Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Five Thirty Eight did a live chat and reported on the he headlines out of the major networks. [1]
CNN’s lower third headline. “Pelosi rejects Trump’s proposal to end shutdown.”
Politico’s headline: “Trump’s bid to negotiate on wall met by Democratic rejection”
The Washington Post: “Trump offers to protect ‘dreamers’ temporarily in exchange for wall funds”
Dallas Morning News: “Trump seeks border wall funding in exchange for DACA protections to end shutdown”
NBC News: “Trump offers new shutdown deal, Democrats expected to reject it”
Los Angeles Times: “President Trump proposes to extend protections for ‘Dreamers’ in exchange for border wall funding”
ABC News: “Trump will extend ‘Dreamers,’ TPS protection in exchange for full border wall funding”
CBS News: “Trump proposes deal on immigration, Pelosi calls shutdown offer a ‘non-starter’”
All of those are good headlines for Trump, because the reality of the situation is that he ended a bunch of programs, then shut down the government and is now offering to put out the fire he set in exchange for money.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe phrasing presumes he'll be President in three years to begin with, as if he couldn't possibly lose.
And, yeah, the technical truth of this being "both sides" can easily obscure the truth that one side is being incredibly unreasonable, and it's not wrong to not unilaterally cave to them.
Edited by LSBK on Jan 19th 2019 at 8:28:44 AM
... I don't see how those headlines are bad. They look neutral-ish at their worst.
Marq that’s exactly it, they’re falsely painting the situation as a neutral one (where both sides are responsible) instead of putting the blame on Trump (where it belongs).
Remember Trump is holding the government hostage for his wall, would you expect to see those headlines if a literal hostage taker was issuing demands and being told no?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's what happened. Trump made an offer, the Democrats rejected it. When the pundits act as if the offer was in any way acceptable, that's when I worry about the press portrayal.
If the people were thinking that the democrats are wrong, Pelosi's popularity wouldn't be on the rise.
Edited by Swanpride on Jan 19th 2019 at 6:41:48 AM
Ok Silas, but what is actually in those articles? Because believe it or not, the media is more than headlines designed to attract readers. If you're basing it solely on the headlines and not on the actual content then I'm going to have to say you're being pointlessly hyperbolic about it. Neutral does not actual mean "both sides are to blame".
I’m basing it off Five Thirty Eight’s analysis that themselves are very good headlines for Trump and exactly what he was trying to get with his speech.
This isn’t purely my own feelings on this, I’m basing it on what the Five Thirty Eight discussion I linked says.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTo add to that, the NY post's headline reads: "Trump offers compromise to end government shutdown; Dems reject deal"
So yeah, by doing this, Trump is trying to show that he's attempting to be reasonable, and the Democrats are just being stubborn. Golden Mean Fallacy at its finest.
x2 and 3
Never said it was unbiased, I was adding it to the examples that Silas had given as evidence that the press - at least in headlines - is putting forth the "Trump offered this as a compromise; Democrats rejected it out of hand" narrative. As another example, USA Today has "Trump offers DACA protections in exchange for border wall; Democrats opposed"
as their headline for it.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jan 19th 2019 at 10:40:57 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"And remember that headlines are an attempt at manipulating public opinion. We won't know (nor will they) if it was successful until another election occurs. Carefully conducted public opinion polls are an acceptable temporary substitute. I haven't seen any evidence that this situation is going Trump's way.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.You mean Mc Connell. Schumer is a Democrat.
Oh crap, did I say Schumer? Yeah, obviously I meant McConnell, duh, I don't know how I mixed up their names.
Seems like Senate Republicans are starting to work on their own bill
on the shutdown. I am guessing that (if the bill passes) the House could add its own bill as a substitute amendment (i.e replace the text of the Senate bill with their own) or something similar.
Also, since I suggested that Democrats trade their HR1 bill
against wall funding and electoral reform, seems like I missed that electoral reform is already part of HR1.
An interesting, and altogether optimistic, analysis of the Trump administration, including opinions from both parties. DONALD TRUMP MAY BE A ‘DISRUPTER’ PRESIDENT BUT IN TWO YEARS HE’S DONE LITTLE THAT CAN’T BE UNDONE, EXPERTS SAY
:
"Trump is certainly leaving his mark on particular issues. His Tax Cut and Jobs Act that overhauled the tax code passed through Congress and is now in effect. He has also made a lasting impression on the judiciary system, with two Supreme Court appointments and dozens of federal judge nominations. In fact, Trump is outpacing the last five presidents in terms of making judicial appointments. Plus, the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and assault, gave the high court it's first conservative majority in half a century."
But: "...“As it is now, all of these policies are policies that can be easily undone―which is not the hallmark of a strong presidency,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told Newsweek."
I agree. Trump has generated so little public support of his policies (quite the opposite) that the next president will have an easy time reversing or changing them.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.This doesn't mean that popular support for policies is irrelevant, so no it's not.
The entire reason that the ACA has been so resistant to Republican attacks is that it's become popular amongst the public, so the fact that Trump's policies are highly unpopular is a very good thing for the reasons they said.
Remember Trump is holding the government hostage for his wall, would you expect to see those headlines if a literal hostage taker was issuing demands and being told no?
You're right of course but I don't think it's necessarily the worst thing ever, the media was pretty much always going to go the route of #bothsides. That doesn't mean that people aren't going to blame Trump and the Republicans.
So it's certainly a problem but it's one that was going to happen, either way, it won't stop public anger against Trump when the shutdown starts causing real concrete economic damage.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangFrom what I can see in the news, Trump isn't actually offering three years of amnesty to Dreamers. He's offering it to some Dreamers. I can't find which countries are covered by the offer — 'some Latin American and African nations' is the most I can find (and that's the Washington Post
). Vox has a break down of the offer
and why it's barely anything more than the judiciary has currently issued for DACA (for example, he's offering a three-year temporary one-time-only extension, but DACA is already under a two-year extension protection while the court fight unfolds, and the chances are that Trump's offer doesn't cover how long it would wait for the case to through to the Supreme Court anyway — so at best, he's just extending the judicial status quo by a single year).
@Septimus Heap: You don't have to be the #1 most popular candidate, but you do have to be a very popular candidate.
For example, Donald Trump didn't win the popular vote, but he did get 46.1% of the popular vote, which means he's undeniably very popular. He was in the top 2 of most popular candidates that election, and he wouldn't have won if he wasn't.
Leviticus 19:34

The funny thing is that this deal he offered manages to piss both sides of the aisle off. Democrats aren't going to budge on the wall for what amounts to Trump saying he'll give three years of amnesty to dreamers (and I doubt he'll be able to do it in such a way that would guarantee that he couldn't undo it the second he gets what he wants), hardline Republicans are opposed to any amnesty (which is what sunk this deal the last time he offered it).
In short his grand deal is unsatisfactory to both sides he needs to win over and if it passed would probably hurt his standing with his base.