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

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#41

Post by subculture » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

huy-nguyen wrote: post #15

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 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.

Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#42

Post by JohnTHaller » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #17

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 haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation? Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)

Does it matter? I don't think Trump has read it.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#43

Post by the_gastropod » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #23

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?

Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls…

The Senate can override the President's veto with a 2/3rds vote. As a reminder, the bill passed with a 100-0 vote in December, so this was absolutely doable.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#44

Post by 64738 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #39

towaway1138 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am, too, but I would say the easiest argument to make for that case is that he eventually came around to offering them things they wanted, and a reduction of what he wanted. But, Pelosi and others simply hate him so much that they are willing to flip their position on the wall issue 180 degrees from where they were just a few years ago in order to spite him. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#45

Post by 64738 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

mfoy_ wrote: post #35

ignoramceisblis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

But the congressional/democrat leaders are on record from just a few years discussing the importance of border security including barriers. Now that Trump wants that, too, even the idea of doing so is considered immoral.

For a lot of people (obviously, not all, and I have no clue as to a percentage), it really has absolutely zero to do a wall or barrier, and it is completely about thwarting the president. The behavior of both parties is starting to disgust me.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#46

Post by Nerdfest » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:30 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.

You say that like reality is a significant factor in many people's decisions.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#47

Post by kevintb » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

Why is this flagged?

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#48

Post by krapp » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 11:05 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #40

krapp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 point…

The wall doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint - there isn't enough illegal immigration over the southern border to justify billions of dollars to wall it off entirely, where existing security measures and changes in immigration policy might have a better effect.

It does, however, make sense as a symbol of right-wing xenophobia and populist defiance against globalism. If Trump's supporters are focused on the wall, maybe they won't notice any of the other promises he's not keeping.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#49

Post by JohnTHaller » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

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.

Likely to counter the news of Roger Stone being indicted.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#50

Post by e_spriggz » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 11:32 PM UTC

Is this not an opportunity to disrupt subsistence wage service?

Consider there are 800K workers not being paid, and approximately one million affected contractors. Since salaries and contracts are mostly public, a chain ledger could issue prudent coin credits upon demand. Participating workers could microtransact for basic food and shelter. I realize this sounds like Wilbur Ross' "get a loan" idea, but this has complete transparency, zero friction and the obvious gravitas of blockchain pedigree.

Given the captive worker pool, the "proof of work" problem in traditional crypto coins can be solved---not by wasting power on hashing, but organically given the ability to document compulsory "essential services" (currently for no pay) by government workers. I.e., the government documents the "proof of work", first indirectly through FOIA and later through crafted transparency legislation to facilitate this scheme. This way, we could actualize the liquidity demand of unpaid workers.

Yes, this sounds novel, perhaps even dystopian. But tech has always innovated new ways to "harvest people"---first labor itself (eg "task rabbit" plays), then any prospect of raises, benefits, or wage mobility (uber), non-dischargeable educational debt (fake universities and state mandated licensing), and now the very payment of subsistence wages itself.

Technology can always "speed the harvest".

I might try to register eatca.ke (someone will take my money regardless), and zhuzh up a pitch deck.