Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#51

Post by votepaunchy »

mfoy_ wrote: post #31
syspec wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay.

The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#52

Post by craftyguy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #13
mfoy_ wrote: post #6

Off-topic, but damn HN... I submitted the CNBC and CBSNews versions of this. One got zero up-votes, and the other got flagged.

Now this one's flagged. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yea it's off topic. It belongs on reddit, not HN.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#53

Post by kuhhk »

votepaunchy wrote: post #51
mfoy_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The furloughed employees aren't actually guaranteed back-pay. The bill approving back-pay for the just-concluded shutdown also covers the remainder of the fiscal year (through September).

Wait, so does that mean pay would be ensured in the case of another shutdown?

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#54

Post by alphabettsy »

64738 wrote: post #45
mfoy_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 behavio…

I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#55

Post by alphabettsy »

donavanm wrote: post #12
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.

Im confused here. I thought “the shutdown” was wholly due to congress having the sole authority for funding federal bodies. How does that settle with “he will shut the government back down”?

The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#56

Post by scarface74 »

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

With the widely reported stats that most Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency, you can’t have too much of a “vacation” when you are worried about your bills.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#57

Post by scarface74 »

krapp wrote: post #11
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?

He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."

What’s amazing is that even conservative news outlets like Fox are saying the polls are against him and he still won’t believe it.

Re: Trump accepts deal for temporary end to painful shutdown

#58

Post by ramblerouser »

alphabettsy wrote: post #54
64738 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 behavio…

I think his rhetoric has a lot to do with how people view it now. But the funding that you’re talking about to repair and expand existing barriers was already used and the barrier exists to my knowledge. Dems also offered billions for immigration and border security that he rejected because he specifically wants a wall, despite the fact that it won’t have the greatest impact which is visa overstays.

Democrats dont want to stop visa overstays either (they want to abolish ICE), so how is that an argument against the wall?
Post reply on HN