Washington Post "Trump won the night. Schumer and Pelosi lost."

[Airyaman]

The speech was apparently so "meh" that trump is trying to change the conversation away from the wall now. He just threw red meat to his base by threatening to withhold FEMA funds to California for fires that don't exist. That won't work (remember: no fires right now), so he'll just keep throwing out grenades until he finds one that successfully change the conversation.

I blame the lack of kneeling NFL players.

 

[Visbek]

Well at least some of our liberal friends are being rational.

As noted, Thiessen isn't a liberal. He's a Republican and a conservative, who worked for Bush 43. If you actually read WaPo, you'd know they are generally left of center, but also publish right of center columnists and op-eds.

As a result, we also see today from WaPo....

Fact Check on Trump's speech - "The first misleading statement in President Trump’s Oval Office address Tuesday night came in the first sentence...."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-address-immigration/?utm_term=.20eec9bdc789

"Trump’s Oval Office address was a pure propaganda opportunity. Networks shouldn’t allow it next time."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.e07916c874ad

"Trump used the Oval Office to try to create a border crisis"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.54d39ac4c3d9

 

[dobieg]

dobieg: Well at least some of our liberal friends are being rational.
Me: Marc Thiessen is Republican and regularly writes Republican supported opinions.


My point wasn't that he was a Trump supporter, only that he was not a liberal.


Perhaps you should do a better job reading before you choose to post really stupid things.

I stand corrected.

Some Trump hating Republican who writes for the Washington Post declared Trump won and Pelosi and Schumer lost.


It's as silly as arguing Jennifer Rubin, who supposedly represents the Right's perspective for the Washington Post, is a Republican.

 

[American]

It's pretty obvious that the OP doesn't know who Marc Thiessen is. He was a speechwriter for W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. He's a conservative opinion columnist for Wapo.

I'm sure in an effort to be honest, the OP will share a comparable opinion piece from a left winger, and try to pretend that it was the opinion of the Washington Post.

I agree with you, but you could have posted the leftwing opinion piece, no?

 

[Slyfox696]

I stand corrected.

You are welcome.

 

[dobieg]

I agree with you, but you could have posted the leftwing opinion piece, no?

Naw.

Poor little Tres's feelings are hurt because I called out her BS of pretending to be conservative so she's in a snot throwing mood.

 

[Lutherf]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZLKt


Well at least some of our liberal friends are being rational. Trump specifically lays out the cost and dangers of rampant illegal immigration while also extending compassion to those who come into our country illegally. Democratic leadership responds by throwing out insults and cheap political rhetoric while not once addressing a single issue.


We'll see in the coming days and weeks how the American public responds.

This was in the WaPo? Well, good for them!

 

[American]

Naw.

Poor little Tres's feelings are hurt because I called out her BS of pretending to be conservative so she's in a snot throwing mood.

I'm not going there, because tres and I have our own history, and I'm not interested in that fight.

 

[iguanaman]

This is the most telling part of your citation:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZLKt

That has always been the problem with many in "The Resistance," their unwillingness to see any glimmer of positivity...so steeped are they in their negative mindset regarding the "Great Liar" Trump.

There is no compromise with Trump. The shutting down of the govt. precludes any compromise. It's a hostage negotiation.

 

[Lutherf]

The loser here is the american public. Neither side won and if they claim they did it's a phyrric victory. We're still saddled with endless ME War, endless tax payer handjobs to Israel, endless prohibition, etc.

Thanks, elected leaders.

You're right but still missing the overarching point. This whole argument is the result of a single political party promoting a political war against a president they don't like because he's a political outsider. It's a function of the political class making THEIR interests more important than the interests of the people of the country. That's the case Trump made and at least SOMEBODY caught on to what he was saying.

The guy really isn't a great speaker and his points tend to get lost behind a bunch of extraneous crap but, generally speaking, he's heading in the right direction.

 

[CanadaJohn]

This is the most telling part of your citation:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZLKt

That has always been the problem with many in "The Resistance," their unwillingness to see any glimmer of positivity...so steeped are they in their negative mindset regarding the "Great Liar" Trump.

Your point is valid, but it is also true to the same extent that "The Resistance" to President Obama was just as strong and just as negative and the term "liar" was tossed around by the right against Obama as well. This is simply reflective of an American political divide that has been stoked by an all to willing media that feeds off the division.

I don't disagree with what President Trump is doing, but it is somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous that he did not insist on the same terms during the first two years of his Presidency when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Blaming inaction of the newly installed Democrat House is seen as hollow, even by conservatives such as myself.

Who will succeed in the standoff? Certainly not the American public who have little interest in these political games. The Trump base and the Schumer/Pelosi base are locked in - likely around 25 to 30% of the public each. The mushy middle will decide the political winner, but not for a couple of years.

One way Trump does win, however, is that he is able to distract/deflect the Schumer/Pelosi agenda and shows he's quite willing to simply bring the government to a standstill in opposition which may not, in many eyes, be a bad thing.

 

[madman]

He's desperately hanging on for three more days so he can go down in history as having the longest shutdown.

it's will be the biggest, longest, most beautiful, terrific shutdown EVER in US history, and i guarantee that!
the bestest!

 

[Lutherf]

It's pretty obvious that the OP doesn't know who Marc Thiessen is. He was a speechwriter for W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. He's a conservative opinion columnist for Wapo.

I'm sure in an effort to be honest, the OP will share a comparable opinion piece from a left winger, and try to pretend that it was the opinion of the Washington Post.

He's conservative.

I'm really tired of these "he's a conservative therefore his opinion is irrelevant" implications. Neither of you even bother to take issue with what the guy said. It's "he's a conservative so we don't have to care". That's totally dismissive and, frankly, it's that exact attitude that put Trump in office and will keep him in office unless the "resistance" becomes a bit less self serving.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm really tired of these "he's a conservative therefore his opinion is irrelevant" implications. Neither of you even bother to take issue with what the guy said. It's "he's a conservative so we don't have to care". That's totally dismissive and, frankly, it's that exact attitude that put Trump in office and will keep him in office unless the "resistance" becomes a bit less self serving.

Except I have not seen anyone in this thread say that. I think you should read closer...

Actually, don't bother, I'll help you. The direct words of the OP claimed this was a "liberal" author from WashPo and clearly insinuated that, because he was liberal, it showed some people were coming to Trump's side. What numerous people in this thread pointed out is that the author isn't liberal and a conservative supporting a conservative position is nowhere near as newsworthy as the OP tried to pretend it was.

They weren't dismissing his opinion because he was conservative, it was more of a "oh, so water is wet" kind of deal.

 

[Common Sense 1]

It's pretty obvious that the OP doesn't know who Marc Thiessen is. He was a speechwriter for W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. He's a conservative opinion columnist for Wapo.

I'm sure in an effort to be honest, the OP will share a comparable opinion piece from a left winger, and try to pretend that it was the opinion of the Washington Post.

So is he wrong with his assessment? No he is spot on so please go on complaining about him being a conservative. :lamo
There was no pounding of the table or any temper tantrum. Why are the democrats opposing common sense approach to help secure our southern border?
Because they will do anything to STOP president from securing areas our border with a physical barrier. Never mind that many democrats have voted for this in the past!

From post #1:

While Trump spoke calmly and rationally from behind the Resolute Desk, the Democratic leaders accused him of “pounding the table” and having a “temper tantrum.” While Trump told human stories, they complained about . They accused him of arguing that the women and children at the border were “a security threat” when he had just explained to the American people that they were victims, too. They charged him with using the “backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.” They were partisan and petty, while Trump came across as reasonable and even compassionate.

To normal Americans watching in the heartland, and who are not steeped in Trump hatred, the president must have seemed like the adult in the room.

And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear — compromise. But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.

 

[Lutherf]

Except I have not seen anyone in this thread say that. I think you should read closer...

Actually, don't bother, I'll help you. The direct words of the OP claimed this was a "liberal" author from WashPo and clearly insinuated that, because he was liberal, it showed some people were coming to Trump's side. What numerous people in this thread pointed out is that the author isn't liberal and a conservative supporting a conservative position is nowhere near as newsworthy as the OP tried to pretend it was.

They weren't dismissing his opinion because he was conservative, it was more of a "oh, so water is wet" kind of deal.

When you see the word "implication" that means the statement in question wasn't expressly written but, rather, was implied.

-edit-

I will give you props for the whole "they weren't dismissive because of 'x'. They were dismissive because of 'y'" argument. It's a classic!

 

[dobieg]

I'm not going there, because tres and I have our own history, and I'm not interested in that fight.

Shocking.

 

[Visbek]

You're right but still missing the overarching point. This whole argument is the result of a single political party promoting a political war against a president they don't like because he's a political outsider.

Please.

1) Trump has been an insider for decades. He went to elite schools, he has rubbed elbows with politicians for years, he has contributed to their campaigns for years.

2) Being an "outsider" is not the problem -- e.g. Ocasio-Cortez is also an outsider, and is treated well by MSM. The problem is that Trump is an unstable, uninformed autocrat who is not fit for office.

3) Trump, after all this time, doesn't give a crap about policy. What he cares about is holding on to power, which in his mind means doing what Fox News tells him to do. He was inches away from signing a continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown, until a handful of conservative commentators started screaming bloody murder.

The guy really isn't a great speaker and his points tend to get lost behind a bunch of extraneous crap but, generally speaking, he's heading in the right direction.

He really isn't.

There is no "crisis." Apprehensions at the southern border are down 85%(!!) since their peak in 2000.

A huge wall (no matter what it's made of) will not stop immigration, period. Most undocumented immigrants now are flying into the US (from Asia btw) and overstaying their visas. It is a simple (and bad) answer to an incredibly complex question, which Trump mostly now wants because it drives 'em wild at his rallies.

Shutting down and holding the federal government hostage over this, when he could have easily signed a CR and negotiated something, is obviously the wrong move. In fact, it's hobbling his own policies. E-Verify is shut down; farmers can't get subsidies to tide them over from trade war impacts; companies can't launch IPOs; food stamps -- which, by the way, are received by lots of rural citizens who happened to vote for Trump -- may soon be stopped.

The only "crisis" is one of Trump's own making. He's trying to turn the asylum and immigration process into one that deters applicants, but the reality is that messy paperwork and detention centers are still better than getting shot at by MS-13 in Choloma.

Worst of all, in classic dictatorial fashion, Trump is now threatening to declare a "state of emergency" -- not because there's a major problem, but because Congress won't give him what he wants. (One can only imagine the right-wing reaction if a Democratic president even considers declaring a state of emergency to push an immigration policy.)

Last but not least, the majority of the US is not behind him on this. They don't want a wall, they don't want reduced immigration, they don't want to kick all the Dreamers out. They want a rational policy, that includes border protections that can actually work, and do not tear families apart as a deterrent.

 

[tres borrachos]

So is he wrong with his assessment? No he is spot on so please go on complaining about him being a conservative. :lamo
There was no pounding of the table or any temper tantrum. Why are the democrats opposing common sense approach to help secure our southern border?
Because they will do anything to STOP president from securing areas our border with a physical barrier. Never mind that many democrats have voted for this in the past!

From post #1:

While Trump spoke calmly and rationally from behind the Resolute Desk, the Democratic leaders accused him of “pounding the table” and having a “temper tantrum.” While Trump told human stories, they complained about . They accused him of arguing that the women and children at the border were “a security threat” when he had just explained to the American people that they were victims, too. They charged him with using the “backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.” They were partisan and petty, while Trump came across as reasonable and even compassionate.

To normal Americans watching in the heartland, and who are not steeped in Trump hatred, the president must have seemed like the adult in the room.

And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear — compromise. But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.

What was it that Trump offered as a compromise? I missed it but I'm sure you can link it.

 

[Obscurity]

You're right but still missing the overarching point. This whole argument is the result of a single political party promoting a political war against a president they don't like because he's a political outsider. It's a function of the political class making THEIR interests more important than the interests of the people of the country. That's the case Trump made and at least SOMEBODY caught on to what he was saying.

The guy really isn't a great speaker and his points tend to get lost behind a bunch of extraneous crap but, generally speaking, he's heading in the right direction.

Let's break your argument down.

1. You assert that a single political party, seeking revenge, has as a whole conspired to wage an overt and covert media fueled war against a president they dislike because he is an outsider.

2. Trump is heading in the right direction.

My retorts to each:

1. This is a large claim and has not been supported with evidence. There are plenty of democrats and liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, anarchists, conservatives, neocons, etc, that are against Trump, and no one has provided evidence of this vast conspiracy. where are the internal documents? Where are the recordings, video or audio, that shows a unified, coordinated plan to underming the president? This conglomerate of people are, on a whole, acting independently in response to a president the overwhelming majority of americans -do not support.- Donald may have won the election by states, but he lost the election of numbers. Numbers don't elect presidents. That's fine. But numbers of people construct, support and promote social and legal change. I posit your assertion is baseless, because I challenge you to provide evidence, real evidence, that the DNC or some conglomerate unified all these people in opposition to the President and his unpopular ideas.

2. I disagree. Trump is moving in the wrong direction. This is an argument of opinion, in the second case. You think he's going in the right direction. Fine. I am going to tell you why I believe otherwise.

A) His administration is undoing and ending regulations that promote clean water, sustainable fisheries, clean air, and placing the onus on civil litigation, which he is also restricting, to recompense the public when they are harmed.

B) His wall fantasy is unsustainable nonsense. $5.7bn could feed, house and clothe how many american veterans, an oft used political football by the conservative bloc so conveniently forgotten in this wall nonsense?

C) Undoing consumer protections and allowing wall street and big banks to act unethically via deregulation.

D) The continuing, never ending Middle East struggle and our injection into it.

E) Continuing, never ending, ever expanding financial support on purely religious reasoning for a foreign nation actively engaged in ethnic cleansing, genocide, and undeclared war.

F) The promotion of damaging, ignorant, cancerous lies and conspiracy that enrages a base of folks globalism has left behind.

 

[trixare4kids]

This is the most telling part of your citation:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZLKt

That has always been the problem with many in "The Resistance," their unwillingness to see any glimmer of positivity...so steeped are they in their negative mindset regarding the "Great Liar" Trump.

Exactly! "Compromising" with this president just is not a part of the obstructionist Democrats' vocabulary. They don't want anything but to STOP TRUMP, and regain the power.
They are a disgrace, and their partisan, power hungry politicking is going to backfire, and seriously hurt their reelection chances come 2020. Mark my words...

Everyone knows Chuck Schumer previously voted for what Trump is asking for. Every word he utters about Trump over the border issue is a big fat lie.
People who go along with his noise are idiotic lemmings.

 

[Praxas]

Well at least some of our liberal friends are being rational. Trump specifically lays out the cost and dangers of rampant illegal immigration while also extending compassion to those who come into our country illegally. Democratic leadership responds by throwing out insults and cheap political rhetoric while not once addressing a single issue.


We'll see in the coming days and weeks how the American public responds.

Yes, he laid out dangers of a fake crisis.

As for winning, you cons could be watching Trump getting butt ****ed on stage by Putin and still think he's winning. Talk about your blinders. No, Trump didn't win last night and it just showed him lying, exaggerating and full of empty rhetoric.

 

[SCrider]

Exactly! "Compromising" with this president just is not a part of the obstructionist Democrats' vocabulary. They don't want anything but to STOP TRUMP, and regain the power.
They are a disgrace, and their partisan, power hungry politicking is going to backfire, and seriously hurt their reelection chances come 2020. Mark my words...

Everyone knows Chuck Schumer previously voted for what Trump is asking for. Every word he utters about Trump over the border issue is a big fat lie.
People who go along with his noise are idiotic lemmings.

Did they take a no-compromise pledge?
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

 

[Praxas]

What was it that Trump offered as a compromise? I missed it but I'm sure you can link it.

He compromised by only asking for $5B instead of $25B which was supposed to be originally $0 that he touted for over 2 years. That's compromise in the eyes of Republicans. :roll:

 

[trixare4kids]

That's an opinion piece by a Conservative commentator; not breaking news.

Mark Thiessen is not shy about his severe Trump critiques so when he opines, people listen.
Agree the O/P probably should not have been posted to breaking news.

Marc A. Thiessen: The 10 worst things Trump has done in his first year in office