Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.

[TheDeamon]

Thoughts on this developing political drama? Monday morning compromise incoming?

Or are the Democrats confident that they'll avoid taking heat on using the Senate Filibuster to prevent the passage of a (interim) budget?

Something tells me that purple/red states & districts aren't going to be so "understanding" about the need to shut down federal government services over "(illegal) immigration issues" even if the Democrats have been effective in roasting the Republicans over such shutdowns in the past.

It seems that the Republicans are actually doing a half-way decent job of throwing the Dems under the bus on this one, and the Major Media Outlets are actually having a hard time putting pro-Democrat spin on things.

Of course, I guess they're hoping Trump is going to open his mouth and say something retarded enough to make it all worthwhile for them. The concern they need to have there is the question about how much of America is potentially going to agree with at least the sentiment, if not the verbiage.

[LetterRip]

A compromise was offered and the Republican's refused.  So I think it is pretty easy for the Republicans to take the blame.

Republicans will blame Democrats, Democrats will blame Republicans and Independents are split with a slight lean to blaming Republicans.

Personally I think tying DACA to the FISA would have been a more astute move.

[TheDrake]

I think that something should be done on DACA now. If the Republicans want to end the program, they should stand up and say so. This is especially true for Trump who repeatedly says he want to find a solution, and then when it is presented he rejects it.

Of course, it is also true that the Obama administration had no real success trying to get a permanent solution in place. They just rolled on with the questionable executive order. And creating DACA in the first place set us up for this.

Why we'd want to kick out or marginalize a group of people that pay $2 billion a year in taxes and saddle businesses with needing to hire and train replacements for hundreds of thousands of employees is beyond me.

Meanwhile, the Great Negotiator fails to advance any initiatives or proposals of his own. His only involvement is, unsurprisingly, to act like a bully. He favors a rule change so they can just cram it through over objections.

[JoshCrow]

I am holding out hope that they will go nuclear. The filibuster needs to end - its usage has steadily increased to the point of ridiculousness and it works against the idea of representative governance by majority.

[TheDrake]

Those rules have saved us from a lot of bad policy that only 51% of senators supported.

Sadly those rules have been slowly eroding from unlimited, to 2/3, to 3/5, so I have no doubt we'll see even fewer compromises and the senate will just become "house light" with 15m per party doled out for debate.

Not to mention it will totally ruin the chance to reboot Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

[Crunch]

The Schumer Shutdown is over. In the end, nothing was gained and the democrats lost this round. CR is only good for three weeks, maybe Chuck and Nancy will get that one.

[yossarian22c]

I don't think CR's are the place for policy changes. Shutting down the government to get a policy change is the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, not productive. I felt the same way about CR's when the republicans were shutting down the government to try to force changes under the Obama admin. It is just poor governance.

[Wayward Son]

Fortunately, we know where the blame ultimately lies for a shutdown:

Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He’s got to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of things. But you have to get a deal...

Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that... And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington.

I'm sure everyone agrees.

[Seriati]

No, it depends on the shutdown.  But in fairness, I was critical of the Republicans when they did it too.  Our government should not be run by minority party demands.

[Crunch]

I don't think CR's are the place for policy changes. Shutting down the government to get a policy change is the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, not productive. I felt the same way about CR's when the republicans were shutting down the government to try to force changes under the Obama admin. It is just poor governance.

I dislike CR’s but is it really poor governance? The democrats, led by Schumer, shut down the government as a bargaining chip in the effort to convert 30 million dreamers to democrat voters. If you support the goals of the democrat, it’s a pretty good strategy when you’re out of power (vice versa for Republicans).

A budget should be established every year and adopted so these CR’s become irrelevant relics but, the fact is, it’s a powerful tool to drive political goals and is red meat to the democrat base who so desperately need something, anything, they can blame om Trump (obviously reality need not apply to thses types).  No way these go away any time soon, unfortunately

[Crunch]

Fortunately, we know where the blame ultimately lies for a shutdown:

Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He’s got to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of things. But you have to get a deal...

Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that... And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington.

I'm sure everyone agrees.

Mother Jones says it, musr be true, amirite?

[yossarian22c]

I don't think CR's are the place for policy changes. Shutting down the government to get a policy change is the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, not productive. I felt the same way about CR's when the republicans were shutting down the government to try to force changes under the Obama admin. It is just poor governance.

I dislike CR’s but is it really poor governance? The democrats, led by Schumer, shut down the government as a bargaining chip in the effort to convert 30 million dreamers to democrat voters. If you support the goals of the democrat, it’s a pretty good strategy when you’re out of power (vice versa for Republicans).

A budget should be established every year and adopted so these CR’s become irrelevant relics but, the fact is, it’s a powerful tool to drive political goals and is red meat to the democrat base who so desperately need something, anything, they can blame om Trump (obviously reality need not apply to thses types).  No way these go away any time soon, unfortunately

A CR isn't necessarily poor governance. Shutting down the government to force a policy change via CR is poor governance. Or putting policy changes into a CR to begin with. If you can't make a deal just keep the government operating on the status quo until you can make a deal. Likewise with the debt ceiling, I would support a constitutional amendment that specifically states that congress approves any necessary lending for all spending they have budgeted for. Creating government policy shouldn't be analogous to playing chicken.

I'll also clarity these are poor governance, they may or may not be poor politics depending on how well your side can spin things.

[yossarian22c]

Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He’s got to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of things. But you have to get a deal...

Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that... And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington.

I'm going to call BS here. The opposition can be intractable and obstructionist on principal.

However Trump torpedoed two bipartisan deals in the week before the shut down. Unfortunately congress doesn't want to put any unnecessary votes on the record so they didn't send him the compromise bill to force him to veto it. So Trump does carry some of the blame here but congress has the power to override his veto but that would take conviction on behalf of the Republican majority, which they clearly lack.

[DJQuag]

Fortunately, we know where the blame ultimately lies for a shutdown:

Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He’s got to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of things. But you have to get a deal...

Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the President’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead. And he doesn’t do that... And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Washington.

I'm sure everyone agrees.

Mother Jones says it, musr be true, amirite?

That's a Trump quote.

[Crunch]

I get that. I also get the context stripping that happened. The deal is still being made, Schumer and the democrats shut diwn the government as a tactic to get what they wanted, there was no deal in the works to avoid a shutdown. 

Cleaning up Obama’s DACA mess is the deal, so far Trump has lead from the front and made the democrats look pretty bad - you can see that in the lefts reactions today.

[yossarian22c]

Cleaning up Obama’s DACA mess is the deal, so far Trump has lead from the front and made the democrats look pretty bad - you can see that in the lefts reactions today.

Lead as in ... agreeing with whoever is in the room with him currently, then saying something else the next day?

[Seriati]

If you think about it this was a bit of an insane try for the Democrats.  Honestly, what does shutting down the Government do? 

It furloughs a tremendous amount of government workers - most all of whom are in government unions and generally represent one of the biggest, wealthiest and most active groups of Democratic voters.  They definitely put their own self interest ahead of the dreamers (government employee unions apparently were incredibly active on the phones), and outnumber them greatly.

It furloughs the military, while they don't tend to vote Democratic, the country as a whole is  highly sympathetic to their issues here.  It makes bad press directly, and lets high visibility attacks on patriotism, terrorism and all around safety issues gain ground.

It shuts down many government services - which impacts another large group of Democratic voters.

It lets the Trump admin minimize the impact of the shut down, which proves that Obama's admin deliberately made it worse than it had to be.

It shuts down a bunch of government agencies, which given the loyalties of the administrative state can only hurt the interests of the Democrats to keep these bureaucrats side lined.

It starts a media war where the Democrats have to insanely assert both that "Trump" is shutting down the government, but that the Democrats won't let the government run.  Even a sympathetic media couldn't sell that one.  I even saw multiple - poorly thought out - pieces claiming that it was a "Republican" shut down because the Republicans could change the rules to eliminate the filibuster.  Think about it, no rational Democrat should be advocating for the elimination of the filibuster, let alone practically demanding the Republicans do it against their interests (which would giver cover for doing so).

Everytime they counted out the vote in the Senate (to 50) they had to point out that the Republicans can only get to 50 and remind the reader of the sympathetic case that this is because John McCain is in the hospital with a deadly form of cancer.

Everyone already knows that the Dreamers have until March, and that there is support on both sides to resolve (in fact, I'd say this is in the realm of there will be a fix, just a question of when), so what was the urgency that demanded shutting down the government?

Oh yeah, the Dems also have to play the hypocrite after all the times they blasted Republicans for engaging in this tactic, which honestly is fine, but doesn't work as well for  a pro-big government party like the Dems (as compared to the hard right anti-government groups that usually force the shut down).

All in all, I think this tactical mistake came from too much identity politics and not enough looking at their voters as a whole.

[TheDeamon]

It starts a media war where the Democrats have to insanely assert both that "Trump" is shutting down the government, but that the Democrats won't let the government run.  Even a sympathetic media couldn't sell that one.  I even saw multiple - poorly thought out - pieces claiming that it was a "Republican" shut down because the Republicans could change the rules to eliminate the filibuster.  Think about it, no rational Democrat should be advocating for the elimination of the filibuster, let alone practically demanding the Republicans do it against their interests (which would giver cover for doing so).

In the vein of the Democrats are in a fantasy-land where they potentially control the House and Senate after this (2018) cycle, and the White House after 2020(and further increasing their hold on the House and Senate). It may have been partial gamesmanship on their part to provoke the Republicans into "Going Nuclear" on the filibuster so that they have nothing to obstruct them once"their turn" comes in the very near future with nobody the Republicans could scream at except themselves for having removed the road block for the Dems. (Which isn't to mention opening up the Republicans to further ridicule during this election cycle if they did so, which should further "amp up" left-wing opposition groups)

Otherwise the rest of your write neatly summarizes much of why I thought it wasn't going to work well for the Dems should the Republicans allow them to run with it, Trump's mouth aside.

Edit to add: This also ignores the potential option of Trump "playing a persona" to some extent as well and trying to "help" create a Democrat Majority in both houses of Congress so he can "pivot left" after the mid-term. I'm still not entirely convinced that his campaign wasn't a publicity stunt intended to undermine the Republican Nominee in 2016 as he did to Romney in '12, only he played the role a little too well against the Republicans in '16, and again against the Democratic candidate.

But I don't think 2018 is going to "go to plan" for anyone, whatever their plans may be, and so it's likely going to be an unproveable supposition regardless. Unless I miss my guess and the Dems DO take the House and Senate, in which case we should know by part way through 2019. I've pretty much resigned myself to Murphy's Law regarding "If anything can go wrong, it will" and the 2018 version will be Republican Control of Congress, but "popular will" as expressed through aggregate(and meaningless) vote tallies supporting the Dems.

[Wayward Son]

If you think about it this was a bit of an insane try for the Democrats.  Honestly, what does shutting down the Government do?

Actually, it does quite a lot.

The Republicans have been dragging their feet on settling DACA with the March deadline looming, being too busy trying to eliminate Obamacare and giving huge tax cuts to the rich.   It's also been hard for them, since the Freedom Caucus would prefer that the Dreamers just be deported and Trump changing his mind about it almost daily.  All this even though somewhere between 60 to 80 percent or so of the American public wants Dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship.

Shutting down the government was the only way for Democrats to force the Republicans to act.  And in that they succeeded.  McConnell has promised to bring a DACA bill to the Senate floor for a vote.  If the Republicans vote it down, they take the blame.  If Trump vetoes it, he takes the blame.  If it's a good bill and gets passed, the Democrats get the credit.

And if McConnell doesn't bring a bill to the floor, the Democrats have one more government shutdown to go before the deadline.

The only way this could backfire (and it's a possibility) is if the Republicans get a poison-pill bill onto the floor, so that the Democrats are forced to vote against it.  Then it's another game of whose media machine can convince the most people who was to blame.

And don't forget, the public usually forgets about government shutdowns after a few months (especially minor ones that had no impact).  So the shutdown itself probably won't affect the midterms at all.

So it was far from insane, unless you're considering how our government has been functioning for the last couple of decades "insane."  And I couldn't argue about that. 

[Wayward Son]

The polls also indicate that the Democrats won't shoulder much blame for the shutdown.

Per a new Quinnipiac University poll, 32% of voters blame congressional Democrats, 31% blame Trump, and 18% blame congressional Republicans.

But as FiveThirtyEight convincingly argues, the percentages for Trump and congressional Republicans can be combined.  That leaves 32% blaming Democrats and 49% blaming Republicans (with a whopping 19% thinking they are all a bunch of losers ).

Of course, things may change after the next shutdown, but for now, it looks like the Republicans have the 'splaining to do.

[Seriati]

If you think about it this was a bit of an insane try for the Democrats.  Honestly, what does shutting down the Government do?

Actually, it does quite a lot.

You seem not so much to be disputing what I said as adding other gloss.  Congratulations on the glass is half full attitude (even if the glass only had one swallow left).

The Republicans have been dragging their feet on settling DACA with the March deadline looming.....

What a pretty line.  Must of missed all the Democratic efforts to resolve DACA previously, or immigration generally, I mean really when was the last time they had complete control of the government, and had a promise to do it in up front (maybe not hundred days up front, but right after).  Oh yeah, when Obama got elected.  Seems like a lot of "blaming" the Republicans and zero leadership.  Funny how we're going to get actual immigration reform with a Republican government.

..., being too busy trying to eliminate Obamacare and giving huge tax cuts to the rich.

The horror of working on fixes for hundreds of millions of Americans before they work on a fix for DACA recipients.  If only they could be more like the Dems... oh wait, the Dems didn't even bother to try.

It's also been hard for them, since the Freedom Caucus would prefer that the Dreamers just be deported and Trump changing his mind about it almost daily.  All this even though somewhere between 60 to 80 percent or so of the American public wants Dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship.

That's true, which is why its going to happen.  Of course the same percentage did not believe that shutting down the government was an appropriate way to resolve DACA.

Shutting down the government was the only way for Democrats to force the Republicans to act.  And in that they succeeded

Total nonsense.  DACA is getting a fix no matter what, the only question is what else is getting fixed.

McConnell has promised to bring a DACA bill to the Senate floor for a vote.  If the Republicans vote it down, they take the blame.  If Trump vetoes it, he takes the blame.  If it's a good bill and gets passed, the Democrats get the credit.

If a clean bill gets passed you may be right.  Not getting a clean bill though.  Still want the credit when you fund Trump's wall and end chain migration?

The only way this could backfire (and it's a possibility) is if the Republicans get a poison-pill bill onto the floor, so that the Democrats are forced to vote against it.  Then it's another game of whose media machine can convince the most people who was to blame.

The shut down already back fired.  That's over and done, you don't get to revise that failed tactic into the larger whole.  It will be interesting to see the ultimate resolution.

And don't forget, the public usually forgets about government shutdowns after a few months (especially minor ones that had no impact).  So the shutdown itself probably won't affect the midterms at all.

I agree no one cares about this shutdown.  But unless the Dems find a way to pass something, I think you may find the results are not as rosy as you believe.

So it was far from insane, unless you're considering how our government has been functioning for the last couple of decades "insane."  And I couldn't argue about that. 

It was totally insane, to believe that the tactics of a group trying to shut down the government are workable for a big government deep state party.

[Wayward Son]

Must of missed all the Democratic efforts to resolve DACA previously, or immigration generally, I mean really when was the last time they had complete control of the government, and had a promise to do it in up front (maybe not hundred days up front, but right after).  Oh yeah, when Obama got elected.

If "complete control of the government" you mean "control of the House and a filibuster-proof control of the Senate," that was a whole four month period (from Sept. 24, 2009 to Feb. 4, 2010).  And that was when Obamacare was passed.  What else did you want the Democrats to have done then?

Funny how we're going to get actual immigration reform with a Republican government.

Which isn't surprising, since the reason nothing has been done on immigration is because of Republican obstruction.  Now they can't complain about how that nasty Democratic majority won't work with them.  And the Democrats are pushing them and threatening to close down the government about it, instead of just ignoring it.

Although I do have to give Trump credit for making it a crisis by threatening to end the DACA program.  Nothing like promising to do something immoral and unfair to finally get people to act.

DACA is getting a fix no matter what, the only question is what else is getting fixed.

I wouldn't count out the Freedom Caucus just yet.  They may just hiccup at the last minute.  Don't count your boobies before they are hatched.

Not getting a clean bill though.  Still want the credit when you fund Trump's wall and end chain migration?

The Democrats will shoulder some blame for allowing the wall and the end of chain migration, yes.  But that is the compromise they will have to make to save the 700,000 to over 1 million people from being deported.  They are the minority party, after all.

The shut down already back fired.

The polls agree--for the Republicans (see previous post).

It was totally insane, to believe that the tactics of a group trying to shut down the government are workable for a big government deep state party.

Except the government is not a "deep state," and Democrats haven't been able to overcome Republican obstruction since Clinton.  In fact, it's kinda nice to see Democrats use the tactics Republicans have been crowing about for these past several years.  Let's see how they like it.

But I agree that they shouldn't make a habit out of it.  Our country needs a government that actually governs.

[Wayward Son]

The horror of working on fixes for hundreds of millions of Americans before they work on a fix for DACA recipients.  If only they could be more like the Dems... oh wait, the Dems didn't even bother to try.

I guess you are discounting the bills passed in the Senate in 2006 and 2013.

Or is actually passing a bill considered "not trying."

[Wayward Son]

DACA is getting a fix no matter what, the only question is what else is getting fixed.

There is also the question of what "Amnesty Don" Trump will ultimately do.

[Seriati]

Which isn't surprising, since the reason nothing has been done on immigration is because of Republican obstruction.  Now they can't complain about how that nasty Democratic majority won't work with them.  And the Democrats are pushing them and threatening to close down the government about it, instead of just ignoring it.

Pretty sure that we're going to find that Democratic obstruction is also part of the problem in the near future.  There are definitely Republicans who won't vote for amnesty, or a path to citizenship, if you prefer, which means this only gets done with fairly heavy involvement by both parties, and unless they can get to 67% overall, with the consent of the President.

Although I do have to give Trump credit for making it a crisis by threatening to end the DACA program.  Nothing like promising to do something immoral and unfair to finally get people to act.

You are only thanking Trump because you are uninformed.  Trump literally saved DACA, it was about to be ruled on by the Federal courts because of a case pursued by the states that are opposed to immigration, and most analysts believed it would suffer the same fate as DAPA.  If it were ruled unConstitutional it would have been immediately dead.  Trump's action literally caused the claimants to delay their case.

In any event, it's really hard to convince me that following the law is "immoral and unfair" and some how the President is the evil one when Congress has consistently failed to fix the law.  DACA is literally unConstitutional, Obama even said it multiple times before he put it in place.  It was put in place anyway because governments have figured out they can far more easily violate the Constitution than you can hold them to account for it.

DACA is getting a fix no matter what, the only question is what else is getting fixed.

I wouldn't count out the Freedom Caucus just yet.  They may just hiccup at the last minute.  Don't count your boobies before they are hatched.

There is no chance of a unanimous Republican support.  I still view this as a certainty to get fixed.  Just a question of what else goes through in the trade.

Not getting a clean bill though.  Still want the credit when you fund Trump's wall and end chain migration?

The Democrats will shoulder some blame for allowing the wall and the end of chain migration, yes.  But that is the compromise they will have to make to save the 700,000 to over 1 million people from being deported.  They are the minority party, after all.

Trump offered up 1.8 million and a path to citizenship not just freedom from deportation.  But like I've said many times, he's more central on a lot of issues than either party, and the Dems will literally sacrifice their own "goals"  rather than give him a win if they can avoid it.

The shut down already back fired.

The polls agree--for the Republicans (see previous post).

Lol.  Happy for you, tell that to Schumer.

It was totally insane, to believe that the tactics of a group trying to shut down the government are workable for a big government deep state party.

Except the government is not a "deep state," and Democrats haven't been able to overcome Republican obstruction since Clinton.

Actually it literally is.  Democrats haven't been able to pass laws because Republicans don't want to work with them and because the laws Dems propose don't have real majority support.  So how have they managed to implement so many policies?  They've literally infested the Deep State, corrupted multiple agencies to follow hard left policies and ignore the law and their statutory limitations.  Heck they even did it openly by creating the unConstiutional Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which has no Congressional or Executive oversight, and is not even subject to Congressional control of its budget. 

You could not be more blatantly undemocratic than to support the Democrats efforts to control the permanent and unelected bureaucracy. 

In fact, it's kinda nice to see Democrats use the tactics Republicans have been crowing about for these past several years.  Let's see how they like it.

Go right ahead.  I hope the Dems do.  Unlike the Republicans the Dems have banked on identity politics for years, explaining away deliberately undermining one interest group is going to be very hard to do.  That's what tanked the government shutdown.  How you going to get the government employee's union to support being out of work to back the Dreamers next time?  How you going to explain scuttling a path to Citizenship for the Dreamers, knowing that the most likely consequences are either (i) the SC shutting down the overreach that suspends Trump's order, or (ii) the state's refreshing their case and DACA being ruled unconstitutional from inception?

But I agree that they shouldn't make a habit out of it.  Our country needs a government that actually governs.

I really don't think the Dems understand the impact resistance is going to have.  It was fundamentally a winning strategy (at a primary level) for Republicans because they have a strong core of people that don't want the government to function.  The Dems cores is exactly the opposite, and because of the build of their party, the Dems have to hurt one group to help another.  You'd think after Trump's gains with blue collar workers the Dems might have taken a look at how vulnerable they are to adopting public policies that split their voters.

[TheDrake]

Meanwhile, Shutdown 2019 is in full effect with bigger thrills than last time.

The Democrats refused to go to lunch. Maybe they heard about what Clemson got to eat.

[TheDeamon]

And to add to the hilarity, we have Trump's response to Pelosi's letter about the State of the Union Address.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives-nancy-pelosi/

[TheDrake]

Yeah! Coming up next, cutting off the power to the Capitol building? Shutdown Mania!

Meanwhile, he's also conscripted 36,000 tax men to work for free. I predict his returns are going to be leaked real soon.

[TheDeamon]

Pelosi and the Democrats took an optics hit on this one that is going to be very hard to play down, although I am sure they're going to get the Broadcast Networks plus CNN and MSNBC spin the living daylights out of it.

Honestly Trump waiting until they boarded the bus to go on junket was probably one of the most singularly brilliant (and childish) movies he could possibly make. He waited until their hands were deep into the proverbial cookie jar.

[DonaldD]

Characterizing a trip to Afghanistan as a "junket" requires either a ridiculous amount of dishonesty or ignorance of what the word actually means.

[TheDeamon]

Afghanistan sure, BELGIUM and Egypt? That's another matter.

And since when has Belgium been described as "a warzone" in the 21st Century?

[TheDrake]

Hmmm. How to describe Belgium?

"You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it's like living in a hellhole right now."

Donald J Trump

[DonaldD]

This should probably go under the "Misleading or False Claims by Trump" thread, but:

This weekend visit to Afghanistan did not include a stop in Egypt.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response-to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

[TheDeamon]

This should probably go under the "Misleading or False Claims by Trump" thread, but:

This weekend visit to Afghanistan did not include a stop in Egypt.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response-to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

Dubious, if there was a "required stop" going to Europe, with the Jet Stream acting as a tail-wind, there certainly is going to be a required stop coming back, so Egypt makes sense as a possible "third stop" on the itinerary. And given the Dems have reason to lie/mislead as well, it is hard to call without the official itinerary for the cancelled trip itself.

[TheDeamon]

On another front, are we in a "Millions for defense(or lack thereof in this case), not one cent tribute!" or something else mode here?

Pelosi refuses to fund $5.7 Billion wall because she feels it is immoral(never mind her history of supporting border walls as recently as 4 years ago), and ineffective.

The 2013 Government shutdown didn't last nearly as long as this one has, and cost taxpayers $24 Billion. It is very reasonable to assume we have blown well past that point by now.

At what point does the moral consideration of reopening the government and paying its employees, as well as reopening their affiliated public services outweigh whatever perceived harm comes from expanding the border wall?

IMO Dems win more by citing the cost of shutdown, call Trump irresponsible, fund the wall, and be done with it.

Of course, the Democratic House Leadership trying to jet off to Eurasia doesn't do much to make them look responsible. Particularly since they are the most neccessary parties required to be present in order to reopen the government.

"But Trump went to Iraq during the shutdown!" ....While the Democratic leadership had packed up and left Washington hours, if not days before he did, and he returned days before they did. Meanwhile he's sitting in Washington willing to talk, but the Democrats decide to leave and it's somehow the same thing?

This is an optics win for the Republicans, Dems trying to "whatabout: with it are walking into a trap.

Even going after the Republican led junket is a probable trap, as I suspect it was available as a bipartisan trip, and didn't involve the key leadership. Meanwhile Pelosi's trip was Democrat only.

[rightleft22]

Meanwhile he's sitting in Washington willing to talk

so funny 

[TheDrake]

Sure, Trump is willing to talk, if by talk you mean graciously accept a Democrat surrender to his demands.

It is going beyond just the wall and just the cost of the shutdown now. Democrats can't afford to throw up their hands and just give Trump what he wants, or they'll endure at least 24 more months of tantrums and demands. Trump can't back down because he is Trump, and because his base will excoriate him.

[Wayward Son]

At what point does the moral consideration of reopening the government and paying its employees, as well as reopening their affiliated public services outweigh whatever perceived harm comes from expanding the border wall?

IMO Dems win more by citing the cost of shutdown, call Trump irresponsible, fund the wall, and be done with it.

I don't see why the Democrats won't give in either, Daemon.

Just think what they can do when they retake the Presidency?  Universal healthcare, or shut down the government.  DACA citizenship, or shut down Homeland Security.  Reduction in military spending, or shut down the military (that's a win-win!)

When extortion becomes a standard political tool, there is no end to what can be accomplished!

At what point does giving in to extortion outweigh the harm of closing the government?

[TheDeamon]

Meanwhile he's sitting in Washington willing to talk

so funny 

Its funnier still because Trump and Pelosi are both playing immovable objects. Neither will budge in respect to their diametrically opposed views on the wall, while Trump is probably more than willing to give concessions on other things, but the Dems, by way of Pelosi, have decided to take the strange position that "Walls are immoral" after having previously had few issues with them.... And routinely passing foreign aid packages to help Mexico, Jordan, Israel, and several other countries build border walls.

[D.W.]

At this point it's not about The Wall.  It's the policy that is immoral.  (and yes, I know parts of it were on the books before Trump)  This is a line in the sand both against xenophobic tactics and Trump's "style" of governing/negotiating.  It's also, unfortunately, a perfect demonstration of how his own party isn't on the same page yet is terrified of going against him.  Or, more accurately, is terrified of HIS base.

If Trump wants a "win" he needs to go ahead and move on the claim that he has the executive power to declare a state of emergency and bypass Congress.  It will play well with his base, let the GOP off the hook and cost him nothing.  It will be tied up in courts, and most likely result in a clear decision of how limited the power of the president is to declare emergencies in the future AND he can still blame those pesky Democrats for stopping the wall imperiling us all from drugs and terrorists and the genetic purity of America... oh wait, we aren't suppose to say that last one out-loud.   

OR, this whole *censored*show is a distraction from his pending legal troubles.

OR...  his mission is to throw a wrench in as much of the government as possible now that he's managed to get his tax cuts through.  Whether that's to intentionally aid a foreign power or just that he wants to make things such a mess that "the government" doesn't have the attention span or capability to give him and his cohorts as much grief, I don't know.

[rightleft22]

I dislike both Trump and Pelosi method and think both are out of touch with reality.
Its funny because its sad 

[Wayward Son]

...while Trump is probably more than willing to give concessions on other things...

Bull.  He doesn't want to give an inch.

If he was willing, he wouldn't have walked out on the last meeting with Pelosi and Schumer after Pelosi said he wasn't going to get his wall.  A true deal-maker would have asked, "OK.  What would you want to reconsider?" not "Fine. I'm outta here."

And what would he offer?  A path for citizenship for DACAs?  The last time that came up, his Administration called it "a total catastrophe," that would create "mass amnesty for over 10 million illegal aliens, including criminals."  What else can he offer?

Pelosi has offered to open the government and discuss the wall issue separately.  Trump could make his concessions then.  But he doesn't want to, so he's willing to hold the government hostage instead. 

[DonaldD]

Correct me if I go wrong, here, but didn't Trump have both houses firmly in Republican control for almost two full years wherein they could have allocated any amount of wall monies without the Dems having any ability to stop them?

If they had just done their job (assuming the Republicans thought that funding the wall was their job) this would no longer be an issue... or is there some subtlety of US politics that I'm missing..?

[NobleHunter]

They might have had trouble getting it past the Senate due to the filibuster but there are ways around it. But if the GOP had been determined, I think the Dems would have blinked. Especially since no one's talking about funding the entire border wall yet.  If it wasn't a danegeld situation, the DNC would let Trump have a few billion for his wall and hope they take back control before too much money is wasted on it.

[yossarian22c]

If they had just done their job (assuming the Republicans thought that funding the wall was their job) this would no longer be an issue... or is there some subtlety of US politics that I'm missing..?

The filibuster in the senate where democrats could block things.

Although, Trump scuttled the deal that involved about 25 billion for boarder security (not just a wall) because it had a DACA fix but didn't have all the other immigration reforms he wanted. Basically Trump keeps walking away from deals that he previously agreed to, just like the current shutdown. The senate passed funding for the government by unanimous consent, then Trump backed away from the deal after agreeing too it. Since Pelosi took over the house they passed that exact same bill the Senate passed before but now the senate refuses to vote on it because of Trump. It is the ultimate in stupidity all the way around. I think if both chambers could cast a secret ballot on these funding measures it would pass easily and with enough margin to override a presidential veto. But fearing primaries they aren't willing to do it publicly.

[DonaldD]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-denies-pelosi-leak-charge-details-from-kabul-cable

So, did Administration officials inform reporters that the congressional delegation had booked flights?

[DonaldD]

If it wasn't a danegeld situation

There's that, but the Dems are now also in the position of being asked to vote for funding the border wall, as opposed to simply not filibustering the Republican majority.  I could see the potential anger by their own base being a pretty big disincentive...

[D.W.]

I think DonaldD is right.  The Dems have more incentive to not negotiate at all.  Trump on the other hand is probably (or will be?) willing to concede just about anything else as long as he wins the symbolic victory of funding The Wall.  If he has to give away something damaging to the GOP to achieve it, he would throw them under the bus in a heart beat.  His loyalists would be so high off their win that they wouldn't even notice what it just cost them.

[Seriati]

Sure, Trump is willing to talk, if by talk you mean graciously accept a Democrat surrender to his demands.

The Democratic position  on the wall is absurd.  "Walls are immoral" is just nonsense. The border doesn't need addressing, demonstrably false by way of having illegal crossings.

They haven't offered a "better" plan or really any plan at all that addresses illegal crossings.  Closest Pelosi can come is to have more inspections at the ports (hello additional money in CA - gee wonder why that's the CA Representative's position). 

So the concession demanded is that part of a wall will be built.  Big woop.  They could ask for - and likely receive - other things to get there, within reason.  If they were smart they'd give a massive poison pill with wall funding and dare Trump to veto it.

Fact is, they are even more intractable than Trump is, and it's for one reason, and one reason only.  They are firmly convinced that no matter how much damage occurs, or how many people they hurt shutting down the government to opposing even a reasonable wall policy, the media is going to pin it on Trump.  Where you suffer no political consequences for bad behavior there is no pressure not to behave bad. 

When Schumer blew the last blame game shut down they caved immediately, this time they feel secure enough to party in the Carribean while Rome burns.

[Seriati]

If it wasn't a danegeld situation

There's that, but the Dems are now also in the position of being asked to vote for funding the border wall, as opposed to simply not filibustering the Republican majority.  I could see the potential anger by their own base being a pretty big disincentive...

Less than you think though, thanks to the last election there are plenty of Dems in districts where a pro-Trump vote hurts them less than you think.  In the Senate for example, Manchin is almost certain to vote for the wall.  The districts that really can't vote for the wall are the "safe" Democratic districts where a primary challenge is far more likely.