U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nah, it was specifically targeting new dems in districts that Trump won in 2016, many part of a 'blue dog' caucus. It's kind of a smartish move! It worked with Manchin before. 

But they either couldn't show up or turned him down, leaving the lunch to Republicans only, and showing exactly how much power and unity Pelosi actually has. I'm honestly hugely pleasantly surprised; I wasn't as in to politics when she was speaker in 2006-2010, and her as minority speaker wasn't that impressive, but so far she has shown entirely to be the right person for the job. 

Yeah that does change the situation. That makes it kind of a non-issue either way unless they went and then broke in any way with Pelosi, which likely wouldn't have happened.

As for her previous Speakership, she was excellent at getting legislation through her chamber. She doesn't play all that well on TV, but she knows how to twist peoples' wrists in the backrooms and get what she wants passed.

On an unrelated note, I can't resist!:

 

 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Pelosi continues to show her mettle. House dems turn down trump's offer for lunch to talk about shutdown. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/economy/rank-and-file-democrats-reject-trumps-invitation-to-shutdown-talks-backing-leaders-in-united-opposition-to-border-wall/2019/01/15/2539482e-18d2-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

Pelosie eats healthy, as one can tell just by looking at her.  I'm not an admirer necessarily of Pelosie, but I wouldn't want to eat a White House lunch (or dinner) either.

Added: Ah -- I too read it as though it was she and associate who were bid to lunch on hamberbers and other multi-thousand, empty calorie junk foods.  And -- what in ell is an hamberber?  (No, I never eat in those places. I may be the only person on the planet who has never ever consumed a MacDonald's.  But then, I didn't used to ever ever watch tv either, but then came streaming on my computer screen, so who knows what the future holds.)

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I doubt Trump can completely flip the situation on the Dems, he's too unpopular for that, but he could pull them down into the muck with him like he did with Clinton. And if that happens and the shutdown drags out for a very long time, the Dems will blink.  

I think the hope is that it's Senate Republicans, and McConnell specifically, who blink. So far, only 3 or 4 have, and that's not nearly enough; but maybe more will buckle as things get worse.

And if they do, it'll be so overwhelmingly that there will more than enough votes to override any veto as well.

ETA: Speaking of cracks in Senate Republicans, 11 of them voted with Democrats to advance a resolution blocking Trump from lifting some of the sanctions in the 2017 Russia bill. It's not directly relevant to the shutdown politics since some of the 11 are the kinds of Republicans who'd probably be fine with the government being permanently shut, but it's a start. Though 2 more Republicans are needed if the others try to filibuster. The 11 are:

1) Boozman
2) Collins
3) Cotton
4) Daines
5) Gardner
6) Hawley
7) Kennedy
8) McSally
9) Moran
10) Rubio
11) Sasse

To me the surprises are Boozman, who usually doesn't make waves, and Hawley, who seemed like a typical Trump-y Republican in the campaign. All the rest are either up for re-election in 2020 or have consistently been Russia hawks even in the current times.

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a small thing, but those accumulate. And good god man, we're Democrats.  Don't you know our default position is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? 

First, there's absolutely no evidence that such "small things" accumulate.  Second, well, maybe if Dems did not stereotypically hand-wring that your constant concerns seem to exemplify, they wouldn't lose so much.  

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I doubt Trump can completely flip the situation on the Dems, he's too unpopular for that, but he could pull them down into the muck with him like he did with Clinton. And if that happens and the shutdown drags out for a very long time, the Dems will blink.

Shutdowns are generally a pox on both houses.  That doesn't mean the Dems should blink - as long as Trump's numbers continue to drop as well (meaning the Dems maintain a significant advantage).

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

And if they do, it'll be so overwhelmingly that there will more than enough votes to override any veto as well.

Ironically, it be tougher to pass an override vote in the House in such an instance.

[Martell Spy]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, there's absolutely no evidence that such "small things" accumulate.  Second, well, maybe if Dems did not stereotypically hand-wring that your constant concerns seem to exemplify, they wouldn't lose so much.  

Shutdowns are generally a pox on both houses.  That doesn't mean the Dems should blink - as long as Trump's numbers continue to drop as well (meaning the Dems maintain a significant advantage).

Ironically, it be tougher to pass an override vote in the House in such an instance.

Yeah, whoever wins the nomination will get very little of the blame for the shutdown, even if they are a member of Congress. It's pretty clear Warren or Beto or Sanders are not personally causing this.

[DMC]

Judging by this thread, I'm pretty sure Tulsi Gabbard bears some of the blame.

[Kalbear]

I'm not sure that's wrong. 

Historically shutdowns don't end up mattering at all as far as elections go, but this one is a bit longer than usual. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Historically shutdowns don't end up mattering at all as far as elections go, but this one is a bit longer than usual.

Trying to measure a direct effect of shutdowns on elections that happen (at least) months later is a fool's errand anyway.  The 95-96 shutdowns happened 11 months before Clinton's reelection.  The 2013 shutdown happened 13 months before the 2014 midterms.  This one will be even further away from a major election.  Nobody really has any idea what impact they have on elections.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Trying to measure a direct effect of shutdowns on elections that happen (at least) months later is a fool's errand anyway.  The 95-96 shutdowns happened 11 months before Clinton's reelection.  The 2013 shutdown happened 13 months before the 2014 midterms.  This one will be even further away from a major election.  Nobody really has any idea what impact they have on elections.

That's true, though when asked people didn't mention it as a particular concern. Honestly, I doubt most people will be able to bring up anything from 2017-2019 that they hated about Trump. There's just so god damn much to hate. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, I doubt most people will be able to bring up anything from 2017-2019 that they hated about Trump. There's just so god damn much to hate. 

So, you're saying it'll be like Mr. Burns' diseases?  Uh oh:

 

[davos]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure that's wrong. 

Historically shutdowns don't end up mattering at all as far as elections go, but this one is a bit longer than usual. 

This is also a very unusual shutdown.  For starters, its was largely the white house that instigated this. Past shutdowns have generally originated in congress.  It's also Trump and everything he does breaks the rules.  This may well be the case where it finally bites him in the ass by sticking to him for a long time rather than fading away like other shutdowns.

[Fragile Bird]

I saw a headline on CNBC that the shutdown is now have twice the effect on the US economy than the WH originally predicted. I’m willing to bet that number increases the longer the shutdown continues. It was rather bizarre that they predicted, iirc, .1% reduction in GDP for every two weeks of shutdown, with no increase as time went by.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

Again, if Trump is not working in Russia's interests, why do nearly all of his actions suggest that he is?  

George W. Bush's Administration makes much more sense if you work with the assumption that he was an Iranian agent, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was.

[Fragile Bird]

33 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

George W. Bush's Administration makes much more sense if you work with the assumption that he was an Iranian agent, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was.

Oh, please, list all the things Bush did that parallel the stuff Trump and his cronies have done.

[Maithanet]

50,000 federal employees are being called back to work (without pay), because their work is looking essential after all.

Quote

The Trump administration on Tuesday said it has called back tens of thousands of federal workers to fulfill key government tasks, including disbursing tax refunds, overseeing flight safety and inspecting the nation’s food and drug supply, as it seeks to blunt the impact of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The nearly 50,000 furloughed federal employees are being brought back to work without pay — part of a group of about 800,000 federal workers who are not receiving paychecks during the shutdown, which is affecting dozens of federal agencies large and small. A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by unions representing air traffic controllers and other federal workers to force the government to pay them if they are required to work.

So...it seems like it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration whether someone does or does not need to come in.  So is there anything to stop him from just declaring that everybody is essential?  Then the "pain" of the shutdown would be 100% on federal workers, which seems like an ideal solution for Trump, who hates federal workers.  Obviously that would create medium term problems when they start striking en masse, but it would allow him prolong the shutdown many more weeks. 

I understand the judge's ruling on Tuesday, it really isn't in the judiciary's power to start dictating where federal money gets spent, and could lead to anarchy.  But at the same time, how long can federal workers be required to work without pay?  Can the federal govt just arbitrarily decide that workers will get paid only when they feel like it?  That doesn't sound legal. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

50,000 federal employees are being called back to work (without pay), because their work is looking essential after all.

So...it seems like it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration whether someone does or does not need to come in.  So is there anything to stop him from just declaring that everybody is essential?  Then the "pain" of the shutdown would be 100% on federal workers, which seems like an ideal solution for Trump, who hates federal workers.  Obviously that would create medium term problems when they start striking en masse, but it would allow him prolong the shutdown many more weeks. 

I understand the judge's ruling on Tuesday, it really isn't in the judiciary's power to start dictating where federal money gets spent, and could lead to anarchy.  But at the same time, how long can federal workers be required to work without pay?  Can the federal govt just arbitrarily decide that workers will get paid only when they feel like it?  That doesn't sound legal. 

Excuse me, but 

The law sounds like whatever Tucker Carleson and Jenean Pirro say it sounds like.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Excuse me, but 

The law sounds like whatever Tucker Carleson and Jenean Pirro say it sounds like.

Huh?  Trump has had a great many failures in court in the past two years.  The judiciary is far more conservative than I'd like, but the idea that it is an arm of Trump WH and Fox News is...not supported.

[Corvinus85]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

50,000 federal employees are being called back to work (without pay), because their work is looking essential after all.

So...it seems like it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration whether someone does or does not need to come in.  So is there anything to stop him from just declaring that everybody is essential?  Then the "pain" of the shutdown would be 100% on federal workers, which seems like an ideal solution for Trump, who hates federal workers.  Obviously that would create medium term problems when they start striking en masse, but it would allow him prolong the shutdown many more weeks. 

Is the WH kitchen staff part of this recall? Or is Trump never going to get tired of fast food? (rhetorical)

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Huh?  Trump has had a great many failures in court in the past two years.  The judiciary is far more conservative than I'd like, but the idea that it is an arm of Trump WH and Fox News is...not supported.

Don't worry, we've got 6 years to get there.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Don't worry, we've got 6 years to get there.

So you're laughing about a notion I expressed which was true, but may become false in the future?  How naive of me.