U.S. Government is Shutting Down at Midnight

a reply to: Greven

Did the Republican party die when it did the same thing during Obama's tenure?

You still don't see the difference. I'll try one more time.

There was no reason to shut down the government. DACA is still in effect. CHIPS no longer is. The military is no longer getting paid. The tax refunds may be impacted. Firefighters trying to keep California from becoming a cinder are not getting paid. Untold numbers of Federal employees will not go to work Monday. Why?

Because Schumer and his subordinates decided to not allow a vote on the resolution to fund the government over a disagreement about an issue that hasn't even made it to the Senate floor yet and is in no immediate danger.

C'mon you said everyone who voted against cloture was going to filibuster, but you forgot that 4 Republicans (plus McConnell at the end) voted against it. Your logic falls utterly apart here - either it's not 'just' Democrats or everyone voting against cloture wasn't going to filibuster.

No, I didn't forget. In another thread I praised our new Senator for voting his conscience instead of his party. I have already called his DC office to thank him; their mailbox is full and he hasn't published his official email yet. I'll call back Monday.

I also haven't forgotten that 4 of the 'usual suspects' on the Republican side voted to shut down the government as well. That includes Rand Paul, who needs to get his head out of his posterior exit port or get that posterior back to Kentucky. However, that leaves the vast majority of the Republican Senators voting for cloture and the vast majority of Democratic Senators voting against it. Thus, I use the terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat' to differentiate between the two groups. If you can't get that it is not necessary to spell out every single name of each Senator every time they are referenced, you are not worthy of future responses.

I do know from previous debates with you that you are intelligent and quite capable... therefore, the only explanation is that you are trying the old trick of nit-picking every word and finding any way to claim that that word is inappropriate or carries deeper meaning than it actually does. That, sir, is intellectually dishonest and I will not tolerate it. Either conduct yourself in an adult manner with me, or I will not respond to your ludicrous accusations. This is not Yahoo.

Worse, you forget another thing - the Senate can change its rules to remove the filibuster with a simple majority.

Which would be a bad idea. The cloture rule is there for a reason: to prevent one party with a slight majority to go against the will of the people. It needs to stay there. An easier, better, and safer solution is to hold politicians accountable for themselves.

This is part of the reason why, historically, no shutdown has occurred when all branches of government were controlled by a single party.

The Republicans do not control the Senate. They have a majority, which is not the same thing. Senate rules state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate.

You know that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AMPTAH

LOL, true. I guess RomeByFire got the country confused with the continent.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved. They're holding the American public hostage in order to play their little game of politics.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: DBCowboy

If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved. They're holding the American public hostage in order to play their little game of politics.

Of course.

Trump should just do what the democrats want, for little Timmy.

a reply to: JDmOKI

If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved

Trump and company, could have funded lil Timmy since last September, but they chose not to, they took lil Timmy's fund and add that to the stupid great wall Mexico is gonna pay for it bs and add even more pork for the already very very wealthy folks with F.U money.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Did the Republican party die when it did the same thing during Obama's tenure?

You still don't see the difference. I'll try one more time.

There was no reason to shut down the government. DACA is still in effect. CHIPS no longer is. The military is no longer getting paid. The tax refunds may be impacted. Firefighters trying to keep California from becoming a cinder are not getting paid. Untold numbers of Federal employees will not go to work Monday. Why?

Because Schumer and his subordinates decided to not allow a vote on the resolution to fund the government over a disagreement about an issue that hasn't even made it to the Senate floor yet and is in no immediate danger.

C'mon you said everyone who voted against cloture was going to filibuster, but you forgot that 4 Republicans (plus McConnell at the end) voted against it. Your logic falls utterly apart here - either it's not 'just' Democrats or everyone voting against cloture wasn't going to filibuster.

No, I didn't forget. In another thread I praised our new Senator for voting his conscience instead of his party. I have already called his DC office to thank him; their mailbox is full and he hasn't published his official email yet. I'll call back Monday.

I also haven't forgotten that 4 of the 'usual suspects' on the Republican side voted to shut down the government as well. That includes Rand Paul, who needs to get his head out of his posterior exit port or get that posterior back to Kentucky. However, that leaves the vast majority of the Republican Senators voting for cloture and the vast majority of Democratic Senators voting against it. Thus, I use the terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat' to differentiate between the two groups. If you can't get that it is not necessary to spell out every single name of each Senator every time they are referenced, you are not worthy of future responses.

I do know from previous debates with you that you are intelligent and quite capable... therefore, the only explanation is that you are trying the old trick of nit-picking every word and finding any way to claim that that word is inappropriate or carries deeper meaning than it actually does. That, sir, is intellectually dishonest and I will not tolerate it. Either conduct yourself in an adult manner with me, or I will not respond to your ludicrous accusations. This is not Yahoo.

Worse, you forget another thing - the Senate can change its rules to remove the filibuster with a simple majority.

Which would be a bad idea. The cloture rule is there for a reason: to prevent one party with a slight majority to go against the will of the people. It needs to stay there. An easier, better, and safer solution is to hold politicians accountable for themselves.

This is part of the reason why, historically, no shutdown has occurred when all branches of government were controlled by a single party.

The Republicans do not control the Senate. They have a majority, which is not the same thing. Senate rules state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate.

You know that.

TheRedneck

Uh, yeah, majority (51 votes) means they have control of the Senate. Republicans changed the rules once this past year to get Gorsuch through by removing the filibuster. They have the majority, so they can change the rules. Since they can change the rules all on their own with no outside support, they have control of the Senate.

You can't say they don't have control of the Senate when that is demonstrably false.
They passed the tax reform legislation without having 60 votes, but they did have 51. They voted on the bill, then the reconciliation both without having 60 votes.

You can't say that changing the rules would be a bad idea (acknowledging that they can) while also saying they don't have control. It's absurd that you are arguing that they don't have control with a majority.

Given that Republicans had the ability to change the rules and chose not to, you can't even say Democrats have full blame for the shutdown - especially given that 4 Republicans voted against the bill and 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

You say it's a bad idea, but it was an option. They had 51 votes to pass the bill with Democrat support. McConnell chose not to risk a filibuster. McConnell chose not to change the rules. McConnell chose this, and he knew he didn't have the Republican votes.

This was all a political ploy by him, and you are falling for it.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: DBCowboy

If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved. They're holding the American public hostage in order to play their little game of politics.

You've got it the wrong way around.

Schumer offered a lot to Trump. They rejected it. How Trump chief of staff John Kelly helped to kill a possible deal to fund the government

Early Saturday morning, Schumer said he offered terms to Trump that he thought could result in a deal, even yielding on including funding for the president's proposed barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. While neither the president nor the senator left the meeting saying they had a deal, both cited progress afterward. According to the New York Times, Schumer thought he had coaxed Trump into agreeing to a three- to four-day extension of funding, which would include money for disaster relief and health-care provisions, to enable sides to reach a more long-lasting deal.

"In my heart, I thought we might have a deal tonight," Schumer said.

Kelly, who has participated in rounds of congressional negotiations on funding, then reassured Republicans that Trump had not struck a deal without them, as some had feared he could. He called Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, to say Trump and Schumer had not reached a solution, according to Politico.

"He told me that the president told Schumer to come back and talk to [House Speaker] Ryan and [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell. [Trump] wasn't going to get in the middle of it," Cornyn said, according to the news outlet. "Sounds like Gen. Kelly had it under control."

Later in the day after more exchanges between the White House and Schumer, Kelly called the senator to say the framework of the agreement he proposed was too liberal for Republicans, a person familiar with the call said. In fact, Kelly had an extensive list of objections to the potential deal, according to the Times.

Schumer was going to give Trump the wall. Then, Republicans said no deal. They have the majority. They can do whatever the hell they want. Blaming Democrats for their inability or unwillingness to govern is ludicrous.

I don't see why they don't just abolish the federal government, and let the state governments run everything.

The federal government is always going through this shutdown, or shutdown threat. Doesn't that tell us that the federal government is superfluous?

I mean, anything that you can just shut down, is obviously not essential for running the nation, right?

So, cut the fat, and remove all unnecessary parts of the government, just keep the parts that work, and which the people really need. We know the people absolutely need their state governments, since those don't ever shut right?

This shutdown should be a wake up call, and a big clue, where the fat is, that can easily be cut. Send all the house and senate reps back to their respective states, turn Washington D.C. into an amusement park, at least we'll earn money from all the visitors that go there to amuse themselves, and view the historical experiment that was.

Prune the government. If you can shut down part of it, keep that part shut for good.

a reply to: Greven

All a deflection by Schumer.

He's a slick one.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

All a deflection by Schumer.

He's a slick one.

Hey fox, how did the Republicans pass the tax reform legislation without 60 votes?

Have you figured out yet? The Republicans are playing you.

a reply to: Greven

Uh, yeah, majority (51 votes) means they have control of the Senate.

No.

That's one word more than your response deserves.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Maluhia
exactly its going to make watergate look pennyante.

Another issue regarding the dems doing this.

If you think Trump is unstable why would you want this unstable person to preside over a shut down government.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: JDmOKI

If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved

Trump and company, could have funded lil Timmy since last September, but they chose not to, they took lil Timmy's fund and add that to the stupid great wall Mexico is gonna pay for it bs and add even more pork for the already very very wealthy folks with F.U money.

Well, it's not up to you. It's up to the Dems in the Senate. And even THEY didn't have a problem with that. THE ONLY reason they wouldn't vote on it was DACA.

That's it!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Uh, yeah, majority (51 votes) means they have control of the Senate.

No.

That's one word more than your response deserves.

TheRedneck

Haha, okay, just reject reality then. Republicans have control of the Senate. Saying otherwise is delusional.

You don't get to make up your own definition for control of the Senate when it's well understood that 50% + 1 votes means they have control.

Like others, you want to ignore that Republicans passed tax reform without 60 votes.

Oh, and by the way, President Trump disagrees with you about keeping the filibuster:

The very outdated filibuster rule must go. Budget reconciliation is killing R's in Senate. Mitch M, go to 51 Votes NOW and WIN. IT'S TIME!

Should Republicans listen to you or President Trump?

a reply to: Greven
A bit of education on Senate procedural rules would allow you to avoid appearing quite ignorant. You've completely ignored the explanation given you. Please accept the reality that you are mistaken in your belief. Hint: Sometimes the talking points they hand out are simply misinformation. You've fallen for it.

a reply to: diggindirt
It's always so cute when someone comes cheerleading.

I've explained the rules repeatedly in multiple threads and I think I've even linked to Senate rules. I haven't looked at 'talking points' of anyone.

What, pray tell, is my mistaken belief?

a reply to: Greven

You don't get to make up your own definition for control of the Senate when it's well understood that 50% + 1 votes means they have control.

The only one making up definitions is you.

Oh, and by the way, President Trump disagrees with you about keeping the filibuster:

Then Trump is wrong this time.

Wanna know who is getting fooled? The filibuster is there for a reason, to prevent one party with a low majority from being able to pass highly objectionable bills. The Senate is a check against too much change too fast in the wrong direction. The filibuster is a huge part of that, and both parties have been busily chipping away at it by obstruction and then-required relaxation of the rule. Now the Democrats have taken that obstruction to a whole new level. Sure, get rid of the filibuster completely, so the next time someone tries to get something completely stoopid passed there is no opposition. And of course, Party A gets to blame Party B for getting rid of the filibuster.

No.

Trump is wrong, and so are you.

TheRedneck


TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

You don't get to make up your own definition for control of the Senate when it's well understood that 50% + 1 votes means they have control.

The only one making up definitions is you.

Oh, and by the way, President Trump disagrees with you about keeping the filibuster:

Then Trump is wrong this time.

Wanna know who is getting fooled? The filibuster is there for a reason, to prevent one party with a low majority from being able to pass highly objectionable bills. The Senate is a check against too much change too fast in the wrong direction. The filibuster is a huge part of that, and both parties have been busily chipping away at it by obstruction and then-required relaxation of the rule. Now the Democrats have taken that obstruction to a whole new level. Sure, get rid of the filibuster completely, so the next time someone tries to get something completely stoopid passed there is no opposition. And of course, Party A gets to blame Party B for getting rid of the filibuster.

No.

Trump is wrong, and so are you.

TheRedneck


TheRedneck

I'm making up definitions?

You wrote this:

The Republicans do not control the Senate. They have a majority, which is not the same thing. Senate rules state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate.

Where in the Senate rules does it state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate?

I've never seen such a thing. I don't know why you brought this up in the first place as a point of contention.

Fox News: Republicans claim Senate majority, take control of Congress

Voters handed control of the Senate to Republicans for the first time in eight years on Tuesday,

And so on and so on... everyone calls it control except you.

I'm wrong about... what exactly? I've not said I support the shutdown. I've not said I support removing the filibuster. I've not said just Democrats or just Republicans are responsible for it.

All I've tried to do is clear up misunderstanding of Senate process and demonstrate that Democrats are not solely responsible for shutting down the government.

a reply to: Greven

Where in the Senate rules does it state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate?

Rule 22

The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

I've never seen such a thing.

Now you have.

Fox News:

Who cares?

I'm wrong about... what exactly? I've not said I support the shutdown. I've not said I support removing the filibuster. I've not said just Democrats or just Republicans are responsible for it.

You're wrong about the difference between majority in the Senate and 'control'... implying that the Republican Party is able to pass whatever they want and there's nothing the Democrats can do about it. That is false.

Your tactic is not to openly blame... you're too clever for that. Your tactic is to insinuate, distract, and twist the entire conversation around in the minds of reader. I've seen it before. It will work, if someone doesn't call you out on your misrepresentations... so I am calling you out.

The Democratic Party, under orders from Sen. Chuck Shumer, filibustered a budget resolution Friday night. They have stated no objection whatsoever to anything in the resolution, despite being asked multiple times if they did. The resolution included pay for firefighters and the military, 6 years of continual funding for CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), and provided for continuing defense and research contracts. Those programs are now shut down due solely to the actions of the Senate Democrats.

None of that is under question. It has all been openly admitted by the Democrats themselves who refused to end the filibuster. The only complaint they have is that the budget resolution does not include codification of DACA, which is not only not a budget item, but which has not been agreed to yet and thusly could not have been included.

Please, twist away at that.

TheRedneck