6 ms·

The summary of his speech was: Government will re-open through to Feb 15th. Back pay will be paid ASAP. He spoke about the wall for quite a while. If congre

by mfoy_ 8y ago

The summary of his speech was: Government will re-open through to Feb 15th. Back pay will be paid ASAP. He spoke about the wall for quite a while. If congress doesn't agree to fund his wall, he will shut the government back down on Feb 15th.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 8y ago
In other words, exactly what the Schumer bill voted down yesterday proposed, with an additional week added on.
the_gastropod 8y ago
I feel like I've repeatedly been proven wrong when I have these kinds of thoughts, but surely, he can't be stupid enough to try this stunt again. After 35 days of hurting people, he got nothing. He must realize shutting the government down to try to force his will is counter-productive, right?
- bdcravens 8y ago
  I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation? Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)
  - JohnTHaller 8y ago
    Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.
  - syspec 8y ago
    I agree he is, but on the other hand those furloughed employees will receive back pay so an even more prolonged shutdown is essentially a paid vacation for the ones who have some savings. So I’m sure /those/ employees might encourage a shutdown, but it isn’t because they believe in his cause
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      You're not wrong, but that's a very charitable interpretation. The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. Additionally, the ones who are deemed "essential" just have to work for free or quit.
      - votepaunchy 8y ago
        > The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).
        kuhhk 8y ago
        Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.
- phillipcarter 8y ago
  This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case
- cmiles74 8y ago
  "There's no education in the second kick of the mule."
- krapp 8y ago
  He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."
  - scarface74 8y ago
    What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.
- Supermancho 8y ago
  Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years). Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.
- ignoramceisblis 8y ago
  Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will". What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them. EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim was just more forthcoming with their money, it wouldn't have been a problem!
    - 64738 8y ago
      But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral. For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.
      - alphabettsy 8y ago
        I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.
        ramblerouser 8y ago
        Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?
- towaway1138 8y ago
  I was thinking just that about the Democrats.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    I can see arguments for "it's all Trump", "it's mostly Trump", and "the difference in 'fault' isn't meaningfully large", but I can't see an argument for "it's all/mostly Democrats". Can you elaborate? Edit: I'm not being snide, I'm actually ignorant.
    - 64738 8y ago
      I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.
donavanm 8y ago
Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?
- Supermancho 8y ago
  He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.
- rjohnk 8y ago
  By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?
huy-nguyen 8y ago
I think the 3-week thing is just a face-saving measure to allow Trump to back down and everyone involved will conveniently "forgets" about it in 3 weeks' time. Surely with the current breaking news cycle, will we even remember the shutdown in 3 weeks? If you don't believe me, come back to this comment in 3 weeks to see if I'm right.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nerdfest 8y ago
    You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.
- subculture 8y ago
  Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.

by mfoy_ 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 8y ago

In other words, exactly what the Schumer bill voted down yesterday proposed, with an additional week added on.

the_gastropod 8y ago

I feel like I've repeatedly been proven wrong when I have these kinds of thoughts, but surely, he can't be stupid enough to try this stunt again. After 35 days of hurting people, he got nothing. He must realize shutting the government down to try to force his will is counter-productive, right?

bdcravens 8y ago
I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation? Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)
- JohnTHaller 8y ago
  Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.
mfoy_ 8y ago
So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.
- syspec 8y ago
  I agree he is, but on the other hand those furloughed employees will receive back pay so an even more prolonged shutdown is essentially a paid vacation for the ones who have some savings. So I’m sure /those/ employees might encourage a shutdown, but it isn’t because they believe in his cause
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    You're not wrong, but that's a very charitable interpretation. The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. Additionally, the ones who are deemed "essential" just have to work for free or quit.
    - votepaunchy 8y ago
      > The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).
      - kuhhk 8y ago
        Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?
  - scarface74 8y ago
    With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.
phillipcarter 8y ago
This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case
cmiles74 8y ago
"There's no education in the second kick of the mule."
krapp 8y ago
He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."
- scarface74 8y ago
  What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.
Supermancho 8y ago
Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years). Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.
ignoramceisblis 8y ago
Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will". What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them. EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim was just more forthcoming with their money, it wouldn't have been a problem!
  - 64738 8y ago
    But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral. For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.
    - alphabettsy 8y ago
      I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.
      - ramblerouser 8y ago
        Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?
towaway1138 8y ago
I was thinking just that about the Democrats.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  I can see arguments for "it's all Trump", "it's mostly Trump", and "the difference in 'fault' isn't meaningfully large", but I can't see an argument for "it's all/mostly Democrats". Can you elaborate? Edit: I'm not being snide, I'm actually ignorant.
  - 64738 8y ago
    I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.

donavanm 8y ago

Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?

Supermancho 8y ago
He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.
rjohnk 8y ago
By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.
alphabettsy 8y ago
The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?

huy-nguyen 8y ago

I think the 3-week thing is just a face-saving measure to allow Trump to back down and everyone involved will conveniently "forgets" about it in 3 weeks' time. Surely with the current breaking news cycle, will we even remember the shutdown in 3 weeks? If you don't believe me, come back to this comment in 3 weeks to see if I'm right.

ceejayoz 8y ago
They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Nerdfest 8y ago
  You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.
subculture 8y ago
Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.