President Trump and Republicans at Camp David: Speeches and Press Conference

[edpc]

IMHO we lost the seat in AL not because Trump didn't back the incumbent, but because of DEM dirty politics....

Technically, he did back the (short term) incumbent.  He gave Luther Strange the endorsement in the primary.

[edpc]

Pfft @edpc   Not it is not.

The President is employing classic business techniques to bring the GOP leadership together and learn to function as a team --- not only learn to, but want to.  Team building 101.

Besides, you have it exactly backwards.  The President wasn't fighting against Ryan and McConnell, they were fighting against him---and each other.  Now, thanks to his experience and leadership, we can hope those days are behind them.

One central theme of his campaign was draining the swamp and ridding DC of the corrupt establishment. We all know who that was on both sides. You make it really difficult to take you seriously.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Technically, he did back the (short term) incumbent.  He gave Luther Strange the endorsement in the primary.

.... Always adding the codicil that he would back the primary winner.

One of the reasons the President supported Sen. Strange is because Strange had developed a good working relationship and was on the Trump team.  Why wouldn't the President want him in the Senate for three more years?

[edpc]

.... Always adding the codicil that he would back the primary winner.

One of the reasons the President supported Sen. Strange is because Strange had developed a good working relationship and was on the Trump team.  Why wouldn't the President want him in the Senate for three more years?

Except he avoided Moore until the 11th hour.  I had no problem with Strange, though Brooks may have been the best choice, overall.  He had been a reliable senate vote and would have remained so, since he would be running again in 2020.

[Right_in_Virginia]

One central theme of his campaign was draining the swamp and ridding DC of the corrupt establishment. We all know who that was on both sides. You make it really difficult to take you seriously.

Really?  Why do you object to the President leading his team and bringing them together and onboard @edpc when this gives all of us a better chance of having Congress fulfill his agenda?

Besides, you speak as though the President can somehow remove Ryan and McConnell from office.  Are they not duly elected by the people they represent?  Are you suggesting the President not honor the constitution he swore to uphold and defend?

I'm not "getting" your complaint here.

[libertybele]

Really?  Why do you object to the President leading his team and bringing them together and onboard @edpc when this gives all of us a better chance of having Congress fulfill his agenda?

Besides, you speak as though the President can somehow remove Ryan and McConnell from office.  Are they not duly elected by the people they represent?  Are you suggesting the President not honor the constitution he swore to uphold and defend?

I'm not "getting" your complaint here.

IMHO, IF he's caving (as he seems to be on this issue) to McConnell and Ryan, then he's not leading his team, they are leading him!

[edpc]

Really?  Why do you object to the President leading his team and bringing them together and onboard @edpc when this gives all of us a better chance of having Congress fulfill his agenda?

Besides, you speak as though the President can somehow remove Ryan and McConnell from office.  Are they not duly elected by the people they represent?  Are you suggesting the President not honor the constitution he swore to uphold and defend?

I'm not "getting" your complaint here.

I have explained at length in other threads how McConnell and Ryan were the impediments. Rather than go through it all again, a more condensed version can be found here.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,298438.msg1566306.html#msg1566306

[Right_in_Virginia]

Except he avoided Moore until the 11th hour. 

Do you think @edpc the accusation of Moore's child molestation could have had anything to do with his hesitancy???   We could have gone with Strange when this story broke and saved the seat.  But for all the reasons enumerated through 2, 913 pages of postings, we did not.   

DO NOT place any blame on the President.

[edpc]

Do you think @edpc the accusation of Moore's child molestation could have had anything to do with his hesitancy???   We could have gone with Strange when this story broke and saved the seat.  But for all the reasons enumerated through 2, 913 pages of postings, we did not.   

DO NOT place any blame on the President.

I’m not going to let this drift off into a thread on Moore. There have been enough of those and I have stated the reasons why I believe he lost on them.

[Emjay]

After 2 years of fighting against McConnell, Ryan, and the establishment, Trump jumps fully into the swamp instead of draining it by saying he'll back incumbents in 2018.

Capitulation 101.

I disagree.  Trump trying to bring the Republicans back into his fold does not mean he's capitulating to them.  He needs their support to pass the vital issues he wants to get through Congress.

As far as backing incumbents, it's sensible.  Unless incumbents do something really bad, they will win.  And he doesn't want or need more democrats.

The only thing that really annoyed me was Trump's blaming Roy Moore for the Alabama loss when he should have blamed the Democrats.

[Mod2]

I’m not going to let this drift off into a thread on Moore. There have been enough of those and I have stated the reasons why I believe he lost on them.

What edpc said. Everyone: please stay on topic.

[Emjay]

What edpc said. Everyone: please stay on topic.

Oh, oh, oh, I could not agree more.  My bad.  I will never mention Roy again.

[edpc]

I disagree.  Trump trying to bring the Republicans back into his fold does not mean he's capitulating to them.  He needs their support to pass the vital issues he wants to get through Congress.

You are free to disagree of course, but you should consider a few things as well.

One thing Trump had in his 100 day plan was introduction of measures to pass a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. That was met by laughter on both sides.

Another item on his wish list was import tariffs.  McConnell told him to forget it.

He asked them to send him a repeal of Obamacare. They didn’t.

Congress removed the mandate in the tax bill, but left much of the worst parts of Obamacare intact. In fact, they dicked around so badly, a couple of nice provisions ended up being omitted, due to expediency and failure to meet parliamentary requirements. No matter, because Trump wanted something – anything – to sign and have a “win.”

Instead of a clean repeal of the DACA executive order, he kicked it over to Congress and you will receive something I guarantee you will not like.

After a while, you will need to honestly reassess who is being brought into who’s fold.

[aligncare]

Pfft @edpc   No it is not.

The President is employing classic business techniques to bring the GOP leadership together and learn to function as a team --- not only learn to, but want to.  Team building 101.

Besides, you have it exactly backwards.  The President wasn't fighting against Ryan and McConnell, they were fighting against him---and each other.  Now, thanks to his experience and leadership, we can hope those days are behind them.

Politics is full of theatre and intrigue. Your version of events is closest to reality. The other naysaying stuff being thrown around is just noise.

Party politics demand following certain protocols. Trump steps outside those strictures not because he is mean or petty, but because he’s coming from the business world (outsider and private citizen) and looking for a way forward for the country. For (the people) not the Party.

You don’t judge politicians on what they say, you judge them by what they do.

[Emjay]

You are free to disagree of course, but you should consider a few things as well.

One thing Trump had in his 100 day plan was introduction of measures to pass a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. That was met by laughter on both sides.

Another item on his wish list was import tariffs.  McConnell told him to forget it.

He asked them to send him a repeal of Obamacare. They didn’t.

Congress removed the mandate in the tax bill, but left much of the worst parts of Obamacare intact. In fact, they dicked around so badly, a couple of nice provisions ended up being omitted, due to expediency and failure to meet parliamentary requirements. No matter, because Trump wanted something – anything – to sign and have a “win.”

Instead of a clean repeal of the DACA executive order, he kicked it over to Congress and you will receive something I guarantee you will not like.

After a while, you will need to honestly reassess who is being brought into who’s fold.

I am honest.  I know many of them are dorks and losers and I would replace them in a minute if I could do so by snapping my finger.

But in the real world, Trump realizes that he has to get them on his side a little more or he can get nothing done.

I honestly think that some of the congress critters that we despise are beginning to realize that Trump is gonna be around for 3 years, that he is still pretty popular with the public and that there's not a snowballs chance in the hot place that Trump will be impeached, no matter how many hot dreams they have about it.

I think it may dawn on some of them that if they don't support Trump on popular issues, they will be the ones to suffer.

Of course, I could be wrong.  Reason is fleeting, dumb is forever.

[Emjay]

You are free to disagree of course, but you should consider a few things as well.

One thing Trump had in his 100 day plan was introduction of measures to pass a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. That was met by laughter on both sides.

Another item on his wish list was import tariffs.  McConnell told him to forget it.

He asked them to send him a repeal of Obamacare. They didn’t.

Congress removed the mandate in the tax bill, but left much of the worst parts of Obamacare intact. In fact, they dicked around so badly, a couple of nice provisions ended up being omitted, due to expediency and failure to meet parliamentary requirements. No matter, because Trump wanted something – anything – to sign and have a “win.”

Instead of a clean repeal of the DACA executive order, he kicked it over to Congress and you will receive something I guarantee you will not like.

After a while, you will need to honestly reassess who is being brought into who’s fold.

Gotta say, you just made a really nice list of things Trump wanted to get done, some of which I didn't even know about.

I did not know that he wanted to pass term limits.  Wow!!  Of course, we already have term limits for the President and we should have them for Congress and even the Supreme Court (very long for the court).  Term limits will NEVER pass but I like that he was for them.

He had to take the win on the tax bill.  I'm amazed they went as far as they did.  It's a good bill and does eliminate the most horrible part of Obamacare.

As for DACA, it is infuriating that our side couldn't get it passed but at least Trump wanted it passed.

[libertybele]

I disagree.  Trump trying to bring the Republicans back into his fold does not mean he's capitulating to them.  He needs their support to pass the vital issues he wants to get through Congress.

As far as backing incumbents, it's sensible.  Unless incumbents do something really bad, they will win.  And he doesn't want or need more democrats.

The only thing that really annoyed me was Trump's blaming Roy Moore for the Alabama loss when he should have blamed the Democrats.

Let's step back for a bit, during the presidential campaign and long before the nominee was decided and even before Trump began to lead in number of delegates he met with both Ryan, McConnell and Priebus. It was around the time that Trump commented that he needed to become a little more 'establishment'.  As his campaign continued and well up until he was handed the nomination he back pedaled several times on issues. So he really sent Ryan and McConnell a clear message; he was willing to play their game.

When Bammycare was first brought to focus in the House, instead of siding with the Freedom Caucus who was demanding repeal; he scoffed at them.  Again, Trump sent Ryan a clear message. He was willing to play his game.  He did the same when it came to McConnell in the Senate.

Yes, he is continuing to play their game.  His biggest campaign promise and why people rallied behind him was building a wall, the other was that he was not establishment.  In fact he promised to drain the swamp. Well, the wall still isn't budgeted and the fate of DACCA is uncertain, he certainly isn't going to drain much of the swamp if he backs those incumbents who lean left.  It is known that is what McConnel does ... he backs incumbents, not because they are doing such a fantastic job, but because he wants to keep conservatives out!

Yes, he's taken us more to the right then 'W' did, so far.  IF we lose the majority, I have absolutely no doubt that Trump will get back on his liberal band wagon. 

[edpc]

I honestly think that some of the congress critters that we despise are beginning to realize that Trump is gonna be around for 3 years.....

It is actually quite the opposite. They made Trump realize that while leadership members may be unpopular nationally, it’s only their small district (or state is the case of senators) that determine their fate.  Most of them are quite entrenched and will be there long after he’s gone – even if he serves two terms.

[Concerned]

Gotta say, you just made a really nice list of things Trump wanted to get done, some of which I didn't even know about.

I did not know that he wanted to pass term limits.  Wow!!  Of course, we already have term limits for the President and we should have them for Congress and even the Supreme Court (very long for the court).  Term limits will NEVER pass but I like that he was for them.

He had to take the win on the tax bill.  I'm amazed they went as far as they did.  It's a good bill and does eliminate the most horrible part of Obamacare.

As for DACA, it is infuriating that our side couldn't get it passed but at least Trump wanted it passed.

The broken term limit promise really exemplifies my frustration with President Trump.   This was literally #1 on his 100 Day Plan.  It read: “FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress”.  This was 100% within his control.  He didn’t need anyone’s help or approval.  He could have proposed the amendment and then used the bully pulpit of his office to generate additional grass roots and state support for this amendment.  75% of Americans have supported term limits in the past.  I don’t think we’ll ever effectively “drain the swamp” (another promise) without term limits.

We know that Congress won’t likely impose term limits on themselves, but I fantasize about an alternative universe where, instead of using twitter for petty squabbles and childish nicknames, the President uses it to promote the term limit Constitutional Amendment he proposed within his first 100 days.  Every time Congress fails to act (e.g., repeal and replace, DACA, whatever), he hammers home the need for term limits.  Over time, I really think that it might just generate the kind of positive momentum necessary for two-thirds of the states to call for a convention to sponsor the amendment (I know it's never been used before, but there's always a first time) and then ultimately three quarters of them to approve it.  Sadly, that alternative universe is simply in my head and not in the real world.

[edpc]

The broken term limit promise really exemplifies my frustration with President Trump.   This was literally #1 on his 100 Day Plan.  It read: “FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress”.  This was 100% within his control.  He didn’t need anyone’s help or approval.  He could have proposed the amendment and then used the bully pulpit of his office to generate additional grass roots and state support for this amendment.  75% of Americans have supported term limits in the past.  I don’t think we’ll ever effectively “drain the swamp” (another promise) without term limits.

It was a dream proposal. Given that he would need 2/3 approval in the house and senate, then that number of states to ratify it, it’s an uphill battle. Constitutional amendment should be, however.

[Concerned]

It was a dream proposal. Given that he would need 2/3 approval in the house and senate, then that number of states to ratify it, it’s an uphill battle. Constitutional amendment should be, however.

2/3 approval of the House and Senate OR 2/3 of the states calling for a national convention:

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)"

I think the President using his bully pulpit to promote his (as of now non-existent) proposal could motivate the people and the states to make this happen.  I agree it's dream for Congress to do it on their own.  That's exactly why we need a change agent who's going to promote this outside of Congress.  That's what Trump promised to be and that's why I was so excited about the prospect of him proposing and selling this amendment.  He's a great salesman, right?  Who better to sell it to the people and the states?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

[edpc]

2/3 approval of the House and Senate OR 2/3 of the states calling for a national convention:

"Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)"

I think the President using his bully pulpit to promote his (as of now non-existent) proposal could motivate the people and the states to make this happen.  I agree it's dream for Congress to do it on their own.  That's exactly why we need a change agent who's going to promote this outside of Congress.  That's what Trump promised to be and that's why I was so excited about the prospect of him proposing and selling this amendment.  He's a great salesman, right?  Who better to sell it to the people and the states?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

Before you got the 291 House votes, 67 Senate votes, and 34 states to ratify, you would need to have leadership change in the House and Senate so it would be brought to the floor for a vote.

[truth_seeker]

The broken term limit promise really exemplifies my frustration with President Trump. 

We know that Congress won’t likely impose term limits on themselves, but I fantasize about an alternative universe

A man I respect a lot (for his common sense intellect and record of being correct) said recently, that the highest form of intelligence was NOT who could command many facts, but who could determine what was most important.

I don't believe term limits are the most important topic, and I don't fantasize about unrealistic possibilities.

I do believe national security is one of the most important issues, which includes immigrant entries, walls/barriers, the military, the economy.

We already have term limits, when the voters decide to oust somebody....as they do some times.

[Concerned]

Before you got the 291 House votes, 67 Senate votes, and 34 states to ratify, you would need to have leadership change in the House and Senate so it would be brought to the floor for a vote.

I thought if 2/3 of the states called for a national convention and if 2/3 of the delegates to that national convention voted for the amendment, it would then go to the states to see if 3/4 of them would approve it.  Is that not correct?  (I know it's never been done before, but that's certainly the way I read the alternative-to-Congress amendment proposal process.  From Wiki:

"State legislatures have however, at various times, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of senators."

I didn't think all amendment had to first come from the US Congress.  I thought that was the entire point of the 2/3 vote of the National Constitutional Congress?

[Jazzhead]

After 2 years of fighting against McConnell, Ryan, and the establishment, Trump jumps fully into the swamp instead of draining it by saying he'll back incumbents in 2018.

Capitulation 101.

No,  it's the realization the "McConnell, Ryan and the establishment" aren't the enemy.   Their cooperation in leading the Congress to enact conservative legislation that the President can sign is the ticket to Trump's re-election.