Shutdown Poll

[Ringo84]

Yeah, what language in the Constitution creates an obligation for Mitch to act in accordance to how you have advocated he should act?

It seems like keeping the government shut down for over a month over an unnecessary wall would be contrary to the founders' wishes. But maybe that's just me.

No, Mitch's conduct has been to allow Trump and the Dems to negotiate a resolution and go along with whatever resolution they agree upon. That is not deferring to Trump.

They haven't negotiated. A """deal""" was put forth after being negotiated by Larry, Curly and Moe (Kush, Mitch and Mulvaney, I believe), and the Democrats said no. If Donny wants to negotiate, Democrats have already signaled that they are willing once the government is reopened.

Donny has refused to do even that, and Mitch has gone along with it.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

I'm not sure what we're even arguing about here. If we both want the government to be open (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this is the case), then I'm not sure why you're choosing defense of Mitch McConnell as a hill on which to die. This shutdown has always very clearly been the responsibility of Donny and Mitch - not Nancy Pelosi.
Ringo

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I'm not sure what we're even arguing about here. If we both want the government to be open (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that this is the case), then I'm not sure why you're choosing defense of Mitch McConnell as a hill on which to die. This shutdown has always very clearly been the responsibility of Donny and Mitch - not Nancy Pelosi.
Ringo

The president gave Nancy Pelosi a offer, she said no, she not looking for compromise, she looking to weaken him going into 2020.

 

[evoeth]

The president gave Nancy Pelosi a offer, she said no, she not looking for compromise, she looking to weaken him going into 2020.

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

So now conservatives, pro-lifee, Christians are terrorists in the left eyes?

 

[evoeth]

So now conservatives, pro-lifee, Christians are terrorists in the left eyes?

That's a very interesting leap you made there.

Trump shut the government down because he couldn't get what he wanted (with his own GOP Congress, FYI!)

Breaking it because you don't get what you want, is a petulant child breaking the game because he can't win. It is terrorism.

 

[Ringo84]

Using a shutdown of the government as "leverage" for a border wall that nobody wants and a candidate promised - repeatedly - that Mexico would fund is absolutely legislative terrorism that should not be tolerated.
Ringo

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

That's a very interesting leap you made there.

Trump shut the government down because he couldn't get what he wanted (with his own GOP Congress, FYI!)

Breaking it because you don't get what you want, is a petulant child breaking the game because he can't win. It is terrorism.

Terrorism is strapping a bomb to your vest, and walking into a supermarket screaming "Allah akbar", a terrorist is a leftist eviormentalists who attacks, with force women who wear fur coats, and men who cut down trees, terrorism is leftist thugs like the ads , and othees who bombed recruitment centers aimed at ending the Vietnam war, terrorism is leftist terrorist who skyjacked plans in the 50's-80's, leftist terrorists are like Obama mentor William Ayers, the President wanting a wall is not terrorism .

 

[evoeth]

Terrorism is strapping a bomb to your vest, and walking into a supermarket screaming "Allah akbar", a terrorist is a leftist eviormentalists who attacks, with force women who wear fur coats, and men who cut down trees, terrorism is leftist thugs like the ads , and othees who bombed recruitment centers aimed at ending the Vietnam war, terrorism is leftist terrorist who skyjacked plans in the 50's-80's, leftist terrorists are like Obama mentor William Ayers, the President wanting a wall is not terrorism .

Wanting a wall is not terrorism. Harming our country to do it, is.

Terrorism is intentionally causing harm as a tactic to cow and subdue your foes.

Wanting a wall is what we call a "motive" not a tactic.

Shutting the government down and using it as leverage, that is a tactic. A tactic which causes direct harm to government workers and those who rely on the services government provides.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Wanting a wall is not terrorism. Harming our country to do it, is.

Terrorism is intentionally causing harm as a tactic to cow and subdue your foes.

Wanting a wall is what we call "a motive" not a tactic.

Shutting the government down and using it as leverage, that is a tactic.

Then the progressives, if they care for the working class that they claim to care for, would negotiate, if they don't negotiate, aren't they also terrorists?

 

[evoeth]

Then the progressives, if they care for the working class that they claim to care for, would negotiate, if they don't negotiate, aren't they also terrorists?

Nope. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Trump had a budget, he refused to sign it because Coulter goaded him at the last minute. Now we're living with the shutdown until you conservatives call him up and demand that he cave.

I already called my reps and told them under no circumstances do I support the funding of a wall.

 

[Ringo84]

Donny shut down the government, putting 800K people out of work and missing paychecks. But guys, it's the progressives who "don't care for the working class"!
Ringo

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Nope. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Trump had a budget, he refused to sign it because Coulter goaded him at the last minute. Now we're living with the shutdown until you conservatives call him up and demand that he cave.

I already called my reps and told them under no circumstances do I support the funding of a wall.

Wonr cave to liberal demands, if it means no government then tough, I see a sunny sky, traffic is normal, people paying taxes, what government shutdown?

 

[NotreDame]

Re: last paragraph. Mitch passed what the WH via Pence told them they would support, with the money they indicated they wanted. Ryan refused to bring it to the floor after Coulter and Limbaugh attacked Trump and he changed his mind. Since then the house has passed the bill and sent it back to the senate. Mitch then refused to bring it to a vote. He is giving Trump cover, helping him save face and looking out for Trump instead of the country as a whole. They had two years to get this done and it was shutdown before she took over the speakership. This is all on Trump and Mitch, imo.

The evidence doesn’t support the claim “Mitch” is providing “cover” to Trump by refusing to have a vote on legislation passed by the House. For Mitch, his message has been the Senate will not waste its time having a series of votes when it’s a foregone conclusion the law cannot pass the Senate, cannot survive a filibuster, and cannot survive a veto. That’s not “cover” for Trump.

He is giving Trump cover, helping him save face and looking out for Trump instead of the country as a whole

How is Mitch’s conduct inconsistent with “looking out for...the country as a whole”? Let’s begin with the threshold question of what “looking out for the country as a whole” means. Then some analysis of how and why Mitch’s conduct is inconsistent with that meaning.

They had two years to get this done and it was shutdown before she took over the speakership.

Questionable, since the Republicans did not have a filibuster majority in the Senate.

 

[camille70]

The evidence doesn’t support the claim “Mitch” is providing “cover” to Trump by refusing to have a vote on legislation passed by the House. For Mitch, his message has been the Senate will not waste its time having a series of votes when it’s a foregone conclusion the law cannot pass the Senate, cannot survive a filibuster, and cannot survive a veto. That’s not “cover” for Trump.



How is Mitch’s conduct inconsistent with “looking out for...the country as a whole”? Let’s begin with the threshold question of what “looking out for the country as a whole” means. Then some analysis of how and why Mitch’s conduct is inconsistent with that meaning.



Questionable, since the Republicans did not have a filibuster majority in the Senate.

They just passed it in Dec with something like 98-2. Everyone left town because it was a done deal and then had to come back when Trump reneged on the deal he authorized Pence to make.

He had deals 5-25 B twice and he blew them both up while the GOP was in power.

 

[NotreDame]

They haven't negotiated. A """deal""" was put forth after being negotiated by Larry, Curly and Moe (Kush, Mitch and Mulvaney, I believe), and the Democrats said no. If Donny wants to negotiate, Democrats have already signaled that they are willing once the government is reopened.

Donny has refused to do even that, and Mitch has gone along with it.
Ringo

It seems like keeping the government shut down for over a month over an unnecessary wall would be contrary to the founders' wishes. But maybe that's just me.

This would a more compelling point if there was some evidence unambiguously demonstrating a “government shutdown for over a month” is/would’ve been contrary to their “wishes.” Well, of course, arguably, their “wishes” are immaterial.

Mitch has gone along with it.

Mitch has “gone along with it” because of the waste of time holding votes on legislation when it’s a foregone conclusion the law can’t pass in the Senate, and/or survive a filibuster and/or survive a veto. He’s made it clear, negotiate a law, whatever that law may be, that can be passed, and/or is filibuster proof, and not subject to a veto. That’s not a “rubber stamp” for Trump.

 

[Ringo84]

This would a more compelling point if there was some evidence unambiguously demonstrating a “government shutdown for over a month” is/would’ve been contrary to their “wishes.” Well, of course, arguably, their “wishes” are immaterial.

It's not against their wishes, but it's harmful for the country.

Mitch has “gone along with it” because of the waste of time holding votes on legislation when it’s a foregone conclusion the law can’t pass in the Senate, and/or survive a filibuster and/or survive a veto. He’s made it clear, negotiate a law, whatever that law may be, that can be passed, and/or is filibuster proof, and not subject to a veto. That’s not a “rubber stamp” for Trump.

He's gone along with it because he's lickspittle who's more concerned with tempting the wrath of Donny rather than doing what's right or what's best for the country. I don't care what supposedly can't survive a veto; he needs to whip up the votes to pass legislation that will be veto-proof. That's what a good Senate Majority Leader does.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

They just passed it in Dec with something like 98-2. Everyone left town because it was a done deal and then had to come back when Trump reneged on the deal he authorized Pence to make.

He had deals 5-25 B twice and he blew them both up while the GOP was in power.

Okay, using generic terminology, such as “deals” and “get this done” can create a lot of confusion. Is this referring to legislation that includes wall funding? Is this referring to legislation without wall funding?

I understood your comment of “two years” to “get this done” to be a reference to wall funding. Maybe it wasn’t. Now you referenced “deals” and I have no context what “deals” you’re referencing, other than the December 2018 one, which I referenced before.

They, who is they, had two years to get “what” done?

 

[Ringo84]

To be clear, I don't necessarily think you're wrong so much as missing the point. We need a functioning government. If Donny and Mitch can't deliver that, they're not doing their job. What are we paying them for anyway?

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

he needs to whip up the votes to pass legislation that will be veto-proof. That's what a good Senate Majority Leader does.
Ringo

Yeah, the same can be said for Schumer. A great Senate minority leader, wielding the power and influence Schumer does, should “whip up the votes to pass legislation” with funding for the wall. After all, this is every bit Schumer’s country as Mitch’s, and Schumer should be so eager and willing, as you say Mitch should, to conjure votes for legislation that can end the shutdown, such as funding for a wall.

The problem with your logic is it’s a two way street, running right up to the front porch of Schumer, but you treat your logic as a one way to Mitch.