|"So in your opinion, Mike, any newly elected member of Congress that explains the details of whatever bill, or proposed bill, they are currently working on to his constituents is considered "a spokesperson for ... Trump ... (or Pelosi if they are a Democrat) in your mind?"|
Come on, Chris - that's not at all what I was saying, and you know it.
The issue is what Trump SAID he would do, not what someone else thinks he meant. Crenshaw is making a reasonable proposal, but that is not what Trump wants - as he has demonstrated by rejecting a bipartisan bill that would have averted the shutdown. He wants his wall, period. He promised it to his base, and he wants to deliver on that promise, so now he's digging in his heels. THAT is the issue that is preventing the government from operating fully and has put 800,000 federal employees in a financial nightmare. There are clearly problems with immigration that need to be addressed, but brinksmanship is not the way to do it.
The Democrats refuse to negotiate until the government is reopened. I strongly agree with that position - we should not be using federal employees as pawns in a political chess game. Reopen the government, pay these people, and then start seriously discussing ways to resolve the issues.
Trump refuses to do that because screwing the federal employees and the American public is literally the only leverage he has. He claimed to be the best at making a deal; it turns out that what may have worked in real estate does not work in government. He's in so far over his head at this point that I'm not sure a solution can be found any time soon.
Let's not forget that Trump said on national television that he would be proud to shut down the government, that he would own it and not blame the Dems for it. So what's the first thing this serial liar did after shutting the government down? He blamed the Dems for it.
"After all, who isn't better off with that famous $2,500/yr health insurance premium savings Obama promised while we got to keep our doctors; or the awesome benefits we have enjoyed since Clinton ended "the era of big government"; and who could forget that added boost to our individual bank accounts we had in the late 80's because after we read his lips, Bush saved us from any "new taxes" ?"
There's a name for this type of argument, Chris - "whataboutism". It's an attempt to deflect from the current situation by bringing up things that happened in the past as if they somehow justify what is currently happening. I'm just not going to address that. If you want to stay focused and on topic, leave the past in the past and focus on the present situation.