US Government Shutdown- It's Over!... For Now

[Vassenor]

Look, if you build a wall, they will build a ladder. If you build razor wire, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure. In addition, the legal complexities of the wall mean that it will take years, if not decades to even get the permission. And sadly, one family, who owns land that is needed for the wall, have said they will not give permission, same with others.

Look, if you build a prison wall, they will build a ladder. If you build a cell door, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure.

And in other phantom problems, we'll go to Mark in the weather team who will tell us how 19th century traditionalists were right - rain is undermining NYC brownstones.

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

[Frievolk]

Look, if you build a wall, they will build a ladder. If you build razor wire, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure. In addition, the legal complexities of the wall mean that it will take years, if not decades to even get the permission. And sadly, one family, who owns land that is needed for the wall, have said they will not give permission, same with others.

Look, if you build a prison wall, they will build a ladder. If you build a cell door, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure.

And in other phantom problems, we'll go to Mark in the weather team who will tell us how 19th century traditionalists were right - rain is undermining NYC brownstones.

I mean, prison walls are more about stopping the people already inside from getting out, rather than stopping people outside from getting in. My personal distaste about the concept of prisons aside, that isn't a good comparison.

[Purgatio]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

[Purgatio]

Look, if you build a prison wall, they will build a ladder. If you build a cell door, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure.

And in other phantom problems, we'll go to Mark in the weather team who will tell us how 19th century traditionalists were right - rain is undermining NYC brownstones.

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

[Cannot think of a name]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

I mean, he also said Mexico would pay for it, so...

[Ostroeuropa]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

This is a failure of the American style of government. In Imperial countries, parliamentary system would prevent this, and a government shutdown would prompt an election.

[Vassenor]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

Fun Fact: The President has no actual power over what Congress must include in the budget.

Also generally "democratically elected" implies a majority of voters voted for them.

[The Isle of Beithe]

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

Ahem... electoral college vs. popular vote.

If we want to get radical, in an idea world, the wall would be voted on via direct democracy. If the majority of Americans truly want it, then go for it.

[Purgatio]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

This is a failure of the American style of government. In Imperial countries, parliamentary system would prevent this, and a government shutdown would prompt an election.

I definitely agree with you there, this is where the parliamentary/Westminster system of unifying the legislative and executive branches (or directly drawing the latter from the former) makes a lot of sense from an efficiency-standpoint.

My point is, barring a wholesale constitutional re-organisation of the US (which isn't gonna happen), the best way to efficiently make do with the current US constitutional system is for the legislature to show due deference to the executive branch when it comes to the passing of budgets, enabling the executive to have the funding needed to bring into being key campaign and electoral promises, which the electorate endorsed by voting the executive into the highest office of the land. Having to re-litigate every electoral issues anew and afresh every financial year is a recipe for gridlock, stalemate and disaster.

This isn't a partisan issue either, I oppose what the GOP did when they shut down the government over attempting to defund Obamacare, just like how I oppose what the Democrats are doing now. This isn't a recipe for fruitful governance in future if this becomes the constitutional norm in the US.

[Vassenor]

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

Politicians fail to deliver campaign promises all the time. They lie just as often.

[Purgatio]

Trump was elected as President largely on the basis of his promise to build a border wall, in my view Congress should have included the US$5.7bn in the budgetary legislation necessary to allow him to fulfill a crucial campaign/electoral promise to stave off a government shutdown, rather than hold the government hostage by wilfully refusing from the executive branch the financing required to empower a democratically-elected head of government to fulfil a crucial electoral campaign promise.

Fun Fact: The President has no actual power over what Congress must include in the budget.

Also generally "democratically elected" implies a majority of voters voted for them.

I agree, but the legislature ought to act responsibly and show due deference to the executive and not stonewall or obstruct the head of governemnt's ability to fulfill crucial campaign and electoral promises. I agree with you that Congress has the legal and constitutional power to do what it is doing, of course, but what they are doing is irresponsible at best, obstructionist and selfish at worst.

[Frievolk]

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

If we were going by the democratic vote, Trump wouldn't have been president in the first place. The only majority that voted for the wall was the land itself.

[Vassenor]

Also a reminder that a majority of Americans do not want a wall.

[Purgatio]

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

Ahem... electoral college vs. popular vote.

If we want to get radical, in an idea world, the wall would be voted on via direct democracy. If the majority of Americans truly want it, then go for it.

Trump was elected under the rules of the US constitution, by your logic governments voted in under FPTP electoral systems (which can result in divergences between the popular vote and overall seats won in the legislature) are automatically illegitimate and lack a mandate to govern. That worldview is a recipe for disaster. One can agree that the electoral college should be abolished without subscribing to the worldview that anyone elected under the EC lacks a democratic or legitimate mandate to govern.

[Purgatio]

It doesn't matter whether the border wall is effective or not. What matters is a campaign promise was made, the electorate voted the promisee into the head of government office, and denying him the funding to fulfill the promise is a recipe for governmental efficiency. The American government shouldn't have to re-litigate and re-debate, de novo and afresh, every single social and political issue.

If we were going by the democratic vote, Trump wouldn't have been president in the first place. The only majority that voted for the wall was the land itself.

He was elected President validly under the rules of the US Constitution, to the highest office of the land. The executive branch needs to have the power to run the country and not be stonewalled and obstructed by the legislature abusing its legislative powers in an irresponsible manner to hold the entire federal government hostage.

[Trumptonium1]

Look, if you build a prison wall, they will build a ladder. If you build a cell door, they'll just cut through it. If you build one on top of the other with sniper towers and such, people will tunnel. Build it underground, they'll just knock the wall out by either explosives or undermining its structure.

And in other phantom problems, we'll go to Mark in the weather team who will tell us how 19th century traditionalists were right - rain is undermining NYC brownstones.

So what evidence is there that the wall will work? Or are you just going to keep resorting to whataboutisms and deflections?

Here's evidence of what occurred when Hungary built a part-electric fence:


Here's evidence of what occurred when Israel built a wall in 2007-2012 for $1 billion:
http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PRM_report_ ... esized.pdf
https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Gov ... g2NkE5MDk=

Even Netanyahu agrees
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/825371795972825089

According to statistics published by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, 17,000 African immigrants entered the state illegally in 2011. However, in 2013, after the completion of the wall, the number fell to a mere 43.

http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14542

Do you have any evidence as to why this would not work on the US border, beyond hypotheticals?

[Sane Outcasts]

Fun Fact: The President has no actual power over what Congress must include in the budget.

Also generally "democratically elected" implies a majority of voters voted for them.

I agree, but the legislature ought to act responsibly and show due deference to the executive and not stonewall or obstruct the head of governemnt's ability to fulfill crucial campaign and electoral promises. I agree with you that Congress has the legal and constitutional power to do what it is doing, of course, but what they are doing is irresponsible at best, obstructionist and selfish at worst.

The President isn't the head of government, it's the head of the Executive Branch. The office does not sit above Congress, but beside it and does not get preferential treatment.

[Vassenor]

If we were going by the democratic vote, Trump wouldn't have been president in the first place. The only majority that voted for the wall was the land itself.

He was elected President validly under the rules of the US Constitution, to the highest office of the land. The executive branch needs to have the power to run the country and not be stonewalled and obstructed by the legislature abusing its legislative powers in an irresponsible manner to hold the entire federal government hostage.

The Legislative Branch is supposed to act as a check on the Executive Branch. They are acting "validly under the rules of the US Constitution".

[Purgatio]

I agree, but the legislature ought to act responsibly and show due deference to the executive and not stonewall or obstruct the head of governemnt's ability to fulfill crucial campaign and electoral promises. I agree with you that Congress has the legal and constitutional power to do what it is doing, of course, but what they are doing is irresponsible at best, obstructionist and selfish at worst.

The President isn't the head of government, it's the head of the Executive Branch. The office does not sit above Congress, but beside it and does not get preferential treatment.

The President is both head of state and head of government, the "government" of the US being the Cabinet (Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary etc).

[Dormill and Stiura]

I agree, but the legislature ought to act responsibly and show due deference to the executive and not stonewall or obstruct the head of governemnt's ability to fulfill crucial campaign and electoral promises. I agree with you that Congress has the legal and constitutional power to do what it is doing, of course, but what they are doing is irresponsible at best, obstructionist and selfish at worst.

I'd hate to step in here because of the dumpster fire that will follow, but this here is just stupid and pigheaded. Congress does not act at the behest of the President, nor has it ever had in an official capacity. While it is the norm for Congress to follow along on a President's agenda, the 116th is split, and the House of Representatives is controlled by a party that does not intend to follow the President's agenda.

Let's not forget the amount of times Congress has done the same thing to past Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. To expect that Congress should toe the line because the President campaigned to do something would be ignoring the Constitution.

[Purgatio]

He was elected President validly under the rules of the US Constitution, to the highest office of the land. The executive branch needs to have the power to run the country and not be stonewalled and obstructed by the legislature abusing its legislative powers in an irresponsible manner to hold the entire federal government hostage.

The Legislative Branch is supposed to act as a check on the Executive Branch. They are acting "validly under the rules of the US Constitution".

There is a difference between constitutionally-beneficial legislative scrutiny, and outright irresponsible legislative obstruction holding the federal government hostage to politically-motivated whims and fancies.

See the GOP holding the federal government hostage over Obamacare back in 2011, the GOP holding the Obama adminsitration hostage over Merrick Garland's appointment. The GOP had the legal power to do what they did, but it was irresponsible obstructionism on their part. I see Democratic behaviour over the border wall in much the same light.

[Vassenor]

The Legislative Branch is supposed to act as a check on the Executive Branch. They are acting "validly under the rules of the US Constitution".

There is a difference between constitutionally-beneficial legislative scrutiny, and outright irresponsible legislative obstruction holding the federal government hostage to politically-motivated whims and fancies.

See the GOP holding the federal government hostage over Obamacare back in 2011, the GOP holding the Obama adminsitration hostage over Merrick Garland's appointment. The GOP had the legal power to do what they did, but it was irresponsible obstructionism on their part. I see Democratic behaviour over the border wall in much the same light.

So you think that congress should be required to ignore what the American people want.

[Purgatio]

I agree, but the legislature ought to act responsibly and show due deference to the executive and not stonewall or obstruct the head of governemnt's ability to fulfill crucial campaign and electoral promises. I agree with you that Congress has the legal and constitutional power to do what it is doing, of course, but what they are doing is irresponsible at best, obstructionist and selfish at worst.

I'd hate to step in here because of the dumpster fire that will follow, but this here is just stupid and pigheaded. Congress does not act at the behest of the President, nor has it ever had in an official capacity. While it is the norm for Congress to follow along on a President's agenda, the 116th is split, and the House of Representatives is controlled by a party that does not intend to follow the President's agenda.

Let's not forget the amount of times Congress has done the same thing to past Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. To expect that Congress should toe the line because the President campaigned to do something would be ignoring the Constitution.

Then compromise with the executive branch and bargain to have your own interests represented in the budget in other ways. Don't be pig-headed and stubborn and demand that the executive branch remove from the budget the funding needed to fulfill a key and crucial campaign promise. Trump isn't going to remove the border wall from the budget, not now and not ever. Demanding he do so makes government shutdown inevitable, which is legislative arson at best. If the Democrats want other social spending represented in the federal budget, fine, but attacking the executive head of government's key campaign promise is reckless and irresponsible mis-governance on their part.

[Sane Outcasts]

The President isn't the head of government, it's the head of the Executive Branch. The office does not sit above Congress, but beside it and does not get preferential treatment.

The President is both head of state and head of government, the "government" of the US being the Cabinet (Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary etc).

The Cabinet is the collection of the heads of the various Executive Branch agencies and departments, not the entirety of the US state or government.

[Purgatio]

There is a difference between constitutionally-beneficial legislative scrutiny, and outright irresponsible legislative obstruction holding the federal government hostage to politically-motivated whims and fancies.

See the GOP holding the federal government hostage over Obamacare back in 2011, the GOP holding the Obama adminsitration hostage over Merrick Garland's appointment. The GOP had the legal power to do what they did, but it was irresponsible obstructionism on their part. I see Democratic behaviour over the border wall in much the same light.

So you think that congress should be required to ignore what the American people want.

I think Congress should use its constitutionally-conferred legislative authority to be productive and promote efficient governance by not holding the executive branch hostage by making irresponsible and unreasonable demands of the head of government.