Go Skins Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 It happened in 2013, and now it happens again. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/government-shutdown-trump-congress-latest/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 Ne můj cirkus, ne moje opice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 This is the first time in American History that one party has held both houses of congress and the presidency and had a shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 Well looks like we may do this again in 3 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 On 1/20/2018 at 11:17 AM, Jamie_B said: This is the first time in American History that one party has held both houses of congress and the presidency and had a shutdown. True, but as it takes a 60-vote supermajority to pass a budget bill in the Senate, it's kinda moot, as the majority party holds only a 51-49 edge in the Senate. What you said is accurate, but it kinda implies that that "one party" failed to avoid a shutdown because they couldn't muster enough AYE votes... the majority party in the Senate only has 51 of the 60 votes they would need for passage. It only takes 41 NAY votes in the Senate to fail a budget bill, and the 49 members of the minority party (who voted 5-44 to fail the bill) did more than what was necessary to shut down the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, AmishBengalFan said: True, but as it takes a 60-vote supermajority to pass a budget bill in the Senate, it's kinda moot, as the majority party holds only a 51-49 edge in the Senate. What you said is accurate, but it kinda implies that that "one party" failed to avoid a shutdown because they couldn't muster enough AYE votes... the majority party in the Senate only has 51 of the 60 votes they would need for passage. It only takes 41 NAY votes in the Senate to fail a budget bill, and the 49 members of the minority party (who voted 5-44 to fail the bill) did more than what was necessary to shut down the Government. Thing is there were two separate bills that both parties agreed upon, but Trump decided he didnt want to go with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluhartz Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/20/2018 at 9:56 AM, Elflocko said: Ne můj cirkus, ne moje opice... quick google translate.... adds +1 On 1/20/2018 at 11:17 AM, Jamie_B said: This is the first time in American History that one party has held both houses of congress and the presidency and had a shutdown. this asshole will probably cause lots of firsts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 19 hours ago, Jamie_B said: Thing is there were two separate bills that both parties agreed upon, but Trump decided he didnt want to go with them. Umm..... the President does not vote in the Senate. The House passed a budget bill, the Senate failed to do so. The President had nothing to do with the 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans who voted "no" on Friday. Those 49 Senators did that entirely on their own. Knowledge is Power, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 No the President doesnt have a vote in the Senate, but he does set the agenda and also can suggest what he will and will not sign. In fact the word was that Trump was friendly to the idea of signing something until Brietbart news called him out on it. But then you already knew that, so what was the purpose of that reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 7 hours ago, Jamie_B said: No the President doesnt have a vote in the Senate, but he does set the agenda and also can suggest what he will and will not sign. In fact the word was that Trump was friendly to the idea of signing something until Brietbart news called him out on it. But then you already knew that, so what was the purpose of that reply? To act like it was the Dems fault and not the "Dims" fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 minute ago, kennethmw said: To act like it was the Dems fault and not the "Dims" fault. Word is most of this is being driven by Stephen Miller, problem is Trump likes his style of being a jackass. And while I know the word gets thrown around alot, I do believe Miller is a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 This column first appeared in the Washington Post. The government shutdown is over. Democrats finally realized that closing the government over illegal immigration was a losing political battle. They created a needless crisis and got rolled. So who is to blame for their current predicament? Along with Charles E. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats can put the blame squarely on the man who could have legalized the “dreamers” when he had the chance: Barack Obama. During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised in a conversation with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos to make passing immigration reform one of his first legislative priorities, and even set a timetable. “I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days,” he said. “But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.” If he had wanted to act, he could have. Obama’s party controlled the House, and Democrats had a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate majority. If Obama really wanted to pass either the Dream Act or comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans were powerless to stop him. But he didn’t do it. In a 2012 interview, Ramos called Obama on it. “At the beginning of your governing, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise.” Obama objected that he had made his promise “before the economy was on the verge of collapse. . . . And so my first priority was making sure that we prevented us from going into a Great Depression.” Ramos was having none of it. “It was a promise, Mr. President. . . . And a promise is a promise. And with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.” Obama’s excuse was weak. In the midst of dealing with the economic crisis, he championed ObamaCare and got other legislation passed. If passing immigration reform had been a real priority, he could have done it. And if he had, there would be no immigration impasse today. Of course, Obama was not alone in failing to act. Who was in charge of the issue on Capitol Hill? On the Senate side, none other than Schumer (D-N.Y.). In 2009, Schumer succeeded Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) as chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. In that role, the New York Times reported, “Mr. Schumer would take the point in pushing for passage of a new bill.” But Schumer didn’t push. Neither did Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was speaker of the House at the time and had the power to bring immigration legislation to the floor at will. And Obama also did not push because, according to the Times, the president “does not intend to get out in front of any proposal until there is a strong bipartisan commitment to pass it.” Funny, he did not wait for a “strong bipartisan commitment” before pushing ObamaCare. But apparently immigration was not a priority. By the time Obama got around to immigration legislation, Republicans had retaken the House. After failing to act when he had the votes, in 2012 Obama announced he would implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an unlawful executive action to effectively legalize the presence of illegal immigrants who had arrived in the United States as children. The Post’s editorial board correctly called it an “unprecedented” move that “flies in the face of congressional intent,” adding that “Republicans’ failure to address immigration . . . does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act.” Even “Saturday Night Live” skewered Obama’s executive action. President Trump was right to reverse Obama’s unconstitutional decision. He had no choice. He also said at the time he supported letting DACA recipients stay, set a deadline of March 5 for a legislative solution and added that he would be willing to give Congress even more time if necessary. “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA,” Trump tweeted on Sept. 5. “If they can’t, I will revisit the issue!” In other words, there was no crisis for DACA recipients. This was, as Obama said when Republicans shut down the government in 2013, a “manufactured crisis” — one that Obama helped manufacture with his broken immigration promises. For once, Democrats were the ones making unreasonable demands. And now Democrats will have to pay the political price. If they don’t like it, they can only blame themselves and Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 1:50 PM, AmishBengalFan said: Umm..... the President does not vote in the Senate. The House passed a budget bill, the Senate failed to do so. The President had nothing to do with the 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans who voted "no" on Friday. Those 49 Senators did that entirely on their own. Knowledge is Power, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 3:34 PM, Jamie_B said: No the President doesnt have a vote in the Senate, but he does set the agenda and also can suggest what he will and will not sign. In fact the word was that Trump was friendly to the idea of signing something until Brietbart news called him out on it. But then you already knew that, so what was the purpose of that reply? 1) Thanks for acknowledging that the President does not vote in the Senate, though that still seems to contradict your original comment about Trump affecting the Senate vote. The only member of the Executive Branch that in any way affects Senate votes is the Vice President, who assumes the role of President of the Senate and only votes in case of a tie. A recent example was when VP Pence cast the 101st vote during the confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. But as I'm sure you know, the President and Vice President are different people. Even if the VP were out of town, the President doesn't get to take his place and vote in case the Senate were to end up deadlocked. 2) Breitbart?? What does that matter? There are 100 Senators (well, 99 since McCain is sick) who vote. 60 yes votes are necessary to pass a budget bill. 51 of the 100 are Republicans, 49 are Democrats, therefore members of both parties must vote in favor to achieve the 60 vote supermajority. The minority party - who this year happen to be the Democrats - cannot pass anything on their own, but they can halt passage of bills requiring a supermajority, such as the budget. This they did by casting 45 votes against passage. That act defeated the measure, and without a budget the government went into shut down. When they came back on Monday, they changed their votes, allowing the Senate to pass the bill 81-18, moving it to the President for his signature. The process is the same whether the President's name is Trump or Obama or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Nixon or Truman or Buchannon or Jefferson.... the Legislative Branch passes bills, the Executive Branch either signs or vetoes. Neither Brietbart, nor Trump, nor ABF, nor you have a say in that process, it is reserved to the elected representatives who vote in the House and Senate. And in the case of last Friday's vote, the 45 Nay votes cast by the Democrats were more than sufficient to defeat the budget bill, and as a direct consequence result in the weekend government shut down. Cause.... effect. 3) You don't know what I know or do not know. Please refrain from anything bordering on ad hominem attacks, it only further weakens your argument. In my debate class in college, the prof used to hammer home the perspective that the first person to attack their opponent rather than their opponent's position immediately loses. I would rather debate matters of fact than your opinion of me. Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Quote Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 1. No the President doesn't have a vote in the Senate however the President does set the agenda in so much as he can suggest what he will and wont approve that comes across his desk, thus if we reach that conclusion he may not have an actual vote but without his implicit approval any vote in the Senate does not matter. (cue schoolhouse rock video intended to be snarky) 2. While I, nor you, nor Brietbart have any say in the actual votes, it would be naive to think public opinion doesn't influence vote, nor campaign donor opinion, nor press opinion. In this case the notion that Brietbart suggesting that Trump is abandoning the part of his base for whom preventing thing like DACA and having a border wall are important, which with the wall was a campaign promise, thus making him pull back on it .... 3. Complains about ad hominem, but is purposefully being disingenuous on points 1 and 2. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted February 7, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politics/government-shutdown-immigration-donald-trump/index.html President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he supports a government shutdown if Democrats won't agree to tighten immigration laws, undercutting ongoing bipartisan negotiations on Capitol Hill. The comment, which came during a White House meeting on the violent MS-13 gang, was not well received in the room. Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Virginia Republican who represents a district with thousands of federal workers, confronted Trump about the remark and urged him to avoid another government shutdown. "If we don't change it, let's have a shutdown," Trump said of the nation's immigration laws. "We'll do a shutdown and it's worth it for our country. I'd love to see a shutdown if we don't get this stuff taken care of." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 God I hate this son of a bitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 What amazes me is that once again, we face a shutdown over something that has nothing to do about the budget. Fuck DACA, any investigation, bullshit filibusters, posturing, and party rhetoric horseshit. Do your damn jobs and pass the budget. Deal with the other issues separately, quit trying to place apples and oranges together and calling it a peach. If the other issues are serious enough to have BOTH SIDES shut down the government, deal with them individually to to give them the attention they deserve. By all means, keep blaming it on one person and hating only that one person. They ALL deserve the hate for how they have fucked up our country. SMDH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Jamie, any speculation on how Trump will cast his 100 votes on the Senate Bill today? I ask, because the logic of your argument seems to be that the Chief Executive is responsible for how all 100 Senators vote (well, 99 since I don't know McCain's status). You laid blame at his feet when Budget Bill failed to get 60 Senators to vote in favor of it. Senators like Donald Trump-Feinstein (D-CA), Donald Trump-Gillibrand (D-NY), Donald Trump-Hirono (D-HI), Donald Trump-Menendez (D-NJ), Donald Trump-Murphy (D-CT), Donald Trump-Sanders (D-VT), Donald Trump-Tester (D-MT), and Donald Trump-Warren (D-MS), all of whom voted NO, resulting in the Government being shut down in January. Source: How Every Senator Voted on the Government Shutdown (NY Times) I presume if it fails again today, you'll be ready to blame him solely and personally for that. But I also presume that you're preparing to heap praise and credit on him for the Bill's passage today if it garners 60+ votes, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Continued disingenuousness huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted February 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/budget-vote-congress-shutdown/index.html What's in the bill? The massive two-year budget deal proposed by Senate leaders Wednesday raises budget caps by $300 billion in the next two years, increases the debt ceiling and offer up more than $80 billion in disaster relief for hurricane-ravaged Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. About $160 billion would go to the Pentagon and about $128 billion to non-defense programs. "Our members who are focused on the military are very happy where we landed with that," Ryan told Hewitt on his radio show in reference to the defense spending caps. The debt ceiling will be raised by the appropriate amount until March 2019. Exact spending would be left to the appropriations committees, but included in the funding is $10 billion to invest in infrastructure, $2.9 billion for child care and $3 billion to combat opioid and substance abuse. The bill also keeps the government running until late March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 17 hours ago, Jamie_B said: Continued disingenuousness huh? I'm trying to keep you on point... >>> The point being your blaming of Trump for a Bill's defeat in the Senate a few weeks ago, and your noticed lack of credit for the passage of a similar Bill in the Senate last night. ... but it seems that you're ignoring that, wishing instead to discuss my motivation for wanting to keep you on point. If you're attempting to deflect by turning this into a discussion of my motives or about some attribute of me as a person, then you're argument has fallen into a logical fallacy. A reminder: Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Quote Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. As stated previously, I would prefer to debate matters of fact than your opinion of me. Would you like to continue to discuss Trump and his Senate voting record, or are you effectively yielding the debate by wanting to change this into a discussion about me? I'm okay with it either way, though if it's the latter please understand that we're done here. All I am really interested in is how the Chief Executive is in any way responsible for how 100 (well, 99) duly-elected Senators cast the votes granted to them by the citizens of their respective states and in accordance with the Constitution. As a duly-sworn member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, I'm keenly and personally invested in this allegation. But if the debate is over because you're conceding the seeming (to me) ill-logic of that position by offering no defense and instead going Ad hominem, that's okay too.... I guess. It would be sad, but at least there would be closure. By the way, I would prefer to think that you just made a simple mistake. You're a valuable member on this site and I would hate to miss seeing your future contributions. It is much easier to forgive a mistake than it is to overlook the taint associated with a potential personal attack rooted in ignorance or maliciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 I actually had never attacked you until you decided to become snarky with the School House Rock nonsense, but I digress.... The original point that I had made that you keep trying to move the goal posts on was that there were 2 bi-partisan bills in the Senate (re: the first shutdown) that were ready to pass had Trump not said he wasn't going to sign them. (If this is not a statement of fact please feel free to point me to a source saying otherwise, because everything I have read said so.) As such I made the comment that the President sets the agenda here, if the Congress sends him a bill (or rather implies that they have a bill ready) that he has told them he will not sign, ipso facto that is his "vote" I'm just unsure as to why you refuse to acknowledge that, if this is an indeed a free exchange of ideas and beliefs and not just you're need to shift blame? I have my thoughts on why I think you are really going down this road, but for the sake of giving you the chance here I'll withhold those thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 I read your previous comments about the President's "intent" to either sign or not sign the budget, based on the content therein delivered to him for signature. But as *I* pointed out, the President was never presented with a Bill for his signature, due to the math that required 60 votes in the Senate for passage. 45 members of the minority party voted NO, effectively halting the entire process. Doesn't matter a whit if the President would or would not have signed that bill, as soon as 41 Senators voted no the entire point was moot. They shut down the Government. And when they returned to the Senate three days later to reverse their votes, the Bill went to the President - and he signed it, which seems to also render your argument moot. What I'm failing to understand is why you are continuing to lay blame at the President's feet for a government shutdown that he was powerless to prevent, while conveniently ignoring the simple mathematics of the voting results within the US Senate. And by extension of your own argument, I am failing to understand why now, with the President having TWICE in the past 4 weeks signed Budget Bills, that you're not crediting him for avoiding a government shutdown. Seems that if he's responsible for failure, he's also responsible for success of the exact same thing. And, for the record, of the two of us you are the only one raising questions about motivation or intent. You stated "But you already knew that, so what was the purpose of that reply?". You stated that I was "purposefully being disingenuous", and then again pulled out the "disingenuous" phrase a third time. Purpose, purposefully, and disingenuous.... these are all calling into question or making assumptions about my motivation. None of them had a single thing do to with Washington, and all of them were ad hominem. I am hoping to pull you back into the debate, a debate that is based on claims that YOU voluntarily made, yet three times you have intentionally drifted off-topic into attacks against the person you're debating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 10, 2018 Report Share Posted February 10, 2018 He didn't get a bill because he told them it was something he would not sign, so yes that matters, and it matters because if he wanted something bipartisan he could have had it done with no shutdown at all. But because he wants to use the DACA thing as a bargaining chip for his border wall, the whole process of having legislation that both sides had compromised on (a feat rare in Washington these days) and would have resolved the DACA issue got derailed. If you can acknowledge that perhaps we can move forward. Because that is the point I was making and when you shift from it to blame the Congress sidestepping this point I am led to believe that yes you are being disingenuous, if I am wrong about that then I apologize and hope you will acknowledge this point. Now as to giving him credit for not having another shutdown, in addition to signing the bill that did come to his office the first time. I'll meet you have way and say for this brief few hours of a shutdown we had yes he did sign the bill that reopened the government this morning (whether the bill is good or bad is for another debate) but no he doesnt get credit for opening the gov back up when it didnt need to be shutdown in the first place had he just agreed to the bi-partisan daca bill. Of course that might lose him votes with a certain segment of his base but i digress..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.