Bitjacker said:
Im not so sure its legal for the executive to issue an ultimatium because of a childlike tantrum.
Wanting to protect your borders is somehow a childlike tantrum now.
I don't think that is what
@bitjacker really meant to say. From what I gather from
the video this whole debate stems from, it basically boils down to two disagreeing sides. Trump wants to build the wall to increase security, Pelosi and Schumer disagree. Pelosi mostly for financial reasons, Schumer because he argues that experts deem it inefficient. This in itself isn't out of the ordinary. It'd be even a civil argument.
The childlike tantrum isn't so much about that, but that Trump is deaf to their arguments. And unfortunately, "deaf to their arguments" is putting it mildly. Not only does he not hear what they say, he even interrupts them with his own propaganda while they're arguing their stance. To me (I assume to
@bitjacker as well, but I can't speak on his behalf), it's really THAT behavior that is absolutely childish.
Trump: we should build the wall. It enhances our defences.
Pelosi: actually...the finances for the wall won't mean the country is better protected
Trump: but it enhances our defenses. Thus we should build a wall.
Pelosi: we didn't need a wall until now, and there's no reason why today would be different.
Trump: look...all we need is to defend ourselves from the outside world. That's why we need that wall.
And so on. I've read a few books about assertiveness, and this is a scholar example of what was there called "the broken record" method. If you want to get your point across, you shouldn't let others let your from deviating or diverting from that goal. To a degree, there's nothing wrong with that (probably all politicians and most public debaters are familiar with this stuff). The problem is that this is a tool that can be used for good and for bad. Just repeating the same line (or answering/dodging replies just enough to get you back on track to deliver that same message) can blind you from things that might be important. And this is the case: he flat out ignores sound and solid arguments. The cost? Irrelevant. Deemed inefficient by security experts? Irrelevant. Why? Because Trump's goal is to build that wall...NOT to be convinced by something called "the best solution".
In a way, it's hilarious how especially Schumer could see right through this. He understood that Trump's first part of the reply isn't really to be taken seriously, and just a way for him to get back to repeating his initial stance. And damnit, did he played it perfectly. I'm not in an environment to watch it again, but it went something like this:
Schumer: look, mr. President. The point is that a wall would be inefficient.
Trump: so what? The important thing is that we protect our borders!
Schumer: you just called your wall inefficient.
If the stakes weren't so high (hey! Live television!
) and Trump had any sense of self relativation, he could 've said something like "damn...you've got me there. Okay, I misspoke: the wall IS important...". But Donald Trump doesn't admit defeat. Ever. So this whole "shut down the government" or even the "I'll send in the militia" isn't supposed to be taken seriously. He didn't mean that as a threat, and probably denies ever having said that despite it being all over the internet. It's just that his conversation loop got broken, and he got mad for it.
The moral of this story would be "and that's why you won't give a child whom you deny a piece of candy a loaded gun"...but Donald Trump does have a proverbial gun ("the others won't like me saying that I'd shut down the government so I can get what I want when I AM saying it"). He sees the power given to him as a president as a tool to keep everyone else under his thumb, rather than as a sign of respect which you can use for reaching the best possible agreement.
