FCC To Suspend Most Operations Thursday if the Partial Government Shutdown Continues (fcc.gov) 398
The Federal Communications Commission will suspend most operations in the middle of the day January 3 if the partial government shutdown continues, the agency has announced [PDF]. In a statement, it said: In the event of a continued partial lapse in federal government funding, the Federal Communications Commission will suspend most operations in the middle of the day on Thursday, January 3. At that time, employees will have up to four hours to complete an orderly shutdown of operations. However, work required for the protection of life and property will continue, as will any work related to spectrum auctions, which is funded by auction proceeds. In addition, the Office of the Inspector General will continue operations until further notice. The Commission on Wednesday will release a Public Notice detailing the effects the suspension of operations will have, including on electronic filing and database systems, filing deadlines, regulatory and application fee payments, transaction shot clocks, and more. The Public Notice will be available on the Commission's website, www.fcc.gov.
Shutdown is kind of a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at those list of qualifications for the things that are not really shut down.
Basically "anything that is really at all useful carries on".
That's just for the FCC but the general trend carries across the whole government.
For just one example - you can still update passports... and most national parks are still open.
I think this shutdown may last a while, because I 'm not sure there's much pain that most non-government people will see...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shutdown is kind of a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your example is that such hypothetical agency was likely formed in a response of a long term trend causing some kind of a severe disaster due to long term growth of animal population.
Stoppage of such agency would not result in short term losses, but it may lead to economic disaster in half a decade. Because in many fields, government is the last line of defence acting when short term thinking corporations fail. Be it handling an oil spill, damage to overall farming output due to wrong kind of short term benefit long term catastrophic fertilization methodology and chemistry, or national defence.
Which brings us to difference between the government and corporation, and one of the few of Trump's actual (as opposed to those numerous imagined by sufferers of TDS) flaws. He has problems segregating "government functions that cannot be carried on like a corporation because of government being the last line of defence with no backup" and "government functions that are not the last line of defence, and where government's role can be at least to a significant extent picked up by private sector". We've seen this in many of his moves where he has treated government like a CEO treats a company. National government by design needs to take in account the long term effects of its polities, because the scenario of breakdown of government is nothing like a corporate bankruptcy. In case of corporate bankruptcy, government steps in with everything from its judiciary to its executive to manage this failure. When government breaks down, there is nothing above it to do the same. Society itself, and everything within it will collapse should this occur, and it will take a long time and a lot of damage for next governing body to re-emerge from anarchy that follows such events in human history, often with state borders themselves getting altered dramatically by such an event.
So in this regard, this is a dangerous game. Both for Trump and his ever increasingly hysterical opposition which is now engaging is absurd accusations which appear to mostly be "we agree with your views on border security, but because we must be seen in disagreement with you due to our audience largely suffering from TDS, we'll just alter our position to one that of diametric opposite of views we had just a month ago". At this point, given this rapid turnaround on both this issue and "pull the troops out of wars = bad" swing that happened effectively overnight, it's very difficult to see the current political events as those that are occurring between two rational actors invested in the future of their state. All while Trump clearly indicates that his primary interest is the future of the state with his actions.
It's going to be interesting to see how this unfolds, and if the more sane centrists can take control back within the democratic party to return to some kind of politics of the principles and actually be able to agree with Trump on points that were theirs just a few months ago, such as importance of having secure borders or that having soldiers participating in undeclared wars is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I not surprised you have no one to spend the New Years with and are instead busy trolling on slashdot?
Re: Shutdown is kind of a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are a dick, but I suspect you know this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, fuck you and Happy New Year!
Gradual Vice Clamp [Re:Shutdown is kind of a joke] (Score:5, Insightful)
But "useful" is a matter of degree and timing. For example, Federal permits are often required for various business activities. Many of those are being postponed, meaning businesses have to wait. It can muck up schedules, hurting profits.
I'm sure you have a personal "to do" list, and many of those items can be postponed some without much problem, but after a while it will catch up to you and cause direct problems.
But toiletry and garbage-related maintenance is on hold. I shouldn't have to explain the details of those downsides.
It's stupid that our system allows this so easily. It should have a cruise control mode that funds at existing levels until budget agreements are made. Stop throwing monkey wrenches into our civilization; I LIKE civilization. It seems many don't. Let's not #MakeCavesGreatAgain.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason our system allows this so easily is to encourage lawmakers to compromise. Because presumably legislation and programs which have already been passed are likely to be more valuable than new legislation up for consideration. So nobody in their right mind would hold existing programs hostage as a ploy to try to get new programs passed.
Unfortuna
Re: Gradual Vice Clamp [Re:Shutdown is kind of (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, traditional communism. How about that. But how long can we expect them to keep that up?
Like I said, consequence is relative and time-related. Just because you can postpone something doesn't mean it has no consequence. I can postpone dental visits for a year or so, but if I never went to a dentist, I'd probably have screwy or missing teeth. (Then again, some rural
Re: (Score:2)
It may be lack of democracy and free speech. Totalitarians treat citizens as expendable pawns because they can; they won't be voted out. Besides, I said "traditional communism", not Soviet-style.
You are focusing on one narrow aspect of the military. Further, it's not so much there's a withdrawal, it's that the administration h
Ok lets play that game (Score:2)
It may be lack of democracy and free speech. Totalitarians treat citizens as expendable pawns
Yes, that's what I said, communists.
Besides, I said "traditional communism", not Soviet-style.
Oh no you don't.
Name ONE COMMUNIST COUNTRY, of any form, that has not brought about vast ecological disaster [google.com].
You are focusing on one narrow aspect of the military.
Whatever, warmonger. I was for getting out of Afghanistan (and Syria) before Trump was even a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one communist country that didn't see large percentages of their population get outright murdered, let alone the ecological side effects. I'm on team human first. Science tells us that the better off we are, the more conscientious we are about stewardship of the environment, resource management, and improving quality of life. There's a positive feedback loop associated with capitalism that allows upward socioeconomic mobility for more people than any other system. This gives people more time for education, and concurrent to that, they become more aware of long term environmental issues, and become better at planning and saving for the future.
Screw you if you want to take that away.
Sigh... more people & societies benefiting from a deployed political system flies in the face of the selfish gene. It should not come as a shock to us that raising the living standard of the bottom 20%ish of the World for our own good is as difficult to grasp as the federal reserve notes blown about a Money booth [makeagif.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is still in the White House, so that is clearly not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is better, canceling your vacation while nothing's happening or sitting at your desk while nothing's happening, looking like a fat, angry toddler.
Remember, these were the first government shutdowns every to happen while one party controlled both congress and the White House. Republicans have spent two years with majorities and the presidency and only managed to fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on.
Your loyalty is admirable, yet, you are clearly too intelligent to rally behind this Trump fellow, partisan affiliation aside... the democrats are inherently flawed, but so are the republicans.
Arguing on the side of one or the other means you fall prey to the illusion that fealty to one of the two is admirable, rather than playing into the hands of the folks who seek to minimize the efforts of the minority still not politically uninterested.
I am not for either side (Score:2)
Your loyalty is admirable, yet, you are clearly too intelligent to rally behind this Trump fellow
I am not rallying behind Trump. I have always been, and shall remain, a Libertarian...
What I am laying out is the raw honesty of the tactical situation. Just because Trump has behaved better tactically does not mean I am necessarily for him - I have always wanted both sides to do well, because I want balance.
But the Democrats seem to exhibit zero situational awareness of the optics of the actions they take, an
Re: (Score:2)
I find myself, principally, reluctant to favor party line direction, (and it even pains me to type it) in any way, shape, or form... fortuitively, I still enjoy that particular freedom.
I could certainly be in much direr straits. We are blessed, to be raised, in the wessed.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because they've prioritized things with *immediate* effect. But over time you can't expect federal workers in "essential" positions to continue working without pay.
For example DHS scrounged money to pay Coast Guardsmen today, but it is probable that they wont' receive paychecks in January. It is also likely that the Coast Guard will have difficulty paying to run its ships. ICE and Border Control agents are also working without pay. Coast Guardsmen can't leave, but eventually people working on bor
Money would be paid long before that was an issue (Score:2)
But over time you can't expect federal workers in "essential" positions to continue working without pay.
All actually essential functions would receive emergency funding if truly needed, even if the workers did not take advantage of the many free loan options [clark.com] they have. Remember they are still going to receive all the pay they would have had they been working, so those loans are paid back as soon as the shutdown is over.
Do taxes stop being collected? No? Well then the government actually has money to pay w
Re: (Score:2)
All actually essential functions would receive emergency funding if truly needed,
I'm wondering where you think that emergency funding will come from. The Constitutional mechanism we're dealing with here is that the Executive Branch can't spend money without legislative approval. Now you may be able to pull some treasury sleight of hand to move approved spending to specific purposes, but in the US treasury functions are also tightly controlled by Congress (e.g. securitizing debts).
That's what DHS has done with the Coast Guard; it's searched under the sofa cushions and found already app
Guarantee is already in place (Score:2)
Now you may be able to pull some treasury sleight of hand to move approved spending to specific purposes,
Bingo.
Finally, there is no guarantee that furloughed federal workers will receive anything
Wrong. The fix is in. [govexec.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(1) There pot of already appropriated money is finite. The Coast Guard thing is a one off. This is especially true because in our system many normal treasury functions are still controlled by Congress.
(2) Last I heard HR 7368 was referred to committee and died there. It'll have to be reintroduced next year, I think, although it *should* pass. Then of course Trump has to sign it.
Re:Shutdown is kind of a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is you never knew anything the FCC actually did, so you have no idea.
Except the EPA isn't monitoring pollution, the FDA isn't approving drugs, Social Security is shut down (if you're on it you keep getting checks, but you cannot get on it). Military, etc. as already fully funded, but if this keeps going on, there's a lot of programs that are going to start shutting down.
At consulates, not everywhere.
Most national parks have some pre-shutdown funding still available. They'll all be closed if this keeps going on. In the mean time, they've suspended trash pickup and restroom maintenance.
It's possible that this partial shutdown, since like 3/4 of the budget was already allocated, may go on for a while. But I doubt it. My guess is it'll be pretty obvious in a few weeks once the last few dollars run out and people get out of the holidays slowdown and want to do things that require a non-shutdown government.
More Fake News from someone who did not RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is you never knew anything the FCC actually did, so you have no idea.
I do, but apparently you did not since your claim requires stating what is important they are not continuing operations on.
Except the EPA isn't monitoring pollution
Companies are still legally responsible for pollution so it's not like they are doing to start while monitoring is suspended.
the FDA isn't approving drugs
Fake News, applications still being processed. [pharmtech.com]
Social Security is shut down (if you're on it you keep getting check
Re:More Fake News from someone who did not RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the EPA hasn't approved some process or equipment as complying, does the company shut down or run without approval (and thus be violating regulations). I suppose some can use old stuff. But yeah, I imagine a lot of companies will take advantage of this window to handle any disposal issues that they were stockpiling.
Did you even read your link? Yes, the applications that were started in 2018 for new drugs are being continued if there's enough money left in their dedicated accounts. No new drugs approvals are even being considered as of Jan 1 2019, and the companies that started approvals in 2018 cannot add more money to those dedicated accounts in 2019 to finish it.
Did you even read your link? It's talking about SSD, which while a component of SS is pretty small. It's talking about how hearings cannot be scheduled. And yes, paperwork is still being processed. However they cannot do the benefits validation until they're back. Which is a vital part to actually getting checks.
Yes, the mail service is still working. Yes the government didn't destroy all forms. But you cannot go to a passport office to get a passport. While some things can happen by mail, not all.
Got it, you don't think they should shut down the parks. I mean, they will, because they do every shutdown. But this is just a "why". It's not happening yet cause there's still a little cash left in those accounts.
But yes, mothballing things does cost money. Government shutdowns tend to cost more than just keeping the government running, and they also don't produce the services we expect from government.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically "anything that is really at all useful carries on"
So might be best if the shutdown continues forever.
Re:Shutdown is kind of a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a small but growing list of jobs being done by federal employees who are not currently being paid. You might count this as "carrying on", but most rational people would categorize this right into "unsustainable".
* Disclaimer: yes, I know these employees will eventually get back pay, but the ability to work-then-back-pay is the reason "anything that is really at all useful carries on".
Tactically all this benefits Trump mightily (Score:2, Interesting)
Largely because they're using funds left over. The Smithsonian, for instance, will close on the 2nd or 3rd of Jan IIRC because of lack of funds. I imagine the national parks will close as well.
All the outdoor parks and memorials will remain open because there's no need to close them. Trees keep growing, rivers keep flowing...
Just wait. All those school trips to the Smithsonian will start kicking in sometime after the holiday break, and you'll see stories of disappointed kids in the news.
Disappointed childr [wikipedia.org]
Alright! (Score:3)
Firing up my pirate transmitter. Tune into 6925KHz.
Re: (Score:2)
"Boooogeeer!"
[old WKRP sitcom meme]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and this is a bad thing, right? (Score:2)
I know we're all supposed to be angry at democrats/republicans ( depending on your allegiance of course ), but I just can't bring myself to be upset about the shutdown, or this particular aspect of it. Perhaps we should consider making this a more permanent state of affairs?
Re: (Score:3)
... I just can't bring myself to be upset about the shutdown ...
Perhaps if the shutdown involved Congress and the White House -- after all, they actually haven't done anything productive. But regular people, just trying to do their jobs and pay their bills, are now caught up in this -- over partial funding for wall almost no one wants (or cares about) and DHS says we don't actually need. Even Trump tweeted [twitter.com], on Dec 20, 2018 (last fucking week), that the Border is currently "tight":
With so much talk about the Wall, people are losing sight of the great job being done on our Southern Border by Border Patrol, ICE and our great Military. Remember the Caravans? Well, they didn’t get through and none are forming or on their way. Border is tight. Fake News silent!
And, contrary to what he might think (and I use that word generously), the military re
Re: (Score:2)
Same. It's hard to even notice it outside the news. I'd bet most people don't even know there is a partial government shutdown.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to notice a shutdown after a single week (or less since many programs had some leftover funds... the FCC/Smithsonian aren't shutting down until Wednesday and National Parks haven't shutdown yet either) between Christmas and New Years? How much interaction do you normally have with the federal government? How much normally happens between Christmas and New Years?
Re: (Score:2)
Oooo part of the government is shutdown
Just my 2 cents
Not to worry FCC Executives (Score:2)
Promises kept (Score:2)
If you like your Mexico paid for the wall, you can keep your Mexico paid for the wall.
One question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because as part of checks and balances between the branches, it ensures that no branch can withhold another branch's pay in order to starve them out. Imagine the President purposely withholding bills solely to sink Congress's pay, thereby forcing them to pass bad legislation in order to remain personally solvent. Or Congress doing the same to the President.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually saw a different opinion on this recently that kind of changed my mind on the issue. Like most people, I agreed with you: no work = no pay, especially when they're causing bigger problems than are being fixed. The argument I heard against this is that rich congress people could use government shutdowns as a weapon against people who aren't rich. Congressional salary isn't high, of course these people are all rich from previous endeavors and/or lobbyists or other political bullshit. We don't want t
Re: (Score:3)
In some cases, it is unconstitutional to cut the pay. For example, federal judges salaries and the President's are protected by the constitution from being cut (or not paid) by Congress.
Article II Sec 7 of the U.S. Constitution restricts the authority of Congress to alter the President's compensation:
"The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected[.]"
Article III Sec 1 of th
Re: (Score:2)
They actually go so dysfunctional in the 2nd Bush term that they had to pass a law saying that Congress couldn't get paid if it didn't pass a budget. What they did in response was to start passing budgets which they subsequently ignored.
That's why we're here now. They didn't put wall money into the budget, and now that Congress is turning over the President doesn't think he can get wall funding into next year's budget.
Amateur radio (Score:3)
Re:Amateur radio (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one of the tricks of the shutdown. If the government forces you to use their services, when the services get shut down, the part about being forced to use them doesn't get shut down as well. That artificially makes the shutdown 1) particularly harmful to the public, and 2) particularly good for the government, compared to a real shutdown.
If the government actually shut down, you wouldn't be able to apply but you wouldn't need to, since there would be no government to require you to apply.
It's the same reason why the "shutdown" doesn't result in the TSA being removed from airports and people being able to travel without them.
And? (Score:2)
CC To Suspend Most Operations Thursday
And given the current FCC leadership, nothing of value was lost.
GREAT (Score:2)
NOW, ideally, it is time to EPA to announce a shutdown, at least at the top.
This Is It! (Score:3)
This is your big chance, everyone. With the freakin' FCC out of action for a bit, you can finally do stuff like; you no longer have to tinkle; you can finally take a piss. Fellatio no longer must be called a trouser friendly kiss...
etc, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Saw an editorial cartoon yesterday (Score:2)
That's pretty much how I view these shutdowns. The asshats responsible not only get paid on time, with their salon, jacuzzi, steam room, and health benefits. They don't look around afterwards and say "Hmm, these people are non-essential, we got ourselves a budget issue . Mebbe we can do without half of them and save some money."
Re: (Score:2)
What shall we do without our precious FCC? How can we end this madness? How long can we live with this horrific government shutdown?
In all seriousness, it's just politics as usual. The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
break out the uncut R-rated movies in primetime for sweeps!
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, it's just politics as usual. The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
Pretty obvious you don't work for the fed in a non-essential position. Nor do I, so it won't make much of a difference personally, but I'd imagine the general instability of not having a paycheck would absolutely suck.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
Well, the silver lining here is that one way or other we'll find out whether there really are any intolerable side effects, because it looks like this is going to drag on indefinitely.
Every past time this has been done it's been Congress who started it, and at the first twinge of pain they've chickened out. But in this case nobody has much political incentive to do anything. Trump and his aides have recklessly taken credit for the shutdown before it even happened, which means he'll look weak if he compro
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, it's just politics as usual. The 'scary' government shutdown can go on for months for all I care.
As one opinion piece I saw today said, it's rather disturbing how Americans now see a government shutdown as a commonly-used political tool instead of the crisis of governance that it used to be.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Informative)
Why should they? Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for it.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Mexico *were* to pay for it, the Trump Administration would need authorization from Congress because that's how the Constitution works. If Trump finds 5 billion bucks in the White House sofa cushions he couldn't just spend it; it'd have to go into the treasury and await appropriation, just like taxpayer money.
In every democracy I know of the legislature passes an annual budget which sets spending limits and priorities. It then creates authorizing legislation that creates or continues programs which spend the money. Finally it passes some kind of appropriation legislation which allows the money to actually be spent. Appropriation is the final step that allows the legislature to tweak exactly where the budgeted money goes.
In most countries failure to pass an appropriation bill requires the government to resign and call general elections, so it seldom happens. In the US this is not the case, but until around 1980, appropriations bills never failed. After 1980 frequency of appropriations bill failures have gradually increased, but the issues have always been things like tax increases or disagreements over whether budgeted and authorized spending should actually go forth.
This is the first government shutdown in US history where the objective was to spend money that was never budgeted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well us paying for it is still better than no wall.
Speak for yourself, or better yet, pony up on the gofundme and leave the rest of us out of it.
Also, we could easily make Mexico pay for it by not giving them anymore money.
Cool, so do that then and quit monkeywrenching.
Re: Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Informative)
Trump could agree to no additional funding for the wall, while the Democrats could agree to redirect all social services spending (i.e. food stamps, housing assistance, education funding, medical assistance, etc.) currently being spent on people here illegally, being spent instead on building a wall and repatriating those not here lawfully.
Illegal aliens don't get foodstamps or housing assistance. The only medical care they can get is Medicaid for pregnant women giving birth in the US.
Education is paid for by local taxes (usually property and sales) which illegal immigrants pay almost always. And anyway the US has to provide secondary education to everybody.
Re:Not supposed to, but 60% of them do (Score:5, Interesting)
Theoretically illegal aliens aren't supposed to be able to apply on their own, but in fact about 60% do receive public assistance.
Only immigrants with children born in the US (i.e. the US citizen) can receive public assistance. I would like to see the source for the 60% figure, that doesn't seem to be correct.
Certain states with a lot of illegal immigrants, which are known for being liberal and flouting federal law regarding immigration and drugs, go ahead and hand out the money.
That's up to states, they can't dole out federal money to illegals.
The six dependents don't have to be legal.
That's not how welfare works (SNAP, EITC or TANF). You can't claim welfare for dependents who are not the US citizen and there's also a 5-year ban. The exception I think is WIC which does give benefits to the mother of the US citizen. Here's an overview: https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-rep... [hhs.gov]
My background: I'm a legal immigrant and I actually researched that stuff before immigration, in case I needed it.
Re: (Score:3)
and I actually researched that stuff
What are you doing here then? Slashdot is not a forum for informed and factually correct discourse.
Wait what.... you're an immigrant. Deport him, #MAGA!
*note the incredible amount of both sarcasm and disappointment in my post.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary Clinton's Titty?
Re: (Score:2)
How about tell Trump to go fuck himself and watch as Democrats use their subpoena power to do some real investigations not involving Hillary's emails.
Re: (Score:2)
And as the other AC points out, we'll be paying for them AND the useless wall if Trump gets his way. The cost of the illegals is irrelevant to this discussion because they will be here with or without the wall.
As for the drugs, those come in by submarine, tunnels, and catapult. The wall won't do much for any of those routes.
So, time for Trump to fulfill the whole promise and get Mexico to pay for it if he wants it so bad. Otherwise, if you want it so bad, pony up.
Re: (Score:2)
Just fund the wall that Americans want and need. Stop serving the interests of Mexico, Russia, and China.
Those countries don't care whether we have a wall or not. Mexico is fine with the wall, as long as we don't expect them to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico's not that fucking stupid to pay for a wall. Only certain idiots would think they would.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason Trump wants a wall
I thought it was "slats" now? Whatever those are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Informative)
Fentanyl doses are measured in micrograms. The street price of fentanyl amounts to about $1600 per gram. If you wanted to smuggle a million dollars of fentanyl past the wall you could just hand it through one of the fence slats or toss it over the wall. Or hide it in one of the millions of tons of cargo that are shipped into the US.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Informative)
Just fund the wall that Americans want and need.
Sigh. Anonymous Coward - Over and over and over and over and OVER again, Trump made it clear that MEXICO was going to pay for the wall. He made it clear that his fantastic negotiating skills will make that a reality.
All we're doing is holding him to his promise.
A promise *every* Trump supporter repeated back to me throughout 2016 and a lot of 2017.
Is that so hard? All he has to do is do what he said: Head to Mexico, and return with a check for $40 Billion dollars for the wall.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to bet that if he closed off the Southern Border for an extended period of time, Mexico would be more than willing to negotiate payments for said wall.
Quite a bit of money flows back into Mexico's economy from legal / illegals working here in the US.
You cut that cash flow off and they'll change their tune in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you even more that he doesn't have a clue how to close off the Southern border.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and just as a reminder, all Presidents lie, not just Republicans.
Most recent case in point, a few from Obama off the top of my head:
His promise to close Guantanamo.
Went on Jay Leno and proclaimed " There is no spying on Americans " after the Snowden revelations.
If you like your doctor / healthcare plan, you can keep them.
Moral of this story: Presidents can promise you anything, the problem is people keep believing it.
Re: (Score:2)
His promise to close Guantanamo.
And he tried to do that. The craven Congress denied him funds for that.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, Trump in 2018 averaged 15 lies a day. Unfortunately for him it's all in his tweets for the world to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Just fund the wall that Americans want and need.
Sigh. Anonymous Coward - Over and over and over and over and OVER again, Trump made it clear that MEXICO was going to pay for the wall. He made it clear that his fantastic negotiating skills will make that a reality.
All we're doing is holding him to his promise.
A promise *every* Trump supporter repeated back to me throughout 2016 and a lot of 2017.
Is that so hard? All he has to do is do what he said: Head to Mexico, and return with a check for $40 Billion dollars for the wall.
It's not even that. Just because Trump ran on the idea of the wall doesn't mean the Democrats need to give him a wall for nothing. In addition to electing Trump voters also elected Democrats in the Senate and those Senators needs to agree to wall funding, just like Obama needed GOP support for many of his policies.
And Democrats were actually willing to give Trump $25 billion in wall funding, which he desperately wanted, in exchange for DACA, which Trump also claimed to have wanted.
Of course Trump took all o
Re: (Score:2)
A dubious claim, but no more than the idea that tax cuts for private jet owners qualify as "tax reform".
If you squint and look sideways at it, it can appear that he kept his promises, and that's all Fox News needs to spin it to the maga-hats.
Re: (Score:2)
That... after the liberal left demanded to know where the funding would come from and forced him to find an answer that wouldn't immediately impact the taxpayers. No political applicant would state that in the middle of a campaign.
Only the "liberal left?"
Fact check Anonymous Coward: During ANY election where a candidate proposes new spending, they have to explain where the funding will come from.
For example, in the 2016 campaign, when Hillary Clinton proposed free tuition to state colleges for fami
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:5, Informative)
Fact check: Only partway through his campaign did he mention that Mexico would fund it. That wasn't an initial campaign promise only the "wall" was. That... after the liberal left demanded to know where the funding would come from and forced him to find an answer that wouldn't immediately impact the taxpayers.
Asking how you intend to pay for your signature campaign promise.
A classic gotcha question.
Re:Why do Democrats hate America? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's food for thought:
It took the Nazis 10 years to round up and murder 6-8 million people. They had the full force of the Gestapo and local police to enforce their will. They didn't have to bother with courts or any such rule of law nonsense.They also had the help of government records, in both Germany and in the lands they conquered/annexed. And yet it still took them 10 years.
What you are proposing eclipses that in scope of people and area. So good luck, you will need to turn American into the Fourth Reich to achieve it and it will still take you over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Polls are BS. We had an election
And the election proved that polls are BS
Re: (Score:2)
Trump lost the popular vote
Means nothing. Who is sitting in the White House today? QED.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, they are paid to fulfill him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. I aint payin for some bullshit metal slats in the middle of the fucking desert. Fuck that. No, FUCK that.
No money from Mexico, no wall. That was the promise, which has now been exposed as just another lie from trump to his brain dead supporters.
Keep it closed until he leaves office or gets impeached for all I care. trumptards can suck on this one. It's their own fault for voting for loser trump.
trump's administration is so corrupt and ineffectual that the government might as well be closed anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't you heard? Mexico is already paying for the wall [twitter.com]. They're just doing it with money taken out of US taxpayers' pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walls are pretty easy to get around / under / over / through. I am not sure that a wall will really solve all of americas immigration problems.
Luckily, the second aspect of trumps plan, making america a shitty place to live, is more likely to affect people choosing to move there. Mission accomplished i guess?
Re: (Score:2)
...the PUBLIC wants a wall...
The polls I've seen, a.k.a. reality, disagree.
Yes, it is the deep state (Score:2)
In order for a leader to push through major changes he is or she must have either the overwhelming support of the American people, or a strong coalition of allies. Building a coalition is hard work and requires compromise. The president does not have the po
Re: (Score:2)
You know, such a thing as a "deep state" actually does exist. More in places like Egypt and Pakistan than the US, but it's a matter of degree.
However, the deep state has nothing to fuck to do with this situation, which is an impasse between elected officials.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Democrat, I'm open to a deal.
Yeah, the wall is a stupid waste of money, but in the grand scheme of things five billion is peanuts for a country that's proposing to spend 680 billion. By the time we finish paying for the Littoral Combat Ships, we'll be replacing them before we ever got them to work, and we'll have spent a lot more of them than we'll ever spend on a wall.
So make us an offer, Mr. President. Let's say you cut twenty billion bucks from the Defense budget request, you get ten billion for y
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up a case of Baofengs while they last.