The GOP have a majority in Congress yet are still blaming the Democrats

[essguy_]

The GOP have a majority in the Senate, therefore they could have stopped the shutdown. People are forgetting the so called nuclear option which Trump used to get Gorsuch's nomination through the Senate (also Obama used it too, so Trump has a ready excuse). There are two reasons why the GOP did not use this. 1. The GOP establishment is worried that they will lose their Senate majority, so don't want to change the rules for this which would allow the Democrats to "abuse" it.
2. Trump will use this shutdown as an excuse to try to get public support to change the Senate rules so that a simple majority will be enough in future votes (which is why if you look at Trump's history of utterances re: Govt shutdowns, he has called them "great" in the past because the blame-game could be used to change the rules.

This is another example where what Trump says and has thought in the past and what the GOP establishment want is at odds.

Lastly, and as others have pointed out - the Jan 19th deadline was written in the sand with plenty of time for the GOP to horse trade to get the necessary number of right leaning Democrats on board. AND, the irony which will be lost on the Trump base, is that this is a "partial" govt shutdown. Why "Partial"? Because the Trump Administration is asking (forcing) some Govt workers to show up and work for NO PAY. So after giving a tax break worth billions to corporations (who filtered down crumbs in the form of one time bonuses) the Govt of the richest country in the world has run out of money (because the Continuence Bill expired which allowed the Govt to spend money it doesn't have - which didn't prevent the GOP from giving Corporations the tax breaks which the swamp wanted).

 

[oldjones]

Here's my naive question: How does assigning blame for not co-operating (after the deadline or before) accomplish the governing of the country that every single one of them swore a solemn oath that they would put before all other concerns?

If co-operation is required — and everyone has said so — then you co-operate. Now. Waiting for the other guy in no way qualifies. Uslessly calling the other guy names just makes him resist harder, and most definitely is gratifying your own lowest instincts rather than any version of the country's interests.

 

[MattRoxx]

Hope it ruins Trump's $250,000 ticket party tomorrow night.

Also, Republicans (and Kushner for some strange reason) are going to the Davos WEF to talk about how great America is operating under Trump Awkward.

 

[Frankfooter]

And speaking of Twitter, I guess you missed the Project Veritas undercover work in Twitterland. it's shocking and it should concern you!

Project Veritas?
That's been exposed as faking stories.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/project-veritas-lawsuit-democrats-324976

Of course Trump has also funded them, he is king of the fake news.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-donat...ganization-tried-trick-washington-post-723888

Only despots rely on faked news stories.

 

[Aardvark154]

The GOP . . . [could have completely changed the rules and imposed] the so called nuclear option.

However the Senate rules have since the beginning been set up to supposedly ensure a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives.

What Senator Schumer has done is precisely what he railed against for years when he demanded "clean" budget bills.

 

[Aardvark154]

Here's my naive question: How does assigning blame for not co-operating (after the deadline or before) accomplish the governing of the country that every single one of them swore a solemn oath that they would put before all other concerns?

If co-operation is required — and everyone has said so — then you co-operate. Now. Waiting for the other guy in no way qualifies. Uslessly calling the other guy names just makes him resist harder, and most definitely is gratifying your own lowest instincts rather than any version of the country's interests.

It has for years been the demand of the Democratic Congressional Leadership that there be "clean" budget bills. They got a "clean" budget bill and voted against it.

 

[mandrill]

It has for years been the demand of the Democratic Congressional Leadership that there be "clean" budget bills. They got a "clean" budget bill and voted against it.

Because they didn't like what was in the "clean" budget bill????..... The NERVE of them to stand up for their principles!

The US has achieved what it has been striving for since Reagan was elected in 1980 - a totally polarized country wherein different regions vote overwhelmingly for different parties. Thus is created a system where the respective parties are under no political pressure to compromise or find common ground. I can be a Mississippi Republican, sign on to the Freedom Caucus and be as crazy and extreme in my views as I wish, for I know that no Democrat will ever unseat me. And it is unlikely that any NY or CA elected Democrat will share the same belief system, value priorities or attitudes as the MS GOP senator in my example.

As long as the US is this polarized, things are going to get worse, not better. Look forward to MANY government shut downs and senatorial stand-offs to come. The US is going to become as dysfunctional as 18th Century Poland and will likely crash and burn as dramatically.

 

[Aardvark154]

Because they didn't like what was in the "clean" budget bill????..... The NERVE of them to stand up for their principles!

Actually no, because they wanted to attach a rider to the bill. They had no objections to the bill itself.


The second two paragraphs of your post are pretty much spot on.

 

[oldjones]

It has for years been the demand of the Democratic Congressional Leadership that there be "clean" budget bills. They got a "clean" budget bill and voted against it.

Because they and the other guys let things come down to arm-wresting on a plank over the alligator pit as the only way to get things done.

They long ago — both of them — gave up on any reasonable version of considering each other's 'clean' bills on anything in favour of using every possible technicality and advantage to 'win' for themselves. Which makes losers of the other guys, and of everyone who chose them as their representatives in Washington.

It means the country lost. And will continue to lose until a real dealmaker comes on the scene, Someone who can put things in terms like, "We'll give you this, if you'll give us that" instead of. "Oh yeah? Well my button's big enough to shut down the whole damn country!"

 

[Anbarandy]

It was funny seeing Jim Acosta ask the same thing.

CNN’s Jim Acosta schooled by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.

That is hilarious Kathleen, but not for the reasons I believe you would find it hilarious.

Trump stated on national TV that he will sign anything that the Dems and Repubs agreed upon to pass the funding bill. He also emphatically stated that he will take THE HEAT!!

Well, guess what?

Graham and Durbin had such a deal and Trump agreed to it over the phone.

Two hours later they went to the WH and Trump reneged on his previous agreement as he was convinced by Kelly, Miller and 5 hard line Repubs. that the heat he would receive from his base was going to be just too damn HOT.

The man is not "the Deal Maker" and especially not "The Heat Taker", he is just a bowl of jelly who jiggles around whenever shaken, even if shaken just a wee tiny bit.

Blame rests solely on Trump for this predicament

 

[MattRoxx]

It was funny seeing Jim Acosta ask the same thing.

CNN’s Jim Acosta schooled by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.

Acosta wasn't schooled. Mulvaney didn't even answer the simple question put to him, he pivoted and avoided it.

 

[essguy_]

However the Senate rules have since the beginning been set up to supposedly ensure a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives.

What Senator Schumer has done is precisely what he railed against for years when he demanded "clean" budget bills.

Aardvark - it’s really bad form to change a quote without pointing out where you changed it. You added words which simply aren’t true. The nuclear option is a procedural tactic which is already in place and has been used twice in the past 5 years, the last time by Trump. What it would change is the super majority rule for votes on future Continuing Resolutions. The GOP establishment doesn’t want that. Trump does, but he simply does what he’s told.

Anyway, political theatre doesn’t get much better than this, but the Democrats are not taking full advantage of it (IMO), which is odd. They should be on every news channel highlighting that Gov’t workers are being furloughed because Trump flip flopped. More importantly, they should be highlighting how the tax bill has sent hundreds of billlions to rich Corporations who have only filtered crumbs to a few select workers. Meanwhile the Govt has run out of money and some Gov’t workers are being asked to work for free. And the cherry on top is Trump’s $6 figure/invite anniversary celebration at his own resort (once again, at great expense to the US Taxpayer). Let them eat cake, right Don?

 

[Aardvark154]

Aardvark - it’s really bad form to change a quote without pointing out where you changed it.

That is what the use of brackets is for[], everything inside of them is not in the original quotation.

 

[Butler1000]

Because they didn't like what was in the "clean" budget bill????..... The NERVE of them to stand up for their principles!

The US has achieved what it has been striving for since Reagan was elected in 1980 - a totally polarized country wherein different regions vote overwhelmingly for different parties. Thus is created a system where the respective parties are under no political pressure to compromise or find common ground. I can be a Mississippi Republican, sign on to the Freedom Caucus and be as crazy and extreme in my views as I wish, for I know that no Democrat will ever unseat me. And it is unlikely that any NY or CA elected Democrat will share the same belief system, value priorities or attitudes as the MS GOP senator in my example.

As long as the US is this polarized, things are going to get worse, not better. Look forward to MANY government shut downs and senatorial stand-offs to come. The US is going to become as dysfunctional as 18th Century Poland and will likely crash and burn as dramatically.

Watching Smerconish this morning he had on three presidential historians. It was a good show and one of them made a great point.

The USA has been divided since the Civil War. And only twice in History United.

December 7th 1941
September 11th 2001

And has on numerous occasions dating back to Jackson and up to Carter elected populous candidates and outsiders.

The parties need a wake up.

 

[Butler1000]

That is hilarious Kathleen, but not for the reasons I believe you would find it hilarious.

Trump stated on national TV that he will sign anything that the Dems and Repubs agreed upon to pass the funding bill. He also emphatically stated that he will take THE HEAT!!

Well, guess what?

Graham and Durbin had such a deal and Trump agreed to it over the phone.

Two hours later they went to the WH and Trump reneged on his previous agreement as he was convinced by Kelly, Miller and 5 hard line Repubs. that the heat he would receive from his base was going to be just too damn HOT.

The man is not "the Deal Maker" and especially not "The Heat Taker", he is just a bowl of jelly who jiggles around whenever shaken, even if shaken just a wee tiny bit.

Blame rests solely on Trump for this predicament

Trump is partially to blame. But the partisan distinction existed long before his election. Do you really think anyone can get a clean bill through without acrimony and brinkmanship?

That's silly. Both sides are always spoiling for a fight.

 

[bver_hunter]

Trump is fully to blame. He has always believed that the President should be ultimately held responsible for the shut down, so this should be no exception. When the bipartisan committee came up with compromise on DACA, Trump is the one who vetoed it. Now McConnell is still trying to criticize the Democrats for the shut down. He should try to get the president to accept a compromise on DACA rather just call these immigrants "illegals" as if they are criminals for being brought into the USA when they were ten year olds and younger.

 

[oldjones]

Watching Smerconish this morning he had on three presidential historians. It was a good show and one of them made a great point.

The USA has been divided since the Civil War. And only twice in History United.

December 7th 1941
September 11th 2001

And has on numerous occasions dating back to Jackson and up to Carter elected populous candidates and outsiders.

The parties need a wake up.

I hope you think I helped you convey that very important point: There's something in the American political process that makes them rather bring on a horribly bloody war they might well lose, than compromise or find common ground, if it means they have to 'give up' or 'surrender' anything.

The only acceptable compromise — since the ill-named Missouri Compromise — is one they win.

 

[Frankfooter]

Trump is partially to blame.

Trump is totally to blame, there was a deal made and his hard core advisers told him not to take it.
Its the shithole shutdown.

 

[Aardvark154]

Trump is totally to blame, there was a deal made and his hard core advisers told him not to take it.
Its the shithole shutdown.

This, however, is the view being presented by the opposing side, hence its voracity is open to question.

 

[Aardvark154]

Watching Smerconish this morning he had on three presidential historians. It was a good show and one of them made a great point.

The USA has been divided since the Civil War. And only twice in History United.

December 7th 1941
September 11th 2001

And has on numerous occasions dating back to Jackson and up to Carter elected populous candidates and outsiders.

The parties need a wake up.

I'd argue that it was only really during the "Era of Good Feelings" (1812–1825) which I believe could be arguably be pushed all the way to the 1840's that there was a less than polarized U.S. political system. (This because of the collapse of the Federalist Party, the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the weakness of the Whig Party during this period).

However, I'd certainly agree with anyone who said that the U.S. is at one of its most politicized points since the 1850's.