What will Trump do with regards to the wall and government funding next?

[Cardinal]

Although Pelosi wasn't exclusively responsible for Trump caving during the shutdown, she can certainly be handed greater than 50% credit for it. However, so gigantic was her victory over him, and so great was his humiliation, I have serious concerns that he's going to overreact as a result.

On one hand, it could be argued that he won't attempt another shutdown, using Maggie Haberman's hot stove analogy: "Trump is predictable but he's not a wind-up toy. One person close to him often points to his instinct for self-preservation. It can kick in at times, such as not firing Mueller after touching the hot stove with Comey and getting burned."

Conversely, his humiliation at the hands of Pelosi can't be overstated, and there is the possibility that he'll attempt another shutdown or declare an emergency as an overreaction to that humiliation. There is also the existential threat from a portion of his base abandoning him, a risk he is brutally conscious of every waking day.

"Pelosi is going to have to add Trump to her disclosure forms where it asks for a list of assets she owns."
-Adam Parkhomenko

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."
-Anne Coulter

As for a "national emergency," there appears to be a consensus among the legal professionals I follow on Twitter that this move wouldn't be legal. It would instantly be tied up in court, to say nothing of the years spent in court over eminent domain issues.

On February 15, what will Trump do in response to a spending bill that doesn't include a wall?

For those wondering why there isn't a poll option that says "Sign a spending bill with a wall," I did not include that option because so long as Democrats control just one chamber of Congress, no spending bill that contains a wall will reach his desk. Although, to be fair, no spending bill that contained a wall ever reached his disk when Republicans were in control of both chambers of Congress either.

 

[Captain Adverse]

IMO?

While I won't vote in the poll, as there is no "Other" option, I can see him declaring a state of emergency and simply using funds allocated for various Agencies under his control to act with on his wall project anyway.

That seems to be what some Republican's in the Senate and House are suggesting they would support.

While I understand his frustration, I would not personally support this action.

Much as I hate what I consider to be the unreasonable stonewalling of the Democrats in Congress, nevertheless the separation of powers is pretty clear. Congress taxes and allocates the funds to be spent, and the Executive Branch supervises the proper spending of the allocated funds.

While I recognize that during prior Administrations there have been all sorts of "creative accounting" efforts at "redistribution," IMO simply declaring a "state of emergency" to do so is a bad precedent to set.

I would prefer to hope that he take some other method allowing him to use discretionary funding to at the very least repair/improve existing wall segments and add some additional wall segments at the suggestion of Border Patrol.

 

[Cardinal]

IMO?

I can see him declaring a state of emergency and simply using the funds allocated for various Agencies under his control with to act anyway.

I have yet to see a legal opinion that supports the likelihood of that approach.

 

[Xelor]

I've said this before and it bears repeating:

Donald Trump is not a rational being; he is a self-interested creature and what strikes him as important at any given time is a matter of his whim at the moment he makes a decision. Therefore one cannot reliably predict what he'll do. What one can say is that he's more likely to choose an overyall suboptimal course of action than an overall optimal (or more nearly so) course.​

 

[rocket88]

He will declare a national emergency, which will last into next year so he has an excuse to cancel the election.

 

[Mach]

I have yet to see a legal opinion that supports the likelihood of that approach.

Are you now claiming Trump typically behaves in accordance with sound legal opinion? When his back is up against his wall?
He may try..I voted yes, but I think it's 50/50. I didn't think he'd shut down government for 30+ days and then agree with Nancy either...

 

[joko104]

He will declare a national emergency, which will last into next year so he has an excuse to cancel the election.

:roll: OK, we'll play your absurdity game: That wouldn't do any good because Pelosi is going abolish the office of the Presidency declaring herself Queen of the USA.

 

[Cardinal]

Are you now claiming Trump typically behaves in accordance with sound legal opinion? When his back is up against his wall?
He may try..I voted yes, but I think it's 50/50. I didn't think he'd shut down government for 30+ days and then agree with Nancy either...

Per Maggie Haberman's "hot stove" analogy, I suspect he's unhappy about the idea of taking on the courts after his long, drawn-out experiences with the Muslim and transgender bans...even when the outcome ultimately finds in his favor. He wants quick and flashy victories, and executive decisions that end up in court deny him those. This is why I think that if he was going to declare a national emergency he would have done so already.

But I could be wrong; we'll see.

Personally, I suspect that he's going to sign a spending bill without wall funding and then do everything in his power to change the topic come February 15 because the wall battle has been absolutely miserable to him. He certainly likes to fight, but he has found absolutely no pleasure in this fight.

 

[yankintx]

Although Pelosi wasn't exclusively responsible for Trump caving during the shutdown, she can certainly be handed greater than 50% credit for it. However, so gigantic was her victory over him, and so great was his humiliation, I have serious concerns that he's going to overreact as a result.

On one hand, it could be argued that he won't attempt another shutdown, using Maggie Haberman's hot stove analogy: "Trump is predictable but he's not a wind-up toy. One person close to him often points to his instinct for self-preservation. It can kick in at times, such as not firing Mueller after touching the hot stove with Comey and getting burned."

Conversely, his humiliation at the hands of Pelosi can't be overstated, and there is the possibility that he'll attempt another shutdown or declare an emergency as an overreaction to that humiliation. There is also the existential threat from a portion of his base abandoning him, a risk he is brutally conscious of every waking day.

"Pelosi is going to have to add Trump to her disclosure forms where it asks for a list of assets she owns."
-Adam Parkhomenko

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."
-Anne Coulter

As for a "national emergency," there appears to be a consensus among the legal professionals I follow on Twitter that this move wouldn't be legal. It would instantly be tied up in court, to say nothing of the years spent in court over eminent domain issues.

On February 15, what will Trump do in response to a spending bill that doesn't include a wall?

For those wondering why there isn't a poll option that says "Sign a spending bill with a wall," I did not include that option because so long as Democrats control just one chamber of Congress, no spending bill that contains a wall will reach his desk. Although, to be fair, no spending bill that contained a wall ever reached his disk when Republicans were in control of both chambers of Congress either.

He will declare a national emergency, it will get kicked to the courts and fail due to adequate evidence. He can then blame it on liberal judges.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other. Sign a spending bill with partial (up to 50 miles?) Great Wall Of Trump funding, granting more amnesty to "dreamers" and making TPS folks closer to permanent residents.

 

[trixare4kids]

IMO?

While I won't vote in the poll, as there is no "Other" option, I can see him declaring a state of emergency and simply using funds allocated for various Agencies under his control to act with on his wall project anyway.

That seems to be what some Republican's in the Senate and House are suggesting they would support.

While I understand his frustration, I would not personally support this action.

Much as I hate what I consider to be the unreasonable stonewalling of the Democrats in Congress, nevertheless the separation of powers is pretty clear. Congress taxes and allocates the funds to be spent, and the Executive Branch supervises the proper spending of the allocated funds.

While I recognize that during prior Administrations there have been all sorts of "creative accounting" efforts at "redistribution," IMO simply declaring a "state of emergency" to do so is a bad precedent to set.

I would prefer to hope that he take some other method allowing him to use discretionary funding to at the very least repair/improve existing wall segments and add some additional wall segments at the suggestion of Border Patrol.

I see no point in voting for the poll either. The poll should have an "other" category. Nothing like this is ever cut and dry.

I hope he does not take this route either, declaring a national emergency.
Bad move for the country...
I actually believe Trump will get enough bi-partisan support to get funding for a barrier type fence, drones, more border patrol hires, etc. That will be a win for the country....
Not all congressional Democrats are lock step with obstructionists Nancy and Chuck who politically are stuck on stupid.... Some actually admit that Trump is right about the border crisis and the fence.

 

[Cardinal]

He will declare a national emergency, it will get kicked to the courts and fail due to adequate evidence. He can then blame it on liberal judges.

I disagree that he will declare a national emergency. But to be fair, the road is littered with the corpses of predictions of what trump will do.

 

[Cardinal]

I see no point in voting for the poll either. The poll should have an "other" category. Nothing like this is ever cut and dry.

I hope he does not take this route either, declaring a national emergency.
Bad move for the country...
I actually believe Trump will get enough bi-partisan support to get funding for a barrier type fence, drones, more border patrol hires, etc.

The funding bill had already contained $1.6 billion for border security, so the prospect that the final bill will contain funding for fence upgrades, drones, patrol hires and judges is extremely high.

That will be a win for the country....
Not all congressional Democrats are lock step with obstructionists Nancy and Chuck who politically are stuck on stupid.... Some actually admit that Trump is right about the border crisis and the fence.

Who are these "some" you refer to?

 

[Mach]

Per Maggie Haberman's "hot stove" analogy, I suspect he's unhappy about the idea of taking on the courts after his long, drawn-out experiences with the Muslim and transgender bans...even when the outcome ultimately finds in his favor. He wants quick and flashy victories, and executive decisions that end up in court deny him those. This is why I think that if he was going to declare a national emergency he would have done so already.
But I could be wrong; we'll see.

Not a bad argument. Those who argue Trump bulls through everything because he's a winner, may have miscalculated. If he's just never been really challenged, he may very well only now be getting that education. Trump hides his losses, and having to air them out in public is no doubt anathema to him.

Personally, I suspect that he's going to sign a spending bill without wall funding and then do everything in his power to change the topic come February 15 because the wall battle has been absolutely miserable to him. He certainly likes to fight, but he has found absolutely no pleasure in this fight.

It's like he momentarily forgot he could fail miserably, blame Democrats/Immigrants, and his base would agree and cheer.

 

[yankintx]

The funding bill had already contained $1.6 billion for border security, so the prospect that the final bill will contain funding for fence upgrades, drones, patrol hires and judges is extremely high.



Who are these "some" you refer to?

Obstructionist, that would be the GOP in Obamas last 6 years.

 

[Phys251]

IMO?

While I won't vote in the poll, as there is no "Other" option, I can see him declaring a state of emergency and simply using funds allocated for various Agencies under his control to act with on his wall project anyway.

That seems to be what some Republican's in the Senate and House are suggesting they would support.

While I understand his frustration, I would not personally support this action.

Much as I hate what I consider to be the unreasonable stonewalling of the Democrats in Congress, nevertheless the separation of powers is pretty clear. Congress taxes and allocates the funds to be spent, and the Executive Branch supervises the proper spending of the allocated funds.

While I recognize that during prior Administrations there have been all sorts of "creative accounting" efforts at "redistribution," IMO simply declaring a "state of emergency" to do so is a bad precedent to set.

I would prefer to hope that he take some other method allowing him to use discretionary funding to at the very least repair/improve existing wall segments and add some additional wall segments at the suggestion of Border Patrol.

I hope that you remember this post when we get a Democratic President and they declare a national emergency over climate change. If that day ever comes, then the credibility that your complaining will deserve will be zero.

 

[Puigb]

He will declare a national emergency, which will last into next year so he has an excuse to cancel the election.

and the Republican base and most of the GOP will cheer him on.

 

[Cardinal]

I hope that you remember this post when we get a Democratic President and they declare a national emergency over climate change. If that day ever comes, then the credibility that your complaining will deserve will be zero.

Actually, he did say he wouldn't support it. However, it's also important to remember that if Trump does do something his base doesn't support, there won't be any political consequences for it either, which renders his "I would not personally support this action" statement completely meaningless.

I wouln't "support" my wife wanting to watch a soap opera during our tv night, but I'm not going to divorce her over it.

 

[Phys251]

Actually, he did say he wouldn't support it.

That depends on which day of the week you're referring to. He did support it before he didn't support it before he did.

However, it's also important to remember that if Trump does do something his base doesn't support, there won't be any political consequences for it either, which renders his "I would not personally support this action" statement completely meaningless.

I wouln't "support" my wife wanting to watch a soap opera during our tv night, but I'm not going to divorce her over it.

I think you mean, something his base does support. But it's not like he's ever going to get his approval ratings any higher than the mid 40s, and the shutdown has temporarily pushed them several points lower than that.

 

[Cardinal]

That depends on which day of the week you're referring to. He did support it before he didn't support it before he did.

Yeah, same diff.

I think you mean, something his base does support.

The point is that it's a meaningless statement even if it was made sincerely.

But it's not like he's ever going to get his approval ratings any higher than the mid 40s, and the shutdown has temporarily pushed them several points lower than that.

Yup, we've been here before. His supporters are almost certainly demoralized over the result of the shutdown. Then they'll remember that he's driving the libs crazy and his support will shoot back up to 44.6%.

 

[btthegreat]

He will declare a national emergency, it will get kicked to the courts and fail due to adequate evidence. He can then blame it on liberal judges.

This is the one. The problem here is actually down the road. While it is being adjudicated he will be able to claim 'certain victory' and his hope is that his base buys this for awhile. If he shuts down the govt he really risks the embarrassment of watching senator after senator jump ship and his poll numbers drop and he simply cannot afford to cave to Pelosi. the emergency clause is that 'live to fight another day' option.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, he did say he wouldn't support it. However, it's also important to remember that if Trump does do something his base doesn't support, there won't be any political consequences for it either, which renders his "I would not personally support this action" statement completely meaningless.

That depends on which day of the week you're referring to. He did support it before he didn't support it before he did.

The above examples of "opposition" responses show where this post comes from:

...3. What you are really asking is, "why do Trump supporter's let him get away with it?", assuming that everyone who disagrees with "the Resistance" is actually simply ignoring these things.

Now I am not going to speak for "everyone," I am only going to speak for myself.

I can tell you that I am not "ignoring" the things I disagree with Trump on, any more than I am ignoring the things I agree with his opposition on. :no:

...b. If people like yourself could exhibit balanced views on Trump's actions instead of twisting everything into the negative, then I might be able to give credence to your positions.

...The problem is twofold... Two, even when some of us do raise issues with things we disagree with Trump on, the typical opposition response is usually "Is THAT the only thing you don't agree with? How can you agree with him on anything at all!"

It's all or nothing. So we simply stay silent and let your side do all the ranting and railing.

IMO that is why those of us who still generally support the current Administration don't leap onto your bandwagon of all-hate all-the-time resist by any means necessary tactics of moral panic.

BTW Phys251, while I do support at least in part Trump's efforts at building a border wall, I was NEVER a supporter of declaring a "state of emergency" to pay for it. I challenge you to find any post of mine backing up your assertion I support his declaring a state of emergency to fund the wall. I can certainly provide some that show I do not. :coffeepap:

 

[Phys251]

The above examples of "opposition" responses show where this post comes from:

Do I need to link you to some factchecking sources to show how often Trump has flip-flopped on his position over the border wall?

BTW Phys251, while I do support at least in part to Trump's efforts at building a border wall, I was NEVER a supporter of declaring a "state of emergency" to pay for it. I challenge you to find any post of mine which supports your assertion I support his declaring a state of emergency to fund the wall..

Assuming that you're telling the truth on this, not supporting something is not the same thing as outright opposing it. So let me ask you directly:

Unless there is a literal military invasion from Mexico, and I am NOT talking about fleeing migrants or drug smugglers, do you outright oppose Trump's declaring a state of emergency in order to get his wall built?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, he did say he wouldn't support it. However, it's also important to remember that if Trump does do something his base doesn't support, there won't be any political consequences for it either, which renders his "I would not personally support this action" statement completely meaningless.

I wouln't "support" my wife wanting to watch a soap opera during our tv night, but I'm not going to divorce her over it.

Do I need to link you to some factchecking sources to show how often Trump has flip-flopped on his position over the border wall?



Assuming that you're telling the truth on this, not supporting something is not the same thing as outright opposing it. So let me ask you directly:

Unless there is a literal military invasion from Mexico, and I am NOT talking about fleeing migrants or drug smugglers, do you outright oppose Trump's declaring a state of emergency in order to get his wall built?

If by oppose you mean I will contact my representatives in Congress and tell them (just as I did when Obama, who I voted for, pushed for a bank bailout) to oppose it too. Yes. If it means I will add my voice in threads in this Forum, and discussion with peers and politicians outside it, arguing against it? Yes.

If you think it means I am going to jump on your all-hate all-the-time bandwagon? NO! I will speak against things I don't agree with and for things I do. Few things in life are "all or nothing" propositions; most of those involve life-threatening situations.

I'll be sure to let you know when I think something is life threatening and requires my "all or nothing" commitment. :coffeepap:

 

[Phys251]

If by oppose you mean I will contact my representatives in Congress and tell them (just as I did when Obama, who I voted for, pushed for a bank bailout) to oppose it too. Yes. If it means I will add my voice in threads in this Forum, and discussion with peers and politicians outside it, arguing against it? Yes.

If you think it means I am going to jump on your all-hate all-the-time bandwagon? NO! I will speak against things I don't agree with and for things I do. Few things in life are "all or nothing" propositions; most of those involve life-threatening situations.

I'll be sure to let you know when I think something is life threatening and requires my "all or nothing" commitment. :coffeepap:

So close, and yet so far away. Oh well, it was worth a try. :shrug: