45 Blames Democrats for Govt Shutdown

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

You know, when Nixon lied to us, we had to work for it. We had to use sources and reporting and investigation.

This president has blame democrats for shutting down the government after saying "I am proud to shut down the government."

[Yukaphile]

After proudly taking credit for it. What a surprise.

[Zoinksberg]

He has been blaming them the entire time. Their desire to negotiate and not just give him exactly what he asks for is completely unacceptable, after all. If you ask Senate Republicans on the record they will agree with him. Ask them off the record and you might hear a different story.

It's a pretty bad time for him to keep burning bridges. Information that could be used for impeachment is piling up and there are more and more senate Republicans who have to be thinking how much easier it would be to deal with President Pence.

Oddly enough, President Pence would probably also have an easier time winning in 2020 (and potentially 2024 since the VP replacing the president does not count as a term) so Democrats might actually want to really consider whether impeachment would be worth kicking him early but potentially deal with a more difficult 2020 election.

[Yukaphile]

Especially if they nominate a woman, given how misogynistic this country is and that the media networks will turn people against her. On the other hand, I could see people accepting a female Vice-President since most have it ingrained into their heads to accept women as second best. So hope the nominee doesn't choose a female Vice-President.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And check this out: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ex-f ... 00649.html

A former hostage negotiator says the opposite of what he's saying.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

He has been blaming them the entire time. Their desire to negotiate and not just give him exactly what he asks for is completely unacceptable, after all. If you ask Senate Republicans on the record they will agree with him. Ask them off the record and you might hear a different story.

It's a pretty bad time for him to keep burning bridges. Information that could be used for impeachment is piling up and there are more and more senate Republicans who have to be thinking how much easier it would be to deal with President Pence.

Oddly enough, President Pence would probably also have an easier time winning in 2020 (and potentially 2024 since the VP replacing the president does not count as a term) so Democrats might actually want to really consider whether impeachment would be worth kicking him early but potentially deal with a more difficult 2020 election.

At this point I think plenty of Republicans do a slight amount of damage control for the Republican face, but him (and Pence) being in a different branch and coming from non-congressional positions speaks for itself as far as implications for the GOP. Schwarzenegger ran California as a Republican, and while his ties to Bush sr. were prevalent, he doesn't seem much to coincide with the GOP as we know it. Then again California is freakin' huge, so his political clout probably dwarfed Pence and Trump combined leading up to 2016 as far as standing with distinction.

I have a hopeful doubt that Pence would really cut it in a general election. His positions on things is rather square and muddled in more staunch conservatism more than the likes of populist runners like W Bush and Trump. Come to think of it, to run as a conservative your best bet is to typically push prospects of enterprise and business, and I don't see Pence running with much of that.

Especially if they nominate a woman, given how misogynistic this country is and that the media networks will turn people against her. On the other hand, I could see people accepting a female Vice-President since most have it ingrained into their heads to accept women as second best. So hope the nominee doesn't choose a female Vice-President.

I think it's safe to say that secretary of state is practically comparable to the more rigorous aspects of the presidency. And while Clinton was able to stand her ground in the election (not to mention get more votes), there was a bit of misogyny in how people view her critically. One thing I notice about the likes of first ladies (and dem-social congresswomen), is that how much their clothes cost comes off a quick target for criticism. Vice presidency would probably not be much different to that regard.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah, I mean, they were criticizing Clinton's looks while Sanders was a bum in a suit in terms of appearance. I still dream of a female President, however. I hope we nominate either Warren or Harris, and they win.

[G-Man]

He has been blaming them the entire time. Their desire to negotiate and not just give him exactly what he asks for is completely unacceptable, after all. If you ask Senate Republicans on the record they will agree with him. Ask them off the record and you might hear a different story.

It is a lie to say that Chuck and Nancy are the ones who want to negotiate here.

Why do liberals call day night and night day?

Trump has been perfectly willing to negotiate with them over the wall. Chuck and Nancy have repeatedly said that they will not make any deal that includes funding the wall. So they are the ones unwilling to negotiate.

What you really mean is, Trump is not willing to accept Chuck and Nancy's terms over what any deal will look like. "Negotiate" to you means that the GOP caves entirely to the Democrats. It's like the word "compromise."

The only "deal" they have ever offered him with regard to immigration was last year, when they offered 1.6 billion in border wall funding (and Schumer suggested he might "authorize" the entire wall, but would not appropriate the money for it, meaning he would be able to defund it the next budget cycle) i nretrun for a massive amnesty of 5-6 million illegal aliens (all DREAMers and their parents) with 2-3 million getting a path to citizenship and the rest work permits. That would be such a fig leaf of enforcement for such a massive amnesty that it really was no deal at all.

Trump actually offered a pretty generous deal for DREAMers in the Senate, and every single Democrat rejected it. Their next response was to try to force a "clean" DREAM amnesty (i.e. all amnesty no enforcement or immigration reform) through the House. No one suggested taking the deal that Trump offered and trying to negotiate one that the Democrats would find more amenable. Nope. Maximum amnesty for minimum enforcement or the Democrats vote in lockstep against it (as they did later in the House on essentially the same deal* as in the Senate).

*Not the Goodlatte bill, but the other, more centrist one.

[G-Man]

Until we do something about our current asylum and other policies, spending more money on sensors and on Border Patrol Agents is of limited usefulness. Currently, we cannot turn anyone away who comes across the border unless they are from Mexico, and we cannot hold anyone who brings kids with them for more than 20 days. Saying "I am in fear for my life" automatically gets you into the asylum system where it can take years to process you, even though very few Central Americans actually get asylum claims that are approved.

Basically, illegal aliens do not fear getting caught by the Border Patrol because they are released pending hearings, and there are so many of them that they are overloading the system.

The "security measures" that Chuck and Nancy are willing to fund won't help secure our border, it will just make it easier to document our invasion. I would not be surprised to find out that they would willing give Trump 10-20 billion for sensors or for more agents - because they will willingly spend the money as long as it does not keep anyone out.

So unless they offer asylum reform, or some amount of funding for a physical barrier, they really are not in any real sense negotiating with Trump, because they are unwilling to offer him anything that will deal with the actual crisis.

And any claim that they actually support border security or are willing to negotiate in good faith with Trump on this issue is completely false.

[Draco Dracul]

Until we do something about our current asylum and other policies, spending more money on sensors and on Border Patrol Agents is of limited usefulness. Currently, we cannot turn anyone away who comes across the border unless they are from Mexico, and we cannot hold anyone who brings kids with them for more than 20 days. Saying "I am in fear for my life" automatically gets you into the asylum system where it can take years to process you, even though very few Central Americans actually get asylum claims that are approved.

Basically, illegal aliens do not fear getting caught by the Border Patrol because they are released pending hearings, and there are so many of them that they are overloading the system.

The "security measures" that Chuck and Nancy are willing to fund won't help secure our border, it will just make it easier to document our invasion. I would not be surprised to find out that they would willing give Trump 10-20 billion for sensors or for more agents - because they will willingly spend the money as long as it does not keep anyone out.

So unless they offer asylum reform, or some amount of funding for a physical barrier, they really are not in any real sense negotiating with Trump, because they are unwilling to offer him anything that will deal with the actual crisis.

And any claim that they actually support border security or are willing to negotiate in good faith with Trump on this issue is completely false.

This is very funny, because this argument undercuts every single argument I've heard in favor of the wall. Because we've done test samples, and basically all of them can be bypassed in under an hour with hand tools. Up to this point I've heard that was enough because it would give boarder patrol more time to get them, now however it means that Trump has shutdown the government to get something totally worthless.

The only "deal" they have ever offered him with regard to immigration was last year, when they offered 1.6 billion in border wall funding (and Schumer suggested he might "authorize" the entire wall, but would not appropriate the money for it, meaning he would be able to defund it the next budget cycle) i nretrun for a massive amnesty of 5-6 million illegal aliens (all DREAMers and their parents) with 2-3 million getting a path to citizenship and the rest work permits. That would be such a fig leaf of enforcement for such a massive amnesty that it really was no deal at all.

Trump actually offered a pretty generous deal for DREAMers in the Senate, and every single Democrat rejected it. Their next response was to try to force a "clean" DREAM amnesty (i.e. all amnesty no enforcement or immigration reform) through the House. No one suggested taking the deal that Trump offered and trying to negotiate one that the Democrats would find more amenable. Nope. Maximum amnesty for minimum enforcement or the Democrats vote in lockstep against it (as they did later in the House on essentially the same deal* as in the Senate).

Prior to the shutdown early last year, Schumer offered the 25 billion Trump wanted for the wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for DREAM being put into law. Trump rejected it. Trump is in a significantly worse bargaining position now due to a massive loss in the November election, and that unlike last time where public opinion was split or even put more blame on the democrats this time a majority of the blame is falling squarely on the Trumps