Shutdown

[RunningMn9]

I don't engage trolls but I don't think they're ashamed. They're bullies. They're domestic abuse households. they're broken to their core. To them it's about feeling righteous and claiming victory, no matter the disconnect from reality. The idea that there is a proud Republican heritage that coincides with the confederate battle flag pretty much says it all. I don't think, as a collective, they're herd is capable of shame.

The true deplorables aren’t capable of shame.

[GungHo]

So if he declares an emergency how quickly does that go to court? And does it go straight to SCOTUS? And if those sycophants declare it legal, how long until they start building? I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

I've not really cared for any president we've ever had (at least in my politically aware lifetime) but I've never absolutely hated one until now.

[YellowKing]

I actually feel like Trump declaring an emergency and trying to unilaterally get this wall built is not the worst option. If he does that, he'll have a bunch of legal and political battles to go through, and everyone but his base will be outraged. Even Congressional GOP will be fidgeting uncomfortably.

No, the worst-case scenario is that he goes on TV, spews a bunch of convincing bullshit that the average apolitical viewer will gobble up, and all of a sudden we have public opinion polls turning against the Democrats for A) not resolving the shutdown and B) ignoring the grave security threat that is pounding at our threshold.

In other words, I'm all for Trump doing anything that adds to the growing body of evidence that he is unfit for office. Such a naked abuse of power would certainly qualify.

[hepcat]

I have to wonder if declaring a national emergency is his out. He declares a national emergency, it gets bounced by the house AND senate, he throws up his hands and sobs, “I tried!”. In the meantime, shutdown ends as he told everyone he was getting his wall through the defense department funds.

[Smoove_B]

That theory suggests Trump is capable of accepting a loss graciously. Once anyone starts to point out how weak and ineffectual he is as a President, he's going to get all worked up again and start making outrageous claims.

[hepcat]

Who says he’d accept it gracefully? He’d rail on about “the swamp”, but secretly be relieved that he was able to pass the blame onto yet another scapegoat.

[GreenGoo]

I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

The contracts would be written so that the contractors get paid whatever happens.

Good question about government opening. It should open the moment he makes the announcement. If it doesn't, people need to ask some hard questions.

[Archinerd]

He should just lie and tell everyone he already built the wall.

[Kraken]

He will milk this for as long as it monopolizes headlines and our forum. As soon as stories about Mueller and Russians and NK and strippers and tariffs start bleeding through again, he'll start another new crisis. He is really good at drowning out everything except his chosen topic. And gaslighting...how many millions of Americans who should know better believe now that there's a border crisis?

Wife just told me that the networks haven't yet committed to giving him the airtime. IDK where she read that, but she's not prone to making things up. Imagine if they refused to be played.

[YellowKing]

CBS is a go, but I think it's the only one that's committed so far.

[Kraken]

Well, low ratings are Trump's worst nightmare, so I'll do my part by not watching. I prefer print to seeing his ugly mug anyway.

Speaking of which, one can configure Detrumpify to replace pics of him with kittens (or puppies, or porn, or whatever source you choose). I very rarely see his ugly mug on the internet anymore. Kittens are soothing. Kittens make me smile.

[Zaxxon]

As if there's any chance at all that a major network ultimately declines...

[Skinypupy]

As if there's any chance at all that a major network ultimately declines...

Yup. It's eyeballs...gotta get people to tune in for the circus.

I'll catch the Cliffs Notes version of the crazy after the fact, thank you very much.

[El Guapo]

As a fun fact, Obama asked the networks to carry an immigration address live in 2014, and they all declined saying that it was too political.

[Zaxxon]

Yes, for Obama, sure. No one's declining Trump. That's why we have Trump.

[GreenGoo]

As a fun fact, Obama asked the networks to carry an immigration address live in 2014, and they all declined saying that it was too political.

I thought I read it from a link here on OO, to a NYT article referencing a previous article where they discussed 2 of the 3 networks refusing to carry one of Clinton's PR blitzes during prime time. Not that I expect anyone to turn down the opportunity to put a national dumpster fire with guaranteed viewership on TV.

[malchior]

I'm going to cross-post this in the Deathwatch thread too since this may be a pivotal moment for the MSM regarding covering Trump. This outstanding opinion piece by Greg Sargent highlights how the coverage tonight possibly will be a preview of 2020 media treatment of the Presidential campaign. Specifically around what or if the networks learning anything from their abysmal failures dealing with Trump's agitprop during the 2016 campaign.

Edit: This was linked in the Greg Sargent piece - Jay Rosen of NYU explains what an alternative to the media model used in 2016 might look like. However, it sure looks like he is predicting that the MSM has given up on trying to improve and is trying to push them from the outside.

[LordMortis]

Don't you mean MSM Media?

[GreenGoo]

I think I misremembered the NYT article. 2 networks carried the Clinton address and one didn't. 1 of the 2 cut away very early after they determined anything primetime news worthy had come and gone.

I would love for every network to carry Drumpf's address then cut away immediately after determining there was nothing worthwhile in his address. Of course that won't happen but it's fun to pretend.

If revenue is the driving force behind the decision it's really not a decision at all as I would expect record numbers to tune in to see what outrageousness the president is going to spew this time.

Just as obviously we can expect Fox and friends and right-wing sites to criticize the media whatever their decision and whatever they do.

[GreenGoo]

If a drinking game based on lies will kill you, perhaps one based on superlatives? It'll probably kill you too but you might last slightly longer.

[MonkeyFinger]

Seth Meyers had A Closer Look last night on this subject. I especially enjoyed the ending segment with Chris Wallace of Fox News fact checking Sarah Sanders on the "border crisis". That's her "Oh Sh*t" face...

[Grifman]

I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

The contracts would be written so that the contractors get paid whatever happens.

Congress has to appropriate the funds. If they don't, no one gets paid, regardless of any contract. There has to be a funding mechanism.

[pr0ner]

I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

The contracts would be written so that the contractors get paid whatever happens.

Congress has to appropriate the funds. If they don't, no one gets paid, regardless of any contract. There has to be a funding mechanism.

Correct. This is why my agency will shut down in a few weeks, even though we're fully fee funded.

[Skinypupy]

I know this is old news, but this particular point is super frustrating to me this morning.

The GOP had two full years of control of all three houses, yet couldn't get funding for this stupid wall. Then literally the day that the Dems take back control of the House, it suddenly somehow becomes a "national emergency" that has to be addressed before anything else, and is worth witholding pay from 800,000+ people to get.

The entire thing is such hypocrisy and such blatantly transparent partisan politics, yet you have 30% of the population who will defend it to the bitter end. I just can't seem to wrap my head around that at all.

[LordMortis]

I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

The contracts would be written so that the contractors get paid whatever happens.

Congress has to appropriate the funds. If they don't, no one gets paid, regardless of any contract. There has to be a funding mechanism.

And the root question as to why anyone has ever signed a contract with Trump. His deals mean nothing if you aren't securing payment from him. Not paying people is his thing.

[LawBeefaroni]

So if he declares an emergency how quickly does that go to court? And does it go straight to SCOTUS? And if those sycophants declare it legal, how long until they start building? I mean if you're a contractor aren't you extremely hesitant to take that contract seeing as how the next president could just undeclare the emergency and stop building? And does the govt get opened again?

Hell no. You take that job and build advance/guaranteed payments into the contract. Due to uncertainty, you can triple your rates while still eliminating risk.

Well, and you also take it because you're connected to the GOP leadership and/or Trump.

[malchior]

I know this is old news, but this particular point is super frustrating to me this morning.

The GOP had two full years of control of all three houses, yet couldn't get funding for this stupid wall. Then literally the day that the Dems take back control of the House, it suddenly somehow becomes a "national emergency" that has to be addressed before anything else, and is worth witholding pay from 800,000+ people to get.

Not a pick on you. I wish the powers that be would stop using the 800k number and use the real one which is between 1.3 and 1.5 million when you consider contract workers *who simply are not going to be made whole again*.

The entire thing is such hypocrisy and such blatantly transparent partisan politics, yet you have 30% of the population who will defend it to the bitter end. I just can't seem to wrap my head around that at all.

This is what they *want*. They want wall. They want to stick it to the libs. They don't care about the process. They just want to be on the winning side. Whatever that means and no matter what wreckage is left behind.

[El Guapo]

I'd say that there is like a 70% - 80% chance that Trump goes ahead with declaring a national emergency as a way to build the wall. It's very Trumpian - "I'll just go ahead and do it myself, damn the laws". It gives him an out on the shutdown, because with the Wall being built, he can agree to a clean CR with no wall funding. If it gets upheld in court, then great, I'm awesome. If it doesn't...well, that's a problem for Future Trump.

What the Democrats do in response...harder to say. I have to imagine that the House would promptly file a lawsuit. I also wonder whether stuff like this is going to wind up pushing Democrats to impeach Trump sooner rather than later (even if it remains doomed in the Senate).

[El Guapo]

Don't you mean MSM Media?

The second "M" is media.

[malchior]

I'd say that there is like a 70% - 80% chance that Trump goes ahead with declaring a national emergency as a way to build the wall. It's very Trumpian - "I'll just go ahead and do it myself, damn the laws". It gives him an out on the shutdown, because with the Wall being built, he can agree to a clean CR with no wall funding. If it gets upheld in court, then great, I'm awesome. If it doesn't...well, that's a problem for Future Trump.

This is a reasonable guess. There is also a good chance he wants the fight. It is a great distraction device.

What the Democrats do in response...harder to say. I have to imagine that the House would promptly file a lawsuit. I also wonder whether stuff like this is going to wind up pushing Democrats to impeach Trump sooner rather than later (even if it remains doomed in the Senate).

No matter what they will have to do something. This type of misappropriation is one of the things that the Constitution was designed to defeat.

[LordMortis]

Don't you mean MSM Media?

The second "M" is media.

So? The GOP Party chair is pretty clear that you should see MSM Media bias as a sign that you should go to the ATM Machine to get them their donations.

[malchior]

FWIW about the 'speech' tonight some commentators have been pointing out that Trump attempted to frame border security as a crisis in the run up to the mid-term and voters rejected it. I saw Norman Ornstein make a similar point last night on MSNBC. To paraphrase him, 'this will play to his base but Trump has shown an inability to build out his support level outside that base.' I think it'll be more interesting to see how institutions react to this (e.g. Congress and the national political press orgs) .

[Paingod]

Seth Meyers had A Closer Look last night on this subject. I especially enjoyed the ending segment with Chris Wallace of Fox News fact checking Sarah Sanders on the "border crisis". That's her "Oh Sh*t" face...

I'm just so ... I don't even. You don't need fake media or spin or bullshit to actually sit down and watch the man fall apart on stage and in every meeting. Every statement is rambling incoherence. If you stop and try to make sense of what the orange blob in a suit has said, it makes absolutely no sense.

[YellowKing]

It's fascinating to me that when the base sees another Republican, conservative newspaper, etc. attack Trump, the first instinct is not to question why, but instead to just label them as having been "taken over by liberal brainwashing."

Heck, I've been a victim of it on these boards. What YK? You mean you don't support Republicans making up non-existent problems, lying through their teeth, engaging in illegal gerrymandering, siding with our enemies, and being racist pieces of shit? You MUST have been brainwashed by the liberals!

[Paingod]

If it helps, I wouldn't call a Republican who can't stand Trump a Liberal. I'd just call them sane and/or capable of independent thought.

[El Guapo]

FWIW about the 'speech' tonight some commentators have been pointing out that Trump attempted to frame border security as a crisis in the run up to the mid-term and voters rejected it. I saw Norman Ornstein make a similar point last night on MSNBC. To paraphrase him, 'this will play to his base but Trump has shown an inability to build out his support level outside that base.' I think it'll be more interesting to see how institutions react to this (e.g. Congress and the national political press orgs) .

The other problem is that it doesn't even totally unify his base. The Post article on the origin of the idea of The Wall (as basically a device by his advisers to keep Trump talking on the stump about immigration) noted that a lot of strict anti-immigration groups are lukewarm to negative on The Wall, because it's unlikely to actually do much about illegal immigration, and they're worried that he'll incur costs or make tradeoffs to get The Wall.

[YellowKing]

So any wagers on how fast McConnell takes credit for ending the shutdown after Trump declares a national emergency? I'm going with 0.5 seconds. I added .25 seconds since he's elderly.

[Skinypupy]

Rumors are that Stephen Miller has written tonight's two-minute hate.

Those expecting veiled racism will be disappointed, as Miller's involvement likely means it will be right out in the open for all to see.

[Smoove_B]

So any wagers on how fast McConnell takes credit for ending the shutdown after Trump declares a national emergency?

I don't actually think Mitch wants to go this route at all as he knows the pendulum is likely going to swing back hard in 2020. Assuming we all survive President Trump, what happens when the next Democrat President declares Health Care or Greenhouse legislation a national emergency and bypasses the stranglehold Mitch has on the process?

The short-term effects of a declaration of emergency powers to build the wall are nothing in comparison to the bigger picture implications for how the whole process operates, imho.

[GreenGoo]

Congress has to appropriate the funds. If they don't, no one gets paid, regardless of any contract. There has to be a funding mechanism.

Irrelevant. The question was what happens if a new president changes his mind. The government isn't freed from its contractual obligations because Congress decides not to pay. They get paid, even if that payment is delayed.

If the contracts are never signed, that's a different story, but that wasn't the question I was answering.

Separately, the multiple articles I've read about declaring a national emergency seem to imply that Congress is removed from the equation at that point, so I'm not sure how they matter in that scenario. I only know what I've read, so that's not much.

What would be the point of a national emergency declaration if the people refusing to fund the wall are still the choke point for appropriation of those funds?