[Clanan]

Citations are far more helpful than ranting. If you want a productive conversation, you should provide some. Democratic leaders have made the current budget/CR about DACA, which was not relevant to it. (Ironic because they're in favor of everything in the CR, but they voted against it anyway!) Here's House minority leader Pelosi promising to block any funding that does not include DACA [0]. Yes, the Trump admin could have avoided the shutdown by giving in to minority demands, but that doesn't mean they're at fault, logically.

As for opinions, my political golden rule is "never trust a politician". We're veering far off-topic, though.

Edit: as further evidence of the cause of the shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Schumer just caved. The shutdown was a political gamble for both sides; I'm assuming internal Democrat polling found that they were receiving the most blame. Continuing the disruption would be disastrous. (Obvious, considering they effectively blocked the CHIP children's health insurance.)

[0] http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363778-pelosi-were-not-lea...

[Retric]

Government is only funded through Feb. 8 and this reauthorizes the Children’s Health Insurance Program for six years.

So, they got something they wanted all for keeping the government operating for another 2.5 weeks. I would call it a solid democrat win.

Also republicans can pass 1 bill per year without the risk of filibuster and they used/wasted it on their tax bill. Thus, any government shutdown is arguably 100% on them.

[Clanan]

You're projecting your politics onto the events. The CR already contained CHIP, and the majority already promised a debate on DACA/immigration back in December. The Democrat leadership promised a shutdown if DACA was not added to the budget/CR. They shutdown, but then reversed almost immediately without DACA being added. No idea how that can be labeled a "solid democrat win" without some severe rationalization.

> Thus, any government shutdown is arguably 100% on them.

Under this logic, all outcomes can be blamed on the majority party in all situations, because tool X was used on Y instead of Z. In a theoretical situation where a supermajority vote fails 59-41, isn't it more logical to blame the failure on the 41 opponents rather than the 59 proponents?

[FireBeyond]

How is it in your world view that the Democrats get the blame for this but not the "no" voting Republicans, of which there were a significant number?

[Clanan]

Sure, blame them too. If a bill fails, blame everyone who voted against it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Of course, then you have a situation where politicians (on both sides) will grandstand if the outcome is already decided. For example, if a CR is guaranteed to fail, a moderate Republican will vote against it to appease his base. But if his was the deciding vote, he would vote to pass it to appease his party. Politics...

[FireBeyond]

> Sure, blame them too.

You say, now. After mentioning how Democrats are to blame at least eight separate times in this thread, and mentioning how Republicans are also to blame... none, until this comment.

[Clanan]

44 D vs. ~3 R and 8 comments vs. 1. If anything I was generous!