not need to be concerned. His 'Approval' line has been lower, and that's the number that shows when his base is chipped away. It was also higher to begin with though; it's unclear if that means he's already sitting at an EC deficit, or if some people who didn't vote for him started out favorable
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,209
1,736
355
yes, I agree, it is unclear that the change is enough to effect Trump's re-election prospects.

I should clarify that when I say "I'd worry if I were Trump", that's mostly because I'd care what the country as a whole thinks of my policies. If Trump is happy with an entrenched voter base in exactly the right spots that allows him a victory, he may not need to be concerned. His 'Approval' line has been lower, and that's the number that shows when his base is chipped away. It was also higher to begin with though; it's unclear if that means he's already sitting at an EC deficit, or if some people who didn't vote for him started out favorable
I honestly think he does regardless of his character flaws. But he's boxed in because things are so polarized, and he's left with only two options: 1) abandon those who voted for him to hopefully make those who didn't happy; or 2) push for what got him elected. And faced with the very DNC friendly media who despises him (as well as their own role in electing him), choice 1 is really a fools errand politically, especially now that his party has been brought to heel with the changes to the Senate.