It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Did the Republican party die when it did the same thing during Obama's tenure?
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.
Worse, you forget another thing - the Senate can change its rules to remove the filibuster with a simple majority.
This is part of the reason why, historically, no shutdown has occurred when all branches of government were controlled by a single party.
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.
If Trump would have giving in to the Dems demands little Timmy wouldn't have starved
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
Oh, and by the way, President Trump disagrees with you about keeping the filibuster:
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
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.
Voters handed control of the Senate to Republicans for the first time in eight years on Tuesday,
Where in the Senate rules does it state that it requires 60 Senators to control the Senate?
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.
Fox News:
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.