Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[Weekender]

I think Schumer is probably in the right here.

[SGR]

I think Schumer is probably in the right here.

Yeah, the messaging was poor though. This was from only two days ago:

Schumer Says Democrats Will Block GOP Plan to Avert Shutdown

Then, less than a day later, he's on board with passing the spending bill, with no additional concessions from the GOP. So I get the frustration, especially since this is the first time in Trump's second term that the Dems have actually had real leverage. Many wanted to see them make something of that leverage, but as you point out, it's a dangerous game of chicken to play.

[DJChameleon]

Disappointed but not shocked as a NYer both my Senators decided to vote for that crap. No resistance at all. If three Democrats would have voted no, they could have fought back a bit and negotiated.

[Jwb]

Yeah,  what is the argument for Schumer being right?  It just seems like he's suggesting a shutdown would do more short term harm, but if you never have the balls to let the Republicans be forced to own the consequences of their actions, then you are just always going to cave every single time. 

His arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it.  That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats,  or even most Republicans,  unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.

 His other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats,  possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.

[Trollheart]

At least he's contributing to helping Europe go dry: 200 percent on alcohol imports?  #EUProhibition2025

[Weekender]

Yeah,  what is the argument for Schumer being right?  It just seems like he's suggesting a shutdown would do more short term harm, but if you never have the balls to let the Republicans be forced to own the consequences of their actions, then you are just always going to cave every single time. 

His arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it.  That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats,  or even most Republicans,  unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.

 His other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats,  possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.

A Government shutdown is not an opportunity for leverage. Republicans have the advantage of not giving a single fuck about anything but Schumer recognizes that his job is to keep the lights on.

As for the political implications, I think he's resigned to letting the American people "fuck around and find out".

[DJChameleon]

A Government shutdown is not an opportunity for leverage. Republicans have the advantage of not giving a single fuck about anything but Schumer recognizes that his job is to keep the lights on.

As for the political implications, I think he's resigned to letting the American people "fuck around and find out".

Republicans have always used the government shutting down as leverage so idk what you are talking about.

[Weekender]

Republicans have always used the government shutting down as leverage so idk what you are talking about.

Yeah because they're cretins.

[DJChameleon]

Yeah because they're cretins.

Politicians be Politicians.

Democrats are just weak and spineless with no clear message

[Trollheart]

[Buck_Mulligan]

I agree with SGR and Weekender on the Schumer vote. It was the lesser of two evils. Here's why. 

Had the shutdown gone ahead, both federal workers and contractors would have been furloughed. They are the D base, and would have blamed Ds who could have kept govt open. To end the shutdown the Ds would have to do an about face and vote yes. So what's gained? This was a 100% R bill with no D input and offered as a take it or leave it. The alternative was for the Ds to holdout until they got XYZ concessions. 
Does anyone know if that would be worth it? Of course not. Divil you know...

[Buck_Mulligan]

Now hear this:

On Feb 10, our fearless leader signed an EO pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) on the basic grounds that it has been used unfairly against US citizens and corporations, (such as for example those paying bribes to foreign entities). Here's a briefing on the matter from a law firm.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/02/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-halt-fcpa-enforcement
 
Here's an excerpt from a longer Matt Levine Money Stuff column in Bloomberg, which itself is based on an original WSJ piece.

Representatives of President Trump's family have held talks to take a financial stake in the U.S. arm of crypto exchange Binance, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that would put Trump in business with the firm that pleaded guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money-laundering requirements. At the same time, Binance's billionaire founder, Changpeng Zhao—who served four months in prison after pleading guilty to a related charge—has been pushing for the Trump administration to grant him a pardon, people familiar with the matter said. Zhao, widely known as CZ, remains Binance's largest shareholder.

The talks began after Binance reached out to allies of Trump last year offering to strike a business deal with the family as part of a plan to return the exiled company to the U.S. It is unclear what form the Trump family stake would take if the deal comes together or whether it would be contingent on a pardon. The possibilities include the Trumps taking the stake or the deal going through World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture backed by the Trumps that launched in September, the people said.

Sure! Okay! Right! I used to be a deal lawyer so I am drawn to the phrase "whether [the investment] would be contingent on a pardon." Like ... as a closing condition? You can imagine three approaches:

For most of recent US history, it would be extremely shocking for the president's family business to take a financial stake in a company and simultaneously give the founder-owner of that company a pardon: Just the appearance of a conflict of interest there seems insurmountable.

That said, you can almost imagine it happening, and even for the deal to be "contingent on a pardon," but in a coy winking sense. Like, the guy gets a pardon, the president's family makes the investment, reporters ask about it and the president says "oh that is a coincidence, the pardon and the investment were both made on their own merits, obviously the deal was not contingent on a pardon, how could you even suggest that?"

Maybe the pardon and the deal are discussed in the same meetings, but not in writing. In 2025 I sort of assume that Changpeng Zhao's lawyers are, like, writing into the securities purchase agreement "the closing of the Investment shall be conditional on Zhao receiving the Pardon." (Not legal advice!)

Who cares, man? Bribery is legal now. I mean it isn't, but the law isn't enforced.

Anyone even thinking let alone suggesting that these discussions and the pausing of enforcement of the FCPA are anything other than purely coincidental should (A) be ashamed of themselves, and (B) be aware that just like the  Columbia University Palestinian Student Organizer, they too can be "disappeared". Watch your tongues and your pens peeps.

[SGR]

His arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it.  That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats,  or even most Republicans,  unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.

I think a more convincing indicator that Trump wanted the spending bill to pass (more than he wanted the alternative) was his primary threats directed at Republican Thomas Massie (who voted against the spending bill). It's nothing new between Trump and Massie, and Massie is one of the few members of the Republican party who could lay any legitimate claim to integrity when it comes to fiscal conservatism (in other words, he's garnered credibility within his party), but the threats were probably more for the purpose of keeping other Republicans in line when it comes to passing the bill. When it comes to Schumer, my guess is that Trump saw the in-fighting going on among Democrats, and saw a very easy and cheap way to sow more chaos and discord in their party (he's done this before - remember how he used to publicly tweet complaints about how much Bernie was mistreated and cheated by the DNC? Do I believe Trump gives two-shits about how the DNC treated Bernie? I don't think so.)

His other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats,  possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.

There was a polling indicator for that, but I think there's at least a few areas of uncertainty. One of the obvious ones being that we're a long ways (in politics, a lifetime) from the 2026 midterms, and by then many other headlines and stories will probably have eclipsed this one in the mind of voters, so what would the lasting impression, if any really, of this government shutdown be if most (R)s voted to pass the bill and most (D)s voted against it? Another issue, as we've all seen, is that the Dems have recently lacked clear and strong leadership and messaging. If they were to force the shutdown, would they be able to unify in a way that makes their message clear and dominant in the minds of voters, or would Republicans, given that they are much more unified, be able to set the narrative and keep them on the defensive? Another question would be, could the Democrats agree and unify on what concessions they want the Republicans to make to get them to agree with passing the bill, or would just enough Democrats feel enough pressure and vote to pass the bill after the shutdown with little if any concessions from Republicans, with the result being similar levels of Dem disagreement and infighting as we're seeing now (at that point, what would the government shutdown actually gain them politically)?

I can see the argument in favor or against what they ultimately did, and while I agree that voting against it and incurring the shutdown would give the Democrats political leverage - a big unanswered question is: "Could the Democrats have capitalized on that leverage in a way that would make the shutdown worth the pain it would cause?".

Then again, maybe old Chucky doesn't give two fucks about any of this, and just wanted to make sure there would be no conflicts with his book tour next week.

[Weekender]

Politicians be Politicians.

Democrats are just weak and spineless with no clear message

Nah the Democrats as a whole do believe in a certain kind of civic responsibility that goes above politics. You can see that as a weakness or a strength.

[DJChameleon]

Nah the Democrats as a whole do believe in a certain kind of civic responsibility that goes above politics. You can see that as a weakness or a strength.

It's a weakness when they have no strategy and are heavily infested in performative actions that don't make a difference other than having "better" optics.