Bulk Custom Journal & Notebook...
Home & Garden3 mins ago
Trump Agrees To End Us Shutdown
In the first of two Trump threads I am planning to post -- the second will be, I hope, showing Trump in a more positive light than this one! -- it's time to distract ourselves from the ongoing Brexit argument by returning to the ongoing Trump argument!
https:/
The longest US government shutdown in recent history should have just ended, at least for now, as Trump's agreed to a deal that re-opens the government for three weeks. No money for the wall, but the next three weeks should still see some intense negotiations around how to deal with border security.
So, thoughts? Is this a "cave", something Trump had promised not to do? Is he trying to lose the battle to win the war? Has this all been a monumental failure? Are the Democrats geniuses, or are they now finally trapped into having to engage with border security on Trump's terms?
I leave the last word to Ann Coulter, a strong voice of the US Right:
https:/
Ouch...
https:/
The longest US government shutdown in recent history should have just ended, at least for now, as Trump's agreed to a deal that re-opens the government for three weeks. No money for the wall, but the next three weeks should still see some intense negotiations around how to deal with border security.
So, thoughts? Is this a "cave", something Trump had promised not to do? Is he trying to lose the battle to win the war? Has this all been a monumental failure? Are the Democrats geniuses, or are they now finally trapped into having to engage with border security on Trump's terms?
I leave the last word to Ann Coulter, a strong voice of the US Right:
https:/
Ouch...
Answers
Of course all of this (an similar "shutdowns") would be avoided if the USA altered its arrangements so that a disagreement between the President and Congress did not result in the country "shutting down". It is ludicrous that public employees end up without pay for weeks on end because politicians cannot agree with each other.
22:17 Fri 25th Jan 2019
I think that's rather too simplistic, not least because Trump did, after all, lose in the popular vote. Whilst this doesn't undermine his legitimacy as president it's still significant: it's unreasonable to expect to force such divisive policies through when more of the country is against you than for you.
Even setting that aside, though, Trump has had two years in which the Republicans controlled every level of the US political system, and could not get the money for his wall through then. Now that the Democrats have won there is even more of a mandate for them to continue resisting any border wall.
Therefore, there are at least two positions to choose from:
1. Trump does not have a mandate to build a border wall.
2. Trump *does* have a mandate to build a border wall, but, owing to the miderms, the Democrats have an equally valid mandate to resist it.
In either case, the idea that Trump can force through a border wall and the Democrats must roll over and concede the necessary funding and legislation is a complete misunderstanding of how American politics works.
Even setting that aside, though, Trump has had two years in which the Republicans controlled every level of the US political system, and could not get the money for his wall through then. Now that the Democrats have won there is even more of a mandate for them to continue resisting any border wall.
Therefore, there are at least two positions to choose from:
1. Trump does not have a mandate to build a border wall.
2. Trump *does* have a mandate to build a border wall, but, owing to the miderms, the Democrats have an equally valid mandate to resist it.
In either case, the idea that Trump can force through a border wall and the Democrats must roll over and concede the necessary funding and legislation is a complete misunderstanding of how American politics works.
How things work in practice may be different to how they ought or perhaps were expected to. Seems strange though that the Republican politicians failed to support their president when they could. It's almost as if they wanted to strike a blow against their own party. Still, roll on the state of emergency, eh ?
I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time the Democrats have tried several times since they took control of the house to reopen the government: the position they took has been that discussions over border security can -- and should! -- proceed without needing to tie it to financing the government and averting a shutdown. The current deal is, then, pretty much exactly in line with what the Democrats have been offering: open the government and we'll discuss Border Security and the border wall.
The only way Democrats could have opened the government earlier, then, is to concede entirely on the funding that Trump wanted for the wall. I'm not sure it's fair to blame them for sticking to their guns on this, although granted I would say that as I tend to support them on this issue anyway.
The only way Democrats could have opened the government earlier, then, is to concede entirely on the funding that Trump wanted for the wall. I'm not sure it's fair to blame them for sticking to their guns on this, although granted I would say that as I tend to support them on this issue anyway.
// Seems strange though that the Republican politicians failed to support their president when they could. //
In retrospect I think I probably pulled a nice sleight of hand here: Trump wasn't able to get funding for the wall even while Republicans were in control of Congress because the Democrats in the Senate would block it; as is their right, because finance bills in the US require "supermajorities" of 60/100 votes or more to pass, but Republicans only had 52 Senate seats at the time. American politics is obsessed with seeking compromise, and it's been difficult to find this lately.
In retrospect I think I probably pulled a nice sleight of hand here: Trump wasn't able to get funding for the wall even while Republicans were in control of Congress because the Democrats in the Senate would block it; as is their right, because finance bills in the US require "supermajorities" of 60/100 votes or more to pass, but Republicans only had 52 Senate seats at the time. American politics is obsessed with seeking compromise, and it's been difficult to find this lately.
ich: "’m not following you.
Everyone gets paid eventually.
It was Trump who shut down the government. I don’t see shutting down the government AND refusing to pay congress members who don’t agree with you helps.
I think you’d be looking at another revolution if you tried that ;-) " - gawd you are turning into ZM, like nailing jelly to a wall. Yes they all get paid eventually I suggest that the list of those that don't get paid during the shutdown includes all congress members and probably the president too. Where did I say only congress members that don't agree with me? you just seem to be being obtuse when it's perfectly clear what I am saying.
Everyone gets paid eventually.
It was Trump who shut down the government. I don’t see shutting down the government AND refusing to pay congress members who don’t agree with you helps.
I think you’d be looking at another revolution if you tried that ;-) " - gawd you are turning into ZM, like nailing jelly to a wall. Yes they all get paid eventually I suggest that the list of those that don't get paid during the shutdown includes all congress members and probably the president too. Where did I say only congress members that don't agree with me? you just seem to be being obtuse when it's perfectly clear what I am saying.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.