While Republicans are trying to make this about a simple matter of "border security" or "who's to blame for the shutdown," there are practical matters for why Democrats can't give Trump his wall.
1)The source of funding for the wall was a lie. Trump supporters will argue that they knew it was a lie, but this demands adhering to the rather...unique...logic that because they were in on the lie this somehow obligates the rest of the country to go along with it. In other words, just because more than one person is in on a con doesn't make it any less of a con. But more to the point, to agree to fund a giant project based on one of the most important aspects of it being a lie simply rewards that lie, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.
2)Pretty much everything about the wall is a lie, from the artificial sense of urgency surrounding it which spontaneously came into being just as Democrats took control of the House, to the claim that terrorists are flooding across the borders in the thousands, to the claim that immigrants bring disease, to the claim that immigrants are responsible for any meaningful percentage of crime...it's all based on lies. If the wall was a necessary and legitimate need, it wouldn't require lies in its defense. The truth would stand on its own. So as with the above: to agree to fund a giant project based on lies simply rewards those lies, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.
3)To give Trump his wall proves correct his belief that using Federal workers as pawns is a workable strategy, and he will therefore be sure to repeat the strategy.
4)Similar to the above but even more significant, to provide Trump his wall demonstrates that Trump will be able to demand something unreasonable every time a spending bill is up. Since he will know that Democrats will fold, this will immediately reduce the House to an inferior chamber of Congress (and by extension, an inferior branch of government). Trump will correctly conclude that he could demand anything at all, up to and including the cessation of House oversight over the Executive branch altogether.
5)To give Trump his wall negates Trump's own claim that he owns the shutdown. Why adopt blame for a terrible thing that somebody else has already agreed to shoulder the blame for?
6)Trump has spent so much effort imbuing the wall with racist principles (equating Latinos to vermin, disease, criminals and animals) that for Democrats to agree to a wall necessarily adopts the stink of his racism onto themselves.
7)Trump doesn't even treat the wall issue seriously, so why should Democrats? To date, Trump hasn't landed on a final vision of the wall, hasn't conducted a serious cost analysis of it, can't seem to stick to a single narrative for who will pay for it, and often abandons the wall only to spontaneously make it his prerogative by the end of the day depending on who on Fox News is currently yammering at him. If the wall is such a serious issue, then Trump has treated it as unseriously as possible, and therefore Democrats are not required to treat it as a serious thing that they need to spend a single dollar on.
8)This is technically a political reason and not the most important one, but there's no reason it should be be excluded from the list anyway: Republicans have already lost the public debate on the wall. A majority of the country doesn't see the wall as a priority, doesn't want a shutdown, and they blame the shutdown primarily on Trump and Republicans. Around 32-35% blame Democrats, which is an interesting number because that's a little less than the percentage of the country that comprises Trump's own base. Why should Democrats give in when, as polls are consistently showing, they already won the debate?
"So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down," Trump said. "I'm not going to blame you for it — the last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting it down." - President Donald Trump(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was not in the Capitol Friday, when some furloughed federal workers missed their first paychecks and the government shutdown tied the mark for the longest in American history.
McConnell, who has been brutalized by Democrats for blocking votes to reopen the government, skipped his customary remarks as the Senate gaveled in, when he might have defended his decision not to allow votes until a broad deal is reached between President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats over border wall funding.
Tell you what...clarify this: "The source of funding for the wall was a lie."
The other big reason why Democrats cannot cave in to Trump on this wall nonsense is even simpler.
You don't reward hostage takers...especially if Trump is the one taking the hostages, unless you want to see more hostages every week from now on.
If we reward Trump for taking hostages, he'll treat hostage taking the way a pubescent teenage boy treats his genitalia the moment he discovers masturbation.
Tell you what...clarify this: "The source of funding for the wall was a lie."
If he believed it, it was not a deliberate untruth meant to deceive.1)The source of funding for the wall was a lie. Trump supporters will argue that they knew it was a lie, but this demands adhering to the rather...unique...logic that because they were in on the lie this somehow obligates the rest of the country to go along with it. In other words, just because more than one person is in on a con doesn't make it any less of a con. But more to the point, to agree to fund a giant project based on one of the most important aspects of it being a lie simply rewards that lie, and incentivizes the motivation to lie on future projects.
If he believed it, it was not a deliberate untruth meant to deceive.
Wrong, and you are twisting/spinning what was actually said and responded to. It is all your said really has - deliberate deceit.A point that is belied by the fact that he then lied when he claimed he never said Mexico would pay for it.
Besides being wrong, you are against a barrier so your opinion is irrelevant to those who want a wall/barrier.And even if true (and it's not), then all you've demonstrated is that he's too ignorant and too incompetent to spearhead such a large and serious policy.
Why should the funding of "the wall" hold up funds for agencies that have nothing to do with "the wall". For example funding for the National Park Service or Forest Service.
imo, the funding for the "wall" should be a stand alone spending bill.
Wrong
Because that is what it has come down to.Why should the funding of "the wall" hold up funds for agencies that have nothing to do with "the wall". For example funding for the National Park Service or Forest Service.
imo, the funding for the "wall" should be a stand alone spending bill.
Yes.Mm hm, bye.
Play your little gas lighting game with someone else. Not interested.
Tell you what...clarify this: "The source of funding for the wall was a lie."
Wrong, and you are twisting/spinning what was actually said and responded to. It is all your said really has - deliberate deceit.
Besides being wrong, you are against a barrier so your opinion is irrelevant to those who want a wall/barrier.
You might want to engage in actual argumentation - you know - where you present quotes of what was actually said and in context?He literally said Mexico would submit a cash payment. He’s trying to spin it with “never said they’d write a check, he meant through trade deals.”
The part you aren’t getting is that he literally said they would send us a lump sum of cash.
The House has passed bills to open individual agencies, and McConnell has already refused to allow those bills to be voted on.
I know. The Senate is part of Congress. Didn't state the reason he would not allow the vote is because he knows the President would not sign the bill.
Which begs the question: do you think that McConnell, who has served in the Senate for 33 years, is aware that when 2/3rds of both chambers vote on a bill that they will override a Presidential veto?
It begs the question if the votes are secured to override a veto by the President if one happens.
Play your little gas lighting game with someone else. Not interested.
You might want to engage in actual argumentation - you know - where you present quotes of what was actually said and in context?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?