Was There Just a Coup in the US?

[Matthew Strongin]

There’s nearly 600 miles of physical barrier that already exists between on our southern border. She’s made zero effort to remove any of it. Pelosi’s view is that it is immoral and doesn’t work, why wouldn’t she have made the slightest effort to remove such an immorality that has no value ?

But more to the point, do you really think pelosi is more concerned with the cost, efficiency, or morality of a wall versus hurting trumps chances at getting re-elected?

Seriously? So because she hasn't tried to remove a barrier that was approved democratically despite her using her most powerful tool, her vote as an elected official, she somehow isn't actually against the barrier? Or do you mean that she didn't go down to the border with a sledgehammer and try to knock it down. You imply that she's not really against a wall despite a voting record that consistently shows she doesn't support physical barriers. All to fit your narrative that she and other democrats really are just using the wall as a way to make Trump's reelection more difficult. To answer your question, yes I do believe she is against a wall for moral, humanitarian, environmental and other reasons (along with many americans, myself included. It's probably also not a stretch to say that she doesn't want Trump re-elected, but that doesn't discount her 14 years or more of voting against physical barriers and consistency on that stance.

[GonaSovereign]

I'm all about different viewpoints. I just want everyone to be able to defend their POV with intellectual honesty and being able to think critically about their own views and those of others. I've learned a lot from folks whose worldview might be different from my own. And civility is always a requirement to a good discussion.

It probably makes sense for someone to carve this into granite. At least make it part of school curricula. Not only in the US, but everywhere on this planet.

[j44ke]

I don't think it is as simple as Trump wants a wall and his opposition doesn't. I think most people want immigration reform. The fast food answer to that is a wall. I don't think that most people think a fast food answer is the best answer just now. And most people definitely don't agree that shutting down the government is the way to do anything. The numbers on most of the polls are significant enough margin of error doesn't even matter.

Everyone is all government sucks blah blah blah and this and that, but when their social security check doesn't show up or they can't get the tax refund or they can't get approved for a mortgage or their farm bills are going unpaid because they can't apply for trade-war aid, they're like I will drive them to work and feed them dinner at my house.

I'm betting this goes on until March.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ge%2Fstory-ans

[caleb]

And when politicians act as if their job is to entertain, because they believe government is the problem.
Then it's not their responsibility to find solutions to any important issues.
-g

I think I understand what you mean, but it's not all politicians, it's a nihilistic and cynical strain of libertarianism that has been alloyed to the Republican Party at the national level in the United States post-1980, and more significantly post-1994.

The departure from anything recognizable as conservatism within that party is important. The conservative idea that government does have responsibilities like passing balanced budgets or promoting public virtue have been totally abandoned. Government no longer has a public purpose beyond the most basic night watchman state. That lack of purpose is an issue at this moment because a large part of the party in control doesn't really believe in the machinery they now run, but the machinery persists as a material fact. So what do you do with a government you don't believe in? That was never really a problem that existed regardless of the party in control before Nozik/Friedman/Reagan, because everyone more or less believed in government.

The platform of a bigger vision for government remains, and has been filled by the airing of petty social differences by a public with too much time and connectivity on its hands.

[j44ke]

Yes, for someone like Grover Norquist, the government shutdown isn’t a point of leverage in a deadlocked negotiation. It is the goal.

[ZenNMotion]

Don't kid yourself, Pelosi doesn't want a wall because it will get Trump re-elected. She didn't become anti-physical barrier over night. Trump wants a wall because he can't get reelected without a wall. Its that simple.

When people make a statement "it's just that simple" it's most likely not. That simple. At all. Pelosi knows that if Trump prevails, or is perceived to prevail by his base, the wall is just the beginning of what will surely be a long series of hostage-like events where Trump shuts down or threatens to shut down the government for any number of shiny object ideations that he thinks make him look good. The tantrums would just displace to the next item on his list even if Congress wrote a $5billion ransom check. NATO? Russia sanctions? AOC? gun control? voting rights? DACA? Some key indictment too close to home? the next SCOTUS fight? It would all be fair game because his "dealmaking" won the day so why not do it again?

[ZenNMotion]

AOC?

ACA, grrr. Freudian slip...

[Bob Ross]

There’s nearly 600 miles of physical barrier that already exists between on our southern border. She’s made zero effort to remove any of it. Pelosi’s view is that it is immoral and doesn’t work, why wouldn’t she have made the slightest effort to remove such an immorality that has no value ?

Because removing the extant wall -- a symbolic act which might have "value" -- most definitely would have a cost. And it's the $5.7B cost of the wall that Pelosi et al object to even more than whether it's "immoral" or "racist" or just plain "stupid".

If Trump wanted $5.70 for his wall the government would not be shut down and Democrats would not be objecting. They'd probably pass the plate at lunch time and get it over with so they could move on to far more important matters. But no, Trump wants $5.7B which is, in the local parlance, a metric fuck-ton of money that could be better used elsewhere. Disassembling the extant wall might cost some subset of $5.7B, but it still costs more than $5.70. Frugality isn't just the province of Republicans.

[GrantM]

never mind! i don't know why i get into these discussions!

-g

[Dallas Tex]

never mind! i don't know why i get into these discussions!

-g

Your contribution is definitely needed, someone may spell something wrong.

[Dallas Tex]

But no, Trump wants $5.7B which is, in the local parlance, a metric fuck-ton of money that could be better used elsewhere. Disassembling the extant wall might cost some subset of $5.7B, but it still costs more than $5.70. Frugality isn't just the province of Republicans.

$5.7B is tiny in relation to a $4.4 TRILLION (with a 'T') budget. 1/10th of 1% ? This newfound frugality is appreciated, I just believe the motives are more related to politics than frugality or morality. I could be wrong.

[vertical_doug]

Because removing the extant wall -- a symbolic act which might have "value" -- most definitely would have a cost. And it's the $5.7B cost of the wall that Pelosi et al object to even more than whether it's "immoral" or "racist" or just plain "stupid".

If Trump wanted $5.70 for his wall the government would not be shut down and Democrats would not be objecting. They'd probably pass the plate at lunch time and get it over with so they could move on to far more important matters. But no, Trump wants $5.7B which is, in the local parlance, a metric fuck-ton of money that could be better used elsewhere. Disassembling the extant wall might cost some subset of $5.7B, but it still costs more than $5.70. Frugality isn't just the province of Republicans.

The question is what portion of the wall the $5.7b actually funds. Overall, I thought the administration wanted something like $18b in funding over a few years. Another part to consider here is how will the money actually be spent? I believe WH still has over $1b of available funds from previous budgets that has yet to be spent. I also seem to recall the democrats were not happy with lack of details on how the money is to be used.

[guido]

I think the bigger issue is that the Dems want to stop the insanity of government closure brinkmanship that has been standard operating rules for the Repubs. It is no way run run a country and is only a sign of deep dysfunction. Hostage taking is a crime that will land you or i in the hoosegow. Somehow the Repubs think it is the way to run the government. I can't begin to count how many ways that is just broken. The profound cruelty to the innocent men and women who work to keep the country running is really unspeakable.

[vertical_doug]

$5.7B is tiny in relation to a $4.4 TRILLION (with a 'T') budget. 1/10th of 1% ? This newfound frugality is appreciated, I just believe the motives are more related to politics than frugality or morality. I could be wrong.

a couple points:
1. 64.63% of the budget is mandatory spending. 50% of that is social security and unemployment. Another 23% is medicare.
2. 29.34% of the budget is discretionary. 53.71% of discretionary is military.
3. 6.03% is Interest on debt. (Luckily interest rates are low)

If you want to cut taxes and increase military spending, then the deficit will explode.

So to summarize what many people have said on this forum, the whole wall debate and gov shutdown over it are a huge waste of time and only matter to the politicians and the fringe. America need people to focus on the big issues. If interest rates ever normalized, our interest on debt would make America SOL.

[Dallas Tex]

I think the bigger issue is that the Dems want to stop the insanity of government closure brinkmanship that has been standard operating rules for the Repubs. It is no way run run a country and is only a sign of deep dysfunction. Hostage taking is a crime that will land you or i in the hoosegow. Somehow the Repubs think it is the way to run the government. I can't begin to count how many ways that is just broken. The profound cruelty to the innocent men and women who work to keep the country running is really unspeakable.

I think you may be overlooking that 8 of the 20 government shutdowns were under Dem presidents.

I question the profound cruelty that you mention. Two missed paychecks? Folks get laid off from work everyday. Hourly folks don’t get to clock in unless the business has enough work that day to keep them busy. Temporary layoffs are common. Private sector employees deal with these situations everyday.

And understand, I think all politicians suck and both sides are dirty. I’m amazed when folks feel that ‘your side’ are sadistic idiots, but ‘my side’ compassionate geniuses.

[AngryScientist]

Trump wants a wall because he can't get reelected without a wall. Its that simple.

it may be a sophomoric view, but i think it's even more simple than that.

does the trumpster even want to get re-elected? he's got to realize at this point that he is damned old, and this job is wearing him out. i have to figure he just wants to get back to his slimy old life of sitting on a golf course, listening to himself talk and plowing porn stars.

i think it's about his ego, plan and simple. getting elected in the first place was proving he could do it, and getting his wall proves his "master negotiator" status. he is a bully and an unprofessional ass. the way he treats and addresses people he does not agree with is disgraceful for the front man of the united states, and this stunt to negotiate at gunpoint is just the latest iteration of the irrational school bully mentality he has used for decades.

apologies in advance. i'm outraged my country is in the state it is.

[vertical_doug]

I think you may be overlooking that 8 of the 20 government shutdowns were under Dem presidents.

I question the profound cruelty that you mention. Two missed paychecks? Folks get laid off from work everyday. Hourly folks don’t get to clock in unless the business has enough work that day to keep them busy. Temporary layoffs are common. Private sector employees deal with these situations everyday.

And understand, I think all politicians suck and both sides are dirty. I’m amazed when folks feel that ‘your side’ are sadistic idiots, but ‘my side’ compassionate geniuses.

I take exception here.
There have been 22 'shutdowns' but only 10 have led to furloughed workers. This started back with Carter in 1980. The first 6 furloughs only lasted a total of 12 days with most lasting 1. It wasn't until Clinton-Gingrich, that it all started to go pear shaped.

1995-96 under Clinton 21 days
2013 Obama 16 days
2018 Trump 3 days
2019 Trump 34 days

I do not think the Wall gtees a re-election. We always re-elect a wartime President. What is Venezuela?

[Dallas Tex]

it may be a sophomoric view, but i think it's even more simple than that.

does the trumpster even want to get re-elected? he's got to realize at this point that he is damned old, and this job is wearing him out. i have to figure he just wants to get back to his slimy old life of sitting on a golf course, listening to himself talk and plowing porn stars.

i think it's about his ego, plan and simple. getting elected in the first place was proving he could do it, and getting his wall proves his "master negotiator" status. he is a bully and an unprofessional ass. the way he treats and addresses people he does not agree with is disgraceful for the front man of the united states, and this stunt to negotiate at gunpoint is just the latest iteration of the irrational school bully mentality he has used for decades.

apologies in advance. i'm outraged my country is in the state it is.

Interesting points. I believe everyone operating at this level has huge ego. And yes he is crude AF. I believe supporters like that, we’ve gone too many years with polite politicians giving smooth non-answers to every question and accomplishing nothing. This border problem has gone on for 30+ years with nothing done by either side, maybe he’s simply committed to resolving it.

But to your point, I believe what’s driving him is he wants to win. And he wants to win re-election and winning this border wall is part of win winning re-election.

[theflashunc]

$5.7B is tiny in relation to a $4.4 TRILLION (with a 'T') budget. 1/10th of 1% ? This newfound frugality is appreciated, I just believe the motives are more related to politics than frugality or morality. I could be wrong.

And yet as some have pointed out the same $5.7 billion that is considered tiny could fund universal pre K for about every kid in this country.

So why aren't we using the money for that? What'll be of more utility to this country? A couple hundred miles of barrier experts agree is useless, or public education?

[Dallas Tex]

And yet as some have pointed out the same $5.7 billion that is considered tiny could fund universal pre K for about every kid in this country.

So why aren't we using the money for that? What'll be of more utility to this country? A couple hundred miles of barrier experts agree is useless, or public education?

This past December the US pledged $10.6 billion in aid for Central America, about half of which is for Southern Mexico. How much could that money help our own schools and our own children’s education?