Government Shut-Down...Let The Finger Pointing Begin

[suncowiam]

Here we go again......
Deadline Passes, Triggering Shutdown; Senate Rejects Short-Term Spending Bill

I voted for <both>.
The first poster to claim "False equivalency!" will be banned from the thread, & spanked by a bear.

Is the fact that the Republicans has more votes than the Democrats not a measure of false equivalence?

How can you blame the Dems if the Republicans didn't need the Dems to pass this?

Frankly, I don't even care. I don't work for the government and these are some of the many reasons I choose not to work for the government. They're highly inefficient because of all the waste that comes out of politics. People that do should understand and accept this.

But logically speaking, I can't see how you can place blame in a minority if the majority ultimately had the control.

Am I missing something?

 

[columbus]

I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.
The filibuster. It's possible for a minority of the Senate to stop legislation. That's how the Republicans put such a crimp in Obama's efforts a decade ago.
Tom

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, you are missing something.
The filibuster. It's possible for a minority of the Senate to stop legislation. That's how the Republicans put such a crimp in Obama's efforts a decade ago.
Tom

Right. It needed 60 votes to pass the senate and the Republicans have only 51 members. 5 Dems voted for it and 5 republicans voted against (and McCain abstained due to illness).

Who was filibustering though and why? How does the filibuster work?

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, you are missing something.
The filibuster. It's possible for a minority of the Senate to stop legislation. That's how the Republicans put such a crimp in Obama's efforts a decade ago.
Tom

Ok, I also read now that they need a 60 vote and only had 51...

Got it.

 

[Curious George]

Just to note, Congress has passed, with bipartisan support, 2 other CR’s and an appropriations bill in 2017. So it’s not like the Dems were just doing a tit-for-tat for Republican obstructionism.

I do not think that this is tit for tat. I do think that spite for Obama played a large role in the previous shutdown. While there is much contempt for Trump, I am unaware of how much that pervades the current shutdown. It is midterm election year. These factors might be relevant, they also might not. I am not informed enough to make a comment which is why I said what I did.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The president had a bipartisan bill on his desk, and then his Chief of Staff (Kelly) publically claimed that Trump's desire for a wall was "uninformed."

Hubris demands that Trump was informed, hence a new and more vehement rejection of any plan with no wall, even a bipartisan one where he could claim victory.

He is quoted sevrwal times as saying his base will blame democrats for any government shutdown, so yeah. . . not sure how this isn't his fault. He wants this to happen.

Also, when is the last time the same majority party in both houses of Congress and the White House shut down the government by themselves? Never. Never happened before. . . They had the votes and then they lost them on purpose.

Saying both is a "false equivalency." Truth to power, baby (not that anyone here has any).

 

[sun rise]

Trump said he would sign whatever was brought to him. He lied again.

But to me it's less about whose fault it is but the consequences. On one hand, people are going to be hurt by it. On the other hand, it will hopefully slow down the destruction of the Federal government that is now under way. So I have very mixed feelings about it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

McConnell blocked a 3 day extension.
Paul Ryan blocked a Durbin-McConnell deal
John Kelly blocked a Schumer-Trump deal
Trump and Paul Ryan are blocking negotiations
The vote came down to as many republicans voting no as dems so I'd say this is pretty squarely a republican issue.

 

[Curious George]

Ok slowly starting to think Republicans but not enough to change my vote. As of now it may be a both with a higher amount of blame on Republicans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Saying both is a "false equivalency."

No, it's accurate to place blame on both, with this particular instance being the Dems running Clinton instead of Sanders. At this point, it is possible that Sanders would be appealing to enough moderate Republicans to empower that part of the Reps, silencing those who are further Right, and it's possible this shut down wouldn't have happened. But, that is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario because the Dems ****ed up, and they ****ed up big time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As of now it may be a both with a higher amount of blame on Republicans.

Well, they are the ones with more power, and the ones squandering it like the Dems did about a decade ago.

 

[Falvlun]

No, it's accurate to place blame on both, with this particular instance being the Dems running Clinton instead of Sanders. At this point, it is possible that Sanders would be appealing to enough moderate Republicans to empower that part of the Reps, silencing those who are further Right, and it's possible this shut down wouldn't have happened. But, that is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario because the Dems ****ed up, and they ****ed up big time.

You are blaming this governmental shutdown on Democrats running Clinton instead of Bernie? ​

 

[sun rise]

Here's a cogent 538 review of the past couple of shutdowns and the lack of long-term consequences no matter who is blamed. There is a caveat that this time might be different given the small number of data points and the fact that we have a single party controlling government, but if you want to bet, bet on no long term effect.

The Government Shutdown Effect: Big In The Short Term, Small After That

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are blaming this governmental shutdown on Democrats running Clinton instead of Bernie? ​

A part of it, as it certainly gave the Reps more power than what they would have had, and the political landscape would have been very different had Bernie been ran, because he stood a far greater chance of winning than Hillary could have ever have dreamt of having. A Sanders win would have put corporate Dems and Reps in an uncomfortable position with pro-working class moderates on both sides finding common ground in a president who favors much of what they favor, leading to a path of compromise. However, they ran the corporate friendly Clinton and now the political landscape in America is a mess.

 

[Falvlun]

Who was filibustering though and why? How does the filibuster work?

Replying to myself.

Ok, so apparently it’s a rule that the Senate must have 60 votes to end debate (cloture) on a bill before it can actually be voted on (which only requires a simple majority). This goes for most legislation, but notably not Supreme Court nominees. It appears that this rule is essentially a codification of the filibuster, but without the need to actually keep talking. At least that’s how I understand it.

Personally, I think it’s a stupid rule that gums up government working.

I understand that the minority party would get steamrolled without it though.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A part of it, as it certainly gave the Reps more power than what they would have had, and the political landscape would have been very different had Bernie been ran, because he stood a far greater chance of winning than Hillary could have ever have dreamt of having. A Sanders win would have put corporate Dems and Reps in an uncomfortable position with pro-working class moderates on both sides finding common ground in a president who favors much of what they favor, leading to a path of compromise. However, they ran the corporate friendly Clinton and now the political landscape in America is a mess.

I actually don't believe Sanders would have done better in the vote. He would have alienated the left moderates, right moderates and had weak showing in the black vote and female vote, and he had a rap sheet a mile long the republicans would have loved to use. I think he has a better shot now than he did then.

 

[Falvlun]

A part of it, as it certainly gave the Reps more power than what they would have had, and the political landscape would have been very different had Bernie been ran, because he stood a far greater chance of winning than Hillary could have ever have dreamt of having. A Sanders win would have put corporate Dems and Reps in an uncomfortable position with pro-working class moderates on both sides finding common ground in a president who favors much of what they favor, leading to a path of compromise. However, they ran the corporate friendly Clinton and now the political landscape in America is a mess.

I think you paint a rosy picture of a Bernie candidacy that has the benefit of never having been sullied by reality.

I don’t think it makes much sense to blame this shut down on a preseidential election what-if. I mean, if we are going to blame a party for not nominating a candidate we think would have been able to stop something a year after the start of his possible presidency, then we can also blame the Republicans for not electing Jeb Bush.

 

[suncowiam]

A part of it, as it certainly gave the Reps more power than what they would have had, and the political landscape would have been very different had Bernie been ran, because he stood a far greater chance of winning than Hillary could have ever have dreamt of having. A Sanders win would have put corporate Dems and Reps in an uncomfortable position with pro-working class moderates on both sides finding common ground in a president who favors much of what they favor, leading to a path of compromise. However, they ran the corporate friendly Clinton and now the political landscape in America is a mess.

I voted for Clinton, did you?

Hindsight is 20/20, lets focus on 2020.

 

[sun rise]

lets focus on 2020.

2018 first then 2020.

 

[Falvlun]

2018 first then 2020.

God yes. And state elections too. We need to flip states before the 2020 census. Down with gerrymandering!