Lilienthal wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Dont really care what they say. That poll was mostly like bombarded with leftists. Regardless, Fox is also MSM. Part of the problem.

Go watch Info Wars. Alex is probably still saying what you want to hear...

Dont watch that either.

Slug71 wrote:

Lilienthal wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Dont really care what they say. That poll was mostly like bombarded with leftists. Regardless, Fox is also MSM. Part of the problem.

Go watch Info Wars. Alex is probably still saying what you want to hear...

Dont watch that either.

It's ok, Most Trump supporters are in complete surprise of how much Pelosi dominated Trump.

Slug71 wrote:

Yeh no way he did it so that people can get paid. Hes just a big old meany to do something like that. This isn't over. It's only funded until the 15th of next month.

If he truly cared about 800,000 workers not being paid, he wouldn't have caused the shutdown in the first place. And before you screech that the Dems caused it, allow me to remind you from the orange turd himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uSJsYq ... u.be&t=910

"And I'll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security , Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems, and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it."

casinterest wrote:

It's ok, Most Trump supporters are in complete surprise of how much Pelosi dominated Trump.

Actually, I'm mostly surprised Trump was able to hold out this long. I'm also surprised Pelosi held out this long. I figured one or both would have caved long before this.

But is this really a cave in? This gets us 3 weeks of reprieve, and then we're right back where we were. If Trump gets this supposed bill he mentioned passed in those three weeks, isn't he really the winner?

Also, I assume this means Pelosi has now invited him to do his SOTU address.

trpmb6 wrote:

But is this really a cave in? This gets us 3 weeks of reprieve, and then we're right back where we were. If Trump gets this supposed bill he mentioned passed in those three weeks, isn't he really the winner?

The Democrats have made very clear that Trump will not get a bill that includes wall money so no, he will not be a winner if that's the benchmark and after this debacle he won't re-shut down the government. The question is whether he will declare a State of Emergency and whether that would make him a 'winner' in anyone's eyes.

trpmb6 wrote:

Also, I assume this means Pelosi has now invited him to do his SOTU address.

This was asked at the Chuck/Nancy presser after the Trump announcement. She said they would discuss a future date once the government was formally re-opened. I would not expect it to take place next week.

This is going to come down to "wall" terminology. Just as it has here. I see some posters claiming "Obama got his wall" and then equating that to what is going on now. But that is spurious at best, Obama really wasn't into "a wall", any wall funding was guided by the DHS and border politics, requests from districts and border patrol sections that needed barriers or needed a new one or maintenance etc. Trump has made it a point to build his "wall", and we have seen prototypes for "the wall" in San Diego. And he has said many times that he wants the wall along the entire border (though he is now very much back off that).

Those are two very different things. If Trump can support the normal budget with funding as was done previously then he'll be fine and get "wall" I guess. But if he wants something specific in the budget that ensures "his wall" then I suspect we are headed for another impasse.

I am good with border walls and barriers as they are currently being done. I am not OK with wasting billions to build a monstrosity and trying to do so along the entire Mexican border (because no "the wall" supporter cares about or is concerned with the Canadian border and they can't stop themselves making excuses for such).

Just get a budget in place and fund our national security needs without electioneering and trying to force a trite campaign promise.

Tugg

Where's the praise for Trump for compromising and agreeing to open the government again while more negotiations are made?

Oh that's right, compromise is only commendable if it's your party doing the compromising. Party over country. Party over people. Partisan politics at its finest. No wonder this country is collapsing.

MSPNWA wrote:

Where's the praise for Trump for compromising and agreeing to open the government again while more negotiations are made?

There was no compromise here. Trump made demands and shut down the government over those demands, his demands were not met, and after inflicting unnecessary suffering on government workers he capitulated after seeing the writing on the wall in the Senate and in the polls yesterday. He then ended the government shutdown that he single-highhandedly caused and owned. Not inflicting further unnecessary damage to this country does not earn you praise.

“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. … I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.”

MSPNWA wrote:

No wonder this country is collapsing.

The country is not collapsing. Histrionics like that are ridiculous.

As to commending the president on compromising.... what exactly is the compromise here? Are you giving Trump kudos for this compromise? If there is a compromise then the Dems get some credit too. Do you give them credit? But again, for what? This is a temporary agreement that reopens the government and ends the ridiculous and unnecessary harm that was being done to millions of people.

Any "compromise" is yet to be made.

They have three weeks to get that made and done.

We'll see what happens.

Can I expect your praise for whatever compromise is done?

Tugg

Even if Trump declares an "emergency" three weeks from now and attempt to fund his wall, I bet the courts will strike it down on the basis that you cannot "announce an emergency" three weeks in advance before it actually happened.
And if you are still skeptical, I suggest filing the injunction in California or Hawaii. I guarantee 100% that any court in those two states will block Trumps Wall, no matter what.

The rightie denial here is just hilarious.

Trump owned the shutdown. He claimed the shutdown. He was proud of the shutdown.

Now he’s folded like a bad poker player. Which is appropriate given his inability to make money as a casino owner.

“And I moved on him very heavily. He wanted to get some wall. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice walls.’ I moved on him like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. Then all of a sudden I see him, he’s now got the big phony rhetoric and everything. He’s totally changed his position. When you’re Madam Speaker, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the balls. You can do anything.”

Dieuwer wrote:

Even if Trump declares an "emergency" three weeks from now and attempt to fund his wall, I bet the courts will strike it down on the basis that you cannot "announce an emergency" three weeks in advance before it actually happened.
And if you are still skeptical, I suggest filing the injunction in California or Hawaii. I guarantee 100% that any court in those two states will block Trumps Wall, no matter what.

It is amazing that our nation has survived so well - for more than two centuries - without a medieval wall between us and our southern neighbors. Now some narcissistic man-child wants to build a vanity project to himself... and the Trumppuppets are believing that hoards of murderers and rapists - craftily disguised as women and children - are invading and taking over the country.

Joseph McCarthy, in his most demagogic days, couldn't hold a candle to this flim-flam man...

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Not until he declares an emergency.



Doubtful, I still think Trump has a shot at a second term though he has done everything to blow it. Also the RNC doesn't have anybody in the wings that can beat him in the primary.

So we may wind up with a 3rd party independent run. I don't think Trump has enough backing to win a 2nd term, and with all the reports out about stone,cohen and others, he may be damaged goods when it comes to the General Election. Not many Senators or Representatives will want to run on those coat tails.

You will get a third party run regardless. I will like to see the Mueller report before I decide but he has done everything to make himself a one termer.

Holy crap!!!!! Nikv and DLX agree on something?!?!?!

Its amazing the big time fancy developer failed at the ONE THING that involved building actual structures.

Business as usual though.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's ok, Most Trump supporters are in complete surprise of how much Pelosi dominated Trump.

Actually, I'm mostly surprised Trump was able to hold out this long. I'm also surprised Pelosi held out this long. I figured one or both would have caved long before this.

But is this really a cave in? This gets us 3 weeks of reprieve, and then we're right back where we were. If Trump gets this supposed bill he mentioned passed in those three weeks, isn't he really the winner?

Also, I assume this means Pelosi has now invited him to do his SOTU address.

I don't think Trump had the political capital to wage the wall fight again . His only hope is that McConnell and Pelosi work a deal to give more border security funding . There will be no wall funding though.

Trump caved, and he had no choice. The polls were not in his favor, and the Moderates in the senate were ready to revolt on McConnell. Thom Tillis from NC did not vote for the opening originally, but he would have had to cave. NC is not above kicking out a GOP popular elect. NC has a Democrat as Governor after McCrory screwed the pooch on Coal Ash amongst other items

Trump has officially signed the deal to reopen the Government.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... d2da151698
5 weeks later. Many people have lost jobs in the private sector, and lives have been turned upside down.

All for a structure built on lies.

May it never happen again.

This may sound strange, but I believe there are many republicans on Capitol Hill who wanted this very outcome. Think about this. The perfect way to end the shutdown without making it appear that Trump caved would have been to pass the original house bill and override a Trump veto. Trump would have been seen as holding his ground. Instead I believe that the real reason no vote was taken was because McConnell knew all along that Trump would cave and by allowing him to cave, it makes him look bad and takes away a lot of political capital from Trump. There are many in DC who wont say it publicly, but you know darn well they want Trump gone.

From The President:

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!
6:33 PM - 25 Jan 2019

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4791100417

The Question is....what kind of deal will be done??

DIRECTFLT wrote:

From The President:

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!
6:33 PM - 25 Jan 2019

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4791100417
The Question is....what kind of deal will be done??

I think it is fair to say his Twitter messages are no closer to truth than anything else he says...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

From The President:

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!
6:33 PM - 25 Jan 2019

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4791100417

The Question is....what kind of deal will be done??

So why hold millions of people hostage? Take millions to the brink of loss? Where is the win in that?

In many ways, this simply says that individual #1 blinked first and will, in all likelihood, forget come February.

I wonder if he did this to take the heat off his friend's arrest?

Slug71 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Wrong. This is all chuck and Nancy and the Senate.

Fox News says otherwise.

Dont really care what they say. That poll was mostly like bombarded with leftists. Regardless, Fox is also MSM. Part of the problem.

The Democrats got their $6.1 Billion for the Border when Obama was in office. Every other President probably got what they wanted. But oh no, Trump cant have nothing.

They probably had a plan what they wanted to do with them money while Trump didn't? And wanted a 5.7 billion slush fund for an, in no way defined, wall?

Which president has ever gotten a blank check to the tune of billions from congress?

Best regards
Thomas

There are 2 shutdowns over today! Hurrah!

Well done to my fellow Evil Liberals during the Midterms, and tip of my hat to Nancy the Ballcrusher!

casinterest wrote:

winginit wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

It's just a poll. At the end of the day it means nothing.

At the end of the day one might argue that it was polls that lead to Trump caving in such humiliating fashion today...

In every sense of the word. He lost. Trump is a LOSER.

He wanted the shutdown, he owned the shutdown, he CAVED on the shutdown.

If his base believes otherwise, then they are not a base that can be trusted with ensuring the USA's future.

He really had no choice but to "cave". I'm not going to fault him for that.

I fault him for not for seeing that there was no way of winning this battle the way he was fighting it and all he did was damage our own country. There were ways to negotiate for his "wall" funding, but this wasn't it. If this was just political theater to stoke his base, why in the world did he shoot down a budget bill passed by a fully Republican controlled congress? Its absolutely absurd and Democrats really aren't opposed to "border security" and probably would negotiate as long as there wasn't political hostage taking going on.

There was that video of senator Bennet's shutdown speech that made its rounds on the internet yesterday. He made some damn good points.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... r-speech-/

Figured posting a link with fact checking included would make this discussion easier.

Backed by Democrats and 14 Republicans, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed the Senate on a 68-32 vote in June 2013. Bennet voted in favor of the bill, Cruz voted against it. (The Republican-controlled House did not take up the bill.)

That bill included more than $46 billion for border security. The vast majority of that money, $30 billion, was for the hiring and deployment of more U.S. Border Patrol agents along the southern border. The bill said at least $7.5 billion should be used to repair or replace border fencing. It also set money for infrastructure, technology and other border security projects.

The Senate passed a $46 billion border security bill in 2013, including $7.5 billion for border barriers. House republicans killed that bill, not democrats. I can imagine that was because... well... they were sabotaging any action being made during the Obama admin, not because border security itself is a partisan issue. But it's a pretty good indicator that it's not the democrats who have been lax on "border security". The Senate Bill had bipartisan support.

"Border security" isn't a partisan issue, it's a fake "dividing issue" team trump came up with. Now that they've conjured up this wedge to divide us with they're beating us over the heads with it so hard we are forgetting we never disagreed on it in the first place.

We only disagreed on the stupid wall, in the way it's been presented to us. Not border security.

MSPNWA wrote:

Where's the praise for Trump for compromising and agreeing to open the government again while more negotiations are made?

Oh that's right, compromise is only commendable if it's your party doing the compromising. Party over country. Party over people. Partisan politics at its finest. No wonder this country is collapsing.

1) He didn't compromise. He caved.
2) He started the whole thing. Look at my post upthread, there is a link to the video of him being proud to take responsibility for the shutdown. I even highlighted the text in bold red letters so it's easier for you to read.

The country is not collapsing, but the orange turd is doing a hell of a lot of damage that's going to take years to fix. By voting for him, you are partially to blame. Own it.

NIKV69 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

for
No it isn't.

All they had to do was approve the funding. So yes it is.
Obama got his $6.1 billion. What was their compromise?

This still goes back to fringes on both sides. Left wants open borders and right wants legal immigration. The base of the democratic party wants illegal immigration to be tolerated and welfare and health care for illegal aliens. If they didn't we wouldn't have sanctuary cities. The right wants legal immigration. If you read into the fringe media and it's spin that the right is racist and all the other smoke well you will believe what you believe.

Some Democrats and most business operators who rely on cheap labor want lots of illegal immigrants. It seems most Americans want reforms to minimize the number of illegal immigrants, provide an avenue to supply labor, and ensure legal immigrants who are genuinely fleeing a terrible place or have something to offer to America make their way in. The devil, of course, is always in the details.

Maybe you're right. The fringe left wants to bank votes that will be delivered in a dozen years, while the fringe right wants a big, beautiful 1,500 mile monument to racism on our southern border.

Waterloo - definition.

Waterloo is considered the culmination of Napoleon’s Trump's overreaching hubris.
When a person meets his Waterloo, he has met an insurmountable problem and suffered irreversible defeat.

The train now arriving at London Waterloo is the 20:19 Trump Express; calling at Tantrum, Shutdown, PaddyWack and Cave-in.

All passengers wishing to alight at Lucidity, please wait until 20:20 when we hope normal service will be resumed.






(thx to https://grammarist.com/usage/waterloo-o ... -waterloo/ , Wikipedia & oilersnation.com)

MSPNWA wrote:

Where's the praise for Trump for compromising and agreeing to open the government again while more negotiations are made?

Oh that's right, compromise is only commendable if it's your party doing the compromising. Party over country. Party over people. Partisan politics at its finest. No wonder this country is collapsing.

Compromise? This deal was presented to him weeks ago and he said no. Now he said yes with no conditions. How is this anything other than a loss for Trump? Now the adults in the room can come up with the compromise for him to agree to later.

For whatever reason the Presidents wanted this fight he got his fight. Only he will know if it’s worth it though he clearly hasn’t received the stated goal.

Regarding a Declaration of Emergency — if he was going to do that he could have already done it rather than threaten to do it in three weeks time. I suspect he knows it’ll be tied up in court with a good chance of losing. Mr. Trump absolutely understands litigation risks. We also know he’s a child who likes to run his mouth to get attention. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting on all the lawsuits to be filed against the women from 2016...as promised.

Which brings us back to what was the real reason he wanted this fight. Personally I think he shafted Senator McConnel, agreed to the bill back in December, but had every intention of actually causing a ruckus.

You just can't make this up:

'Trump’s golf course employed undocumented workers — and then fired them amid showdown over border wall'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

I don't mean to get the thread off track. If someone could answer with a couple of links, that would be fine with me.

How did Obama intensify the already expanded powers of the Executive? I see this point made by Republicans all the time but I don't remember it happening. ODS or did I miss something?

seb146 wrote:

I don't mean to get the thread off track. If someone could answer with a couple of links, that would be fine with me.

How did Obama intensify the already expanded powers of the Executive? I see this point made by Republicans all the time but I don't remember it happening. ODS or did I miss something?

When republicans took over Congress and refused to pass *anything* while he was president he made extensive use of executive orders. This is how Trump walked in and rescinded a lot of executive orders that caught the general public by surprise, like DACA.

The ambiguity of what exactly a president can and can't do with their executive powers makes it easy for the right wing spin machine make it seem like he abused them. And I suppose in a way he did overstep, but not for the wrong reasons. He bypassed a Congress intentionally sabotaging the country just because they wanted to damage his presidency.

treetreeseven wrote:

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

The problem is, the legislative branch has seemed to be more than happy giving power to the executive branch because they are afraid to make any tough decisions.

cledaybuck wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

The problem is, the legislative branch has seemed to be more than happy giving power to the executive branch because they are afraid to make any tough decisions.

And when they simply pass the buck back and forth, they can blame each other.

However, this time, it was clearly the occupant of the White House who wanted the shut down. Republicans half went along with it because party before country. But, as the Republican shut down went on and on, more Republicans abandoned their leader.

seb146 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

The problem is, the legislative branch has seemed to be more than happy giving power to the executive branch because they are afraid to make any tough decisions.

And when they simply pass the buck back and forth, they can blame each other.

However, this time, it was clearly the occupant of the White House who wanted the shut down. Republicans half went along with it because party before country. But, as the Republican shut down went on and on, more Republicans abandoned their leader.

Yeah, but if they were truly independent, we could have avoided a shutdown altogether.

cledaybuck wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

The problem is, the legislative branch has seemed to be more than happy giving power to the executive branch because they are afraid to make any tough decisions.

That's kinda out of context right now. The legislative branch, that is Congress, just used their power to put the executive in check.

Any lack of power on the part of the legislative branch isn't because of them shirking power, it's the opposite. The Republicans and the Democrats both are using all their power to hold the other guy in check.

cledaybuck wrote:

if they were truly independent, we could have avoided a shutdown altogether.

Independent of what?

salttee wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

I'm torn between wanting him to declare a "national emergency" (lol) so we can have a fight over appropriate bounds on the Executive branch overreach that was first taken up with true enthusiasm by Dubya, and intensified under Obama.... and being afraid that the courts and/or Congress would somehow end up cementing yet another expansion of Executive power, rather than getting it back under control.

The problem is, the legislative branch has seemed to be more than happy giving power to the executive branch because they are afraid to make any tough decisions.

That's kinda out of context right now. The legislative branch, that is Congress, just used their power to put the executive in check.

Any lack of power on the part of the legislative branch isn't because of them shirking power, it's the opposite. The Republicans and the Democrats both are using all their power to hold the other guy in check.

cledaybuck wrote:

if they were truly independent, we could have avoided a shutdown altogether.

Independent of what?

The executive branch. The senate voted overwhelmingly for the current bill before Trump opened his mouth.

We have a two party system, the legislators from the party in power will never be completely independent of the wishes of the president who is the leader of their party. And right now things are at the extreme end so the Republicans are almost to the man acting as one in unison with the president, against the Dems. This administration sees the Democrats as a greater enemy of theirs than Russia or North Korea.

Therein lies the problem.

Looks like Trump and his illiterate, advisers are going to make another Run at the shutdown.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politics ... index.html

The GOP is a party that wants to go extinct.

"At the end of the day, the President is going to secure the border, one way or another," Mulvaney said, referring to the use of executive action.

I think that he agreed to re-open in order to position the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks. Whether or not that strategy will work is the question.

Magog wrote:

I think that he agreed to re-open in order to position the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks. Whether or not that strategy will work is the question.

That's a hoot! He wants to label the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks.

salttee wrote:

Magog wrote:

I think that he agreed to re-open in order to position the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks. Whether or not that strategy will work is the question.

That's a hoot! He wants to label the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks.

And he proudly owned the first shutdown! The right-wingers here seem to have forgotten that in their desperation to blame the democrats for something that was entirely of Trump's doing.

salttee wrote:

Magog wrote:

I think that he agreed to re-open in order to position the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks. Whether or not that strategy will work is the question.

That's a hoot! He wants to label the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks.

A lot of this depends on the Russia investigation. If nothing is happening with the Russia investigation in three weeks, he will sign the bill with little to no wall funding and claim victory and that he never wanted a wall in the first place OR he will veto a bipartisan bill, shut the government again, blame Democrats and keep screaming and crying and being interviewed to distract from the Russia investigation.

Magog wrote:

I think that he agreed to re-open in order to position the Democrats as the obstructionists when he shuts down government in three weeks. Whether or not that strategy will work is the question.

A hard core addict that wants to do drugs will do drugs whether you put them in rehab or not. Trump is a hard core lying racist. He will do Lying Racist things, and expect different outcomes even though it won't happen.

A result of the end of the shutdown:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

A result of the end of the shutdown:

Yep, funny how thousands of workers got screwed, and all Trump had to do was miss some golf rounds and wait a week to deliver is state of the union speech.

According to the CBO, the shutdown cost the country $11 Billion in the short term with about $3 Billion of that irrecoverable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/p ... -says.html

This thread has been dragged completely off topic. Since the shutdown is over (for now, at least), much of the discussion seems to have run its course.

✈️ atcsundevil