Suppose it’s a matter of perception. I see this as a win for Trump already because it publically exposes the Dem hypocrisy and fully supports his and the bases belief they are more interest in blatant obstruction. They have voiced from the beginning that is what would occur and now they are following through. However, they have placed themselves before the people in a negative light.

What is Trump supposed to negotiate when from day one skeletor has stated absolutely no wall, no fence or any other barrier? They’ve made it all about themselves with no ability to negotiate forward.

Dude. They both make it about themselves. All politicians do.

Since Day 1 Trump has made everything about himself.

Never said both sides of the isle don't have agendas. This is about the perception that Trump is unwilling to negotiate and that it is all his fault. What room (carrots) have the Dems given to negotiate? Trump has thrown DACA into the ring, humanitarian aid packages, technology packages, and now the possibility of H-1B visas being used as a direct path to citizenship. Once again, what have the Dems offered? They offered over $25 billion last standoff, so what changed?

This is what he has to deal with!
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1...10/video/1

---

Um, the $5 billion is a down payment that everyone agrees is insufficient to complete the wall on its own.  The real price is $20-30 billion.  The idea is to pay about $5 billion a year until it is built.  So it's an indefinite time frame.  
And then you asked me to compare this amount to "trillions" that also come from an unspecified time frame.  How many years did you mean?
Let's call that number N.
The annual federal budget is now $4.4 trillion = $4.4e12.  And you have stated that there is waste equal to at least $2e12.
So the waste % is equal to
$2e12 / $4.4e12 * N = 45% / N.  So if you think N is 5 years, then waste is 9%.  But you can pick a different number for N.
Which federal expenditures, amounting to 9% of the annual federal budget, should be cut as waste?

It's not an issue of which one specifically as there is room across the board if you rank our border security as a priority. Trim $5 Billion from International Affairs annually for the next ten years and there is your money. U.N., USAID? Don't like that, how about the General Government, specifically the ever growing Legal, Judicial, and Correctional System? How about the ballooning Economic Security (Public Assistance) pot? Seems that if the immigration system gets streamlined and proper border security implemented, much more than $5 billion annually could perhaps be saved. The fact of the matter is, there really isn't a need to take away from existing programs to fund border security as DHS receives budgetary appropriations every fiscal year. Let them rack and stack the priorities to dollars. In any case, there there is wiggle room in the Federal Budget to rob Peter to pay Paul if necessary. Have you seen all the rediculous grants, programs, bills submitted on a weakly basis that require funding?

Here, you guys can play .gov for a few minutes...
http://usa.v1.abalancingact.com/

If we were only talking about billions, like 10 billion or less, I wouldn't have commented.
Malabar said trillions.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Can anyone explain what's going on? I was under the impression the Mexicans had this paid for? Why the need for shutdown?

---

Can anyone explain what's going on? I was under the impression the Mexicans had this paid for? Why the need for shutdown?

Smart aleck.

---

Can anyone explain what's going on? I was under the impression the Mexicans had this paid for? Why the need for shutdown?

Nope. You should probably just get off of here and go research United States Federal Budget and Congressional Appropriations.

---

He will lose some support if the wall isn't built in some capacity.

And that's why the Democrats will not give in.   They see this as the way to get rid of Trump.   And he handed them this.   He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory.   But no, he has to make this all about himself.  

He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.

No, he couldn't have done that. 

As soon as the Dems took the House, they had no intentions of negotiating in good faith. They offered him $25 billion months ago, and now they wont even consider $5 billion. He's already asked them if they're willing to build the wall even if he opened the government. Ole Nancy and Chucky said that they didn't intend to fund the wall under any circumstance. He gains nothing, and risks losing support, if he opens the government without the wall. 

I agree with you that he shouldn't have accepted 100% responsibility. That wasn't smart at all.

---

Dude. They both make it about themselves. All politicians do.

Since Day 1 Trump has made everything about himself.

Never said both sides of the isle don't have agendas. This is about the perception that Trump is unwilling to negotiate and that it is all his fault. What room (carrots) have the Dems given to negotiate? Trump has thrown DACA into the ring, humanitarian aid packages, technology packages, and now the possibility of H-1B visas being used as a direct path to citizenship. Once again, what have the Dems offered? They offered over $25 billion last standoff, so what changed?

This is what he has to deal with!
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1...10/video/1

Nobody should negotiate with him. He's a liar. He said Mexico would pay for the wall and now he shuts down the government while hundreds of thousands of government workers are expected to show up for work, even though they aren't getting paid, because now he wants our taxpayers to fund it.

---

And that's why the Democrats will not give in.   They see this as the way to get rid of Trump.   And he handed them this.   He could have quietly negotiated a deal without all the histrionics about how it's "the wall or bust," and then he could have claimed victory.   But no, he has to make this all about himself.  

He's a terrible negotiator, mainly because he's a narcissist and an idiot.

No, he couldn't have done that. 

As soon as the Dems took the House, they had no intentions of negotiating in good faith. They offered him $25 billion months ago, and now they wont even consider $5 billion. He's already asked them if they're willing to build the wall even if he opened the government. Ole Nancy and Chucky said that they didn't intend to fund the wall under any circumstance. He gains nothing, and risks losing support, if he opens the government without the wall. 

I agree with you that he shouldn't have accepted 100% responsibility. That wasn't smart at all.

Why didn’t he take the $25 billion, in your opinion?

 He’s walked himself into a trap.  As you say, he gains nothing and loses something, probably some support, if he reopens the government without the wall.   And this is after he proclaimed that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.   So he’s trapped himself.   All the Democrats have to do is dig in their heels and refuse to do anything and he loses either way.   He either takes the blame for shutting down the government or he takes the blame for not getting the wall built. 

 This is why am saying he’s a terrible negotiator.

---

No, he couldn't have done that. 

As soon as the Dems took the House, they had no intentions of negotiating in good faith. They offered him $25 billion months ago, and now they wont even consider $5 billion. He's already asked them if they're willing to build the wall even if he opened the government. Ole Nancy and Chucky said that they didn't intend to fund the wall under any circumstance. He gains nothing, and risks losing support, if he opens the government without the wall. 

I agree with you that he shouldn't have accepted 100% responsibility. That wasn't smart at all.

Why didn’t he take the $25 billion, in your opinion?

If I recall the 25 billion was contingent on extending DACA protections for people who are under 18 when they arrived and arrived before 2007 permanently. it was also contingent on increasing the number of certain types of visas that would be available. 
The Trump administration did not like either of those. it's not clear if they would have taken one without the other but I believe the offer was the wall would be bills if both were is given.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Never said both sides of the isle don't have agendas. This is about the perception that Trump is unwilling to negotiate and that it is all his fault. What room (carrots) have the Dems given to negotiate? Trump has thrown DACA into the ring, humanitarian aid packages, technology packages, and now the possibility of H-1B visas being used as a direct path to citizenship. Once again, what have the Dems offered? They offered over $25 billion last standoff, so what changed?

This is what he has to deal with!
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1...10/video/1

Nobody should negotiate with him. He's a liar. He said Mexico would pay for the wall and now he shuts down the government while hundreds of thousands of government workers are expected to show up for work, even though they aren't getting paid, because now he wants our taxpayers to fund it.

Let’s pretend that people understand government funding and remove the Mexico bit of the equation. Now what? It doesn’t factor into the situation at all except those ignorantly hanging on to the notion Mexico was going to send over mules carrying bags and bags of cash.

---

No, he couldn't have done that. 

As soon as the Dems took the House, they had no intentions of negotiating in good faith. They offered him $25 billion months ago, and now they wont even consider $5 billion. He's already asked them if they're willing to build the wall even if he opened the government. Ole Nancy and Chucky said that they didn't intend to fund the wall under any circumstance. He gains nothing, and risks losing support, if he opens the government without the wall. 

I agree with you that he shouldn't have accepted 100% responsibility. That wasn't smart at all.

Why didn’t he take the $25 billion, in your opinion?

 He’s walked himself into a trap.  As you say, he gains nothing and loses something, probably some support, if he reopens the government without the wall.   And this is after he proclaimed that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.   So he’s trapped himself.   All the Democrats have to do is dig in their heels and refuse to do anything and he loses either way.   He either takes the blame for shutting down the government or he takes the blame for not getting the wall built. 

 This is why am saying he’s a terrible negotiator.

Because like many on here, they moved the goalposts so they could push for DACA reform. Schumer pulled back the $25 billion off the table.

https://m.washingtontimes.com

---

Nobody should negotiate with him. He's a liar. He said Mexico would pay for the wall and now he shuts down the government while hundreds of thousands of government workers are expected to show up for work, even though they aren't getting paid, because now he wants our taxpayers to fund it.

Let’s pretend that people understand government funding and remove the Mexico bit of the equation. Now what? It doesn’t factor into the situation at all except those ignorantly hanging on to the notion Mexico was going to send over mules carrying bags and bags of cash.

---

Why didn’t he take the $25 billion, in your opinion?

 He’s walked himself into a trap.  As you say, he gains nothing and loses something, probably some support, if he reopens the government without the wall.   And this is after he proclaimed that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.   So he’s trapped himself.   All the Democrats have to do is dig in their heels and refuse to do anything and he loses either way.   He either takes the blame for shutting down the government or he takes the blame for not getting the wall built. 

 This is why am saying he’s a terrible negotiator.

Because like many on here, they moved the goalposts so they could push for DACA reform. Schumer pulled back the $25 billion off the table.

https://m.washingtontimes.com

You're saying he let someone put everything he wanted on the table, and then he let them pull it off the table.  What kind of super duper deal maker allows that to happen?   You're saying he let himself get played.   

And now, all the democrats have to do is dig in their heels and refuse to negotiate, and he takes the blame.  Because he said he would gladly take the blame!  He's painted himself into a corner.  

Do you think Lyndon Johnson would have gotten played like that?

---

---

Why didn’t he take the $25 billion, in your opinion?

 He’s walked himself into a trap.  As you say, he gains nothing and loses something, probably some support, if he reopens the government without the wall.   And this is after he proclaimed that he would take responsibility for shutting down the government.   So he’s trapped himself.   All the Democrats have to do is dig in their heels and refuse to do anything and he loses either way.   He either takes the blame for shutting down the government or he takes the blame for not getting the wall built. 

 This is why am saying he’s a terrible negotiator.

Because like many on here, they moved the goalposts so they could push for DACA reform. Schumer pulled back the $25 billion off the table.

https://m.washingtontimes.com

one of the unwritten rules of Washington is that you don't step back from the negotiating table without accusing the other side of moving the goalposts.

Some accusations of this are credible and some are not. John Boehner and Obama were at the negotiating table and Obama presented him with an idea, and Boehner did not disagree with it right away. But the next day, he talked it over with some of his Republican colleagues and not only did they privately tell him no, they went to the news and leaked the details of the negotiation, and insinuated that Boehner was in favor. So then Boehner feels like, to be a true conservative, he has to go on these same news programs and say no, he was not in favor. of course this comes as a surprise to Obama, and he has to hear it on the news, that not only is this idea that he had out in the public, but his negotiating partner doesn't like it. so he says that Boehner was negotiating in bad faith and that he moved the goalposts. But the truth is more subtle than that.  None of that would have happened if Boehner's on guys hadn't gone behind his back to the news. If they had all discussed privately face to face, nobody would have brought out any accusations like "you moved the goalposts."

The situation with DACA and the border wall is a little more complicated.
And we don't have as much information about what was discussed.
But Trump came out of the meeting and said something to the effect of "Schumer moved the goalposts."
Might have happened. Don't know. Schumer is a garden-variety politician. They do move goal posts around, and aren't afraid to waste people's time.

But Schumer came out and said something interesting. He basically said "it's not the Trump moved the goalposts, it's that Trump doesn't understand the proposals clearly enough to know where any one's goal posts are." and given how the man talks when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, I find Schumer's testimony about this very credible.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

Because like many on here, they moved the goalposts so they could push for DACA reform. Schumer pulled back the $25 billion off the table.

https://m.washingtontimes.com

one of the unwritten rules of Washington is that you don't step back from the negotiating table without accusing the other side of moving the goalposts.

Some accusations of this are credible and some are not. John Boehner and Obama were at the negotiating table and Obama presented him with an idea, and Boehner did not disagree with it right away. But the next day, he talked it over with some of his Republican colleagues and not only did they privately tell him no, they went to the news and leaked the details of the negotiation, and insinuated that Boehner was in favor. So then Boehner feels like, to be a true conservative, he has to go on these same news programs and say no, he was not in favor. of course this comes as a surprise to Obama has to hear it on the news, that not only is this idea that he had out in the public, but his negotiating partner doesn't like it. so he says that Boehner was negotiating in bad faith and that he moved the goalposts. But the truth is more subtle than that.  None of that would have happened if banners on guys hadn't gone behind his back to the news. If they had all discussed privately face to face, nobody would have brought out any accusations like "you moved the goalposts."

The situation with DACA and the border wall is a little more complicated.
And we don't have as much information about what was discussed.
But Trump came out of the meeting and said something to the effect of "Schumer moved the goalposts."
Might have happened. Don't know. Schumer is a garden-variety politician. They do move goal posts around, and aren't afraid to waste people's time.

But Schumer came out and said something interesting. He basically said "it's not the Trump moved the goalposts, it's that Trump doesn't understand the proposals clearly enough to know where any one's goal posts are." and given how the man talks when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, I find Schumer's testimony about this very credible.

Based on the Chuck and Nancy show from the other night, I think it is more logical to believe Trump and go with the notion that most don’t understand what the hell those characters are saying. They don’t even know what they are saying! Besides, they lack any sort of credibility on immigration matters at this point.

---

House passes temporary spending bill to open some agencies like Interior and EPA. Here is the kicker...”The $35.9 billion bill provides $6 billion more than Trump requested.”

Hmm, sounds like there was/is plenty for Trumps “wall” request!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-house-passe...iness.html

---

one of the unwritten rules of Washington is that you don't step back from the negotiating table without accusing the other side of moving the goalposts.

Some accusations of this are credible and some are not. John Boehner and Obama were at the negotiating table and Obama presented him with an idea, and Boehner did not disagree with it right away. But the next day, he talked it over with some of his Republican colleagues and not only did they privately tell him no, they went to the news and leaked the details of the negotiation, and insinuated that Boehner was in favor. So then Boehner feels like, to be a true conservative, he has to go on these same news programs and say no, he was not in favor. of course this comes as a surprise to Obama has to hear it on the news, that not only is this idea that he had out in the public, but his negotiating partner doesn't like it. so he says that Boehner was negotiating in bad faith and that he moved the goalposts. But the truth is more subtle than that.  None of that would have happened if banners on guys hadn't gone behind his back to the news. If they had all discussed privately face to face, nobody would have brought out any accusations like "you moved the goalposts."

The situation with DACA and the border wall is a little more complicated.
And we don't have as much information about what was discussed.
But Trump came out of the meeting and said something to the effect of "Schumer moved the goalposts."
Might have happened. Don't know. Schumer is a garden-variety politician. They do move goal posts around, and aren't afraid to waste people's time.

But Schumer came out and said something interesting. He basically said "it's not the Trump moved the goalposts, it's that Trump doesn't understand the proposals clearly enough to know where any one's goal posts are." and given how the man talks when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, I find Schumer's testimony about this very credible.

Based on the Chuck and Nancy show from the other night, I think it is more logical to believe Trump and go with the notion that most don’t understand what the hell those characters are saying. They don’t even know what they are saying! Besides, they lack any sort of credibility on immigration matters at this point.

Like you I had the misfortune of watching the whole thing the other night. seeing three people who are all and their 70s and who, in a better world, would all be at home quietly enjoying the company of their grandkids, was sad more than anything else. That they are instead participating in some bizarre prep school version of professional wrestling, and that the outcome of this match holds nearly a million paychecks in the balance, is more absurd than most of the great fiction writers of a hundred years ago would ever have imagined. 
Chuck and Nancy have been spending too much of their working lives fundraising, admittedly. But they've also spent maybe eight hours a week for the last 30 years, trying to reason with proposed changes to the US code. Trump has not.
Chuck and Nancy came across to me as people who know a lot of mundane details about what they're talking about and are really straining and making a great effort to make it relatable to ordinary people.
Trump came across to me as a guy who was not going to know anything other than "keep them out, kick them out, and build a wall" once the teleprompter turned off.
Again Chuck's account of those events from a few months ago is totally credible.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nobody should negotiate with him. He's a liar. He said Mexico would pay for the wall and now he shuts down the government while hundreds of thousands of government workers are expected to show up for work, even though they aren't getting paid, because now he wants our taxpayers to fund it.

Let’s pretend that people understand government funding and remove the Mexico bit of the equation. Now what? It doesn’t factor into the situation at all except those ignorantly hanging on to the notion Mexico was going to send over mules carrying bags and bags of cash.

---

No. Why would we remove the Mexico bit of the equation? That's how Trump won the election. He promised stupid people, Mexico would pay for the wall. Whether it was realistic or not, he promised it and he should either follow through with his campaign promise, pay for the wall out of his own pocket or shut up and sign the deal that was accepted by everyone else to end this ridiculous shutdown.

---

I want an Executive Order to eliminate any government worker or agency that is closed for this political theater. We could balance the budget in a week.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Can anyone explain what's going on? I was under the impression the Mexicans had this paid for? Why the need for shutdown?

They still are per the new NAFTA with Mexico. 

The federal employees are pathetic people who didn’t have enough money saved up for the shutdown.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Can anyone explain what's going on? I was under the impression the Mexicans had this paid for? Why the need for shutdown?

They still are per the new NAFTA with Mexico. 

The federal employees are pathetic people who didn’t have enough money saved up for the shutdown.

First point is correct, second demonstrates how only fools depend on the government for their sustinence.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Let’s pretend that people understand government funding and remove the Mexico bit of the equation. Now what? It doesn’t factor into the situation at all except those ignorantly hanging on to the notion Mexico was going to send over mules carrying bags and bags of cash.

---

No. Why would we remove the Mexico bit of the equation? That's how Trump won the election. He promised stupid people, Mexico would pay for the wall. Whether it was realistic or not, he promised it and he should either follow through with his campaign promise, pay for the wall out of his own pocket or shut up and sign the deal that was accepted by everyone else to end this ridiculous shutdown.

You’re proving that the only stupid in this equation is you. The base did not vote for Trump strictly because of a wall or who would pay for it. It was border security, reforming immigration policy, and many other pro-American stances. It’s you and the media latching on to just the “wall.” Maybe in the Dem world you vote on selfish pipe dreams but I know as a Rep I voted for what I believed to be best for America moving forward. Not perfect, but what’s best. In any case, if politicians dwelled on words like you or what they interpret them to mean, look out. Oh wait, we had that last administration...words.

Deal was not accepted by everyone else. Try again.

How do you know Mexico won’t end up offsetting cost? No entity can directly pay our government for things like a wall. I’ve said this before, it must be legally appropriated through Congress for various reasons.

I agree the shutdown is rediculous but because the Dems refuse to revisit offers and stances they previously supported, only because they hate Trump more than they care about doing their job. It must be fully addressed now and not some fingers crossed later date. The Dems track record for revisiting as promised is a giant 0-fer! I support standing ground for the greater majority even if a small/minority are impacted.

---

I want an Executive Order to eliminate any government worker or agency that is closed for this political theater. We could balance the budget in a week.

As in the non-essential personnel? I could get behind that but it would mean increasing essential personnel billets that are historically more pricey.

---