Utopia Talk - Politics - The shutdown: Day 23

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Apr 24 20:42:20 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / The shutdown: Day 23

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 13 08:33:59
Just a friendly reminder that 800,000 government workers have gone the better part of a month without receiving a paycheck...because of one budget item that constitutes less than 0.1% of total federal spending.

This is easily the stupidest and most unnecessary conflict that we've ever seen. We're not even two weeks into this Congress, but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have already cemented their legacy as two of the most destructive leaders in American history. A single moment of presidential bravado has convinced Tweedledee and Tweedledum that they can act as irresponsible as they want and indefinitely close a fourth of the government over a mere $3 billion request. Their behavior is beyond reprehensible; it's outright disgusting and completely undefensible.

Democrats had the opportunity to show that they were the party of good governance and bipartisanship. Instead, they've spend the last few weeks holding show votes on bills that have zero chance of actually becoming law. "But we want to show the people what we stand for." We know what you stand for, morons. Stop grandstanding and reopen the government by voting for the wall already.

To be fair, this current predicament isn't solely the Democrats' fault; swamp creatures like Paul Ryan are also responsible. Establishment Republicans spent two years fighting their own president on border security while simultaneously blowing up the deficit in an orgy of irresponsible spending and concessions to their Democratic "rivals." Controlled opposition, indeed.

Even so, that's not an excuse for the Democrats' culpability here. The longest federal shutdown in history has been caused by members of a party whose actions have proven that they are more concerned with destroying America than governing it, and there is no indication that they have any interest in reforming their ways. If we want this country to survive into the next decade, it is absolutely essential that Democrats and their Republican enablers need to be ejected from all levels of government next election.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 09:04:41
Constitutional Rod
The president does not have the Congressional support he needs to fully meet his desires.

Congress has the constitutional control over the budget and I see no reason for that to change.

Neither do I see why the division of power as designed by the founding fathers be weakened to Venezuelan standards by thinking the country can function only if the legislatures are controlled by the president through proxy voices filling both chambers.

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 13 09:21:06
jergul,

We're a little past the point where executive rejection of a legislative budget requires issues of constitutionality to be at play. If you have issues with that, you'll have to talk to Andrew Jackson.

But more specifically, whenever a prolonged shutdown has occurred in the past, the establishment media has made it clear that Congress, not the president, is to be held to blame for the situation. Granted, in both instances the presidents in question were Democrats, so that angle may well have been based more on MSM ideology than any sort of objective analysis.

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 09:38:42
The attempted narrative change is not even funny, it's just sad.

This is entirely on Trump. He claimed the shut down well in advance. Most of his party doesn't agree with him. Both houses of Congress have passed something that the president has refused to sign. It's all Trump. It's been Trump.

You should feel bad and stupid for this sad attempt at diverting responsibility.

yankeessuck123
Member Sun Jan 13 09:39:35
^this, entirely

patom
Member Sun Jan 13 09:42:18
Gimmy what I demand or I'll shut the government down.
Five in to him on this and you will hear the same refrain again and again and again.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 09:51:19
Ruggy
I was suggesting your narrative was wholely unconstitutional.

The president cannot hold his breath until Congress bends to his will.

He would get 1.2 billion for border fence improvements. Which is a fine compromise and a basis on which to build cross party cooperation.

He wants a win. Fair enough, but that is all on him.

Paramount
Member Sun Jan 13 09:51:37
I hope trump will keep the government shutted down for years, as he said he might do. Lol. If he backs down now he will be seen as weak, and he will never get that wall.

LazyCommunist
Member Sun Jan 13 10:30:27
"Just a friendly reminder that 800,000 government workers have gone the better part of a month without receiving a paycheck"

Could this start an uprising?

obaminated
Member Sun Jan 13 10:41:31
@hood

The president doesnt write Bill's. Also. Prior to this military personnel would always get paid in advance. Somehow that didnt happen when the Democrats are taking over. They are assholes. They are shit heads.
Source - brother in law is in the coast guard.

TJ
Member Sun Jan 13 10:50:58
An analysis summary of the previous three years.

Trump is too dumb to fail and the left is too intelligent to win!

lmao

Wrath of Orion
Member Sun Jan 13 11:29:13
I'm surprised Rugian even managed to type that with Trump's cock shoved so far down his throat.

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 11:53:26
"The president doesnt write Bill's."

Nobody suggested he did. What the president did do was threaten to shut down the government (taking responsibility) if he didn't get money for the wall. He very clearly positioned the shutdown as his doing. He does not have the support in his own party to push the shutdown for the wall.

"Prior to this military personnel would always get paid in advance. Somehow that didnt happen when the Democrats are taking over."

translated:
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, THE MILITARY AREN'T TREATED AS SOME SORT OF SPECIAL CLASS, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

There's no reason for the military to be paid if nobody else is being paid. They aren't special, this isn't starship troopers. I would be all for allowing them out of their contracts and let them seek employment elsewhere should they decide that they need paychecks, I'm not a monster.

Look, your savior in chief is a fucking buffoon and he owned this shutdown from the very beginning. Deal with it. Stop making excuses. Put your big boy pants on. This is your (Trump's) shutdown, it's his fault.

Forwyn
Member Sun Jan 13 11:56:39
"I was suggesting your narrative was wholely unconstitutional.

The president cannot hold his breath until Congress bends to his will."

Idiocy. Of course he can. Congress can attempt to cobble together a veto-proof majority if they want it to end.

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 12:10:35
"Idiocy. Of course he can. Congress can attempt to cobble together a veto-proof majority if they want it to end."

This is accurate. The president refusing to sign a bill is specifically one of the checks built into the system.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 13:10:54
Forwyn
He cannot within the framework of a US Constitution with a division of powers.

Feel free to review how and when government shutdowns end historically.

Hood
The check to ensure compromise in the bills. Not binary my way or no way.

Forwyn is outlining a system where the president controls the pursestrings when government is not in shutdown.

Idiocy indeed. What do they put in your drinking water?

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 13:15:01
"The check to ensure compromise in the bills. Not binary my way or no way."

This is jergul pulling his "my choice to be a complete fucking retard is actually just trolling. See, get it? I'm retarded. HAHA YOU TROLLED!" schtick.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 13:29:33
Hood
Not at all. It amuses me that you are unable to understand that checks and balances ensure compromise and consistency in federal policy.

It is a key part of your democratic system.

Trump does not change that. He wants a win, instead perhaps of opting for a few 100d extra million on the 1.2 billion budget proposal.

We have been discussing the US government and its constitution for decades.

So, no. No troll. I get how the federal government works.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 13:34:01
http://en....shutdowns_in_the_United_States

Knock yourself out.

Forwyn
Member Sun Jan 13 13:47:32
"He cannot within the framework of a US Constitution with a division of powers."

Don't be retarded. There is no clause mandating the President approve a bare majority spending bill.

Rugian
Member Sun Jan 13 13:48:14
jergul,

Of course the president has the right to veto or pocket veto spending bills. This is beyond question.

Nor is compromise necessarily a required aspect of resolving executive-legislative fights. If you read your own link, you'll note that the last major shutdown (in 2013) ended with the House basically kowtowing to the president without securing any major concessions.

That having been said, this particular shutdown SHOULD be able to be resolved by compromise. Previous shutdowns focused on major and difficult disagreements over heavy concepts like overall spending or defunding Obamacare. This one is over a single budget item constituting less than 0.1% of total federal spending. If Democrats offered $5 billion for the wall in exchange for $10 billion for taxpayer-funded abortions or whatever, this shutdown would be over tomorrow.

The problem is that the Democrats have so far categorically refused to make any sort of offer, and have gone on record stating that Trump will never get his wall money. That makes them, at minimum, as culpable for this shutdown as the president. They could strike a deal to reopen the government, but they won't, because they think they can get more out of hurting Trump. It's dirty politics through and through.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 13:59:57
Forwyn
There is also no constitutional mandate suggesting goverment shut down if a president vetos a budget.

Ruggy
1.2 billion has been offered. A compromise would involve increasing this number somewhat.

The main issue is of course that the wall is a purely political construction. Statistics do not support claims that it would improve US security in any meaningful way.

Its not about hurting Trump. Its about not appropriating public funds for a purely political endevour.

jergul
large member Sun Jan 13 14:09:43
Ruggy
Reread the 2013 event. The house was under pressure from the tea-party fraction that in turn ultimately failed to leverage its position.

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 14:22:26
"This one is over a single budget item constituting less than 0.1% of total federal spending. If Democrats offered $5 billion for the wall"

Why should they? A minority of americans want the wall. It is against the best interests of the nation. If you call it so minor, why is it worth it to Trump to shut down the government? Aside from adding to his lengthy track record of being a petty cunt.

Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member Sun Jan 13 15:01:53
"This is easily the stupidest and most unnecessary conflict that we've ever seen. We're not even two weeks into this Congress, but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have already cemented their legacy as two of the most destructive leaders in American history."

Rugian Rod if you turn off Fox News and watch something else youd know we offered to fund everything except the wall and Trump said "byebye" and walked out

Dude its unny how the deficit suddenly doesn't matter to you anymore only when a repubs president and you think retarded hair dude should get his retarded wall without no support from the people or the senate or the house

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 13 15:03:32
if it hasn't been noted, the Senate & House both passed the same spending bill... Trump is the child blocking it (& he is offering no compromise, he even shat upon Pence's offer)

plus Trump lost 2016 by a historic 3 million votes & 2018 by a historic 9 million votes (w/ invading criminal terrorist caravans as his main argument)

Mitch McConnell is also to blame by being a shameless dickless wimp... they could just override the veto but instead he has decided all Republicans in congress have zero say or relevance, only the petty idiot child speaks for the party

hood
Member Sun Jan 13 17:35:46
"he even shat upon Pence's offer"

From what I read, Pence's offer was Trump's offer. And then Trump changed his mind.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Sun Jan 13 18:04:16
we need a Jaime Lannister to do what needs done

sounds like he's losing it:
"Wish I could share with everyone the beauty and majesty of being in the White House and looking outside at the snow filled lawns and Rose Garden. Really is something - SPECIAL COUNTRY, SPECIAL PLACE!"

...'if only there was some means to capture the image on this little box i'm hammering away at w/ my tiny fingers'
(i do doubt he knows it has a camera... or any function besides Twitter & calling Hannity)

show deleted posts

Rugian Member	Sun Jan 13 08:33:59 Just a friendly reminder that 800,000 government workers have gone the better part of a month without receiving a paycheck...because of one budget item that constitutes less than 0.1% of total federal spending. This is easily the stupidest and most unnecessary conflict that we've ever seen. We're not even two weeks into this Congress, but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have already cemented their legacy as two of the most destructive leaders in American history. A single moment of presidential bravado has convinced Tweedledee and Tweedledum that they can act as irresponsible as they want and indefinitely close a fourth of the government over a mere $3 billion request. Their behavior is beyond reprehensible; it's outright disgusting and completely undefensible. Democrats had the opportunity to show that they were the party of good governance and bipartisanship. Instead, they've spend the last few weeks holding show votes on bills that have zero chance of actually becoming law. "But we want to show the people what we stand for." We know what you stand for, morons. Stop grandstanding and reopen the government by voting for the wall already. To be fair, this current predicament isn't solely the Democrats' fault; swamp creatures like Paul Ryan are also responsible. Establishment Republicans spent two years fighting their own president on border security while simultaneously blowing up the deficit in an orgy of irresponsible spending and concessions to their Democratic "rivals." Controlled opposition, indeed. Even so, that's not an excuse for the Democrats' culpability here. The longest federal shutdown in history has been caused by members of a party whose actions have proven that they are more concerned with destroying America than governing it, and there is no indication that they have any interest in reforming their ways. If we want this country to survive into the next decade, it is absolutely essential that Democrats and their Republican enablers need to be ejected from all levels of government next election.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 09:04:41 Constitutional Rod The president does not have the Congressional support he needs to fully meet his desires. Congress has the constitutional control over the budget and I see no reason for that to change. Neither do I see why the division of power as designed by the founding fathers be weakened to Venezuelan standards by thinking the country can function only if the legislatures are controlled by the president through proxy voices filling both chambers.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 13 09:21:06 jergul, We're a little past the point where executive rejection of a legislative budget requires issues of constitutionality to be at play. If you have issues with that, you'll have to talk to Andrew Jackson. But more specifically, whenever a prolonged shutdown has occurred in the past, the establishment media has made it clear that Congress, not the president, is to be held to blame for the situation. Granted, in both instances the presidents in question were Democrats, so that angle may well have been based more on MSM ideology than any sort of objective analysis.
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 09:38:42 The attempted narrative change is not even funny, it's just sad. This is entirely on Trump. He claimed the shut down well in advance. Most of his party doesn't agree with him. Both houses of Congress have passed something that the president has refused to sign. It's all Trump. It's been Trump. You should feel bad and stupid for this sad attempt at diverting responsibility.
yankeessuck123 Member	Sun Jan 13 09:39:35 ^this, entirely
patom Member	Sun Jan 13 09:42:18 Gimmy what I demand or I'll shut the government down. Five in to him on this and you will hear the same refrain again and again and again.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 09:51:19 Ruggy I was suggesting your narrative was wholely unconstitutional. The president cannot hold his breath until Congress bends to his will. He would get 1.2 billion for border fence improvements. Which is a fine compromise and a basis on which to build cross party cooperation. He wants a win. Fair enough, but that is all on him.
Paramount Member	Sun Jan 13 09:51:37 I hope trump will keep the government shutted down for years, as he said he might do. Lol. If he backs down now he will be seen as weak, and he will never get that wall.
LazyCommunist Member	Sun Jan 13 10:30:27 "Just a friendly reminder that 800,000 government workers have gone the better part of a month without receiving a paycheck" Could this start an uprising?
obaminated Member	Sun Jan 13 10:41:31 @hood The president doesnt write Bill's. Also. Prior to this military personnel would always get paid in advance. Somehow that didnt happen when the Democrats are taking over. They are assholes. They are shit heads. Source - brother in law is in the coast guard.
TJ Member	Sun Jan 13 10:50:58 An analysis summary of the previous three years. Trump is too dumb to fail and the left is too intelligent to win! lmao
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Jan 13 11:29:13 I'm surprised Rugian even managed to type that with Trump's cock shoved so far down his throat.
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 11:53:26 "The president doesnt write Bill's." Nobody suggested he did. What the president did do was threaten to shut down the government (taking responsibility) if he didn't get money for the wall. He very clearly positioned the shutdown as his doing. He does not have the support in his own party to push the shutdown for the wall. "Prior to this military personnel would always get paid in advance. Somehow that didnt happen when the Democrats are taking over." translated: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, THE MILITARY AREN'T TREATED AS SOME SORT OF SPECIAL CLASS, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!" There's no reason for the military to be paid if nobody else is being paid. They aren't special, this isn't starship troopers. I would be all for allowing them out of their contracts and let them seek employment elsewhere should they decide that they need paychecks, I'm not a monster. Look, your savior in chief is a fucking buffoon and he owned this shutdown from the very beginning. Deal with it. Stop making excuses. Put your big boy pants on. This is your (Trump's) shutdown, it's his fault.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jan 13 11:56:39 "I was suggesting your narrative was wholely unconstitutional. The president cannot hold his breath until Congress bends to his will." Idiocy. Of course he can. Congress can attempt to cobble together a veto-proof majority if they want it to end.
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 12:10:35 "Idiocy. Of course he can. Congress can attempt to cobble together a veto-proof majority if they want it to end." This is accurate. The president refusing to sign a bill is specifically one of the checks built into the system.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 13:10:54 Forwyn He cannot within the framework of a US Constitution with a division of powers. Feel free to review how and when government shutdowns end historically. Hood The check to ensure compromise in the bills. Not binary my way or no way. Forwyn is outlining a system where the president controls the pursestrings when government is not in shutdown. Idiocy indeed. What do they put in your drinking water?
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 13:15:01 "The check to ensure compromise in the bills. Not binary my way or no way." This is jergul pulling his "my choice to be a complete fucking retard is actually just trolling. See, get it? I'm retarded. HAHA YOU TROLLED!" schtick.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 13:29:33 Hood Not at all. It amuses me that you are unable to understand that checks and balances ensure compromise and consistency in federal policy. It is a key part of your democratic system. Trump does not change that. He wants a win, instead perhaps of opting for a few 100d extra million on the 1.2 billion budget proposal. We have been discussing the US government and its constitution for decades. So, no. No troll. I get how the federal government works.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 13:34:01 http://en....shutdowns_in_the_United_States Knock yourself out.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jan 13 13:47:32 "He cannot within the framework of a US Constitution with a division of powers." Don't be retarded. There is no clause mandating the President approve a bare majority spending bill.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 13 13:48:14 jergul, Of course the president has the right to veto or pocket veto spending bills. This is beyond question. Nor is compromise necessarily a required aspect of resolving executive-legislative fights. If you read your own link, you'll note that the last major shutdown (in 2013) ended with the House basically kowtowing to the president without securing any major concessions. That having been said, this particular shutdown SHOULD be able to be resolved by compromise. Previous shutdowns focused on major and difficult disagreements over heavy concepts like overall spending or defunding Obamacare. This one is over a single budget item constituting less than 0.1% of total federal spending. If Democrats offered $5 billion for the wall in exchange for $10 billion for taxpayer-funded abortions or whatever, this shutdown would be over tomorrow. The problem is that the Democrats have so far categorically refused to make any sort of offer, and have gone on record stating that Trump will never get his wall money. That makes them, at minimum, as culpable for this shutdown as the president. They could strike a deal to reopen the government, but they won't, because they think they can get more out of hurting Trump. It's dirty politics through and through.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 13:59:57 Forwyn There is also no constitutional mandate suggesting goverment shut down if a president vetos a budget. Ruggy 1.2 billion has been offered. A compromise would involve increasing this number somewhat. The main issue is of course that the wall is a purely political construction. Statistics do not support claims that it would improve US security in any meaningful way. Its not about hurting Trump. Its about not appropriating public funds for a purely political endevour.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 13 14:09:43 Ruggy Reread the 2013 event. The house was under pressure from the tea-party fraction that in turn ultimately failed to leverage its position.
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 14:22:26 "This one is over a single budget item constituting less than 0.1% of total federal spending. If Democrats offered $5 billion for the wall" Why should they? A minority of americans want the wall. It is against the best interests of the nation. If you call it so minor, why is it worth it to Trump to shut down the government? Aside from adding to his lengthy track record of being a petty cunt.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jan 13 15:01:53 "This is easily the stupidest and most unnecessary conflict that we've ever seen. We're not even two weeks into this Congress, but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have already cemented their legacy as two of the most destructive leaders in American history." Rugian Rod if you turn off Fox News and watch something else youd know we offered to fund everything except the wall and Trump said "byebye" and walked out Dude its unny how the deficit suddenly doesn't matter to you anymore only when a repubs president and you think retarded hair dude should get his retarded wall without no support from the people or the senate or the house
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 13 15:03:32 if it hasn't been noted, the Senate & House both passed the same spending bill... Trump is the child blocking it (& he is offering no compromise, he even shat upon Pence's offer) plus Trump lost 2016 by a historic 3 million votes & 2018 by a historic 9 million votes (w/ invading criminal terrorist caravans as his main argument) Mitch McConnell is also to blame by being a shameless dickless wimp... they could just override the veto but instead he has decided all Republicans in congress have zero say or relevance, only the petty idiot child speaks for the party
hood Member	Sun Jan 13 17:35:46 "he even shat upon Pence's offer" From what I read, Pence's offer was Trump's offer. And then Trump changed his mind.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jan 13 18:04:16 we need a Jaime Lannister to do what needs done sounds like he's losing it: "Wish I could share with everyone the beauty and majesty of being in the White House and looking outside at the snow filled lawns and Rose Garden. Really is something - SPECIAL COUNTRY, SPECIAL PLACE!" ...'if only there was some means to capture the image on this little box i'm hammering away at w/ my tiny fingers' (i do doubt he knows it has a camera... or any function besides Twitter & calling Hannity)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: