Is Trump Right to Shutdown the Government over His Wall?

The problem is that one side has to capitulate, so at least one promise is going to be broken in any case. This is doubly true after the new congress is seated.

Apparently, Trump and very few supporters of his have ever seen Patton. Kinda funny since most of them probably claim to be big supporters of the military.

The wall is a waste of money, it’s an ecological disaster, it’s ineffective, an insult to our neighbor. Trump is a lying piece of shit and that’s where it comes from, racist dog whistling.

*sigh* None of the responses so far have even come close to addressing the main point of Iain’s article (they are just ad hominem attacks); do we live in a democracy, or do we not, and should a president actually follow up on the promises which got him elected? We are so used to a president doing no such thing (Obama, and many who came before), that it is a shock to see a president (no matter how much of a liar, how disgusting etc. he may be) actually attempt to do so. I really do wonder where America is going, atm it seems it is headed straight for a brick wall at full speed (not to say things are much better elsewhere).

IMHO, with the current state of technology, government could and should be run directly by the people through online referendums. Politicians/thought leaders would simply represent their arguments for or against one legislation or another, and the vote would occur online, not in congress. I suppose that would require a free press and for lobbying to be made illegal first though :/

One of the errors in this line of thinking is the presumption that Trump was elected ‘by the people’. Note that Ian is careful not to use the wide-spread rightist trope that claims a majority of the electorate, sometimes even an overwhelming majority, elected him. That didn’t happen.

Trump’s policies, including the marketing gimmick called The Wall, are for the most part very unpopular (if you believe the polls), and he was elected by a minority of the voters, a vanishingly small one if the many non-voters are taken into account. Whether he fights for this or that gimmick or not is irrelevant. He changes his mind whenever he wants, and his fans devotedly go along with it no matter what. What was a fight yesterday is something else tomorrow. Thus any “fight” he engages in is more likely kayfabe, something Washington and the mass media are very, very familiar with.

The unfortunate thing is that these phony fights have real outcomes and real harm can and often is done.

Mr. Market isn’t happy. Not any more. The deterioration of the regime due to incompetence and its mercurial leader is undeniable. Alarms are going off, red lights flashing, and what will happen is anybody’s guess. Intervention has long been called for. So what kind of intervention do we get? Fox and Friends. Laura. Rush. We are blessed, no?

Our rulers, not just Trump, have shown themselves to be empty shells, feet of clay, blah blah blah, with no clue how to do the right thing — or even what the right thing is — in a crisis. Chaos is Trump’s métier to be sure, but an open eyed observer recognizes it’s not only him or his cronies. Chaos pervades the mindless rulership class.

So here we are.

And a Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.



If Trump wants to control the flow of Refuges, Refugees cause primarily by US policies to Latin America, he should address the policies.

For example: Sanctions on Nicaragua and Venezuela who have the effrontery to believe there are other paths other than the US way.

This all mixed up with the US frothing at the mouth because of possible Russian interference in US elections. That’s a bit rich coming from a country which interferes in elections world wide.

One of the major things I never forgave Obama for was that prior to the 2008 Pennsylvania primary he promised to help filibuster any bill that granted immunity to telecoms for violating privacy laws. The primary looked to be close and this was a serious issue for civil liberty types who oppose technical end-arounds (hey, it’s private, it’s not the government doing illegal spying, so the private companies who rely on business from the government can spy and pass the results on to the government!). After the primary, he returned to Washington and whipped FOR the immunity-granting bill. If we don’t hold politicians to their promises, electoral democracy means absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, there’s an issue with how far an elected official should go. Trump promised to build a wall. It was a major campaign promise. Does that require that he shut down government in pursuit of a particular part of the promise? I’d say no, but then I think the wall is an obscenity. He also promised to get our military out of the Middle East, and although it wasn’t as big a part of his campaign promises as the wall, I would support a government shutdown if it would produce a reduction of America’s endless and ubiquitous wars. In short, I disagree with Trump’s priority here, but there are so many other things to complain about that it doesn’t really jerk my chain that much.

My belief is the government shutdown is less about funding for the wall and more about forcing the fed to lower interest rates due to a possible lowering of US debt credit rating a prolonged shutdown would ensure.

That the Democrats are so against the wall makes this the perfect opportunity to force a correction.

This idiocy really tickled me pink, apparently, according to “Phil” watching a movie on Patton is de rigueur for military:

“Apparently, Trump and very few supporters of his have ever seen Patton. Kinda funny since most of them probably claim to be big supporters of the military.” – Phil Perspective

Well Phil; my father knew/despised Patton as did much of the officer corp.

It sickens me when I hear today’s “left” talk military matters. BTW, there was a time when the LEFT actually served and knew WTF they were talking about. Let-me-see there’s George McGovern, who served with distinction and then there’s…oh wait, that’s not what counts as “liberal” or “left” nowadays.

Me, 016, “good, bad or indifferent the more effective catalyst for change.”

Off Topic;

Ian, I just read an article on the nature of human consciousness, which contains many ideas you’ve spoken of in previous posts. I think you’d find it very interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brains-autopilot-mechanism-steers-consciousness/

Trump is a faux-populist and rank opportunist with the mentality of a 3rd grade bully, and he has an unsophisticated instinct to make pronouncements to build walls and remove troops from an 18-year failed imperial war. He doesn’t consult focus groups or the MIC or the interventionist Obama democrats. This is breaking the rules. Even if he is responding to prodding from his base and radio demagogues, he is defying the established, anti-democratic and elitist practices.

The corollary to Obama’s telecom betrayal would be if Trump championed sanctuary cities and full rights end benfits to undoumented workers and their families.

So, yeah, he is in a revolting way, he’s way more honest.

Yes he should, Ian. It’s a very good point, but the most important is why. It has nothing to do with the wall (which is mostly symbolic) or its effectiveness, Trump’s personality or which groups lose out.

If anyone should be held to their word, it should be politicians. Once a politician has been elected it is almost impossible to get them out. We keep running this cycle where candidates make promises that no one expects them to deliver on. They wink to one special interest group or another, while lying to the public and then betray everything they “stood” for once in office. The corporate party then white washes everything they do in the service of their own enrichment and that of the 1%. We get “reformed” Bush’s and Clinton’s selected by the MIC rammed down our throats. The party apparatchiks and their water carriers are always on standby to sow FUD should there be any questioning of the corporate parties interest.
In the instance of a clear campaign “promise”, voters should demand that those they elect follow through on their promises, even the dumb ones. The majority of people who identify as part of the two Parties, don’t do that (nor the “fringe” parties afaik). They will say they have an excuse such as when the Constitutional Scholar decided it doesn’t apply if you leave the country, or might be difficult to arrest, and so death-by-drone isn’t really a Law issue. This will make them careful about what they promise, and give the country some idea of how they will govern. That is, it will help every voter, even the losers.

I’m not in favor of stupid laws. I’d like to think that if any elected official were to find that some policy were egregiously detrimental to their constituents (not just those who voted for them) that there could be a process by which they could demur from say, bombing Iran. Otherwise, and by-large, they should be fearful of breaking any promises with their electorate which is the exact opposite of what we have now. This current system of gas lighting of the American voter is not going to work out the way the partisans here think. It’s why Trump got elected and will get reelected. No one wants to put their future in the hands of someone who will lie to you 100% of the time. 50% looks pretty good if you’ve had 90%+ for the past 30 years. If Trump does even half of what he says, especially the monumentally good ones like pulling out of Syria, he’s going to be in office for awhile yet. Again, for those stuck in the partisan muck, I’ll say if you don’t like Trump, wait until you see the next guy.

Mandos:
“When a Democratic house is seated in January, elected specifically to thwart Trump, should the promises be kept by two years of shutdown?”

The same people didn’t elect them. Even if they did, both should keep their promises. At least some effort should be expended by both sides. It’s one thing to try and fail, and another to never really try, or if you are a Democrat tell the little people you tried while starting wars and killing hundreds of thousands, enriching the 1% at the expense of the rest, knee capping every group that might support you that doesn’t work on Wall Street, oh and complain about the Trump tax cuts not going to the middle class like when Obama bailed out the middle class through the banks. har har, sorry couldn’t help myself..

This is not a foreign concept. Politics always has winners and losers. As long as we embrace this bizarre partisan gas-lighting “divide”, we can expect the losers to lose big. Neither is a government shutdown foreign or unheard of. I don’t think the nation will actually close down for good, like immigrant support, its largely symbolic. The thing is, Republicans are more likely to hold their politicians to account. Get ready for another Blue “compromise”. One that keeps the barrier to immigrants high and assures a financial incentive continues for those who benefit. The Democrats are just as invested as the Republicans in this, don’t kid yourself. That’s why Trump will win this one.

nihil obstet:
I remember the same betrayal. It was a great disappointment, more in the party than the man. I couldn’t understand why he got so much support from the base after that. It was like the Great Orange Satan didn’t care about the Rule of Law. An outright lie, defended for the Greater Good. At least some stuck to their guns on that, and more later admitted their error and were vociferous in their condemnation of his worsening betrayals. Not enough by far though.

Would you support and applaud Trump arresting and jailing his political opponents? What with that being arguably his primary campaign promise. . .

Do you support his harsh treatment of immigrants seeking asylum? Another promise, implicit or explicit, kept?

@strawmen

The likelihood of an impeachment, at this point, is almost nil. He promised to be tough on illegal immigration. His base isn’t going to worry about the details of how many times removed the money comes from Mexico or anyone else. It’s obvious the establishment is throwing up every roadblock they can, so if you think Trump voters will be turning into forensic accountants in 2020 you are just wasting your own time. Again, if he only keeps 50% of his word, that’s 50% more than they would have gotten under any other scenario. As a poster below you alludes a Trump voter can’t expect to be represented by a Democrat.

Should Hillary be arrested and jailed? How about just being investigated instead of covered up. Why would any citizen want a government apparatchiks to be above the law depending on the letter before their name? Do you think Trump should not be investigated because he was Hillary’s political opponent, because we don’t investigate political opponents? Yes, I expect Trump or any POTUS to protect the constitution and enforce the laws, even when our elites are involved.

In a popularity contest, the one with the most votes wins so clearly not one of those. Majority rule has its own set of issues. The constitution is not anti-democratic as its amendable. It puts a higher burden on change than you may like, but that protects you from other excesses such as constant change from demographics, districting lines, etc. Checks and balances work, when the government can be expected to enforce them. When the peasants of either party stop enforcing noblesse oblige it’s a cop out to blame the system that has worked well in the past.

If the purpose is to spread uncertainty and doubt, better meme’s are needed. The same old divide and suppress strategy using decades old arguments lacks any entertainment value. Otherwise, change will only happen when a plurality of people recognize their common goals outweigh their uncommon biases.

The constitution is not anti-democratic as its amendable.

Nonsense. The 18% of the population that controls the Senate majority also controls the amendment process just like it controls the Supreme Court.

The Constitution was designed by wealthy white racist men to keep wealthy white men in power.

They accomplished their mission.

Tom, you managed to miss my point. Hitler’s military experience and Lincoln’s and FDR’s lack of formal military service did not increase the one’s insight into war nor diminish that of the others. Gefreite(r) translates into English as lance corporal in the British system, simplified usually to just corporal. It is a notch above a private first class and a notch below a corporal. It was the then Weimar President and former Generalfeldmarschall in WWI Paul von Hindenburg who first and most famously gave Hitler the “corporal” tag after his first meeting with him (October 10, 1931). Hitler had apparently blathered a lot and given a bunch of weaselly answers to Hindenburg.

His assessment of Hitler, although not future events, was spot on:

“Nach der Begegnung sagt der Präsident zu Schleicher, er habe ihm da einen sonderbaren Kerl geschickt; dieser böhmische Gefreite wolle Reichskanzler werden? Niemals! “Höchstens Postminister.”

After the meeting, the president told Schleicher that he had sent him a strange fellow. “This Bohemian corporal wants to be Reich Chancellor? No way! At most, a postmaster.”

http://www.geschichtsforum.de/thema/der-boehmische-gefreite.53543/

@Hugh

No Hugh I didn’t miss your point, I was correcting a common misconception many have about Hitler’s military service.

Gefreiter wasn’t a lance corporal in the Royal Bavarian Army by the way. It was a separate Army with its own traditions and organization within the Imperial German Army. Considering the II Reich had four constituent Kingdoms each with a King who had his own Army, Historians tend to get lazy and not account for the variances between the Armies of Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemburg, and Bavaria in WW1.

As for Lincoln, he was a Militia Captain and served in the Black Hawk War. He wasn’t without military experience, though he saw no combat.

FDR had a hands off approach to the war effort. He told Stimson what he considered a priority, Stimson told Marshal and Betty, and those two got it done. If a general or admiral screwed up, they were sacked and replaced by someone who could get results.

FDR’s major contributions was coalition building and twisting Churchill’s arm into spending the UK into bankruptcy so it would be dependent on the US.

@ponderer

“wikipedia has a good summary of what democracy means. there you will find the range of forms that it can take. The US is one of them. If you’d like to know what happens when you can ignore the desires of the low population states, look to Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. and you will understand why its not happening here any time soon.”

We do not have democratic elections for President. We do not have voting rights or votes that are counted equally.

You can call it a “democracy” if you want, but I won’t. We have a system with an illusion of democracy, but that was designed by wealthy white supremacist men to keep wealthy white men in power.

That is the way it has worked for the entire history of the country.

Believe it or not, that is the truth

When The Wall (marketing gimmick) failed as badly as it has, it became The Not-Wall Fence Barrier renovation to be re-constructed here and there along the southern border to channel and funnel those brown people who keep coming here as if they own the place into regular ports of entry rather than willy-nilly through the desert where they die.

In other words, reverting to the Bush-Obama Fence and Tank Trap model with more cameras and drones. Which no doubt will be lavishly funded by a newly bipartisan Congress.

Trump declares victory and we careen on to the next crisis.

The problems with ICE and CBP will continue because they are politically useful. Fighting for The Wall — and opposing it — is also useful. So it will no doubt continue as long as it is productive. Regardless that the matter is already settled. Then? Oh well, what Wall?

This is an unsustainable system of rule, so it will continue to destabilize no matter which party and leader is in charge. I’m dubious that it will ultimately collapse though.

Reform is forever on the horizon, no?



$5billion, while it would be a life-saver for people like you or me, is mere chump change to the U.S. government. It routinely funds way more than that for university research projects that “explore the sex lives of gnats” and other such insipid fare.
Hence, I think Congress should just “give President Trump his wall”, humor him—and let’s get things rolling again already!

An FYI for the few that take Hugh seriously:

Above Hugh attempts to create a strawman argument when he [cleverly] inserts “FDR never served in the uniformed military”. Implying FDR had no military experience. This in response to me saying:

“It sickens me when I hear today’s “left” talk military matters. BTW, there was a time when the LEFT actually served and knew WTF they were talking about. Let-me-see there’s George McGovern…”

And as usual, Hugh, claiming to represent the left, while offering right-wing ideologies, puts out another falsehood; Franklin D. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 until 1920, he was considered a competent innovator during World War I.

Hugh is either ignorant of history or is your “basic disinformation model” [see Bladerunner].

Additionally, FDR’s sons were on the battlefield:

James Roosevelt FDR’s oldest son could have been exempted from service for his flat feet, but instead he did intelligence work and then became a leader in the Marine Raiders, earning a Navy Cross and a Silver Star

John Roosevelt, FDR’s youngest son served as a logistics officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS Wasp and received a Bronze Star.

Elliott Roosevelt FDR’s son flew 300 combat reconnaissance missions. During one he saw Joe Kennedy Jr, die in a plane explosion.

And FDR Jr. He was a Naval officer in WWII, and was cited for bravery in action. He also famously questioned Hubert Humphrey’s war record when he was brought in by JFK for the crucial 1960 primary in West Virginia, where his father was adored.

And while I’m here to correct Hugh’s endless disinformation, people should know that Chuck Robb, LBJ’s son-in-law, won a Bronze Star during his two Vietnam tours.

So as you can see, Hugh’s attempts to [cleverly] obscure/smear the service records of the most genuinely liberal president[s] is a lie, wrapped in a falsehood and covered in deceit. Pathetic.