By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Final-Fan said:
DarthVolod said:

In 2013 the Republicans were in majority of just the house while democrats held senate as well as the presidency. The original point I was responding to was the idea that 2018 Republican majority senate / house / president are supposed to capitulate to the demands of senate democrats in regards to DACA and chain migration / etc.

If the ruling party is supposed to just roll over and work it out with the opposition then why didn't democrats in 2013 who controlled the executive and half of the legislative branches of government care about republican demands? Ultimately, they were the ones in charge since Obama could just veto things at the end of the line. 

Before going into the midterm republicans need more victories ... a border wall (Trump's key campaign promise no less) and an end to chain migration would be another win along side the tax reform that already passed. Giving the democrats DACA for nothing in return would be a terrible idea. 

The thing is, in 2013 Republicans were specifically gunning for a shutdown.  They didn't want to look for a deal, they wanted to look for a showdown.  Their demand to kill Obamacare was much different from the Democrats' demand about DACA:  it's on a whole different order of magnitude.  It's closer to if the Democrats said "we are going to shut down everything unless you completely repeal the tax bill you just passed".  In fact, it's arguable that the Republicans back then deliberately picked an issue they knew the Democrats could never give in on to stage the battle over. 

On another note, since you are trying to look for parallels between that shutdown and this one, the Republican position in both cases was to change the status quo, while the Democratic position in both cases was to keep the status quo. 

Strange to say the conservatives are the ones wanting to change the status quo while the progressives are the one wanting to keep it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."