This is no longer about a failure of Democrat voters and honchos to humbly acknowledge their failure to serve an enormous number of Americans.

They're enjoying the Trump presidency. Expressing social distance from the voters for whose interests they once built their careers is emotionally rewarding to them. Meritocracy is no longer about achievement, right? It's about academic test scores and other over-stressed (and under-evident) systems of social distinction.

It seems entirely possible that they'd rather lose elections than provide representative government to the many people they've come to ignore and belittle. It's more egotistically gratifying than having to actually interact with the hoi polloi, let alone court their enthusiasm through anything but government programs.

"Welcome to Trump's second term, brought to you by the Democratic Party."

Nope, the Democrats gave us Trump's first term because they so idiotically gave us a choice of Hillary. That was a big mistake.

But, it was good for us because Trump has done more for middle America than the decade or so before him.

So, I say "Welcome to Trump's second term - brought to you by Trump!"

> it was good for us because
> Trump has done more for middle
> America than the decade or
> so before him.

Yeah? Great. List all the things:

1. _______
2. _______
3. _______
4. _______
5. _______
6. _______
7. _______

Etc.

…At this point he'll go down as no more consequential for the direcction of American governance, and certainly not less profligate in its spending, than Barack Obama.

You need to read the constitution some day Crid. If you actually paid attention you would notice the president doesn't set the budget. But then you might have to give up some of that butthurt you are so enthusiastic about.

"Actual reality is unimportant, in other words. It can be manipulated and changed and restaged with little truth to the restaging, but a good story."

Not true. Yes, perception does matter. The concept of political spin isn't a new one. Heck, you can go back to the founding of this nation and find a great example in the Boston Massacre. But a story isn't enough. The story has to be founded in reality at least a little bit. The Democrat desperation to 'talk about the narrative' isn't enough. Especially after having such stories be proven to be false so many times. For spin to work, for the story to have impact, the story teller must have credibility. You can tell the most compelling story you want, but if the audience considers it fiction it has no impact.

Hillary is a perfect example of this. She has a wide spread reputation for lying. During her campaign she lied in multiple obvious ways. Neither her supporters or her opponents actually believed anything she said. As a consequence of that it didn't matter what she said. Tell a great story or a terrible one, it doesn't matter. No one was listening. Her words had no value.

As for impeachment, no amount of spin, no great story is going to change things there. Can the Democrats impeach Trump? No. They don't have the votes. They can get him in the house but they lack the votes to actually remove him in the senate. The real question was 'Can the Democrats start impeachment and keep their jobs?' That is where spin would help. But the answer appears to be no. If the Democrats start impeachment most of them will probably be voted out of office. And just like with Hillary they have a problem with credibility that nullifies any spin they try to put on things. For years Nadler has claimed to have all the proof that Trump colluded with the Russians and stole the election. And for years Nadler has failed to reveal that proof. He lied. He lied loudly and publicly and obviously. Many other prominent Democrats have done the same. So no one is listening when they tell stories. Those stories are fiction and have no impact on reality.

They can get him in the house but they lack the votes to actually remove him in the senate. ~ Ben at July 27, 2019 11:10 AM

"Getting him in the House" is impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not removed or censured by the Senate. Ditto for Andrew Johnson (by a single vote).

Impeachment is akin to indictment. After indictment, there is a trial. The Senate serves as the jury in the subsequent trial.

Thank you for the correction Conan. You are right. What they can't do is remove him from office. The Democrats lack the votes to impose any actual punishments which makes the whole process pointless as far as real effects. It becomes yet another 'narrative'.

Right now it looks like if the Democrats do chose to impeach Trump any of them up for reelection in less than solid Democrat districts will lose the next election.

> You need to read the
> constitution some day

You need to lean back and relax in the privacy of your own home with some good books on spelling, punctuation, and the fundamentals of interpersonal conduct.

When one walks by the river it is inevitable that one's shoes get wet. When one flings insults all around them like a money with poo it is inevitable that some insults falls on you.

But as we all know Crid is not a troll. No sir no way. He has investigated himself and found no troll like behavior. And as we all know Crid's word is beyond reproach. He is as honest as a Clinton and twice as handsome.

It is merely a coincidence he cannot point out how the president sets the budget and must fall back on personal insults to distract from his ignorance. Merely a coincidence.

> perception does matter

It's compelling insights like these that keep us coming back for more! Read the constitution!

It's worse than that (if you're a Democrat). Their main trump card up to now has always been that they control the legacy media, and can always get it to define Democratic party positions as "mainstream."

But since the media all jumped the shark four years ago, they have completely discredited themselves in the eyes of all non-Democrats. And even if they manage to silence every blog and podcast that disagrees with them through the "deplatforming" movement, they will never get their audience back. You have zero chance of persuading people who won't listen to a word you say.

This, plus public disgust at Antifa terrorism and now at the Epstein pedo scandal, is the permanent doom of the Democratic party. Thank God.

Ah, once again you are unable to support your claims Crid and instead have chosen to take words out of context. Nope, not a bit of trollish behavior here. Not at all.

But by all means Crid do your homework and show us what powers the president has to control the budget. It's a simple question. Please point out the laws that give the president spending powers. Educate us great sage.

So his achievements include:

1. Butthurt.

We're enormously grateful for your attention in this forum.

"…At this point he'll go down as no more consequential for the direcction of American governance, and certainly not less profligate in its spending, than Barack Obama."

"You need to lean back and relax in the privacy of your own home with some good books on spelling, punctuation, and the fundamentals of interpersonal conduct."

1) Then you ignore the chaos, still outstanding, that Teh One's constant lying about the Affordable Health Care Act inflicted on us all. Yes, a Democratic Party eager for more money and power did that, in Congress, getting full faith and credit from a President seated entirely by white guilt. Yes, at this point you should be THANKFUL for your observation - if only it were true.
Because you have lamented things Trump has done. It's very Democrat of you to forget the past - and that after carefully exposing every mis-step!

2) The pot vs. kettle, mote vs. beam observations are so overdone, wouldn't you agree?

Conan observed that we require perfection of those admired by others. The outrage can be so intense that those who are mad simply don't know it.

When YOU get to chiding someone about their grammar, you've run out of things to say. Urk.

They don't even have to be admired Rad. Despite Crid's ongoing confusion on the issue I don't admire Trump. He has good and bad sides but on the whole I don't consider him an admirable person. I do consider him a useful one and an effective president. While I have some complaints about the job he's done on the whole I am very happy with the job he has done.

Which dovetails nicely with the likability topic from a few weeks ago. Likability is a plus when both politicians are indistinguishable. Like Bush vs. Gore, at least on the campaign issues there was no real difference between the two candidates. So the election came down to which party people preferred and which guy was more likable. So wooden Gore lost. But when there are real differences likability loses it's importance. Same with spin. It is unlikely that either likability or 'narrative' will have a large influence on this next election. The economy and actual policy plans are far more significant.

> we require perfection

YHGTBFKM.This guy is so very, very far distanced from perfection, and so demonstrably disinterested in its pursuit, that poetic speculations of motive are ludicrous. He doesn't care about America, and he doesn't care about Americans... Any of us. Including his family.

> you've run out of
> things to say

And yet, year after year, you've never found anyone better to read.

> an effective president.

Yet but for providing the anally distended an opportunity to whine about Hillary in a 1995 kind of way, you neglect to enumerate his 'effects.'

"Read the constitution some day"

There are numerous sources for the constitution online Crid. Here is one helpful source. There are lots of others.

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

Now by all means answer the question. What do you want Trump to do about the budget? It is a simple question. One you have repeatedly failed to answer in any meaningful way. No penis potties are not a good answer to a budget question.

To answer your question (though I know you don't really care to have it answered):
1. Reduced regulation
2. Reduced taxes
3. Appointed at least one decent supreme court justice
4. Helped McConnell appoint many more good justices to lower courts

5. Butthurt ;)

I could go on and on but it doesn't really matter. These things have been listed to you over and over again. Heck, you've claimed on multiple occasions that the same voters who elected Trump also elected AOC. A stunning display of repeated insanity.

Do your homework Crid.

Ben and Crid: You're both wrong. The budget is not originated by the House as the Constitution requires, but neither is it controlled by President Trump.

The Constitution says spending bills (and hence the budget) must originate in the House, but it's a long time since that has been followed. The Senate cannot originate a spending bill - but it has deleted everything in a bill from the House but the title block, and replaced it with a spending bill, and the House then passed it instead of defending their prerogative. IIRC, this was most recently done to pass the (Un)Affordable Care Act, that the House leadership wanted but the members would have dismembered and buried if it came through by the normal process.

The House has not originated a budget in living memory. Executive agencies write budget proposals for themselves and send them to the President, to be assembled into a budget and sent to Congress. The President often sends these back, demanding cuts, but does not have a staff anywhere near large enough to review them in detail, so the budget sent out by the President is still mostly written by the departments affected. House committees review this, make a few changes and send it to the floor. In the past, it could be amended on the floor of the House, but if I understand correctly, it now goes through in several bills under no-amendments rules, so most of the Representatives never get a chance to do anything except vote yes or no on thousand-page bundles. It goes to the Senate, which makes changes and sends it back. It goes back and forth until the most influential Representatives and Senators have pissed in it enough to like the flavor, and they finally pass it - but it is still mostly the product of the executive agencies that first wrote it.

So you could say the budget comes from the President - but most of it was really written by bureaucrats in jobs protected by the Civil Service Act. At present there is a covert rebellion against the President going on among these people, which the law does not allow him to quell by mass firings. And Trump so far lacks the guts to handle it by cutting uncooperative and counterproductive agencies out of the budget entirely...

Now Markm please point out a president that did cut an uncooperative or counterproductive agency out of the budget.

Just look at the boarder wall funding issue. Trump decided to reallocate some of the military funding he was given to a different purpose. He was immediately taken to court. At this point it is rattling around the supreme court and it looks like Trump more or less won. But look at all the time taken over a very insignificant sum of money (at least in federal government terms). And he wasn't even cutting or increasing spending but instead reallocating within the same budget category.

I would also be happy if someone would point out where Trump promised to reduce spending. I personally can't remember any serious promises along that line. But hey, maybe I missed it.

I do appreciate that you are at least responding on the actual question in a serious fashion Markm.

"And yet, year after year, you've never found anyone better to read."

This is a very small pond.

As you know, we can count your irrationalities on one hand, but when they are there, there are at full voice.

Write a book.

> This is a very
> small pond.

...on a very large planet, but here you are. No tears, m'kay?

Are you guys torpid? When did I say budgets "originate" with Trump?

You can't be so stupid, we presume, as to believe that "origination" could be the only power by which by which a president could influence these events. Just as it doesn't matter to him, it doesn't matter to you.

You don't care about policy: You want your understanding of world affairs, and the only variable in the scheme, to be constrained to the depth of hatred you feel moment-by-moment for Hillary... A single spigot from your interior life... Because that would be very convenient.

'A centralized clearinghouse," so to speak.

It is a simple question Crid. One you continue to refuse to answer.

What do you want Trump to do about the budget?

Stop trolling and do your homework Crid!

Hey guys, I'm kind of surprised at this too, but... Trump's tariffs seem to be playing in the heartland. In my area, some new factories are starting up, and existing factories are hiring. An acquaintance of mine is moving to Arkansas next month to re-start an aluminum mill that has been closed for several years. With the tariffs, domestic production can now undercut Chinese imports on price, at least in certain categories of goods.

Now, as I've told a lot of people, the days of "the plant" coming to town and employing 4,000 people are gone, and towns have to stop expecting it. But the smarter small towns and their recruiters are figuring it out... 100 jobs here, 70 there, and after a while you've got real economic growth. Not too many of these are unskilled labor. But they're starting to get smarter with job training and continuing ed too.

I remember when you guys used to defend Barack Obama with those same evasions!

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/07/29/trumps-budget-deficits-could-almost-double-obamas

Trump so far lacks the guts to handle it by cutting uncooperative and counterproductive agencies out of the budget entirely

"Lacks the guts" implies that he wants to cut agencies out of the budget, and would do so if not for fear of (whatever). Is there any evidence that this is the case?

None. He doesn't give a fuck, and neither do his voters.

It's been days. Still can answer that simple question Crid?

What do you want Trump to do?

Still waiting Crid. Can't answer a simple question?

What do you want Trump to do?