How does the shutdown end?

[variant]

More and more I don't think this has anything to do with the wall, this is a diversion for the onslaught of investigations that threaten. Trump is getting mauled in the polls and he has had to money for that wall handed to him on a silver platter several times. Mitch McConnell is using the distraction to accumulate power, this has nothing to do with a wall, it's about power and who controls it and it isn't the President.

The President wanted this fight with Democrats as his opposition for some time now. It's the only thing that changed in November and suddenly Trumps agenda is an emergency.

There was an agreement between Trump and McConnell that this was better to do when they had the Democratic congress as a foil, it's just not currently working.

 

[mark kennedy]

The President wanted this fight with Democrats as his opposition for some time now. It's the only thing that changed in November and suddenly Trumps agenda is an emergency.

There was an agreement between Trump and McConnell that this was better to do when they had the Democratic congress as a foil, it's just not currently working.

What do you mean, it's working just fine. They can shut down the government as long as they like and don't have to be bothered with any wall that neither political party wanted to do in earnest long before Trump. Sure there were sections built but Republicans benefit from cheap labor as much as Democrats, maybe even more. I don't think they really want the wall, I think it's all just smoke and mirrors or they would have had it by now. McConnell says he won't allow a bill on the floor until there is a negotiation between Trump and Congress resulting in an agreement. So Trump beats on the table and announces there will be no discussion.

What do you mean it's not working? Looks like they have captivated everyone's attention on a wall no one in the status quo really wants and it diverts attention from the scandal that threatens to take down the Trump administration. It's working just fine.

 

[variant]

What do you mean it's not working? Looks like they have captivated everyone's attention on a wall no one in the status quo really wants and it diverts attention from the scandal that threatens to take down the Trump administration. It's working just fine.

They don't have any way to get out of it with a win. Thus it isn't working.

 

[mark kennedy]

They don't have any way to get out of it with a win. Thus it isn't working.

What do you mean not working, they are winning hands down. Sure Trump is plummeting in the polls but they are exercising unassailable power and there is nothing we can do about it. You still think this is about that stupid wall, I thought you were paying attention. They are pushing boundaries, they are exercising previously unknown powers of indifference and assuming more control in the process. Those boundaries will recede somewhat and a different group will inevitably inhabit those offices but the expansion of power is a permanent change.

No one's political fortunes is being jeopardized, if there is an impeachment it will fail and Trump will be a hero to his base. McConnell will continue to find new ways to manipulate the system and the strength of the Senate as a fulcrum will become unassailable. The House can't challenge them now, the President won't, how could we conclude they are losing, if you ask me it's a done deal.

 

[jgarden]

How does the shutdown end?

Trump could go the "national emergency" route but even the Republicans in Congress don't want to establish the precedent whereby a President can effectively bypass the Legislative Branch over a money bill!

There is also a good chance that the Supreme Court would decide that an attempt to out-manoeuvre the House on a money bill would be decidedly unconstitutional!

If Trump doesn't relent, its just a matter of time before those Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2020 will revolt and force McConnell to resubmit the bill this President vetoed - then override it with a 60+ vote majority!

 

[variant]

What do you mean not working, they are winning hands down. Sure Trump is plummeting in the polls but they are exercising unassailable power and there is nothing we can do about it. You still think this is about that stupid wall, I thought you were paying attention. They are pushing boundaries, they are exercising previously unknown powers of indifference and assuming more control in the process. Those boundaries will recede somewhat and a different group will inevitably inhabit those offices but the expansion of power is a permanent change.

Who has more power over what here exactly?

I see damage control here, not a successful plot.

 

[Phil.Stein]

No, not all of them were. It still remains the government protecting your freedom.

I guess my view is that the end does not justify the means. So invading some third world country (or countries) without legal process and depriving those people of their freedom so the government can say it was protecting mine is not something I'm going to thank the government for. A crime is a crime, no matter what motive is claimed.

I'm thinking that using the Army to build a wall on the land of citizens without their consent would pose several constitutional challenges.

So build it on some vacant land.

At some point forcing people to work without pay is going to be considered a violation of the law.

I agree, but welcome to the 21st century. You don't work to pay your taxes, and the government will steal your house.

I won't say that Trump couldn't order the military to build the wall; as you point out, the issue is still that much of the money will be for building supplies, the equipment needed to build the wall, as well as buying the land (in some cases) that the wall will sit on -- as well as roads and other infrastructure to get the material to the site where the wall will be constructed. Of course, since the military (outside the Corp of Engineers) are not construction workers, there could be as much waste in sections where they screw up building the wall that it may not actually save much money compared to hiring construction crews.

Well, it will save them killing anyone for a time, and they may learn some useful life skills from the experience - constructive skills, rather than destructive. They'll be happy to still get paid, Trump will be happy because he gets his wall. I agree some of the democrat leaders may be unhappy, as the influx of illegal voters will be reduced.

 

[jgarden]

What do you mean, it's working just fine. They can shut down the government as long as they like and don't have to be bothered with any wall that neither political party wanted to do in earnest long before Trump. Sure there were sections built but Republicans benefit from cheap labor as much as Democrats, maybe even more. I don't think they really want the wall, I think it's all just smoke and mirrors or they would have had it by now. McConnell says he won't allow a bill on the floor until there is a negotiation between Trump and Congress resulting in an agreement. So Trump beats on the table and announces there will be no discussion.

What do you mean it's not working? Looks like they have captivated everyone's attention on a wall no one in the status quo really wants and it diverts attention from the scandal that threatens to take down the Trump administration. It's working just fine.

If Trump thinks that he's going to "steamroller" over Pelosi, he'd better think again - she is a formidable adversary and knows far more than the President as to how this game is played!

 

[Nithavela]

Other: new president gets voted in and signs a budget without the wall in early 2021.

 

[mark kennedy]

If Trump thinks that he's going to "steamroller" over Pelosi, he'd better think again - she is a formidable adversary and knows far more than the President as to how this game is played!

So how is the game played? She can make all the bills she imagines but it has to get through the Senate. Game over.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why? The people most directly impacted by this are democrats anyway. Most of his supporters don't rely on government handouts for income

Citation needed

 

[Phil.Stein]

Citation needed

The biggest whiners about Trump are the staff in government. There's always one or another writing anonymous tips to the newspapers complaining about how he's a chauvinist, or likes cats, or has a Russian bride, or something. What better way to punish such snitches than to deny them pay? Sad for all the honest ones, though.

 

[KCfromNC]

The biggest whiners about Trump are the staff in government. There's always one or another writing anonymous tips to the newspapers complaining about how he's a chauvinist, or likes cats, or has a Russian bride, or something. What better way to punish such snitches than to deny them pay? Sad for all the honest ones, though.

I asked for a citation, not making up even more assertions.

 

[Phil.Stein]

I asked for a citation, not making up even more assertions.

Don't you read the papers?

 

[hedrick]

The President is about to make a speech. It's suggested that he's going to propose a deal. Would it be worth funding a useless wall to get him to support giving the Dreamers a path to citizenship? I'm inclined to think so. An editorial in the NYT a month ago suggested that Democrats use the wall as a way to get other things that are needed and Trump would otherwise reject. Deals are the way politics is done.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why? The people most directly impacted by this are democrats anyway. Most of his supporters don't rely on government handouts for income - they make an income in spite of the obstacles government employees put in their way. Less government employees - less obstacles - ultimately - more income for those who work for it.

I just can't wait till Trump gets rid of airport security and either replaces them with cheerful, professional folk who respect people's rights, or does away with the charade entirely. Most of the airport security I've encountered are so rude and would fit better in Nazi Germany.

Farmers, miners and blue collar workers are employed by the government? Less government = more freedom.

I guess it depends. If Trump gets his wall, it may prove to be a better deterrant to terrorism than the current water transport prohibition and shoe/underwear checks.

I guess the armed forces often don't get thought of as government employees, so this is a good point, although I don't accept that all wars that the US engaged in were to protect my freedom (or the freedom of most American people).

Why doesn't Trump just use the military to build his wall? It will save lives (less wars to engage in), and money... Or would that be blocked by democrats also?

You ought to tune into something a bit more intelligent and nuanced than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

It's not (just) welfare benefits that are at risk (and aren't most of those administered by the states anyways?). Regulatory agencies that oversee approval for things like food labeling and safety, securities compliance, tax compliance, tariff rules and exemptions, and loan guarantees are all shut down. That means that businesses that need certain paperwork can't do their business. The national park service is mostly closed, leaving no one to police public parks, allowing them to get damaged by vandals. The Coast Guard is not getting paid.

 

[camille70]

The President is about to make a speech. It's suggested that he's going to propose a deal. Would it be worth funding a useless wall to get him to support giving the Dreamers a path to citizenship? I'm inclined to think so. An editorial in the NYT a month ago suggested that Democrats use the wall as a way to get other things that are needed and Trump would otherwise reject. Deals are the way politics is done.

Axios reported he is going to offer to extend the legal DACA status. If this is so it again reinforces that DACA also was a crisis of his own making. if it's just an extension I wouldn't accept, because he can yank it again at anytime.

 

[hedrick]

Axios reported he is going to offer to extend the legal DACA status. If this is so it again reinforces that DACA also was a crisis of his own making. if it's just an extension I wouldn't accept, because he can yank it again at anytime.

Right. It needs to be permanent.

 

[Ringo84]

Axios reported he is going to offer to extend the legal DACA status. If this is so it again reinforces that DACA also was a crisis of his own making. if it's just an extension I wouldn't accept, because he can yank it again at anytime.

The "deal" is something like temporary DACA protection in exchange for a racist monument.

That will hopefully be a non-starter among Democrats - especially in the wake of recent judgments that bolster DACA.

Just saw a twit - it's not even that. Donny "yuuuge deals, buh-lieve me" is offering some DACA plan that existed before he became president: Daniel Dale on Twitter

It's worth noting that there was a deal on the table for DACA until Donny blew it up, if memory serves.
Ringo

 

[SimplyMe]

The "deal" is something like temporary DACA protection in exchange for a racist monument.

That will hopefully be a non-starter among Democrats - especially in the wake of recent judgments that bolster DACA.

Just saw a twit - it's not even that. Donny "yuuuge deals, buh-lieve me" is offering some DACA plan that existed before he became president: Daniel Dale on Twitter

It's worth noting that there was a deal on the table for DACA until Donny blew it up, if memory serves.
Ringo

Yes, in February there was a deal that Democrats would provide "complete" funding for his wall (so probably $25 million at a minimum) for enshrining DACA into law. Of course, when the deal leaked, the Tea Party, along with Limbaugh and the Conservative media complained and started calling Trump, "Amnesty Don." At that point, Trump pulled his support and the Tea Party members of Congress voted against the deal.

Another thing I've heard is that Trump may possibly drop the wall funding requirement in exchange for more spending on the border -- such as additional funding for INS judges (about 500, from what I recall) to help with the backlogs. The last I've heard, Trump himself still doesn't know what he's going to say in the speech, or what he'll offer.