19 Comments

His idea of negotiating is to scream what he wants, and then scream it louder. That's it.

Also, any discussion of his dealmaking "prowess" needs to include the mention that among his bankruptcies were businesses that sold casino gambling, football and steak. These are things that the master of the deal couldn't sell. To Americans.

And finally, "Justin" needs to call him "Donald" every time, every day, for the rest of his life.

Expand full comment

Waldman

thanks for pointing this out. i guess that along with the people who are convinced by his rhetoric of hate and ignorance, are some of us who don't really notice his lack of success at negotiation. but it seems to me that he can still screw things up--as i think you pointed out. and, as i think you also pointed out, the feckless (compact?) Democrats let him do it.

Oh, yes, and the spineless if not complicit Republicans let him do it. And, yes, the feeble and ignorant public (that's us, bro) let him do it.

Expand full comment

typo (spell check assisted) "compact" was meant to be "complicit": i read elsewhere that Biden administration is building detention centers for private prison to facilitate Trumps plan to put immigrants in concentration camps. true?

and as for the go along Republicans, I needed another word. if not spineless then co-conspirators.

Expand full comment

Why would Biden be building PRIVATE prisons?

Expand full comment

well, i guess i don't know. i'll find the link, but i think a lotof prisons in USA are now RUN by private enterprise, but the government built the prisons.

Expand full comment

RSN Dec. 5

Revealed: Biden Lays Groundwork to Expand Immigration Jails as Trump Readies for Office

José Olivares

/

Guardian UK

Expand full comment

Thanks for finding that. Biden isn't building private prisons, he's extending contracts with private prisons the feds already have.

Expand full comment

one: does that matter?

two: or does it mean guardian is an unreliable source?

Expand full comment

The problem with his toothless shock and awe approach is that businesses are forced to waste countless hours preparing for stuff he won't end up doing. I wonder if a Trump Cost could be calculated in lost time.

Expand full comment

Stephen

I am not so sympathetic to business owners who are wasting time preparing to go along with what trump won't do. they should be spending time stopping him from doing it.

Expand full comment

With all due respect, Paul, you are blowing a single anodyne comment by Chuck Schumer way out of proportion. One Cabinet pick after another is self-destructing. Why not keep your powder dry when the other side is doing a fine job shooting itself in the foot on its own?

If Senate Dems don’t go hard after Gabbard once she’s in the spotlight, I’ll change my tune.

Expand full comment

anodyne? what is wrong with pointing out a fact that people have not noticed?

Expand full comment

Implying that this has meaning and represents a trend represents a trend is inaccurate hand-wringing.

If Paul wants to go down this road, point out that Sanders and Warren are the most visible Democrats talking about working with Trump.

Expand full comment

Paul

i did not see any hand wringing or implying it was a trend or any mention of talking with Trump. I'll read it again and get back to you.

Expand full comment

i read it again and still not see any of the things you mention...except perhaps a reference to "something else" he wroter about dems seeking bipartisanship. i have seen my local dems claiming their "bipartisanship" as a virtue and reason to vote for them. they did not persuade me.

Expand full comment

Call it what you will. Schumer’s statement was paint-by-numbers stuff (I could practically hear him yawning) that doesn’t merit a general observation such as “Senate Democrats are once again convinced…” This simply doesn’t follow.

I get it. Stuff like this is inevitable when there’s no editor. As a retired content editor, I would have challenged Paul on this one.

That being said, Democrats would do better to drop the reflexive bipartisan references in favor of something about acting on behalf of all voters regardless of party.

Expand full comment

Paul, I agree with your last sentence. I only saw the Schumer statement when Jon Stewart was making fun of it. Can't really connect it in my mind with what Waldman is saying here. probably my memoory is at fault. As an editor I would think you had a feel for what a casual reader is likely to understand. [not fair of me. we all understand what we understand. and expect the other guy to understand it too. that's why we need an editor...also why it is considered very foolish to act as your own lawyer even if you are one.

i hope this gets us agreeing with each other in words as we seem to do on basics. But getting Dems or anyone to do anything smart is very hard. After years of trying and alternately blaming myself as a bad teacher and blaming the other as a bad thinker or just lazy,,,,i have to just conclude that's the way it is and accept my losses.

Expand full comment