Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mfoy_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mfoy_

The summary of his speech was:

Government will re-open through to Feb 15th.

Back pay will be paid ASAP.

He spoke about the wall for quite a while.

If congress doesn't agree to fund his wall, he will shut the government back down on Feb 15th.

View on HN

I feel like I've repeatedly been proven wrong when I have these kinds of thoughts, but surely, he can't be stupid enough to try this stunt again. After 35 days of hurting people, he got nothing. He must realize shutting the government down to try to force his will is counter-productive, right?

So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.

I agree he is, but on the other hand those furloughed employees will receive back pay so an even more prolonged shutdown is essentially a paid vacation for the ones who have some savings.

So I’m sure /those/ employees might encourage a shutdown, but it isn’t because they believe in his cause

You're not wrong, but that's a very charitable interpretation.

The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. Additionally, the ones who are deemed "essential" just have to work for free or quit.

> The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay.

The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).

Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?

With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.

Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will".

What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.

Ahhhh, the classic "Both sides"ism. Both sides are not responsible for this. One party is almost exclusively at fault (in fact, 2 men are almost entirely responsible: Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump). The "deal" the President just made is the same deal the Democrats proposed 35 days ago. It's the same bill the Senate passed unanimously in December. Mitch McConnell refused to have a vote on the bill, because Donald wouldn't sign it. Do not, for a second, pretend both sides are at all equally responsible for this mess.

Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them.

EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim was just more forthcoming with their money, it wouldn't have been a problem!

But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral.

For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.

I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.

Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?

Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years).

Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.

The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.

He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."

What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.

I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation?

Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)

Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.

This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case

"There's no education in the second kick of the mule."

I was thinking just that about the Democrats.

I can see arguments for "it's all Trump", "it's mostly Trump", and "the difference in 'fault' isn't meaningfully large", but I can't see an argument for "it's all/mostly Democrats". Can you elaborate?

Edit: I'm not being snide, I'm actually ignorant.

I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.

In other words, exactly what the Schumer bill voted down yesterday proposed, with an additional week added on.

Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?

By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.

He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.

The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?

I think the 3-week thing is just a face-saving measure to allow Trump to back down and everyone involved will conveniently "forgets" about it in 3 weeks' time. Surely with the current breaking news cycle, will we even remember the shutdown in 3 weeks? If you don't believe me, come back to this comment in 3 weeks to see if I'm right.

They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.

You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.

Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com