• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Congress races against the clock to avoid a government shutdown

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,816
17,365
Here
✟1,500,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

  • Government funding runs out at 12:01 a.m. ET Sunday.
  • The Senate has been working in a bipartisan manner and has a bill to fund the government through Nov. 17 that should pass in the coming days, though perhaps not before the weekend deadline.
  • Meanwhile, some conservative House Republicans are pushing for deep spending cuts, saying they'll refuse to support the Senate's bill or any short-term legislation that would buy Congress more time to act.
 

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
25,482
21,526
✟1,781,208.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think the Republicans are still going to claim to be pro-Defense when close to 1.5 million troops suddenly found out that their pay checks have been frozen?

[or allow one of their Senators to hold up over 300 Sr Military Officer appointments]
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
22,760
18,679
✟1,482,984.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Do you think the Republicans are still going to claim to be pro-Defense when close to 1.5 million troops suddenly found out that their pay checks have been frozen?
Yes.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
23,095
14,252
Earth
✟254,880.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you think the Republicans are still going to claim to be pro-Defense when close to 1.5 million troops suddenly found out that their pay checks have been frozen?
In the “post-truth” world of MAGA?
Shirley you’re joking!
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,816
17,365
Here
✟1,500,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you think the Republicans are still going to claim to be pro-Defense when close to 1.5 million troops suddenly found out that their pay checks have been frozen?
I would think so...it hasn't necessarily burned them at all during past shutdowns.

I've been alive long enough to remember a few shutdowns. How the "script" usually goes is that the two factions mutually label the other as the "culprit", and blame the residual effects on "see, look what's happening, if those other guys just would've given us what we wanted and stopped being stubborn, this could've all been avoided".

...the end result is that it really doesn't impact allegiances.

The take away will end up being
Most republicans will think "if those Democrats would've just conceded on some of their spending endeavors, this wouldn't have have happened"
Most democrats will think "if those Republicans would've just stopped being so stubborn about the cuts they wanted, this could've been avoided"

Rinse...repeat...

The 2013 shutdown (that lasted over 2 weeks) followed that pattern.

Perhaps this is a wild theory, but how imagine things happening is that:
congress/senate does their little song & dance with the shutdown up until a point, and when it gets to the point where private sector corporate entities (IE: their donors) start having their own profits put in jeopardy, that's when some of these elected officials start getting some phone calls to the effect of "okay, you've had your fun...now quit messing around get this signed or we'll find someone else to donate to next time around".

Again, perhaps just a wild theory, but I can think of no other explanation for why the 2013 shutdown shaked out the way it did. Staunch deadlock and refusal to compromise on ACA provisions...to the point where they were willing to furlough 800,000 federal workers (and make another million work without pay) to "prove their point". But then seemingly out of nowhere, Boehner withdraws all objections, and holds a vote and passes the budget the next day. Obviously nobody can read their minds, but to me, that sudden loss of any and all resolve sounds like the work of people who know where their bread is buttered, and just got a phone call.
 
Upvote 0

Aaron112

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2022
5,781
1,425
TULSA
✟123,635.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
1695996383008.png

Society has misguided priorities.

Selfishness plays a role,
(partial quote out of context pulled for here)
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,115
8,363
✟417,914.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I would think so...it hasn't necessarily burned them at all during past shutdowns.

I've been alive long enough to remember a few shutdowns. How the "script" usually goes is that the two factions mutually label the other as the "culprit", and blame the residual effects on "see, look what's happening, if those other guys just would've given us what we wanted and stopped being stubborn, this could've all been avoided".

...the end result is that it really doesn't impact allegiances.

The take away will end up being
Most republicans will think "if those Democrats would've just conceded on some of their spending endeavors, this wouldn't have have happened"
Most democrats will think "if those Republicans would've just stopped being so stubborn about the cuts they wanted, this could've been avoided"

Rinse...repeat...

The 2013 shutdown (that lasted over 2 weeks) followed that pattern.

Perhaps this is a wild theory, but how imagine things happening is that:
congress/senate does their little song & dance with the shutdown up until a point, and when it gets to the point where private sector corporate entities (IE: their donors) start having their own profits put in jeopardy, that's when some of these elected officials start getting some phone calls to the effect of "okay, you've had your fun...now quit messing around get this signed or we'll find someone else to donate to next time around".

Again, perhaps just a wild theory, but I can think of no other explanation for why the 2013 shutdown shaked out the way it did. Staunch deadlock and refusal to compromise on ACA provisions...to the point where they were willing to furlough 800,000 federal workers (and make another million work without pay) to "prove their point". But then seemingly out of nowhere, Boehner withdraws all objections, and holds a vote and passes the budget the next day. Obviously nobody can read their minds, but to me, that sudden loss of any and all resolve sounds like the work of people who know where their bread is buttered, and just got a phone call.
The difference being, in all the shut downs I can remember it was the result of one house or the President rejecting something proposed by the other party. In this case it's not clear if the House will even able to get to a point where the majority agrees on what they want before the shutdown.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,816
17,365
Here
✟1,500,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The difference being, in all the shut downs I can remember it was the result of one house or the President rejecting something proposed by the other party. In this case it's not clear if the House will even able to get to a point where the majority agrees on what they want before the shutdown.
Well, McCarthy does have one angle he could play...and it may be one worth considering. (it's what I would do if I was in his spot)

If he can get the house moderates (or at least the ones who are moderate enough to know that a shutdown isn't a good thing) on-board.

Sit down with Jeffries & Clarke and cut what I'd like to call a "concessions for protection deal" lol.

It would look something like:
"Here's these 8 contentious items we're fighting over... we'll concede on 4, you concede on 4, and in exchange, we'll help push through 1 or 2 of your guys for committee assignments when the time comes, and you guys provide 30 or so democrat votes to insulate me from ouster should one of the hardliners call a motion-to-vacate vote"
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,816
17,365
Here
✟1,500,962.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

The decision by McCarthy to put a bill on the floor that would win support from Democrats could put his speakership at risk as hardline conservatives continue to threaten a vote to oust him from the top House leadership post.

McCarthy was defiant after the vote, daring his detractors to try to push him out as he argued he did what was needed to govern effectively.

“If somebody wants to make a motion against me, bring it,” McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju at a press conference. “There has to be an adult in the room.
 
Upvote 0