Trump Government Shutdown

WordsMatter

MayCaesar said:

I have never understood why the government works the way it does in this regard. Suppose Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on some point of the budget. Very well, allocate the disputed amount (highest as proposed) for later use and keep quarrelling, but continue working on other endeavors on which you can find an agreement.

Total governmental shutdown over one disagreement in the budget planning indicates that something is broken in the system.

I was in El Paso a couple of weeks ago. There is enough border protection for even a mouse to not be able to sneak through. I walked on the same pathwalks the visitors from Mexico do. The protection is bigger than almost everywhere else in the world, aside from the 38th Parallel on the Korean peninsula, and the Gaza barricades. Suffice to say the situation is not nearly as dramatic as to warrant a complete halt of federal government performance for weeks.

Who is to blame here is irrelevant. Two sides cannot find a compromise. Both are to blame. But the main object of blame should be the system itself, that allows for such incredible situations.

It's fascinating you bring that up at this exact point in time. For those paying attention to Brexit in the UK, the deal Theresa May proposed was shot down and with the possibility of a break from the EU with no plan in place, the threat of a vote of no confidence in the government came up.

In a very brief description the house of commons (similar to our house of reps) if a vote of no confidence in the UK government (similar to the president and his cabinet) is reached then they must either step down or hold an early general election.

Now by no means would this happen or even pass in this specific time in America for a shutdown, at least of this length. However you are right it's amazing that nothing like this exists in America to break up a failing or permanently grid locked government. The closest thing we have is the 25th amendment section 4 where the vice president and 13 cabinet members decide the president is unfit to serve and the powers transfer to the vice president. Then if that action isn't ratified by two thirds of house of Representatives and the Senate within 21 days, then the power will be returned to the former president.

In the case of the 25th amendment it has to be triggered by the cabinet and the same federal branch or a similar one will remain in power. It is also interesting that the Representatives of the super majority of the population have no power to trigger no confidence in the president, like the way the UK has.

I think their should be some sort of fail safe like that for very extreme circumstances.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

It's fascinating you bring that up at this exact point in time. For those paying attention to Brexit in the UK, the deal Theresa May proposed was shot down and with the possibility of a break from the EU with no plan in place, the threat of a vote of no confidence in the government came up.

In a very brief description the house of commons (similar to our house of reps) if a vote of no confidence in the UK government (similar to the president and his cabinet) is reached then they must either step down or hold an early general election.

Now by no means would this happen or even pass in this specific time in America for a shutdown, at least of this length. However you are right it's amazing that nothing like this exists in America to break up a failing or permanently grid locked government. The closest thing we have is the 25th amendment section 4 where the vice president and 13 cabinet members decide the president is unfit to serve and the powers transfer to the vice president. Then if that action isn't ratified by two thirds of house of Representatives and the Senate within 21 days, then the power will be returned to the former president.

In the case of the 25th amendment it has to be triggered by the cabinet and the same federal branch or a similar one will remain in power. It is also interesting that the Representatives of the super majority of the population have no power to trigger no confidence in the president, like the way the UK has.

I think their should be some sort of fail safe like that for very extreme circumstances.

We do have a method to deal with no confidence in a president, and it isn't by perverting the 25th amendment which was meant solely for major medical incapacity of the president (brain aneurysm, massive stroke, coma, etc.).  It's called impeachment.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta impeachment only covers "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" not no-confidence 

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta impeachment only covers "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" not no-confidence 

However, Congress decides what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors;

What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office... Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

TTKDB

"Trump clashes with Pelosi, Schumer in Oval Office"

This video: Essentially, is the prelude to the partial government shutdown, so when I see a political representative, again expressing themselves, before the news media outlet cameras, about ending the partial government shutdown, to have a debate over the border related topic's, wasn't it? 

I believe that some of the citizens in the country, for the most has become familiar with this scenario engineering?
(Let's pass this or that bill into law, and then everyone can read what's in the bill after it's been signed into a law?)

So now, a new, but old and familiar dialogue is being verbally sculpted right before the eyes of the news media outlet viewers? 

(End the partial government shutdown, so that a debate can be had, all over again, that was previously held in the Oval Office, with the Vice President who was present, the President was present, the news media outlets, and their news cameras were present, along with Mrs. Pelosi, and Mr. Schumer, and I believe some of the President's staff as well, was on hand? 

I believe that is what the current POTUS was trying to do originally, in the Oval office ahead of the partial government shutdown?)

(I'm paraphrasing here)
And the meeting that followed attarwards? And the POTUS, I believe asked, if there was going to be funding made available for the Border wall, and he was told No?

"BREAKING: President Trump Walks Out On Democrats During Border Wall Talk"

And his words afterwards, "Bye, Bye?"

And then after that, the afterwards news conferences that were held with the news media outlet cameras afterwards? 

Maybe the above, is how some debates are being had, maybe? 

So, one side of the political aisle, basically in a sense makes a statement for their individual constituents, verses maybe, the voting public as a whole?

As of yesterday, a poll expressed that 52% of the public, supports a Border wall, while the other 48% disagrees with a Border wall?

That poll said more as an informative educational tool, for the Border wall, verses the various individual political representatives making statements to their perspective constituents? 

The chosen dialogue that some individuals choose to express before the news media outlet cameras, that could be interpreted as "perspective constituent based" verses the "public as a whole, based."

Is just as educational and enlightening, as a conducted poll can be.

So the, (end the partial government shutdown narrative, so that a debate can be re-had over what was being debated over to begin with prior to) the current partial government shutdown?

We've been there, and done that already, haven't we? 

Again, the Border wall, shouldn't have been an issue to begin with, when it could have already been constructed and continued to be in a managed state of upkeep?

Along with a border wall security detail, doing it's secondary job, of keeping vigilant eyes along the border via guard shacks or various overwatch segments.

Any number of US citizens, who have pulled or participated in a guard duty detail, with a company sized group of soldiers, or maybe with a battalion sized group of soldier's, would be familiar with such a guard duty detail.