5 ms·

It takes 60 senate votes to pass the resolution. There are not 60 GOP senate votes. Regarding the resolution, the senate minority can control passage or not i

It takes 60 senate votes to pass the resolution. There are not 60 GOP senate votes. Regarding the resolution, the senate minority can control passage or not if they have at least 40 votes. 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.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Sure. They vote to continue, and then the president cut what he wanted out of it anyway. 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.
- kcplate 1y ago
  > The Democrats have no power 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.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    You keep saying a supermajority is required, when it simply isn't. There is nothing in the constitution or law that requires it. It is simply a custom that the Senate has done it in the past. But it has also been a custom that the president faithfully executes the laws that Congress passes, which this administration doesn't. We'll see what happens after the midterms. I don't expect this president to finish his term.
    - kcplate 1y ago
      > …supermajority is required, when it simply isn’t… It’s the rule they use, are you advocating here for the GOP to use some sort of rule change “nuclear option” to push through the CR? Pretty sure the GOP saw (and warned against) that sort of thing back in 2013. The current makeup of the Supreme Court should give your pause about these “just change the rule” notions. 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?
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        They may not be in the majority, but they won their seats in their own elections which gives them their own power. This era is defined by realpolitik and might-makes-right use of official power. Democrats wielding their (again, legitimate) power to extract maximum leverage to thwart the agenda of the opposing party is exactly how Mitch McConnell played politics. If you're upset about this and claim it's thwarting democracy, then we can have a conversation about replacing Gorsuch with Garland.
        kcplate 1y ago
        Oh I am not upset about it, as I said elsewhere that it was their prerogative to do it which is why the dems own it. I think it’s a bad/stupid strategy, because for a shutdown to be a threat, the other side needs to not want it at all. Russell Vought is salivating over this to cut jobs, Schumer knows this (which is why he caved in March). 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.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago

Sure. They vote to continue, and then the president cut what he wanted out of it anyway. 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.

kcplate 1y ago
> The Democrats have no power 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.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  You keep saying a supermajority is required, when it simply isn't. There is nothing in the constitution or law that requires it. It is simply a custom that the Senate has done it in the past. But it has also been a custom that the president faithfully executes the laws that Congress passes, which this administration doesn't. We'll see what happens after the midterms. I don't expect this president to finish his term.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    > …supermajority is required, when it simply isn’t… It’s the rule they use, are you advocating here for the GOP to use some sort of rule change “nuclear option” to push through the CR? Pretty sure the GOP saw (and warned against) that sort of thing back in 2013. The current makeup of the Supreme Court should give your pause about these “just change the rule” notions. 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?
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      They may not be in the majority, but they won their seats in their own elections which gives them their own power. This era is defined by realpolitik and might-makes-right use of official power. Democrats wielding their (again, legitimate) power to extract maximum leverage to thwart the agenda of the opposing party is exactly how Mitch McConnell played politics. If you're upset about this and claim it's thwarting democracy, then we can have a conversation about replacing Gorsuch with Garland.
      - kcplate 1y ago
        Oh I am not upset about it, as I said elsewhere that it was their prerogative to do it which is why the dems own it. I think it’s a bad/stupid strategy, because for a shutdown to be a threat, the other side needs to not want it at all. Russell Vought is salivating over this to cut jobs, Schumer knows this (which is why he caved in March). 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.