|
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. |
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.htmlScrolling 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.
McConnell voted no because you have to vote no in order to call for a revote, I think. It's a procedural thing.
|
Yeah it is a procedural thing
|
Huh, weird. Are any of the other votes probably procedural, or is reasonable to assume the other votes are actual expressions of opposition or support?
|
I think it's also worth noting it's kind of a good procedural thing (in theory anyway)-if something fails you don't want the supporters to be able to constantly keep bringing something up for a revote, it's only worth considering if at least one of the "no" votes have changed their mind.
Of course this kinda falls flat on its face when you support it and vote no purely to be able to call it back for a revote, but it gives the majority party leader additional power since I think they vote last?
At least that's my 2 cents, I don't know a ton about Roberts Rules of Order and all that.
|
On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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)
Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.".
Interesting.
|
On January 21 2018 03:42 ChristianS wrote:
Huh, weird. Are any of the other votes probably procedural, or is reasonable to assume the other votes are actual expressions of opposition or support?
iirc its a majority/minority leader procedural tactic that gives him propositional ordering priority once a session restarts or a related bill comes back up for vote.
|
On January 21 2018 03:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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) Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.". Interesting.
I don't think the CR yesterday had any of those spending compromises in it. If it did I never read a thing about it. So the CR yesterday had nothing to say about DACA and none of the CHIP funding changes.
The first is certainly true but I am unsure about the second.
|
On January 21 2018 03:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:45 m4ini wrote:On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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) Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.". Interesting. I don't think the CR yesterday had any of those spending compromises in it. If it did I never read a thing about it. So the CR yesterday had nothing to say about DACA and none of the CHIP funding changes. The first is certainly true but I am unsure about the second.
yeah that's why I edited that addition in. Not sure if it was clear. The one from yesterday didn't have those 4 cuts in it (as far as I know?). It was just "standalone" funding to keep the government and military running as is. As well as CHIP.
Which is still a tough sell from a Dem point-of-view simply because you lose the ability to push your agenda. You have to tack it onto something else Republicans want or else Trump will always just veto it.
The wall-of-text about the first one I just mentioned because it was brought up as an example that Democrats refused the "standalone" CHIP funding as well.
Again, sorry if it wasn't clear had to edit a bit in a rush.
|
On January 21 2018 03:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:45 m4ini wrote:On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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) Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.". Interesting. I don't think the CR yesterday had any of those spending compromises in it. If it did I never read a thing about it. So the CR yesterday had nothing to say about DACA and none of the CHIP funding changes. The first is certainly true but I am unsure about the second.
The House 4-week CR had the six-year CHIP funding coming out of the ACA, I think (it's kinda hard to keep track). Here's an article discussing it. Since the CHIP programs will start running out of money in February, they needed to deal with it in the CR or the shit could really hit the fan.
The super short term CRs didn't have anything to say about CHIP, though, and I'm not sure if any of those went through officially.
Edit: Interestingly the House version also nuked a few more ACA taxes while appropriating funds for CHIP, even though the device tax would basically pay for CHIP alone.
|
On January 21 2018 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:49 Introvert wrote:On January 21 2018 03:45 m4ini wrote:On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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) Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.". Interesting. I don't think the CR yesterday had any of those spending compromises in it. If it did I never read a thing about it. So the CR yesterday had nothing to say about DACA and none of the CHIP funding changes. The first is certainly true but I am unsure about the second. The House 4-week CR had the six-year CHIP funding coming out of the ACA, I think (it's kinda hard to keep track). Here's an article discussing it. Since the CHIP programs will start running out of money in February, they needed to deal with it in the CR or the shit could really hit the fan. The super short term CRs didn't have anything to say about CHIP, though, and I'm not sure if any of those went through officially. Edit: Interestingly the House version also nuked a few more ACA taxes while appropriating funds for CHIP.
That's not what the article says from a quick read. It just mentions it also suspended a tax from the ACA.
|
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 
From what I understand the military will get payed Feb 1st.
If it goes on for another month past that they will not get payed at that time, but will get back pay whenever the shutdown ends.
|
On January 21 2018 04:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 21 2018 03:49 Introvert wrote:On January 21 2018 03:45 m4ini wrote:On January 21 2018 03:16 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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) Cheers. Guess some people don't know what a compromise is. "Look, we both want dinner. Lets both have dinner, i have what you have, but also some military and wall funding sprinkled on top. But as a compromise, you pay.". Interesting. I don't think the CR yesterday had any of those spending compromises in it. If it did I never read a thing about it. So the CR yesterday had nothing to say about DACA and none of the CHIP funding changes. The first is certainly true but I am unsure about the second. The House 4-week CR had the six-year CHIP funding coming out of the ACA, I think (it's kinda hard to keep track). Here's an article discussing it. Since the CHIP programs will start running out of money in February, they needed to deal with it in the CR or the shit could really hit the fan. The super short term CRs didn't have anything to say about CHIP, though, and I'm not sure if any of those went through officially. Edit: Interestingly the House version also nuked a few more ACA taxes while appropriating funds for CHIP. That's not what the article says from a quick read. It just mentions it also suspended a tax from the ACA.
Yeah, I'm trying to do some digging into the actual bill but govtrack isn't being helpful. There's at least one CR that only suspends the taxes and doesn't change CHIP funding, but it doesn't say that's passed the House yet so it shouldn't be the right one (then again, with the government shut down who knows?). Damn news sources not reporting the extremely non-snappy random series of numbers I need!
Edit: I *think* that's the right CR and govtrack just hasn't updated yet, since there's nothing that fits the bill that they say passed the House. That said, I think the past CR they're modifying did include some changes to the ACA funding (or at any rate I see a few cuts in the text to the Public Health fund).
|
The best dealmaker?
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Saturday blasted President Trump as an unreliable negotiating partner, fuming that working with him is “like negotiating with Jell-O" after a failure to secure a deal to avert a government shutdown.
“I told the president we Democrats were willing to fund the military at the highest levels in history, far above even his budget request,” said Schumer, who said he also offered to put Trump’s request for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border “on the table” at a White House meeting on Friday.
Schumer said Trump agreed to try for a four- or five-day government stopgap spending measure to give him and congressional leaders just enough time to reach a deal.
But then, Schumer said, the president changed his mind.
“Several hours later he called back. He said, ‘So, I hear we have a three-week deal.’ I said, 'No, Mr. President, no one is even talking about a three-week deal,' ” Schumer recounted.
“Then a few hours later they called back again, ‘Well we’re going to need this, this, this in addition,’ ” Schumer said. “Things they knew were far, far right and off the table.”
“Negotiating with this White House is like negotiating with Jell-O,” Schumer said, drawing a comparison to the wobbly gelatin dessert.
“It’s next to impossible. As soon as you take one step forward, the hard-right forces the president three steps back,” Schumer said.
Schumer's comments came as lawmakers searched for a deal on Saturday to fund the government after Congress missed the deadline Friday night to prevent a shutdown.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369929-schumer-working-with-trump-like-negotiating-with-jello
I wonder what the extra requests are that Schumer calls 'far right'
|
Schumer is of course an unreliable narrator, but "put the wall on the table" is so weasly everyone should be suspect.
IN OTHER NEWS
We all know the president trolls, but some still take his tweets super seriously. If we needed any more evidence that he really does just troll here it is.
|
While not quite as bad as the 7D chess argument, the "he just trolls" argument is still intellectually dishonest and designed to serve as Trump apologism.
|
I'll amend for clarity that obviously not EVERY tweet is a troll. The Mika tweet wasn't trolling. But the button tweet? Trolling 100%
|
I see no reason to believe he wasn't engaging in his idea of a genuine confrontation with Kim Jong Un.
|
More evidence that the FBI counterintelligence investigation of Trump and his campaign consists entirely of the FISA surveillance on Carter Page.
|
|
|
This is a historic moment for the Republicans. Trump's infamous deal-making in action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
