Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

Please, those were not punks. Those were prim and proper Christian boys. Or are you suggesting they hid their mohawk under their MAGA hats? Anyway, any bets who of those will grow up to be the next Mike Pence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans use that term differently, I believe. As in, worthless person, lowlife...

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the proposed-and-now-rejected deal:

Look, to be worth taking, any deal McConnell or Trump proposes that includes wall funding doesn't just have to be a good deal. It has to be sensationally good.

Why? Because right now Trump is as deep in a corner as he has ever been, and he painted himself into it. If he doesn't get this wall funding, politically he is deeply, deeply damaged. Maybe finished. His base will not forget it. This truly has the potential to be the thing that breaks his hold over quite a lot of them.

The stakes are very high for Trump here. This chance may not come back for Democrats. He can only be allowed to get that funding at a dear, dear price, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mormont said:

On the proposed-and-now-rejected deal:

Look, to be worth taking, any deal McConnell or Trump proposes that includes wall funding doesn't just have to be a good deal. It has to be sensationally good.

Why? Because right now Trump is as deep in a corner as he has ever been, and he painted himself into it. If he doesn't get this wall funding, politically he is deeply, deeply damaged. Maybe finished. His base will not forget it. This truly has the potential to be the thing that breaks his hold over quite a lot of them.

The stakes are very high for Trump here. This chance may not come back for Democrats. He can only be allowed to get that funding at a dear, dear price, if at all.

The biggest thing is not to be trading temporary policies for permanent ones. Democrats learned that the hard way when they agreed with Republicans to extend more of the Bush tax cuts then they wanted in exchange for a year(? maybe a couple years?) of continuing extended unemployment insurance benefits. Democrats assumed Republicans would never allow those benefits to lapse, but they did.

Here, Trump is offering a three-year policy (and really, just undoing his own policies and going back to the Obama-era status quo) in exchange for a permanent wall (or at least, parts of a wall). Fuck that. There need to be permanent protections for the DREAMERS and the other technically temporary resident groups Trump keeps trying to deport (like the Vietnamese and Hondurans who've ben here decades) before Democrats even consider giving any wall funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is funny about this wall isn't a wall wall government shut-down bs is this is the same thing Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War and associated Dixicrat assho1es tried to pull off when Franklin Pierce was President.  The Gadson Purchase was the last significant manifest destiny land grab -- the borderlands between US territory and Mexico, the Gadson Purchase. 

The fantasy was to build the essential transcontinental railroad along this southern border -- in order to make it financially and temporally feasible to transport overstock slaves to the California territory until, of course, California came into the US as a free soil state.

However, even without a slavery market in California, if the transcontinental ran in the south, the South would have control over the transport of California gold and other products through the territory it controlled, making Charleston an international port city. Never mind that the southerners could never be bothered to invest in carrying trade ships in the first place (or even in railroads either, or canals, earlier -- though some fellows in Mississippi particularly got Europe to invest in the canals they were going to build, but never did, and never paid the debt they'd incurred either), thus were dependent on the north for the transport of cotton to their overseas markets and to bring everything they needed in the south including their slaves' tools and food and clothes, as well as their own carriages and silks and wine and furniture -- not that this stopped them from the constant whine of how they were FORCED into this.

The problem with this fantasy railroad scenario of building a transcontinental railroad on the southwestern borderlands? Every competent surveyor and anyone who knew this territory understood that a railroad could not be built there due to geology and the technology for the grade beds of the tracks. There was no water and no wood to power the steam locomotives.  Jefferson Davis and his fellow assho!es insisted this was not so, falsified records and suppressed others -- as well as concocting secret deals to keep control of the territory in their own possession, and sell the bonds themselves.  The railroad bond market was notably corrupt in any case, and were fundamental to lobbying, bribing and buying Congressional members -- something the television series, Hell on Wheels did an excellent job of showing.

Further, the building of this fantasy railroad would demand a huge labor force and the slaveocracy just happened to have an overstock of labor for which it desperately needed a market.  This railroad would be built with slave labor and the Mississippi millionaires would get even more millions in credit! And California gold too.  Also, while we're at it, lets grab Cuba too, make it a state, whose sugar would provide a huge demand for their overstock slaves, since sugar killed the labor force within ten years, and with Cuba a part of the USA, by the Constitutional abolition of the African slave trade in 1808, it would have to buy the more expensive labor from the Southerners instead of the much less costly Africans.

However, this did not change the facts that the current technology wasn't capable of constructing a railroad on vast stretches of these borderlands-- just as many have shown that thr orange nazi's fantasy wallfencebarrier (which incidentally would put billions in the pocketses of the orange nazi's runners, controllers and fellow traitors) can't be built either on vast stretches of this planned borderland route.

It took secession to put this ridiculous scheme finally into the grave.  As we see throughout history, the South was incapable of doing anything, much less financing and building any kind of railroad anywhere.  When, in the 1880's it did become more feasible technologically to build railroads on this border, it wasn't the South who did it.  In the meantime the north continued working on the transcontinental across the midwest and the Rockies even during the Civil War (1863-1869). As with so much progressive action, such as cheap land sales of government lands to people desperately looking for a start for their own farm, public education, etc., this kidn of thing was constantly blocked by the Southerners in Congress. With them gone from D.C. progress could take place.  (Plus the US got its first national currency too!)

Even after all this time I never cease to be astounded by the degree to which the nation's previous history is repeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Americans use that term differently, I believe. As in, worthless person, lowlife...

We do--it's interesting I hadn't thought much about that term in the way you describe. It can mean both in America, but you never hear it referring to the subculture anymore. I mean, no doubt that calling kids a bunch of "punks" is rooted in fear/hate of the subculture.

Those kids were just monsters. I always tell my son you can't look at someone and know what they're thinking, but that kid in front of the vet just wears years of smugness and privilege on his face. His mom's out there defending him now saying that "black Muslims" are truly at fault here. I'm not surprised at all (that this kid's mom would respond this way). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Giuliani some deep mole?

Quote

President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on Sunday said that it's "possible" the president spoke to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, ahead of his congressional testimony.

"Which would be perfectly normal," Giuliani told CNN's "State of the Union." "So what?"

"As far as I know, President Trump did not have discussions with him," he added. "Certainly, no discussions with him in which he told him or counseled him to lie."n

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/426202-guiliani-says-trump-might-have-talked-to-cohen-about-his-testimony-so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mormont said:

Look, to be worth taking, any deal McConnell or Trump proposes that includes wall funding doesn't just have to be a good deal. It has to be sensationally good.

Why? Because right now Trump is as deep in a corner as he has ever been, and he painted himself into it. If he doesn't get this wall funding, politically he is deeply, deeply damaged. Maybe finished. His base will not forget it. This truly has the potential to be the thing that breaks his hold over quite a lot of them.

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more. His base is not so fixated on the wall that they'd ignore something like changes to immigration policy that allow people to walk through the gates. Also, I don't think one party being in a corner is a good analogy here: it implies that the other party has options whereas here nobody can give ground without losing face. A much better analogy is a pair of goats that have locked horns on a narrow bridge.

I'm watching the usual Sunday political interviews now and the pundits are refusing to speculate on how the shutdown will end. Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Well, if the President witness tampers, it's not witness tampering. But, he didn't do that anyway. If Russian prostitutes urinate on the President, it's not urine, it's liquid gold. No collusion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more. His base is not so fixated on the wall that they'd ignore something like changes to immigration policy that allow people to walk through the gates. Also, I don't think one party being in a corner is a good analogy here: it implies that the other party has options whereas here nobody can give ground without losing face. A much better analogy is a pair of goats that have locked horns on a narrow bridge.

I'm watching the usual Sunday political interviews now and the pundits are refusing to speculate on how the shutdown will end. Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

It's about much more to the Democrats than losing face or not. It's about not creating the precedent that Trump can extort the Democrats at any time he wants to get what he wants in the future. Trump is holding a gun to federal workers and demanding unlimited political power the rest of his term. 5 billion won't build the wall, so he will demand more later. He will likely demand to slash Medicaid at some point and who knows what else. 

Add to this, if the shutdown goes on for many months it will hurt Trump's election chances much more than Democrats, in particular the Democratic Presidential candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Trump does have one option that the Democrats do not: he can declare a state of emergency and try building the wall that way, but this will certainly be challenged in the courts. Interesting times.

I've read that congress has six months in which it must vote to end or continue the state of emergency, but there is nothing stopping Pelosi from having that vote immediately after Trump would declare it.  So she can shut it down, within six months or six seconds.  It would be a spectacular failure for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But if he pays way too much for the wall, he might be hurt even more.

BS.

Republicans and their voters don't give a damn about budgets or the deficits, when they have the oval office. They just whine about it, when the President is a democrat. Ask Paul "the numbers guy" Ryan, who proudly declared after they got their tax cuts the deficit was gonna blow up anyway.

Otherwise what other posters said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

Quote

Mr. Trump’s offer should be welcomed but not accepted as the final word. There should be room to talk about the amount of money; how border security will be defined and enhanced; which categories of dreamers and TPS beneficiaries are covered; what their legal status will be, and for how long. But to refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined federal workers and contractors.

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

I've read that congress has six months in which it must vote to end or continue the state of emergency, but there is nothing stopping Pelosi from having that vote immediately after Trump would declare it.  So she can shut it down, within six months or six seconds.

Yes, Congress can vote to terminate a SoE immediately.  The problem is the president can veto so you'd need an override majority in both chambers.

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Republicans and their voters don't give a damn about budgets or the deficits, when they have the oval office.

I think by "pays too much" Altherion was referring to what he gives up in exchange for wall funding.  Ann Coulter already called his proposal yesterday amnesty and compared Trump to Jeb Bush (which in bizarro Coulter world is a huge burn).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

It looks like the Democrats may make a counter-offer quite soon.

Quote

They seem ready to. Earlier on Saturday, The New York Times’s Julie Hirschfield Davis reported that Democrats had plans of offering a concession of their own. In the coming week, House Democrats intend to pass a spending bill that will include an additional $1 billion to address border-security needs, like improving infrastructure at ports of entry and hiring immigration judges.

Here’s Trump’s latest offer to end the shutdown — and why Democrats aren’t interested
The “deal” Trump is offering on immigration and DACA, explained.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189549/trump-shutdown-announcement-deal-daca-democratsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

It looks like the Democrats may make a counter-offer quite soon.

As I said, that doesn't count:

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's becoming clear the Dems are making a tactical mistake by holding the line on "no negotiations until the government is reopened" in response to Trump's "compromise."  538 pointed out in a slack chat (in which Nate Silver freakily reiterated a lot of what I said here yesterday - that makes me uncomfortable) that almost all of the immediate headlines were some form of "Trump offers compromise, Dems reject." 

Watched the Sunday morning shows for the first time since I can remember, and this narrative was largely repeated by the talking heads.  Granted, I'm not sure how much (if any) influence those shows have as opinion-makers these days, but at the least they're still indicators on how the media narrative will start the coming week.  And then, there's this from the Washington Post Editorial Board:

I understand the Dems' reluctance to propose a counter-offer involving DACA/TPS - from about September 2017 to February 2018 Trump reneged on, like, half a dozen deals with Dems on the issue, so it'd be optimal to avoid going down that rabbit hole again.  But it's even less desirable if all the media has to talk about on the shutdown is Trump's offer (and of course his incessant tweets). 

If that goes on for awhile, then it is likely - and would be the intuitive expectation - that the Dems are gonna start losing ground in the blame game, particularly in polls that include a "blame both sides equally" option in the item.  And once polls start showing Trump is turning the tables, he's almost certainly gonna revert back to a hard line.  

The Dems of course would need to be very careful with a counter-offer, but I think something is necessary - and it'd be much wiser to do it sooner rather than when it's clear you should.  Also, no, the Dems' scheduled vote for additional border security does not count.  The public (rightly) doesn't care about pointless congressional votes, and same goes for the Senate GOP's attempt to vote on Trump's proposal (which will be filibustered).  Something like "if Trump and the Senate GOP agree to a pathway to citizenship for DACA/TPS, then in exchange we will negotiate a number on wall funding." 

I'm not sure exactly what the counter-offer should be, but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think their advantageous position/leverage cannot evaporate in a hurry.  And since Trump did the entirely unexpected thing in making a traditional, logical, and even competent maneuver, the Dems need to respond in kind.

Snivelry. The ram has touched the wall. 

No negotiation, no peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The ram has touched the wall. 

Had to look up that reference.  Anyway, the premise is wrong.  Ensuring the Dems maintain leverage on Trump is the best (and ultimately only) way to show no mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Had to look up that reference.  Anyway, the premise is wrong.  Ensuring the Dems maintain leverage on Trump is the best (and ultimately only) way to show no mercy.

I'm borderline educational. 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yes, Congress can vote to terminate a SoE immediately.  The problem is the president can veto so you'd need an override majority in both chambers.

I think by "pays too much" Altherion was referring to what he gives up in exchange for wall funding.  Ann Coulter already called his proposal yesterday amnesty and compared Trump to Jeb Bush (which in bizarro Coulter world is a huge burn). 

Ah ok, only returned home and my mind was/is still a bit busy with some other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×