Pelosi brought Trump to his knees

[sharon45]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

 

[AirPoh]

Wait, dismal thinks Trump spent a whole month saying things he KNEW he'd have to walk back? That was his PLAN?

That's an impressive interpretation.

I'd put it in the "so obvious one would have to be a low grade moron to believe otherwise" level of obviousness.

Did you actually think the outcome of this shutdown was going to be a wall?

Didn't think I'd see the day when dismal called Trump and his supporterts "low grade morons".

Gotta wonder when he figured it out for himself.

 

[AirPoh]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

Trump caved to pathetic. He sank lower than I thought!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

But even pathetic poker hands win when the other player has nothing.

Or even a pair: the Jack and Shit of clubs...

 

[AirPoh]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

But even pathetic poker hands win when the other player has nothing.

Or even a pair: the Jack and Shit of clubs...

Well Jack shits spades but thinks they're diamonds. And sells them to suckers at the later price.

 

[sharon45]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

But even pathetic poker hands win when the other player has nothing.

Or even a pair: the Jack and Shit of clubs...

Right, and in this specific game, Trump can win even with a nothing hand, as long as he knows what a quandary his competitors' cards are.

 

[sharon45]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

But even pathetic poker hands win when the other player has nothing.

Or even a pair: the Jack and Shit of clubs...

Well Jack shits spades but thinks they're diamonds. And sells them to suckers at the later price.

I agree. This competition is about peddling to suckers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump only needed to see the opposition's pathetic poker hand.

But even pathetic poker hands win when the other player has nothing.

Or even a pair: the Jack and Shit of clubs...

Right, and in this specific game, Trump can win even with a nothing hand, as long as he knows what a quandary his competitors' cards are.

What quandary? FFvC threatened a shutdown, Pelosi called his hand.
More of the country held him responsible than held her.
Plus, he can't realistically threaten a shutdown in three weeks, he'll lose that hand as well. And probably quicker. The FAA is not going to be completely recovered in three weeks, they won't wait 30 days to start shutting airports down.

Trump lost chips, and he lost the deal. Maybe he can pull an ace out of his sleeve with the emergency powers, but if he was confident that would work, he already would have.

 

[Elixir]

Trump can win even with a nothing hand

Trump can't win with five aces - he doesn't know how to play, and is nothing more than a pigeon shitting on the table.

as long as he knows what a quandary his competitors' cards are.

If only he knew ... something .... about something. ANYTHING.
But no, he's a low-IQ egotistical know-nothing. Can't even be an effective mob boss, no matter how many criminals he surrounds himself with.

 

[untermensche]

You can't bring Trump to his knees.

He has failed at many things in terms of immigration.

All you can do is prevent him from winning.

If he doesn't get his way he immediately moves on and has a microscopic memory.

 

[repoman]

Funding for the wall that the Administration wanted.

There is no fucking way that Trump and his handlers (like wrangling cats) and donors actually wanted a wall built. Waiting until the numbers in congress were assured to be less favorable says it all.

But I think he was dumb enough to think that he could get some face saving concessions to appease the rubes who ever thought the wall would come to pass.

At any rate, the money lender class in this nation want to have as many people in it as possible, there is little downside for having more people for the ones who financialize everything. More construction, more cars, more of everything. 500 million Americans, bring it on!!!

http://energyskeptic.com/2017/why-did-env-movement-drop-population/

The 1998 edition of the catalogue Environmental Grantmaking Foundations (82) listed

180 foundations that specified population as an area of environmental gift-giving. Yet these and most other foundations interested in underwriting population programs had a distinctly global perspective and were focused on family planning, women’s empowerment, and reproductive health issues. The experience of the 1990s showed that fewer than ten foundations in the entire country were willing and able to significantly fund nonprofit groups with a clear U.S. population stabilization agenda.

Then there is the possibility that corporate donors actively steered groups away from population issues. In his book Living Within Limits, Garrett Hardin asserted that the corporate and philanthropic foundations that funded the twentieth anniversary of Earth Day in 1990 let it be known that they would not look kindly on the event having a population emphasis.83 So in contrast to Earth Day 1970, there was none.

It may be that the greatest fear that corporations had of environmental groups was not the ostensible environmental regulations they advocated but a cutoff of U.S. population growth to fuel ever-expanding consumer markets, land development, and construction. In addition, those same forces had an intense self-interest in a growing labor pool to keep the cost of labor down. Corporate leaders knew that U.S. population growth would eventually come to a halt without continued high immigration. How many of those leaders had influence over corporate and foundation philanthropy to environmental groups? “As baby boomers age and domestic birthrates stagnate, only foreign-born workers will keep the labor pool growing. . . . Economic dynamism, in other words, will depend on a continuing stream of foreign-born workers,” opined an article in Business Week.84

During the Sierra Club battle over population policy in 1998, Sierra leaders warned that foundations and major individual donors had said that they would withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars in previously pledged grants if the members of the Club took a stand in favor of reducing immigration.85

The Sierra Club national board also found itself in the previously unheard-of position of being endorsed by the Home Builders Association of Northern California. This development group applauded the position of the Sierra Club board to accept the current immigration level, which is projected to force California’s home-needing population to 50 million by 2025.86

Three well-endowed foundations-Pew, Turner, and Rockefeller-gave grants in support of a book whose very title, Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population, Consumption, and the Environment,87 reveals a shift away from sheer numbers of people as the primary concern. And in November 1995, in Washington, D.C., the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative co-sponsored a one-day “Roundtable Discussion on Global Migration, Population, and the Environment” with the nation’s main coalition supporting high immigration numbers (the National Immigration Forum). According to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, who was present, this meeting was “clearly an attempt to keep environmental groups from going off the reservation and supporting immigration cuts then being debated in Congress.”

Historians need to explain how an environmental issue as fundamental as U.S. population growth could have moved from center-stage within the American environmental movement to virtual obscurity in just twenty years. For the American environment itself, the ever-growing demographic pressures ignored by the environmental establishment showed no signs of abating on their own as the nation prepared to enter the twenty-first century.

 

[sharon45]

Right, and in this specific game, Trump can win even with a nothing hand, as long as he knows what a quandary his competitors' cards are.

What quandary? FFvC threatened a shutdown, Pelosi called his hand.

His decision stands as final at the moment, not hers.

More of the country held him responsible than held her.

Based on what, polls?

Plus, he can't realistically threaten a shutdown in three weeks, he'll lose that hand as well. And probably quicker. The FAA is not going to be completely recovered in three weeks, they won't wait 30 days to start shutting airports down.

We'll see what happens in 3 weeks.

Trump lost chips, and he lost the deal. Maybe he can pull an ace out of his sleeve with the emergency powers, but if he was confident that would work, he already would have.

He already has the grand impudence to play around with government and that is sure enough.

 

[sharon45]

Trump can win even with a nothing hand

Trump can't win with five aces - he doesn't know how to play, and is nothing more than a pigeon shitting on the table.

as long as he knows what a quandary his competitors' cards are.

If only he knew ... something .... about something. ANYTHING.
But no, he's a low-IQ egotistical know-nothing. Can't even be an effective mob boss, no matter how many criminals he surrounds himself with.

Then he should not have much of a chance against tens of campaigns in 2020.

 

[sharon45]

Funding for the wall that the Administration wanted.

There is no fucking way that Trump and his handlers (like wrangling cats) and donors actually wanted a wall built.

Not for only a lousy 250 miles.

 

[repoman]

Funding for the wall that the Administration wanted.

There is no fucking way that Trump and his handlers (like wrangling cats) and donors actually wanted a wall built.

Not for only a lousy 250 miles.

Have a wall built and not have a fresh supply illegal immigrant underclass labor? No way that will happen.

 

[Patooka]

His decision stands as final at the moment, not hers.

Trump was adamant Mexico would pay for the wall until he wasn't.
Trump was adamant the wall would be made of concrete and rebar and span coast to coast until he wasn't.
Trump was adamant he would be proud to own the government shutdown until he wasn't.
Trump was adamant he would not reopen the government unless there was funding for the wall until he wasn't.

The assertion that Trump's decision is final, ever, is downright moronic. I bet the idiot won't last a week until he backflips again.

Based on what, polls?

What would you suggest to ascertain public sentiment?

 

[sharon45]

Funding for the wall that the Administration wanted.

There is no fucking way that Trump and his handlers (like wrangling cats) and donors actually wanted a wall built.

Not for only a lousy 250 miles.

Have a wall built and not have a fresh supply illegal immigrant underclass labor? No way that will happen.

Then they choose to flush America.

 

[sharon45]

His decision stands as final at the moment, not hers.

Trump was adamant Mexico would pay for the wall until he wasn't.

Mexico has already paid for it, just nobody bothers to spend the money yet.

Trump was adamant the wall would be made of concrete and rebar and span coast to coast until he wasn't.

He has described the supposed wall in lots of different ways.

Trump was adamant he would be proud to own the government shutdown until he wasn't.

He does own it, and he owns its reopening.

Trump was adamant he would not reopen the government unless there was funding for the wall until he wasn't.

Well, obviously he was flexible here, and we'll see what happens after this.

The assertion that Trump's decision is final, ever, is downright moronic. I bet the idiot won't last a week until he backflips again.

Final doesn't mean that he won't constantly change his mind, or backflip as you say.

Based on what, polls?

What would you suggest to ascertain public sentiment?

Voting.

 

[Keith&Co.]

His decision stands as final at the moment, not hers.

What?
He said, no deal without a wall.
She said, no, deal without a wall.

We have a deal. He doesn't have a wall. She's still where she was a month ago.

More of the country held him responsible than held her.

Based on what, polls?

Uh, yeah. Based on the polls. Feel free to quote some other measure.

We'll see what happens in 3 weeks.

Yes, obviously.

Do you have anything to dispute my analysis?
Will another shutdown be effective? Why?

Trump lost chips, and he lost the deal. Maybe he can pull an ace out of his sleeve with the emergency powers, but if he was confident that would work, he already would have.

He already has the grand impudence to play around with government and that is sure enough.

His impudence was not enough. And everyone now knows it wasn't.
He can only win with a shutdown if the Dems break ranks, and the Reps stand firm. Neither of those has become any more likely in the next three weeks.
Dems were elected specifically to stand up to the Orange Shitgibbon. They are not the ones worried about their chances in two years.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mexico has already paid for it, just nobody bothers to spend the money yet.

If mexico paid, why the fuck does Trump need taxpayer money?

Trump was adamant he would be proud to own the government shutdown until he wasn't.

He does own it,

Not according to the month he spent tweeting that the Democrats were to blame for the shutdown...

and he owns its reopening.

He tried to claim it, but he wasted $billions and produced nothing. So, he owns...nothing? Or negative billions?

Trump was adamant he would not reopen the government unless there was funding for the wall until he wasn't.

Well, obviously he was flexible here, and we'll see what happens after this.

that's the whole point. WAS adamant, on lots of things, NOW flexible, because he isn't getting what he wants.

And another word for 'flexible' here is 'losing.'

What would you suggest to ascertain public sentiment?

Voting.

So, you got nothing to counter the polls that showed who was being blamed forbthe shutdown.
Just an IOU for evidence some time in the future... fingers crossed, eh?