[flagged]
That's the reason why ICE and CBP agents are still collecting paychecks while the rest of DHS is not.
It's actually a bit silly that Republicans, the party of limited government, have been holding up funding the TSA and FEMA because an agency they already overspent on won't get additional dollars. Not very DOGE.
Doesn't that mean statements like "Republicans are working hard to abuse people" are just a long winded way of saying "grr I hate Republicans"? It doesn't matter who's doing the blocking, because your side is always right and Fighting For The People™, and the other side are just obstructionists blocking reasonable reforms?
Funny you're accusing me of derailing the topic when in my initial comment I specifically mentioned I wasn't interested in arguing over the merits of those reforms
>[...] Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms [...]
And for the record, in case you wanted to interpret my refusal of discussing that topic as some sort of sign I'm against them: I'm not. I just believe the topic has been discussed to death and there's no point relitigating it.
To ask why Republicans won’t participate in passing these reforms is not “derailing” the conversation. It speaks to the very heart of the problem, because if they would, we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. The public has made it pretty clear that they don’t like the status quo about how ICE has been operating lately.
You know, prior to this sentence "they" could have referred to either party. After all, the last shutdown was largely because the Democrats were fighting for ACA subsidy extensions, but I guess it's only "playing politics as sport" when you don't agree with the justification?
but yes, I think the result is that we have even less effective governance then we had a year ago. and I find it pretty troubling that the narrative that's being actively reinforced is that we really don't need to bother with the legislative process anymore since they are obviously completely useless
Wait a minute, I'm getting additional information....you're not gonna believe this, but Republicans have been voting for it. I wonder who the holdup is, then....
> In a remarkable 24 hours in Washington, House Republicans snubbed a bipartisan funding deal cut by their own Senate GOP counterparts and instead approved an entirely different plan — prolonging the Department of Homeland Security shutdown.
> Then, they left town.
It's obvious what's happening.
https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/dhs-shutdown-fundin...
It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning
Thune, the republican senate majority leader, was the one that put up the unanimous consent motion.
There were more than just 5 people there. Though it was late at night.
You can't push something through unanimous consent if there's not a quorum. That requires at least 51% of each party to be present.
Now, it's possible they waited until some of the big objectors to the bill fell asleep or left. But, that doesn't really change the fact that Thune pushed this through.
The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call.
I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up.
You are correct. The Speaker of the House is a toady who is held in line in the house by a small cabal of super MAGA people. Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation. His supine nature is also probably the strategy for the “3rd term” loophole.
1. source on the bank account claim?
2. I don't think you need to involve theories that he's being financially blackmailed, when it's pretty clear that Trump has a tight grip over the Republican party, and isn't afraid to attack or back primary challengers for Republicans that he doesn't agree with, eg. Thomas Massie.
The one at CNN is the more interesting one. It says that he has a bank account but isn't required to disclose it "because it isn't an interest bearing account".
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/mike-johnson-finance...
Re: 2: I disagree.