EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9744
| 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. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2018 01:32 ChristianS wrote: As long as we're on procedure, one more relevant question: how much power does leadership have to prevent a bill ever coming to a vote? Like, if the Democrats had a bill they wanted to pass, and there were actually a fair number of Republicans that might support it, but McConnell and Ryan didn't want it, is there any way to bring it to a vote? I don't have that much detailed knowledge of procedure to answer definitively. generally speaking - the Speaker of the house has a lot more power to control the agenda there and to keep stuff from a vote than Senate leader does. The Speaker really has a lot of power; there's also a significant degree to which each party tries to work with its leadership and not "defect" on topics of control like this. if the bill actually had a support of the majority of members, there would probably be ways to get it to the floor in the Senate, and maybe in the House. (i'm talkin gregular ways of course, not extreme ways like changing who the speaker is which would definitely work). it'd also depend on how strong that support is, like do they truly deeply support it, or is it begrudging support that they do because it's politically necessary. I'm not sure if it actually happens much that a bill that truly has support of the majority gets blocked by leadership. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2018 01:47 ChristianS wrote: It's relevant in current contexts because Republicans' big argument for blaming Democrats would be that they held a vote on their proposal to keep the government open and Democrats opposed it. But the Democrats' proposals to keep the government open never got a vote, of course. If they could demonstrate that one of gheir proposals could have passed the Senate, that'd go along way toward proving Republicans were at fault. indeed it would; which is why the republicans wouldn't allow those proposals to get to a vote. there's a fair bit of party loyalty/partisanship, which is enough to get them to work together on topics like keeping something from getting to a vote. supporting their "side" counts for a lot these days, sadly. also some of those dem proposals would be the kind of thinsg which the republicans don't truly want to vote for, but would only vote for out of fear it'd hurt their election chances if they went against it; hence they'd go along wiht a plan to keep the bill from reaching the floor, which lets them obfuscate the issue enough that the only people who blame them for it are those who hate them anyways. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2018 01:58 ChristianS wrote: That's fair. Last question on procedure: there was a lot of reporting last night on last-minute deal-making going on on the Senate floor (Chuch Schumer and Lamar Alexander going off in a room together, then coming back out and beckoning McConnell, etc.). If they had hypothetically come to a deal, what's the procedure there? I imagine there's a vote to amend the House bill, then a vote for cloture, then a vote to pass it. Then the House probably has to pass it again? I do'nt know; but my guess would be the same as you guessed. the extent to which rank and file are willing to go along with such a deal negotiated by leadership without having fully read it themselves would be pretty high in general (which is what party discipline is for, so long as the negotiators have th general backing of the rank and file). | ||
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
 | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
It would be much appreciated if one of the usual suspects explains what compromise the democrats decided to not agree to. In very simple terms, no convoluted mental gymnastics as to why one side is to blame but the other isn't, or is "less to blame". What would republicans have gained through this bill, and what would democrats have gained? edit: to be clear, i read the guardian. I do understand that there's tweets blabbering about how democrats hate america because they feel like immigrants are more important than your military. I just thought i'd ask for the general consensus here, as long as it isn't a "yeah but they do hate america and are to blame". | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On January 21 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote: Okay well, when I'm working next week without pay, I'll remember that MITCH MCCONNELL (R) made the decision to block a vote on legislation that would have allowed me to get paid while working. Hopefully that fact won't be lost on the armed services who normally lean conservative Many folks in the military are also familiar with the notion that the party in charge is the one who bears ultimate responsibility. Not gonna look good for Republicans in that case either. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 21 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote: Okay well, when I'm working next week without pay, I'll remember that MITCH MCCONNELL (R) made the decision to block a vote on legislation that would have allowed me to get paid while working. Hopefully that fact won't be lost on the armed services who normally lean conservative It's stupid, but last time it happened we got back paid. If you're living pay check to pay check then you should be able to call your bank if it's Navy Fed or one of the other military credit unions and they'll work with you. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/senate-vote-government-shutdown/index.html Scrolling through the list, I saw "Mitch McConnell: NO." Is that right? Did CNN screw up, or did the majority leader vote against his own CR while blaming the Democrats for it failing? Edit: I counted, and I think their list matches their tally. Democrats that supported it are Doug Jones, Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin. Republicans who opposed it are Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, Mike Lee... and Mitch McConnell. Absent McCain, that makes the total 50-49. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On January 21 2018 02:49 m4ini wrote: I'd like to join the blame game. It would be much appreciated if one of the usual suspects explains what compromise the democrats decided to not agree to. In very simple terms, no convoluted mental gymnastics as to why one side is to blame but the other isn't, or is "less to blame". What would republicans have gained through this bill, and what would democrats have gained? edit: to be clear, i read the guardian. I do understand that there's tweets blabbering about how democrats hate america because they feel like immigrants are more important than your military. I just thought i'd ask for the general consensus here, as long as it isn't a "yeah but they do hate america and are to blame". we had this yesterday with Danglars arguing that the "bipartisan" bill from Congress was a great compromise that Democrats refused. I, as well as other people, argued that it was nothing even close to being a compromise. Basicly both Republicans and Democrats want to fund CHIP for two reasons: a) having it not funded is even more expansive than funding it b) it's healthcare for children... saying you don't want that makes you look like some cheap comic villain. The bill that would have funded that was arguing that they need some form of cut to something else to fund it. Those cuts happened to be 4 cuts to Obamacare. Arguably at least 2 or 3 of those 4 cuts were ridiculously minor and Dems could have easily agreed to them on paper. Stuff like "people who won the lottery can be exempted from Medicaid" etc. So like I said, laughably minor things. However, it still stands that those 4 cuts all happened to be Obamacare cuts with the Republicans not giving anything up because they have a massive lead in Congress (unlike the Senate). I was arguing that if both parties want it funded that's not a compromise at all, it's getting something both parties want and asking Dems to pay for it all by themselves instead of offering at least one token cut to something else. Republicans would have gained something they want (CHIP funded) while also getting 4 cuts to Obamacare (all things they probably would want standablone no matter how minor) Democrats would have gained CHIP funding while having to agree to 4 minor Obamacare cuts while also losing their ability to keep the WH hostage on the budget I guess. As well as basicly surrendering completly. No matter how minor those cuts would have been to Obamacare it's still 4 for 0 and that's a tough sell. //addition Oh that's the one from like a week ago that people (Danglars) used to argue that Dems aren't willing to take that compromise on CHIP standalone either. The one from yesterday was just funding the government+military+CHIP for a bit longer as long as DACA gets ignored for the day and dealt with at a later time (read: never, because Trump would veto each and every DACA reform proposed by Democrats if it's standalone, even if it somehow lands on his desk) | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 21 2018 03:02 micronesia wrote: Ah actually I'll keep that in mind in case anyone asks me about it. As long as this shutdown doesn't last for month after month I'll be fine, but then again, who knows what will happen here. Trump may inadvertently sabotage every attempt to restart the government for the next three years. There's no way it would come to that. Congress would just override the man baby. If it goes on for more than one or two paychecks the military is going to riot. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2018 03:13 ChristianS wrote: Wait, so CNN has a list up of how everybody voted on the CR last night: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/senate-vote-government-shutdown/index.html Scrolling through the list, I saw "Mitch McConnell: NO." Is that right? Did CNN screw up, or did the majority leader vote against his own CR while blaming the Democrats for it failing? iirc he did vote against it for some procedural reason. I think he votes/voted last or something; I don't know the details at all, and am not even sure on the vaguenesses; I think it was some rule that if this part got <= 50 votes it's easier to bring it up again or something. there's a lot of really arcane procedural rules. | ||
| ||
