32andBelow said:NATCA suggesting going to a food bank now.
Also suggesting writing hand written notes to your congressmen mentioning how much you love your “oath” the agency. You can’t make up how fucking stupid this shit is.
Government Shutdown - March Edition
-
OP #561 -
#562 DOD4Life said:
I stated an irrefutable fact. Not surprised to see it went over your head & was beyond your level of reading comprehension. Like Deadbeat Donnie said himself, “We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.”
You do realize it requires 60 votes in the senate to fund the government right? The republicans don’t have 60 votes.
How many times have the democrats voted no to reopen the government on a clean continuing resolution bill?
-
#563 Mr.Tickles said:
You do realize it requires 60 votes in the senate to fund the government right? The republicans don’t have 60 votes.
How many times have the democrats voted no to reopen the government on a clean continuing resolution bill?
It doesn’t require 60 votes. That’s just a made up rule they made up. But if they want 60 votes then they need to negotiate
-
#564 32andBelow said:
It doesn’t require 60 votes. That’s just a made up rule they made up. But if they want 60 votes then they need to negotiate
I mean it’s been a round since 1975. Our whole government is made up when it really comes down to it.
That’s the whole point of a clean CR. Keep the government running so you can negotiate.
-
#565 Mr.Tickles said:
You do realize it requires 60 votes in the senate to fund the government right? The republicans don’t have 60 votes.
How many times have the democrats voted no to reopen the government on a clean continuing resolution bill?
No, it does *NOT* require 60 votes. As I’ve said before, and I can’t believe I still have to keep spoon feeding adult humans, the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate rule. Republicans eliminated it twice already this term & could do so for this budget issue, right this minute, with a simple majority & then pass their BS budget bill. Additionally, how are ICE, Border Patrol & the uniformed military getting paid without Senate Democrats voting for the Republican bill, Genius? Totally defeats your ignorant assertion, doesn’t it?
Mr.Tickles said:
I mean it’s been a round since 1975. Our whole government is made up when it really comes down to it.
That’s the whole point of a clean CR. Keep the government running so you can negotiate.
Bullshit. The House is not even in session to be able to negotiate. The House has been on recess for weeks now to prevent the potential release of the Trump-Epstein files.
-
#566 DOD4Life said:
No, it does *NOT* require 60 votes. As I’ve said before, and I can’t believe I still have to keep spoon feeding adult humans, the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate rule. Republicans eliminated it twice already this term & could do so for this budget issue, right this minute, with a simple majority & then pass their BS budget bill. Additionally, how are ICE, Border Patrol & the uniformed military getting paid without Senate Democrats voting for the Republican bill, Genius? Totally defeats your ignorant assertion, doesn’t it?
The democrats could also vote right this second for a clean CR bill. No negotiations needed. No nuclear option. Everyone gets paid and then our government can figure out how to negotiate without shutting down.
DOD4Life said:
Bullshit. The House is not even in session to be able to negotiate. The House has been on recess for weeks now to prevent the potential release of the Trump-Epstein files.
Because the house passed a clean CR and is waiting on the senate to do so.
Guess the democrats should vote yes on the CR to get the government open and those Epstein files released then. Shame they didn’t release them when they controlled everything.
-
#567 DOD4Life said:
No, it does *NOT* require 60 votes. As I’ve said before, and I can’t believe I still have to keep spoon feeding adult humans, the filibuster is nothing more than a Senate rule. Republicans eliminated it twice already this term & could do so for this budget issue, right this minute, with a simple majority & then pass their BS budget bill. Additionally, how are ICE, Border Patrol & the uniformed military getting paid without Senate Democrats voting for the Republican bill, Genius? Totally defeats your ignorant assertion, doesn’t it?
You’ve been spouting off in here for a long time now about “they could just eliminate the filibuster, blah…blah…blah.” What you [still] need to realize is that there’s a much more delicate dynamic carried by dealing with appropriations in particular. COULD the Senate GOP eliminate the filibuster? Sure, but only by:
- The majority leader would bring an appropriations bill to the floor and file a motion to invoke "cloture," or end debate.
- The majority leader would then raise a point of order asserting that a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes normally required, is sufficient for cloture on that particular type of bill.
- The presiding officer would likely rule the point of order invalid, based on current Senate rules and precedent.
- The majority leader would then appeal the ruling of the chair.
- With a simple majority vote, the ruling of the chair could be overturned, establishing a new precedent that allows appropriations bills to pass with a simple majority.
The reason that neither party EVER wants to do this: (and pay attention, because this is the part that you still don’t seem to get)
Intra-party resistance: Many senators oppose ending the legislative filibuster, regardless of the issue. They view it as a check on power that protects the minority party when the opposition holds the majority.
Fear of escalation: The nuclear option is seen as a last resort because both parties understand that they will not be in the majority forever. Ending the filibuster for appropriations could prompt the minority party to retaliate when they regain power, leading to further procedural warfare.
Impact on spending: Some Republicans fear that making it easier to pass spending bills would reduce leverage to cut spending. An appropriations bill passed by a simple majority, as with the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed via budget reconciliation, could include provisions that increase the federal deficit.
And before you start in on it, no, Budget Reconciliation will not be effective here because appropriations bills are not eligible for this reconciliation process, which allows certain legislation to avoid the filibuster. Budget reconciliation is only for measures that change laws governing revenues, mandatory spending, or the debt limit. It cannot be used for discretionary spending, which is funded through appropriations bills.
-
#568 ClearanceClarence said:
Also suggesting writing hand written notes to your congressmen mentioning how much you love your “oath” the agency. You can’t make up how fucking stupid this shit is.
I took an oath to money. I’ll come to work and you pay me for it.
-
#569 DOD4Life said:
Bullshit. The House is not even in session to be able to negotiate. The House has been on recess for weeks now to prevent the potential release of the Trump-Epstein files.
What does the house have to do with negotiating the shutdown? They’ve voted on and passed a clean CR bill and sent it over to the senate. That means Republicans and Democrats in the house, not a simple majority through an eliminated filibuster. The only way the house would need to be involved at this point is if the bill in the senate changes and is passed, requiring the bill be sent back to the house.
-
#570 Mr.Tickles said:
I mean it’s been a round since 1975. Our whole government is made up when it really comes down to it.
That’s the whole point of a clean CR. Keep the government running so you can negotiate.
Why didn’t they negotiate after the last CR? What have republicans done to have any credibility that they will negotiate?
-
#571 Why do you people defend any of these idiots? We are all just cucks working for free and NEITHER party gives a damn about us.
-
#572 Jellismate said:
Why do you people defend any of these idiots? We are all just cucks working for free and NEITHER party gives a damn about us.
I mean one wants to give people health care and one wants to pretext Pedos but whatever you say
-
#573 SquawkHijack said:
What does the house have to do with negotiating the shutdown? They’ve voted on and passed a clean CR bill and sent it over to the senate. That means Republicans and Democrats in the house, not a simple majority through an eliminated filibuster. The only way the house would need to be involved at this point is if the bill in the senate changes and is passed, requiring the bill be sent back to the house.
Well, if there’s an actual negotiation in the Senate, naturally there would be some sort of compromise & the bill would be changed requiring the House to now consider that bill.
SquawkHijack said:
You’ve been spouting off in here for a long time now about “they could just eliminate the filibuster, blah…blah…blah.” What you [still] need to realize is that there’s a much more delicate dynamic carried by dealing with appropriations in particular. COULD the Senate GOP eliminate the filibuster? Sure, but only by:
- The majority leader would bring an appropriations bill to the floor and file a motion to invoke "cloture," or end debate.
- The majority leader would then raise a point of order asserting that a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes normally required, is sufficient for cloture on that particular type of bill.
- The presiding officer would likely rule the point of order invalid, based on current Senate rules and precedent.
- The majority leader would then appeal the ruling of the chair.
- With a simple majority vote, the ruling of the chair could be overturned, establishing a new precedent that allows appropriations bills to pass with a simple majority.
The reason that neither party EVER wants to do this: (and pay attention, because this is the part that you still don’t seem to get)
Intra-party resistance: Many senators oppose ending the legislative filibuster, regardless of the issue. They view it as a check on power that protects the minority party when the opposition holds the majority.
Fear of escalation: The nuclear option is seen as a last resort because both parties understand that they will not be in the majority forever. Ending the filibuster for appropriations could prompt the minority party to retaliate when they regain power, leading to further procedural warfare.
Impact on spending: Some Republicans fear that making it easier to pass spending bills would reduce leverage to cut spending. An appropriations bill passed by a simple majority, as with the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed via budget reconciliation, could include provisions that increase the federal deficit.
And before you start in on it, no, Budget Reconciliation will not be effective here because appropriations bills are not eligible for this reconciliation process, which allows certain legislation to avoid the filibuster. Budget reconciliation is only for measures that change laws governing revenues, mandatory spending, or the debt limit. It cannot be used for discretionary spending, which is funded through appropriations bills.
Oh, wow. Sounds like eliminating the filibuster must be so damn difficult. Oh, but wait, looks like the Republicans did it just last month on a separate matter. And, they did it earlier in this very Senate term as well, which seems much easier than you suggest. Your excuses for the party in power refusing to pay federal employees while construction on the $300 million Epstein Memorial Ballroom at the White House continues & $40 billion flew out the door to help prop up a right-wing dictator in Argentina is ridiculously pathetic. The party in power is responsible for funding the government & paying the damn bills. With power comes responsibility, but with MAGA, all they ever have is lame excuses for their failures.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/11/politics/nuclear-option-senate-trump-nominees
Mr.Tickles said:
The democrats could also vote right this second for a clean CR bill. No negotiations needed. No nuclear option. Everyone gets paid and then our government can figure out how to negotiate without shutting down.
Because the house passed a clean CR and is waiting on the senate to do so.
Guess the democrats should vote yes on the CR to get the government open and those Epstein files released then. Shame they didn’t release them when they controlled everything.
The party in power in Washington is responsible for passing a budget. The Republicans can do so without a single Democratic vote. However, if they continue to demand the minority party support their shitty bill, then it’s their job to negotiate & compromise. This has been done numerous times before.
Republicans have always been the government shutdown party. It’s their damn brand. They shut the government down all the damn time and looks like Deadbeat Donnie is trying to break his own record for longest shutdown ever. This is the kind of bullshit that Republicans voted for in 2024. In fact, the current Republican OMB chief, Russ Vought, said Republicans wanted to “traumatize” federal employees, and brain-dead MAGA ATC voted like lemmings for that shit. Blue Falcons for sure.
-
#574 DOD4Life said:
Bullshit. The House is not even in session to be able to negotiate. The House has been on recess for weeks now to prevent the potential release of the Trump-Epstein files.
Honest question: if the Epstein files had damning evidence about Trump why wouldn’t the previous administration have released that or leaked it to damage his campaign at the least?
-
#575 AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise said:
Honest question: if the Epstein files had damning evidence about Trump why wouldn’t the previous administration have released that or leaked it to damage his campaign at the least?
Because when it 'accidentally' came out that there were flight logs and phone records listing Donald, republicans forgot all about it and started hating illegals and the poor.
-
#576 AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise said:
Honest question: if the Epstein files had damning evidence about Trump why wouldn’t the previous administration have released that or leaked it to damage his campaign at the least?
The previous administration did not have a stooge like Pam Blondi as AG. There’s no evidence that Merrick Garland shared anything on the Trump-Epstein files with the Biden White House. In a normal, non-corrupt administration, the DOJ is independent from the White House & does not take direction from the President.
-
#577 SquawkHijack said:
You’ve been spouting off in here for a long time now about “they could just eliminate the filibuster, blah…blah…blah.” What you [still] need to realize is that there’s a much more delicate dynamic carried by dealing with appropriations in particular. COULD the Senate GOP eliminate the filibuster? Sure, but only by:
- The majority leader would bring an appropriations bill to the floor and file a motion to invoke "cloture," or end debate.
- The majority leader would then raise a point of order asserting that a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes normally required, is sufficient for cloture on that particular type of bill.
- The presiding officer would likely rule the point of order invalid, based on current Senate rules and precedent.
- The majority leader would then appeal the ruling of the chair.
- With a simple majority vote, the ruling of the chair could be overturned, establishing a new precedent that allows appropriations bills to pass with a simple majority.
The reason that neither party EVER wants to do this: (and pay attention, because this is the part that you still don’t seem to get)
Intra-party resistance: Many senators oppose ending the legislative filibuster, regardless of the issue. They view it as a check on power that protects the minority party when the opposition holds the majority.
Fear of escalation: The nuclear option is seen as a last resort because both parties understand that they will not be in the majority forever. Ending the filibuster for appropriations could prompt the minority party to retaliate when they regain power, leading to further procedural warfare.
Impact on spending: Some Republicans fear that making it easier to pass spending bills would reduce leverage to cut spending. An appropriations bill passed by a simple majority, as with the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed via budget reconciliation, could include provisions that increase the federal deficit.
And before you start in on it, no, Budget Reconciliation will not be effective here because appropriations bills are not eligible for this reconciliation process, which allows certain legislation to avoid the filibuster. Budget reconciliation is only for measures that change laws governing revenues, mandatory spending, or the debt limit. It cannot be used for discretionary spending, which is funded through appropriations bills.
All correct - except neither party is fiscally conservative. They both want to spend way more than is reasonable, just on slightly different things.
-
#578 DOD4Life said:
The previous administration did not have a stooge like Pam Blondi as AG. There’s no evidence that Merrick Garland shared anything on the Trump-Epstein files with the Biden White House. In a normal, non-corrupt administration, the DOJ is independent from the White House & does not take direction from the President.
Garland was the most corrupt AG we have ever had. The corruption of Attorney General Merrick Garland
-
#579 Bandit117 said:
Garland was the most corrupt AG we have ever had. The corruption of Attorney General Merrick Garland
Not gonna waste my time reading your right-wing OPINION article. Here’s a non-opinion article with irrefutable truth. One of REPUBLICAN president Nixon’s AG’s was convicted of crimes and served actual prison time. You’re welcome for the free history lesson. I’ll do the job your teachers failed to do:
-
#580 DOD4Life said:
Not gonna waste my time reading your right-wing OPINION article. Here’s a non-opinion article with irrefutable truth. One of REPUBLICAN president Nixon’s AG’s was convicted of crimes and served actual prison time. You’re welcome for the free history lesson. I’ll do the job your teachers failed to do:
Newsflash!
Politicians from both sides are horrible people.