Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#31

Post by mfoy_ » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

syspec wrote: post #25

mfoy_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#32

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #21

huy-nguyen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#33

Post by yingw787 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

Top comment on New York Times says this is deflection from the Roger Stone indictment. I think it's likely this is true, since he didn't get anything solid politically. He might let the government shut down again and pull the same rabbit out the hat next time Mueller issues an indictment.

On a related note, one article I really enjoyed a few months back was the decreasing relevance of the nation-state in an era of prolonged peace. It seems like solid logic: power cannot exist where it is not regularly exercised, and in an era of conflict and deadlock power can be exercised most at the local level, where the error kernel is smaller.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-m...

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#34

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #19

jdhn wrote: post #10

So if he's going to shut the government down on the 15th (because the wall isn't getting funded), what's the point of reopening it? His base will be ticked off, that's for sure.

Look at his approval ratings by party. Republicans are not that upset by his actions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...

[deleted]

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#35

Post by mfoy_ » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

ignoramceisblis wrote: post #28

the_gastropod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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!

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#36

Post by the_gastropod » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

ignoramceisblis wrote: post #28

the_gastropod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#37

Post by mfoy_ » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #29

jdhn wrote: post #10

So if he's going to shut the government down on the 15th (because the wall isn't getting funded), what's the point of reopening it? His base will be ticked off, that's for sure.

>His base will be ticked off, that's for sure. His base wants the wall, fully funded, and no quarter given to the Democrats or their agenda. His base also believes government is corrupt, bloated, wasteful and infested with leftists and globalist elites. This is exactly what his base wants.

There's also a non-trivial percentage that love "liberal tears" and enjoy things like this that are petty and / or spiteful.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#38

Post by towaway1138 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #5

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

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.

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?

I was thinking just that about the Democrats.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#39

Post by happytoexplain » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

towaway1138 wrote: post #38

the_gastropod wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#40

Post by cannonedhamster » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #29

jdhn wrote: post #10

So if he's going to shut the government down on the 15th (because the wall isn't getting funded), what's the point of reopening it? His base will be ticked off, that's for sure.

>His base will be ticked off, that's for sure. His base wants the wall, fully funded, and no quarter given to the Democrats or their agenda. His base also believes government is corrupt, bloated, wasteful and infested with leftists and globalist elites. This is exactly what his base wants.

His base includes a number of people voted into office. It's really kind of odd that they can't even trust when their own party has the entirety of government. I don't understand why people dislike any government, yet don't like if you call them anarchists either. The arguments aren't consistent. The odd thing is most people do not disagree with a wall in places that make sense. A wall for a wall's sake is just pointless. I'd rather put that into tools or manpower (or heaven forbid pay increases). A single drone with heat vision could scan entire sectors, be controlled remotely and wouldn't require using eminent domain. Also it couldn't be dug out, cut down, or climbed over or through. As General Patton is quoted to have said "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".