Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Why not phrase it as "The Republican-controlled Congress is blocking things by not presented a bill amenable to a supermajority of the Senate"?

Both are obviously factual, as you say.

60 votes are needed to pass so we can agree both parties are at fault when it comes to any individual bill. But the last time Democrats negotiated a bill Trump decided to simply not appropriate the funds Congress passed. Something no passed president has ever done. Republicans are responsible for creating the environment where legislation passed can be selectively implemented

The party in charge generally decides the content of the bills they choose to vote on.

It's the party in charge that wrote a bill they knew that no Democrats could accept.

And last time we had this same standoff, Democrats held a majority and Republicans were blamed for not "getting in line". Can't have it both ways guys...

In the shutdown of december 2018, Trump was president and republicans held a majority in both the house and senate.

It’s not factual that democratic senators are blocking the bill. Republicans have a majority in both houses and can pass the bill at any time.

Budget resolutions require 60 votes to pass, so they really can’t. But they know that and their refusal to negotiate is blocking it. Dems are doing what’s best for their constituents by not voting for a budget that would skyrocket healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Meanwhile the GOP is spreading misinformation that Dems want to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants, who have NEVER been eligible for it.

Budget resolutions for quite some time have used the reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority (but imposes some restrictions). The problem is that they shoved through the “OBBBA” using the process intended for the budget, and now it’s no longer available. You can only use the process once per year per subject (spending, revenue, debt limit), and the OBBBA used up all three.

There is no law requiring 60 votes. Only a senate rule, which can be overturned with 51 votes.

The Republicans have 53 votes. They need 60. They got 55.

They need 50 + Vance. They can change the rules for the funding vote to only require a simple majority, they've elected not to. If they did this, the shutdown would be over. Alternatively, since they're just 5 Democratic votes away they could have offered some compromise to sway a few more Democrats than they got (they only got two so far). They don't need to win the entire party over, just enough.

not true, they do not have a super majority in the Senate and need a handful of Democrats to vote with them to achieve the 60 votes they need.

that said, somehow the Democrats always find Republicans to compromise with them when they have a simple majority, so I do not know why it is so hard for the Republicans to soften their demands enough to peel off some moderates to vote with them

There is no law requiring 60 votes. Only a senate rule, which can be overturned with 51 votes.

Because they’re in a cult. I mean this as an actual functional explanation. Compromise in the modern GOP is seen as disloyalty and you will immediately come into the crosshairs of literally the biggest bully on the planet and his hordes of enablers.

Speaking in first person does feel like impersonation and completed speech though

The question is not if Democrat senators stopped the bill from passing. Republicans have 53 seats and needed 60 votes.

The question is if the Democrats were justified in doing it. Right now there is a lot of double speak going on.

Ultimately this dynamic always works out the same way. The minority party caves because they have no leverage.

No actually the Republicans blocked the Democratic bill:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_dem...

(See, we can both play stupid games!)

Whether it's factual in content is irrelevant, the purpose for communicating this particular fact is clearly partisan and political. It's also a fact that Donald J. Trump has been impeached twice by Congress and indicted on criminal charges four times. Yet adding those particular facts to every government communication would be a partsian, political act.

It's deliberately incomplete. You can be completely factual and, simultaneously, intentionally deceiving.

You realize that a sentence can be both factual and misleading, right?

“Unfortunately, Senators have not agreed on the terms to pass HR 5371 leading to a lapse in appropriations.”

Wouldn’t something like this still be factual, informative, and-importantly-NOT misleading?

And yet even here it's not entirely factual -- the correct term is Democratic Senators. "Democrat" is a shortening often used for partisan purposes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com