Democrats Want a Government Shutdown

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Grambler
Implying?

Either they say they are going to filibuster it or they aren't. If they aren't saying they're going to filibuster it, then you can't say it requires 60 votes.

Full stop.

Yet all the media have been reporting 60 votes will be meeded, including while talk in to dems.

The dems know that everyone is taking for granted they would fillibister, and they are saying the will force a shutdown of they don't get more.

I take them at their word, and assume they know they would need a fillibister to force a shutdown.

a reply to: neo96

They can divert funds from the Clinton foundation to pay for the kangaroo court err I mean hearings.

I find it vaguely hilarious that when the Republicans shut government down under Obama it was the bestest most awesome and amazing thing ever.

Now the Republicans control White House, Senate, and Congress and the government is getting shut down on their watch when they control all three houses, it's somehow the Democrats fault and it's the worstest most awful baby-killing evilness in the world ever.


Some double-standards are more glaring than others.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Grambler
Implying?

Either they say they are going to filibuster it or they aren't. If they aren't saying they're going to filibuster it, then you can't say it requires 60 votes.

Full stop.

Yet all the media have been reporting 60 votes will be meeded, including while talk in to dems.

The dems know that everyone is taking for granted they would fillibister, and they are saying the will force a shutdown of they don't get more.

I take them at their word, and assume they know they would need a fillibister to force a shutdown.

Any, you know, sources for this?

originally posted by: neo96
Democrats Want a Government Shutdown

Works for me.

Shut that SNIP down.

So much for their Russia 'investigation'.

How much was spent on Clinton's bj?
By a Republican congress...you know, the fiscal conservative types...
Not trying to use deflection, just trying to put it in perspective. Since repubs are in majority control of the ENTIRE government...you know, the fiscally conservative types rule all three branches of government now.

originally posted by: Painterz
I find it vaguely hilarious that when the Republicans shut government down under Obama it was the bestest most awesome and amazing thing ever.

Now the Republicans control White House, Senate, and Congress and the government is getting shut down on their watch when they control all three houses, it's somehow the Democrats fault and it's the worstest most awful baby-killing evilness in the world ever.


Some double-standards are more glaring than others.

Not thrilled with a shutdown, then or now but the optics of this are horrible.

We cant pay the military personnel who are in a war zone, because illegal immigrants need to be taken care of.

It does not matter if I think this or not, that is the drum beat you will hear marching into the mid-terms with every challenge by the democrats.

It is a stupid political decision. (if the shutdown occurs)

a reply to: Grambler

The republicans have the power to change rules:

“The presiding officer of the Senate could act tomorrow by ruling on a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Alternatively, 51 Senators could find the courage to vote to end the practice. “

thehill.com...

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”

www.usconstitution.net...

a reply to: MOMof3
Yes, and they've done that in recent years.

Democrats ended filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees after continued Republican filibusters for so long.

Unfortunately, they kept the filibuster for SCOTUS appointees, which led to Republicans filibustering Obama's last SCOTUS nominee to replace Scalia.

Trump nominated Gorsuch, and Democrats repaid the same action... which led Republicans to remove filibuster from SCOTUS appointees as well.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Today's vote needs 60 to pass.

You keep saying that, but you are wrong unless you can provide proof that Democrats plan to filibuster.

Continuing to claim it needs 60 votes without such proof can only be seen as lying now that you have been informed on how things really work.

The Dems will vote no but in your world, they won't fillibuster?

What's the point of voting no then? They won't stop it.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Grambler
Implying?

Either they say they are going to filibuster it or they aren't. If they aren't saying they're going to filibuster it, then you can't say it requires 60 votes.

Full stop.

Yet all the media have been reporting 60 votes will be meeded, including while talk in to dems.

The dems know that everyone is taking for granted they would fillibister, and they are saying the will force a shutdown of they don't get more.

I take them at their word, and assume they know they would need a fillibister to force a shutdown.

Any, you know, sources for this?

The government is set to run out of funding at midnight Friday. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution Thursday evening to fund the government, but the stopgap spending measure's path in the Senate as that deadline looms is unclear. The legislation needs 60 votes to pass the chamber to break a filibuster, meaning Republican leaders could need as many a dozen Democrats or more to vote in its favor. Several Democrats have already announced their opposition to the bill.

www.cnn.com...

Senate Democrats have threatened to block the funding measure through a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome.

www.ft.com...

Democrats in the Senate have served notice they will filibuster a four-week, government-wide funding bill that cleared the House Thursday evening. That could expose them to charges that they are responsible for a shutdown, but they point the finger at Republicans instead.

www.mercurynews.com...

Either way, Democrats have said they have the votes to block the spending bill from advancing. They may give some freebie votes to Democrats in difficult 2018 races — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), for example, told reporters that he would likely vote for a spending bill — but they have told reporters that there are not enough to start debate on the spending bill.

In this case, if Republicans are unified in trying to keep the government open and Democrats deny them the votes to do it, it would be fair to say that Democrats shut down the government.

www.vox.com...

(not enough votes to start a debate means they will fillibuster)

“I think a shutdown is likely,” a senior Democratic source told the Hill. “Senate Democrats are not likely to provide the votes needed to break a filibuster. The Senate is going to shut down unless something major changes before Friday night.”

www.newyorker.com...

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where Democrats are boasting to reporters that they've marshaled the requisite votes to block GOP attempts to keep the federal government open, via a filibuster. Even if every Senate Republican voted for the House-passed plan (Mitch McConnell's caucus has a few members who've vowed to vote no), 60 votes are required to overcome a potential minority filibuster. And Democrats are stating, quite openly, that they're ready to filibuster the GOP spending bill and force a shutdown unless they get their way on immigration.

townhall.com... 7

The meeting comes as Congress pushed the federal government to the brink of a shutdown. Senate Democrats — joined by some GOP deficit hawks and immigration allies — were set to filibuster a stopgap funding bill ahead of a midnight deadline.

www.latimes.com...

Democrats in the Senate have served notice they will filibuster a four-week, government-wide funding bill that cleared the House Thursday evening.

www.chicagotribune.com...



Is that enough sources to put to bed the argument that maybe the dems werent discussing fillibustering?

the "great negotioator" has been too busy tweeting about the fake news awards and hillary.

at least he canceled his $100,000 a seat party at mar-largo this weekend - what a guy!

a reply to: Grambler

....only 8 sources? Pfft.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Grambler

The republicans have the power to change rules:

“The presiding officer of the Senate could act tomorrow by ruling on a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Alternatively, 51 Senators could find the courage to vote to end the practice. “

thehill.com...

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”

www.usconstitution.net...

Exactly.

The stonewall is there for a reason, and its not like the tools to remove it aren't in place.

Vote them all out.

I think CANDIDATE Trump said in 2016 that a government "re-boot" might be a good thing.

My computer works better if it's rebooted every now and then...

originally posted by: Painterz
I find it vaguely hilarious that when the Republicans shut government down under Obama it was the bestest most awesome and amazing thing ever.

Now the Republicans control White House, Senate, and Congress and the government is getting shut down on their watch when they control all three houses, it's somehow the Democrats fault and it's the worstest most awful baby-killing evilness in the world ever.


Some double-standards are more glaring than others.

Yes and the same people that said the republicans were evil for that and could cause people to die are now doing the same thing themselves.

So your argument is that because the republicans did it, you are ok with the dems doing it?

My position is I dont care very ,much either way, I think both kind of suck, and i understand they are all playing politics.

However it was the democrats that started the moral argument, that forcing a shutdown would harm people. It was the democrats and there media and cultural mouth pieces that shed tears and claimed not funding chip would cause children to die.

Now two weeks later they refuse to finance CHIP and sign a bill filled with all things they like.

So can we at least stop the lie that the democrats are so moral and thought republicans were hurting kids by not financing chip?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Grambler

The republicans have the power to change rules:

“The presiding officer of the Senate could act tomorrow by ruling on a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Alternatively, 51 Senators could find the courage to vote to end the practice. “

thehill.com...

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”

www.usconstitution.net...

If the republicans did that, the outcry from the democrats would be insane.

The democrats did this, what they called the "nuclear option" for the confirming of judges for Obama.

when Republicans used that same rule to confirm Gorsich, democrats like shcumer went nuts and said it was the rpeublicans destroying the senate.

No the republcans can not just change the rules for this. The ramifications for the future of the senate would be devestating.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Grambler

....only 8 sources? Pfft.

And it was something that was so common knowledge that it didnt even need mentioned, but some people wanted to make any excuse to absolve democrats of blame.

Of course when shcumer, Trump, Mcconnel, Durbin, Booker, Fienstein, Pelosi, and everyone else was discussing the dems forcing a shutdown, they all know a fillibuster and 60 votes were needed.

But hopefully these sources put that sorry deflection to rest.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

Today's vote needs 60 to pass.

You keep saying that, but you are wrong unless you can provide proof that Democrats plan to filibuster.

Continuing to claim it needs 60 votes without such proof can only be seen as lying now that you have been informed on how things really work.

The Dems will vote no but in your world, they won't fillibuster?

What's the point of voting no then? They won't stop it.

I think you need to reconsider your reasoning here.

a reply to: Grambler

Then the republicans should stop whining and do the deal.

a reply to: Greven

Has nothing to do with filibusters apropriation bills need 60 votes to pass. If this was a modification of an existing bill they would only need 51. So without democrats in the senate voting for the bIll it can't be approved.