The Trump Shutdown

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

12 hours ago, njbuff said:

 

It’s about the Dems not giving Trump and his base a win.

 

This might get uglier before it gets better. Neither party wants to be in the same room as one another.

 

Hatred is blinding everyone on the right now and it’s truly sad.

Fixed it for you.

 

Look, this is really simple: The Republican led Senate passed a bill UNANINMOUSLY fund the government.

Lil' Baby Trump got a talking to from Ann Coulter and threw a temper tantrum and changed the deal

The new House approves the first deal

Trump says he won't sign the deal until he gets his money

Democrats say "Look, we can talk about that. We have stuff to bargain for, but if we reward you for throwing a tantrum, you are going to do this every few months."

Trump continues to act like a small child who just had his toy taken away.

McConnell enables him by preventing the Senate from voting on the same thing they unanimously passed a month ago

 

It's so obviously Trump being spiteful and McConnell being spineless.

 

 

[Nanker]

Just five more days and POTUS can permanently furlough a lot of Federal employees. ?

Edited January 16, 2019 by Nanker

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — The partial government shutdown is inflicting far greater damage on the United States economy than previously estimated, the White House acknowledged on Tuesday, as President Trump’s economists doubled projections of how much economic growth is being lost each week the standoff with Democrats continues.

The revised estimates from the Council of Economic Advisers show that the shutdown, now in its fourth week, is beginning to have real economic consequences. The analysis, and other projections from outside the White House, suggests that the shutdown has already weighed significantly on growth and could ultimately push the United States economy into a contraction.

 

Tisk tisk 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/government-shutdown-economy.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[B-Man]

AMERICA’S SHUTDOWN INDIFFERENCE, EXPLAINED:

 

I mention these anecdotes not because I think the present record-setting shutdown is good or sane policy but because I am trying to illustrate why I and other Americans have a hard time caring much about it. In the popular imagination — and sometimes in dozens of little-read memos from the inspectors general of various departments — the average federal employee appears to be lazy, incompetent, performing meaningless tasks for too much pay, with an enviable array of benefits and other amenities (I still roll my eyes in disgust whenever I am reminded that there exist special credit unions for federal employees, whose pay and job security would be the envy of a hundred million other Americans). Government employees, at both the state and federal level, are among the only workers in the United States who continue to be represented by powerful unions, despite the fact that by definition they’re not bargaining against capital but against their fellow citizens.

 

This is to say nothing of the vast assortment of contractors, consultants, and hangers-on whose “work” has been temporarily interrupted by the shutdown. Their grotesque salaries have blighted the landscape with McMansions and driven housing prices in Maryland and northern Virginia to a level beyond what most families with children will ever be able to afford. So the people whose job it is to bid up the price of useless airplanes or dream up rival marketing schemes for some “cloud” project while our nation’s capital lacks a functional public transit system are going to have .05 percent fewer billable hours for the year? Boo hoo.

 

 

Coal miners lose their jobs for good and it’s “you’re obsolete, learn to code!” Federal workers have a few paychecks delayed and the press is in heartstring-tugging mode.

 

 

 

.

[Swill Merchant]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Fixed it for you.

 

Look, this is really simple: The Republican led Senate passed a bill UNANINMOUSLY fund the government.

Lil' Baby Trump got a talking to from Ann Coulter and threw a temper tantrum and changed the deal

The new House approves the first deal

Trump says he won't sign the deal until he gets his money

Democrats say "Look, we can talk about that. We have stuff to bargain for, but if we reward you for throwing a tantrum, you are going to do this every few months."

Trump continues to act like a small child who just had his toy taken away.

McConnell enables him by preventing the Senate from voting on the same thing they unanimously passed a month ago

 

It's so obviously Trump being spiteful and McConnell being spineless.

 

 

If you just stretch a little further I believe you can reach the straw.

[oldmanfan]

One  of these days the occupant of the Oval Office might learn  that words have meaning and consequences.  When you are shown on camera telling the Democratic leaders that you will take responsibility for the shut down, people will tend to believe you take responsibility for the shut down.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

One  of these days the occupant of the Oval Office might learn  that words have meaning and consequences.  When you are shown on camera telling the Democratic leaders that you will take responsibility for the shut down, people will tend to believe you take responsibility for the shut down.

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, Nanker said:

Just five more days and POTUS can permanently furlough a lot of Federal employees. ?

 

[Swill Merchant]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

One  of these days the occupant of the Oval Office might learn  that words have meaning and consequences.  When you are shown on camera telling the Democratic leaders that you will take responsibility for the shut down, people will tend to believe you take responsibility for the shut down.

His fatal flaw seems to be overestimating the intelligence of the public. Once the house passed a bill that provided funding for the wall the dynamics changed. Now it is quite literally the Democrats who are forcing a shutdown by blocking the vote in the senate.

 

Don't expect CNN to tell you that.

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

His fatal flaw seems to be overestimating the intelligence of the public. Once the house passed a bill that provided funding for the wall the dynamics changed. Now it is quite literally the Democrats who are forcing a shutdown by blocking the vote in the senate.

 

Don't expect CNN to tell you that.

Can bills from one session hold over to the next session? I know Schumer blocked that vote in the Senate but that was before 1-3-19.

[Swill Merchant]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Can bills from one session hold over to the next session? I know Schumer blocked that vote in the Senate but that was before 1-3-19.

Good point. I believe the bill is now dead. Nevertheless, it was the Democrats in the Senate that blocked the vote on the bill that would have prevented the shutdown.

[oldmanfan]

26 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

His fatal flaw seems to be overestimating the intelligence of the public. Once the house passed a bill that provided funding for the wall the dynamics changed. Now it is quite literally the Democrats who are forcing a shutdown by blocking the vote in the senate.

 

Don't expect CNN to tell you that.

McConnell controls the Senate floor.

And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down.  Words have meaning, words have consequences.  Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.

[3rdnlng]

36 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

McConnell controls the Senate floor.

And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down.  Words have meaning, words have consequences.  Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.

Once again:

 

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Once again:

 

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

Once again:  when you are filmed saying you own the shut down, people will interpret that to mean you will own the shut down.

[Swill Merchant]

38 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

McConnell controls the Senate floor.

And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down.  Words have meaning, words have consequences.  Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.

 

Look up "cloture". The Dems blocked the vote. It was out of McConnell's hands.

 

As far as your "words have consequences" rhetoric, it's an empty argument that is fit for cable news segments, but it does little to inform the reality of the situation.

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Once again:  when you are filmed saying you own the shut down, people will interpret that to mean you will own the shut down.

One more time:

 

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

 

He can own the shutdown and still be considered as taking one for the American people. What's more important, part of the government shut down or America's safety?

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Can bills from one session hold over to the next session? I know Schumer blocked that vote in the Senate but that was before 1-3-19.

any unfinished business of the old Congress is dead once the new starts....

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

McConnell controls the Senate floor.

And like it or not Trump said he will own the shut down.  Words have meaning, words have consequences.  Democrats should have gone to the White House yesterday I would also say.

It's called a filibuster... And in the Senate it take 60 votes to move a bill forward. McConnell does NOT control 60 votes

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

any unfinished business of the old Congress is dead once the new starts....

I knew that but was showing respect for a (so far) good poster.

[outsidethebox]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

One  of these days the occupant of the Oval Office might learn  that words have meaning and consequences.  When you are shown on camera telling the Democratic leaders that you will take responsibility for the shut down, people will tend to believe you take responsibility for the shut down.

One of these days the Democratic leaders will have to grow up and put the country ahead of their own personal interests. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, westside said:

One of these days the Democratic leaders will have to grow up and put the country ahead of their own personal interests. 

Building a useless, stupid wall is not in the country's best interest

[3rdnlng]

The Left's expert has spoken.

[outsidethebox]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Building a useless, stupid wall is not in the country's best interest

Absolutely!

Letting In thousands of undocumented immigrants is a much better plan.

 

Why do you hate America so much?

[Tiberius]

Just now, westside said:

Absolutely!

Letting In thousands of undocumented immigrants is a much better plan.

 

Why do you hate America so much?

We need more immigrants. Just let them in. 

 

The wall won't stop them anyway 

[outsidethebox]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

We need more immigrants. Just let them in. 

 

The wall won't stop them anyway 

Only if we can deport you and your communist cronies.

 

Not having a wall definitely won't stop them.  But you knew that already. 

[oldmanfan]

39 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

One more time:

 

Putting it in the proper light, Trump is willing to take the heat for the partial shutdown in order to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. In addition, he is doing his level best to thwart the child/sex slavery rings and proliferation of illegal drug smuggling. In the meantime Pelosi and Schumer are doing the utmost to make Trump cave so that it has political implications 2 years from now.

 

He can own the shutdown and still be considered as taking one for the American people. What's more important, part of the government shut down or America's safety?

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact.  That does not mean 2000 miles of wall.  Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right?  How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border?  Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? 

 

Both sides shoulder responsibility for this.  Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long.  But shutting down government over a wall is pointless.  Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at.

 

And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect.  You say something, own it.

 

 

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Building a useless, stupid wall is not in the country's best interest

i agree. building a useful wall is in the country's best interests however.

 

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

... Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at....

i'm sure you know that this is never going to happen, so the suggestion of it is a non starter and does little to bolster your argument.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Foxx

[outsidethebox]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

For safety I am all for putting a wall up where it will make an impact.  That does not mean 2000 miles of wall.  Government data shows most drugs, etc. come in through checkpoints, right?  How much of the drug problem comes in through the northern border?  Should we build a wall between the US and Canada? 

 

Both sides shoulder responsibility for this.  Both sides have ignored or played political games with the immigration issue for far too long.  But shutting down government over a wall is pointless.  Put folks back to work, then lock both sides along with the chief executive in a room somewhere until an actual comprehensive immigration policy addressing all issues (like people overstaying visas, employer issues, etc. ) is arrived at.

 

And quit saying you'll shoulder the blame for a shut down, then deflect.  You say something, own it.

 

 

How can you collect data on drugs being smuggled across the border not going through the checkpoint? 

If you can't realistically collect data, does it mean it's not happening?

[oldmanfan]

56 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

 

Look up "cloture". The Dems blocked the vote. It was out of McConnell's hands.

 

As far as your "words have consequences" rhetoric, it's an empty argument that is fit for cable news segments, but it does little to inform the reality of the situation.

The president said he'll own it, then he needs to own it.  And that means having actual negotiations where eh side gives a little.  He needs to give, so do Democrats.  quit trying to deflect thinking he has no blame.  Both sides have to answer for this nonsense.

 

And blocked what vote?  The last vote I recall there were over 90 senators who voted for the CR that the president said no to.  Bring the House bill up for a vote; the Democrats in the Senate block that then they should be shot.  I would wager that if the House bills opening all but Homeland security wee brought up they'd pass the Senate, then assuming a veto you'd see if the Senate and House override.  Which is the way the legislative process is supposed to work.

Just now, westside said:

How can you collect data on drugs being smuggled across the border not going through the checkpoint? 

If you can't realistically collect data, does it mean it's not happening?

It is likely happening, but not near the extent as at border crossings.   Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security.

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i agree. building a useful wall is in the country's best interests however.

 

i'm sure you know that this is never going to happen, so the suggestion of it is a non starter and does little to bolster your argument.

Why can't it happen though?  The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Focusing on just a wall trivializes what is really needed: a comprehensive approach to immigration and border security.

 

A wall is part of that comprehensive approach which is needed. Pretending that the border can be secured properly without a wall in certain stretches trivializes the entire issue.

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

... Why can't it happen though?  The people need to demand more of their elected representatives.

well, for one thing.... when is the last time your elected representative represented you? they are beholden to their own, not you nor i. they legislate by what they think is best for you (and what they are told is best for you), not what you think is best.

 

again, it is unreasonable based upon recent history to say they need to be locked in a room because that is never going to happen. period.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Foxx

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

A wall is part of that comprehensive approach which is needed. Pretending that the border can be secured properly without a wall in certain stretches trivializes the entire issue.

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this:  we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings.  Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border.  That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. 

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

well, for one thing.... when is the last time your elected representative represented you? they are beholden to their own, not you nor i. they legislate by what they think is best for you (and what they are told is best for you), not what you think is best.

 

again, it is unreasonable based upon recent history to say they need to be locked in a room because that is never going to happen. period.

Perhaps you've just identified the real problem.

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

... Perhaps you've just identified the real problem.

we have been addressing this undercurrent down here for a long time. long before my time here.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

If I were negotiating on the Democratic side, I would say this:  we are willing to fund a wall, or steel thing, or fencing, or whatever in areas where there is a critical need and where it is the best solution to illegal crossings.  Not a 2000 mile uninterrupted border.  That would be part of a larger policy where issues such as increasing enforcement personnel, DACA issues, employer issues, overstayed visa policies, etc. 

 

No one is asking for a 2,000 mile uninterrupted border. All Trump is asking for, and what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for, are strategically placed stretches of wall in the most difficult areas along the border to patrol. The strategy is to drive the flow of traffickers back towards easier to cover/better covered areas. This is what Trump is looking for... 

 

... Along with added technology and manpower to help enforce it. 

 

No one in the administration is arguing that the wall alone is all that is needed, or that it will solve the problem by itself. It's part of a bigger tapestry of items needed to help better enforce the border - but it's specifically aimed at curbing trafficking and smuggling rather than illegal immigrants. 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one is asking for a 2,000 mile uninterrupted border. All Trump is asking for, and what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for, are strategically placed stretches of wall in the most difficult areas along the border to patrol. The strategy is to drive the flow of traffickers back towards easier to cover/better covered areas. This is what Trump is looking for... 

 

... Along with added technology and manpower to help enforce it. 

 

No one in the administration is arguing that the wall alone is all that is needed, or that it will solve the problem by itself. It's part of a bigger tapestry of items needed to help better enforce the border - but it's specifically aimed at curbing trafficking and smuggling rather than illegal immigrants. 

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.  All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security. 

 

Never gonna happen.  Both parties want to maintain immigration reform as an election issue - actually reforming immigration means they have one less issue to rile up their base.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.

 

It is true. Since he got into office in 2017 and was briefed by DHS, he has not been asking for a 2,000 mile border wall. Those pushing that line are lying to you and conflating campaign rhetoric with the actualities of his administration. Every deal offered so far to the left has not included such an ask. 

 

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

Reality came home to roost in 2017 after he sat down with then DHS secretary Mattis. This shut down hasn't changed his mind, implying that it has is revisionist history. 

 

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  

 

I've spent a lot of time asking them precisely that. And to a man they've told me a wall is a necessary part of the equation to stopping the worst of the human smuggling routes in and out of the country. What Trump is asking for is what DHS/ICE/CBP is asking for. They are aligned. 

 

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

 

One side does want open borders, but it's not the democrats. It's the uniparty establishment who has been benefiting from kickbacks in various forms from having an unsecured southern border for decades. That's who is truly being the most stubborn. 

 

The question one should ask is why. 

[Swill Merchant]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

That's not really true as far as Trump goes, and you know it.  All throughout his campaign it was a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for.  And now reality is coming home to roost.

 

We should let the DHS/ICE/CBP tell us where precisely it is needed, then fund that.  Along with a comprehensive bill that addresses all issues with immigration and border security.  And stop with the histrionics about a big beautiful wall from one side, and that it's immoral from the other.  Or that one side wants just open borders when they don't, and on and on.

 

I hear what you're saying. You want a comprehensive bill that addresses the issue more thoroughly. But understanding that building a physical boundary now does not preclude the adoption of such policies later, I pose a question:

 

What is your best argument for denying funding for a physical barrier?

[oldmanfan]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Never gonna happen.  Both parties want to maintain immigration reform as an election issue - actually reforming immigration means they have one less issue to rile up their base.  

Probably right.  I am an advocate of voting every single incumbent out of office and electing all new folks who are in the middle politically, with some liberal and some conservative thoughts, and let them get the country back on track.  Actually have meaningful debate and compromise for the good of all.  I myself?  More liberal on social policies, more conservative on fiscal and law & order policies.

[Tiberius]

Leader Pelosi has written Trump to not give the State of the Union during the shut down 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-asks-trump-to-postpone-state-of-the-union-address-because-of-government-shutdown--or-deliver-it-in-writing/2019/01/16/f1c3026c-199b-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.626a6435b760

Quote

In a letter to Trump, Pelosi said the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, both of which have key responsibilities for planning and implementing security at the scheduled Jan. 29 address in the House chamber, have been “hamstrung” by furloughs.

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th,” Pelosi wrote in the letter.