I have twice flagged this answer, first with a NAA flag, and secondly with a custom flag. The response to my custom flag was that it is a valid answer because it challenges the premise of the question. I don't think this is a good reading of the question or answer.
So to start: the question asks for the logic the Republicans (including the President) use to blame the Democrats for the current US government shutdown. A classical valid answer would attempt to try to explain Republican logic for the Republicans. A question-premise-challenging answer would have to challenge the premise that Republicans are actually blaming the democrats, showing they blame someone else, or blame no one. This answer does neither.
This answer has three sections. Lets consider each in turn.
The first section, titled "19th December, 2018" considers the first senate bill. It says that several conservative media entities blamed Trump. This section does not discuss the response of Republican party officials or elected politicians to the failure of the bill to pass the house, so I cannot see how it can answer either the question of Republican blame, or challenge the question's premise.
The second section, title "20th December, 2018", explains Trump's reasons for not accepting the previous senate bill. It then explains that the House's bill did not pass the senate, noting it would need 60 votes, more than the 51 the Republicans possessed. This could be implicit evidence that the Republicans blamed the Democrats for not passing the the bill and therefore causing the shutdown, but it's pretty flimsy. I think that it does not really contribute to a valid answer. It states the facts of the votes, but does not attempt to contribute to the question of who the Republicans are blaming this shutdown on. Is it blaming Trump for not accepting the senate bill, or the Democratic Senators for not passing the house bill? Both seem equally possible to me, so I don't know how the mod who declined my flag can be so certain this is a premise challenging answer. If you have to rely on what the answer implies, then it simultaneously supports the premise of the question and refutes it! Nonsense!
The third section, titled "3rd January, 2019", describes the new Democratic house bill, which was blocked by Republican senate leader Mitch McConnell. Does the author intend this to imply that the Republicans accept blame on themselves for the shutdown? Does the author intend this to imply that the Republicans blame the president for not accepting a compromise bill from a Democratic house? Does the author intend this to imply that the Republicans blame the Democrats for passing a bill, perhaps intentionally in bad faith? I don't know. I don't think anyone other than the OP does either.
This answer lays out the facts of the three bills, but it does not clearly answer the question either by explaining who the Republicans blame, or by refuting that they're blaming anyone. I cannot see how it's a valid classical answer or a valid premise challenging answer.
Furthermore I think the OP's behaviour has been very unhelpful, having stubbornly refused to elaborate. They apparently consider their answer a premise challenging one, so it should've been pretty straightforward to edit the post to explain who the Republicans do blame (or that they blame no one.) But I can't see much evidence of a genuine good-faith attempt to actually address the issue of who the Republicans blame.