November 7, 2018

"In all fairness, Nancy Pelosi deserves to be chosen Speaker of the House by the Democrats."

"If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor!"

Another cagey Trump tweet.

ADDED: I think Trump will enjoy this phase of the game. It was getting boring for him. The dealmaking needs to be more complex to be at the level of The Artist of the Deal. Whether he figures out clever moves or not, his antagonists will always fear his strange tricks, and that fear alone may trip them up.

166 comments:

Saint Croix said...

"in all fairness"

LOL

Expat(ish) said...

Troll level - presidential!

-XC

John Tuffnell said...

Now that is world-class trolling. Trump even seems to be enjoying this part of governing, the day after he was supposed to feel shame and remorse for his sins having been exposed by the purifying waters of the Blue Wave. But no. He says he wants Pelosi and is messing with the Dems internal machinations about who gets to vote for who in the jockey for power.

Original Mike said...

Nancy would owe him bigly. That’s not a bad idea.

Once written, twice... said...

Trump did what Democrats could not do: all of the movement conservatives have been washed out. Walker, Ryan, etc. The era that started under Ronald Reagan has come to an embarrassing end. It was replaced by a clown. Good going Republican voters!

Meade said...

You're welcome, oncey!

Dave Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

Apparently people don't like prosperity. Or at least they seem to perfer endless eristic conflict over minutiae like "tone" to results.

Dave Begley said...

Trump's genius, savviness and toughness is going to be tested.

I say he uses the military to build the wall. That should provoke an impeachment fight

MadisonMan said...

I'm not sure Pelosi has the smarts to deal with Trump. We'll see.

Leland said...

Trump will setup a fight better than Don King. The Democrats have already over played their hand once, and it cost them the Senate (and maybe more as the investigations are ongoing). I'm waiting to see the Democrats stroke out when they see the new nominees to Trump's cabinet, and then not having any ability to stop them.

Saint Croix said...

Now that is world-class trolling.

"I'm not going to call her because she's not even Speaker yet. They don't even know if they want her."

Calls her.

"She's great. She's awesome. I think we can get some Republican votes to shore up her support!"

It's world-class because

a) it's funny as shit

b) it's a brilliant head game

c) if she is the Speaker, he can take credit and try to work with her

d) if she's not the Speaker, he can take credit for sabotaging her candidacy

FIDO said...

Pelosi didn't have the intelligence to deal with Obama.

Once written, twice... said...

Of course there is prosperity right now, Trump cut taxes while opening the spigots on Federal spending. He is maxing the credit card out. But we all know how that ends. We also know that it comes sooner rather than later. It already feels like it will be next year.

Meade said...

"In all fairness, Br'er Nancy, please don't fling me in dat brier-patch,"

mccullough said...

The tax reform was the only major GOP piece of legislation. So not having the House isn’t a loss from a thwarting the agenda point. The House has control over a lot of the budget but Trump will be happy to trade in spending stuff. Like Obama, W, and Reagan, Trump likes to spend and doesn’t give a shit about budget deficits.

He can get judges through the Senate easier now. The Executive branch and the Judiciary do most of the day to day legislating. The House is important in how to spend the ever decreasing amount of the budget that is for discretionary spending.

Pelosi and the House Dems, like Paul Ryan, are child’s play for Trump. Nancy Pelosi will not run for re-election.

EDH said...

How many of the newly elected house Democrats ran as moderates?

Trump wants a speaker Pelosi to make their re-election more difficult in 2020.

AllenS said...

Tell me, Once, were you upset when Obama came close to doubling the nation's debt? I can't remember you even bringing up the issue.

mccullough said...

Pelosi is very shrewd. But she’s also old and showing it. Feinstein is older and still pretty sharp. Better genes than a Pelosi. Feinstein has lost a half step. Pelosi has lost three steps.

Trump has gotten better. He’s quicker, more agile and adjustable.

chickenlittle said...

Trump is supposed to fear her, not revere her.

gahrie said...

Surely the Democrats aren't going to make Pelosi Speaker again?

Known Unknown said...

Nancy Pelosi is 78.
Dianne Feinstein is 85.
Charles Grassley is 85.
Patrick Leahy is 78.
Orrin Hatch is 84.
Bernie Sanders is 77.
Mitch McConnell is 76.

Why do Senators hate their grandchildren?

Dave said...

I agree Ann. I think this is more of a longterm win for Trump. The Democrat leadership in the house makes a much better heel than the Media. Now, we will get that Face time we love so much. Polititainment for the forseeable future!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The credit card is maxed out - and all we get from the Democrats are more promises for more free stuff..

Once written - how does that work?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's funny how ultra rich mega- MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE leftists won't use their own money to pay down the debt, or send money to the treasury, but they will require the regular hard working middle and upper middle class folks to do so.

I Callahan said...

Of course there is prosperity right now, Trump cut taxes while opening the spigots on Federal spending. He is maxing the credit card out. But we all know how that ends. We also know that it comes sooner rather than later. It already feels like it will be next year.

Please, once. Your side already maxed the credit cards out. So hearing lefties complain about spending is falling on this set of deaf ears.

traditionalguy said...

Trump is ecstatic. He got rid of Ryan who was 100% his enemy in secret and gets a Speaker that is 70% his enemy openly. Let the deals commence.

Fabi said...

Trump will enjoy the fight and win far more often than not. I hate losing the house, but he's going to have 2020 wrapped nicely with a bow.

Freder Frederson said...

Like the myth that Trump is a self made billionaire, his deal making skills are largely bullshit spouted by Trump and eaten up by his minions.

stevew said...

Trump has studied Machiavelli: keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Amexpat said...

Pelosi may be good at at legislative infighting behind the scenes but she's a poor spokesperson for the Democrats. Being Speaker now makes her the top Dem. Trump likes that.

Balfegor said...

Re: MadisonMan:

I'm not sure Pelosi has the smarts to deal with Trump. We'll see.

Pelosi and Schumer are actually pretty smart, I think. Or at least, they're competent. I have a vague recollection that Schumer expressed reservations about Reid's boneheaded decision to abolish the filibuster in 2013 (although he did ultimately vote in favour of the rule change). And I have got the sense that although he realises that the strategy Democrats have been pursuing is often self-defeating. As Republicans noted, somewhat gloatingly, after Kavanaugh, Democrats could almost certainly have blocked the Kavanaugh nomination if they hadn't decided to filibuster Gorsuch, prompting McConnell to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations as well. And McConnell would probably have had a much tougher time persuading his caucus to support abolishing the filibuster if leading Democrats -- not just fringe activists, but Tim Kaine and Harry Reid -- hadn't engaged in premature gloating about how they were going to abolish the filibuster, before the 2016 election dashed their hopes.

And Pelosi, while she looked a bit hapless under Bush, did find her feet during the first two years of Obama. You may not think it was a good thing (I don't), but she held her caucus together to save her callow young President from humiliation by orchestrating the passage of Obamacare in the face of mounting popular opposition. You compare that with Boehner, who was constantly dealing with backbench rebellions. Or even, frankly, Paul Ryan, who did a pretty poor job of managing his caucus in 2017 (e.g. with the failed first draft of the healthcare bill).

rhhardin said...

It's like calling Kim an honorable man. Helps future negotiations.

Ken B said...

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake. Making Pelosi speaker is a mistake for the Democrats. Trump's joke is funny, but if the Dems were smarter it might tip them off.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

How about Maxine Waters for Speaker. All Republicans vote for her. No way media could hide that crazy for two years. Sure Republican sweep in 2020. Surprised Maxine is 80 - crazy keeps you young.

Meade said...

Freder and Oncey got their pony but can only see piles of manure.

mccullough said...

Trump is president. He had no political office before becoming president.

Time to quit whining about the guy not being self made. He made himself president just like Obama did. But he didn’t waste anytime toiling in local, state, and national politics to do it. And he’s doing a decent job. That’s what bothers liberals. It’s not that fucking hard if you don’t cave in to bullshit.

W, Hilary, Cuomo, Brown, all the Kennedys. These people are the the ones who needed their fathers or husband. Who knows what Trump’s net worth is. Who cares. The guy is president just like Obama was. And he’s making Ibama look bad. Like the highly touted QB who kept fucking up and blaming his teammates, the coaches, and even the fans.

Trump has embarrassed Obama and W. That’s why do many people hate him. They know they aren’t smart and that Trump is.



stevew said...

One should always expect the best from your opponent.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Balfegor-

Garland was not considered before an election because of the Biden Rule. Totally fair and within bounds, because the R's were playing the the D-rules.

Mike said...

Like the myth that Trump is a self made billionaire, his deal making skills are largely bullshit spouted by Trump and eaten up by his minions.

Like his other comments, Freder's analysis of Trump is largely bullshit, ignored by most reasonable people. Of course, my comment is as fact-free as Freder's, but I'll back it up by taking down his elementary take on Deal Making. First of all, running a yuuuuge multi-million dollar business takes management skills, whether you wish to admit it or not. There are a multitude of decisions to be made every day, from staffing to strategy, and Trump has demonstrated a better-then-average ability to staff two important enterprises. Both Trump development and The Apprentice are viable evidence of Trump's ability to organize and lead multidimensional enterprises. Television is notoriously difficult for non-entertainers to succeed at. Trump proved successful because he has a well developed sense of comedic timing and innate understanding of what the audience wants.

His success is the proof. Just like the lack of success in ANY endeavor was an indicator to those of us who voted against Hillary in 2016, Trump's obvious success at developing property, self-promotion, and TV bely the dunderhead criticism from folks like Freder. Yet the Democrats have so far ignored their best path to success, making a Deal with Trump. He's practically begged them to offer him something so he could give them something in return. Will it be a replay of Bush 41 breaking his "no new taxes" pledge or will it be to get the Wall built? We don't know. Lucky for Republicans, the Democrats have been too stupid to stroke Trump's ego and get a deal. Maybe they'll stay stupid, like Freder. But if Nancy has any of the wiles she is rumored to possess she will find some sliver of common ground and see how far she can push Trump to make a deal.

Continuing to say "his deal making skills are largely bullshit" when he has proved his POLITICAL skills are enough to get him elected and enact much of what he promised seems kind of counter-productive. But I hope Democrats act like Freder. It'll be far more entertaining to watch them get rolled over and over.

Balfegor said...

Re: DickinBimbos:

Garland was not considered before an election because of the Biden Rule. Totally fair and within bounds, because the R's were playing the the D-rules.

Sure . . . I don't disagree but not sure what you're responding to.

The Crack Emcee said...

Pelosi Even Dresses The Part (To "P" On You)

I wrote that in 2009 and it still holds true: Nancy Pelosi is a pol of unusual talents - including fashion.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It all went down hill for Pelosi when she infamously said "We have to pass it to find out what is in it." (Obamacare, passed on party line vote)

ObamaCare - the trojan horse for single payer/Medicare for all.

Pre-exsisting conditions! She's trying to erase that colossal embarrassment.

Danno said...

If you play Marquess of Queensberry rules when the Dems pkay hardball, you are the stupid party. The Rs wised up, except Mitt.

Danno said...

play

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Balfegor - Adding it in, is all. I know you know, but I often hear lefties whine about Garland as they refuse to embrace the facts. The Biden Rule.

Chuck said...

Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?

Patrick Henry was right! said...

This election was a complete repudiation of Paul Ryan. Full stop.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Chuck, check out all the new trade deals, the return of our soldier's remains from N. Korea, the ISIS defeat coalition, etc.

Static Ping said...

It should be entertaining. Pelosi is not particularly popular and her actions over the past several years show a woman who has lost some control of her faculties. Trump is a BS artist, but he is a really good BS artist. Pelosi comes across as an elderly grandmother trying to be witty but failing for all sorts of reasons.

I suppose I should also mention that the House majority is not especially large, though we are not sure on what the number will be yet. The Republicans had trouble getting legislation through the past two years even with the majority. Pelosi could quickly become a clown show as she either acts all crazy or has to struggle to get her party in line. Don't think that Trump won't notice and won't exploit that to the hilt.

I believe the word was "all the Democrats have to do is not be crazy" and, well, they failed. I suspect we will get two more years of that as well.

mccullough said...

It will be Medicaid for all. Except the wealthy. They will get good health care. The other 90% will get Medicaid level service. Only morons will waste time becoming doctors or nurses then. So most medicine will be homeopathic. Bring back the witch doctors.

mccullough said...

Pelosi is by far the smartest Dem in the House. As bad as she is, the others are much worse.

Big Mike said...

With any luck she'll have another attack of dementia while all the TV network cameras are on her.

Yancey Ward said...

It is always better to have your party control both Houses if you are a first term president- let's just state that as a given. However, if I had to pick only one House to control, it would be the Senate because of the judiciary implications. Given how little Ryan and Boehner before him accomplished with the House, I don't think there are terrible consequences for the Republican Party or the country itself with the Democrats back in control of the House- gridlock is what you get from here on until January 2021, but gridlock was what you already had for the most part. The only two major accomplishments of the Republican House and Senate was the passage of the tax cuts and the elimination of the Obamacare mandate- they accomplished nothing else.

For me personally, the worst thing about losing the House is that Nunes won't be able to continue the investigations of the intelligence corruption, but the Grassley has already indicated that he will pick up the ball since the FBI is the main conduit of corruption, and is in the DoJ.

The Senate can now fill the judiciary with all of Trump's selections, which will be numerous over the next two years.

As for 2020, the House can be a useful foil for reelection- Obama employed it quite nicely in 2012 and won reelection easily. It does help to have someone to blame for things, and I promise you that Congress' approval ratings will remain in the toilet during the next two years. Also, if you look at the seats the Democrats flipped, most will be tossups again in two years, and well within reach of the Republicans just taking the House back in 2020. The Senate, though, probably won't be flip again until 2022. The Republicans defend more seats in 2020, but the territory is far more friendly to the Republicans in those races than it was for the Democrats last night.

John Tuffnell said...

Chuck, check out all the new trade deals, the return of our soldier's remains from N. Korea, the ISIS defeat coalition, etc.

NATO allies finally paying more are taking responsibility for some of their own defense. This one fact destroys all of the inane Trump-Russia collusion fantasies, as the ability of Europe to pose a threat to Russia's interests (offensive or defensive) is the single item that has most bothered Russia for the last 70 years.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck, who was unable to predict the electoral outcome within his own state in 2016 and has no experience in the business world and, worst of all, possesses the standard lefty lens thru which he views economics and trade, would like for someone to explain to him the success of Trumps trade deals and military alliance building which squeezes our geo-political foes..........

............

.....you can stop laughing now.....

Mike said...

Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?

Google "Central Park skating rink" and read for yourself, Chuck. It's a small-time deal, but why do you think Trump was able to take over a boondoggle and get it done on time and under budget, as most of his developments also were completed? Dumb luck? Smart managers under Trump? What? What do you Trump deniers have to say about all his obvious success? Or is it all Trump steaks and Trump U for you guys? He takes risks. He succeeds many times (Google "post office renovation") and fails at others. I don't get your wholesale rejection of his deal-making skills. He forced the NFL to change just by buying a USFL franchise. What "deals" do you know of where he got screwed over?

The Crack Emcee said...

As long as he talks like this - but doesn't get into the healing business - I feel fine.

But - as long as he keeps creeps like Dr. Oz around - I trust him as far as I can throw him.

Mike said...

Prove your counterfactuals Chuck. Show me the deals where Trump lost bigly and/or got worked over by the other party.

Seeing Red said...

With any luck she’ll call him Bush. Again.

Meade said...

"As bad as she is, the others are much worse."

It isn't all their fault. They have a pre-existing condition. Progressive Utopiaitis. Before we can heal them with their homopathic CBD snake oil, we must first forgive them. And then kick their ass.

Next season is already here. Keep America Great.

Jim said...

The Dem base elected a far left Congress. They are expected to repeal the tax cuts, promote more mass immigration, strengthen ACA into single payer. That's for starters. Climate change, the Iran deal, N. Korea and hurting Israel are also important to them. They won't be able to accomplish any of the above. The Congress will continue to be a millionaires club, more interested in personal wealth for themselves. I don't think Trump will have problems dealing with them. The Dems will have many problems dealing with their base.

Jersey Fled said...

Ann's exam questions are much harder than Chuck's.

dreams said...

We got lucky with Trump. The first time ever I took him seriously was when he stood up to that bully Rosie O'Donnell but I never dreamed that we could have him as our president standing up to the liberal bullies in the media and the liberal bullies in the crooked Democratic party.

buwaya said...

The Democrats are not left-wing. Not in the usual historical sense. Vocabularies have not caught up with cultural and social change.

Take for instance the woman of the moment, Ocasio-Cortez.

It turns out she was not initially elected by the usual ethnic-tribal population, looking to politicians for benefits and a place at the table, the Tammany Hall system. I assumed she was the Puerto Rican voters choice, expressing their increase in numbers, as would be expected under the old dynamic. Her primary opponent won that block. She was instead supported by the gentrifiers and their cultural allies in Wall Street. That is not classic left-wing politics.

Drago said...

Dreams: ".. but I never dreamed that we could have him as our president standing up to the liberal bullies in the media and the liberal bullies in the crooked Democratic party."

Tread carefully. That sort of observation/assessment can be extremely triggering for LLR Chuck.

It often leads to LLR Chuck rhetorically lashing out wildly and spouting self-discrediting racist and misogynistic comments which he inevitably attempts to blame on Trump.

Seeing Red said...

That is not classic left-wing politics.

It’s the see how wonderful and tolerant I am politics.

rehajm said...

The other 90% will get Medicaid level service.

Some percentage of that 90% will have a difficult time finding any level of service- price controls lead to shortages.

Fabi said...

Leave Chuck alone! His hands are badly blistered from making all those Flake+Kasich 2020 yard signs.

gilbar said...

Civility Manchin says...
That is for everybody. And we've got to stop this absolute toxic rhetoric that's going on in this country — we have got to stop this toxic rhetoric
"I know Mike Pence, and he's just, I guess, doing his job," Manchin said. "He's a junkyard dog right now, I guess. He has to go out and do it."


Civility Means What It Has ALWAYS Meant
Repubs have to mind their tongue
Demos can say LITERALLY ANYTHING

tim maguire said...

buwaya said...She was instead supported by the gentrifiers and their cultural allies in Wall Street. That is not classic left-wing politics.

Democrats still fantasize about being the defenders of the little guy, but the reality is they are the party of billionaires and international corporations. Wall Street supports people like Ocasio-Cortez because they know they can depend on her to raise the cost of entry into the marketplace, thus protecting them from competition and especially market disruption. It's rent-seeking, plain and simple.

MikeR said...

I think Scott Adams has already pointed out that Trump is well-positioned to function with a Democratic House and Republican Senate. He can confirm judges. He can make peace in Korea, and other foreign policies actions. He can keep doing whatever he does with the Executive Branch. As for the House, he already passed his tax bill. Legalizing marijuana, Dem House should help. Infrastructure bill, Dem House may well help. "Fixing" Obamacare, he may need a Dem House to have a chance because the Republicans probably don't agree with what he wants to do.
The Dem House may make a lot of trouble for him with investigations and impeachments and stuff. I think he can handle that just fine, and it may cost them much more than it gain.
What else - they may try to shut down the government unless it passes a budget that includes all kind of liberal wish-lists? Again, that may cost them, not him.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

I agree the Ocasio-Cortez Democrat party is not in step with the majority of black/hispanic voters. Republicans need to find black and hispanic Republicans to run hard in these areas. Trump has made it possible to get these voters, but the Ryan wing is more focused on criticizing Trump than finding good candidates for these districts.

readering said...

Where's the caravan?

Molly said...

(eaglebeak)

As we were saying only yesterday, Trump is funny--always funny. And that's because he's smart.

If he says he's going to adopt a softer tone, check your back. If he says Nancy Pelosi deserves Speakership, he has set it up to win no matter what the Dems do.

Article in Politico today (unfortunately full of typos, lacunae, etc.) observes that it was a ballsy move for Trump and Mitch McConnell to handle the Senate races as they did.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/07/2018-key-senate-election-races-results-970238

Meanwhile, former Never Trumper Ben Stein says Trump is "magic"--and Trump tweets it.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-quotes-ben-stein-gushing-about-how-trump-is-a-magic-man-he-has-magic-coming-out-of-his-ears/

Chuck said...

Mike said...
Prove your counterfactuals Chuck. Show me the deals where Trump lost bigly and/or got worked over by the other party.


Well first; I am not taking Donald Trump's word for anything about his history as a New York developer. Let's see his tax records for the last ten years or so.

I am talking about as President; has Trump done any great deals? I say no. The big tax cuts were not a "deal," the Republicans did that unilaterally. Trump's judicial nominations have been wonderful, but they are not "deals."


Somebody suggested "trade," and that's an interesting topic. We are getting a new NAFTA deal, and most experts I have heard from say that it is a minor alteration of the original NAFTA. I follow the auto assembly provisions pretty closely from here in metro Detroit, and the new NAFTA makes minor changes in "domestic" auto parts percentages. It was a tweak, not a deal.

There's been no immigration deal, no health care deal. I can't think of a single piece of legislation that counts as a major Trump deal. Not one.

There has been no deal with Korea. There have been some publicity stunts, and I include North Korea's return of American remains as part of the chain of stunts, notwithstanding the importance to the families involved. It was a stunt in terms of diplomacy.

So again; name a big Trump Administration "deal." Where we define "deal" as Trump negotiating with a powerful counterparty and coming up with a novel of compromise solution to solve a problem or to address mutual interests.

bagoh20 said...

It was an uncomfortable dilemma knowing it was Republicans getting in the way. You want to vote the obstacles out, but you get Democrat obstacles if you do. Now we have that and the dilemma is gone. There will be bipartisan agreement about who is in the way now. Trump will constantly remind us of it by offering deals and solutions that the Dems will obstruct, even if they agree with them. Trump is gonna enjoy this game for the next two years. He will either get things done or highlight Dems as the problem.

Balfegor said...

Re: Chuck:

Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?

The one that comes immediately to mind is the Hyatt by Grand Central -- I will say, I hate that hotel. The Pritzkers had bought Trump out long before my first stay there, but a lot of what I dislike is the layout and design, which Trump controlled. But it's frequently cited as a key development in reclaiming that neighbourhood from the urban squalor of 1970's New York. The history of that relationship and the various negotiations and renegotiations, the dealings with New York's bureaucracy, the thing with the friezes, etc., all show Trump's, ah, somewhat underhanded approach to negotiations too.

To me, the remarkable thing is that people kept doing these big deals with him in the 80's and 90's despite his attitude towards negotiations. And despite even his bankruptcy in 1990, when banks who had lent large sums to him had to write off $750 million of his debt. The Trump Tower on Columbus Circle and Trump Place just south of Central Park were both from the mid-1990s. I don't know about Trump Place (I walk past it from time to time, but I've never been inside), but I will say the Trump Tower on Columbus Circle has some good restaurants (Jean George and its little brother, Nougatine).

Anyhow, here is a pro-Trump list of his major real estate deals.

rehajm said...

Suddenly Trump is everyone's President. Elections are funny...

Chuck said...

Mike said...
Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?

Google "Central Park skating rink" and read for yourself, Chuck. It's a small-time deal, but why do you think Trump was able to take over a boondoggle and get it done on time and under budget, as most of his developments also were completed? Dumb luck? Smart managers under Trump? What? What do you Trump deniers have to say about all his obvious success? Or is it all Trump steaks and Trump U for you guys? He takes risks. He succeeds many times (Google "post office renovation") and fails at others. I don't get your wholesale rejection of his deal-making skills. He forced the NFL to change just by buying a USFL franchise. What "deals" do you know of where he got screwed over?


"Managing a minor construction project better than a municipal government like New York City, or Chicago, or San Francisco," is about the lowest bar in all of managerial science.

Darrell said...

I saw Ed Koch in the 1980s give full credit to Donald Trump for saving NYC. No developer was building anything other than a mid-size residential buildings in NYC after the bankruptcy scare. [mid-1970s] Unions and the mob, which supplied materials, made construction a nightmare. Crap materials doctored out of spec put buildings in danger. There wasn't a single large corporation with NYC headquarters that didn't at least have an exploratory committee looking to find a new home base. Koch couldn't get any developers to meet with him--except Trump. Trump told him it could get done if the city cooperated and cut the red tape, the corruption, and the delays. The city would have to be a partner. Trump met with the mob bosses and got them to see that supplying the right materials at the correct price with no games was going to make them a hell of a lot more money than supplying nothing to a dying construction industry or city. Trump got building. The Central Park mugging zone and Wall St. got new buildings. Koch later became an enemy of Trump--especially after he embarrassed him with the skating rink (six years of city work and no end in sight.) Trump finished it in three months. But other developera were back building again. The Taxi-Driver/Death Wish era had ended.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I'm pretty pleased to have the pickups in the Senate in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, and Missouri.

I'm counting Arizona as a pickup as we will have a Republican instead of an NPChuck level cuckservative like that cuntrag Flake.


If the Dems were smart, they would put in a new speaker who is younger, from the midwest, and not the most hated twat in the entire country, but they can't help themselves. The galactic overlord level trolling from Trump reflects that reality.

Darrell said...

Trump Plaza, 167 E. 61st St., completed 1984

Third Avenue north of Bloomingdale’s was a lost highway of tenements and boxy, bland apartment buildings after the el was torn down in the 1950s. Trump’s 39-story, trefoil-shaped co-op tower of limestone, glass and shimmering bronze boasted a welcoming retail base which respected the classic Manhattan “street wall” — repudiating pedestrian-hostile setback design which was then in vogue. It inspired four more similarly configured towers on the avenue and lent some badly needed class to uptown east of Lexington Avenue.

Darrell said...

Trump Tower, Fifth Avenue at 56th Street, opened 1983

As the city descended into an abyss of crime and corporate flight, nobody thought of erecting a new skyscraper on Fifth Avenue — except Trump. It perfected the three-way, mixed-use model: condo apartments, office floors and a shopping atrium. An immediate hit with the public, it shone as a beacon of hope for “the world’s greatest shopping street,” which was increasingly full of phony antique dealers and empty storefronts. Trump’s vision would be vindicated years later when the avenue recaptured its old glory.

Darrell said...

Grand Hyatt Hotel, 109 E. 42nd St., 1979-80

An X-rated “massage parlor” stood in the lobby of the gloomy Commodore Hotel — symptomatic of East 42nd Street’s decline. Trump, the hotel project’s prime mover, replaced the brick facade with curtain-wall glass, designed a modern high-end hotel inside and made it attractive for tourism and business. It arrested the street’s tailspin and set the stage for Grand Central Terminal’s restoration in the 1990s.

Earnest Prole said...

In his press conference Trump praised Nancy Pelosi and said he would work with House Democrats to pass environmental, health-care, and infrastructure spending bills that he never could have passed with a Republican majority. I believe the technical term is triangulation.

Darrell said...

40 Wall Street, purchased by Trump in 1995

The landmark Art Deco masterpiece was a vacant, ruined hulk when Trump bought it for a token $1 million. Companies were fleeing the financial district’s obsolete old towers at the time. Trump’s restoration and marketing savvy swiftly drew tenants and stabilized the area — an inspiration that helped put the area back on its feet in the years before 9/11.

Seeing Red said...

So again; name a big Trump Administration "deal." Where we define "deal" as Trump negotiating with a powerful counterparty and coming up with a novel of compromise solution to solve a problem or to address mutual interests.


The Palestinians.

Darrell said...

Trump International Hotel and Tower, Columbus Circle, 1995-97

This was the first project to reclaim Columbus Circle from the vagrants. The hated former Gulf + Western Building needed a new skin and a new image. The owners tapped Trump to figure out how. His gleaming glass facade and all-new interior yielded an Upper West Side gateway edifice. Luxury condos sold out, the hotel was hailed as among the city’s best, and Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s flagship restaurant drew gourmands from around the world. Its success paved the way for Time Warner Center and the Museum of Arts and Design.

Seeing Red said...

So again; name a big Trump Administration "deal." Where we define "deal" as Trump negotiating with a powerful counterparty and coming up with a novel of compromise solution to solve a problem or to address mutual interests.


The Palestinians.

Darrell said...

Riverside South, 1997-2004

Trump’s least-appreciated accomplishment, the 16-building complex including a new public park along the Hudson River from West 59th-72nd streets is too often called a Trump failure. He scaled down his original master plan over community opposition; he needed partners to bankroll it; and then, deep in debt, sold out to other developers. But Trump created Riverside South, home to over 10,000 people on a former rail yard site. He acquired land rights in the 1970s; finessed a zoning change from development-averse mayor David Dinkins in 1992; and built the site’s first seven towers. They’re emblazoned with his name for good reason.

Chuck said...

Molly said...
(eaglebeak)

….

Meanwhile, former Never Trumper Ben Stein says Trump is "magic"--and Trump tweets it.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-quotes-ben-stein-gushing-about-how-trump-is-a-magic-man-he-has-magic-coming-out-of-his-ears/


Ben Stein voted for Trump. Before he voted for Trump, Ben Stein said, "I don't think he [Trump] knows a goddamn thing about economics. He's not a great businessman. He inherited a lot of money."

So Ben Stein is like me. He had little regard for Trump, but voted for Trump as the least-worst alternative in 2016.

Balfegor said...

Re: Chuck:

Somebody suggested "trade," and that's an interesting topic. We are getting a new NAFTA deal, and most experts I have heard from say that it is a minor alteration of the original NAFTA. I follow the auto assembly provisions pretty closely from here in metro Detroit, and the new NAFTA makes minor changes in "domestic" auto parts percentages. It was a tweak, not a deal.

You can dismiss it as a tweak. And I generally agree -- the impact from the increase from 62.5% to 75% is not major given the way most supply chains work out, and the $16/hr requirement is mostly just a nudge against any future relocation from US/Canada into Mexico, not something that will have much impact. But basically everything we saw move there was a move in favour of the US (at least as Trump sees its interest).

For example, the inclusion of the 16 year sunset provision was presented in a lot of news reports as though it were a huge concession for the US. But in fact, the movement was "no sunset" (NAFTA) => "16 year sunset" (neo-NAFTA). Sure we didn't get our (totally ridiculous) demand for the 5 year renegotiation, but . . . come on. Would renegotiating a key trade deal every five years actually be in the interests of US business? (Leaving aside whether a 16 year sunset is beneficial . . .). I don't think that was a serious demand. Another example: partial preservation of investor-state dispute resolution provisions. This too got presented in media reports as a huge concession, but the movement in the negotiations was from NAFTA ISD => limited ISD with a 3-year sunset. If you accept Trump's framing of US interests, he moved the ball in his direction.

I haven't reviewed new NAFTA in enough detail to say whether there's real concessions from the US buried in there -- I assume there must be -- but at least from the topline reporting, all the US "concessions" are basically that we made extreme demands and our trading partners gave us only 50% of what we asked for. That . . . that's basically Trump's negotiating strategy in a nutshell isn't it? I heard a lot of skepticism about his strategy in Washington, particularly the strategy of negotiating with Mexico first and then forcing Canadians to negotiate under extreme time pressure so the revised deal could be submitted before Pena Nieto leaves office. But it worked. At least assuming they hit all the deadlines.

Darrell said...

What have YOU built in your life, Chuck?
A fucking bird house?
Most developers but up three or four buildings of note in their entire career. Trump put up dozens. Almost all went up on-time and on-budget. Few human beings have left their mark on the world as Trump has.

gahrie said...

Trump did what Democrats could not do: all of the movement conservatives have been washed out. Walker, Ryan, etc. The era that started under Ronald Reagan has come to an embarrassing end

Hmm..Trump himself has been the most conservative president since Reagan. Maybe your mistake is in thinking that Establishment Republicans are necessarily conservative Republicans?

AZ Bob said...

This is what triangulation looks like.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

NPChuck says "So Ben Stein is like me."

Ben Stein had a successful film and political career. He is beloved by millions for his iconic role in Ferris Bueller's Day off. He wrote speechs for major political figures, had an entertaining game show with Kimmel before he turned into a lefty mangina. Ben Stein actually did graduate from Law School, and he has a loving wife and a son.

He is nothing like an incel spergy retard with no family that will care when he dies, is despised by everyone he encounters, and whose only joy in life is pretending to be an attorney and republican on a blog from some broad in Wisconsin.

You are nothing like Ben Stein, NPChuck.

Ray - SoCal said...

Chuck Question:

In MI was the Senate Candidate was fully supported by the GOP establishment with money? He came very close. Would more campaign money have made a difference?

Trump and McConnell seemed to focus on just a few races, the ones they felt they had the best chance.

Burkemania said...

Almost as disempowering as offering to deliver her Meals on Wheels in case she needs it.

Bill Peschel said...

Here's something else Trump has done that was the right call: Withdrawing from the International Postal Union.

This group made it possible for China to direct ship small packages to U.S. customers at a much lower rate.

This was instituted in 1969 as a way to help China. Today, it undercuts U.S. businesses, costs the U.S. Postal Service $300 million a year, and encouraged imports of fentanyl.

No one's talking about this, but for U.S. businesses competing with China over the same products, it leveled the playing field.

But don't take my word for it, the Washington Post agreed.

Unknown said...

Troll level Galactic Overlord in this context would be to somehow instigate a reverse Willie Brown..

Big Mike said...

She was instead supported by the gentrifiers and their cultural allies in Wall Street. That is not classic left-wing politics.

@buwaya, you are just now figured out what modern, 21st century, leftism is all about. It’s all about pulling up the ladder after you so that mobility from poor into working class, from working class into middle class, and especially middle class into affluent is stymied. Viewed as health insurance, Obamacare is a massive failure. Viewed as a mechanism for making life difficult to impossible for freelance workers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs, it is a master stroke.

You make good comments here on the Althouse blog, buwaya, so I am a bit surprised you didn’t see this for yourself. (Or perhaps you did?)

tcrosse said...

She was instead supported by the gentrifiers and their cultural allies in Wall Street. That is not classic left-wing politics.

In the US we have a so-called left which deplores the working class. Fat chance they'll ever call for the workers at Google or Disney to seize the means of production, or for Bay Area real estate to be redistributed to The People.

AZ Bob said...

What happened to the Blue Wave?

buwaya said...

"I am a bit surprised you didn’t see this for yourself."

I knew this, I was just surprised specifically by Ocasio-Cortez. I thought she was the usual ethnic politician, of which there are lots and always have been, which coexist perfectly well with the political establishment. I thought she won because Puerto Ricans had become so numerous in her district that electing one of their own was a natural consequence of demography. We have seen plenty of that in California.

But it turns out that in her case, this was not the case. The Puerto Ricans actually voted for the machine-politician Irishman straight out of Tammany Hall.

Chuck said...

Ray - SoCal said...
Chuck Question:

In MI was the Senate Candidate was fully supported by the GOP establishment with money? He came very close. Would more campaign money have made a difference?

Trump and McConnell seemed to focus on just a few races, the ones they felt they had the best chance.


The Senate race in Michigan was long thought to be a lost cause. Debbie Stabenow has beaten better candidates than John James. John James was seen as running a lost campaign, perhaps to give him some visibility for some future election. I don't know why; she is such a terrible Senator. I have never understood her appeal.

I don't know what sort of establishment GOP support that John James got. He probably got little NRSC support, because those dollars were so needed elsewhere.

I do think it is interesting, how much the Trumpists were fascinated by John James. Like he was a contestant on The Apprentice.

The guy who we establishment Republicans turned our backs on, was the gubernatorial candidate Bill Schuette. He deserved it. He brought criminal cases against the top MDHHS officials over the Flint water crisis. They are bullshit cases; Schuette did it to try to appeal to a Trumpist/populist base. He should be ashamed for having done it. The current governor offered no support to Schuette. Trump did. Establishment Republicans sat out the election, and some even supported the Democrat.

Michigan was a primary where Trump endorsed Schuette before the primary election.

gerry said...

But he didn’t waste anytime toiling in local, state, and national politics to do it.

Heh. Neither did Obama.

narciso said...

We have a difference of opinion, chuck, it can't be helped: schuette was endorsed by trump.

tim in vermont said...

Occasional Cortex is a beard for the white left. Nothing authentic about her.

tim in vermont said...

Trump cleared out a lot of fare jumping Republicans who gave lip service to Reagan to get power.

tim in vermont said...

Does anyone know how many bedwetting LLRs retired from the House because they thought like Chuck?

buwaya said...

"Occasional Cortex is a beard for the white left"

Yes, but my other point is that the white left is not the left. Not in any classic form, not in the Maoist mode that I am used to. It is an upper middle class movement based almost entirely on cultural tribalism where economic ideas are merely verbal formulas.

FullMoon said...

Don't know about you guys, but I am breathlessly awaiting Chucks response to Darrell's little list of Trump;s minor accomplishments, haha!

narciso said...

About a dozen or so,

tim in vermont said...

No they envy the Maoists their downtrodden working class and the kind of authenticity that would let them blast the brains of righties all over the garden wall.

Chuck said...

narciso said...
We have a difference of opinion, chuck, it can't be helped: schuette was endorsed by trump.


So add Schuette's name to the growing list of Republicans who got primary support from Trump who lost, or who used Trump's support to get a nomination and then lost the general.

And really; it may be that the Trump name, like the Obama name, doesn't do that much down-ballot. Ron DeSantis won in Florida, but he won where lots of other Republicans have regularly won the governorship there. Trump endorsed John James in Michigan, but James lost the way that other good candidates have lost Senate races to Debbie Stabenow.

narciso said...

You are such a jackass, no wonder few respect you.

buwaya said...

Pelosi certainly isn't a left-winger.

She is a very rich woman, through her husband they are worth at least a hundred million and probably much more.

And this obtained through the usual San Francisco real-estate games with the use of influence in City Hall.

The rhetoric out of these people is purely functional.

Rick said...

Once written, twice... said...
Of course there is prosperity right now, Trump cut taxes while opening the spigots on Federal spending. He is maxing the credit card out. But we all know how that ends. We also know that it comes sooner rather than later. It already feels like it will be next year.


It's interesting far leftists are able to recognize the temporary nature of economic improvement from deficit spending - but only when it is attributable to Reps. Obama's deficit spending was even greater with less effect (largely because the Dems eternal War on Business depresses the economy) and yet no one from the far left criticized the positive economic impact Obama predicted as temporary. It almost seems left wingers base their criticisms on the parties of the politicians rather than their policies.

tim maguire said...

Chuck said...
Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?


Renegotiation of NAFTA.

tim maguire said...

Chuck said...
Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?


Renegotiation of tariffs with the European Union.

tim maguire said...

Chuck said...
Can anyone name a “deal” for which Trump can take credit? Any really great deal of substance, with a counterparty of consequence?


Securing the Republican nomination despite not really being a Republican and getting elected president despite getting outspent by hundreds of millions.

buwaya said...

"No they envy the Maoists their downtrodden working class and the kind of authenticity that would let them blast the brains of righties all over the garden wall."

The difference vs real Maoists, and I knew a good number, is that Maoists were true believers in equality, or at least in a lifestyle of humility - this did not apply to Mao himself of course. They dressed in drab uniforms and eschewed luxuries. In their ideal form, and very common indeed, as to Bernard Fall for instance the Viet Minh officers were like "monks". These out-in-the-field Maoists are the sort I knew from the 1970's-80's. And their religion was the welfare of the peasantry, to which they were prepared to sacrifice everything. They were brave and ruthless. And they lived among the peasants.

The modern American type are nothing at all like that, nor do they believe in anything of the sort no matter what they say.

buwaya said...

The amount spent on this election will be an interesting statistic.
I am sure official amounts are just a fraction of actual spending.
I suspect the figure is large enough to have had an impact on GDP.

narciso said...

Like the npa in your native phillipines, there's a difference between that and the likes of bill Ayers who was a dilettante,

SDaly said...

Balfegor -

The new NAFTA deal's primary, unstated goal was containment of China. There are provisions that we essentially give the US a veto over deals between China and Canada/Mexico.

You can understand Trump much better if you see that he views China as the most potent threat to the US.

FullMoon said...

Whoa! Imagine Chuck would love to do same to Greta van Sustern "to show her how it feels".

Jim Acosta assaults White House woman staffer at press conference video

Drago said...

Try to imagine what life is like for LLR Chuck, whose very identity and self-esteem depend compketely on spending every minute of every day explaining away the reality that engulfs him.

In that fundamental way, LLR Chuck is exactly like every other leftist but diametrically opposite a Ben Stein.

Though I have to admit I laughed out loud at how our resident Durbin cuckholster attempted to associate himself with the likes of Ben Stein!

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Good grief, what a disgrace.

gilbar said...

the day after, Tester found more votes, to put him ahead;
Isn't it neat, how Demos can Always find more votes?

tim in vermont said...

Wherein Inga discovers that she’s a member of a highly vocal, but not determinative minority.

J. Farmer said...

My goal on Tuesday was Desantis and Scott, so I am rather pleased about last night's outcome. That said, choosing between Rick Scott and Bill Nelson was a little like choosing your favorite Menendez brother.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Hey Freder... How much you figure those "refugees" of Barry's are eatin up out of those deficits? How many were there, at 1.5mil per head? Oh that's right Barry wasn't so "transparent" about that headcount either. Lets see, three, maybe four of readering's caravans coming in under the Kennedy immigration bill. Trump is very good with the insults, better with numbers. That is the legacy. When framed economically it's gonna leave a mark in 2020. See you then!

buwaya said...

"Isn't it neat, how Demos can Always find more votes?"

It is an interesting pattern.
A good subject for a Poli Sci dissertation.

tim in vermont said...

I just finished an interesting biography of Hemingway, Writer, Sailor, Soldier, Spy and it turned out that Castro told Hemingway that he and his guerrillas studied For Whom the Bell Tolls for instruction in guerrilla warfare. Castro mentioned him in some of his speeches and kept a picture of the two of them, taken at the time of the conversation, in his office for many years. Those were lefties willing to put it all on the line for their cause. Of course they had the excuse of not having seen the inevitable course of leftist revolutions played over and over and over again for their edification.

Hemingway of course wrote of the atrocities of the Spanish Republicans with an unblinking eye, which earned him some scorn from the left, but Castro took it as a “how to” same as he probably did 1984.

BUMBLE BEE said...

You'll see more "social liberals / fiscal conservatives" than ever you imagined!

Darrell said...

Vote fraud is better than an orgasm for a Leftie.

tim in vermont said...

Castro was a lawyer by profession who became a guerrilla leader, so naturally he had to study up.

Scott M said...

If the Dems were smart, they would put in a new speaker who is younger, from the midwest, and not the most hated twat in the entire country, but they can't help themselves.

It's as simple as Pelosi's rolodex (and, yes, I would bet good money she still uses an actual rolodex) of reliable DNC funding. That's the main reason she will most likely be Speaker again, to once again pass bills so she can see what's in them.

buwaya said...

Sessions resigns.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns-from-trump-white-house-1541619893

tim in vermont said...

Holy shit! This day just keeps getting better.

buwaya said...

"It's as simple as Pelosi's rolodex (and, yes, I would bet good money she still uses an actual rolodex) of reliable DNC funding."

There are much more lucrative sources of funding these days. I don't think the SF real estate biz is such a big deal in relative terms vs ex. Tom Steyer's "wealth management" people for instance.

tim in vermont said...

Minutes after securing reelection Tuesday night, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin took a harsher tone against President Donald Trump, blasting him for the failure of his Republican challenger, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, an ardent White House ally.

Does that sound familiar? Minutes after Susan Collins casts the deciding vote... He’s off his leash for 5 1/2 years.

buwaya said...

The "Q" line was that Sessions was one of the good guys, and staying under the radar for strategic reasons, until the day should come, when he would emerge from under his rock.

This tends to undercut that narrative line.

I Callahan said...

but James lost the way that other good candidates have lost Senate races to Debbie Stabenow.

What? What were the margins in those races? Stabenow won BIG in those races where "better candidates" were running against her. Stabenow beat James by 4 points.

It seems you'll do anything - including be dishonest - to make your narrative seem like truth. It's not. And as a reminder - I live here in Michigan. Everything you've said about John James is so hilariously untrue that I really believe you don't even believe your own bullshit.

tim in vermont said...

And meanwhile free trade with China continues to reap dividends. Who is Trump to question that relationship?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/11/strange-snafu-misroutes-domestic-us-internet-traffic-through-china-telecom

That Huwawei switching equipment was a real bargain! I haven’t even read the article. That’s my guess. I will read it now.

wendybar said...

Sessions is out!!!

Bay Area Guy said...

I'd like to Michael Mukasey back at AG. He was/is great. He might be dated though.

Rosenstein should be next out. Maybe, give him a nice judgeship somewhere. To the extent, they shackled and/or slowed down Mueller they did good. But Sessions caused far too many headaches.

Balfegor said...

RE: SDaly:

The new NAFTA deal's primary, unstated goal was containment of China. There are provisions that we essentially give the US a veto over deals between China and Canada/Mexico.

That's 32.10. It's only a veto if we're willing to withdraw from the agreement vis-a-vis the counterparty that entered into the free trade agreement with the non-market country (i.e. China). So under Trump, yes, I suppose that's a plausible threat. Under any other politician? Probably meaningless. I expect we'd try to exploit it to push Canada/Mexico to insert some of the US's favourite clauses into the agreement (e.g. on IP, corruption, etc.) but we probably wouldn't carve them out of NAFTA if the Chinese refused. It's also not clear to me whether we would have to reach a separate agreement with Mexico (i.e. renegotiate) if Canada entered into an FTA with China that we disliked, or if our effective "veto" power is just the right to exit neo-NAFTA entirely with 6 month notice.

bagoh20 said...

Question asked and answered a plethora.

Why didn't the questioner notice any of those many examples of Trumpian triumph. Some kinda blinders on, or maybe they live in a remote area without media.

Rt1 Rebel said...

"My goal on Tuesday was Desantis and Scott"

You and me both, Farmer, I'm planning to retire to FL in the next several months. I didn't want to have to reconsider that plan.

Darrell said...

Stabenow beat James by 4 points.

Meaning that if the asshole Republicans in Michigan like Chuck did a little work, James could have won. It also means that Trump's rallies almost worked. Hang you heads in shame. R-Mi's.

Darkisland said...

Does the Speaker serve a fixed term or is it at the pleasure of the House?

If at the pleasure of the House, and Pelosi doesn't have enough votes to get the gavel without Republican help, it sets up an interesting dynamic.

PDT: Hi Nancy, I've got this bill I want to ram through. No, you don't need to know what's in it , you'll find out when you pass it.

SNP: No, I don't think that is a good idea.

PDT: Don't forget who you are dealing with. I, and my allies in the House, made you speaker, we can just as easily make Mad Maxine speaker.

SNP: OK, I'll put it on the agenda for next week.

PDT: Gee, I was really hoping we could git 'er done today. You don't want to disappoint me, do you?

SNP: If I call a special session, would 9PM be soon enough?

PDT: That's the spirit, girl! I knew you would see the light. 9PM is fine. In fact, take a couple extra hours if you need them. Just as long as it is today.

If he can hold this over the speaker's head, he may have more power than he would have with a Republican majority and speaker.

Darkisland said...

Blogger Balfegor said...

To me, the remarkable thing is that people kept doing these big deals with him in the 80's and 90's despite his attitude towards negotiations.

Gee, I can't understand it either. If he always cheats on deals and stiffs the partners, why would anyone ever get into any kind of deal with him? It's not like it would be secret.

(Along the same lines, although you didn't mention it, if he always stiffs his contractors and subs, why would anyone deal with his? It's not like it would be secret)

I suspect that Donald Trump always made money for his partners. (And his contractors and subs made money too)

And that's why we always heard about these people being stiffed but we never actually heard from people being stiffed.

I think you are an attorney, Balfegor, aren't you? Would you ever take on a client who has a reputation of stiffing other attorneys?

John Henry

Darrell said...

if he always stiffs his contractors and subs

A whole legion of subcontractors came forward during the campaign to say that they always place a bid on Trump projects because they are always the best jobs to work. You get paid for your labor and materials--always--as you agreed beforehand. The subs that were griping were caught padding their bills. Trump paid them the actual amount owed. That's why they couldn't sue--and if they did, they lost. Trump's people kept track of everything and documented everything accordingly and meticulously. As it should be.

mockturtle said...

And that's why we always heard about these people being stiffed but we never actually heard from people being stiffed.

Trump did what he has done with Boeing: Scrutinized the bill. How many Presidents do that?

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

buwaya said...
The amount spent on this election will be an interesting statistic.
I am sure official amounts are just a fraction of actual spending.
I suspect the figure is large enough to have had an impact on GDP.


One analysis I read was 5 billion dollars.

That doesn't include whatever value you would ascribe to the media contributions to democrat efforts.

Known Unknown said...

"That said, choosing between Rick Scott and Bill Nelson was a little like choosing your favorite Menendez brother."

We had Shit Sandwich A (DeWine) vs. Shit Sandwich B (Cordoray).

SSA won.

Michael McNeil said...

Hardly anyone among the commentariat here — beyond, perhaps, Inga! :-) — appears to have noticed the probable impact on the Democratic Party (and Nancy Pelosi's) base if she's reelected Speaker with Trumpian support.

tcrosse said...

In Democrat circles praise from Trump is the Kiss of Death.

Ray - SoCal said...

Thanks Chuck!

I've been curious about any GOP Senator that went against an incumbent in this past election, that had a chance.

Big Mike said...

So Ben Stein is like me. He had little regard for Trump, but voted for Trump as the least-worst alternative in 2016.

(Posted my response to Chuck on the wrong thread. Corrected.)

Wrong verb tense. In 2016 you were like Ben Stein. But Ben Stein is a smart man who lets himself be persuaded by facts. This is very much in contrast with you.

Please do fill out your change of registration card at your earliest convenience. We do not need country club Republicans of your sort in my party. Your natural home is with Ocasio-Cortez, pulling up the ladder behind you lest some plumber or electrician successfully branch out on his own, start a small business, by dint of hard work and talent join the affluent class. Maybe even eventually apply to join your country club, causing you to shudder reflexively.

Big Mike said...

Stabenow beat James by 4 points

Actually a hair under 6 percentage points. James lost by a quarter million votes out of almost 4.4 million cast.

Chuck said...

So yes; I see clearly that basically all of the Althouse commenters see the Trump Tweet for what it was. Sarcastic trolling. I see it that way, no doubt about it.

What is HILARIOUS is that last night, Sean Hannity reported it as straight news. As evidence that President Trump was being presidential and reaching out to Democrats in a spirit of cooperation.

Pretty much every episode of "Hannity" contains some element of just how dumb the show's producers think that their audience is. Last night was a startlingly obvious example.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Pretty much every episode of "Hannity" contains some element of just how dumb the show's producers think that their audience is. Last night was a startlingly obvious example.

Based on the fact that you were watching, the producers are right.