Republicans may block Trump from another shutdown

[Myview]

If they do, it will be the smartest thing they have done in years

Trump continuing to think that government shutdowns are good political strategy is fine by me. Shooting yourself in the foot is one thing; hobbling around with no legs is another. Americans are weary of a President who demonstrated how easy it is to end a shutdown after 35 days and damage to the country. Republicans in Congress are fools if they support more shutdowns.

 

[Helix]

if the senate and presidency change hands in 2020, removing the possibility of a shutdown should be one of the top five legislative priorities. it's possible that this could happen before then, but i'm not convinced that it will.

 

[bongsaway]

The reason republicans have a hard time getting good things done in Congress is that too many of them cave in to illogical, unreasonable, unethical, unyielding, corrupt democrat demands.

Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars paid to a porn actor and a playboy bunny, corrupt democrats? Good one.

 

[jnug]

Hill Republicans are simply too afraid of being Primaried in 2020. This is especially true of GOP Senators. Can the Senate get a 3:5 vote through to pass a Bill? Yea, they can likely do that. Can enough Republicans be pried away from Trump for a 2:3 override vote. Much less likely at the moment. Possible, but not likely unless their home constituents say to them, NO MAS.

 

[marke]

(And Republicans never gave in to the ACA)

Not at first.

 

[marke]

...and it's KILLING you !


Waaaahhhhhh


My Repugs are caving in to those nasty Democrats and their corrupt demands. If only they'd make demands that weren't corrupt...

The babies in Congress just need to get along and pass bipartisan bills that work.

 

[Lursa]

Not at first.

That's not an answer for this, the bold. Please try again:

The reason republicans have a hard time getting good things done in Congress is that too many of them cave in to illogical, unreasonable, unethical, unyielding, corrupt democrat demands.

Name some of those "demands" that passed.

(And Republicans never gave in to the ACA)

 

[marke]

Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars paid to a porn actor and a playboy bunny, corrupt democrats? Good one.

Trump is stupid. Bill got his joys for free. Mostly, at least.

 

[Rich2018]

The babies in Congress just need to get along and pass bipartisan bills that work.

You mean bipartisan bills that Trump will approve ?

 

[marke]

You mean bipartisan bills that Trump will approve ?

As long as the US government authorizes Trump to veto bad bills in his presidential estimation then yes, Congress has to come up with veto-proof bipartisan bills, as impossible a prospect as that may seem to be.

 

[Xelor]

Trump and McConnell effectively **** all over the GOP with this shutdown and it was shown to be a big waste of time and money. If the GOP don't take their party back, many of them will be lose their re-election. There are more seats for the senate to lose this coming election and it is a presidential election coming up which means higher turn out rates.

Red:
The trend commenced in the off-season elections preceding the 2018 midterms and that expanded in the midterm itself with the reacquisition of some 400 of ~1000 seats that had been lost over the prior eight years portends that many of them will lose their seats no matter what sane GOP-ers do to from Trump and his cohorts reclaim the Republican party. The 2018 midterm was stacked against Dems, yet they prevailed. With the 2020 election is stacked the Dems' favor, among GOP political strategists, "winning" is presently defined as "keeping Dems from obtaining federal and state supermajorities," not how to stop them from reclaiming majorities and key elected executive positions.

 

[Rich2018]

As long as the US government authorizes Trump to veto bad bills in his presidential estimation then yes, Congress has to come up with veto-proof bipartisan bills, as impossible a prospect as that may seem to be.

So you're advocating political turmoil ?

You're saying that unless Congress can find a bill that has majority approval in the House and 60 Senate votes, they should just give Trump what he wants ?

How about if such a bill can't be found, then Trump should give in and give Congress what it wants ?



Why does it have to be just about Trump ?


Yes he is the president but with minority support in the country and minority support in the House. Trump needs to man up and do the right thing for the country and not for himself.


What did JFK once famously say ? Ask not...

 

[Perotista]

Trump and McConnell effectively **** all over the GOP with this shutdown and it was shown to be a big waste of time and money. If the GOP don't take their party back, many of them will be lose their re-election. There are more seats for the senate to lose this coming election and it is a presidential election coming up which means higher turn out rates.

There's 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 2020. Most come from states that are very pro-Trump. Around 15 of those 22 give or take. Going against Trump and not backing the Trumpers man could very well mean being primaried out by the Trumpers whom I assume would be very angry at them. Going with Trump would most likely make them vulnerable in the General. It could be dang if you do and dang if you don't for those 22.

The possibility of McConnell tabling any CR to fund the remaining portions of the government if it doesn't contain the funding for the wall is real. A filibuster over the CR if no wall funding is another possibility requiring 60 votes for cloture. Much like Schumer and the Democrats did to the GOP House passed funding bill last December which included funding for the wall. Even if the funding bill was able to get passed in the senate, Trump could then veto it if it didn't contain funds for his wall. Then instead of 60 votes for cloture, it would require 2/3rds of both the House and the senate to over ride Trump's veto. That's 290 representatives voting to over ride and 67 senators.

There are possibilities of many twists and turns to this. One thing is for certain, the last shutdown cost this country much more than the cost for Trump's wall.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/government-shutdown-cost-more-than-wall-demand-165956737.html

 

[lwf]

I'll give Trump some leeway here. I do think he wants to secure the border, what I think he did wrong was go about it the purely rhetorical route and make bold claims he wasn't guaranteed delivering. For starters, he had a pretty broad scope in terms of the wall's coverage; "sea to shining sea" as he put it because if it had gaps people would go through them. Then he stated Mexico would pay for it, without having anything clear mechanism on how to do it. Had he done his homework and presented the case he's currently making for the significantly reduced border barrier/wall and some immigration reform measures, he might have had a better go of it. The odd thing is he didn't make this strong a push while he had the opportunity to do so (GOP controlled Congress, and Democrats willing to exchange wall funding for DACA protections).

Making promises he couldn't deliver on was Trump's MO before he ran for president. I don't know why his supporters would think that would change now.

 

[jnug]

There's 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 2020. Most come from states that are very pro-Trump. Around 15 of those 22 give or take. Going against Trump and not backing the Trumpers man could very well mean being primaried out by the Trumpers whom I assume would be very angry at them. Going with Trump would most likely make them vulnerable in the General. It could be dang if you do and dang if you don't for those 22.

The possibility of McConnell tabling any CR to fund the remaining portions of the government if it doesn't contain the funding for the wall is real. A filibuster over the CR if no wall funding is another possibility requiring 60 votes for cloture. Much like Schumer and the Democrats did to the GOP House passed funding bill last December which included funding for the wall. Even if the funding bill was able to get passed in the senate, Trump could then veto it if it didn't contain funds for his wall. Then instead of 60 votes for cloture, it would require 2/3rds of both the House and the senate to over ride Trump's veto.

There are possibilities of many twists and turns to this. One thing is for certain, the last shutdown cost this country much more than the cost for Trump's wall.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/government-shutdown-cost-more-than-wall-demand-165956737.html

Except that we all know that if Trump got to successfully run roughshod over Article 1 in the manner he tried and is in fact still trying, he would simply do it time and time again and 230 miles of Wall would turn into another 230 miles of wall etc etc. In addition, Trump would simply rinse and repeat for other things he wants. In addition every succeeding President would do the same thing. Should make the Libertarians and the Anarchists happy as its the end for this Constitutional Republic if that happens.

 

[Rich2018]

Making promises he couldn't deliver on was Trump's MO before he ran for president. I don't know why his supporters would think that would change now.

A problem with being a head of state, is that sometimes, when you make a promise, you have to keep it.

Or be ridiculed by your own support.

 

[jnug]

A problem with being a head of state, is that sometimes, when you make a promise, you have to keep it.

Or be ridiculed by your own support.

Could have kept his "promise" easily during the first two years and especially in year two if Trump ever really wanted the thing.

 

[jnug]

Much like the frog that is dumped into a pot of cold water and cooks to death as the heat is increased, we are being pushed to a Constitutional Crisis and most of us don't even know it.

 

[Perotista]

Except that we all know that if Trump got to successfully run roughshod over Article 1 in the manner he tried and is in fact still trying, he would simply do it time and time again and 230 miles of Wall would turn into another 230 miles of wall etc etc. In addition, Trump would simply rinse and repeat for other things he wants. In addition every succeeding President would do the same thing. Should make the Libertarians and the Anarchists happy as its the end for this Constitutional Republic if that happens.

There's been 21 government shutdowns and most have been over funding for either something that was in the appropriations bills or for something that wasn't. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Obama and now Trump.

Shutting down the government has been a ploy used by either congress or the president, generally the president refusal to sign the appropriations bills since 1976. So, should a president just sign into law an budget bill consisting of 12 different appropriation bills into law even if he doesn't agree with it just because congress passed it?

It's not just Trump, Ford once, Carter 5 times, Reagan 8 times, Bush I once, Bill Clinton twice, Obama once and now Trump, all have used this tactic.

 

[Linc]

There's 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 2020. Most come from states that are very pro-Trump. Around 15 of those 22 give or take. Going against Trump and not backing the Trumpers man could very well mean being primaried out by the Trumpers whom I assume would be very angry at them. Going with Trump would most likely make them vulnerable in the General. It could be dang if you do and dang if you don't for those 22.

The possibility of McConnell tabling any CR to fund the remaining portions of the government if it doesn't contain the funding for the wall is real. A filibuster over the CR if no wall funding is another possibility requiring 60 votes for cloture. Much like Schumer and the Democrats did to the GOP House passed funding bill last December which included funding for the wall. Even if the funding bill was able to get passed in the senate, Trump could then veto it if it didn't contain funds for his wall. Then instead of 60 votes for cloture, it would require 2/3rds of both the House and the senate to over ride Trump's veto. That's 290 representatives voting to over ride and 67 senators.

There are possibilities of many twists and turns to this. One thing is for certain, the last shutdown cost this country much more than the cost for Trump's wall.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/government-shutdown-cost-more-than-wall-demand-165956737.html

The big surprise for me of those six GOP Senators to flip last week was your Isakson. The 2020 Senate map is a rerun of 2014, when the GOP flipped Nine seats. This was the election where McConnell defeated the far-right in primaries, as compared to previous terms.

Democrats start 2020 with one loss in AL. Of their nine losses in 2014 — AK, MT, SD, IA, WV, NC, AR, LA, and CO — only CO, NC, and IA are available. AZ and ME are being mentioned in early ratings. Much bigger stretches are KS, KY, TX and GA.

The one thing we both know about McConnell is that he will protect his hold on the GOP Senate above all else.

 

[marke]

So you're advocating political turmoil ?

Don't be silly. American leaders of the past gave the president the power to veto bills he didn't like and I'm sure they expected presidents to use that power.

 

[straykatz]

The babies in Congress just need to get along and pass bipartisan bills that work.

There is no bipartisan and hasn't been for a very long time on either side. Not to mention that the babies in there during the past 2+ years couldn't accomplish anything bipartisan so why hold the new congress to a higher standard?

 

[Fletch]

Would you be happy with another shutdown if no wall but more money for border security?

Personally, I think a mountain is being made of a molehill and there is no reason for a political death match over $5 billion. If the border is secured, I dont really care how that is accomplished. I have heard numerous credible people say that a wall works in some places and is pointless in others. Id prefer that the border experts not politicians decide the best way to secure the border but thats not how things work.

 

[tres borrachos]

If they do, it will be the smartest thing they have done in years

I hope they do this, truly.

This shutdown hurt them, badly. They may not choose to publicly acknowledge it, but it did.

 

[jnug]

There's been 21 government shutdowns and most have been over funding for either something that was in the appropriations bills or for something that wasn't. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Obama and now Trump.

Shutting down the government has been a ploy used by either congress or the president, generally the president refusal to sign the appropriations bills since 1976. So, should a president just sign into law an budget bill consisting of 12 different appropriation bills into law even if he doesn't agree with it just because congress passed it?

It's not just Trump, Ford once, Carter 5 times, Reagan 8 times, Bush I once, Bill Clinton twice, Obama once and now Trump, all have used this tactic.

They weren't DonDon. DonDon poses a particular type of threat only approached by the awful Jimmy Carter. That said, Carter was as much like DonDon as any former President we have had in the modern era and shutdowns during his term of office are good proof of that both for their term and frequency. Obama had one relatively long shutdown, Clinton had one and now Trump is the world record holder. Carter on the other hand holds the world record for total days of shutdown totally 66 days over 6 shutdowns during one paltry four year term. The rest of the shutdowns are relatively modest events of 1 day (4) , 3 days (4) , 4 days (2) one of 5 days and one of 7 days.

Worth reviewing here my list of modern disasters as President. The three worst Presidents of the modern era are Trump, Obama, Bush 43, each worse than the last in quick succession with Trump so awful that we would have to elect Bugs Bunny next to continue this trend of awful. Then we leapfrog over a few less than perfect but pretty decent Presidents to add Jimmy Carter to the list of worst 4 of the modern era.

Carter deserves his spot for being most like Trump though without the bluster. Both are in fact sniveling weaklings and micromanagers with Trump able to hide it under bluster and bark and Carter unable to hide it at all. Neither have or had the intellectual bandwidth to be President. Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton were not perfect but they were head and shoulders better than the four I have called out in my modern era Presidential Hall of Shame. Clinton would have had a truly decent run if he could have kept his fly zipped and and followed the one golden rule of politics: YOU DON'T BOINK THE INTERNS! He took what would have been a pretty decent two term Presidency and a decent legacy and threw it in the trash can. Clinton rates fifth worst in my list of terrible modern Presidents. Lets all chip in and give NASA the money to shoot Bill and Hillary off to the moon.

Bush 41 and Reagan for all their faults not the least of which in my case are issues with their baseline politics were and are far and away the best Presidents of the last seven of them, literally towering over the other five with Trump well on his way to all time worst President regardless of era. He is pushing Buchanan hard at this point. I could rate them all the way back to WW2 if anybody would like. It hardly seems worth it since a good many of you were in diapers when Ford took office.