EPTOn January 20 2018 16:04 Leporello wrote:
Wait how can this happen and Trump is still crying about dems hating the military?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9743
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Wait how can this happen and Trump is still crying about dems hating the military? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On January 20 2018 21:33 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Wait how can this happen and Trump is still crying about dems hating the military? Because it now becomes a battle of spin and lies. Whoever gets blamed for the shutdown will move to end it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 20 2018 12:59 mozoku wrote: Yes obviously the lack of meaningless symbolic votes on doomed resolutions makes it totally different this time. Where's arbiter Zlefin he's needed? We need to know who's being the honest and sound arguer here. EDIT: It's (un)official! Resolution was rejected! are you actually asking for my input or just snarking? given our history I have doubts you're actually asking for my input so I'm checking before providing it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 20 2018 15:00 Vindicare605 wrote: So how many times have the Republicans shut down the government in the last 5 years? 3? looks to be 2 (counting this one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On January 20 2018 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: Because it now becomes a battle of spin and lies. Whoever gets blamed for the shutdown will move to end it. I know this one because I learned US politics from the West Wing! | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
This really comes down to who wins the message war. On the one hand we have the Democrats refusing 2 bills (last week and the one from this week that the house wanted), arguably because both were really hard to swallow for them as both would have been total surrenders without getting anything in return but you have to explain that to the people. On the other hand you have Republicans refusing 2.5 bills as Trump kicked Graham out of his office as well as the bill from yesterday to keep at least the Military funded (as well as the super short CR but I'm not sure that counts). The military one in particular seems really hard to explain and they're banking on their voters to "understand" that they had to let the military go payless to make the Dems suffer, which would help the military in the longrun. Not that I'd agree with that, just that that would have to be the message they want, right? Or just people straight up not hearing about it in the first place. The latter seems difficult considering what they're up against though. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On January 20 2018 23:52 Toadesstern wrote: ok count me surprised. I REALLY thought the Democrats would give in in the end... but then they already took all of the heat they could possibly take anyways. Not like going full yolo makes it any worse for them than only going half yolo I guess. This really comes down to who wins the message war. On the one hand we have the Democrats refusing 2 bills (last week and the one from this week that the house wanted), arguably because both were really hard to swallow for them as both would have been total surrenders without getting anything in return but you have to explain that to the people. On the other hand you have Republicans refusing 2.5 bills as Trump kicked Graham out of his office as well as the bill from yesterday to keep at least the Military funded (as well as the super short CR but I'm not sure that counts). The military one in particular seems really hard to explain and they're banking on their voters to "understand" that they had to let the military go payless to make the Dems suffer, which would help the military in the longrun. Not that I'd agree with that, just that that would have to be the message they want, right? Or just people straight up not hearing about it in the first place. The latter seems difficult considering what they're up against though. I'd bet money on Fox not reporting that McConnell refused to keep the military funded. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Not like you're going to get some hardcore Trumpsupporter to admit on it being something Dear Leader might have possibly had a hand in anyways. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
one thing I can't find is who actually filed the filibuster (assuming that's the thing they needed more votes to get past, dunno if there's some more arcane rule involved) it's also clear that the republicans have no regard for the rules and would've tossed the filibuster if it was an issue they actually wanted to win the vote on. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Democrats in the PA special Election Day say he “will not be afraid to compromise” in statement about the shutdown. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4660 Posts
Things like "fund military salaries!" that are introduced near the deadlinw are PR ploys, and the journalists know it. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On January 21 2018 00:42 Introvert wrote: There isn't much more to say except to warn some people so they aren't taken in. Things like "fund military salaries!" that are introduced near the deadlinw are PR ploys, and the journalists know it. https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/954514004667486209 https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/954603500582907904 Why are they doomed to fail exactly? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
assuming i'm understanding their terminology right; UC = unanimous consent. There's a rule which lets the congress do stuff really fast and easily (bypassing most of their normal rules) if noone (and I mean NOONE) objects. given the circumstances, getting that is impossible. it's generally used for minor thinsg like procedural motions on a highly popular bipartisan bill, or on tiny nothing like bills to name a federal post office after someone. it's also used to expedite some minor procedural matters as a matter of form. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On January 21 2018 00:57 zlefin wrote: assuming i'm understanding their terminology right; UC = unanimous consent. There's a rule which lets the congress do stuff really fast and easily (bypassing most of their normal rules) if noone (and I mean NOONE) objects. given the circumstances, getting that is impossible. it's generally used for minor thinsg like procedural motions on a highly popular bipartisan bill, or on tiny nothing like bills to name a federal post office after someone. it's also used to expedite some minor procedural matters as a matter of form. I know too little about the procedural stuff to say, but why can't some of these last-minute deals be done in a way that only requires 60 votes or w/e? Most of them seem like everybody would probably support them if it came to a vote | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On January 21 2018 01:12 ChristianS wrote: I know too little about the procedural stuff to say, but why can't some of these last-minute deals be done in a way that only requires 60 votes or w/e? Most of them seem like everybody would probably support them if it came to a vote Because procedures take time but they exist for good reasons. The shit with the tax bill where there were hand written amendments and then corrections on those amendments that no one could read should show you why that is a good thing. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2018 01:12 ChristianS wrote: I know too little about the procedural stuff to say, but why can't some of these last-minute deals be done in a way that only requires 60 votes or w/e? Most of them seem like everybody would probably support them if it came to a vote normal bills have to go through a fair bit of process before they come to the floor; i'm not familiar with the details, but first they go to committee, committee talks about them some, amendments, multiple readings to the floor (mostly nominal readings these days); basically stuff that lets it be worked on over time. besides, if there were a deal which could get 60 votes they would've made it already through the regular process. these things could of course be put in as separate bills, go through regular process, and maybe be voted on. but there's a lot of ways to stall a bill and keep it from coming to an actual vote (and hence making it less clear/more debateable who's blocking it). part of the larger issue is the majority party may prevent the minority party's bills from getting to a floor vote. i'ts pretty common to do that so as sto avoid having to have officially taken a stance on something. like they don't want to it to happen, but don't want to be on record voting against it. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 20 2018 15:28 Danglars wrote: Given how much people here, like zlefin, call the Steele dossier substantially confirmed, this should be worrisome  Transparency: if you don’t like it, tell people the classified memos are false anyways. Trump-level stupidity on display. Yes, pretend that you are not treating the Steele and Nunes dossiers very differently. | ||
| ||
