How will the "Wall" Shutdown end?

Question: if you work pay-period to pay-period, and one or two of those serves as your 'notice of termination' time yet you haven't been paid in that time and you're probably not going to get back-pay, why isn't that either exploitation/slavery/bondage or (as said above) unannounced notice of termination? 

So many of us outside looking on with sympathy for the non-politicians in this situation just can't understand how your rich nation can find itself out of operating cash at this moment. I mean we can (it's Supply, it has to ratified), but it's ludicrous that there's no reserves for emergencies. What was meant to happen in Y2K??

Let's face it - Trump think he's better the Obama.  He's using what he thought was Obama's tactic to shut down the government for Obamacare.

Big difference - Obamacare was law - Funding a wall is not.

Trump desperately needs a talking point for State of the Union and his re-election commercials.  (visuals).

If he didn't lie so much about the urgency of the crisis - he would of had more of a chance to get some funding.

I'm trying to figure out which Republicans are going to start speaking out against Trump and when? 

basil said:
Well, Putin outmaneuvered him, the short fat guy from north korea outmaneuvered him, so I don't see why Pelosi and Schumer would have a hard time outmaneuvering him on this one.

 Correct. 

jamie said:
Let's face it - Trump think he's better the Obama.  He's using what he thought was Obama's tactic to shut down the government for Obamacare.
Big difference - Obamacare was law - Funding a wall is not.
Trump desperately needs a talking point for State of the Union and his re-election commercials.  (visuals).
If he didn't lie so much about the urgency of the crisis - he would of had more of a chance to get some funding.
I'm trying to figure out which Republicans are going to start speaking out against Trump and when? 

 Also Obama had the votes, trump never did, Nancy called him out on this fact. We elected low IQ man president because he is popular. We will survive this so there will never be a president kardashian or kid rock. 

Always nice when a billionaire talks money management to people living paycheck to paycheck.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/business/wilbur-ross-loans-food-assistance-government-shutdown/index.html

joanne said:
Question: if you work pay-period to pay-period, and one or two of those serves as your 'notice of termination' time yet you haven't been paid in that time and you're probably not going to get back-pay, why isn't that either exploitation/slavery/bondage or (as said above) unannounced notice of termination? 

 Federal employees will get back pay. The vast majority of contractors, who make up about 40% of the federal workforce, will not. We keep hearing the 800,000 workers number, but that does not include contractors.

I'm a Texas resident and I was somehow added to Ted Cruz's mailing list after the election. (Hello? Beto supporter here.) I'm getting email every two or three days. Here's today's message. Interesting to see their perspective. Nancy Pelosi terrified? No, I don't think that's who is terrified.

--------------------------

kthnry, I'm sure you've caught this in the news by now - Nancy Pelosi is having President Trump "reschedule" his 2019 State of the Union address, which was set for January 29th. It's pretty clear what's going on. I can see it, and I'm sure you see it too. As I said in a recent interview with BlazeTV, Nancy Pelosi is TERRIFIED of her extreme left-wing base who DOES NOT want President Trump speaking directly to the American people on the substance of the issues facing our country! The position of congressional Democrats in this shutdown is absolutely unreasonable. In 2013, Chuck Schumer, and every Senate Democrat, voted in favor of 350 miles of border wall... yet now they have shut down the government to prevent 234 miles of border wall! These powerful elected officials fear and are completely beholden to the left-wing base -- and they will do anything and everything they can to prevent President Trump from succeeding. Whatever progress is happening for America, THEY WANT TO STOP IT. It's pure obstructionism with an eye on 2020. It's indefensible, and they know President Trump WILL call them out on the facts in no uncertain terms in his State of the Union address. I'm not holding back in calling out Nancy Pelosi on this – enough of their broken promises on the border and flip-flopping double-talk regarding this shutdown. Let's continue to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire. Your voice matters in this fight. THANK YOU again for being part of Team Cruz as we charge forward into 2019 - I appreciate all of your support! For liberty,   Ted Cruz P.S. Your support now is vital; we cannot allow the Democrats to obstruct progress as we tackle our nation's most pressing challenges! To chip in, please tap or click on the button below.

Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 Yes! He was excellent. And spoke the truth.

Morganna said:

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

 But the Dems need to be careful. They have to choose someone who can actually win, not just someone who will appeal only to liberals on the coasts. Many of those stepping forward so far could never get the votes needed.

unicorn33 said:

Morganna said:

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

 But the Dems need to be careful. They have to choose someone who can actually win, not just someone who will appeal only to liberals on the coasts. Many of those stepping forward so far could never get the votes needed.

who do you think those people are who can't get the needed votes.  I suppose Sanders might be one.  But aside form him, all of the rest are standard issue center-left Democrats.  There's not a bona fide progressive like an AOC in the bunch.

ml1 said:

unicorn33 said:

Morganna said:

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

 But the Dems need to be careful. They have to choose someone who can actually win, not just someone who will appeal only to liberals on the coasts. Many of those stepping forward so far could never get the votes needed.

who do you think those people are who can't get the needed votes.  I suppose Sanders might be one.  But aside form him, all of the rest are standard issue center-left Democrats.  There's not a bona fide progressive like an AOC in the bunch.

 I don't think most of the women or Buttigieg could get the votes nationally. Don't forget you're talking about an electorate in which 2/5 still support Trump.

Baldwin said:

jamie said:
Let's face it - Trump think he's better the Obama.  He's using what he thought was Obama's tactic to shut down the government for Obamacare.
Big difference - Obamacare was law - Funding a wall is not.
Trump desperately needs a talking point for State of the Union and his re-election commercials.  (visuals).
If he didn't lie so much about the urgency of the crisis - he would of had more of a chance to get some funding.
I'm trying to figure out which Republicans are going to start speaking out against Trump and when? 

 Also Obama had the votes, trump never did, Nancy called him out on this fact. We elected low IQ man president because he is popular. We will survive this so there will never be a president kardashian or kid rock. 

What Trump is too stupid to realize is that he probably could get re-elected if he worked with Democrats on certain issues and got a few things done.  He's so focused on feeding BS to his rabid base supporters that he's undermining his own future (and the country in the process).

I think it's just reality T.V. to Trump.  Fact is that he beat the political establishment in 2016 on a populist platform and could have forged a centrist populist program and the House and Senate would have gone along with him.  But that's not Trump.

“Smart wall” or some other nebulous term will allow Trump to surrender while maintaining cred with followers.

GL2 said:
“Smart wall” or some other nebulous term will allow Trump to surrender while maintaining cred with followers.

 This would make sense. But Trump wants a monument with his name on it. It has to be a physical barrier for him or nothing.

ridski said:

GL2 said:
“Smart wall” or some other nebulous term will allow Trump to surrender while maintaining cred with followers.

 This would make sense. But Trump wants a monument with his name on it. It has to be a physical barrier for him or nothing.

 Could we somehow shape the smart wall like a phallus?  Put a  little plaque on it?  

unicorn33 said:

ml1 said:

unicorn33 said:

Morganna said:

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

 But the Dems need to be careful. They have to choose someone who can actually win, not just someone who will appeal only to liberals on the coasts. Many of those stepping forward so far could never get the votes needed.

who do you think those people are who can't get the needed votes.  I suppose Sanders might be one.  But aside form him, all of the rest are standard issue center-left Democrats.  There's not a bona fide progressive like an AOC in the bunch.

 I don't think most of the women or Buttigieg could get the votes nationally. Don't forget you're talking about an electorate in which 2/5 still support Trump.

Why?  Because they're women?  The last woman got more votes than Trump.

ml1 said:

unicorn33 said:

ml1 said:

unicorn33 said:

Morganna said:

Jaytee said:

Morganna said:
Pretty moving speech by Sen. Michael Bennet Dem. of Colorado on the Senate floor. I was wondering if he would consider running.  And an hour later he was asked that question by Chuck Todd. He's thinking about it. Maybe his name will show up on the other thread.

 He is what we need to deal with this madness coming out of the white house

My list is getting longer. I'm all over the place. I'm so miserable with the monster we have, that everyone looks great to me. It feels like the whole country is stuck in an abusive relationship.

 But the Dems need to be careful. They have to choose someone who can actually win, not just someone who will appeal only to liberals on the coasts. Many of those stepping forward so far could never get the votes needed.

who do you think those people are who can't get the needed votes.  I suppose Sanders might be one.  But aside form him, all of the rest are standard issue center-left Democrats.  There's not a bona fide progressive like an AOC in the bunch.

 I don't think most of the women or Buttigieg could get the votes nationally. Don't forget you're talking about an electorate in which 2/5 still support Trump.

Why?  Because they're women?  The last woman got more votes than Trump.

 Various factors unfortunately come into play, including gender, race, and homophobia. And, of course, simple ignorance. 

I don't think the candidates who don't already have at least a bit of name recognition are going to be able to raise the money it takes to get a campaign off the ground.  But I don't see why Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, Booker and the other more well-known candidates won't get votes in places like Michigan or Wisconsin.

I'm starting to believe the shutdown is really about keeping the House from getting anything done (e.g. investigating Trump) now that the Democrats are in control.

ml1 said:
I don't think the candidates who don't already have at least a bit of name recognition are going to be able to raise the money it takes to get a campaign off the ground.  But I don't see why Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, Booker and the other more well-known candidates won't get votes in places like Michigan or Wisconsin.

 It's not just a question of getting votes; it's a matter of getting enough votes nationally. That means overcoming everything from gerrymandering to the various factors noted before to the in-fighting among Dems. And, heaven forbid, a third-party candidate splits the Dem votes....

 (And, correct me if I'm wrong, but even in 2016, 2/3 of white, non-college-educated women voted for Trump, despite everything.)

He has dug himself into a hole of his own making.   His timing is horrible.   To wait till the Dems were about to regain dominance in the House was a super bone head play.

The majority of the population is in sympathy and solidarity with the furloughed workers.

The best he can manage is one of his major spin fables as to how the Dems caused this mess and he will now put a budget through and return us to "normalcy"

Biggest surprise........Nancy P.  That woman is a great counter puncher.

In answer to Daniel Webster's question........."  How fares the Union."?    Don't worry old friend.

The sun will come out tomorrow .

unicorn33 said:

ml1 said:
I don't think the candidates who don't already have at least a bit of name recognition are going to be able to raise the money it takes to get a campaign off the ground.  But I don't see why Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, Booker and the other more well-known candidates won't get votes in places like Michigan or Wisconsin.

 It's not just a question of getting votes; it's a matter of getting enough votes nationally. That means overcoming everything from gerrymandering to the various factors noted before to the in-fighting among Dems. And, heaven forbid, a third-party candidate splits the Dem votes....
 (And, correct me if I'm wrong, but even in 2016, 2/3 of white, non-college-educated women voted for Trump, despite everything.)

but you haven't given any evidence that someone who would plausibly vote Democratic won't vote for a woman or a person of color.  The people who are going to reject Kamala Harris out of hand are almost certainly not going to vote for any Democrat.  The fact that Obama convincingly won two terms is pretty strong evidence that Corey Booker could beat Trump.  The fact that a quirk of 80,000 votes spread over 3 states kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House is pretty good evidence that any woman could beat Trump.

I've written it so often that I'm getting tired of myself but IMHO the biggest and dumbest mistake that the Democrats can make is to outthink the electorate on which candidates are "electable." Nominating a safe, boring centrist won't excite and bring out the voters the party needs.  And not one of the people running so far is some kind of wild-eyed radical who would turn off Democratic-leaning voters.  Not to mention the fact that ANYONE the Democrats nominate will be labeled a radical by the Republicans.  So there will be no such thing as an electable centrist whom the right wing nutosphere won't try to claim is a communist/socialist/terrorist America-hater.

ml1 said:

I've written it so often that I'm getting tired of myself but IMHO the biggest and dumbest mistake that the Democrats can make is to outthink the electorate on which candidates are "electable." Nominating a safe, boring centrist won't excite and bring out the voters the party needs.  And not one of the people running so far is some kind of wild-eyed radical who would turn off Democratic-leaning voters.  Not to mention the fact that ANYONE the Democrats nominate will be labeled a radical by the Republicans.  So there will be no such thing as an electable centrist whom the right wing nutosphere won't try to claim is a communist/socialist/terrorist America-hater.

 In other words, trust the results of the primaries.  

unicorn33 said:

 (And, correct me if I'm wrong, but even in 2016, 2/3 of white, non-college-educated women voted for Trump, despite everything.)

 Since it’s a secret ballot, and exit polls are notoriously flawed, you’re probably wrong. But, no, I can’t correct you.

unicorn33,

 of the women running who do you think would have the best chance?  My current favorites are Harris and Warren, although Warren confused me with her emphasis on the wealth tax. I had a hard time identifying her example of a person laden with paintings and inherited possessions who was earning a modest income. Maybe I need better examples. I think she had Chris Hayes a bit confused as well.

Well, now we know how it will end (at least for 3 weeks anyway)

Pelosi wins again. Trump gets nothing. What an ***.