[flagged]
So everything you said above besides “funding is continued at current levels” has nothing to do with why the government was shut down today. It was shut down today because there were not 10 senate democrats that were willing to vote to continue the existing funding even though they chose to continue the funding earlier in the year.
The Senate Republicans could simply get rid of the filibuster and pass it on their own. They won't, because this way they can blame the Democrats.
The Democrats have no power if the Republican Congress won't do their job and make the president obey the law. Blaming the Democrats for this mess is complete bullshit.
They have filibuster power and power when a supermajority is required, like this situation. However, if you want the power afforded to the majority you need to win elections. You can certainly blame them for failing to elect legislative majorities and losing control of the presidency. That’s all on them.
We'll see what happens after the midterms. I don't expect this president to finish his term.
Do you realize that literally what Schumer is trying to do here is to blackmail a political policy on the country that he did not have enough support to get included in the One Big Beautiful Bill right? He is holding government operations hostage because his party lost an election, the majority who were elected passed a bill that was signed into law by Trump that the dems didn’t like.
The democrats are literally trying to thwart democracy with this shutdown and people on here are acting like that’s a good thing?
Not only does it raise our deficit by trillions we actually get negative stuff in return.
We're literally paying people to steal from us. Thats how incredibly shit this legislation is.
People seem to forget that America wanted this. None of this is a surprise and it was all vetted out during the election last year. Dems even warned about some of it, but still America chose it.
Also, the GOP keeps telling people they're good at fiscal policy. They're not. They've put out almost exclusively shit fiscal policy for the past 25 years.
I mean, the last president to even try to lower the deficit was Clinton. But the GOP won't tell you that. They'll just fear monger about the debt ceiling and how evil Democrats burn money.
And then they get into office and somehow manage to write policy so unbelievably shit that we burn EVEN MORE money.
This was a political Pascal’s wager for Trump, win or break even. For the dems there isn’t even a neutral result to forcing the shutdown—it’s just all bad.
McConnell played the ace that Harry Reid passed him. Unconventional and breaking with tradition, of course, but ultimately “advice and consent” meant exactly that. The senate withheld consent for Merrick Garland. There is no doubt that given the opportunity again one day, the dems will do the same thing. Hell, it was their idea.
Depends on who the other side is. Russell Vought doesn't need to answer to voters next Fall. On the other hand, the Republican representative who won a major-thin margin in my district, ousting a Democrat who delivered for their constituents, would very much like something to point at other than a shutdown for their reelection campaign.
Congressional republicans are refusing to govern at the macro scale, by failing to enforce the law against the executive.
Congress has the power of the purse, but Trump has decided that he can just do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and violate the Hatch act. Why should the dems not use a filibuster against a congress that colludes with a criminal?
What other tools do they have to enforce the law?
The dems are choosing to shut down the government that they willingly funded earlier in the year for their reasons.
You may agree with the reasons behind their disagreement with the GOP and the president—but if you are agreeing with their tactics than you are ok with shutting down the government to get them. You and I can disagree on whether or not that is governing. I don’t believe it is, I believe it’s a tantrum that will ultimately backfire on them.
The other tools they have is to primary to find good candidates and win elections. They have chosen to rig and skip primaries to front lousy candidates. They could modify their platform to find issues that wont turn off centrist voters and avoid shedding off those voters who are more interested in the 80 part of the 80/20 issues.
Those reasons are 'The funding congress voted for isn't being spent on the things congress voted for'. They have every right to stop further spending.
> I believe it’s a tantrum that will ultimately backfire on them.
The recent history of the Republican party and Trump is nothing but one political tantrum after another, while they screech from the rooftops about some social wedge 20% distraction issue[1]. If any of that actually caused political blowback from centerist voters, they'd have about 30 seats in the Senate and 180 in the house.
[1] It's interesting that you seem to think that access to healthcare is some pet 20% issue.
Well of course it is. Depends wholly on who that “some” is. Redefining illegal immigrants as legal to gain access to healthcare is definitely on the 20% side of that ratio.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
If someone else on HN is breaking the guidelines, we should flag their comments and move on. If we want discussions on HN to be more curious, we should lead by example.
That's fair, and I've flagged a few here. I don't think the above comment I replied to was flag worthy (having a bad take =/= having bad faith), but I do feel like it's a "borderline" comment that can either end in providing knowledge to someone, or devolving into a flame war.
I just feel kind of icky that I may need to "bait out" a bad faith actor. I'm not trying to "gotcha" someone and flag their account. But I know just having that mentality by itself is a bad way to approach conversation.
At the same time I also want to have have a charitable interpretation first and be able to point out certain points, no matter how seemingly obvious it is. It's an awkward balance.
Sometimes people have a hard time believing that others could be sincere in their positions, because those positions seem so unfamiliar and so far outside credibility. But usually that's just a sign that we don't spend enough time talking to people who think very differently to us.
We hope HN can be one of the better places to do that, but it requires us to come here with a spirit of openness.
And if we misaligned so much that we can't even agree on a point as base as "Do I have a right to exist", then that's when I know it's time to find another community. Those are the kinds of "curiosities" I'd not like to explore at this stage of my life.
Of course if anyone posts comments denying a minority in society's “right to exist”, that user would be banned on HN.
To me, as an independent, it comes off as a childish tantrum by the democrats.
The democrats are drawing a negotiating line at giving people access to healthcare. Quite the tantrum.
Who would make a 'deal' with someone who has refused to honor past deals?
For example, "last time" (March) there were still several months to restore healthcare funding before the open-enrollment calendar period for American healthcare plans.
Compare: "You didn't think filing your income taxes was important when you got an 6-month extension 5.5 months ago!!!111"
Your comment here can be interpreted to mean that because they delayed last time, they must delay this time as well.
And that seems pretty obvious to me, so your question also seems to be in bad faith.
From link below: “Passing a clean CR this week is important for two main reasons: First, passing the CR, of course, will avert a harmful and unnecessary government shutdown. No reasonable member on either side – Democrat or Republican – wants a government shutdown”
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/maj...
Your argument assumes that circumstances & negotiation positions are exactly the same as last time, which is false.
Either that, or you're arguing that Democrats previous position was that shutdowns are never acceptable, which is also false.