6 ms·

I know, I can't believe they refuse to pass the bill that would fund TSA. Wait a minute, I'm getting additional information....you're not gonna believe this, b

I know, I can't believe they refuse to pass the bill that would fund TSA. 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....

rpdillon 7mo ago
Yesterday morning, CNN: > 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-funding-bill-senate-house-vote https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/dhs-shutdown-fundin...
- cogman10 7mo ago
  Not just bipartisan. That bill was unanimously passed in the Senate.
  - Simulacra 7mo ago
    Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present. It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning
    - gruez 7mo ago
      But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it.
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not. 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.
      - Simulacra 7mo ago
        I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
        Simulacra 7mo ago
        Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member. 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.
Spooky23 7mo ago
In the Senate. 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.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation 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.
  - fhdkweig 7mo ago
    This search yields a lot of results. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mike+johnson+bank+accounts https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mike+johnson+bank+accounts 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-finances-what-matters/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/mike-johnson-finance...
  - Spooky23 7mo ago
    Re: #1: https://nypost.com/2023/11/05/news/speaker-mike-johnson-shrugs-off-questions-about-his-finances/#:~:text=Freshly%20crowned%20House%20Speaker%20Mike,a%20man%20of%20modest%20means. https://nypost.com/2023/11/05/news/speaker-mike-johnson-shru... Re: 2: I disagree.
antiframe 7mo ago
And this is why bills sound cover one topic and not a bundle of topics. "I heard it was X who blocked the bill that would actually make gas prices low (which also meant voting was eliminated)"
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bobmcnamara 7mo ago
The party who controls all three branches of federal government?

rpdillon 7mo ago

Yesterday morning, CNN: > 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-funding-bill-senate-house-vote https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/dhs-shutdown-fundin...

cogman10 7mo ago
Not just bipartisan. That bill was unanimously passed in the Senate.
- Simulacra 7mo ago
  Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present. It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning
  - gruez 7mo ago
    But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not. 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.
    - Simulacra 7mo ago
      I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.
      - cogman10 7mo ago
        Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
        Simulacra 7mo ago
        Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member. 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.

Spooky23 7mo ago

In the Senate. 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.

gruez 7mo ago
>Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation 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.
- fhdkweig 7mo ago
  This search yields a lot of results. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mike+johnson+bank+accounts https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mike+johnson+bank+accounts 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-finances-what-matters/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/politics/mike-johnson-finance...
- Spooky23 7mo ago
  Re: #1: https://nypost.com/2023/11/05/news/speaker-mike-johnson-shrugs-off-questions-about-his-finances/#:~:text=Freshly%20crowned%20House%20Speaker%20Mike,a%20man%20of%20modest%20means. https://nypost.com/2023/11/05/news/speaker-mike-johnson-shru... Re: 2: I disagree.

antiframe 7mo ago

And this is why bills sound cover one topic and not a bundle of topics. "I heard it was X who blocked the bill that would actually make gas prices low (which also meant voting was eliminated)"

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

bobmcnamara 7mo ago

The party who controls all three branches of federal government?