US Politics: Shutbound & Down

[S John]

I flew last week and it was fine.  Flying again next week though and def worried about that round trip.  Especially ‘cause last week was for work and next week is for fun.  Would be just my luck if work trip was smooth sailin’ while fun trip takes a nosedive becuase of this dumb shit.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

FFlask time, methinks.  

Is FFlask short for Four Flasks?  If so, I enthusiastically approve.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it would be a drop in the bucket at the end of the day, and such legislation would get positive press for all parties involved. I see no reason why something similar couldn't be done.

I don't see the GOP agreeing to this.  At all.  They are the ones that have most frequently used shutdowns as a political weapon (and, really, have been the instigators for all three of the only meaningful shutdowns).  They're not going to effectively give up.

44 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Why? That defeats the entire purpose of shutting down the government.

Considering the "purpose" of a shutdown was entirely created as politically weaponizing the appropriations process ~40 years ago, I see no problem in theory rendering them inert.  Not gonna happen cuz of what I just said, but there is no substantive "purpose" of shutdowns other than as a political tool.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is FFlask short for Four Flasks?  If so, I enthusiastically approve.

It holds like five shots, so kinda?

Quote

I don't see the GOP agreeing to this.  At all.  They are the ones that have most frequently used shutdowns as a political weapon (and, really, have been the instigators for all three of the only meaningful shutdowns).  They're not going to effectively give up.

Maybe, but Republicans are taking the majority of the blame here, and Americans genuinely seem pissed that these people are being forced to work without pay. Legislation like this could be useful PR spin. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, but Republicans are taking the majority of the blame here, and Americans genuinely seem pissed that these people are being forced to work without pay. Legislation like this could be useful PR spin. 

Republicans have taken the majority of the blame in all three major instances.  Clearly that hasn't dissuaded them thus far.

[Jace, Extat]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

.

Considering the "purpose" of a shutdown was entirely created as politically weaponizing the appropriations process ~40 years ago, I see no problem in theory rendering them inert.  Not gonna happen cuz of what I just said, but there is no substantive "purpose" of shutdowns other than as a political tool.

The "purpose" is to hold the Fed government and the workers hostage. We're saying the same thing, I just said it like a bitch.

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems pretty sensible to me.

I just enjoy that she was willing to go on this.

Interestingly enough in that video she says that caving in to Republicans would mean they would again use shutdowns to get what they want in the future.

It's an excellent point to make. Not sure everyone will agree.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Aspects of this have come up on this forum now and again:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/22/the-new-elites-phoney-crusade-to-save-the-world-without-changing-anything

Great article.

I saw a recent documentary on coca-cola using environmental concerns to improve its image without doing much, specifically on recycling.
Ah, here it is is (in French, unfortunately): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E8rjdubui8
To sum up, the reporter points out that in 2016 coca-cola was lobbying against recycling in Brussels, which shows its hypocrisy since in 2008 it had officially committed to using 25% of recycled plastic in its bottles (which it didn't achieve).

Generally speaking I've seen several measures being taken that focus on individuals/citizens while largely giving a pass to corporations. So this article hits the nail on its head for me. There's a lot of noise on climate change, but more often than not, the end result is to reinforce the current socio-economic structure instead of questioning it.

[Zorral]

24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

this article hits the nail on its head for me. There's a lot of noise on climate change, but more often than not, the end result is to reinforce the current socio-economic structure instead of questioning it.

The latest season of Billions addressed the corporate charity and progressive causes as both dick competitions and white washing while doing nothing much or at all in scathing detail.  

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As far as I understand, the temporary protections aren't nearly as relevant anymore. The Supreme Court is signaling that they're not going to hear an appeal of a lower courts ruling, so the injunction on Trump's rescinding of DACA protections are in effect.

I wonder how much longer this can honestly go on for. I'm catching a flight tomorrow, and the idea that 10% of TSA staff didn't show up to work on Sunday is kind of horrifying. These people don't make great money as it is, so they likely don't have much saved up. How many pay cycles can they take this for? I know I'd be at my breaking point if I was living paycheck to paycheck. And mass quittings and/or a strike would shut the country down. 

Once this is all resolved, legislation must be drafted and passed that states that federal workers must still be paid during a shutdown. I have no idea what the cost would be, but funds must be appropriated and saved away to handle another shutdown of this length. 

here ya go

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mark-warner-introduces-stop-stupidity-act-aimed-at-preventing-future-shutdowns/2019/01/22/2bafc150-1e82-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html?utm_term=.be3f505e32fc

[Fez]

At last count there were 53 senators (including all the Democrats) publicly saying they wanted a clean CR to reopen the government, who knows how many more are saying so privately as well. It could be this is McConnell basically giving up and telling the unhappy members of the caucus to put up or shut up and this ends up being a free vote for them. If it passes, McConnell can spin to Trump that gives it a vote was the only way to get Democrats to also a vote on Trump's bill. If it fails, things continue as is. That's speculation on my part, but otherwise I don't know why McConnell's allowing this vote, it's all potential downside.

 

As far as shutdowns go, there are quite a few parts of government, including within agencies that are otherwise closed, that aren't actually affected by shutdowns because they have permanent funding authorizations. It would not be hard to pass (logistically, not talking politically) a bill saying granting permanent funding authorization for CR-level funding anytime annual appropriations expire. Mark Warner even introduced such a bill today. It won't get a vote; but Democrats should try for it next time they have the trifecta. Which is basically what happened anyway before Carter's AG issued that stupid opinion about shutdowns, the next Democratic AG could also just rescind that and we go back to the pre-Carter system.

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, Fez said:

At last count there were 53 senators (including all the Democrats) publicly saying they wanted a clean CR to reopen the government

There are 6 Republicans that have publicly stated they want a clean CR?  Who?

[Fez]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

There are 6 Republicans that have publicly stated they want a clean CR?  Who?

Not sure. It was a tweet from one of the congressional reporters I follow on Twitter, names weren't named.

However, per Politico there were actually 10 Senate Republicans who ended up signing that letter last week calling for a clean three-week CR. No names in the article either though and that letter was never officially sent to Trump because it didn't reach the the goal of getting 20 Senate Republicans. But 10 still signed even after that full-court Pence/Kushner push against it.

Not sure if the reporter was counting from that or something else though. I assume something else because otherwise the math would be 57 senators. I know Murkowski and Gardner have been pretty vocal about wanting a clean CR, haven't been paying enough attention to see who else is.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not sure. It was a tweet from one of the congressional reporters I follow on Twitter, names weren't named.

However, per Politico there were actually 10 Senate Republicans who ended up signing that letter last week calling for a clean three-week CR.

Gotcha thanks.

[Kalbear]

So I'm still having trouble seeing any outs for Trump, especially now that the emergency declaration appears to have been tabled. McConnell might, maybe, be manufacturing one, but I don't see how enough Republicans defect in an open vote given that they're basically all spineless. And Trump's deal was basically bullshit to begin with, another Stephen Miller special. 

So seriously - how do we end this? 

[DMC]

Dance off.

[DMC]

So seriously, between Trump's proposal and The Mystery of the Turtle Allowing a Clean CR Vote, we've seen the only two substantive instances of movement in a month over the past four days - indicating the GOP is indeed softening.  If the numbers don't show any movement towards the GOP's way over the next week or so (either by increasing blame for Dems, both sides, or decreasing GOP blame), I could see McConnell presenting Trump with two options.  Either declare the emergency, or let McConnell figure out some face-saving way to end it - like the non-concession concession that ended the 2013 shutdown.  Wouldn't put any money on it, but the possibility of an end looks considerably better today than it did last Friday.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 1/21/2019 at 1:33 PM, Triskele said:

Not that this will get too much traction today with MAGA kid taking up the oxygen, but I continue to think that Glenn Greenwald might be on Putin's payroll.  The only other possibility for what he's been up to the last few years is that he is so against the US establishment (for some good reasons like Iraq) that he's just got it out for them to the point that he cannot see the bigger picture.  Any time there's any kind of story line this Buzzfeed situation (which is a very fluid story and the moment and one we can't reach conclusions on yet) Greenwald takes it and uses it to argue that there's nothing to see here with Trump and Russia.  It's fucking absurd.  Because some media outlets get any Trump / Russia story not perfectly right does not mean that Trump / Russia is some fabricated issue.  

Russia/Trump is an over-covered issue pressed by many left-leaning media outlets. It appears some left-wingers like Greenwald desire to dismiss the issue as a whole as it detracts attention from a litany of problems facing the nation and an excuse to not have a discussion on what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Russia/Trump is clearly a real issue. Greenwald is wrong to try so heavily to dismiss it as “fake news” But I can empathize with his frustrations. The democrats priotized this one issue for over the last three years, non-stop coverage, countless hours of speculation over even the tiniest bit of evidence  of there being collusion. Instead of having an in-depth examination of their faults, or trying to work to win back the white-blue collar workers that went to Trump during the election, or focusing their attention on persuading the new batch of voters in 2018 to side with them the Democratic Party stuck to Russia near exclusively as if where win 1950s Cold-war America where the tinniest whiff of being in favor of Russia will end any hopes of a political career  Listen I get Russia interfered with the election. The issue should be covered. It should have been covered in moderation. Instead the democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump. It’s frustrating.  And if Trump gets re-elected, I will not be surprised given how the democrats have chosen to use their time during his first term. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Man Drudge is going after AOC hard over the past 24 hours - for making various entirely reasonable statements.  Methinks someone's a bit smitten...

AOC is the Anita Sarkeesian of elected officials. 

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Russia/Trump is an over-covered issue pressed by many left-leaning media outlets. It appears some left-wingers like Greenwald desire to dismiss the issue as a whole as it detracts attention from a litany of problems facing the nation and an excuse to not have a discussion on what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Russia/Trump is clearly a real issue. Greenwald is wrong to try so heavily to dismiss it as “fake news” But I can empathize with his frustrations. The democrats priotized this one issue for over the last three years, non-stop coverage, countless hours of speculation over even the tiniest bit of evidence  of there being collusion. Instead of having an in-depth examination of their faults, or trying to work to win back the white-blue collar workers that went to Trump during the election, or focusing their attention on persuading the new batch of voters in 2018 to side with them the Democratic Party stuck to Russia near exclusively as if where win 1950s Cold-war America where the tinniest whiff of being in favor of Russia will end any hopes of a political career  Listen I get Russia interfered with the election. The issue should be covered. It should have been covered in moderation. Instead the democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump. It’s frustrating.  And if Trump gets re-elected, I will not be surprised given how the democrats have chosen to use their time during his first term. 

What "moderate" level of coverage is appropriate to the fact that an unfit, brazenly corrupt, and hopelessly incompetent racist, grifting, serial sexual assaulter got installed as President, while the Senate Majority Leader spiked any chance of a bipartisan condemnation of Russian election meddling?

I like how you try to minimize the "tiniest bit of evidence" of there being collusion. Firing the FBI Director after asking him to go easy on your soon-to-be-convicted National Security Adviser is just a tiny bit of evidence?

Next, is this a complaint about media, or Democratic politicians? Sure, lots of media has been covering the collusion angle regularly, because... there's a goddamn special counsel investigation. There are new developments on a regular basis.

But "democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump" is vague and useless, and also wrong. Democrats have pushed back against Trump because his policies are racist, envicornmentally disastrous, exacerbate inequality, damage our international standing and alliances, or obviously intended for personal enrichment. There have been a thousand reasons Democrats have pushed back against Trump. "Because Russia!" is hardly ever mentioned in actual policy debates, except to point out that Trump's foreign policy is giving Putin exactly what he wants.

Get the fuck out of here with this whitewashing bullshit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Russia/Trump is an over-covered issue pressed by many left-leaning media outlets. It appears some left-wingers like Greenwald desire to dismiss the issue as a whole as it detracts attention from a litany of problems facing the nation and an excuse to not have a discussion on what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Russia/Trump is clearly a real issue. Greenwald is wrong to try so heavily to dismiss it as “fake news” But I can empathize with his frustrations. The democrats priotized this one issue for over the last three years, non-stop coverage, countless hours of speculation over even the tiniest bit of evidence  of there being collusion. Instead of having an in-depth examination of their faults, or trying to work to win back the white-blue collar workers that went to Trump during the election, or focusing their attention on persuading the new batch of voters in 2018 to side with them the Democratic Party stuck to Russia near exclusively as if where win 1950s Cold-war America where the tinniest whiff of being in favor of Russia will end any hopes of a political career  Listen I get Russia interfered with the election. The issue should be covered. It should have been covered in moderation. Instead the democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump. It’s frustrating.  And if Trump gets re-elected, I will not be surprised given how the democrats have chosen to use their time during his first term. 

Uh... This is an interesting take. 

It just seems completely out of touch with reality.  You implying Democrats have chosen to use their time during Trump's first term mostly pushing back on the Russia issue.  First off, the Dems were a minortiy in the House and Senate.  Secondly, they've pushed back against Trump on a host of issues ranging from Supreme Court picks, immigration policy, adhering to the Paris climate accords, and maintaining good relations with our allies.  

Meanwhile where do you think that "new batch of 2018 voters" came from and who do you think they voted for?  That was three months ago, and whole the Russia stuff is certainly constant in the news, it's because there have been constant slow revelations about the extent of Russia's involvement.  You now have Trumps own lawyer mentioning that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia.  

Have you heard Dems rail against the Kavanaugh confirmation or Trump locking up brown children or the pillaging of the Dept of Interior?  Or letting voters know how bad the Trump tax cuts are?  Or making noise Everytime Trump and the GOP  tried to take away ACA provisions?  Because they've been doing those things as well.

Look back at the campaigns that picked up seats in the house.  They didn't just run on Russia.  They ran on health care, immigration, responsible tax policy, climate change, LGBTQ rights, and functional government.  

You're hearing about Russia all the time because there's an ongoing investigation that keeps turning up more involvement from Trump's staff in working with Russia to get Trump elected.  And if you haven't been hearing Dems talking about the other stuff you haven't been paying attention.  I agree the media butchers news into the most grisly, sensational headlines that disguise and distort the truth.  But Greenwald is going nuts on the "no smoking gun yet" notion with Russia.  Yes, we realize that Trump hasn't been caught chopping up and cannibalizing US school children with Putin.  

Thanks though.

ETA: you also seem to be conflating "the media" with Democrats and the left in general.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You now have Trumps own lawyer mentioning that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia.  

But don't trust my lawyer - he's in prison!  Best defense ever.