So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Khaetra]

They shouldn't negotiate at all with him.

You might feel differently if you were on food stamps or receiving housing assistance.

You may feel differently in September when funding for all federal agencies will stop, including the FBI and the military.

It's easy to advocate not compromising when you have no skin in the game. This is why I advocate the 1291 papal election conclave solution: lock Trump, his Cabinet and the entire Congress in the Congressional building with only bread and water until they resolve things.

It is all on Trump, he made up the whole fake "crisis" so it is on him to end it.  The Senate could end it any time but McTurtle is blocking it.  F Trump.

+1

He had two years before the midterms, when the R's were fully in charge, to get funding for his wall but apparently it really wasn't such an 'emergency' then.  Now he has made it one and is holding Americans hostage.  He said in front of TV cameras that he would be glad to shut it down and own it, so he is fully to blame along with Turtle-Man who could end it in an instant but refuses to do his job.

[OtherJen]

They shouldn't negotiate at all with him.

You might feel differently if you were on food stamps or receiving housing assistance.

You may feel differently in September when funding for all federal agencies will stop, including the FBI and the military.

It's easy to advocate not compromising when you have no skin in the game. This is why I advocate the 1291 papal election conclave solution: lock Trump, his Cabinet and the entire Congress in the Congressional building with only bread and water until they resolve things.

It is all on Trump, he made up the whole fake "crisis" so it is on him to end it.  The Senate could end it any time but McTurtle is blocking it.  F Trump.

This. The House and Senate (excepting McConnell) have been ready to pass (or have passed) bipartisan bills since this nonsense began. I blame this solely on Trump and McConnell. What a disgusting show of loyalty to party over country.

[nereo]

They shouldn't negotiate at all with him.

You might feel differently if you were on food stamps or receiving housing assistance.

You may feel differently in September when funding for all federal agencies will stop, including the FBI and the military.

It's easy to advocate not compromising when you have no skin in the game. This is why I advocate the 1291 papal election conclave solution: lock Trump, his Cabinet and the entire Congress in the Congressional building with only bread and water until they resolve things.

First off, a bit of fact checking.  People on the SNAP program (what you and many call 'food stamps') have not been affected, yet.  That program has continued to operate and has enough money for another month or so.
Funding for all federal agencies will not stop in September absent a resolution, as many agencies and personnel are not funded through discretionary funding controlled by congress, and some of what is discretionary is funded for longer periods.

As someone who is directly impacted by this shutdown I just want it to end, but I also see this whole demanding funds for this or that as antithetical to the proper functioning of our government. Congress controls funding, not the President, and major funding bills ought to be presented in a budget and amended and debated as necessary.Each time we deviate from this and use shutdowns to fund (or defund) pet projects, the worse it gets the next time.  Government shutdowns have increased in both frequency and intensity due largely to this 'strategy'.  The reason you don't negotiate with hostage takers is because it encourages more hostage taking.

Both houses of the legislature have been ready to end the shutdown for some time.  Only Trump and McConnell stand in the way.

[OtherJen]

First off, a bit of fact checking.  People on the SNAP program (what you and many call 'food stamps') have not been affected, yet.  That program has continued to operate and has enough money for another month or so.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. From this Business Insider article:

Another problem has popped up with the SNAP benefits as well. Around 2,500 retailers are unable to renew their licenses to accept the SNAP payments, meaning customers in those stores can't use their Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT, cards to purchase groceries.

[nereo]

First off, a bit of fact checking.  People on the SNAP program (what you and many call 'food stamps') have not been affected, yet.  That program has continued to operate and has enough money for another month or so.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. From this Business Insider article:

Another problem has popped up with the SNAP benefits as well. Around 2,500 retailers are unable to renew their licenses to accept the SNAP payments, meaning customers in those stores can't use their Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT, cards to purchase groceries.

Fair enough.  My response was more because Kyle has been known to play fast and loose with the rules, regulations and conditions within the US, frequently suggesting things which are not legally possible or have been taken out of context to further a particular anti-US narrative.

[OtherJen]

First off, a bit of fact checking.  People on the SNAP program (what you and many call 'food stamps') have not been affected, yet.  That program has continued to operate and has enough money for another month or so.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. From this Business Insider article:

Another problem has popped up with the SNAP benefits as well. Around 2,500 retailers are unable to renew their licenses to accept the SNAP payments, meaning customers in those stores can't use their Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT, cards to purchase groceries.

Fair enough.  My response was more because Kyle has been known to play fast and loose with the rules, regulations and conditions within the US, frequently suggesting things which are not legally possible or have been taken out of context to further a particular anti-US narrative.

Understandable. And it's true that most people on SNAP are not going to experience financial consequences from the shutdown unless a solution isn't reached before the scheduled March disbursement.

[Glenstache]

Anyone else hear echoes of McConnell in 2008 saying that the primary goal of the next 4 years was to make Obama a one term president? This reads as effectively saying that they would rather just burn it all down to the ground than work with Democrats. Who cares if they were elected? This is the new mantra (new as in slowly building and festering post-Gingrich) of the GOP: party before country, and if the constitutional system does not meet your ends then work to subvert it. See also: voting rights, the multiple issues of systematic absentee vote rigging/fraud, consistent work to prevent felons from voting (Florida is a glimmer of light in that direction), and so on and so on.

This is not a policy issue. I may disagree with many deeply conservative views, but I recognize the need to work together in order to have a functional society. The problem I have is not with conservatives, per se, but with the political operations of the GOP.

[Poundwise]

I don't think McConnell is prioritizing party over country. I think he's prioritizing donors over party over country. And Trump is working for personal profit and to stay out of jail.

Neither of them have done the GOP a long term favor.  In the past, unaffiliated voters like me voted for local Republicans, but in my case, it will never happen again.

[partgypsy]

I don't think McConnell is prioritizing party over country. I think he's prioritizing donors over party over country. And Trump is working for personal profit and to stay out of jail.

Neither of them have done the GOP a long term favor.  In the past, unaffiliated voters like me voted for local Republicans, but in my case, it will never happen again.

That's why I think he is heavily courting evangelicals, white supremacists and factions which are smaller more extreme but have a pretty rabid loyal base for voting.

[dividendman]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

I think Pelosi shouldn't ever let him step foot in the house chamber. Let him do it from the Senate chamber (it would probably look too sad for Trump though, since it has limited seating) or let him do a big Trump rally to do it.

[partgypsy]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

I think Pelosi shouldn't ever let him step foot in the house chamber. Let him do it from the Senate chamber (it would probably look too sad for Trump though, since it has limited seating) or let him do a big Trump rally to do it.

gee, don't give him any ideas

[JLee]

Now Cohen's Congressional testimony has been indefinitely postponed due to threats to his family.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/michael-cohen-testimony-postponed-congress.html

How this is not witness tampering is beyond me.

[sol]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

What does it matter what she says?  This is politics, and Trump loves the power play.  I don't think he cares about what the law technically says about needing a House resolution, or about co-equal branches.

My prediction:  Trump physically shows up at the Capitol building on the appointed date, without an invitation, but with heavy secret service in tow, and forces the House armed guards to have a stand off with the president's armed guards.  It's the ultimate power play, a way to say "I have the force of the US military behind me and I'm going to do this regardless of what anyone says, or what's legal."

Like all coups, this comes down to how many people in the inner workings of government support each side.  Maybe the congressional armed guards will defer to the secret service, but maybe not.  Maybe Trump will physically push his way to the podium and maybe the parlimentarian will lock the door and forbid him entry.  Maybe the tv and audio crews will put him on the air and maybe they won't.  It's all about who you can get on your side.

[JLee]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

What does it matter what she says?  This is politics, and Trump loves the power play.  I don't think he cares about what the law technically says about needing a House resolution, or about co-equal branches.

My prediction:  Trump physically shows up at the Capitol building on the appointed date, without an invitation, but with heavy secret service in tow, and forces the House armed guards to have a stand off with the president's armed guards.  It's the ultimate power play, a way to say "I have the force of the US military behind me and I'm going to do this regardless of what anyone says, or what's legal."

Like all coups, this comes down to how many people in the inner workings of government support each side.  Maybe the congressional armed guards will defer to the secret service, but maybe not.  Maybe Trump will physically push his way to the podium and maybe the parlimentarian will lock the door and forbid him entry.  Maybe the tv and audio crews will put him on the air and maybe they won't.  It's all about who you can get on your side.

If that actually happened and was successful, there's no rule of law left to prevent Trump from simply remaining President for life.

[Kyle Schuant]

Currently the Secret Service are unpaid. Now if it were me, I would want the guys who are supposed to throw themselves in front of a bullet for me to at least get paid. I wouldn't be testing their loyalty too much.

[Glenstache]

Currently the Secret Service are unpaid. Now if it were me, I would want the guys who are supposed to throw themselves in front of a bullet for me to at least get paid. I wouldn't be testing their loyalty too much.

Maybe he'll buy them hamburders for lunch that day.

[MDM]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

What does it matter what she says?  This is politics, and Trump loves the power play.  I don't think he cares about what the law technically says about needing a House resolution, or about co-equal branches.

My prediction:  Trump physically shows up at the Capitol building on the appointed date, without an invitation, but with heavy secret service in tow, and forces the House armed guards to have a stand off with the president's armed guards.  It's the ultimate power play, a way to say "I have the force of the US military behind me and I'm going to do this regardless of what anyone says, or what's legal."

Like all coups, this comes down to how many people in the inner workings of government support each side.  Maybe the congressional armed guards will defer to the secret service, but maybe not.  Maybe Trump will physically push his way to the podium and maybe the parlimentarian will lock the door and forbid him entry.  Maybe the tv and audio crews will put him on the air and maybe they won't.  It's all about who you can get on your side.

If that actually happened and was successful, there's no rule of law left to prevent Trump from simply remaining President for life.

He currently is president and thus commander-in-chief, so that gives him some - but not all-encompassing - leeway.  When his term expires, that changes.   In any case, I doubt he'd order a tank to roll down the street and threaten to blast open the House doors.

There's plenty of law to limit Trump to eight years at the most.  E.g., see Presidential Election Laws.

Just as the right could look forward to no more than eight years of Obama, the left can look forward to no more than eight years of Trump.  The right was hoping for only four years of Obama, but that didn't work out for them.  How things will work out for the left and Trump...?

[palerider1858]

Currently the Secret Service are unpaid. Now if it were me, I would want the guys who are supposed to throw themselves in front of a bullet for me to at least get paid. I wouldn't be testing their loyalty too much.

Just my humble opinion, but I don't think the type of individual to make it into the Secret Service, through all the vetting processes and tests, is the kind of person to put paycheck over duty. I know you didn't say that but I would never question that institution or their loyalty.

[sequoia]

Pelosi has just told Trump he can't deliver his state of the union address from the House unless the government reopens.

What does it matter what she says?  This is politics, and Trump loves the power play.  I don't think he cares about what the law technically says about needing a House resolution, or about co-equal branches.

My prediction:  Trump physically shows up at the Capitol building on the appointed date, without an invitation, but with heavy secret service in tow, and forces the House armed guards to have a stand off with the president's armed guards.  It's the ultimate power play, a way to say "I have the force of the US military behind me and I'm going to do this regardless of what anyone says, or what's legal."

Like all coups, this comes down to how many people in the inner workings of government support each side.  Maybe the congressional armed guards will defer to the secret service, but maybe not.  Maybe Trump will physically push his way to the podium and maybe the parlimentarian will lock the door and forbid him entry.  Maybe the tv and audio crews will put him on the air and maybe they won't.  It's all about who you can get on your side.

If that actually happened and was successful, there's no rule of law left to prevent Trump from simply remaining President for life.

He currently is president and thus commander-in-chief, so that gives him some - but not all-encompassing - leeway.  When his term expires, that changes.   In any case, I doubt he'd order a tank to roll down the street and threaten to blast open the House doors.

There's plenty of law to limit Trump to eight years at the most.  E.g., see Presidential Election Laws.

Just as the right could look forward to no more than eight years of Obama, the left can look forward to no more than eight years of Trump.  The right was hoping for only four years of Obama, but that didn't work out for them.  How things will work out for the left and Trump...?

Oh man this will be a great live TV. I really missed GoT but this will do. Having said I agree with MDM. Highly doubt he would do anything that dramatic.

[talltexan]

I went on the record a while ago predicting more than 8 years of Trump. Many of the things he's doing remind me of FDR.

[caracarn]

I went on the record a while ago predicting more than 8 years of Trump. Many of the things he's doing remind me of FDR.

OK, except term limit laws were not in place with FDR, so not the same thing.

[talltexan]

I have shared my position with many people, both supporters and haters.

Almost all of them react as you did, saying that the Constitution forbids Presidents running for a third term.

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

If you do like Trump, my guess is you will probably like him even more four years from now, in which case this term limit thing might actually be troubling you. Plenty of Obama-supporters were wistfully saying, "why does he need to step down, anyway" not so long ago. He may do something like announce that he will happily be running as Pence's VP, and "everyone knows" what that will actually mean.

[caracarn]

I have shared my position with many people, both supporters and haters.

Almost all of them react as you did, saying that the Constitution forbids Presidents running for a third term.

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

If you do like Trump, my guess is you will probably like him even more four years from now, in which case this term limit thing might actually be troubling you. Plenty of Obama-supporters were wistfully saying, "why does he need to step down, anyway" not so long ago. He may do something like announce that he will happily be running as Pence's VP, and "everyone knows" what that will actually mean.

I was simply pointing out that things were added as the country saw this as important to limit.  I was not adding all this to it. I do not support Trump but I also do not feel like he's done something unconstitutional.  He's using Executive Orders just like Obama did and people complain, just like they did with Obama.  Trump, who complained that Obama used them, using them is just funny to me. 

I tend to react to reality not what ifs.  Certainly if he tries to do away with term limits and the people with power to stop him do not, then we have a new reality. 

[Kris]

I have shared my position with many people, both supporters and haters.

Almost all of them react as you did, saying that the Constitution forbids Presidents running for a third term.

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

If you do like Trump, my guess is you will probably like him even more four years from now, in which case this term limit thing might actually be troubling you. Plenty of Obama-supporters were wistfully saying, "why does he need to step down, anyway" not so long ago. He may do something like announce that he will happily be running as Pence's VP, and "everyone knows" what that will actually mean.

LOL yeah, but come on. That ain't the same thing. I've never actually heard anyone on the left express any real support for that. If Obama had tried somehow to run for a third term, I would have been very alarmed and would have pulled my support and protested loudly. We have term limits. Period. I think it's a good thing. And if a Congress tried to remove those term limits, it would be for purely partisan reasons. I would never support that, in either party, because it doesn't take a genius to understand what the future consequences of that could be.

[FIPurpose]

I went on the record a while ago predicting more than 8 years of Trump. Many of the things he's doing remind me of FDR.

I can't think of anything that makes Trump like FDR. They were both rich? That's about it.

I have shared my position with many people, both supporters and haters.

Almost all of them react as you did, saying that the Constitution forbids Presidents running for a third term.

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

If you do like Trump, my guess is you will probably like him even more four years from now, in which case this term limit thing might actually be troubling you. Plenty of Obama-supporters were wistfully saying, "why does he need to step down, anyway" not so long ago. He may do something like announce that he will happily be running as Pence's VP, and "everyone knows" what that will actually mean.

1. There wasn't anyone suggesting Obama run for a third term.

2. No one to my knowledge is complaining about executive order power anymore than they normally do.

3. The only/most important clause that people claim Trump is breaking is the emoluments clause which I believe he very likely is.

4. He would not be able to run for VP, and even if he did, would be setting himself up to be deposed by the supreme court. Plus he'd be 78 years old by this point. The man hardly looks like he'll survive that long.

[nereo]

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

For all the hand-wringing of how DJT has changed the nature of the presidency to date the laws and check-and-balances put forth in the Constitution have held. The courts have prevented executive overreach multiple times (e.g. DACA, the first to travel bans) and he's been prevented from reappropriating funds to build his wall.  It's never been clear whether a sitting president could be indicted as the constitution clearly points out a seperate route for "high-crimes and misdomeaners" (i.e. Impeachment) but numerous lawsuits against him, his family and his businesses are nevertheless moving forward as they would against virtually any other high-profile individual.  Through a combination of political pressure and legal regulations he's been unable to control the Mueller investigation despite exercising his constitutional power to hire and fire many of the individuals involved (e.g. Comey, Sessions) and I suspect we'll see whether those moves amount to the legal standard of obstruction in due course.  He hasn't been able to prevent a mass exodus of Puerto-Ricans from moving to the mainland, nor has he or the GOP been particularly successful at curtailing their right to vote once they move to the mainland.  His efforts to minimize the effects of the shutdown on his supporters by forcing certain sectors back to work has only been partially successful, and these - too - are being challenged in the courts. At the same time, the biggest check on a president - the legislature - became evident when the GOP got shellacked during the last election and lost their House majority and with it their ability to control all investigative committees.

[Kris]

Cohen just got subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[nereo]

Cohen just got subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I was wondering how long that was going to take. One cannot simply refuse to testify in front of congress if the chair really wants you to testify. 
I'm guessing this latest 'postponement' was just a ploy by Cohen and his lawyers; now he can say "well I tried not to testify but gee now I have no choice" as well put additional scrutiny on anyone within the WH who tries to pressure him or his family. Any attempt by DJT now to stop him from testifying will look an awfully lot like he's obstructing.

[Glenstache]

Cohen just got subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Had to read that twice. Was not expecting that to be the Senate. Interesting. Wonder if that was a push by Elijah Cummings.

[Kris]

Cohen just got subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Had to read that twice. Was not expecting that to be the Senate. Interesting. Wonder if that was a push by Elijah Cummings.

I know.
Also, sorry, duh, I meant the Intelligence committee.

[talltexan]

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

For all the hand-wringing of how DJT has changed the nature of the presidency to date the laws and check-and-balances put forth in the Constitution have held. The courts have prevented executive overreach multiple times (e.g. DACA, the first to travel bans) and he's been prevented from reappropriating funds to build his wall.  It's never been clear whether a sitting president could be indicted as the constitution clearly points out a seperate route for "high-crimes and misdomeaners" (i.e. Impeachment) but numerous lawsuits against him, his family and his businesses are nevertheless moving forward as they would against virtually any other high-profile individual.  Through a combination of political pressure and legal regulations he's been unable to control the Mueller investigation despite exercising his constitutional power to hire and fire many of the individuals involved (e.g. Comey, Sessions) and I suspect we'll see whether those moves amount to the legal standard of obstruction in due course.  He hasn't been able to prevent a mass exodus of Puerto-Ricans from moving to the mainland, nor has he or the GOP been particularly successful at curtailing their right to vote once they move to the mainland.  His efforts to minimize the effects of the shutdown on his supporters by forcing certain sectors back to work has only been partially successful, and these - too - are being challenged in the courts. At the same time, the biggest check on a president - the legislature - became evident when the GOP got shellacked during the last election and lost their House majority and with it their ability to control all investigative committees.

GOP lost the House, but they increased their margin in the Senate. Without the need to consider meaningful legislation, McConnell can go about confirming judges. The longer they can keep a Republican President, the more judges.

[nereo]

If you do not like Trump, you probably already think he's violating other parts of the Constitution , so what makes you think this part would be sacred?

For all the hand-wringing of how DJT has changed the nature of the presidency to date the laws and check-and-balances put forth in the Constitution have held. The courts have prevented executive overreach multiple times (e.g. DACA, the first to travel bans) and he's been prevented from reappropriating funds to build his wall.  It's never been clear whether a sitting president could be indicted as the constitution clearly points out a seperate route for "high-crimes and misdomeaners" (i.e. Impeachment) but numerous lawsuits against him, his family and his businesses are nevertheless moving forward as they would against virtually any other high-profile individual.  Through a combination of political pressure and legal regulations he's been unable to control the Mueller investigation despite exercising his constitutional power to hire and fire many of the individuals involved (e.g. Comey, Sessions) and I suspect we'll see whether those moves amount to the legal standard of obstruction in due course.  He hasn't been able to prevent a mass exodus of Puerto-Ricans from moving to the mainland, nor has he or the GOP been particularly successful at curtailing their right to vote once they move to the mainland.  His efforts to minimize the effects of the shutdown on his supporters by forcing certain sectors back to work has only been partially successful, and these - too - are being challenged in the courts. At the same time, the biggest check on a president - the legislature - became evident when the GOP got shellacked during the last election and lost their House majority and with it their ability to control all investigative committees.

GOP lost the House, but they increased their margin in the Senate. Without the need to consider meaningful legislation, McConnell can go about confirming judges. The longer they can keep a Republican President, the more judges.

That has nothing to do violating the constitution, which is what i was responding to.  With control of the senate the GOP retains a good deal of power, particularly with confirmation of positions.

[OtherJen]

And another one bites the dust: Trump longtime ally Stone arrested in U.S. Special Counsel probe

[OtherJen]

And in #TrumpGOPshutdown news, Airport Delays Ripple Across Northeast Due to Air Traffic Controller Shortage

[nereo]

And in #TrumpGOPshutdown news, Airport Delays Ripple Across Northeast Due to Air Traffic Controller Shortage

Turns out these employees are, in fact, essential to things running, and when they go unpaid their effectiveness decreases.

Maybe when a lot of business travelers are delayed the pressure to reopen the government will finally reach a critical threshold.

[Omy]

A massive walkout would do the trick. Or a major tragedy.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

A massive walkout would do the trick. Or a major tragedy.

I fear that it may take the latter.

[bacchi]

A massive walkout would do the trick. Or a major tragedy.

I fear that it may take the latter.

It could be as simple as two planes colliding on the ground. The initial investigators would decide it was due to stress and over-work. That initial report would quickly be changed and blamed on weather but the narrative would be set.

Trump is in a losing position. He can bully sub-contractors and vendors but that doesn't work as well in (more or less) co-equal branches of government.

[Kris]

A massive walkout would do the trick. Or a major tragedy.

I fear that it may take the latter.

It could be as simple as two planes colliding on the ground. The initial investigators would decide it was due to stress and over-work. That initial report would quickly be changed and blamed on weather but the narrative would be set.

Trump is in a losing position. He can bully sub-contractors and vendors but that doesn't work as well in (more or less) co-equal branches of government.

"After reports of flights being halted from airports in New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida, the flight attendant union released a statement asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), "Do we have your attention now?""

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/flight-attendant-union-to-mitch-mcconnell-do-we-have-your-attention-now-yDTE4fnIzUmYGRFAa5MbBw/

[Omy]

I'm shocked that a terrorist has not already taken advantage of the situation. We are sitting ducks when our first line of defense (TSA, Coast Guard, etc.) are unpaid and disgruntled.

[thd7t]

I think that the (real) dangers of unpaid Air Traffic Controllers will be what makes Trump go ahead with the emergency declaration.  The timing is good for him, because it will distract from the Roger Stone indictment and he'll include "border security", but someone has to be telling him that this will look less partisan.

[nereo]

I think that the (real) dangers of unpaid Air Traffic Controllers will be what makes Trump go ahead with the emergency declaration.  The timing is good for him, because it will distract from the Roger Stone indictment and he'll include "border security", but someone has to be telling him that this will look less partisan.

TBH, if declaring an emergency allows this whole fiasco to end quickly I wouldn't object.  It may be the only face-saving way to end this standoff.

Don't get me wrong, I think DJT has already lost the argument that this *is* an emergency, and I expect if he takes this route that it will be both challenged and roundly slapped down by the courts.  Hard to say something is a national emergency now when it wasn't last week, or last month, or for the last two years, and nothing of substance has changed during that time frame.

[Omy]

Create emergency, blame emergency on others, lie, and distract. Repeat. The gas lighting of America.

[nereo]

Create emergency, blame emergency on others, lie, and distract. Repeat. The gas lighting of America.

seems to be losing its effectiveness with each iteration.

[Kris]

Ha -- it looks like the pressure got to be too much for Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-leaders-continue-to-seek-a-deal-to-end-shutdown-that-will-satisfy-trump/2019/01/25/09c898dc-20ad-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1GOh0nv2zFdobjmGkxKzWPlHMmEn--7yuuvp0HyIihwRTzM_SAMACJDuY&utm_term=.11b016adc3a9

[thd7t]

Ha -- it looks like the pressure got to be too much for Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-leaders-continue-to-seek-a-deal-to-end-shutdown-that-will-satisfy-trump/2019/01/25/09c898dc-20ad-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1GOh0nv2zFdobjmGkxKzWPlHMmEn--7yuuvp0HyIihwRTzM_SAMACJDuY&utm_term=.11b016adc3a9

Oooh!  I'm so happy I was wrong!  He folded!  Of course, it's not over until it's over, but pressure is Trump's weakness (also a laundry list of other weaknesses).

[Inaya]

Was it the pressure? Or was it simply because having a big televised State of the Union Address was more important to him than his wall?

[Kris]

Was it the pressure? Or was it simply because having a big televised State of the Union Address was more important to him than his wall?

Of course, I don't know. But I have a feeling the looming PR crisis of having the entire commercial aviation industry in total uproar -- which seemed like it was just about to happen, like literally today -- might have been the tipping point.

[bacchi]

Was it the pressure? Or was it simply because having a big televised State of the Union Address was more important to him than his wall?

Of course, I don't know. But I have a feeling the looming PR crisis of having the entire commercial aviation industry in total uproar -- which seemed like it was just about to happen, like literally today -- might have been the tipping point.

Yeah, it would've spread. There was about to be delay upon delay, throughout the country.

[GuitarStv]

Was it the pressure? Or was it simply because having a big televised State of the Union Address was more important to him than his wall?

I suspect it was more likely that the potential of air traffic disruption to Trump's personal flights to Florida for golf.