VV wrote: 
From what I've read the crazy-always-spending Dems in their version of the deal did not agree to the 35 (or 25) billion USD for additional border security. Or vanity walls. Talking heads, supposedly representing Trump's base, became apoplectic upon hearing there wouldn't be a beautiful wall, and accused Trump of bigly election treason. Trump then remembered he had talked about a wall, so he went back to doing what he does best. No deal.

 cc_rider wrote: 
 
That would presuppose that Trump had a soul... 
 
We also know that self-reflection seems to be foreign to him as well.

 cc_rider wrote: 
i would also hope, but that doesnt seem to be the case. despite the fact that putting together an effective argument against Trump or the current state of politics would seem as easy as fishing with dynamite.  

 black321 wrote: 
Bad example. Schumer and the Dems did come to the table awhile ago and thought they had a deal on DACA with Trump... then Trump blew that up the next day when some of his people got a hold of him and convinced him it was a bad deal. How do you work with someone whose views and stances can change daily or even hourly based on the last person he has talked with?
 
Most feedback is not knee jerk condemnation for every policy... just those policies that are ill-conceived or have some serious detrimental effects. Unfortunately they are they type of policies that Trump seems to be enamored with and have a hand in.

 black321 wrote: 
Exactly the question I have also. I like to imagine the current President is going to force some collective soul-searching.
c.

 black321 wrote: 
They sort came to the table, but apparently didn't sit.  There were four different immigration bills - two of them (which were bi-partisan) were pretty close on Senate voting but still failed.  His willingness to negotiate seemed based on his getting at least $25B for his wall specifically - not just "border security".  Still, it seems they probably could've worked harder to hammer something out.

 cc_rider wrote: 
I agree. re. the GOP past behavior, but it's not a game of whataboutisms...when is the downward cycle going to end?  Should we be rewarding our parties for not being as bad as the other one?  

 black321 wrote: 
That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for decades. It worked, too: they now control the White House, the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. With all that going for them, why does the GOP even care what the Democrats say? And since knee jerk condemnation has worked so well for the GOP, why should the Dems do any different?
c.

 VV wrote: 
lets get off the media for a second...have any democrats actually attempted to constructively work with Trump?  Too much is knee jerk condemnation for every policy...and not all of it is completely wrong.  At one point, he was willing to negotiate on immigration, but schumer and the dems failed to come to the table.  For that part, the left is guilty.  

 black321 wrote: 
Identity politics? I'm just trying to get a level-set on what you consider reckless. If you don't what to elaborate... that's fine.

If "reckless" is the press responding to each new Trump revelation/dumpster fire with the current one drowning out the previous one... then OK. But I think that perhaps reckless may be the wrong word here. I think a better word is manipulation as Trump is helping to manipulate the coverage of his administration. Though that manipulation is still not enough to prevent critical analysis of his administration by the press which obviously results in "fake news".

Also it's not reckless when the job of the press is to report "news" and the White House is creating or communicating that "news". Are they supposed to collectively ignore it?

 VV wrote: 
I'm no longer willing to go down that path, just like I'm no longer willing to go down the path of why trump is not good for the country.  If you can't see the obvious...I don't think I'm going to be much help with your "identity" politics or whatever term is used.  

 black321 wrote: 
I knew you didn't mean anything specific, but it can (and apparently already has a few posts down) cause confusion.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Deft gymnastical non-sequitur pirouette:

The antiwar left organized and marched in the streets over W's adventures in the middle east. When those wars continued under Obama (or got worse) they broke camp and left the field, proving that their resistance was partisan, not principled. Now that Trump is sending troops—actual troops—into Syria where are those protests? Who would pay them any heed if they happened?

 

Trump is getting away with appalling things because those who should be opposing them are busy hopping from one overhyped synthetic scandal to another.² (...)

 black321 wrote: 
What reckless attacks by the press are you specifically referring to? Are you referring to "hard" questions being leveled at Sarah Sanders by Jim Acosta? All I've witnessed for the most part is the press trying (and so far losing) to keep the Trump administration honest.

I have seen crass behavior on the celebrity side: Samantha Bee, Cathy Griffin and Robert Di Nero... to name a few. I would even say that Cathy Griffin's beheaded Trump pic was certainly reckless. Other than that, most of the reckless behavior has come from the Trump camp.  

 Proclivities wrote: 

1. Trump's happy to lead them down that path, you bet. It's how he got elected and probably how he got anything done in private life too.
2. Good point.

 VV wrote: 
I agree the case is strong...but I've also been saying this for over a year now, the attacks have been reckless.  And yes, not just from the democrats or those who oppose Trump, but the media too.  Part of that is the world we live in, 24 hour news, need to get the story out now, rather than tomorrow morning...still it's reckless, and it gives Trump supporters ammunition to divert attention away from the problems of the Trump presidency.  

edit, terms prosecution/case, not meaning anything specific...but generic reference to dealing with the problems of Trump.

 black321 wrote: 
I agree with much of what Lazy8 pointed out about how how much of the press coverage about Trump's tweets and rumors about his administration are distracting from what is more important, almost as if Trump is doing that on purpose, but I want to avoid the metaphors  "prosecutor" and "case" when referring to the press/media since there is an active legal investigation going on to which those terms literally apply.

 black321 wrote: 
It is not the job of the media to prosecute the case against Trump.

 black321 wrote: 
That's where we part ways I guess. To me, (in the court of public opinion) the case grows stronger daily.

I have seen more than enough evidence through Trump's own statements, actions, tweets as well other respected government officials going on the record in print and on televised media coming out against his policies, this coupled with innumerable stories of unnamed sources within his own administration (most stories have proved to be true) of the dysfunction present within, his complete dismantling of the EPA under Pruitt's watch, his inability to fill critical roles within his administration especially as it relates to foreign service, the NK debacle where he came back with nothing concrete in the way of an agreement ... this list is too long to attempt to detail here.
 
There isn't a true prosecutor in this case only a mass of evidence that a person is left to do with what they will.
 
 
 
 
...in hindsight I suppose that we become the prosecutor if we feel we are presented with enough "evidence".

 kurtster wrote: 
Best typographic error band name of the month