Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Government Shut Downs.


45 replies to this topic

#1
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,285 posts

Imma cry at tax time if this stuff is still happening. 



#2
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,105 posts

giphy.gif

The government is far from shut down. People have no idea what a government shutdown would look like. I wish it were shut down.


  • BATMAN +1 this

#3
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,285 posts
National Parks having garbage issues and no pay checks for air traffic controllers and tsa officials but they are still working sounds pretty sucky.

#4
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,422 posts

I think the house and senate should not be allowed to adjourn until they have some sort of bill that both sides can live with, and their pay should be suspended until then.  That said, once again Trump is a douche.  Not exactly a news flash there.  



#5
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.

 

However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.



#6
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,189 posts
You can say we're not going to give you 5 billion dollars for something we don't need. Even though you've said in the past we need to improve the border wall. Do not come at me later trying to push Medicare for all with it's 42 trillion dollars price tag.

I'd probably have more respect if the Dems just came out and said we can't give Trump what will be a lasting reminder that he was President. At least they'd be honest.

#7
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,422 posts

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.

 

However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.

I agree with you mostly on that. But my issue is Congress isn't even trying and took off for the weekend.  They need to get their asses back in their house or senate seats and work until they come up with something.  I don't want to see a wall that spans the entire border personally, because it is unnecessary.  But there are compromises like repairing or re-enforcing walls that were already built, and non-wall technology that surveys the border, hiring and funding the border patrol, or revamping immigration laws and immigration rules, so that they make sense and are appropriate for the times.  Or funding UAVs that patrol the border.    Offer compromises like that, along with what you want, and put it forward.  If Trump vetoes it, fine.  But at least Congress can say they tried and have the moral high ground when they say the president is the one being the obstructionist. 



#8
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,202 posts

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.


I'm not saying that if Trump went on live TV and set a puppy on fire that you'd condone it, but you would bring up some obscure law pushed through by Democrats a hundred years ago that made puppy burning legal so that it was ultimately the left's fault. Your hatred runs soooo deep!
  • James Madison +1 this

#9
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 8,814 posts

Don't worry the part of the government which takes the money out of your paycheck will keep functioning. 


  • Ms. Spam and Zerimar Nyliram +1 this

#10
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.


I'm not saying that if Trump went on live TV and set a puppy on fire that you'd condone it, but you would bring up some obscure law pushed through by Democrats a hundred years ago that made puppy burning legal so that it was ultimately the left's fault. Your hatred runs soooo deep!

 

Democrats treated Cruz, Paul, and House Republicans like crazed nihilistic maniacs for standing up for the principle that they don't have to fund something that the president demands just five years ago, not 100 years ago.  Hell, fellow Republicans treated them like crazed maniacs.  And, of course, they lost.

 

So now Democrats are doing exactly to same thing.  I maintain my consistency and say this is their right.  In order to fund something everyone has to agree, not the other way around.  But somehow this shows my unbending hatred because I say that I want the same rule applied to both sides?  Sorry, but I believe I just proved I'm not acting in a knee-jerk fashion.



#11
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,202 posts

But somehow this shows my unbending hatred because I say that I want the same rule applied to both sides?  Sorry, but I believe I just proved I'm not acting in a knee-jerk fashion.


It's been a cumulative effect. Your disdain for anything Democrat is well-documented. From my POV it sort of adds an asterix to everything you post. Like, there's an extra level of my questioning you because of your bias. It seems borderline conspiracy theorist level hate at times.

That said, in this case I don't disagree with facts/history at all. I fully believe you. I have become so apathetic against both political parties that all I have at this point are my socialist Star Trek taught utopist equality morals.

It's just your knee-jerk hate for all things Democrat is hard to read. Surely there at least left leaning ideals or socially liberal ideas you could get behind right? And it's just the shady game Democrats these days play you hate right? Or is it the whole shebang?

Would you ever vote for a Democrat that had a reasonable platform and practice, or is the Democrat label enough alone to make that impossible?
  • James Madison +1 this

#12
Fozzie

Fozzie

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,383 posts
A large part of the reason the Republicans are getting blamed is because they took credit for it. You can't say "I'm completely responsible for this" and then complain when people say you're responsible. It has nothing to do with the media or anything else: the head of your party claimed it.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#13
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

A large part of the reason the Republicans are getting blamed is because they took credit for it. You can't say "I'm completely responsible for this" and then complain when people say you're responsible. It has nothing to do with the media or anything else: the head of your party claimed it.

Well that's wrong.  The reason they should get blamed for it is because they actually are responsible for it.  The same way that Obama was responsible for it five years ago and the same way Clinton was responsible 25 years ago.  It's juvenile for grown adults to engage in finger pointing as they do.  There are perfectly sound reasons why Trump is responsible based on 7th grade civics.  Basing entire rules of government around whatever testosterone-poisoned claim Trump makes one minute when you know he'll change his mind five minutes later is just as inexcusable as it is to base them around Gingrich once complaining about travel accommodations.

 

If you base the question on how our government is set up and not some amorphous blame game, then you don't have to worry about this crap.

 

I'll respond to Tank's post when it won't make me late for work.



#14
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

I think the house and senate should not be allowed to adjourn until they have some sort of bill that both sides can live with, and their pay should be suspended until then.  That said, once again Trump is a douche.  Not exactly a news flash there.  


While suspending Congress's pay is appealing, it probably is not a wise idea. There may be too much inducement to hastily reach a deal that isnt good legislation.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#15
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.


Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA.

Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown.

#16
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts


 

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.

I'm not saying that if Trump went on live TV and set a puppy on fire that you'd condone it, but you would bring up some obscure law pushed through by Democrats a hundred years ago that made puppy burning legal so that it was ultimately the left's fault. Your hatred runs soooo deep!
 
Democrats treated Cruz, Paul, and House Republicans like crazed nihilistic maniacs for standing up for the principle that they don't have to fund something that the president demands just five years ago, not 100 years ago.  Hell, fellow Republicans treated them like crazed maniacs.  And, of course, they lost.
 
So now Democrats are doing exactly to same thing.  I maintain my consistency and say this is their right.  In order to fund something everyone has to agree, not the other way around.  But somehow this shows my unbending hatred because I say that I want the same rule applied to both sides?  Sorry, but I believe I just proved I'm not acting in a knee-jerk fashion.

Are you discussing funding for the ACA in 2013? If so, then perhaps Cruz and Paul were a bit looney.

The ACA was already law. Parts of the law were going into effect without any funding. Parts of the law were becoming operational without funding. Under those circumstances, it didnt make any sense to deny funding for a law that was going into legal effect.

Now, I make those remarks as a right wing, Uber conservative according to Tank. At the time, as a conservative, I thought Cruz and Paul were wrong to try to deny funding for a law that was going into effect anyway. I knew what they were attempting, a de facto repeal of a law they couldnt repeal by the legislative process. Their approach did not make any sense under those facts.

This government shutdown is different. There isnt any law already in existence that is set to go into effect in which the border wall is an integral part of the law. If that were the case, then Schumer and Pelosi would perhaps be as psychotic as Paul and Cruz were in 2013.

#17
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,075 posts

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.

 

However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.

yes, let's compare what's happening now to what happened TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO because ALL that matters is that everything is done FAIRLY and completely mirrors everything we've done since the beginning of time. Let's not take into consideration the needs of 2019, the current budget, the projected effectiveness of THE WALL and be sure to blame everything bad on OBAMA and CLINTON.



#18
Fozzie

Fozzie

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,383 posts


A large part of the reason the Republicans are getting blamed is because they took credit for it. You can't say "I'm completely responsible for this" and then complain when people say you're responsible. It has nothing to do with the media or anything else: the head of your party claimed it.

Well that's wrong.  The reason they should get blamed for it is because they actually are responsible for it.  The same way that Obama was responsible for it five years ago and the same way Clinton was responsible 25 years ago.  It's juvenile for grown adults to engage in finger pointing as they do.  There are perfectly sound reasons why Trump is responsible based on 7th grade civics.  Basing entire rules of government around whatever testosterone-poisoned claim Trump makes one minute when you know he'll change his mind five minutes later is just as inexcusable as it is to base them around Gingrich once complaining about travel accommodations.
 
If you base the question on how our government is set up and not some amorphous blame game, then you don't have to worry about this crap.
 
I'll respond to Tank's post when it won't make me late for work.
It isn't a one time thing where Trump has taken responsiblity. Every once in a while he'll blame the Democrats, but even then he does it to show that he's unwilling to compromise and they won't just give him what he wants. And I don't get pretending it doesn't matter, when it does. Trump shows himself to be a toddler repeatedly, but he's the leader of the Republican Party. He's holding out for an inadequate amount of funding for what he claims to want, when in reality it's grandstanding. At least Obama actually wanted something, and it matched the law. Trump is throwing his typical temper tantrum and is holding the government hostage. Blaming Clinton and Obama for their shutdowns and then decrying the blame game is ridiculous, but not at all unexpected.

Having said that, I have contacted my Representative and Senators to encourage them to just give money for the wall. In the long run, it's not worth it to keep this up, especially when we're interfering with SNAP benefits and tax refunds.

#19
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.


Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA.

Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown.

 

Last I checked, the wall's construction is already a matter of law as well.  It's been stopped, repealed as you put it, merely by a lack of funding.  So I fail to see the difference.

 

 

 

yes, let's compare what's happening now to what happened TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO because ALL that matters is that everything is done FAIRLY and completely mirrors everything we've done since the beginning of time.

 

I'll magnanimously give Democrats a pass for their hypocrisy if we just play by these rules from here on forward.

 

We're not talking about grievances of the past here.  We're talking about how the government runs.  And the rules, indeed, seem to be that Democrats get what they want and Republicans take the blame.

 

 

 

It isn't a one time thing where Trump has taken responsiblity. Every once in a while he'll blame the Democrats, but even then he does it to show that he's unwilling to compromise and they won't just give him what he wants

 

Donald Trump does not define our civics.  If somehow he were the Speaker of the House and vacillating between taking responsibility and blaming a Democrat president, it would still be 100% on the Democrats because funding requires the consent of both the House, the Senate, and (lacking a super majority) the president.



#20
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

But somehow this shows my unbending hatred because I say that I want the same rule applied to both sides?  Sorry, but I believe I just proved I'm not acting in a knee-jerk fashion.


It's been a cumulative effect. Your disdain for anything Democrat is well-documented. From my POV it sort of adds an asterix to everything you post. Like, there's an extra level of my questioning you because of your bias. It seems borderline conspiracy theorist level hate at times.

 

Conspiracy theory.  Where?  What conspiracies have I endorsed?  I generally stay away from the tin-foil hat brigade and have little but disdain for them.  I've got a generalized belief about Democrats thinking their being right entitles them to break rules (what you call my lack of empathy).  That's not a conspiracy, that's a mindset problem on the left.  Or is it just press coverage?  Which I think there's ample evidence that their is bias against Republicans whether it rises to the level of conspiracy or not.

 

And I'm conservative.  Of course I post against the Democrats.  What's wrong with that?

 

 

 

It's just your knee-jerk hate for all things Democrat is hard to read. Surely there at least left leaning ideals or socially liberal ideas you could get behind right? And it's just the shady game Democrats these days play you hate right? Or is it the whole shebang?

 

If I were being knee-jerk, I would have long since just joined Trump.  I wouldn't have written a post that would have gotten me howled at if I were in a conservative crowd such as the above where I said the Democrats were in the right on this issue (knee jerk would have been jumping to both sides of the issue depending on which side my party was on).

 

 

 

Surely there at least left leaning ideals or socially liberal ideas you could get behind right?

 

Of course.  I've advocated on here for things like prohibition of the death penalty and gay marriage in the past.  I don't toss out ideas such as rape culture and the like.  There are plenty of things that I've been independent on

 

 

 

And it's just the shady game Democrats these days play you hate right?

 

Pretty much.  I hate the tactics.  I consider myself fairly mellow on the issues.

 

 

 

Would you ever vote for a Democrat that had a reasonable platform and practice, or is the Democrat label enough alone to make that impossible?

 

As currently constituted, I would not vote for a Democrat on the national level (local sure).

 

My choices are either the Republican, abstaining, or 3rd party.  The latter of which I did in 2016.


  • Tank +1 this

#21
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts
..
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#22
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,285 posts

A crappy useless wall will be built with whatever monies Congress decides to give. I used to live in El Paso and have been to the crossings in the Valley, Tijuana and parts of Arizona and where there is a will there is a way for anyone to get through. The walls that have been erected are just passing. If we're going to waste money on a dumb construct why not put public art up instead? My parents have a pretty sturdy fence and I know that they still have issues with the neighbors dog getting into their yard. 



#23
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,202 posts


 

But somehow this shows my unbending hatred because I say that I want the same rule applied to both sides?  Sorry, but I believe I just proved I'm not acting in a knee-jerk fashion.

It's been a cumulative effect. Your disdain for anything Democrat is well-documented. From my POV it sort of adds an asterix to everything you post. Like, there's an extra level of my questioning you because of your bias. It seems borderline conspiracy theorist level hate at times.
 
Conspiracy theory.  Where?  What conspiracies have I endorsed?  I generally stay away from the tin-foil hat brigade and have little but disdain for them.  I've got a generalized belief about Democrats thinking their being right entitles them to break rules (what you call my lack of empathy).  That's not a conspiracy, that's a mindset problem on the left.  Or is it just press coverage?  Which I think there's ample evidence that their is bias against Republicans whether it rises to the level of conspiracy or not.
 
And I'm conservative.  Of course I post against the Democrats.  What's wrong with that?
 
 
 

It's just your knee-jerk hate for all things Democrat is hard to read. Surely there at least left leaning ideals or socially liberal ideas you could get behind right? And it's just the shady game Democrats these days play you hate right? Or is it the whole shebang?

 
If I were being knee-jerk, I would have long since just joined Trump.  I wouldn't have written a post that would have gotten me howled at if I were in a conservative crowd such as the above where I said the Democrats were in the right on this issue (knee jerk would have been jumping to both sides of the issue depending on which side my party was on).
 
 
 

Surely there at least left leaning ideals or socially liberal ideas you could get behind right?

 
Of course.  I've advocated on here for things like prohibition of the death penalty and gay marriage in the past.  I don't toss out ideas such as rape culture and the like.  There are plenty of things that I've been independent on
 
 
 

And it's just the shady game Democrats these days play you hate right?

 
Pretty much.  I hate the tactics.  I consider myself fairly mellow on the issues.
 
 
 

Would you ever vote for a Democrat that had a reasonable platform and practice, or is the Democrat label enough alone to make that impossible?

 
As currently constituted, I would not vote for a Democrat on the national level (local sure).
 
My choices are either the Republican, abstaining, or 3rd party.  The latter of which I did in 2016.

It wasn't literal conspiracy theory feelings, just that feeling you get when a conspiracy theorist starts going off and you know there's no reasoning with the crazy you're about to hear.

If I see a topic, and you've posted, I sometimes get that feeling. You clarified a lot though, thank you.

I try to force myself to be centrist, it just seems that the right is always going against my morals and what I consider human and decent, so I always struggle with why people would lean thst way.

For the record, the very word "conservative" was a negative to me (in ANY respects, not just politics) until Maybe the age of 35?

#24
James Madison

James Madison

    Notre Dame Fanatic

  • Member
  • 7,089 posts

 

 

The Democrats are in the right in that they don't have to fund anything they don't want to fund.
 
However, I will point out that this is pretty much exactly what Obama did to get his Obamacare funding and Clinton did 25 years ago that Republicans were vilified for.  I'd welcome the return to sanity that Congress can tell the president "No" when he wants something, but I suspect it only means that the rules are only that Republicans are always to blame when this happens no matter which side of the matter they stand on.


Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA.

Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown.

 

Last I checked, the wall's construction is already a matter of law as well.  It's been stopped, repealed as you put it, merely by a lack of funding.  So I fail to see the difference.


 

Unlike providing no funding for the ACA in 2013, Chuck, Nancy, and Democrats, are not taking the position of no funding for the Secure Fence Act but instead refuse funding for a specific component of the Secure Fence Act.

 

Second, Trump's prior remarks demonstrate he desires a wall which exceeds the one contemplated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Trump has not been exclaiming that the promise of a fence under the Secure Fence Act remains unfulfilled and he is therefore, demanding funding to erect the fence contemplated under the Secure Fence Act. This is not a scenario in which Trump has told Nancy, Chuck, and Democrats the time has come to fulfill the promise of a fence in the Secure Fence Act and unless he receives some funding to facilitate his ambition to meet the promise of a fence under the Secure Fence Act, then he will shutdown the government.

 

Third, arguably the fence under the Secure Fence Act has been completed. To be sure, whether the fence under the Secure Fence Act has in fact been completed is a very contentious issue, but it is not at all clear there is a lack of funding to accomplish the goal of a fence as contemplated under the Secure Fence Act since erection of the fence may have already been accomplished. Of course, the fact that construction of a fence contemplated under the Secure Fence Act was made discretionary by a subsequent amendment in 2007, thereby making more ambiguous whether the wall is or is not completed. My point here, however, is that a rational argument can be made the act has been met. 



#25
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,422 posts

 

I think the house and senate should not be allowed to adjourn until they have some sort of bill that both sides can live with, and their pay should be suspended until then.  That said, once again Trump is a douche.  Not exactly a news flash there.  


While suspending Congress's pay is appealing, it probably is not a wise idea. There may be too much inducement to hastily reach a deal that isnt good legislation.

 

Yeah, that makes sense.  With no paycheck, no incentive to work.  But 2 things:  first, Congress and the President in effect are already doing that with fed workers affected by the government shut down.  They shouldn't ask others to do something they themselves aren't willing to do.  Second, many, in fact the majority of those in the house and senate are already wealthy and hold their jobs more because of the power, not the money.  It's not like they go into that line of work for the money because they already have that. 

 

In any event, I am describing what I think should be, but I know full well there is that, and the way things really are.  





Reply to this topic