ADVERTISEMENT

Poker v. Solitaire

Stuffshot

Hall of Famer
Feb 20, 2008
13,500
6,868
113
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.
 
Last edited:
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.

I agree that they fell into a trap. I also thought that Pelosi looked very strong and Schumer looked like a weakling. He didn't even look Trump in the eyes. I thought she was far better on the substance as well.

My other takeaway was that 3 old curmudgeons who need to put their keys away are deciding the future of this country. And there was one dumbfounded ghost looking on in the background. In all seriousness, the Ds need some young blood in leadership positions immediately. Its absurd.
 
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.
This would be my take on the issue. First, this is a 60-Minutes style ambush interview. Trump waited until he got them on camera to hit them with this. This was a preemptive strike and burning them like this was focused on the 2020 election, not on the next session of Congress. Second, Trump has decided that the next two years will be partisan trench warfare with the Democrats as they try to impeach him. This is notice that he won't cooperate on some issues with the Democrats while he is being hunted by them; it is a declaration of, as the saying goes, war to the knife. When this issue passes, he'll find another one to fight them on.
 
I agree that they fell into a trap. I also thought that Pelosi looked very strong and Schumer looked like a weakling. He didn't even look Trump in the eyes. I thought she was far better on the substance as well.

My other takeaway was that 3 old curmudgeons who need to put their keys away are deciding the future of this country. And there was one dumbfounded ghost looking on in the background. In all seriousness, the Ds need some young blood in leadership positions immediately. Its absurd.
I hope Ghost Pence doesn't ever have a snowball's chance to run for President. Even though he has aligned himself with Trump and carried Trump's baggage countless times, I don't think he will inspire Trump's base and gain its support like Trump did. Also, we shouldn't forget that, when Pence bailed out of Indiana, there was a persistent groundswell of opposition to Pence over at least two individual freedoms that Pence considered inferior to his personal religious beliefs.
 
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.
The Child-in-Chief won by being puerile? Got it.
 
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.



Pence looked like he'd rather be at a gay wedding.
 
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

If your scorecard has Trump "winning the round", you're using the wrong scorecard and profoundly so.

I'd call it a draw. And by that I mean that nothing is moving the needle on Trump's base. Outside of a video tape with Trump promising Putin something, their minds won't change. Even then, they will claim it's fake. I wouldnt have even given Trump the opportunity to create theater for his base.
 
I'll just go ahead and disagree.

If your scorecard has Trump "winning the round", you're using the wrong scorecard and profoundly so.
Trump reportedly was throwing things in anger after the meeting.
 
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.
I haven’t watched whole thing yet, so I may change my opinion after that. But from the clip I saw and the reactions I’ve read, I disagree. I think Pelosi won. She handled him exactly tight in the meeting and after wards. Confronted him on his bs and stayed calm and cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baileyiu
My other response is they got Trump to say he is responsible for the shutdown. Doubt if it happens, but if it does, there can be no doubt who gets credit. He took it.
 
Trump keeps his message very simple.

We need border security. Without a wall, we don't have border security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toastedbread
Trump keeps his message very simple.

We need border security. Without a wall, we don't have border security.

It's very smart and strategic whether due to emotions or intelligence. What's the reading grade level of the average American?

Trump won the Presidency due to his simple messaging and the design of the electoral system. He is doubling down on that strategy. His only path to victory is turning out his base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
Twitter made Pence the butt of many “elf on the shelf” jokes.
I'm of two minds on that. Largely, I think it's unfair and unseemly to criticize Pence for how he was sitting. Among all criticisms of things he might do, that seems the most pointless and gratuitous. But I also think the "elf on the shelf" tag line is humorous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Trump reportedly was throwing things in anger after the meeting.
Also read that he was mad at Pence and felt that he had gotten set up. He is the one that set it up, but he can never take blame for anything. But it doesn’t sound like he thinks he won.
 
My two favorite tweets about this: Wonder if Nancy went home and hung Trump’s balls on her Christmas tree after she castrated him in the Oval Office yesterday?
And from Bette Midler: Nancy Pelosi put her foot so far up Trump’s ass today I have to send her a new pair of pumps.
 
I haven’t watched whole thing yet, so I may change my opinion after that. But from the clip I saw and the reactions I’ve read, I disagree. I think Pelosi won. She handled him exactly tight in the meeting and after wards. Confronted him on his bs and stayed calm and cool.
I won't belabor this, but my comment was based on watching the video only. You say you "haven't watched whole thing" and disagree based in part on "the reactions I've read." No wonder. My comment was based on the video not a review or op-ed piece.

The comments above seem about even as to whether Trump looked good or bad in that video. I still think Trump successfully promoted the strongman self-image he wanted to promote and that Shumer and Pelosi fell into his trap and helped his self-promotion. These are bad tactics to oppose him -- in fact the same tactics that failed in 2016. Trump opponents should stop letting him pick the game to play (for example, picking the Oval Office for a public discussion), monopolize the conversation and control the narrative, while attempting half-heartedly to "engage him" but in fact doing little more than creating news video of Trump interrupting them, contradicting them and drowning out their message. Trump opponents should be using tactics that don't help Trump create video that appeals to his base. Democrats won't beat Trump in 2020 without diminishing Trump's base.

Pelosi and Shumer should have just said they were going to have discussions with Trump privately.
 
I haven’t watched whole thing yet, so I may change my opinion after that. But from the clip I saw and the reactions I’ve read, I disagree. I think Pelosi won. She handled him exactly tight in the meeting and after wards. Confronted him on his bs and stayed calm and cool.
I won't belabor this, but my comment was based on watching the video only. You say you "haven't watched whole thing" and disagree based in part on "the reactions I've read." No wonder. My comment was based on the video not a review or op-ed piece.

The comments above seem about even as to whether Trump looked good or bad in that video. I still think Trump successfully promoted the strongman self-image he wanted to promote and that Shumer and Pelosi fell into his trap and helped his self-promotion. These are bad tactics to oppose him -- in fact the same tactics that failed in 2016. Trump opponents should stop letting him pick the game to play (for example, picking the Oval Office for a public discussion), monopolize the conversation and control the narrative, while attempting half-heartedly to "engage him" but in fact doing little more than creating news video of Trump interrupting them, contradicting them and drowning out their message. Trump opponents should be using tactics that don't help Trump create video that appeals to his base. Democrats won't beat Trump in 2020 without diminishing Trump's base.

Pelosi and Shumer should have just said they were going to have discussions with Trump privately.
I did watch it all after the first comment and I still disagree. Also disagree that Democrats can’t win without diminishing Trump’s base. It is what it is and nothing is going to change that. If they are still with him after everything we know, they aren’t leaving. They are the shooting on 5th Avenue people. They may peel off a few people, but mostly they need to get the independent vote that wanted to try something different and get a candidate that inspires people to vote. I do agree that yesterday probably inspired Trump’s base, but I don’t think it moves anyone else. At some point, they may just need to walk out on him when he is spouting nonsense, but yesterday wasn’t the time for that. I also think they should have pushed him on his lie about the wall being built and the 10 terrorists caught at the birder.
 
I did watch it all after the first comment and I still disagree. Also disagree that Democrats can’t win without diminishing Trump’s base. It is what it is and nothing is going to change that. If they are still with him after everything we know, they aren’t leaving. They are the shooting on 5th Avenue people. They may peel off a few people, but mostly they need to get the independent vote that wanted to try something different and get a candidate that inspires people to vote. I do agree that yesterday probably inspired Trump’s base, but I don’t think it moves anyone else. At some point, they may just need to walk out on him when he is spouting nonsense, but yesterday wasn’t the time for that. I also think they should have pushed him on his lie about the wall being built and the 10 terrorists caught at the birder.
Speaking of contradicting Trump's lie about the wall ...

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/fo...ll-lie-stop-saying-its-a-wall-theres-no-wall/

Edit: this is an example of what I mean. It does little good for the New York Times or Democrats like Pelosi to debunk what Trump says about the wall, because the Trump supporters won't believe them anyway. But if there is a tactic that causes Trump supporters like Ingraham to doubt him publicly, the 2020 election will be very interesting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs
I did watch it all after the first comment and I still disagree. Also disagree that Democrats can’t win without diminishing Trump’s base. It is what it is and nothing is going to change that. If they are still with him after everything we know, they aren’t leaving. They are the shooting on 5th Avenue people. They may peel off a few people, but mostly they need to get the independent vote that wanted to try something different and get a candidate that inspires people to vote. I do agree that yesterday probably inspired Trump’s base, but I don’t think it moves anyone else. At some point, they may just need to walk out on him when he is spouting nonsense, but yesterday wasn’t the time for that. I also think they should have pushed him on his lie about the wall being built and the 10 terrorists caught at the birder.
Speaking of contradicting Trump's lie about the wall ...

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/fo...ll-lie-stop-saying-its-a-wall-theres-no-wall/
Ann Coulter was mad about that too. Her response was “how stupid does he think his supporters are? “ No comment.
 
I posted a link to the entire 16 minute discussion between Trump, Shumer and Pelosi today:



I realize many of you won't want to watch the whole thing but, for the rest of you, I was struck with the terrible strategy used by the Democrats. Keep in mind this meeting took place in front of the press in the oval office, where Trump is king/tyrant/dictator.

It begins with a lengthy rambling monologue by Trump where he praises himself, takes credit for a lot of matters and totally dominates the entire discussion for a few minutes. When he finally allows Shumer and Pelosi to speak, he freely interrupts them or cuts them off entirely.

Throughout, Trump calls them "Nancy" and "Chuck" like he just had hired them on his staff as interns.

Clearly, Trump's unspoken message is that he is in charge and Pelosi and Shumer are there only to listen to what Trump has to say.

I think Pelosi and Shumer fell into his trap and should not have even tried to engage Trump in discussing the border wall because the context merely allowed Trump to play strongman negotiator superhero. They looked weak and Trump looked strong. Instead, Pelosi and Shumer should have at least tried to control the narrative by limiting their comments to the bare minimum and responding as often as possible by saying they were going to discuss all these matters with the President in private in a few minutes.

Trump was basically playing poker -- aggressively overselling his hand and bluffing. Since Pelosi and Shumer were not doing anything Trump cared about, they were basically playing solitaire with themselves. I'd say Trump won the round.
Bluffing at Solitare is very underrated.
 
Trump staged this so-called conference for the cameras. His base loved it. In their minds he came off a winner.

Pending legislation calls for an expenditure of 1.6 billion and Trump wants 5 billion for more wall than currently exists.

With a trillion plus deficit what is the big deal in closing down the government for 3.4 billion dollars ? The big deal is all about politics. Trump thinks he has a winning issue in touting border security. Pelosi and Schumer think they have a winning issue by making Trump appear as a loose cannon for willing to risk a government shut down for a wall which isn't necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toastedbread
Bluffing at Solitare is very underrated.
Especially, when you are trying to deceive yourself after living an entire 70-year+ life with never having to answer or account for your personal actions.
 
Trump staged this so-called conference for the cameras. His base loved it. In their minds he came off a winner.

Pending legislation calls for an expenditure of 1.6 billion and Trump wants 5 billion for more wall than currently exists.

With a trillion plus deficit what is the big deal in closing down the government for 3.4 billion dollars ? The big deal is all about politics. Trump thinks he has a winning issue in touting border security. Pelosi and Schumer think they have a winning issue by making Trump appear as a loose cannon for willing to risk a government shut down for a wall which isn't necessary.

Agree with everything you are writing. I don't think the political "geniuses" in the Democratic party are capable of understanding this. Hopefully Trump's base isn't large enough to bring the bacon home.

I was reading an article questioning why Pelosi and Schumer do not offer permanent DACA legalization in exchange for the 5 billion. Personally, I think the Democratic party uses harmed immigrants as political pawns and there is no long term strategy for helping those individuals.
 
Speaking of contradicting Trump's lie about the wall ...

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/12/fo...ll-lie-stop-saying-its-a-wall-theres-no-wall/

Edit: this is an example of what I mean. It does little good for the New York Times or Democrats like Pelosi to debunk what Trump says about the wall, because the Trump supporters won't believe them anyway. But if there is a tactic that causes Trump supporters like Ingraham to doubt him publicly, the 2020 election will be very interesting.

Not Denald:

Trump had all this planned out all this while. #stablegenius

Denald:


Spot the diff!! Worlds colliding, my friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT