Shutdown Poll

[Ringo84]

Coupled with the proud American tradition of the Executive refusing to sign bills that doesn't fund what the executive wants. There are no heroes or villains here just politicians that want what they want and refuse to give in. And as you point out the government is hardly broken by this. Not even slightly scratched.

No, there are villains. One is orange and one is the Senate Majority Leader.
Ringo

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, there are villains. One is orange and one is the Senate Majority Leader.
Ringo

And what is their crime may I ask? Did they perhaps enter a country in violation of the laws of that country?

 

[Kentonio]

And what is their crime may I ask? Did they perhaps enter a country in violation of the laws of that country?

If you want a list of Trump crimes we could be here some time..

 

[Ringo84]

And what is their crime may I ask? Did they perhaps enter a country in violation of the laws of that country?

Shutting down the government over a stupid wall and then blocking at least three attempts by House Democrats to reopen it, for starters. Mitch in particular is guilty of not fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to be a coequal branch of the government that checks the Executive.
Ringo

 

[grasping the after wind]

Shutting down the government over a stupid wall and then blocking at least three attempts by House Democrats to reopen it, for starters. Mitch in particular is guilty of not fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to be a coequal branch of the government that checks the Executive.
Ringo

If shutting down the government is so malevolent why doesn't the House offer a compromise that includes funding a wall in some capacity? Why are all the attempts to open it by the House Democrats completely void of any kind of attempt to actually compromise with Trump? And to the original point what sort of immoral act has Trump or McConnell engaged in concerning this shutdown that causes them to be villains ? Mc Connell is not Constitutionally required to send a bill to the Executive that he knows will be vetoed just because the Democrats in the House want to grandstand. The constitution does not require the Senate to do what the House wants to do. I am glad to see someone finally concerned with checking the Executive Branch though. Hopefully that concern will continue when someone you like is President. I would encourage everyone interested in foiling Trump to continue to be upset about lack of Congressional checks to the Executive when future Presidents, like many past Presidents, actually overstep the bounds of their office.

 

[NotreDame]

Because it is a test of wills. The Question can be put exactly the other way too: why would the Democrats put the American people over an unnecessary government shutdown over $5 billion!?

If Trump proceeds with Congress, the Democrats will rush to a favorable Democrat judge to stop Trump during the long aapeals process, which leaves the Democrat House free to pursue investigations of Trump without any political pain.

By doing it this way, Trump inflicts the maximum pain on the portions of government that mostly employ Democrats or regulate Republican businesses. The government shutdown is only partial. The poor, the military and law enforcement are all open and funded. It’s the regulatory agencies, full of Democrats and enforcing policies that skew Democrat that are shut down. In this way, Trump effectively deregulates, by simply shutting down the regulators and cancelling all monitoring of Democrat-imposed policies.

So, a bunch of mostly Democrat government officials sit home with no paycheck, business and manufacturing gets a regulatory holiday, Democrats in Congress get half the blame (because its only $5 billion he’s asked for), and Trump’s own base gets shored up, strengthened and more and more solidly mobilized the longer the shutdown goes on.

If Trump tries to build the Wall without the shutdown, and without capitulation by Congress, the Democrats stop him with one friendly Democrat judge, and they move forward with their agenda. The pain is maximized for Trumpand the Republicans.

But if Trump keeps the government closed until the Democrat House capitulates, he gets stronger, and they get weaker.

That’s why Trump will not back down. If the government stays partially shut down for two years, until the 2020 elections, Trump’s chances of winning re-election and the Republicans’ chances of recapturing the House are very much enhanced. Trump knows this, so he has no incentive to compromise at all. And given the degree of crap he’s been put through, he’s not inclined to give the Democrats an inch on anything.

So, the Democrats will have to cave and give him $4 billion or sum for “Border security”, including Trump’s Wall. The quicker they realize that they are caught in a fight they cannot win, accept defeat, give him his pennies and move on, the better for them. Trump is going to win this one either way. The Democrats have to decide if they want to take the loss quick and get it over with, or stretch it out into a disaster of much greater magnitude for themselves and their side.

Trump has them on this one.

So, a bunch of mostly Democrat government officials sit home with no paycheck, business and manufacturing gets a regulatory holiday, Democrats in Congress get half the blame (because its only $5 billion he’s asked for)

Who is blaming the Dems? I’m incredulous the Dems furloughed are blaming the Dems.

According to some polling data, Trump is, by the majority polled, blaming Trump for the government shutdown. Polls agree: Americans don't like shutdown and they blame Trump

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/1/13/18180862/shutdown-polls-blame-trump-gop-partisan-divide

I also find culpability for the government shutdown rests with Trump. In part because Trump initially indicated he would sign the Senate bill without any wall funding, but reneged.

That’s why Trump will not back down. If the government stays partially shut down for two years, until the 2020 elections, Trump’s chances of winning re-election and the Republicans’ chances of recapturing the House are very much enhanced.

Optimistic. If the polling data is accurate, and remains the same in 2020, with the government shutdown extending to the 2020 election, Trump’s chances for re-election aren’t “enhanced.”

 

[Ringo84]

If shutting down the government is so malevolent why doesn't the House offer a compromise that includes funding a wall in some capacity?

Because the wall is unneeded and unwanted by both a majority of the American people and border agents.

Why are all the attempts to open it by the House Democrats completely void of any kind of attempt to actually compromise with Trump?

This "deal" that was crafted over the weekend was reportedly crafted by Mitch, Kushner, and Pence. For you to suggest that it's the Democrats that have failed to compromise when Donny pounded his tiny little hands on a table and walked out of a meeting with Democrats is, at best, misinformed.

And to the original point what sort of immoral act has Trump or McConnell engaged in concerning this shutdown that causes them to be villains ? Mc Connell is not Constitutionally required to send a bill to the Executive that he knows will be vetoed just because the Democrats in the House want to grandstand.

Mitch's job is not to be Donny's toady. His job is to find the votes to override a veto to get the government reopened.

The constitution does not require the Senate to do what the House wants to do.

That's not what I suggested. But it is telling that three bills to reopen the government have been brought to Mitch's attention, and all three have been rejected out of hand.

I am glad to see someone finally concerned with checking the Executive Branch though. Hopefully that concern will continue when someone you like is President. I would encourage everyone interested in foiling Trump to continue to be upset about lack of Congressional checks to the Executive when future Presidents, like many past Presidents, actually overstep the bounds of their office.

When the government has been shut down for just over a month, it is the duty and responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader to find a way to get it reopened. Period. It doesn't matter whose party is in control of the Senate and who is in the White House. Failure to do so is a failure of leadership. Period.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

Shutting down the government over a stupid wall and then blocking at least three attempts by House Democrats to reopen it, for starters. Mitch in particular is guilty of not fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to be a coequal branch of the government that checks the Executive.
Ringo

Mitch in particular is guilty of not fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to be a coequal branch of the government that checks the Executive.

Where in the Constitution is the language of a “Constitutional obligation” that says Mitch MUST or SHOULD act in some specific and particular manner under these specific facts and circumstances?

 

[NotreDame]

Mitch's job is not to be Donny's toady. His job is to find the votes to override a veto to get the government reopened.



That's not what I suggested. But it is telling that three bills to reopen the government have been brought to Mitch's attention, and all three have been rejected out of hand.




Ringo

How do you arrive to the conclusion Mitch’s “job” is to find votes to “override a veto” to open the government?

When the government has been shut down for just over a month, it is the duty and responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader to find a way to get it reopened. Period. It doesn't matter whose party is in control of the Senate and who is in the White House. Failure to do so is a failure of leadership. Period.

I don’t know man. I’m not sure leadership in this context and facts is hunting for Republicans to align against the Republican President.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Day 31. Woo hoo! For small-government types, this is an unexpected way to achieve their goal. Government’s been shut down a month, and hardly anybody notices.

Democrats don’t accept Trump’s proposal, and so the shutdown will continue. There is no urgency on either side.

After a certain point, the Trump Administration will roll out the regulations allowing for the RIFing (Reductions In Force) of superfluous government personnel. In this way Trump will be able to cut the federal workforce on a permanent basis.

Looks to be a long Cold War.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...6051de-1b55-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html

 

[Ringo84]

How do you arrive to the conclusion Mitch’s “job” is to find votes to “override a veto” to open the government?

I don’t know man. I’m not sure leadership in this context and facts is hunting for Republicans to align against the Republican President.

If the "president" is keeping the government closed, then I absolutely think it's hunting for them to align against him. Should country not take precedence over party considerations?
Ringo

 

[SimplyMe]

Where in the Constitution is the language of a “Constitutional obligation” that says Mitch MUST or SHOULD act in some specific and particular manner under these specific facts and circumstances?

I'd suggest it is found here, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." On top of this, the Constitution states, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

In essence, the Constitution says the House and Senate should pass the bills, then send them to the President; then if the President doesn't approve he can veto. It says nothing about not voting on bills because the President doesn't like them. While you can argue that the President, because he has the veto, should have a voice in the process, that isn't what the Constitution states. To me, a good argument could be made, based on a strict (or originalist) reading of the Constitution, that Sen. McConnell is shirking his duty under the Constitution; that the Founders always intended that the Congress be of equal power to the President, and not to be beholden or a "rubber stamp" for the President.

 

[cow451]

Trump's base is fine if the government stays shutdown forever. They're small government types. They notice that the government's been shutdown for a month with no effect on anything they care about, so they are of the mind "Let's make it PERMANENT!" Trump's not under any real pressure at all to get the government reopen. There are benefits to its closure for him and much of his base.

So if the Left is waiting for Trump to cave, they have fundamentally misread the situation. Trump isn't suffering. He is benefiting from the shutdown, and his base is happy. The longer it goes, the happier they will be.

Trumps base must not get out much.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because the wall is unneeded and unwanted by both a majority of the American people and border agents.

Whether a wall is need or not depends on whether one wants illegal immigration curtailed or not. Obviously if one is in favor of as much illegal immigration as possible a wall would not be needed. Where did you get the idea that a majority of the American people are against a wall? And not only against it but that they would be in favor of a government shutdown in order to keep one from being built? Where did you get the idea border patrol agents are against a wall?

This "deal" that was crafted over the weekend was reportedly crafted by Mitch, Kushner, and Pence. For you to suggest that it's the Democrats that have failed to compromise when Donny pounded his tiny little hands on a table and walked out of a meeting with Democrats is, at best, misinformed.

What compromise have the Democrats offered that includes something that Trump might want? It is hardly a compromise to offer your negotiating opponent only things you want. If I need informing on what the Democrats have offered that Trump would be interested in receiving in return for everything included in the budget the Democrats want go right ahead and inform me.

Mitch's job is not to be Donny's toady. His job is to find the votes to override a veto to get the government reopened.

It I not the job of the Senate majority leader to find votes to override vetos. If the Senate majority leader is not interested in overriding vetos that he agrees with he would be fairly idiotic to be searching for such votes.

That's not what I suggested. But it is telling that three bills to reopen the government have been brought to Mitch's attention, and all three have been rejected out of hand.

It tells me the three bills weren't worth the paper they were written on.

When the government has been shut down for just over a month, it is the duty and responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader to find a way to get it reopened. Period. It doesn't matter whose party is in control of the Senate and who is in the White House. Failure to do so is a failure of leadership. Period.

Its not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House? Sending innumerable unpassable bills to the Senate is hardly a way to go about reopening the government. ​

 

[grasping the after wind]

Trump initially indicated he would sign the Senate bill without any wall funding, but reneged.

When did he do this? Do you have a direct quote from Trump on that that you could show me?

 

[Ringo84]

Whether a wall is need or not depends on whether one wants illegal immigration curtailed or not. Obviously if one is in favor of as much illegal immigration as possible a wall would not be needed. Where did you get the idea that a majority of the American people are against a wall?

Most Americans don't support building the wall
Poll: Majorities oppose Trump's wall funding demand, call for compromise

And not only against it but that they would be in favor of a government shutdown in order to keep one from being built? Where did you get the idea border patrol agents are against a wall?

What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

What compromise have the Democrats offered that includes something that Trump might want? It is hardly a compromise to offer your negotiating opponent only things you want. If I need informing on what the Democrats have offered that Trump would be interested in receiving in return for everything included in the budget the Democrats want go right ahead and inform me.

According to Goodman, the Democrats’ offer is a continuing resolution on last year’s appropriations act. The law, passed with Republican and Democratic support, provided $1.3 billion for fencing and additional money for other types of border security. The language made it so that the funds could only be used on repairing or extending fencing that had already been built under the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

No, Democrats didn't ask for a steel barrier, as Trump said

Also:
The Latest: Democrats offer more money for border security

Prior to this, Democrats offered Donny money for his wall which was rejected:

When the New York Times first reported it, it seemed unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered President Trump funding for his wall in exchange for protecting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children? The most powerful Democrat in the Senate was willing to support one of his party’s most-hated proposals, just like that? The Times wrote simply that Schumer “discussed the possibility of fully funding the president’s wall on the southern border with Mexico” — which leaves some wiggle room.

On the floor of the Senate on Saturday, though, Schumer explained that it was almost exactly that: A deal on those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that would also potentially fund the wall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-like/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72e65574c2d2

It I not the job of the Senate majority leader to find votes to override vetos. If the Senate majority leader is not interested in overriding vetos that he agrees with he would be fairly idiotic to be searching for such votes.

The Senate's job is to be a check on the Executive branch. Donny threw a temper tantrum and closed the government, which means that it is now Mitch's job to make sure it is reopened.

It tells me the three bills weren't worth the paper they were written on.

At least one of the bills was to reopen DHS, which Republicans claim to care about:
Senate GOP blocks bill to reopen Homeland Security

But since this comment was fact-free and just dismissing the bills out of hand, I really see no point in expending any further energy on it.

Its not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House? Sending innumerable unpassable bills to the Senate is hardly a way to go about reopening the government.

​

What way would you suggest?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Side note: This information is readily found by something really cool called a Google search.

Very cool and very legal! Highly recommended for those who want to know what they're talking about.
Ringo

 

[Random1234]

Should country not take precedence over party considerations?

It 100% should. And that's exactly what President Trump is [trying] to do. A border wall will ONLY HELP the security of Americans; including saving lives. It will also help save the lives of those trying to cross it illegally. The horror that people (particularly women and children) go through to get to the border is devastating. The logic is when people realize how difficult it is to enter the US illegally, they won't even attempt it. A wall will help to direct people to the legal ports of entry. It will also make it much more difficult to cross illegally allowing Border Patrol to respond proactively rather than react. Those seeking asylum will be treated fairly and humanely at legal ports of entry. However, many people coming from the South are not seeking asylum. They're seeking a better economy to live and work in and that's great (at least that's the hope, some may likely be coming because of all the free handouts they can get), but they'll need to apply for an immigrant visa.

The cost is a non-issue. $5.7 billion is less than 0.02% of the federal budget. Even if it cost $50 billion, illegal immigration costs over $100 billion per year. If you're suggesting cost is an issue, you're also suggesting a price tag on human lives.

"But most immigrants are overstayed visas." That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the wall. Even if a wall only saves a few American (and non-American) lives the cost is well worth it. But it will save much more than just a few when you consider all the murders and drug overdoses that could be prevented. In addition, how accurate can that be when we really have no idea how many illegal aliens are crossing the border.

"The government should put that cost towards helping poor Americans and Veterans..." Should they? The governments job is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to ensure a certain socioeconomic level and especially not to ensure healthcare. That may sound callous, but imagine Americans coming together and helping each other without any government intervention. It happens all the time (like Delta helping to fund the MLK Jr. National Park: Martin Luther King Jr. Landmarks in Atlanta Will Temporarily Reopen With Aid From Delta Air Lines). That's why we tithe to a church that can help people at the local level and in their own neighborhoods and communities. And as discussed in the previous paragraph, the wall will actually create a significant positive net revenue.

"It's immoral" - Protecting the citizens of a nation is not immoral, in fact, it's the opposite. America welcomes and encourages all immigrants from all lands to apply for citizenship legally.

"Walls don't work. They're old technology" - Clearly that is a false statement. There are myriad of sovereign nations who have walls and real data showing the drop in illegal immigration. If nothing else, a wall will make it significantly more difficult for someone to get to the other side compared to literally nothing. The extra time required to bypass a wall would allow Border Patrol more time to respond to the illegal activity.

For all American citizens, there are literally no negatives to building a wall.

 

[Bobber]

Breaking the government because you don't have the legislative support to get your agenda is not "doing everything he can to build [it]" it's being a petulant child who will break the game instead of playing if he can't get what he wants.

President Trump is he Commander and Chief over the security of the nation. It's his No 1 mandate to oversee the security of the nation. If that genuinely is at risk than maybe other games as you call them need to be broken instead of giving up on he thinks best to achieve what he feels is imperative on his watch.

 

[Ringo84]

On the contrary, there are a lot of negatives. Among them is the fact that a majority of Americans don't want a border wall, as the polling I posted above indicates. Neither do border agents, as another source I posted says.

You try to "disprove" the arguments against the wall by posting a lot of stuff that neither I nor anyone else said. In actuality, Donny's vaunted wall doesn't even fix what it's supposed to fix.

For example, a wall across the entire border won't stop the influx of drugs:
Trump Says Border Wall Will Stop Drugs. Here’s What a DEA Intel Report Says.

The tales of violence against women are highly exaggerated and, as it turns out, the majority of smugglers are citizens:
Trump’s tales about gagged women are misleading Americans about human trafficking, experts say | The Star

This is not even getting into the fact that we have been repeatedly and shamelessly lied to about the source of funding for this wall. We were told Mexico was going to pay for it. This was always unrealistic pabulum, but spending "only" $5.7 billion dollars that could be spent elsewhere is a betrayal of what he promised.

Shutting down the government and inflicting deliberate pain on government workers is not "putting country over party". It's throwing a temper tantrum over a wall that very few people want.
Ringo