What does "working with" Trump look like?

[Caliman73]

I have seen posts where people are saying, "We need to burn their bodies and piss on their ashes!!" (obvious hyperbole). Seriously however, I have seen the posts calling for primaries or some sanction against Democratic politicians who "work with" Trump on anything. I have also seen the posts where people are saying that we definitely SHOULD work with Trump, the most lucid in my own opinion was where a poster mentioned Democratic leadership going to the White House to "offer" support mainly for the optics, understanding that it might drive a wedge in between Republicans (so, political not practical). I have seen a post were a member was decrying the cruelty of Democratic politicians or DUers playing politics while family members die.

What I have not really seen is what people thing working with Trump on healthcare would look like. So I am asking again, for those of you saying we should work with Trump, How would that look?

I'd rather not go through the whole, "WE DON'T DARE..." or "YOU ARE MURDERERS..." of other threads on the topic. I just want to know what the vision is for working with Trump. Is it real, or is it just a notion that Democratic politicians should always extend a hand?

[unblock]

1. something like this:

http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/donald-trump-golfing

[Control-Z]

3. Aww. Kitties!

So cute.

[coco22]

2. He lies ..

They make a deal he lies and changes what or how something was said during negotiations. He leaks throughout negotiations. You can't trust him.

[Bleacher Creature]

4. I'm not sure we're allowed to post that image.

[MyNameGoesHere]

5. Time after time someones comes up with this

Idea that Republicans won't stab you in the back. Time and time again not only do they stab us in the back, they twist it with glee. HE'LL NO. NEVER AGAIN!

[Caliman73]

9. Which is why I asked the question...

I already know and understand why people say, "HELL NO". I want to understand people mean when they are considering the opposite. I want to discuss what that would entail. It is easy to say, "NO". That is it. No more discussion. It is harder to govern in coalition.

Some people are pie in the sky and as you said, they think that Republicans will be reasonable. Other people are as, to paraphrase you, done and not willing to do anything anymore. I want to see if there are any pragmatic answers that try to address the concerns of lack of trustworthiness, and have the Democratic Party look like more than just taking turns as the party of "No".

[Ms. Toad]

6. The same way it always worked until very recent years.

Both sides make compromises to come up with something that is not perfect but that both sides can accept. This extreme divide in Congress is perhaps a decade old (I can't tell you the precise year, but as someone on the governing body for a national lobbying group, I can tell you it was a single election cycle that flipped from a Congress that made compromises and respected each other to the current status.)

Republicans are currently split between those who thought the AHCA was too cruel and others who thought it wasn't cruel enough.

There is a chance to work with those who think the Republican proposal was too cruel to make appropriate changes to fix the ACA through bipartisan legislation.

It means drafting and introducing legislation, and being willing to negotiate changes that keep the core of the legislation - but win enough Republican votes to pass.

It means ignoring the snark and taking Trump at his word when he says he's willing to work with Democrats to fix access to health care.

None of this is necessarily likely to succeed - but it is a moral imperative that we try.

[Caliman73]

7. Thanks for your response.

I think that it was the mid 90's with Gingrich's "contract with America" and then the setting up of K Street that really started to do substantial damage to bipartisanship. I think the groundwork was laid in during the Reagan administration, but I think the really ugly work was done by Gingrich, DeLay, Hastert, and others buoyed by Limbaugh and other right wing radio and media outlets that gave them a stage and audience where they were no longer responsible to all constituents as long as they could rile up a base big enough, and suppress enough of the other side to eek out wins.


I tend to agree that as the party of government, Democratic Party leaders are somewhat obligated to make an effort. I think that we would need to have a very solid plan and policy set up with areas in which we would not compromise. I think that part of the strategy would need to be having a press strategy so as to not allow the more toxic elements of the Republican party to try to frame the narrative. I think that ultimately the plans would not likely succeed, but the effort is important.

Thanks again.

[Ms. Toad]

15. It was more recent that that that it really changed at the national level, at least.

I had a gap in membership on the governing board starting ~1997, and the change was after I returned - likely 2010.

[TeamPooka]

12. How do you negotiate with a serial liar, con man, and hustler who changes his mind on a dime?

He doesn't honor contracts. All the lawsuits from his vendors prove that.
He lies constantly. he doesn't seem to care about details in legislation.
I'm very serious.
In your position with a lobbying group right now how do you deal with this from an institutional perspective in achieving your agendas?

[Ms. Toad]

14. Negotiate with the moderate Republicans

Trump doesn't have a vote on legislation - so there's no particular reason to spend much time on him at all..

The lobbyists (and interns) build relationships with the congressional staff (who are the real experts in policy areas), as well as with representatives and senators, over time. Build a reputation for scrupulous honesty, so even when they don't agree with your position they trust what you have to say, and they reach out to you when there are competing "facts." That provides opportunities for frequent, repeated conversations. When you have real relationships over time (as the congress critters used to have with each other), there are opportunities for nudging positions one way or another over time.

Build a broad supporting grassroots coalition, each of whom builds relationships with their senators and representatives - again, creating a more personal connection that typically results in real conversations, rather than form letters, as responses to contacts.

The organization also has a public-facing website that supports broader generic action - but the heart is really developing personal relationships both at the paid staff member - and the grassroots level over time and using those relationships to put a real face on the issues they are legislating.

It's a lot harder than it used to be, but it's far better than rolling over and playing dead (or

[TeamPooka]

16. If Speaker Ryan allows any of that to proceed I'd be shocked..

[Ms. Toad]

17. Last time I checked, he was not the conversation gatekeeper.

You don't need to ask his permission to work directly with other members of the House - and he's not a member of the Senate at all.

Here's just one example that was introduced on March 15, with 17 Republicans cosponsors as a direct result of the work of our organization with the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.

It's not super sexy, but it is an illustration that things can be done even in the face of significant opposition.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. History will judge those who stood with Trump and those who stood against him accordingly.

History didn't look kindly on the "Good Germans".

[Caliman73]

10. Okay go with me on this fantasy journey.

Let's say Trump takes a blow to the head, and it knocks some compassion and intelligence into him. He has his people propose legislation that repairs infrastructure a la Eisenhower, but imposing a small tax on high speed transaction, with some advantage to private contractors who sign on to do the work, blah, blah, blah... A fairly solid, middle of the road bill. (Remember, this is fantasy) Would you say that Democratic legislators should oppose that just because it came from Trump? Like just flat out, no investigation, no assurances, not vetting...just NO. No at any cost?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Here are my conditions for working with him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028855540

[TeamPooka]

11. I think from the Donald's perspective "working with Trump" means doing what he says and getting

nothing for it.
he seemed surprised that no Democrats were going to support his healthcare bill.
What did he expect? He gave them nothing.
I don't think Trump realizes that working with Democrats means they get things they want in the legislation at issue.
he doesn't want to or can't give democrats anything.
That makes him look weak.
He can't have that so he is mentally incapable of doing real political deals where a "win-win" could be claimed.
He needs to win and win strong or else he's not a "strong man leader."