3 ms·

Objectively wrong. They HAD the votes in the Senate. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from employing the nuclear option to fund the wall. A simple maj

Objectively wrong. They HAD the votes in the Senate. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from employing the nuclear option to fund the wall. A simple majority was all they needed. If they wanted to fund the damn wall, they could've funded it. You're right that shutting down the government for 30 days is outlandish, and it falls squarely on Republicans and Trump.

zaroth 8y ago
My understanding is that the so-called “nuclear option” was eliminating the 60-vote threshold only for Federal branch nominees and judicial appointments, not for basic legislation and particularly not the budget. Eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation would destroy a massive part of what makes the Senate the Senate. It is stunningly worse policy than spending $6b on marginally effective border security. But because Republicans didn’t do that, and Dems won’t vote for even $2 of Wall funding the only blame for the current shutdown is to Republicans. Do I understand your logic correctly?
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  No, your understanding was wrong. Please read up before you make claims about voting thresholds. And Republicans have already eliminated said threshold for ramming through a supreme court nomination. I want to get this straight though: Your argument now is that parliamentary procedure was more important for Republicans than building the wall. A wall that they're claiming is a national crisis resulting in widespread issues. Enough of an issue to shut down the government over it. If the wall was vital, then why didn't they employ the nuclear option (as was backed by Donald Trump, obviously) to build the wall. Why are are they, now that the Democrats are in power, demanding a wall be built? And yes, the only party to blame for the current shutdown is in fact, Republicans. They had two years to build a wall. They didn't.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    My previous statement seems to jive with the Wikipedia on the subject. [1] I said Federal and judicial appointments. The Supreme Court is a judicial appointment. Legislation has always been a 60-vote threshold to end debate in the Senate. It’s one of the cornerstones of the Senate. I wouldn’t say Democrats are “in power” now. They took back the House and lost seats in the Senate. But the fact remains they have always needed Democratic votes to get to 60 in the Senate. You say they should have voted it through with just 50 in the Senate. Which by the way they don’t want to do even now. I think that would have far worse long-term effects for the country, and many Democrats and Republicans alike agree. You can obviously believe whatever you like. It’s your opinion, and I’m not trying to change it. My simple observation was that right now, with the House and Senate that we have, with the rules and procedures that have been in place for centuries, both parties are equally capable of funding the govnernment in less than an hour if they decide they want to do it. It will only cost them ~$6b one way or the other. Either party is indisputably capable of ending the shutdown, but both as of yet have chosen not to. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      And my simple observation, one that you seem to keep ignoring, is that they had two years to fund the wall. They had two years of full governmental control to pass a bill which could've allocated all of the funding they wanted for the wall. They could've done it during Reconciliation, they could've invoked the nuclear option, they had multiple opportunities to do so. If you keep reading the wikipedia article you can clearly see that there was nothing stopping them from employing it, outside of a lack of unity on the Republican party side of things. You're effectively saying that Republicans holding the government hostage instead of employing the nuclear option in the past is far less damaging to the country than if they had lifted the parliamentary procedures. This is also ignoring the fact that there has been bipartisan clean CRs which have been outright denied by the Senate. Can you explain why it would've been more damaging to the country than the current shutdown? I would like an actual explanation.
      - zaroth 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago

My understanding is that the so-called “nuclear option” was eliminating the 60-vote threshold only for Federal branch nominees and judicial appointments, not for basic legislation and particularly not the budget. Eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation would destroy a massive part of what makes the Senate the Senate. It is stunningly worse policy than spending $6b on marginally effective border security. But because Republicans didn’t do that, and Dems won’t vote for even $2 of Wall funding the only blame for the current shutdown is to Republicans. Do I understand your logic correctly?

fzeroracer 8y ago
No, your understanding was wrong. Please read up before you make claims about voting thresholds. And Republicans have already eliminated said threshold for ramming through a supreme court nomination. I want to get this straight though: Your argument now is that parliamentary procedure was more important for Republicans than building the wall. A wall that they're claiming is a national crisis resulting in widespread issues. Enough of an issue to shut down the government over it. If the wall was vital, then why didn't they employ the nuclear option (as was backed by Donald Trump, obviously) to build the wall. Why are are they, now that the Democrats are in power, demanding a wall be built? And yes, the only party to blame for the current shutdown is in fact, Republicans. They had two years to build a wall. They didn't.
- zaroth 8y ago
  My previous statement seems to jive with the Wikipedia on the subject. [1] I said Federal and judicial appointments. The Supreme Court is a judicial appointment. Legislation has always been a 60-vote threshold to end debate in the Senate. It’s one of the cornerstones of the Senate. I wouldn’t say Democrats are “in power” now. They took back the House and lost seats in the Senate. But the fact remains they have always needed Democratic votes to get to 60 in the Senate. You say they should have voted it through with just 50 in the Senate. Which by the way they don’t want to do even now. I think that would have far worse long-term effects for the country, and many Democrats and Republicans alike agree. You can obviously believe whatever you like. It’s your opinion, and I’m not trying to change it. My simple observation was that right now, with the House and Senate that we have, with the rules and procedures that have been in place for centuries, both parties are equally capable of funding the govnernment in less than an hour if they decide they want to do it. It will only cost them ~$6b one way or the other. Either party is indisputably capable of ending the shutdown, but both as of yet have chosen not to. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    And my simple observation, one that you seem to keep ignoring, is that they had two years to fund the wall. They had two years of full governmental control to pass a bill which could've allocated all of the funding they wanted for the wall. They could've done it during Reconciliation, they could've invoked the nuclear option, they had multiple opportunities to do so. If you keep reading the wikipedia article you can clearly see that there was nothing stopping them from employing it, outside of a lack of unity on the Republican party side of things. You're effectively saying that Republicans holding the government hostage instead of employing the nuclear option in the past is far less damaging to the country than if they had lifted the parliamentary procedures. This is also ignoring the fact that there has been bipartisan clean CRs which have been outright denied by the Senate. Can you explain why it would've been more damaging to the country than the current shutdown? I would like an actual explanation.
    - zaroth 8y ago