Trump and both major parties are in quandary’s.

Trump and both major parties are in quandary’s.

Donald Trump is the president-elect.
Republican federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave as they have previously proposed or significantly compromise with, (if not actually accepting) Democrats’ proposals which they had for the Past eight years been preventing from being enacted into federal law.

Democrat federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave responsibly or behave as the Republicans did for the past eight years. During those eight years Republicans wouldn’t even permit passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed.

President Trump is expected to eliminate or modify many, (if not most) existing federal executive orders when he takes office; U.S. presidents conventionally do so when they take office. Beyond that there’s significant constitutional limits to what a USA president can proactively accomplish by employing only executive orders.

It‘s difficult if not almost impossible to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate if even one senator wishes to obstruct a bill’s passage; it’s almost impossible to do so if there’s a few senators dedicated to halt a bill’s passage.
Republican’s senate majority is a plurality of one.
President Trump is going to need help from both political parties and my hope is they will behave more responsibly during Trump’s administration.

Consider the PPACA; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: All or almost all Republican office holders and candidates including Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the medical care act.

Now President-elect Trump states that he’ll replace it with “something better” for everyone AND will retain the entitlement of insurance regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and keeping your children on your family plan until they’re 25.
I doubt that could be done with Republican Party’s concepts and I doubt Republicans wish to expand Medicare’s eligibility ages to replace PPACA.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Trump and both major parties are in quandary’s.

Donald Trump is the president-elect.
Republican federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave as they have previously proposed or significantly compromise with, (if not actually accepting) Democrats’ proposals which they had for the Past eight years been preventing from being enacted into federal law.

Democrat federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave responsibly or behave as the Republicans did for the past eight years. During those eight years Republicans wouldn’t even permit passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed.

President Trump is expected to eliminate or modify many, (if not most) existing federal executive orders when he takes office; U.S. presidents conventionally do so when they take office. Beyond that there’s significant constitutional limits to what a USA president can proactively accomplish by employing only executive orders.

It‘s difficult if not almost impossible to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate if even one senator wishes to obstruct a bill’s passage; it’s almost impossible to do so if there’s a few senators dedicated to halt a bill’s passage.
Republican’s senate majority is a plurality of one.
President Trump is going to need help from both political parties and my hope is they will behave more responsibly during Trump’s administration.

Consider the PPACA; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: All or almost all Republican office holders and candidates including Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the medical care act.

Now President-elect Trump states that he’ll replace it with “something better” for everyone AND will retain the entitlement of insurance regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and keeping your children on your family plan until they’re 25.
I doubt that could be done with Republican Party’s concepts and I doubt Republicans wish to expand Medicare’s eligibility ages to replace PPACA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Nobody has much of an idea, what Trump policies will be. This is much, what we would have thought before the election. So, why the excitement? This is what we voted for.

I'm Supposn said:

Trump and both major parties are in quandary’s.

Donald Trump is the president-elect.
Republican federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave as they have previously proposed or significantly compromise with, (if not actually accepting) Democrats’ proposals which they had for the Past eight years been preventing from being enacted into federal law.

Democrat federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave responsibly or behave as the Republicans did for the past eight years. During those eight years Republicans wouldn’t even permit passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed.

President Trump is expected to eliminate or modify many, (if not most) existing federal executive orders when he takes office; U.S. presidents conventionally do so when they take office. Beyond that there’s significant constitutional limits to what a USA president can proactively accomplish by employing only executive orders.

It‘s difficult if not almost impossible to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate if even one senator wishes to obstruct a bill’s passage; it’s almost impossible to do so if there’s a few senators dedicated to halt a bill’s passage.
Republican’s senate majority is a plurality of one.
President Trump is going to need help from both political parties and my hope is they will behave more responsibly during Trump’s administration.

Consider the PPACA; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: All or almost all Republican office holders and candidates including Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the medical care act.

Now President-elect Trump states that he’ll replace it with “something better” for everyone AND will retain the entitlement of insurance regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and keeping your children on your family plan until they’re 25.
I doubt that could be done with Republican Party’s concepts and I doubt Republicans wish to expand Medicare’s eligibility ages to replace PPACA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

A number of comments on your screed:

1. I think you forgot to mention the obstruction to proposals that the Democrats engaged in during the last, at least, six years...most notably by Sen. Harry Reid. It cuts both ways, you know.

2. Congress is an institution dedicated to give and take, though I don't blame you for considering that given the actions of both Parties the last eight years. But that means that even Congressmen who totally oppose an issue may be induced to give it the go ahead if the deal is good. Keep in mind that, unlike Obama, Trump has been making deals his whole life. He's comfortable doing that and he's good at it. Personally, I don't think he'll have much problem with his agenda as long as the Democrats don't take a scorched earth stance.

3. Regarding Obamacare, to be accurate, Trump hasn't said he would retain anything. He HAS said that, out of respect to Obama, he would CONSIDER those two issues you mentioned. I suggest you don't jump the gun and then base your opinion on what could end up being an erroneous impression on your part.

4. While nothing is written in stone...heck, Trump isn't even President yet...I agree that the Republicans probably don't want to expand Medicare. That would pretty much go against their core beliefs in reducing government.

I'm Supposn said:

Trump and both major parties are in quandary’s.

Donald Trump is the president-elect.
Republican federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave as they have previously proposed or significantly compromise with, (if not actually accepting) Democrats’ proposals which they had for the Past eight years been preventing from being enacted into federal law.

Democrat federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave responsibly or behave as the Republicans did for the past eight years. During those eight years Republicans wouldn’t even permit passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed.

President Trump is expected to eliminate or modify many, (if not most) existing federal executive orders when he takes office; U.S. presidents conventionally do so when they take office. Beyond that there’s significant constitutional limits to what a USA president can proactively accomplish by employing only executive orders.

It‘s difficult if not almost impossible to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate if even one senator wishes to obstruct a bill’s passage; it’s almost impossible to do so if there’s a few senators dedicated to halt a bill’s passage.
Republican’s senate majority is a plurality of one.
President Trump is going to need help from both political parties and my hope is they will behave more responsibly during Trump’s administration.

Consider the PPACA; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: All or almost all Republican office holders and candidates including Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the medical care act.

Now President-elect Trump states that he’ll replace it with “something better” for everyone AND will retain the entitlement of insurance regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and keeping your children on your family plan until they’re 25.
I doubt that could be done with Republican Party’s concepts and I doubt Republicans wish to expand Medicare’s eligibility ages to replace PPACA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

It seems clear that much is not the way the electorate would like. Together the parties made it so. Trump feels this, but is not very well prepared to deal with it

Mycroft said:

A number of comments on your screed: ... 2. Congress is an institution dedicated to give and take, though I don't blame you for considering that given the actions of both Parties the last eight years. But that means that even Congressmen who totally oppose an issue may be induced to give it the go ahead if the deal is good. Keep in mind that, unlike Obama, Trump has been making deals his whole life. He's comfortable doing that and he's good at it. Personally, I don't think he'll have much problem with his agenda as long as the Democrats don't take a scorched earth stance. ...

Click to expand...

Mycroft, regarding negotiation, you cannot convince someone to act contrary to what they believe to be to their own best interests unless you can convince them that their best interests are otherwise.

Products of low wage nations enjoy price advantages that exceeds the disadvantage due to their producers’ remoteness from USA’s domestic markets. Due to the purchasing powers of USA wages, our products are at price disadvantages within foreign markets. USA’s laws and regulations regarding foreign trade do nothing to mitigate these conditions.

Trump will fail to reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, or those deficits detriment to our GDP and numbers of jobs unless the USA significantly modifies our federal laws and regulations to better serve our nation’s economy or U.S. consumers can be convinced to pay a premium price for USA labor.
(I believe that it’s more feasible to change our laws and regulations rather than to convince USA consumers to pay more for USA goods).

Trump is among those that believe our trade deficits are due to USA negotiating failures or to superior foreign negotiators; they’re simply wrong.

Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates”
or to http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates-5.html .

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Mycroft, regarding negotiation, you cannot convince someone to act contrary to what they believe to be to their own best interests unless you can convince them that their best interests are otherwise.

Click to expand...

You are correct. However, as we've seen numerous times, politician are quite able to be convinced depending on the deal.

For example, when the Democrats were shoving Obamacare down our throats, there were a few, necessary Democrats who found some disagreement with the bill. Pelosi and Reid made special deals with them to get their votes.

Do you seriously think this kind a thing cannot happen again? Especially when you bring an experienced deal-maker like Trump into the mix?

Products of low wage nations enjoy price advantages that exceeds the disadvantage due to their producers’ remoteness from USA’s domestic markets. Due to the purchasing powers of USA wages, our products are at price disadvantages within foreign markets. USA’s laws and regulations regarding foreign trade do nothing to mitigate these conditions.

Trump will fail to reduce USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, or those deficits detriment to our GDP and numbers of jobs unless the USA significantly modifies our federal laws and regulations to better serve our nation’s economy or U.S. consumers can be convinced to pay a premium price for USA labor.
(I believe that it’s more feasible to change our laws and regulations rather than to convince USA consumers to pay more for USA goods).

Trump is among those that believe our trade deficits are due to USA negotiating failures or to superior foreign negotiators; they’re simply wrong.

Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates”
or to http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates-5.html .

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you've suddenly shifted to Trump's trade and economic policies. I mean, you've pretty much deflected from your own thread topic.

I generally dismiss deflection and that's exactly what I'm going to do now.

Mycroft said:

... I have no idea why you've suddenly shifted to Trump's trade and economic policies. I mean, you've pretty much deflected from your own thread topic.

I generally dismiss deflection and that's exactly what I'm going to do now.

Click to expand...

Mycroft, you, (not I) brought Trumps deal-making, (i.e. negotiating) skills to the discussion table.

I share Trump’s dissatisfaction with USA’s chronic annual trade deficits detriment to our economy. It’s particularly detrimental to our numbers of jobs and their wages’ aggregate purchasing powers. I do not share his contention that the trade deficits are due to USA’s negotiating failures or to superior foreign negotiators.

Trump boasts he’s the ideal person to direct USA’s international negotiations that will remedy our annual trade deficits. If Trump attempts to do so, he’ll fail because negotiations with foreign governments or any corporations will not remedy our trade deficits.
Comparatively few people have any knowledge regarding the proposal for the unilateral Import Certificate policy applied to USA’s global trade. It would entirely or almost entirely eliminate our annual trade deficits and boost our annual GDP’s more than otherwise. All of its direct costs are passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Mycroft, you, (not I) brought Trumps deal-making, (i.e. negotiating) skills to the discussion table.

I share Trump’s dissatisfaction with USA’s chronic annual trade deficits detriment to our economy. It’s particularly detrimental to our numbers of jobs and their wages’ aggregate purchasing powers. I do not share his contention that the trade deficits are due to USA’s negotiating failures or to superior foreign negotiators.

Trump boasts he’s the ideal person to direct USA’s international negotiations that will remedy our annual trade deficits. If Trump attempts to do so, he’ll fail because negotiations with foreign governments or any corporations will not remedy our trade deficits.
Comparatively few people have any knowledge regarding the proposal for the unilateral Import Certificate policy applied to USA’s global trade. It would entirely or almost entirely eliminate our annual trade deficits and boost our annual GDP’s more than otherwise. All of its direct costs are passed on to USA purchasers of foreign goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

You might have noticed that I mentioned Trump's deal-making ability in relation to your topic of him having to deal with the two major parties in Congress. That's what your OP was all about. You didn't mention international trade issues as an issue in your contention that he'll have problems dealing with Congress. I didn't either. But now...international trade seems to be what you want to talk about.

I don't want to talk about international trade, so I'll just step away from your thread...unless you decide to get back to your own topic.

I'm thinking it's a good thing I didn't mention Trump's yellow hair. You might be deflecting to the issue of whether he's wearing a rug or not. :lol:

Mycroft said:

A number of comments on your screed:

1. I think you forgot to mention the obstruction to proposals that the Democrats engaged in during the last, at least, six years...most notably by Sen. Harry Reid. It cuts both ways, you know.

2. Congress is an institution dedicated to give and take, though I don't blame you for considering that given the actions of both Parties the last eight years. But that means that even Congressmen who totally oppose an issue may be induced to give it the go ahead if the deal is good. Keep in mind that, unlike Obama, Trump has been making deals his whole life. He's comfortable doing that and he's good at it. Personally, I don't think he'll have much problem with his agenda as long as the Democrats don't take a scorched earth stance.

3. Regarding Obamacare, to be accurate, Trump hasn't said he would retain anything. He HAS said that, out of respect to Obama, he would CONSIDER those two issues you mentioned. I suggest you don't jump the gun and then base your opinion on what could end up being an erroneous impression on your part.

4. While nothing is written in stone...heck, Trump isn't even President yet...I agree that the Republicans probably don't want to expand Medicare. That would pretty much go against their core beliefs in reducing government.

Click to expand...

I think that a core belief of conservatives is that government should be small.

Republicans as much as Democrats have worked to grow government and centralize power to DC. Both parties seem to have proclaimed goals that are dropped immediately upon assuming power.

The Dems have been promising to lift up the poor since I was at the age of reason in the 60's. The Republicans have been promising to shrink government since that time as well.

Since the 60's, we still have a permanent underclass of poor people and the government seems to continue to grow regardless of who is in power.

Enter Trump. He is promising measurables. Higher growth, better jobs, better trade deals, more manufacturing, a stronger military, more home made energy and companies coming home from abroad. Woven in to this is the reduction of regulation and the repeal of Obamacare.

Like Obama, he has created a cult of personality. Obama was a gifted campaigner and has proven to be a woefully inept leader. Trump is a gifted leader and it took him a while to learn how to be a good campaigner, but he learned it.

Trump will make his deals and move things along. Accomplishment is his self measure. Either the building is built or it's not.

Obama, as a campaigner, enjoys pointing out the injustice of the establishment. IF he actually accomplished anything, his cause was lost. It's hard to recommend solutions to problems that are solved already.

I've often hoped that the government would be run like a business. We shall see if the gods still punish by granting wishes.

joG said:

It seems clear that much is not the way the electorate would like. Together the parties made it so. Trump feels this, but is not very well prepared to deal with it

Click to expand...

Just wondering why you would assert this. For a guy unprepared, he sure seems to outflank the so called prepared. Time and time again, so it cannot just be random chance or coincidence. Right?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Just wondering why you would assert this. For a guy unprepared, he sure seems to outflank the so called prepared. Time and time again, so it cannot just be random chance or coincidence. Right?

Click to expand...

To deal with it, he would need the understanding, know how and experience none of which he has. There is always an outside chance that a neophyte succeeds. But it is very silly to bet on it let alone stake the fortunes of the people on the wager. So, we shall see, but do not be too disappointed, when he fails. Obama did too. The cancellation is that it could have been even worse and should have been given his inexperience and education. The latter was very good, but in no way compensation for the lack of experience. Trump has a different patchwork, but does not command a better probability of success.

joG said:

To deal with it, he would need the understanding, know how and experience none of which he has. There is always an outside chance that a neophyte succeeds. But it is very silly to bet on it let alone stake the fortunes of the people on the wager. So, we shall see, but do not be too disappointed, when he fails. Obama did too. The cancellation is that it could have been even worse and should have been given his inexperience and education. The latter was very good, but in no way compensation for the lack of experience. Trump has a different patchwork, but does not command a better probability of success.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree.

All the "knowledgeable" folks [and I don't lump O bomb a in that group as he never become competent... and was even less so upon acquiring his Peter Principled rank of president] has taken us from one disaster to another downward spiraling. Caught in an inept policies vortex, if we do not completely jettison out those styled policies, rapidly, they will take us down like the Titanic.

The rank and number of, for instance, those high ranking political foreign policy "professionals", and I use that term guardedly after what they tried to do to Trump mid campaign, that jumped screaming off the Trump ship even before it was built should be ashamed of themselves. Beyond that, their faulty methods and the situations we are now in worldwide are many of these folks doings. Fortunately they jumped without life jackets and good riddance, their methods were so abysmally poor I hope they had lead weights attached.

We need people with open eyes, with no politically correct blinders attached, folks with common sense and uncommon toughness. I think you will see a lot of foreign leaders glad to see America leading again. Toughness will put a fear, that is not currently there, into our enemies. We will be less likely in a war... unless the war was destined to happen sooner or later. In that case, sooner is always better for us, as we have the most powerful military in the world bar none.

Its completely scary how inept the people charged with our security are and have been. Trump does not have to have experience in specific areas, he just needs to surround himself with others who have those special abilities, from various perspectives... and get their advice and make the best decision under the circumstance. While I have been waiting anxious for his appointments, and I am not up to date today yet as am in Medellin on vacation and was walking around the beautiful Poblado sector of this gorgeous city, so far he has yet to disappoint.

I am far more confident he can and will do these things now than I ever was before... and I was about as skeptical as you can get when he announced way back when.

Excerpted from the post 5:23 PM post of 19Nov2016:
“Consider the PPACA; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: All or almost all Republican office holders and candidates including Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the medical care act.

Now President-elect Trump states that he’ll replace it with “something better” for everyone AND will retain the entitlement of insurance regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and keeping your children on your family plan until they’re 25.
I doubt that could be done with Republican Party’s concepts and I doubt Republicans wish to expand Medicare’s eligibility ages to replace PPACA”.

Mycroft said:

A number of comments on your screed: ...
... 3. Regarding Obamacare, to be accurate, Trump hasn't said he would retain anything. He HAS said that, out of respect to Obama, he would CONSIDER those two issues you mentioned. I suggest you don't jump the gun and then base your opinion on what could end up being an erroneous impression on your part.

4. While nothing is written in stone...heck, Trump isn't even President yet...I agree that the Republicans probably don't want to expand Medicare. That would pretty much go against their core beliefs in reducing government.

Click to expand...

Mycroft, your response to my “screed’ conflict’s President-elect Trump’s own words.
Refer to:
Donald Trump: We'll keep parts of Obamacare - CNN Video .

I would suppose that an accurate screed is preferable to a brief retort that is contrary to the facts.

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from the post 5:23 PM post of 19Nov2016: " … Republican federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave as they have previously proposed or significantly compromise with, (if not actually accepting) Democrats’ proposals which they had for the Past eight years been preventing from being enacted into federal law.

Democrat federal office holders’ quandary will be to behave responsibly or behave as the Republicans did for the past eight years. During those eight years Republicans wouldn’t even permit passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed. … … President Trump is going to need help from both political parties and my hope is they will behave more responsibly during Trump’s administration. …".

Mycroft said:

... 1. I think you forgot to mention the obstruction to proposals that the Democrats engaged in during the last, at least, six years...most notably by Sen. Harry Reid. It cuts both ways, you know. ...

Click to expand...

Mycroft, During President Obamas entire two terms I'm unaware of U.S. congressional Democrats blocking passage of bills they themselves had previously advocated and/or proposed.

Respectfully, Supposn