• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump did something unique to him that I can laud

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Today, Donald Trump, for the second time, allowed video coverage of a policy/legislation discussion meeting. That is something he's done more than other POTUSes, AFAIK. I think all executive branch, except for national security policy discussion, policy discussion/negotiation -- strategizing/tactic planning, visioneering, analysis, policy design and implementation planning -- should be televised, or at least videotaped from start to finish, so citizens can know what their elected leaders are thinking, in full rather than just the sound bites.

In the puzzle that is governmental and political transparency, having open-meetings a piece, and it's one I think should remain in place for all policy discussions, be they across branches or within them. Indeed were I to have my way, no public official would be permitted to have any "unpublished" and/or unrecorded policy conversations.


As for the meeting itself, well, I wouldn't call it an effective or productive meeting vis-a-vis the public policy matter it ostensibly addressed. I mean, really, four of the nation's top government principals attended a meeting and didn't so much as come out of it with a "roadmap," no "next steps" for how and what the four of them would do to advance toward achieving some discrete set of shared goals.

No surprise that outcome. It's really the only thing that could have happened give that the parties to the meeting viewed the meeting's purpose completely differently. In other words, the participants weren't on the same page about why they were there and what they were supposed to accomplish.
  • Chuck and Nancy saw the meeting as a conversation purposed on finding common ground about funding so as to avert a government shutdown.
  • Trump saw the meeting as a conversation purposed on getting his wall funded, and the government shutdown was, to him, but a lever for "squeezing" concordance.
  • All three of them viewed the meeting as a PR/"optics," thus political opportunity.
  • There was no structure to the meeting. That may as well have been a cocktail party conversation rather than a meeting. That was Trump's fault; he was the meeting leader/caller.
The meeting may have been politically effective, though I really don't care whether elected office holders have politically effective meetings. I care that they design, develop and implement sage policy.

Other meeting thoughts/observations:
  • Why was Pence there? He didn't say a word and he wasn't taking notes. He was completely useless in that meeting. There were any number of other things he could have been doing, at the very least inserting himself to get the three principals on one page with regard to something.
  • Terrible meeting dynamics/decorum --> The principals in the meeting cut each other off and didn't always look at the speaker.
  • Trump didn't treat Chuck and Nancy as peers and partners with whom he's seeking to collaborate to obtain a win-win solution/meeting outcome.
  • Truly, if any of the executive meetings I called, and to which I invited attendees, during my career were to have transpired with the dynamics and ineffectiveness that meeting did, the client, my staff, and my in-firm peers would have begun, for good reason, to doubt my ability to lead, my coherence and my comprehension of the matters at hand and that we were there to advance toward resolution.
  • Somebody dropped the ball as goes having the "meeting before the meeting" (MBTM)...MBTMs are what meeting leaders ensure their staff have with "whomever" to ensure that actual meeting participants arrive at the meeting on the same page, prepared, and prepared to achieve one or more specific outcomes. That didn't happen and that it didn't is a failing of the principal, although one'd think at the level of POTUS, VPOTUS, and Congressional Minority Leaders, the staff would have known to execute the MBTM process and have, not later than CoB yesterday, provided the principals with a status of that process.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Today, Donald Trump, for the second time, allowed video coverage of a policy/legislation discussion meeting. That is something he's done more than other POTUSes, AFAIK. I think all executive branch, except for national security policy discussion, policy discussion/negotiation -- strategizing/tactic planning, visioneering, analysis, policy design and implementation planning -- should be televised, or at least videotaped from start to finish, so citizens can know what their elected leaders are thinking, in full rather than just the sound bites.

In the puzzle that is governmental and political transparency, having open-meetings a piece, and it's one I think should remain in place for all policy discussions, be they across branches or within them. Indeed were I to have my way, no public official would be permitted to have any "unpublished" and/or unrecorded policy conversations.


As for the meeting itself, well, I wouldn't call it an effective or productive meeting vis-a-vis the public policy matter it ostensibly addressed. I mean, really, four of the nation's top government principals attended a meeting and didn't so much as come out of it with a "roadmap," no "next steps" for how and what the four of them would do to advance toward achieving some discrete set of shared goals.

No surprise that outcome. It's really the only thing that could have happened give that the parties to the meeting viewed the meeting's purpose completely differently. In other words, the participants weren't on the same page about why they were there and what they were supposed to accomplish.
  • Chuck and Nancy saw the meeting as a conversation purposed on finding common ground about funding so as to avert a government shutdown.
  • Trump saw the meeting as a conversation purposed on getting his wall funded, and the government shutdown was, to him, but a lever for "squeezing" concordance.
  • All three of them viewed the meeting as a PR/"optics," thus political opportunity.
  • There was no structure to the meeting. That may as well have been a cocktail party conversation rather than a meeting. That was Trump's fault; he was the meeting leader/caller.
The meeting may have been politically effective, though I really don't care whether elected office holders have politically effective meetings. I care that they design, develop and implement sage policy.

Other meeting thoughts/observations:
  • Why was Pence there? He didn't say a word and he wasn't taking notes. He was completely useless in that meeting. There were any number of other things he could have been doing, at the very least inserting himself to get the three principals on one page with regard to something.
  • Terrible meeting dynamics/decorum --> The principals in the meeting cut each other off and didn't always look at the speaker.
  • Trump didn't treat Chuck and Nancy as peers and partners with whom he's seeking to collaborate to obtain a win-win solution/meeting outcome.
  • Truly, if any of the executive meetings I called, and to which I invited attendees, during my career were to have transpired with the dynamics and ineffectiveness that meeting did, the client, my staff, and my in-firm peers would have begun, for good reason, to doubt my ability to lead, my coherence and my comprehension of the matters at hand and that we were there to advance toward resolution.
  • Somebody dropped the ball as goes having the "meeting before the meeting" (MBTM)...MBTMs are what meeting leaders ensure their staff have with "whomever" to ensure that actual meeting participants arrive at the meeting on the same page, prepared, and prepared to achieve one or more specific outcomes. That didn't happen and that it didn't is a failing of the principal, although one'd think at the level of POTUS, VPOTUS, and Congressional Minority Leaders, the staff would have known to execute the MBTM process and have, not later than CoB yesterday, provided the principals with a status of that process.

I would not describe what happened here as Trump allowing a policy meeting to be televised. The real meeting was behind closed doors. The televised portion was supposed to be just a photo op so the three parties could show that they were willing to talk to each other. What happened was that Trump could not control himself when someone else spoke.

Not that you are wrong, per so. It is just that I would not describe it as you did
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Today, Donald Trump, for the second time, allowed video coverage of a policy/legislation discussion meeting. That is something he's done more than other POTUSes, AFAIK. I think all executive branch, except for national security policy discussion, policy discussion/negotiation -- strategizing/tactic planning, visioneering, analysis, policy design and implementation planning -- should be televised, or at least videotaped from start to finish, so citizens can know what their elected leaders are thinking, in full rather than just the sound bites.

Wouldn't that just lead to grandstanding? And I think that's Trump's motive here. He wanted to be on camera fighting for border security.

I do like seeing the parliamentary debates they have in Britain.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would not describe what happened here as Trump allowing a policy meeting to be televised. The real meeting was behind closed doors. The televised portion was supposed to be just a photo op so the three parties could show that they were willing to talk to each other. What happened was that Trump could not control himself when someone else spoke.

Not that you are wrong, per so. It is just that I would not describe it as you did

Red:
I don't think so.
  • The scuttlebutt I've heard said that meeting wasn't planned as an open one.
  • Chuck and Nancy entered the Oval and the cameras followed them. The meeting happened. Chuck and Nancy left and the cameras followed them outside. What unreported/untelevised meeting do you imagine Chuck and Nancy had with Donald? It's not as though they show up at Bedminster or Mar-a-Lago to meet with him, and they don't attend the same social events.
  • It's conceivable that the three of their staffs had MBTMs; however, if they did, those meetings too were unproductive vis-a-vis the policy matter Trump, Pelosi and Schumer discussed....One knows that because the meeting we watched was so unproductive. Had the MBTMs been productive, the televised meeting would have ended with some sort of accomplishment, even if it was just an agreed upon set of "next steps." The only thing that resulted from that meeting were political talking points, "spin" and bases for "finger-pointing."
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red:
I don't think so.
  • The scuttlebutt I've heard said that meeting wasn't planned as an open one.
  • Chuck and Nancy entered the Oval and the cameras followed them. The meeting happened. Chuck and Nancy left and the cameras followed them outside. What unreported/untelevised meeting do you imagine Chuck and Nancy had with Donald? It's not as though they show up at Bedminster or Mar-a-Lago to meet with him, and they don't attend the same social events.
  • It's conceivable that the three of their staffs had MBTMs; however, if they did, those meetings too were unproductive vis-a-vis the policy matter Trump, Pelosi and Schumer discussed....One knows that because the meeting we watched was so unproductive. Had the MBTMs been productive, the televised meeting would have ended with some sort of accomplishment, even if it was just an agreed upon set of "next steps." The only thing that resulted from that meeting were political talking points, "spin" and bases for "finger-pointing."

All three agreed, in front of the cameras, that they should not discuss the issue in front of the press, and instead should discuss it in private.
 

FreedomFromAll

Post Political parties
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
16,743
Reaction score
4,746
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Red:
I don't think so.
  • The scuttlebutt I've heard said that meeting wasn't planned as an open one.
  • Chuck and Nancy entered the Oval and the cameras followed them. The meeting happened. Chuck and Nancy left and the cameras followed them outside. What unreported/untelevised meeting do you imagine Chuck and Nancy had with Donald? It's not as though they show up at Bedminster or Mar-a-Lago to meet with him, and they don't attend the same social events.
  • It's conceivable that the three of their staffs had MBTMs; however, if they did, those meetings too were unproductive vis-a-vis the policy matter Trump, Pelosi and Schumer discussed....One knows that because the meeting we watched was so unproductive. Had the MBTMs been productive, the televised meeting would have ended with some sort of accomplishment, even if it was just an agreed upon set of "next steps." The only thing that resulted from that meeting were political talking points, "spin" and bases for "finger-pointing."

It appeared to me that Trump just wanted to do some splaining, and act like he still is relevant. Is it just me or has Trump become a lameduck president? I dont know it just feels that way.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's my take.

Trump was definitely his usual self. A lot of people would call it rude. Others would call it forceful. It's subjective.

Regarding your first bullet point. It was much more than that to them. In fact I'd say that they knew they weren't going to have such a conversation. One reason that I believe that is because right after Trump gave the floor to her one of the first words uttered by her was "Trump shutdown". That little bit right there showed that she wasn't speaking to find common ground. It was to lay the ground work for setting the blame if there is a shut down. It was political gamesmanship and nothing more.

You're right on the second bullet point.

Most definitely right on the third one.

For the fourth one...I wouldn't even call it a meeting. At least not what we were shown. As you stated in your third bullet point, it was a PR/optics opportunity and nothing more.

The fifth bullet point: Pence was probably there for the real meeting. The one that took place after the PR stunt that we were shown.

6th: Like I essentially said earlier, it wasn't so much a meeting as a political PR stunt.

7th: That may be, but Nancy and Chuck weren't exactly cordial either from the get go. Through out the first part where Trump first started talking he didn't once say anything negative about the Democrats, Nancy or Chuck. He only started being rude after Nancy came out with that "Trump shutdown" comment. Say what you will about Trump, but plain fact of the matter is that he normally does not attack anyone unless he feels that they are attacking him first. That's why a lot of people like Trump. Because they see those little barbs that are constantly given out by both sides (or one side if they're too partisan to see their own side doing it also), like Nancy's "Trump shutdown" barb for instance, and he doesn't put up with it.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wouldn't that just lead to grandstanding? And I think that's Trump's motive here. He wanted to be on camera fighting for border security.

I do like seeing the parliamentary debates they have in Britain.

Red:
As one may glean from my remarks about the unproductiveness of the meeting, political grandstanding opportunities are all that meeting yielded.


Blue:
Perhaps that's so. I can certainly see it as being so.

Off Topic:
So or not, the reality is nobody objects to securing the border. People, plenty of them, object to securing it by building a wall on/just inside the border.

To wit, I am fine with securing the border and I'm fine with building a wall there as part of the means of doing so. I'm not fine with my tax dollars being used to build or maintain the wall; however, I'm fine with my tax dollars being used to implement other border security measures. I'm also fine with Trump raising private funds to build and maintain his wall.

If he can convince Canada or some other nation to pay for his wall and its maintenance, I'm fine with that too. I'm willing to compromise on whether it be Mexico or any other non-US taxpayers fund the construction and maintenance of Trump's wall. Maybe he can get Mexico, Canada, China and our European allies to pay for it in exchange for tariff cutbacks/elimination.

Why is that my position?​


  • [*=1]Trump made a huge, huge deal over his getting Mexico to pay for his wall, and he led and encouraged throngs of people to answer "Mexico" when he asked who's going to pay for the wall.
    [*=1]Trump's never recanted unequivocally his assertion that Mexico will pay for the wall.
    [*=1]Trump's never "owned" the lunacy of his assertion that Mexico will pay for the wall.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's my take.

Trump was definitely his usual self. A lot of people would call it rude. Others would call it forceful. It's subjective.

Regarding your first bullet point. It was much more than that to them. In fact I'd say that they knew they weren't going to have such a conversation. One reason that I believe that is because right after Trump gave the floor to her one of the first words uttered by her was "Trump shutdown". That little bit right there showed that she wasn't speaking to find common ground. It was to lay the ground work for setting the blame if there is a shut down. It was political gamesmanship and nothing more.

You're right on the second bullet point.

Most definitely right on the third one.

For the fourth one...I wouldn't even call it a meeting. At least not what we were shown. As you stated in your third bullet point, it was a PR/optics opportunity and nothing more.

The fifth bullet point: Pence was probably there for the real meeting. The one that took place after the PR stunt that we were shown.

6th: Like I essentially said earlier, it wasn't so much a meeting as a political PR stunt.

7th: That may be, but Nancy and Chuck weren't exactly cordial either from the get go. Through out the first part where Trump first started talking he didn't once say anything negative about the Democrats, Nancy or Chuck. He only started being rude after Nancy came out with that "Trump shutdown" comment. Say what you will about Trump, but plain fact of the matter is that he normally does not attack anyone unless he feels that they are attacking him first. That's why a lot of people like Trump. Because they see those little barbs that are constantly given out by both sides (or one side if they're too partisan to see their own side doing it also), like Nancy's "Trump shutdown" barb for instance, and he doesn't put up with it.

How can calling it a Trump shutdown be rude when even Trump himself said it would be his shutdown --that is, if a shutdown takes place?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All three agreed, in front of the cameras, that they should not discuss the issue in front of the press, and instead should discuss it in private.

Well, that they did on-camera discuss, or at least attempt to, the policy matter is the one good quality the meeting had, and that it was on-camera is what I applaud Trump for making happen.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
10,214
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump thought he was going make a show of how well he will manage a Democratic Congress.
https://youtu.be/URqbv9R7a7k
“Nancy and Chuck” took Donnie’s lunch money on national television. Love it!!:2rofll:
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It appeared to me that Trump just wanted to do some splaining, and act like he still is relevant. Is it just me or has Trump become a lameduck president? I dont know it just feels that way.

POTUSes, be they "lame duck" ones or not, are relevant, even if only by dint of their being POTUS. Donald Trump is no different in that regard. Trump differs from certain other individuals in that his relevancy derives entirely from his circumstance as the current holder of the Office of the POTUS.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,584
Reaction score
30,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That event was a master trap perpetrated by Trump...and Nancy and Chuck walked right into it.

Trump came across as the "national security" guy and the other two came across as partisan opposition and hypocrites.

It was there for the world to see.

I bet Chuck and Nancy are pissed.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
54,057
Reaction score
19,737
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I would not describe what happened here as Trump allowing a policy meeting to be televised. The real meeting was behind closed doors. The televised portion was supposed to be just a photo op so the three parties could show that they were willing to talk to each other. What happened was that Trump could not control himself when someone else spoke.

Not that you are wrong, per so. It is just that I would not describe it as you did

Not only that but the last time he did this was on immigration where he lied to everyone and said he would support a bipartisan agreement only to renege on that later. It was all a "show" to get "ratings" nothing more. This was no different.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, that they did on-camera discuss, or at least attempt to, the policy matter is the one good quality the meeting had, and that it was on-camera is what I applaud Trump for making happen.

See, that is where I disagree with you

Saying Trump made it happen, and should be applauded for it, implies that was his intention. The truth is, it was not intended. It happened because Trump has no self-control, a character flaw that should not be applauded
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
38,183
Reaction score
24,533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That event was a master trap perpetrated by Trump...and Nancy and Chuck walked right into it.

Trump came across as the "national security" guy and the other two came across as partisan opposition and hypocrites.

It was there for the world to see.

I bet Chuck and Nancy are pissed.



Yeah, “master-trapper,” that’s your boy. He had the bobble-head with him for moral support?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's my take.

Trump was definitely his usual self. A lot of people would call it rude. Others would call it forceful. It's subjective.

Regarding your first bullet point. It was much more than that to them. In fact I'd say that they knew they weren't going to have such a conversation. One reason that I believe that is because right after Trump gave the floor to her one of the first words uttered by her was "Trump shutdown". That little bit right there showed that she wasn't speaking to find common ground. It was to lay the ground work for setting the blame if there is a shut down. It was political gamesmanship and nothing more.

You're right on the second bullet point.

Most definitely right on the third one.

For the fourth one...I wouldn't even call it a meeting. At least not what we were shown. As you stated in your third bullet point, it was a PR/optics opportunity and nothing more.

The fifth bullet point: Pence was probably there for the real meeting. The one that took place after the PR stunt that we were shown.

6th: Like I essentially said earlier, it wasn't so much a meeting as a political PR stunt.

7th: That may be, but Nancy and Chuck weren't exactly cordial either from the get go. Through out the first part where Trump first started talking he didn't once say anything negative about the Democrats, Nancy or Chuck. He only started being rude after Nancy came out with that "Trump shutdown" comment. Say what you will about Trump, but plain fact of the matter is that he normally does not attack anyone unless he feels that they are attacking him first. That's why a lot of people like Trump. Because they see those little barbs that are constantly given out by both sides (or one side if they're too partisan to see their own side doing it also), like Nancy's "Trump shutdown" barb for instance, and he doesn't put up with it.

Red:
Trump was both rude and assertive ("forceful" isn't a word I'd use to describe his comportment/utterances in that meeting). Those two behaviors aren't mutually exclusive. It's very possible, and all too common, frankly, for one to be rudely assertive; however, one can also be decorously assertive. None of them were perfectly polite, and quibbling over who was more or less so is an "angels and pinheads" discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Blue:
There was no "after" meeting. Chuck and Nancy left the Oval and the WH. They didn't re-enter for a follow-up meeting. What we witnessed is what there was.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Trump thought he was going make a show of how well he will manage a Democratic Congress.
https://youtu.be/URqbv9R7a7k
“Nancy and Chuck” took Donnie’s lunch money on national television. Love it!!:2rofll:

Is that what you saw? I saw the dims want to take the conversation private, and the Donald sayin, Um, no, let's hash it out so the American people can see what's really going on, and he also owned the "shutdown without the wall", and wore it proudly.. Love him or hate him, any American can appreciate that level of honesty and transparency coming from elected leaders. I also got the impression, although, easy to miss from the uneducated eye, that Trump owns these two clowns. You can tell He knows them intimately and plays their game way better than they do..

I saw both Pelosi and Chuck trying to get out their talking points, attempting to take the high-ground, with comments like "we want a fact based discussion".. "We want a deal to not shutdown the government".. Blah blah.. I'm sure the FSM will all have their angles on tonight's newscasts, but, if anything comes of this video, for me at least, it shows that America chose the right person for the Presidency and only affirms that point!

Those two clowns are so out-matched they don't even know it, and if they didn't have a fawning, militant press Corps at their disposal, they'd both be out of jobs!


Tim-
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm listening to the news now, and what I'm hearing from the anchors is "this and that" is what the parties to the meeting said. The "talking heads" -- so far an assortment of political pundits and members of Congress -- who've been invited to remark upon the meeting are all talking about the politics, the optics of the meeting and the political strategy behind the meeting's having been televised. Friggin' waste of time, at least as far as I'm concerned....as I've said before, I care about policy, not politics.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not only that but the last time he did this was on immigration where he lied to everyone and said he would support a bipartisan agreement only to renege on that later. It was all a "show" to get "ratings" nothing more. This was no different.

I don't think "ratings" was the primary "optical" (political) point of the meeting. I think the primary political purpose was to give news outlets something else to discuss besides Cohen, Mueller, Russia, Stormy Daniels, Flynn, Butina, etc. and the legal proceedings -- most especially the fact of Trump's own handpicked DoJ personnel's having implicitly indicted him for two criminally culpable acts -- and politics of the Russia investigation.

However good or bad things went at the Chuck and Nancy meeting, whatever be said about it is at least (1) debatable (unlike the fact of Trump's having committed two criminally culpable acts) and (2) something other than Russia-Investigation-related.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
16,295
Reaction score
5,541
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Televised and/or video recorded meetings will lead to too much grandstanding, IMO, particularly when opposition leaders are there. It's like sausage being made. The process may not be pleasant but the result is. I don't need to see the process. Just give me an effective result.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
54,057
Reaction score
19,737
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
See, that is where I disagree with you

Saying Trump made it happen, and should be applauded for it, implies that was his intention. The truth is, it was not intended. It happened because Trump has no self-control, a character flaw that should not be applauded

The only thing I am applauding is Trump's honesty when he said "So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down and I'm going to shut it down for border security." That was the truth. If Trump does not get what he wants he will throw a tantrum and shut down the Govt. This is what we are reduced to.... a toddler who throws tantrums because he is too immature to be President.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The only thing I am applauding is Trump's honesty when he said "So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down and I'm going to shut it down for border security." That was the truth. If Trump does not get what he wants he will throw a tantrum and shut down the Govt.

I doubt that was honesty, as it is almost certain he will not take responsibility for the shutdown should it occur.
 
Top Bottom