search
top

Commentary on the Shutdown

It’s been fun to watch social media, and all the people on pointing fingers at anyone but themselves. If you really give a shit on the issue to the point of inflexibility, you’re part of the problem. I don’t really think a border wall will accomplish what people expect it to, but can’t you give the dude his wall? What’s it to you? Do you really believe in completely open borders? Because you can have that, if you’re willing to give up the welfare state. But you can’t have both open borders and a welfare state. Five billion dollars is sofa change for the federal government, so lets not pretend this is about money.

Likewise from the other side, a wall isn’t going to keep out visa cheaters, which is most of the illegals these days. So maybe be willing to work a bit with Nancy to end the impasse. Both Pelosi and Trump need a face saving way out. But that’s probably not possible. Both Trump and Pelosi’s base has each of them locked into a no win scenario, with neither side able to give an inch without their base crying “surrender,” “traitor.”

The algorithms have driven everyone mad. It’s like we don’t know how to deal with other human beings anymore. The Terminator movies were wrong. Skynet never had to kill a single human. Just set them against each other.

30 Responses to “Commentary on the Shutdown”

  1. Love it.

    When I was a gov contractor we had a shutdown and it was a big joke. Everyone knew they would get paid in the end, we were all white collar workers who could handle an interruption in cashflow. It was extra vacation basically. As a contractor I didn’t lose anything either, just couldn’t work at a gov facility so had to drive 5 minutes further.

    But that was pre TSA. Now we’ve got a large, critical work force that is not highly paid. They have to pay for gas and lunch every day and don’t have the ability to survive too long without a paycheck. If they quit showing up for work in large numbers, and it’s only a matter of time before they do, then things go bad real fast.

    Something that can’t continue won’t … or so I’ve heard.

    For me this is a lesson as to why we need less government and not more; not efficient and disrupted by the whims of politicians. But that’s where we are.

    And of course TSA is paid for by landing fees and security fees and the like from airlines, which are still being paid, I’m sure. Just stuck in govt. coffers.

    • Will says:

      “But that was pre TSA. Now we’ve got a large, critical work force that is not highly paid.”

      Pay attention much? TSA accomplishes nothing good. Never stopped an attack, that has all been done by passengers. Fails all tests. Drives a lot of people away from flying. They are a joke.

      I used to fly with knives. 9/11 wouldn’t have succeeded if passengers hadn’t been disarmed. Makes one wonder if that was done to allow them to succeed.

      • I used to fly with a pocket knife too and the rules are stupid that keep me from doing it.

        But in an enclosed, pressurized space flying at 50,000 feet I’m not ready to go full archie bunker and have everyone holding a gat with the safety off and taking up slack. And I have no doubt that having airport security has stopped attacks. If it was as easy to take down a plane as to put a small bomb in a backpack and walk right up to your plane there would have been more by now. I’d bet money on that.

        So we do need airport security. And until the TSA is replaced by private security we need the TSA. Once a govt program is in place it’s damn hard to get rid of.

    • blackpilled says:

      I’m sorry, but when it comes to the plight of TSA workers*, I’m completely incapable of finding a fuck to give on their behalf.

      *Who have stopped not even a single terrorist.

  2. bombloader says:

    Personally I’d say offer a legislative DACA solution in exchange for wall. I’m ok with letting people who came in as minors get some path for citizenship, barring something like a felony conviction. But last time there was an attempt to roll them into one package Democrats wouldn’t deal. Also the “open borders or welfare state-pick one”.fits with my thinking as well.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’d trade making them legal. But they don’t get citizenship.

      • Will says:

        What you overlook is that it is the culture difference that kills the receiving nation. There is no such thing as assimilation. I see the effects every day. They don’t even bother to learn the host’s language. SEND THEM ALL BACK.

      • bombloader says:

        By path I mean green then citizenship by following the normal rules, not instant citizenship. I’m strongly opposed to any Visa that has no path for citizenship.

        • Sebastian says:

          I’m not. They broke the law. They are lucky to be allowed to stay.

          • Edwin Ball says:

            Guess I’m not sure what you’d propose. If someone gets a green card they can become a citizen by following the rules. Are you proposing a special visa class that can’t end in citizenship? I’m afraid that would give opening for “guest worker” proposals in the past. I don’t want a nation filled with non-citizens who have no way to become citizens. Maybe we could go with the “Starship Troopers “ Get a visa, you can become a citizen by serving in the military.

            • mike says:

              Instead of everyone tripping over themselves trying to figure out how to make things pleasant for illegal aliens, why not try to figure out what’s best for actual Americans first, and then figure out what can be done about the illegals with that in mind?

              The job market is changing. Why does it make sense to figure out the best way to ensure that millions of illegals will be eligible for social benefits that they will almost certainly need because the economy is moving forward without them? Even the DACA recipients aren’t as educated or skilled as US citizens.

              It’s a nightmare that the DC establishment continues to saddle us and our kids with. Oh, and also, they’re here illegally. So there’s that.

              Maybe – just MAYBE – our elected representatives could come at something with the interests of actual Americans in mind for a change. Instead, they’re all tripping over themselves trying to convince the illegals that they’re the ones they should thank at the voting booth, maybe, hopefully.

              But even if the illegals never get a chance to vote, the 22+ million already here have given us about 30 US Representatives in mostly Democrat cities and states. So they don’t even need to vote so long as they’re calculated into the apportionment of House seats. They’re already voting Democrat without even having to
              vote.

              Enough with trying to make life here easier for illegals. Do you think any of the countries they come from would be tripping over themselves with the same compassion to the point of utter stupidity if the roles were reversed? Here’s a though: Why not go find out?

              • bombloader says:

                I’m definitely not tripping over myself to make life easier for illegals. But if I can throw the open borders crazies a small bone that’ll get decent border security, I’ll do it. Real problem IMHO is once we get something we need to keep pressure not to nerf whatever we do a few years down the road. We had a decent compromise to build fences back in the mid 00’s and it was watered down to pointlessness a few years later. Unfortunately, this kind of bipartisan BS has caused this issue to get so heated. I want the wall funding to pass, but it’s gonna be useless if Congress kills funding when it’s half built.

      • 34 says:

        How long would it take a judge to declare that denying them citizenship “unconstitutional”? About a millisecond.

        And once they are legal, they can sponsor all their relatives in Mexico and Central America to come in too.

        I read that for every illegal “amnestied” by Reagan brought in an average of five relatives.

        Kiss your gun rights goodbye when the illegals and their relatives start voting.

    • Joe says:

      We tried that in 1986. It turned California into a Blue-State 12 years after that, and if we do what you are suggesting again, North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are next to flip blue thanks to good ‘ole “demographics”.

      • bombloader says:

        We didn’t cut off the flow through. I’m saying trade something limited that Dems keep saying they want for the wall.

  3. J T Bolt says:

    ‘large critical workforce’

    I’ll agree TSA is large, but hardly critical. Just fire them and go back to August 2001. The TSA would not have stopped 9/11 anymore than a magazine ban will stop mass shootings.

    Deport them all. If you make them legal they will just be all made citizens in less than 20 years.

    • Will says:

      Earlier than that. The FAA? banned knives maybe a year before. First they started with half-serrated blades (too intimidating appearing-not kidding). Between my two folders and my big multi-tool (2 blades), I could have armed a couple more passengers to take on those hijackers.

  4. Alpheus says:

    I’ve heard rumors that President Trump deliberately goaded Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer into this government shut-down, in an effort to exceed a 30-day limit of furloughing of federal employees, and then start laying them off.

    The idea is to get rid of a lot of the deadwood, and attempt to restructure the Deep State.

    If this rumor is true, then the shutdown is going to have some *very* unexpected consequences.

    I’m kindof hoping the rumor is true, myself….

    • mike says:

      30-day limit of furloughing of federal employees

      I can’t find anything when I search for this. Could you point me in the right direction?

      • dustydog says:

        Reduction In Force (RIF) rules. RIF means that the particular job is cancelled (so the employee is fired because there is no more work, rather than ‘fired for cause’ for being a bad employee). Civilian federal workers get 90-days notice of a RIF. For agencies with unions, the union can block the RIF with legal action.

        For workers who were furloughed, they were notified about the various rules, including – after 30 days furlough (i.e. their agency doesn’t have money to pay furlough), their job is subject to RIF without further notice.

  5. Joe says:

    I truly hate to sound like a dead-beat partisan hack, but I’ll say: Trump’s way with the wall, or nothing at all. Also, it’s time to Repeal the 1986 and 1965 Immigration Laws and institute a quota and economic based merit system.

    In my lifetime I have watched once solidly Republican and Republican leaning swing states like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico flip to dictatorial Democrat-Party Controlled States thanks to those lovely ‘changing demographics’. I am now watching Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, and possibly soon to be Missouri, turn purple.

    These last 10 years have hours worth of footage showing the worst of the worst from the Democrat Party laughing and spitting at us ‘rubes’ and ‘hicks’ about how they’re gonna win America thanks to ‘demographics’.

    Trump needs to turn vicious and call out the Democrats for their almost ‘blood-thirsty’ desire to forcefully change America’s Demographics to rig the electorate to their favor, because that’s how they flipped the once Republican-Leaning Swing-State of California into a 1-party Democrat Dictatorship.

    • bombloader says:

      “Demographics “ was also supposed to give us Hillary Clinton inevitably. Political coalitions change inevitable which is what the demographics argument ignores. With California, I think the issue is that it has a couple of large cities that are uber liberal, which drives it’s politics in crazy ways.

      • 45 says:

        Demographics gave Hillary Clinton the popular vote, bombloader. Trump BARELY made it.

        If it wasn’t for demographic changes from immigration, Romney would have CRUSHED Obama in his re-election bid… in a bigger landslide than Reagan’s re-election.

        Now, bombloader, why are the cities uberliberal… ???? Could it be… demographic changes?

  6. Karma says:

    Reading through the comments, it seems that the point of the post is completely lost on most.

    Each side is completely dug in, and any compromise is deemed treason. Trump wants the wall as much as Pelosi wants gun control; neither would accomplish much, but each side wants it so bad that they would burn this place down in order to get it.

    Lord knows how we can get out of this.

  7. aerodawg says:

    The wall or barrier or whatever you want to call it is just one aspect of solving a complex problem. Carrot and stick if you will. We have to make it harder to come here illegally and stiffen the penalties for doing so, while at the same time making the legal process simpler and easier. And the former, including VISA enforcement, has to come before the latter. The other side of this debate has played the “more immigration now, security later” bait and switch before.

  8. Jack says:

    The shutdown is not about a wall, it’s about the 2020 election. Democrats don’t want to give Trump a win that will boost his chances in 2020 and Trump believes (perhaps rightly) that if he doesn’t get his wall his reelection chances go down the tube. Who breaks first depends on which side thinks a continued shutdown will hurt more in 2020 than giving in. My guess is the Democrats will eventually offer the wall in exchange for a bunch of other items they want. In 2020 they can point to DACA (or whatever they get) as a big win. blame Trump for the longest shutdown in history, and write off the 5 billion wall as ‘crumbs’.

  9. Alex says:

    We certainly have come a long way from the days of “Mexico will pay for the wall”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top