5 ms·

Which part of the statement is false or campaigning? Is it not true Democrats have blocked the passage of the bill? Of course it is.. and people should know tha

by Alupis 1y ago

Which part of the statement is false or campaigning? Is it not true Democrats have blocked the passage of the bill? Of course it is.. and people should know that, shouldn't they?

mikeyouse 1y ago
‘People should be lied to by the government out of political convenience’ is a theory I guess. Though not one I’d endorse. It’s equally true that “Senate republicans failed to put forth a spending CR that could attract 60 votes” or “Senate republicans failed to pass filibuster reform to only require 50 votes on spending measures.” Are equally true statements yet somehow they didn’t make the autoresponders. Weird.
- Alupis 1y ago
  Always finding a way to blame the Republicans... last time they were in the minority and were blamed for shutting down the government. Now they're in the majority and you still want to blame them for shutting down the government. To summarize, you want to blame the oppositition for not passing your flavor of a spending bill, ie. one that suits your politics. Elections have consequences - and the longer Democrats drag this out the more excuse the executive branch will have to permanentely lay off people and shutdown departments.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    Whoever’s to blame (the party that controls all three branches), it’s still wildly inappropriate and illegal to put political messaging on Federal websites (www.hud.gov for one glaring example) and in email signatures. > To summarize, you want to blame the oppositition for not passing your flavor of a spending bill, ie. one that suits your politics. Seems a bit like projection when your summary is based on your weird assumption for who I would’ve blamed previously. > Elections have consequences - and the longer Democrats drag this out the more excuse the executive branch will have to permanentely lay off people and shutdown departments. That’s not how any of this works.. the Executive branch doesn’t have the constitutional ability to shut down departments or lay people off when they’re congressional mandated. This level of political science ignorance is a big part of how we got here. Elections do have consequences and if Republicans feel that they have a mandate to kill USAID or any other department, they can pass a spending bill that zeroes it out. The President doesn’t get to decide to not spend those funds after Congress has authorized them. It’s inconceivable to me that people don’t understand how much this line of thought and the associated actions have broken our government in ways that are going to be very difficult to undo.
    - xp84 1y ago
      > have broken our government in ways that are going to be very difficult to undo. The cowardice of both parties to never balance the budget in the last 50 years (Except Clinton!) has done more damage, arguably, in miring us in permanent debt. I suspect the people who are fine with the government shutting down and who are fine with questionably legal tactics to do away with departments like USAID, feel that even though these things are probably legally wrong, they’re better than just continuing to piss away more and more of future generations’ money, money that we don’t have. I think the greatest sin involved in all of this is the government’s ridiculous magical, thinking that they can set tax policy and spending policy independently of each other. In my opinion, one of the two should be a fixed function of the other. Either we agree on our tax rates and government benefits, automatically adjust to fit in the budget, or we agree on what we’re going to spend, and taxes automatically adjust to match — either way it should be something everyone can calculate before the bill is voted on.
  - croon 1y ago
    > "last time they were in the minority and were blamed for shutting down the government" To when are you referring? Because "last time", republicans were in fact also in the majority.
  - immibis 1y ago
    They control the government in all ways that it's possible to control the government. They *are* the government, so everything the government does is their fault, tautologically. We're not stupid (I hope).
- xp84 1y ago
  Absolutely! All those things could correctly be said, and maybe that’s what would be said now if the Democrats had won the last presidential election! Instead, they ran a candidate who was so unpopular she dropped out before Iowa last time she ran. The DNC still hasn’t processed this reality, though.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    The point that everyone is so keen to miss is that those are fine statements to make by political parties or candidates and wholly inappropriate and obviously illegal ones to make by government employees and websites.. That there are two valid opposing ‘truths’ which can be wielded to bludgeon a political opponent is exactly why we made it illegal for the government to make these type of statements. Turning all of our apolitical institutions into megaphones for the party in power is an absolute nightmare and is illegal for a reason. Seriously - how can you possibly defend something like this: https://www.hud.gov/ https://www.hud.gov/
    - xp84 1y ago
      They’re facts. What’s wrong with them? Democrats did shut down the government. One party currently wants a clean CR and the other, the minority, wants to advance their agenda as a condition of not forcing a shutdown. This is an exact reversal of what the republicans did years ago and we all mocked them for it. Anyway, they’re facts.
      - mikeyouse 1y ago
        "The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government" is a 'Fact' you think is appropriate to be displayed via a popup to every visitor on HUD.gov? "The radical left has chosen to shut down the United States government in the name of reckless spending and obstructionism." is an appropriate message for Treasury.gov when it's illegal to use Federal resources for political messaging? Be serious.
        xp84 1y ago
hyperhello 1y ago
It is also a well-known right wing tease to call them Democrat as opposed to Democratic, like calling someone Jew instead of Jewish.
- Alupis 1y ago
  "Democrat" is a slur now? Come on people...
  - mingus88 1y ago
    Jew is not always a slur either. It’s all about how it’s used.
  - hyperhello 1y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
    - Alupis 1y ago
      Absolutely absurd in a modern setting. Everyone, including the news/media colloquially refers to Democrats as "Democrats" and "Democrat".
lesuorac 1y ago
Sure, the entire thing is false and campaigning. It is not true that Democrats blocked H.R.5371. The bill was voted on unlike say when Republicans block a bill by sending the representatives home instead of voting on say an Epstein related issue. (Recent vote was 55-45 [1] which not every R voted yay). The lapse in appropriations cannot singular be pointed at H.R.5371. If Republicans had stuck to their campaign promises of a balanced budget then we wouldn't be in this situation as we wouldn't need additional borrowing. Less politically, if 60+ people had input into the bill then it would've passed. Can't be upset that somebody didn't vote for something they didn't have input in. Only 50 votes are needed in the Senate to pass any legislation (per constitution). The whole 60-votes is a requirement that any point can be changed by the Senate and has been recently for federal judges. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/all-actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
UncleMeat 1y ago
It wouldn't be false to have an email signature that says "President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies." Would it be reasonable to automatically update everybody's email response to say this?

by Alupis 1y ago

Which part of the statement is false or campaigning? Is it not true Democrats have blocked the passage of the bill? Of course it is.. and people should know that, shouldn't they?

mikeyouse 1y ago

‘People should be lied to by the government out of political convenience’ is a theory I guess. Though not one I’d endorse. It’s equally true that “Senate republicans failed to put forth a spending CR that could attract 60 votes” or “Senate republicans failed to pass filibuster reform to only require 50 votes on spending measures.” Are equally true statements yet somehow they didn’t make the autoresponders. Weird.

Alupis 1y ago
Always finding a way to blame the Republicans... last time they were in the minority and were blamed for shutting down the government. Now they're in the majority and you still want to blame them for shutting down the government. To summarize, you want to blame the oppositition for not passing your flavor of a spending bill, ie. one that suits your politics. Elections have consequences - and the longer Democrats drag this out the more excuse the executive branch will have to permanentely lay off people and shutdown departments.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  Whoever’s to blame (the party that controls all three branches), it’s still wildly inappropriate and illegal to put political messaging on Federal websites (www.hud.gov for one glaring example) and in email signatures. > To summarize, you want to blame the oppositition for not passing your flavor of a spending bill, ie. one that suits your politics. Seems a bit like projection when your summary is based on your weird assumption for who I would’ve blamed previously. > Elections have consequences - and the longer Democrats drag this out the more excuse the executive branch will have to permanentely lay off people and shutdown departments. That’s not how any of this works.. the Executive branch doesn’t have the constitutional ability to shut down departments or lay people off when they’re congressional mandated. This level of political science ignorance is a big part of how we got here. Elections do have consequences and if Republicans feel that they have a mandate to kill USAID or any other department, they can pass a spending bill that zeroes it out. The President doesn’t get to decide to not spend those funds after Congress has authorized them. It’s inconceivable to me that people don’t understand how much this line of thought and the associated actions have broken our government in ways that are going to be very difficult to undo.
  - xp84 1y ago
    > have broken our government in ways that are going to be very difficult to undo. The cowardice of both parties to never balance the budget in the last 50 years (Except Clinton!) has done more damage, arguably, in miring us in permanent debt. I suspect the people who are fine with the government shutting down and who are fine with questionably legal tactics to do away with departments like USAID, feel that even though these things are probably legally wrong, they’re better than just continuing to piss away more and more of future generations’ money, money that we don’t have. I think the greatest sin involved in all of this is the government’s ridiculous magical, thinking that they can set tax policy and spending policy independently of each other. In my opinion, one of the two should be a fixed function of the other. Either we agree on our tax rates and government benefits, automatically adjust to fit in the budget, or we agree on what we’re going to spend, and taxes automatically adjust to match — either way it should be something everyone can calculate before the bill is voted on.
- croon 1y ago
  > "last time they were in the minority and were blamed for shutting down the government" To when are you referring? Because "last time", republicans were in fact also in the majority.
- immibis 1y ago
  They control the government in all ways that it's possible to control the government. They *are* the government, so everything the government does is their fault, tautologically. We're not stupid (I hope).
xp84 1y ago
Absolutely! All those things could correctly be said, and maybe that’s what would be said now if the Democrats had won the last presidential election! Instead, they ran a candidate who was so unpopular she dropped out before Iowa last time she ran. The DNC still hasn’t processed this reality, though.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  The point that everyone is so keen to miss is that those are fine statements to make by political parties or candidates and wholly inappropriate and obviously illegal ones to make by government employees and websites.. That there are two valid opposing ‘truths’ which can be wielded to bludgeon a political opponent is exactly why we made it illegal for the government to make these type of statements. Turning all of our apolitical institutions into megaphones for the party in power is an absolute nightmare and is illegal for a reason. Seriously - how can you possibly defend something like this: https://www.hud.gov/ https://www.hud.gov/
  - xp84 1y ago
    They’re facts. What’s wrong with them? Democrats did shut down the government. One party currently wants a clean CR and the other, the minority, wants to advance their agenda as a condition of not forcing a shutdown. This is an exact reversal of what the republicans did years ago and we all mocked them for it. Anyway, they’re facts.
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      "The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government" is a 'Fact' you think is appropriate to be displayed via a popup to every visitor on HUD.gov? "The radical left has chosen to shut down the United States government in the name of reckless spending and obstructionism." is an appropriate message for Treasury.gov when it's illegal to use Federal resources for political messaging? Be serious.
      - xp84 1y ago

hyperhello 1y ago

It is also a well-known right wing tease to call them Democrat as opposed to Democratic, like calling someone Jew instead of Jewish.

Alupis 1y ago
"Democrat" is a slur now? Come on people...
- mingus88 1y ago
  Jew is not always a slur either. It’s all about how it’s used.
- hyperhello 1y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
  - Alupis 1y ago
    Absolutely absurd in a modern setting. Everyone, including the news/media colloquially refers to Democrats as "Democrats" and "Democrat".

lesuorac 1y ago

Sure, the entire thing is false and campaigning. It is not true that Democrats blocked H.R.5371. The bill was voted on unlike say when Republicans block a bill by sending the representatives home instead of voting on say an Epstein related issue. (Recent vote was 55-45 [1] which not every R voted yay). The lapse in appropriations cannot singular be pointed at H.R.5371. If Republicans had stuck to their campaign promises of a balanced budget then we wouldn't be in this situation as we wouldn't need additional borrowing. Less politically, if 60+ people had input into the bill then it would've passed. Can't be upset that somebody didn't vote for something they didn't have input in. Only 50 votes are needed in the Senate to pass any legislation (per constitution). The whole 60-votes is a requirement that any point can be changed by the Senate and has been recently for federal judges. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/all-actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

UncleMeat 1y ago

It wouldn't be false to have an email signature that says "President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies." Would it be reasonable to automatically update everybody's email response to say this?