Trump

[Usenko]

Actually, for those of us who aren't American, it's probably good for us to get a bit of an idea about how this whole thing works.

I'll describe it as I understand it. Could the Americans here help by pointing out if I have misunderstandings about the process, and what those are?

-- Begin Usenko's understanding of the situation. Warning: The following may be incorrect. --


* After the MidTerm elections, the composition of congress changed. Now instead of a Republican majority, we have a Democrat majority.

* The President has ultimate veto over any bill that goes though Congress, and must sign off on every bill.

* The President can also originate bills in the house somehow (perhaps by getting his members to officially be responsible for them?)

* The President has proposed a bill demanding more money for the Wall project than was previously allocated (or has indicated that he will propose this bill).

* The Democrat majority have declined this bill (or have indicated that they WILL be declining it).

* The President has indicated that he will not sign off on any bills until the bill for the Wall is passed.

* Since the President will not pass anything else, and the Democrats will vote down any bill for the Wall, there is an impasse. No bills will be passed until one side bends, and neither side are going to bend.

* This impasse means that the government is not writing cheques for expenses, so nobody is getting paid to do anything. So the government has totally shut down.

-- End Usenko's understanding of the situation. --

Have I got this right? If not, where have I got it wrong?

[Hank001]

Usenko asks:

Have I got this right? If not, where have I got it wrong?

Looks good to me. Except the part about the shut down merely being a ploy to divert the media from the fact that Trump's a stooge for Putin and most of his minions are in orange jumpsuits and everyone in the the USA except a minority of rabid luntics hate his guts and he could care less as long as he gets his fsce on the boob tube at least once a day.

[BugMeister]

- the rest of the free world knows the realities about this malignant administration..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEdMuKq30I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvd7PqI_Lx0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvKvr2oHq7g

the Magnitsky Act is bugging the heck out of Putin..
it attempts to stop his murderous, thieving ways..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEStb5DedNA

Trump hangs his hat on a racist peg, because he knows how vehemently the extreme right will defend their position - at all costs
they simply do not care about anything else - they are permanently blinkered by their deep hatred and fear of foreigners..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYXZQ9BRiGw
Trump's old man was arrested for supporting these lunatics..

Farage and UKIP attempt to use the same pretext - they have always had the same extremist stance..
he doesn't have the same numbers as Trump, but Farage knows that these far-right lunatics will always spout the same rhetoric

- we are all waiting for common sense to prevail..

[BugMeister]

PBS has a whole series on Putin's place in Russian and world history - the articles are all worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3LKYI ... 6h2kMXGfEE

- only an out and out crook would see Putin as a strong man..
- he's politically insecure, frightened and weak, not unlike Trump actually..
- small wonder that Trump identifies with him so closely..

- each article runs to an hour or more, so you'll need to be patient..

[Bishop149]

Buzzfeed article will be forgotten in a few days and the anti-Trump crowd will go right back to mocking him for calling out fake news.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

yeah, but Trump has already proudly stated that the shutdown is all down to him..

Yeah, people trying to defend Trump with the "The shutdown isn't his fault!" line would be just a little more convincing if the man himself hadn't loudly, proudly and publicly taken credit for it no less than 4 times.

Has anyone yet answered the question of why the hell Trump didn't fund his wall during the 2 years when no one could have stopped him?

[JSDD]

Yeah, people trying to defend Trump with the "The shutdown isn't his fault!" line would be just a little more convincing if the man himself hadn't loudly, proudly and publicly taken credit for it no less than 4 times.

with a 2/3 majority in the senate (i think) they could start opening the government again without trump ...
trump is shutting down the gov simply because he wants the wall to be funded (5 billion), but because of the fact that he is not a king/dictator/whatever, he needs helf from the institution responsible for funding things (which is named congress)

and isnt it a good thing that once in a time, a politician stubbornly blocks government until he gets the money to build things he promised ?! i'm not a trump-fan, a republican or a wall-fan, i just simply like the way trump conducts his business ... (NOT like a common polititian !!)

if i were trump, i'd (lets say beginning february) declare national emergency and just start building the wall, no matter the legal consequences ...

Has anyone yet answered the question of why the hell Trump didn't fund his wall during the 2 years when no one could have stopped him?

... let me try:
congress is responsible to fund the government, isnt it ?
without money, hiw would you start building anything ?

[Gavrushka]

I don't think it can ever be a good thing when one man has the constitutional power to prevent 800,000 people from getting paid. I can't comprehend the thought process that precedes such an act. And isn't it an act of weakness rather than strength to be unable to say 'yeah, I misread this one.' ? It is wrong to use human suffering as leverage to get your way, no matter how much you believe in what you're doing.*

*I'm working under the premise that Trump can unilaterally re-open government by whatever technical device is used for such a thing. - If it's not in his sole hands, my argument is baseless.

[Usenko]

with a 2/3 majority in the senate (i think) they could start opening the government again without trump ...

Not quite. There's a curious weakness in Presidential systems - the President has final power of veto, which means that we have this scenario here. Both can block each other, but neither can force the other to move. So the Congress could get things moving again, but if they did, Trump has the power to simply shut it back down again. Basically he's saying he won't pass any legislation until they give him his wall. So make no mistake, this is Trump's shutdown. If it were simply up to Congress, they'd say no to the wall and move on to the next piece of legislation.

trump is shutting down the gov simply because he wants the wall to be funded (5 billion), but because of the fact that he is not a king/dictator/whatever, he needs helf from the institution responsible for funding things (which is named congress)

and isnt it a good thing that once in a time, a politician stubbornly blocks government until he gets the money to build things he promised ?! i'm not a trump-fan, a republican or a wall-fan, i just simply like the way trump conducts his business ... (NOT like a common polititian !!)

The problem here is that you've got it backwards.

The President thinks he can just bull legislation through Congress. He can't. And he shouldn't be able to. If a majority of members think his proposed legislation is pants, then they can (indeed, are duty bound) to block it. The idea that the President has the right to expect them to roll over and give him what he wants is wrong, and the fact that the President thinks he can just order them to pass his legislation is typical of him not knowing how his own system works. The idea of the whole system is to ensure that one person CANNOT get total control; it is designed to make absolutely certain that the President has to work with others, something he's a bit of a failure at. As it happens, I think the American system STILL concentrates way too much power at the hands of the President. Since I come from a parliamentary system it makes complete sense to me that the head of state should only be able to veto legislation if it somehow breaks the law. In any case, Trump's job at this point is to negotiate with Congress. It's a pity there's no-one he respects to sit him down and say "This means you need to give a little, then THEY'LL give a little, and you keep doing that until you agree!"

if i were trump, i'd (lets say beginning february) declare national emergency and just start building the wall, no matter the legal consequences ...

He can only do this in specific circumstances. I don't think even the broadest definition of "national emergency" applies to the Mexico wall. Of course, I expect the twit to try. He's previously shown a complete lack of basic comprehension of what courts will do to his instructions.

Has anyone yet answered the question of why the hell Trump didn't fund his wall during the 2 years when no one could have stopped him?

... let me try:
congress is responsible to fund the government, isnt it ?
without money, hiw would you start building anything ?

He needs the legislature to fund it, true. But here's the thing: The legislature was under majority rule of the Republicans until the MidTerm elections. So in theory the easiest way to fund the wall SHOULD have been to do so whilst Congress was in Republican hands! He should have put the bill to the Congress whilst he was still riding high!

However, there's a razor blade in the fairy floss that those from Westminster systems won't spot - there is no parliamentary discipline[1] in the USA. If you are elected as a Republican you are not under any requirement to vote in favour of Republican legislation! So I have two suggestions:

1) There are enough Republicans who wouldn't vote for the wall, and he knows it; therefore if he waits until the new Congress he can say "These awful people won't fund the wall!" instead of admitting that the policy was defeated by his own people!

2) He's a complete fool who has no idea what he's supposed to do.

I would normally assume 1 to be the case, but Trump has repeatedly shown himself to be pretty devoid of clues . . .


[1] Note: this is not saying that they just go willy nilly and do what they like. By "Parliamentary discipline", we mean a specific thing.

[pjknibbs]

However, there's a razor blade in the fairy floss that those from Westminster systems won't spot - there is no parliamentary discipline[1] in the USA. If you are elected as a Republican you are not under any requirement to vote in favour of Republican legislation!

The same applies in a Westminster style parliament? Otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where Theresa May's Brexit bill got defeated by the largest majority ever, mostly due to members of her own party voting against her.

[BugMeister]

- odd that Cambridge Analytica were involved in both..

[Morkonan]

democrats are willling to fund about 4 trillion federal budget, about 700 billion for military, but not 5 billion for a fence/wall ?? sorry, but thats a joke to me, the congress is not only in the last few weeks dysfunctional, but for the last 2 decades ... remember bush/iraq ? obama/tea party ? now its trums/dems ... 800.000 federal workers are not getting paid because democrats arent willing to increase spending about 0.1% ??

Would it make you happier if, instead of a wall, it was a giant tractor made completely out of ice-cream that they didn't want to fund?

That's how many people view "The Wall." IOW - The Democrat's position is that a wall is not a suitable solution to the problem and they don't want to give Trump a reason to proclaim a "victory." Trump's position is very clear - He promised a wall and he wants to get his wall, no matter if its effective or not, so it will appear to his base that he has succeeded in his campaign commitment. Also, to keep out tyrannosauruses trying to illegally immigrate to the U.S....

...Have I got this right? If not, where have I got it wrong?

Just a couple of fine points:

"Congress" is the generic term Americans use for the combined legislative bodies of the "House of Representatives" and the "Senate." The House is made up of officials elected by districts within the States, determined by population. The Senate is made up of two Senators elected by the citizens of their respected States. The Democrats now have a majority representation in the House.

Anything related to appropriating money is one of the responsibilities of Congress. The President can not appropriate funds of any sort, though the President can determine, in part, when/how those funds are spent within the portions of government that they are allocated to. In short, the Congress controls the "purse strings." Funds are specifically allocated by Congress in a Budget which lists how much each department gets and, in certain cases, allocations to special projects/earmarks, etc.

In order for a Bill to pass into law, it must pass both the House and Senate. It can bounce between the two as changes are made. The leading party controls the position of Speaker and Senate Majority leader. (The head of the Senate is the Vice President, though that position only votes on anything in the case of a tie. The Speaker of the House is the party majority leader of the House.)

The President can not propose "law." However, the President can do things like influence "regulations" and ordering the various departments of the "Administration." In short, the President is the Chief Administrator of the Government.

The President is responsible for submitting the budget, but it must be approved by Congress. It can go through multiple submissions/votes/amendments, etc. If it doesn't pass in time, the budget from the previous year is used. However, Congress must approve of doing so (AFAIK).

Currently, the House is controlled by the Democrats, the Senate by the Republicans, (Which comprises "Congress" or the "Legislative Branch of Government) the Office of the President by a high-functioning moron (Executive Branch), and the Supreme Court, by mostly Conservative/Republican appointed Judges (The Judicial Branch). The Supreme Court can only rule on the Constitutionality of whatever is brought before them, though they can issue advisory statements.

Note: Being a 'Murican, I am not expected to know anything about how the government really works, so I could be incorrect on some particulars. Since most 'Murican schools no longer have "Civics" classes, I'm expected to learn how the government works by watching political advertisements on television. This makes all politicians very happy...

[RegisterMe]

"Congress" is the generic term Americans use for the combined legislative bodies of the "House of Representatives" and the "Senate."

Thank you, I've been trying to get my head around that for ages! So one question, when somebody refers to a "Congressman", does that mean they could be either a Senator or a House of Representativesor {cough}? Or is a congressman by definition a member of the House of Representatives because they are not a Senator?

[BugMeister]

- congress is a kind of female eel, isn't it?

[Observe]

So one question, when somebody refers to a "Congressman", does that mean they could be either a Senator or a House of Representativesor {cough}? Or is a congressman by definition a member of the House of Representatives because they are not a Senator?

In the strict sense, a Senator could be called a Congressman, but the convention is to refer to Congressmen as members of the House and Senators as members of the Senate.

House members (Congressmen) are elected for two-year terms and Senators for six-years. Each state has two Senators, but the number of Representatives (House) is determined by state population. A House member must be at least 25 years old, while a Senator must be at least 30. There are various other differences. Both bodies together comprise the "Congress" as defined in the Constitution:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

[RegisterMe]

@Morkonan and Observe, thank you both .

[Morkonan]

In the strict sense, a Senator could be called a Congressman, but the convention is to refer to Congressmen as members of the House and Senators as members of the Senate...

^--- This.

When talking to them personally, interviewers generally refer to them as their proper title. Impersonally, it's not unusual for Representatives to be grouped under "Congresspersons, Congressman, Congresswoman." Senators are almost always called "Senator." Being a Congressperson basically denotes you are a member of the Legislative Branch of Government elected by the people to form a "Congress" of representatives of the people that act together (in congress) to govern.

It's worth noting that a Presidential Veto can be overruled by a 2/3'rds majority in both the House and Senate.

[BugMeister]

Magnitsky Act?
- what Magnitsky Act..??

well the female eel didn't do quite enough to assist here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ5SFLHm9Fg

"Rachel Maddow revisits the story of Belarusian model Anastasia Vashukevich, whose
apparently accidental exposure of oligarch Oleg Deripaska's role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
has been met with legal pressure and personal peril as questions linger about the existence of further evidence."

- the slippery eel recently voted to relax sanctions on these hoodlums..
- now they'll all get rich together..

- meanwhile, as the FBI and other Federal Agencies are being starved into submission by the Trump shutdown
- Replicant Mitch McConman and Putin giggle to themselves atop their piles of gold..
- greed corrupts, and absolute greed corrupts absolutely..
- and the band played on..

[Morkonan]

Magnitsky Act?
- what Magnitsky Act..??

well the female eel didn't do quite enough to assist here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ5SFLHm9Fg

"Rachel Maddow revisits the story of Belarusian model Anastasia Vashukevich, whose
apparently accidental exposure of oligarch Oleg Deripaska's role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
has been met with legal pressure and personal peril as questions linger about the existence of further evidence."

- the slippery eel...

WTF is the expression "female eel?" Why all the "eel" references? Is this a cultural ref or something?

The woman was basically a sex-promoter, high-priced hooker, masquerading as a member of some "free love" therapy cult... Or something like that. She had been doing that for awhile. And, since everyone know that rich and powerful men love to have lots of young attractive women around for some reason, she eventually got to "escort" these men on their boat, probably as a result of her sex-cult marketing thing in Russia.. It's all very freaky.

Does she have pertinent info? Maybe. The thing is, she got caught in Thailand "@$%@'ing Without a License." (Prostitution) As the vid explains, she should have gotten a slap on the wrist and that would have been that. But, of course, she's a Belarus national, so the Thai courts probably loved that they could make an example out of her. And then, and AFAIK this timeline is correct, she started screaming that she had "secret info, vids, pics, recordings of Russian officials please help me ZOMGZ..."

Does she actually have all this stuff? Maybe. Certainly, she's got some things. But, does she have the "Final Straw" that will break this whole thing wide open? Doubtful. But, then again, I wasn't on that boat... more's the pity.

She was picked up because her flight had a stopover/transfer in... Russia. GG her travel-agent for not finding a connecting flight back home that didn't enter Russia.

It is interesting that the Russian officials might have encouraged the Thai to levy a heavy sentence. But.... they didn't. Either the Thai thumbed their nose at them or the officials didn't really impress the Thai. Or both.

It's all very titillating and interesting. There's also, apparently, a pretty decent online social media campaign that is attempting to paint her in a really bad light. I wonder who that's run by. Either way, it's hard to impune her credibility more than the facts actually do. "Sex-cult member who promotes free-love and "sex therapy" retreats in Thailand is arrested on prostitution charges and claims intimate and extensive knowledge of Russian interference in US elections."

PS - Since she's in Russia and under detention, I expect her to either have an "accident" or end up committing "suicide" with two shots to the head... Either way, i don't expect the Russian oligarchy to allow her to continue consuming air for very long after they successfully get her name out of the news. Even if something happens and she only gets deported out, she'll end up "tripping" on a curb somewhere and breaking her neck.

[Usenko]

However, there's a razor blade in the fairy floss that those from Westminster systems won't spot - there is no parliamentary discipline[1] in the USA. If you are elected as a Republican you are not under any requirement to vote in favour of Republican legislation!

The same applies in a Westminster style parliament? Otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where Theresa May's Brexit bill got defeated by the largest majority ever, mostly due to members of her own party voting against her.

Okay, then maybe it's an Australian peculiarity.

In an Australian parliament, it is TECHNICALLY acceptable for a member to vote against their party. They have the legal right to do so. But the consequences are severe - they lose any cabinet or shadow position they hold, and go to the back bench. As a result, this is something that rarely happens except when a member has the very strongest of feelings. For a member to "cross the floor" as it's called is something which will happen maybe once or twice in a parliamentary term, and when it happens it is big news.

[Morkonan]

...In an Australian parliament, it is TECHNICALLY acceptable for a member to vote against their party. They have the legal right to do so. But the consequences are severe - they lose any cabinet or shadow position they hold, and go to the back bench. As a result, this is something that rarely happens except when a member has the very strongest of feelings. For a member to "cross the floor" as it's called is something which will happen maybe once or twice in a parliamentary term, and when it happens it is big news.

This is possible in the US as well. While the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, generally vote by party bloc, individual Congresspersons can always vote however they wish. Crossing the aisle does happen fairly frequently, but it's usually done by Congresspersons who are very confident in their political position. McCain did it fairly frequently, but he had an almost unassailable base so he could afford to act boldly.

The rub is when it comes down to getting re-elected... What keeps the basic parties in power is their ability to command a majority and they can't do that if everyone goes running off, voting willy-nilly only for what's best for their constituents rather than what's best for their Party. The resources, funds, political capability of the parties are necessary for most Congresspersons to get re-elected. After all, the party could allow opposition candidates to wrest a seat away from a Congressperson that didn't play well with others in the party. Switching parties, going independent, etc, is not unknown for candidates seeking re-election that have severely ticked off their former party by not voting along party lines.

It's also worth noting that Congresspersons are not against "show votes" in order to retain support. They will, for instance, already know if something is going to pass or not and may elect to vote for or against it in a situation where their vote doesn't matter, just to increase support from their base back home no matter if it crosses the Washington line or not. All they care about in that case is being able to go back and tell their constituents that they voted for/against something that gives the impression they were supporting the desires of their constituents, even if they didn't do one darn thing to try to convince fellow Congresspersons to vote that way... Yay! "Participation Trophy!"