Why Trump Will Lose The Government Shutdown Fight

[Into the Night]

He hasn't vetoed a thing yet.

He hasn't need to. The Senate has not yet considered the House budget bills acceptable.

McConnell won't even let it go to a vote.

He doesn't have to.

Do guys have amnesia or something??

Ask their wives. I think you will find the answer they give pretty universal!

A bill in December passed the house and the senate

That bill is dead, dude. It's a new year and a new Congress, haven't you noticed?

- Trump said he'd sign it.

No, he didn't.

Then your buddies Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity had a go at Trump and he changed his mind.

I was wondering when I was going to see that here. No, these guys are talk show hosts. They do not run the country or Trump.

So basically we're being held hostage by them.

And you really believe this, eh? :lamo

Who elected them??

You might say their listening audience. That's what it takes to run a successful radio show.

 

[Into the Night]

We all know full well what Trump is and we have been telling you for 3 years. He's a paranoid schizo narcissist who's not only incurious but he thinks he knows everything without any real knowledge of anything. Why you would trust his judgement on complex problems like illegal immigration is a illness only your psychologist could answer.

Psychoquackery.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Yes, he has. He has vehemently opposed any budget bill which hasn't included $5.7B for border wall funding.

That isn't vetoing a bill. Its threatening to veto a bill. They aren't the same thing.

There hasn't been an override because the House and the Senate don't have 2/3s support to override him...

There hasn't been a override because there hasn't been any legislation passed on for Trump to veto. Convenient for him, since now he doesn't have to risk going on record for keeping the government shut down.

He HAS, though...

What was the legislation that he vetoed? Not threatened to, but actually put veto pen to paper on.

Mitch isn't compelled to have the Senate vote on anything. There is nowhere near 2/3s support from the Senate nor the House to override Trump's veto.

Well, that may or may not be true. If the Senate were actually representing the people, there would be 70% support in Congress to reopen the government.

The President has taken ownership for initiating the shut down. Pelosi has chosen to keep it shut down. McConnell isn't going to waste his time bringing up a bill which the President is going to veto anyway... He is being efficient with his time. I applaud him for that.

Hes not being efficient......or need we remember the 58 useless votes to overturn Obamacare that occurred on his watch. He's running interference, nothing more. He wont hold the vote because he is scared that enough of his caucus is worried about what the optics look like.

Insult of intelligence ignored on sight.

Your response duly noted.

They can't do that.

Quick, call Mitch and tell him to do his job.

He's not, though.

Yes, he is.

Nothing compels McConnell to vote on a budget bill that will be vetoed anyway...

Its a ****ing game, and you know it. If the situation was the reverse and it was a Democrat president and a Democrat issue, he would be passing bills for him to have to veto every damned day, so give that **** up.

Correct, and never claimed that they did.

But you sure as **** implied a much....or are you just saying they don't have to vote it into existence, they need only do it? That is what is happening right now.

No, he didn't.

Yeah, he did. Lets pretend for a second there was a member of his caucus that wanted to send the President a message by voting to open the government. Mitch has unilaterally taken that option from that Senator.

 

[gfm7175]

That isn't vetoing a bill. Its threatening to veto a bill. They aren't the same thing.

I'll give you that one... There hasn't been an official veto, if one is to be technical about it.

There hasn't been a override because there hasn't been any legislation passed on for Trump to veto. Convenient for him, since now he doesn't have to risk going on record for keeping the government shut down.

He's not the one keeping it shut down, though... The House Dems are doing that by choosing not to pass an acceptable budget bill.

What was the legislation that he vetoed? Not threatened to, but actually put veto pen to paper on.

Again, I'll give you this one. He hasn't officially vetoed anything. It's been more or less of what I consider a verbal veto. He's made quite clear what he would find acceptable.

Well, that may or may not be true. If the Senate were actually representing the people, there would be 70% support in Congress to reopen the government.

Argument by RandU Fallacy. You are making up numbers.

Also irrelevant, as the Senate has the option to vote on the budget bills, NOT the people.

Hes not being efficient......or need we remember the 58 useless votes to overturn Obamacare that occurred on his watch.

Contextomy Fallacy. I was speaking about the current budget bill situation, not the Obamacare situation.

He's running interference, nothing more. He wont hold the vote because he is scared that enough of his caucus is worried about what the optics look like.

He's not compelled to bring the budget bill to a vote, especially when the President has made it quite clear that he will veto the bill if it doesn't meet his requirements.

Quick, call Mitch and tell him to do his job.

He IS, though...

Its a ****ing game, and you know it. If the situation was the reverse and it was a Democrat president and a Democrat issue, he would be passing bills for him to have to veto every damned day, so give that **** up.

He probably would be... So what?

But you sure as **** implied a much....or are you just saying they don't have to vote it into existence, they need only do it? That is what is happening right now.

There's no language in the Constitution compelling McConnell to bring anything to a vote.

Yeah, he did. Lets pretend for a second there was a member of his caucus that wanted to send the President a message by voting to open the government. Mitch has unilaterally taken that option from that Senator.

No, he hasn't. That Senator can speak for himself, and make his position on the matter known. McConnell isn't stopping him from speaking.

 

[Into the Night]

God damn you are bad at this, son.

Actually, he's doing pretty good. I have had to make only minor corrections in some of his arguments.

I specifically asked him what gave him the impression that the House was supposed to be Mitch and the President's bitch. He responded that in this case, because there weren't enough votes to override a veto (a statement I'm still not sure is accurate.

It is accurate. There are not enough votes to override Trump.

Mitch won't let his own party go on the record and all), that was exactly true.

He IS on record. He has openly stated, and for the record, that he will not bother to bring to the floor any bill that Trump will just veto.

I then asked him, since he simply tossed out Article 1 as his limp wristed defense,

The Constitution of the United States is not limp wristed or irrelevant.

where in that Article is made such a statement.

Article I describes the powers and structure of Congress, including both houses. Nothing in that article compels either house to vote on anything.

He hasn't provided the lines of text that prove that case.

Because THEY AREN'T THERE. Nothing in the Constitution compels any officer of the government to vote on anything.

So now, since you too have gone and stepped in it, I challenge you to provide the grouping of words within Article 1 of the United States Constitution that even slightly intimates that the House of Representatives is in any way, shape or form a lesser branch (to be read, the bitches of) of government to either the Executive or the Senate.

Contextomy fallacy. No claim of that sort was made either by me or gfm.

Sure thing....and it quite specifically DOESN'T say anything that was claimed it did.

You seem to have trouble keeping track of what was claimed.

Seriously, dude. Go back and take a civics class.

No need. The Constitution of the United States describes everything. It is the only reference required.

Mitch McConnell unilaterally deciding what bills he is going to bring to a vote

He can do what he wants. He is the Senate Majority Leader. He can stop any bill he wants.

to protect his parties reelection chances

He can do it for any reason. That's not the reason, BTW. He stated what the reason is. You should pay more attention.

and prevent the President from actually having to back up his bull**** rhetoric

The Senate is backing up the President. A veto is not rhetoric.

is the worst abdication of the responsibility of Majority Leader in history.

He has that right. Nothing in the Constitution compels him to vote on anything.

It is the job of Congress to make and pass legislation.

Nothing compels them to do so. It is also the job of Congress to block poor legislation.

In order for that to happen, votes MUST be held.

Yes, to pass legislation, votes must be held.

THAT is EXACTLY what compels him to do his job..

That is not compulsion. That is a choice. Nothing compels Congress to do anything.

its his GOD DAMN JOB.

Not necessarily.

I mean really, if they aren't gonna be making and passing legislation, what the **** are they there for.

To block poor legislation. This is what Mitch is doing. The House must pass an acceptable budget bill.

Go on home to Kentucky and sit on your ass,

He can do so. Nothing compels him to vote on anything.

theres no need for him to be doing it in a cushy DC office suite, now is there?

Why not? It is his office, after all.

 

[Into the Night]

Idiotic Comment Fallacy on your part, repetitive idiotic comments is not a defense for you.

If I repeat myself, it is only because you are.

 

[Praxas]

If I repeat myself, it is only because you are.

Idiotic comment fallacy on your part, blaming me for your actions you're clearly in control of is the weakest retort.

 

[Praxas]

It is accurate. There are not enough votes to override Trump.

Idiotic comment fallacy on your part, you do NOT know the views of every single senator on this nor how they would vote to say there isn't enough. Republicans are getting sick of Trump and there may be a revolt on Trump over this.

 

[Into the Night]

You are mistaken who the bully is in this situation. Let me see if I can help you figure out who it is....

Okay.

One person made a campaign promise.

That so far includes both Pelosi and Trump.

Then, he got elected and had the reigns of government handed to him and his party.

So far Pelosi and Trump.

They then proceeded to spend the next two years NOT doing anything to focus on that campaign promise,

So far it hasn't been two years, but Pelosi is doing exactly that.

even though we keep hearing it was and is a national emergency.

Pelosi again.

I will ask you this question, since nobody has been able to answer it.

Just answered it.

If the situation was and is so dire, why then did they do nothing to address it when they could have?

Pelosi IS doing nothing. The House so far has yet to pass an acceptable budget bill.

Then, after his party was shown the door in the budget deciding chamber of Congress, he then decides that if he doesn't get his way NOW, that he would be willing to shut down the government.

Trump has all the authority he needs to shut down the government because there is still no acceptable budget bill passed by the House.

All of this, mind you, after his party, in lame duck status, STILL couldn't come together to get him his beloved funding.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are in lame duck status.

No, its not the Democrats who are doing the bullying.

Yes it is.

Only one party is actually trying to carry out a coup on the Constitution.

Yup. The Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

Idiotic comment fallacy on your part, blaming me for your actions you're clearly in control of is the weakest retort.

I will blame you for making repetitive arguments. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[jnug]

Further from Trump from the WH meeting room: "Most Democrats now saying Walls are Good. Much different than three weeks ago".

That sounds a bit like Trump claiming Frenchmen were shouting "We want Trump" in the streets of Paris.

Cuckoo....Cuckoo....Cuckoo

 

[marke]

You are mistaken who the bully is in this situation. Let me see if I can help you figure out who it is....

One person made a campaign promise. Then, he got elected and had the reigns of government handed to him and his party. They then proceeded to spend the next two years NOT doing anything to focus on that campaign promise, even though we keep hearing it was and is a national emergency. I will ask you this question, since nobody has been able to answer it. If the situation was and is so dire, why then did they do nothing to address it when they could have?

Then, after his party was shown the door in the budget deciding chamber of Congress, he then decides that if he doesn't get his way NOW, that he would be willing to shut down the government. All of this, mind you, after his party, in lame duck status, STILL couldn't come together to get him his beloved funding.

No, its not the Democrats who are doing the bullying. Only one party is actually trying to carry out a coup on the Constitution.

Democrats have been resisting border securities for a long time. They have only been resisting Trump since they realized too late in 2016 that he was not the joke they thought he was. They got burned so badly in 2016 that all they can focus on any more seems to be destroying Trump.

This is not primarily about democrats resisting border security. This is primarily about democrat efforts to destroy Trump at any cost. It has always been about destroying Trump and will always be about destroying Trump until long after he has left the White House.

 

[JustHanging]

At this point, Trump is just a tool for Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity. They are the people really running the executive branch right now. Trump is just their mouthpiece. Pelosi needs to just skip the middleman Trump and negotiate with them directly. If she can get them to relent, Trump will follow.

Yep, that's my take as well. We've seen on numerous occasions that Trump is too lazy to put in even five minutes learning the most basic information about important topics, for example not knowing if the USA had a trade surplus with Canada when he was met the Canadian PM to discuss...trade. That's how much he cares about America and her citizens: He's too lazy to spend even five minutes learning the most basic facts.

So instead of putting in the hard work of being a good leader, he watches Fox and Friends, Coulter, Hannity, Carlson to get the message of the day, and then spew it forth on twitter and in speeches. Mindlessly parroting the days talking points.

 

[Quaestio]

Then ask him if only Republicans gerrymander... I don't speak for him.

He is on record asserting that science is a set of falsifiable theories. He is correct in that assertion.

Both you and the science-rejecting mentor Into the Night you mindlessly parrot, are wrong about that unsupported assertion.

*MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

"CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives."​

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b3

 

[gfm7175]

Both you and the science-rejecting mentor Into the Night you mindlessly parrot, are wrong about that unsupported assertion.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are rejecting science.

MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

It can falsify theories through use of conflicting evidence.

Your 'holy link' (below) is an Appeal to False Authority, but I will respond to it anyway...

"CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others.

Not a misconception.

Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built.

Why not? Make your case...

Oh wait, you made use of intellectual laziness by parroting what some random 'holy link' says instead of forming your own argumentation...

In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved.

Wait, so there are these "scientific ideas" as opposed to just "ideas", and scientific ideas can be proven "to an extent", just not completely proven? That seems like irrational reasoning to me. How does one "sort of" prove an idea (or anything for that matter)?? How does one "sort of" prove that 2+2=4?? Make your case... Oh wait, you made use of intellectual laziness by parroting what some random 'holy link' says instead of forming your own argumentation...

First off, science works with theories, not ideas. Secondly, science doesn't make use of proofs because science is an open functional system... Only closed functional systems (like the mathematics example provided above) make use of proofs. 2+2=4 is not (and cannot be) "sort of" proven, it IS proven [a proof is an extension of foundational axioms].

Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence,

Oh wait, so now these above-mentioned proofs (well, "sort of" proofs, as Berkeley tried arguing for) are suddenly irrelevant? Why even mention them then? -- I also didn't know that science worked with ideas... I thought science worked with theories... I guess I'm not very intelligent then...

But this "supporting evidence" bit is merely an effort to make science into religion. Religion is what makes use of supporting evidence, not science... Supporting evidence doesn't make a theory any more "correct" [instead, continuous surviving of null hypothesis testing is what matters, as the theory of science is remaining a theory of science].

and may revise those conclusions

Who makes those conclusions? Who gets to revise those conclusions? Who elected the people doing the revising? Why do those revisionists have such power? How long do these revisionists hold such power? How do these elections work? Who oversees the revisionists?

if warranted by new evidence or perspectives"...DELETED 'holy link'

Sounds pretty agenda driven to me...

 

[Quaestio]

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are rejecting science.


It can falsify theories through use of conflicting evidence.

Your 'holy link' (below) is an Appeal to False Authority, but I will respond to it anyway...


Not a misconception.


Why not? Make your case...

Oh wait, you made use of intellectual laziness by parroting what some random 'holy link' says instead of forming your own argumentation...


Wait, so there are these "scientific ideas" as opposed to just "ideas", and scientific ideas can be proven "to an extent", just not completely proven? That seems like irrational reasoning to me. How does one "sort of" prove an idea (or anything for that matter)?? How does one "sort of" prove that 2+2=4?? Make your case... Oh wait, you made use of intellectual laziness by parroting what some random 'holy link' says instead of forming your own argumentation...

First off, science works with theories, not ideas. Secondly, science doesn't make use of proofs because science is an open functional system... Only closed functional systems (like the mathematics example provided above) make use of proofs. 2+2=4 is not (and cannot be) "sort of" proven, it IS proven [a proof is an extension of foundational axioms].


Oh wait, so now these above-mentioned proofs (well, "sort of" proofs, as Berkeley tried arguing for) are suddenly irrelevant? Why even mention them then? -- I also didn't know that science worked with ideas... I thought science worked with theories... I guess I'm not very intelligent then...

But this "supporting evidence" bit is merely an effort to make science into religion. Religion is what makes use of supporting evidence, not science... Supporting evidence doesn't make a theory any more "correct" [instead, continuous surviving of null hypothesis testing is what matters, as the theory of science is remaining a theory of science].


Who makes those conclusions? Who gets to revise those conclusions? Who elected the people doing the revising? Why do those revisionists have such power? How long do these revisionists hold such power? How do these elections work? Who oversees the revisionists?


Sounds pretty agenda driven to me...

Sure, Berkeley University is a 'false authority' on science but you're a legitimate authority? Bwahahahah! The only person you are fooling with your absurd nonsense is yourself (and perhaps your bumbling bobsy twin ITN).

Oh, and this is yet another reminder that there is no such thing as an "Inversion fallacy". Into the Night just made it up and you parroted him.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Trump lost the shutdown fight.

Trump : The god that failed. Those that still bow before the phony 'master negotiator' are fools.

 

[gfm7175]

Sure, Berkeley University is a 'false authority' on science

Yes, they are.

but you're a legitimate authority?

I never claimed to be one...

Bwahahahah!

Not bad; I think you can do better, though...

The only person you are fooling with your absurd nonsense is yourself (and perhaps your bumbling bobsy twin ITN).

Argument of the Stone Fallacy, Insult Fallacy, and a paradox.

Oh, and this is yet another reminder that there is no such thing as an "Inversion fallacy". Into the Night just made it up and you parroted him.

Yes, there is a such thing. It can be referred to as 'projection'... It is a type of contextomy fallacy.