EDIT:

To those joining us from r/all and r/popular:

We purposely posted this announcement a day in advance to give frequent visitors an opportunity to subscribe before we disappear from those pages, not expecting that the post itself would make it to the top of r/all. Sorry if this generates any confusion.

If you're a new subscriber, welcome! Please read the guidelines before participating.

Dear users,

Over the last few weeks, a number of posts from this subreddit have hit r/all and/or r/popular.

The appearances in those places have driven considerable traffic to the subreddit and swelled our subscriber numbers, but have also attracted contributors who are not only unaccustomed to our rules, but have no interest in abiding by them. This, in turn, has diminished the quality of discourse in the comments and increased the workload for the mods.

So, although growth has its benefits, we’ve determined that the growth we receive from r/all and r/popular is not the kind that is beneficial to this subreddit, especially with the current state of the larger Reddit culture.

Therefore, as of tomorrow, we will opt out of r/all, and consequently, r/popular. From then on, if you want to see posts from r/NeutralPolitics on your front page, you’ll have to be subscribed and logged in.

We do expect this to slow our growth, so if you happen to participate in conversations elsewhere with people you think would appreciate this kind of political discussion environment, feel free to refer them here, because we’re unlikely to attract many subscribers from other avenues after this move.

Thank you.

— r/NeutralPolitics mod team

Due to the attention this topic has been getting, the moderators of NeutralPolitics have decided to consolidate discussion of Net Neutrality into one place. Enjoy!

As of yesterday, 21 November 2017, Ajit Pai, the current head of the Federal Communications Commission, announced plans to roll back Net Neutrality regulations on internet service providers (ISPs). The proposal, which an FCC press release has described as a return to a "light touch regulatory approach", will be voted on next month.

The FCC memo claims that the current Net Neutrality rules, brought into place in 2015, have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation". Supporters of Net Neutrality argue that the repeal of the rules would allow for ISPs to control what consumers can view online and price discriminate to the detriment of both individuals and businesses, and that investment may not actually have declined as a result of the rules change.

Critics of the current Net Neutrality regulatory scheme argue that the current rules, which treat ISPs as a utility subject to special rules, is bad for consumers and other problems, like the lack of competition, are more important.

Some questions to consider:

• How important is Net Neutrality? How has its implementation affected consumers, businesses and ISPs? How would the proposed rule changes affect these groups?

• What alternative solutions besides "keep/remove Net Neutrality" may be worth discussing?

• Are there any major factors that haven't received sufficient attention in this debate? Any factors that have been overblown?

Hello and welcome to our first ever debate fact-checking thread!

We announced this a few days ago, but here are the basics of how this will work:

• Mods will post top level comments with quotes from the debate.

This job is exclusively reserved to NP moderators. We're doing this to avoid duplication and to keep the thread clean from off-topic commentary. Automoderator will be removing all top level comments from non-mods.

• You (our users) will reply to the quotes from the candidates with fact checks.

All replies to candidate quotes must contain a link to a source which confirms or rebuts what the candidate says, and must also explain why what the candidate said is true or false.

Fact checking replies without a link to a source will be summarily removed. No exceptions.

• Discussion of the fact check comments can take place in third-level and higher comments

Normal NeutralPolitics rules still apply.

Resources

YouTube livestream of debate

(Debate will run from 9pm EST to 10:30pm EST)

Politifact statements by and about Clinton

Politifact statements by and about Trump

Washington Post debate fact-check cheat sheet

If you're coming to this late, or are re-watching the debate, sort by "old" to get a real-time annotated listing of claims and fact-checks.

This is the report.

Edit: Here is a backup link hosted by the Washington Post, since some people are reporting the DoJ site is down.

Edit 2: as a warning, these are enormous PDF files, over 100 megabytes each.

Here is a link to a version which allows text searching produced by the site Lawfare.

Here's another searchable link in case the other one goes down.

As we planned yesterday, this post will remain locked for a while to give people a chance to read the report. We will post questions for discussing the report later today, and link to them here.

We are now beginning to post questions about the report. I'll update this with links to various threads we have here:

1. What new information about links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign have we learned from the Mueller report?

2. What evidence does Volume II of the Mueller report provide that suggest actions by the President were made with the intent to obstruct justice?

3. Is the Mueller Report's analysis of obstruction consistent or inconsistent with AG Barr's (unsolicited) June 8, 2018 memo to Rod Rosenstein? (This is a user post)

"CNN and other news outlets were blocked Friday from an off-camera White House press briefing". According to CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and Buzzfeed were also blocked. The Associated Press and Time magazine boycotted the meeting in protest.

From the same CNN article:

"The White House Correspondents Association also protested the move.

"The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today's gaggle is being handled by the White House," it said in a statement. "We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff."

Is there precedence in modern history for this kind of selective screening by the White House?

Per this report from the Washington Post, Attorney General Jeff Sessions "spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States... encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general."

When asked by Sen. Al Franken (D - MN) what he would do if it was revealed that anyone in the Trump campaign spoke with Russian officials, Sessions said "I’m not aware of any of those activities... I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

My question is, does this constitute perjury? And if not, does this make it anymore likely that a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate the Russian ties with the Trump campaign?

Link to full bill

Yesterday, House Republicans released the full text of the bill they hope will fulfill the "replace" part of their "repeal and replace" policy with regards to Obamacare. The 123 page bill contains the following major changes:

• The individual mandate is removed. Instead insurers can charge people who have had a 2 month coverage gap up to 130% of normal prices.

• Keeps guaranteed issue and community rating, though age bands permitted are wider.

• Medicaid expansion stops taking new people in 2020.

• Medicaid becomes "per-capita block granted"

• The ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is preserved

• Children can still stay on their parents' coverage until age 26

The plan has already been criticized on a number of grounds, with many GOP lawmakers already stating they oppose it. Criticisms range from it keeping too much of Obamacare's architecture, merely tweaking it rather than properly replacing it, while the left has accused it of favoring the wealthy and not addressing major issues with healthcare in the US.

Is the new bill viable as an alternative to Obamacare? A solution to America's healthcare issues? Who currently supports and opposes it, and whose support is still needed?

The Supreme Court in its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization said that has conferred that there is no right to privacy, "Indeed, the 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the constitution.".

Which rights in the US are predicated on a right to privacy? How does today's ruling affect those rights? Can the government now make legislation about monitoring speed limits with devices in cars by Federal Law for example?

The New York Times has gained access to an email conversation between Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone. The Times first reported on the existence of the meeting [Saturday] (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html). Further details in reports have followed in the days since ([Sunday] (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?mcubz=2), [Monday] (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront))

This morning emails were released which show that Trump Jr was aware that the meeting was intended to have the Russian government give the Trump campaign damaging information on Hillary Clinton in order to aid the Trump campaign.

In particular this email exchange is getting a lot of attention:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

Donald Trump Jr. Tweets and full transcript

• [Tweet 1] (https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413): Here's my statement and the full email chain

• [Tweet 2] (https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166): Here is page 4 (which did not post due to space constraints).

• [Full transcript] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-s-emails-about-meeting-a-russian-government-attorney-annotated/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0113f8c0b898)

The Times then releases a fourth story, '[Russian Dirt on Clinton? 'I Love It,' Donald Trump Jr. Said] (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)'.

Do the recently released emails relating to Donald Trump, Jr. indicate any criminal wrongdoing?

Mod footnote: I am submitting this on behalf of the mod team because we've had a ton of submissions about this subject. We will be very strictly moderating the comments here, especially concerning not allowing unsourced or unsubstantiated speculation.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018 is the day of the midterm elections in the United States.

All 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, 35 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate, 39 state and territorial governorships, various state ballot initiatives, as well as numerous other state and local elections will be contested.

Voting FAQ:

Q: Is it too late to register to vote?
A: It depends. Some states have same-day registration. Look up your state's information here.

Q: Where do I vote on Election Day?
A: Voters are assigned a polling place based on the address where they're registered. Find your polling place here.

Q: What are the hours of my polling place?
A: Find the opening and closing times for your polling place here.

Q: Do I need to show identification to vote?
A: Most states require some form of identification either when you register and/or when you vote. The rules vary state by state. This interactive map will help you determine the requirements for your state.

Q: Where can I research what's on my ballot?
A: Per this recent thread, check out BallotReady, OnTheIssues, Ballotpedia, We Vote, or the website for your state's Secretary of State.

Q: Am I required to vote for every item on the ballot.
A: No. Your ballot is still valid if you leave some contests without a vote.

Q: What if I go to the polls and they tell me I am not registered to vote?
A: Per this site: First, make sure you are at the right polling place. If you are at the wrong polling place they will not have your name on the list of voters. If you are at the correct location and are not on the list, you can still cast a ballot. Ask the poll worker for a provisional ballot. After the polls close on Election Day the state will check on the status of your voter registration and if there was a mistake made. The state must notify you as to whether your ballot was counted.

Tonight President Trump fired FBI director James Comey.

The Trump administration's stated reasoning is laid out in a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. That letter cites two specific incidents in its justification for the firing: Comey's July 5, 2016 news conference relating to the closing of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server and Comey's October 28 letter to Congress concerning that investigation which was followed up by a letter saying nothing had changed in their conclusions 2 days before the 2016 election.

However, The New York Times is reporting this evening that:

Senior White House and Justice Department officials had been working on building a case against Mr. Comey since at least last week, according to administration officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been charged with coming up with reasons to fire him, the officials said.

Some analysts have compared the firing to the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal with President Nixon.

What evidence do we have around whether the stated reasons for the firing are accurate in and of themselves, as well as whether or not they may be pretextual for some other reason?

Mod footnote: I am submitting this on behalf of the mod team because we've had a ton of submissions about this subject. We will be very strictly moderating the comments here, especially concerning not allowing unsourced or unsubstantiated speculation.

The Justice Department has stated that they intend to release a redacted version of the report of special counsel Robert Mueller Thursday morning.

Because the report is "nearly 400 pages" we do not think it would be productive to immediately have a discussion thread about it, because people will need time to read it. However, we also know people use NP as a source for finding good quality sources.

Our plan tomorrow is then twofold:

1. As soon as possible after the report is out, we will put up a post with a link to it, but the post will be locked to comments.

2. After a few hours of the report being out, we will either make a new discussion thread or open up comments on the link post (I'm open to user suggestions on which of these is better).

We are posting this now as a precommitment so that it is not unexpected by our users, and to ensure that this is our plan in advance, and not a response to any content of the report.

In a stunning upset we've all heard about, Trump was elected President last night.

We've been getting a post a minute asking "what comes next" so we've decided to make a mod post to consolidate them.

A few interesting starting resources:

• September profile of Trump's transition plans.

• Foreign policy analysis of the incoming Trump administration.

• Trump campaign policy positions.

Moderator note

Because of the open ended nature of this post, we will be much stricter than our usual already strict rules enforcement. This means:

• You absolutely must link to sources.

• You must say more than a couple of sentences.

Any brief or unsourced comments will be summarily removed.

John Oliver recently put out another Net Neutrality segment Source: USAToday Article in support of the rule. But in the piece, it seems that he actually makes the counterpoint better than the point he's actually trying to make. John Oliver on Youtube

Reason.com also posted about Net Neutrality and directly rebutted Oliver's piece. Source: Reason.com. ReasonTV Video on Youtube

It seems to me the core argument against net neutrality is that we don't have a broken system that net neutrality was needed to fix and that all the issues people are afraid of are hypothetical. John counters that argument saying there are multiple examples in the past where ISPs performed "fuckery" (his word). He then used the T-Mobile payment service where T-Mobile blocked Google Wallet. Yet, even without Title II or Title I, competition and market forces worked to remove that example.

Are there better examples where Title II regulation would have protected consumers?

One question that gets submitted quite often on r/NeutralPolitics is some variation of:

Objectively, how has Trump done as President?

The mods have never approved such a submission, because under Rule A, it's overly broad. But given the repeated interest, we're putting up our own version here.

There are many ways to judge the chief executive of any country and there's no way to come to a broad consensus on all of them. US President Donald Trump has been in office for two years now. What are the successes and failures of his administration so far?

What we're asking for here is a review of specific actions by the Trump administration that are within the stated or implied duties of the office. This is not a question about your personal opinion of the president. Through the sum total of the responses, we're trying to form the most objective picture of this administration's various initiatives and the ways they contribute to overall governance.

Given the contentious nature of this topic (especially on Reddit), we're handling this a little differently than a standard submission. The mods here have had a chance to preview the question and some of us will be posting our own responses. The idea here is to contribute some early comments that we know are well-sourced and vetted, in the hopes that it will prevent the discussion from running off course.

Users are free to contribute as normal, but please keep our rules on commenting in mind before participating in the discussion. Although the topic is broad, please be specific in your responses. Here are some potential topics to address:

• Appointments

• Campaign promises

• Criminal justice

• Defense

• Economy

• Environment

• Foreign policy

• Healthcare

• Immigration

• Rule of law

• Public safety

• Tax cuts

• Tone of political discourse

• Trade

Let's have a productive discussion about this very relevant question.

I served as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York for 22 years. Years before that I served as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York. I also served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of New York. I practiced law and have taught at several law schools. I have authored a case book for law students on discovery of electronic evidence. I have also spoken widely on the subject of race and policing as I am the author of the landmark opinion in Floyd v. City of New York, which ended the unlawful use of stop and frisk by the New York City Police Department when not conducted in a manner that comported with constitutional requirements. Below are a few pieces I've authored since leaving the bench last year:

America’s Trial Court Judges: Our Front Line for Justice The New York Times

I sentenced criminals to hundreds more years than I wanted to. I had no choice. The Washington Post

The Impact of Race and Policing -- Past, Present, and Future National Black Law Journal

Three Wise Women And the Constitution New York Law Journal (LexisNexis required)

The Unite the Right rally was a gathering of far-right groups to protest against the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from August 11th-12th. The official rally was cancelled due to a declaration of a [state of emergency] (https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=20924) by Gov. Terry McAuliffe on the 12th.

Despite this declaration multiple reports of violence surfaced both before and after the scheduled event [2] (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/12/542982015/home-to-university-of-virginia-prepares-for-violence-at-white-nationalist-rally) [3] (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html). 19 people were injured and one woman was killed when a car crashed into a [crowd of counterprotesters] (http://www.wcnc.com/news/clashes-erupt-as-thousands-descend-on-charlottesville-for-unite-the-right-rally-counter-protest/463871802).

Today President Trump made comments equating the [demonstrators with counterprotesters] (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543743845/another-reversal-trump-now-says-counterprotesters-also-to-blame-for-charlottesvi).

"Ok what about the alt left that came charging — excuse me. What about the alt left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? Let me ask you this, what about the fact they came charging, that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I'm concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day."

Governor McAuliffe made a [public statement] (http://www.nbc12.com/story/36142848/gov-mcauliffe-releases-statement-regarding-pres-trumps-press-conference) disputing the President.

How accurate were these remarks by Trump?

Mod footnote: I am submitting this on behalf of the mod team because we've had a ton of submissions about this subject. We will be very strictly moderating the comments here, especially concerning not allowing unsourced or unsubstantiated speculation.

Source saying it is alarming and noting that lawsuits have been filed: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/musk-treasury-social-security-access-federal-payment-system-trump/

Source saying it is not illegal: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-dunks-sen-chuck-schumer-declaring-hysterical-reactions-demonstrate-doges-importance.amp

With the resignation of Flynn, lots of headlines have been flying around on cable news and social media. Many allude that his actions we're treasonous. Certainly they were hypocritical when compared to his past comments towards HRC in the general election: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/14/14609618/michael-flynn-trump-hillary-clinton

Some major organizations claim he's in violation of the Logan Act: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/logan-act-flynn.html

This opinion piece from the Denver Post makes accusations of sedition. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/13/did-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-commit-sedition/

Does any of these fall under what I imagine is a narrow definition of treasonous behavior?

If Flynn is prosecuted, what does this mean for other officials in the admin, or even Trump himself?

We saw McConnell refuse to consider Obama's appointee to the Supreme court. Rumours are that if Biden were to win, and the GOP retains control of the Senate, they might try a similar tactic with the cabinet.

• What happens if the Senate refuse to review potential cabinet member?

• What options/political mechanisms are available to any administration to address such a situation?

• Does the Supreme Court have a role in cabinet nominees? If so, are there any relevant cases to consider?

In 2012, Republicans in Kansas, led by Governor Sam Brownback, passed sweeping reforms to the tax law that he touted as a "real live experiment" designed to spur job and business growth. Arthur Laffer, the main architect of the supply side economics policies of the Reagan administration, was a consultant for, and proponent of, the Kansas experiment.

Yesterday, faced with perennial budget shortfalls, the Kansas Legislature (in which Republicans still hold a majority) voted to override Gov. Brownback's veto of a tax hike, thus ending the five-year experiment. The bill enacts a series of changes, phased in over the coming years, that will bring the tax structure roughly back to its pre-2012 form.

So, now that the experiment has ended, what did we learn? Can we extend the conclusions to other states, or was there something specific about the economic situation in Kansas that caused it to have the results it did? Are there states similar to Kansas that did not enact such policies that we can use as a control? Have other states or countries had significantly different results from forays into supply-side economic policy?

For those interested in additional reading on this topic, here are opposing perspectives from two think tanks:

• The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) concludes the 2012 reforms were less than ideal and not given enough time to work. (PDF)

• Prior to the Kansas reforms, the Center for American Progress pronounced, "Three decades of empirical economic data shows that supply-side economics doesn’t work."

Mod note: We have been getting a large number of submissions on gun control related subjects due to the recent shooting in Florida. This post is made on behalf of the mod team so that we can have a rules-compliant submission on the subject.

The United States has the highest rate of guns per capita in the world at about 1 gun per resident, nearly twice as high as the next highest country, Serbia, which has about 0.58 guns per resident.

That number however masks a fairly uneven distribution of firearms. Roughly 32-42% of Americans report that they live in a household with guns, though the only data we have come from surveys, and therefore there is a margin of error.

Both of the principal surveys showed that rates of gun ownership declined from the 1970s-1990s and have been about steady since.

Surveys also estimate that among gun owners, the number of firearms owned is highly skewed, with a very small portion of the population (about 3%) owning half of all firearms in the US.

The US also has a very high rate of homicide compared to peer countries, and an about average suicide rate compared to peer countries. Firearm homicides in the US are much more common than all homicides in any peer country however even US non-firearm homicides would put the US above any western country except the Czech Republic. The total homicide rate of 5.3 per 100,000 is more than twice as high as the next highest (Czech) homicide rate of 2.6 per 100,000.

The US has a much higher firearm suicide rate than peer countries (6.3 per 100,000) but a fairly low non-firearm suicide rate, which puts the US about middle of the pack on suicides. (same source as above paragraph)

Given these differences, is there any good evidence on different measures relating to guns which have been effective in reducing violent crime, especially homicide, and suicide? Are there any notable failures or cases where such policies backfired?

One question that gets submitted quite often on r/NeutralPolitics is some variation of:

Objectively, how has Trump done as President?

The mods don't approve such a submissions, because under Rule A, they're overly broad. But given the repeated interest, we're putting up our own version here. We did this last year and it was well received, so we're going to try to make it an annual thing.

There are many ways to judge the chief executive of any country and there's no way to come to a broad consensus on all of them. US President Donald Trump has been in office for three years. What are the successes and failures of his administration so far?

What we're asking for here is a review of specific actions by the Trump administration that are within the stated or implied duties of the office. This is not a question about your personal opinion of the president. Through the sum total of the responses, we're trying to form the most objective picture of this administration's various initiatives and the ways they contribute to overall governance.

Given the contentious nature of this topic (especially on Reddit), we're handling this a little differently than a standard submission. The mods here have had a chance to preview the question and some of us will be posting our own responses. The idea here is to contribute some early comments that we know are well-sourced and vetted, in the hopes that it will prevent the discussion from running off course.

Users are free to contribute as normal, but please keep our rules on commenting in mind before participating in the discussion. Although the topic is broad, please be specific in your responses. Here are some potential topics to address:

• Appointments

• Campaign promises

• Criminal justice

• Defense

• Economy

• Environment

• Foreign policy

• Healthcare

• Immigration

• Rule of law

• Public safety

• Tax cuts

• Tone of political discourse

• Trade

Let's have a productive discussion about this very relevant question.

Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of Education has not led to similarly improved student performance.

There can be a link between schievement and school spending.

There is a lot more to student achievement than school funding

Across the country, municipal economic development policies such as abatement or tax-increment financing allow cities to freeze, reduce or redirect property taxes to developers in order to offset the risks of their investment. In short, the practices permit one political body — cities — to divert the funds of another political body — school districts. The loss of revenue to schools can be in the millions each year.

DeVos Says More Money Won't Help Schools

On Saturday, January 19th a bill to fund the federal government until the 16th of February did not receive the required 60 votes. There have been many submissions in the last 24 hours about the [government shutdown] (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42757091), but none conformed to the [subreddit’s guidelines] (https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines).

There's a lot of arguing about who is responsible for the shutdown.

Republicans and Conservative news sources are labeling it as Schumer's shutdown, saying they need 60 votes to at least extend the budget for an extra 30 days for extended immigration talks.

Democrats and Liberal news sources are saying that Trump and Republicans are to blame since they control all 3 branches of government and Trump had turned down the previous immigration bill that they had worked up because of lack of funding for the wall. A wall they have openly said they will not fund.

A third option, Blame everyone, in some form.

• /u/FutureNactiveAccount asks, "Who is responsible for the government shutdown?"

Let's explore what the different forces hoped to accomplish by letting it get to this point and whether they have succeeded. Who stands to gain and lose from the shutdown, both politically and in the general population? And what does the evidence suggest about the long-term effects of this event?

Is it reasonable for the people to pursue removal or recall of legislators who failed to appropriate funds in time to avoid a shutdown of the government? How might they go about that?

This is a touchy subject, so if you're going to make assertions in the comments below, please be sure to support them with evidence by citing a [qualified source] (https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources).