U.S Government SHUTDOWN threats
I'm tired of hearing about a Government shutdown just to save the non-existent rights of Illegal Aliens
I'm tired of officials who were elected to represent Americans putting the interests of non-citizens ahead of citizens
I'm tired of listening to the media praise the "valiant efforts" of these traitorous individuals who think they decide on how to enforce immigration laws
Even on the remote chance the government does "shut down" we all know its a meaningless gesture
The President should sign an EO that says in the event of a shutdown to the inactions of Congress, all salaries will be immediately be suspended with NO back pay once its resolved. All offices of elected officials MUST be closed and no staff can be paid or compensated in any way. All courts will be closed as well as the post office, and any other government funded location - all with no pay. These people were elected to do a job, and they need to find a way to negotiate a solution without these threats.Don't know that I would shut down the military, TSA, coast guard or other security functions. But certainly all federal courts and absolutely all of congress. They can work for free until they get the job done and can pay their staff out of their own pocket while they do it.
Either do your job or get out of town.Please help me understand how Congress and the White House can shut down the government when they are under the complete control of one political party.
Watch and see. One states minority party accomplished it by leaving the state so there wouldn't be the necessary quorum for a vote.
What I have read repeatedly is that the so-called Freedom Caucus wing of the Republican Party won't go along with the rest of the party.
If they did, the House would have enough votes to pass a spending bill.Senate needs 60 votes and has only 51 Republicans (2 of which have said they won't vote for it). And it takes both houses to approve any bill.
Yes, I see you are correct about the Senate.
It's also worth pointing out that Senate Republicans and Democrats worked out a bipartisan deal to avoid the shutdown. Trump rejected it.
That's one reason why some Republicans said they are voting in favor of a shutdown.
It's more proof that compromise by both parties is necessary to get things done in Washington.
It will be the first shutdown in U.S. history in which one party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.Admittedly I haven't followed the details as much as I could have. But wasn't that "bipartisan deal" simply to fund govt. for another couple of weeks without ever addressing immigration? Whereupon we can do it all over again in a few days.
Didn't the Right do the same thing back in 2013? What goes around.........
A good excuse for continuing the madness, isn't it? "Well they did it so I'll do it, too! It takes remarkable intelligence to see something stupid and wrong and then repeat it because "They did it to me!" - it's what I hear from my younger grandchildren when they get to squabbling.
That's the children in politics. I said it back then when Boehner did the same thing. You play my way or we don't play. In my hub. They will never grow up and we just keep voting for the same children.
Yet, many times when we criticize Trump you guys say" Well Hillary did this and Obama did that". You can't have it both ways as I was trying to point out with my comment.
You're comparing the reactions of a population to perceived wrong doing and politicians actually doing something stupid?
What is the connection? Or is it just apples and oranges with a side blow at those that disagree with you?A side blow at those who disagree with me, of course.
I didn't agree with it then and I don't agree with it now, regardless of which party is pulling the strings
Remember when Obama couldn't even get a Supreme Court nominee up for a vote because the Cons controlled congress? Payback is hell as you may know. The party of NO is on the other side now guys. And it will be even more so after the mid terms. What goes around....
I say to the rightwinger and GOP controlled Congress, "too bad". The stupid GOP should have realized that there would be a penalty for their obstruction during the Obama Administration. Why should I forgive? The Right should have thought about that before...
You can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP will be blamed for whoever has their salaries and benefits curtailed, and that is great!Same comment as before:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/144 … ost2937562
The intelligence exhibited by such childish behavior is astounding.Do you expect the Dems to give the Cons a break after preventing Obama his Supreme Court nomination? Dream on, Trumpsters. Did y'all hear about the transcript released by the House Intel committee today? Money laundering is a possibility between the Trump organization and the Russians. The stench is great...
The Peewee Herman approach again? It's on the same maturity level as Congress is showing.
Tit for tat only emboldens the populace to be more and more anti Washington. You see what that got us in the last election?I didn't vote for the buffoon and don't encourage him either. The morons who think Fox News is really a "news" show is to thank for that. I never realized how many gullible people there were in this country until DT was elected.
That's all well and good Randy. But our government,and those who support this continuing lack of leadership and statesmanship, may regret these missed opportunities some day.
So, our Dems should let the Repubs play nasty with no consequences? That Supreme Court move by the GOP was not acceptable. We elected Obama and that Supreme Court appointment was his choice to make. If my Democratic senators rolled over now after that monumentally disgusting move, I'd be pissed.
I know, I know. You want your happy dance.
My happy dance has nothing to do with this subject, but I see you enjoy mentioning it whenever you can. I'm happy to have given you something to say. I have no doubt Trump will give me and my husband our happy dance.
It is my wish,too, that Trump gives you guys a happy dance. No one should be so unhappy.
I don't expect it at all. But it would be really, really nice to see congress doing it's job instead of fighting in the sandbox.
So if the Dems give in this time is there any guarantee the Cons won't pull the same crap next time? Of course not. They've already played the nuclear option card to get their way and would bitch like hell if the Left had done the same. Do you disagree with that?
Perhaps they will. And that, of course, means the left should do it first, right?
With that kind of attitude it's no wonder we have the congress we do.The Right did it first, Dan. What is the left supposed to do, simply get screwed over by the right once more? Really, what choice has the left? Be nice and hope the right does what it has never done? Yep, I expected such......
LOL I can only repeat: "With that kind of attitude it's no wonder we have the congress we do."
Immature and yes, stupid, children squabbling in their sandbox. Children that care for nothing outside their power base and certainly not for America or its people. Sad, isn't it, that we have so many people that will support such childish and harmful actions solely out of a misguided desire for vengeance. Bad enough that the children on the Hill do it, but that others actually support them is truly pathetic.
Hello Randy. Ginko Biloba is on sale on Amazon.
"They've already played the nuclear option card to get their way and would bitch like hell if the Left had done the same."
The Democrats were the first to use the "Nuclear Option" in 2013. The Republican's use of it was only to modify the Democrat's 2013 ruling. So who is doing the bitching?
GAWhat was that for, GA? Obamacare? How do you plead with Mitch holding up all of Obama's judicial nominations, including SCOTUS? Should the left let that slide? Seriously.
Maybe, at some point, we will have statesmen, and women, who put the public ahead of party. That will be a day of celebration.
You can look up what it was for Randy, the point was that it appeared you forgot the Democrats were the first, (in our national history?), to invoke the Nuclear option. And that the Republican's use of it was only to modify the Dems 2013 Nuclear option rule.
Considering the ideological importance of Supreme Court Justice appointments, would you think the Democrats would not have done the same thing? Not as a matter of revenge or obstruction, but as a matter of preserving or furthering an ideology?
As another has said, you appear to be okay with placing revenge ahead of country. You aren't even attempting to position your approval as an ideological stance - just payback!.
GAGawd, man, you are just as bad as Wilderness.
"Considering the ideological importance of Supreme Court Justice appointments, would you think the Democrats would not have done the same thing? Not as a matter of revenge or obstruction, but as a matter of preserving or furthering an ideology?"
But the point is is that they have not done the same thing. What McConnell did was unacceptable, and if you can actually excuse it then your purple leans much more toward the Red. Why not admit it, you are mostly conservative type with a mild persona? The only group that HAS done it has been the GOP. I thought that 'playing in the sandbox' meant not attending to the people's business and promoting ones own ideology instead and the country be damned. Is that not what the GOP did from 2009-17? I don't even see an evenhanded approach regarding the error of both parties. It is just that everybody expects the Democrats to sacrifice their ideological principles for this "good of the country" stuff, when it never entered the minds of the disgusting Republicans to behave the same way when Obama was in charge. I don't think that going along with Trump and GOP reactionary nonsense is for the good of the country and fortunately, neither does the Democratic Party.
So, either we all stay out of the sandbox or everybody goes in, is that fair enough?
So, in regards to any of the effluent that consistently emanates from the right, I don't want to hear it....Great idea! Lets all get out of the sandbox and report to work, doing what adults do and complete our work to the best of our ability.
Or do we need to wait for just "one more", "final", act of revenge? So that, you know, the Democrats can avenge the last childish action (or whatever excuse you can find)? Don't worry - we'll all pretend it is the adult thing to do, that it isn't childish at all and won't hurt the country or the people to do it "just one more time".
(Want to bet I can't guess which way you'll jump - go to work or "just one more time"?)We progressives have our idea of what is "for the good of the country", lets see if rightwingers can find any peace with that reality and work with our groups together in compromise? The GOP control the executive and both houses of Congress, they should take the initiative, will they?
And closing government offices, disrupting lives and paying millions of people not to work is "good for the country". You know, with just a little encouragement I could believe the far left libs actually DO think that way! Certainly you've made enough excuses to do it again...
(Do you remember the last time it was shut down? Obama went to great effort to close the things that cause the most disruption to the most lives, like the national mall in DC that ruined the once per year vacations for thousands of families and the closure of parkland that illegally kept people from their personal holdings within the borders of the park?)Blaming Obama again are we? Seems like I remember the GOP threatening Government shutdown over Obamacare and the national debt increase, 2011, where was all the high minded thinking then? The GOP HAD better be willing to seriously compromise, if we are to avoid more of the sand box that has got your drawers in a bunch.....
LOL The only thing I blamed Obama for was making the shutdown as painful as possible to as many people as possible without costing anyone any actual cash (except the taxpayer that footed the bill for millions being paid for not working). To make it as visible as possible in a political ploy to cause political pain.
Which I'm positive you understood...you just don't to talk about the childishness of playing "It's OK because he did it first!" when that game hurts only the innocent. I got it, loud and clear.
I have noticed that my Purple does get a fever now and then Randy. Mostly it depends on the issue. And on this one, my aura is more Red than Purple. Of course I don't like the idea of either side packing the court, but I accept that it is our reality. So, if the Court must reflect value interpretations, then I want it packed to reflect my views and not yours.
To me, blocking Pres. Obama's last Court appointment was legitimate politics, not sandbox antics of revenge or obstruction. There were a lot of other Republican efforts that were, in my opinion, pure obstruction tactics, but I don't view this action as one of them.
As a side note, I don't think your folks have not done it only because the circumstance didn't present itself to them - not because of their moral superiority.
GAGA, one of the bases people use to choose a presidential candidate is by what type of judges he or she might appoint. If the people voted for Obama, then during his term he should get to nominate judges and those nominees should get proper consideration. The GOP taking away that long-standing privilege was, in my mind, unconscionable. It went beyond politics as usual. To take away the voters' wishes by denying their chosen president proper consideration of his appointments is despicable. Our system is set up so that presidents will submit a candidate that will pass muster with both parties. The GOP cannot get away with stealing our chosen president's right without consequences.
"GA, one of the bases people use to choose a presidential candidate is by what type of judges he or she might appoint."
A true statement. Also one of the saddest things you can say about our country; that ideology and party affiliation rather than law is what drives the most important court in the land and thereby "justice" itself.
I agree with your perspective PrettyPanther - up to the point about taking away a long-standing privilege being unconscionable.
In a collision of circumstances that might be described as "a Perfect Storm;" the timing, the control of the Senate, and the mood of a large segment of the American public, I don't see it as unconscionable, I see it as the legitimate politics of a democratic-process government.
"Chosen" presidents are often denied courses that their electors wanted. That is the nature of the beast. President Obama's nomination did not pass the muster of both parties.
The Constitution says they didn't steal any of President Obama's Rights, it says a defined constitutional process was followed. And the purpose of that process was validated.
GA
"I have noticed that my Purple does get a fever now and then Randy. Mostly it depends on the issue. And on this one, my aura is more Red than Purple. Of course I don't like the idea of either side packing the court, but I accept that it is our reality. So, if the Court must reflect value interpretations, then I want it packed to reflect my views and not yours."
Yes, that is obvious. So, it is natural for me to have the same Blue view regarding who I want in the court. The sitting president has the right to appoint and the senate confirm within a reasonable time. This is always the way it has been done and for the GOP to deny the President the right to his Constitutional obligation is more than "just packing the court". Also, while you may THINK that the Dems would have done the same thing, my point that the fact that the GOP DID do it is far more compelling evidence of my point. Doing what McConnell did is far from legitimate politics, just like you seem to go along with GOP gerrymandering and vote suppression as political fair game. But, is that only true when it is your side against the other? Do you have any principle that say that certain lines are not be crossed?
There is only side that committed the outrage, the other you can only speculate over.Hold on there Cred, don't pollute your point with assertions you can't prove, (and are beside the point to boot).
I am certain you have never heard me speak in favor of Gerrymandering. I think it is a sleazy act that breaks the spirit, (and I am not sure it doesn't break the laws), of our Constitution, and one of the foundations of our national structure. regardless of which party does it. I strongly, (you hear that Ethel, Stongly!), condemn it. I think I have been hearing about a recent N. Carolina, (maybe South?), court ruling against some of that state's Gerrymandering of districts - a ruling I would applaud. So there, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! ;-)
As for voter suppression - the only point I can think of that you might be referring to, (regarding me), would be our discussions about Voter ID programs. And yes, I am in favor of them. As I recall, our conversations on that subject usually ended with you being much less confident they automatically qualified as voter suppression, than when you started the conversation. Hmm... Maybe one of us should do a forum archive search.
Now, let me pour another martini and refer you to my response to PrettyPanther regarding the first point of your comment. It is the same response I would offer you.
But, I will offer this one correction to your point. The president does have the Right to offer the appointment, but he does not have a Right to have it confirmed. If so, then there would be no need for the Constitution to include that part of the process.
And one clarification. I do have principles that dictate some lines that may not be crossed, You have just crossed one of them.
GA
.
McConnell's blocking of Obama's nominations and keeping the SCOTUS seat in Republican hands has already paid dividends on the Gerrymandering issue in North Carolina and other states. The cons redrew the district lines so with only 53% of the votes they received 10 out of the 13 NC districts. The con who redrew the lines admitted he though the cons would run the state better that the Dems.
The SCOTUS apparently agreed with him..... Hope you're proud of your party, GA!LOL With less than 50% of the vote, Trump smashed his way to victory in something like 90% of the counties in the country.
This shows the gerrymandering worked for the Con party. You prove my point for me, Dan. Thanks.
LOL When the R's can gerrymander very nearly ever county in the nation you have a REAL problem. Best just give it up; the obvious and massive corruption of evil conservatives has already won.
But, realistically, it does show that without a major population center in the area, the Dem's are going to lose and sometimes even with a large city. So is it really surprising that 53% of the vote picked up 10 of 13 areas? You didn't say, but I'm going to assume the independents, the tea party, etc. picked up a few percentage points as well, leaving your party with more like 40 or 45%. Which means they lose.Apparently you don't know how the districts were redrawn, Dan. Six other states faced similar problems which may have turned the tide in Trump's favor. Of course, you're probably okay with that since you trust Trump and don't care if he was in cahoots with the Russians like many from your side.
You and Jack, two peas....You're right - not a clue how they were drawn. Doubt you do, either.
But for presidential elections, I'd be happy to see the residents of a state taken as a whole to determine that state's vote. And for federal legislators, common vote of the entire state. No need for districts at all. Yes, I know that states like California and New York will produce nothing but blue votes - anyone not living in LA or San Francisco may as well not vote at all, but it's almost that bad anyway. Oregon is a good example; one small corner went blue, the whole rest of the state is red, but it is one of the more liberal states because of that one corner and they force their views on everyone else.I think I must be missing something here Wilderness.
First, was that just a slip-up; "... California and New York will produce nothing but red votes...?" Should that have been Blue?
Secondly, are you saying you don't see the need for districts in the election to the House of Representatives? Just a mass slate for all state voters to vote on?
The principles behind district representation are so basic I am certain I must be misunderstanding your point.
GAOops! I plead the time of day (bedtime) and the onset of senility on the red/blue thing. And I edited that change now, so everyone else will be confused.
Actually, I'd better plead the same on the House as well - I was thinking of the Senate only.
I guess you haven't heard about the latest, the 51st state, New California? Conservatives never give up on trying to turn to a solidly progressive state to the "dark side".
You're referring to those folks away from the anthills? That really have no representation in their state government? The ones like the ones at that tea party so many years ago?
If I lived in California I'd want a split in the state too. Or just move out of it - the embarrassment of living in a sanctuary state that was ruining itself with that policy alone would kill me.
Oops, maybe I better check out that ruling Randy. I just responded to Credence2 regarding it. I thought the court went against the Republican Gerrymandering. I even did a little 'Happy Dance' I am sorry to hear you say it went the other way.
Unless you are as wrong about that as you are about the Republicans being my party.
GAI just read today the SCOTUS turned the suit down, GA. Another reason to be angry at the Cons for preventing Obama from appointing a Supreme Court judge as he had a right to. What do you suggest the Dems do to remedy this?
It looks like it might not be completely bad news Randy, for the long run, if not for 2018 mid-terms.. It appears it was only a stay order while an appeal is heard.
Unfortunately it might not help the 2018 elections, but at least it is not a complete shut-down of the challenge - yet.
GAGood to know, GA. I don't like gerrymandering to decide the outcome of any race no matter the party. I really do not understand why this is permitted at all.
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago
0For the record, I want them to work together and get it done. The compromise was worked out but squashed by the administration. So much for Trump's deal masking skills. "I make the best deals"
What a clown. Seriously, folks, it just seem like we talk about Congress acting like grown ups only when it is the democrats that are to make concessions, where were all of you conservative types when this was going on during Obama's administration from the Republican side? Not a peep? Right? That makes me pretty angry as YOU people have no right to speak at all. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your viewpoints?
Speak for yourself: I haven't seen anyone saying the R's have the right to shut down the govt., that they should or that it was OK when they did it.
I just see the left saying it's great that they can get revenge by causing harm to the country and the people. Perhaps we should expect lawmakers to play stupid games when their constituency encourages it.
I wondered when the bitching from the Right would start when the Left began giving them a taste of their own medicine. Now it's all "lets work together" and "please don't play dirty tricks like we did." Hilarious!
Related Discussions
- 148
The Government Shutdown
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a...
- 23
Federal Websites Being Shutdown... Possible, but unlikely, broken...
by x 10 years ago
...links. (Forum title parameters too short)I just stumbled across this: "Unfortunately, the FTC is closed due to the government shutdown."Let's start a collection. Who else can find a shutdown federal website? Plus, any other pithy comments you may have concerning this shutdown mess, and...
- 37
Trump Suggests Government Shutdown Could Last for ‘Months or Years
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Trump wants 5.6B for his wall and he is willing to shutdown the government for an extended period of time. If the government is shutdown for an extended period of time, that means he doesn't get his 5.B for however long the government is shutdown. How does that help him get his...
- 21
The Government Shutdown...
by J Conn 6 years ago
What's your take?Here's how I see it. Both sides are playing politics right now. By allowing CHIP to run out and Trump rescinding DACA, that gave the GOP bargaining in legislation. The Dems are using the budget to offset those. Neither side is doing right. Messing with...
- 63
Government shutdown
by Kathleen Cochran 5 months ago
There are two ways to increase our revenue stream. Spend less - usually impacting the most vulnerable among us - and increase taxes - usually impacting the least vulnerable among us. Which choice says who we are as Americans?
- 16
Government Shutdown
by Judy Specht 8 years ago
The government shuts down every Friday and remains shut until Monday morning. It shuts down for holidays. The House and Senate shut down for long vacations and the country carries on. Is a government shutdown really frightful?