So, before he announced the details of the re-opening, he said that many of the furloughed employees strongly supported him and that many even encouraged him to continue the shutdown. He's living in his own version of reality.

Negotiations fail to come to a close due to both parties, not one party. Saying one party is "stupid", has been "hurting people" and "got nothing" is far from the full picture. Both sides are attempting to "force [their] will".

What may seem reasonable to one party may seem unreasonable to the other, whether or not either party shows it outwardly.

Ironically, this is the check in the balance of the three branches. The Congress and The President must agree on a budget. It's sad that political game theory supersedes common sense planning ahead, but turning it around to "forcing will" mischaracterizes the propriety of the system. One day the US will evolve into a proper parliamentary system, but that should be shortly after we get instant binding political polls and have people born on mars (give or take 100+ years).

Anything he wants to spend on a wall, take from the military. If you're gonna spend it, shuffle it.

He's a narcissist. He believes he's winning a war of attrition and that the public is overwhelmingly on his side, with polls or news to the contrary just being more liberal "fake news."

I haven't read it. What does "The Art of the Deal" say about negotiating in a lose-lose situation?

Though giving in on the wall may actually be his best chance of being reelected (spend the next 22 months spinning a narrative that he tried and blocked by mean ole Congress)

This assumes he has the ability to self reflect, which by this point is clearly not the case

"There's no education in the second kick of the mule."

I was thinking just that about the Democrats.

By law, the executive branch can't spend more money that what has been appropriated, so in theory any president has to "shut the government down"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

This is all subject to interpretation, mind you.

He has made a deal to not agree to the budget, but to fund the non-essential (tm) parts of the government as if one (unseen) has been agreed to...or some other sort of shenanigans.

The president can veto unless they have enough votes to override?

They can't just forget about it. A permanent bill has to pass the House and Senate, and Trump has to sign it (or get overridden, which definitely won't accomplish the "face-saving" thing). Otherwise, the government shuts down again.

Presumably, it will also get him his venue back for the State of the Union address.

I can't argue with that

Oh well, I can see why HN wouldn't want every passing Trump scandal to show up on the front page, but this is pretty big.

Yea it's off topic. It belongs on reddit, not HN.

There's also a non-trivial percentage that love "liberal tears" and enjoy things like this that are petty and / or spiteful.

His base includes a number of people voted into office. It's really kind of odd that they can't even trust when their own party has the entirety of government. I don't understand why people dislike any government, yet don't like if you call them anarchists either. The arguments aren't consistent. The odd thing is most people do not disagree with a wall in places that make sense. A wall for a wall's sake is just pointless. I'd rather put that into tools or manpower (or heaven forbid pay increases). A single drone with heat vision could scan entire sectors, be controlled remotely and wouldn't require using eminent domain. Also it couldn't be dug out, cut down, or climbed over or through. As General Patton is quoted to have said "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man".