This is going to be a bad one. Several weeks or more, easily. God forbid he keeps it going trying to get his stupid fucking wall once the new Congress is sworn in. This will be a nightmare....
This is going to be a bad one. Several weeks or more, easily. God forbid he keeps it going trying to get his stupid fucking wall once the new Congress is sworn in. This will be a nightmare. Government Employees are not guaranteed back-pay, and we're often not paid so much as the private sector. People live paycheck-to-paycheck in government positions too.
It's an argument over such a tiny amount of money too. There's a couple questions that can and should be argued about: Do we want a wall at all? Will it be be effective or not? But the money is...
It's an argument over such a tiny amount of money too.
There's a couple questions that can and should be argued about: Do we want a wall at all? Will it be be effective or not?
But the money is just so stupid. It could be $50 billion and it's still effectively just a rounding error in the total federal budget.
Trump turned down $25 Billion in February in exchange for a bipartisan DACA deal. The White House went all out to prevent it from happening. Now he's throwing a temper tantrum like a child for...
Trump turned down $25 Billion in February in exchange for a bipartisan DACA deal. The White House went all out to prevent it from happening.
Now he's throwing a temper tantrum like a child for 1/5th the amount.
The wall is a waste of money, as it won't prevent the issue it claims to solve, and as comparatively small $5B is to our budget a lot of tangible good can be done with so much money.
This article by Reuters is just a stub. For more information: Washington Post: Partial government shutdown assured after lawmakers leave Capitol without budget deal CNBC: Government shutdown is...
This article by Reuters is just a stub. For more information:
I think this topic makes a good example of a place that I think replacing the link would be appropriate. Like you said, the linked article is basically a stub, and there are many other links that...
I think this topic makes a good example of a place that I think replacing the link would be appropriate. Like you said, the linked article is basically a stub, and there are many other links that would be far more informative about the subject.
One of the main objections you've personally had to it is that you feel like comments are made in the context of a particular link, and that changing the link changes the context, so the existing comments will become irrelevant or ill-suited in some way to the new link. Imagine that I replaced the link with your Washington Post article—which of the comments here do you think would be out of context or otherwise negatively impacted by that switch?
Edit: Algernon_Asimov has replied to this comment here, to prevent this thread from getting too off-topic, so if you'd like to participate in the conversation please do so there instead of replying to this comment.
Maybe we should have a 3rd type of post? Wiki posts with a link + text that's editable by most people and can display a history of the link / text & changes. Then the original poster can choose...
Maybe we should have a 3rd type of post?
Wiki posts with a link + text that's editable by most people and can display a history of the link / text & changes. Then the original poster can choose that they think the topic is imortant but they're not that wedded to this particular external content?
And it's possible to work out the context of the comments if not necessarily simple.
In that sentence, focusing on the but is a mistake; "all but" is a conjunction meaning "very nearly"1 so if you look at the whole phrase like that, the sentence will make sense. 1: Sometimes. It...
In that sentence, focusing on the but is a mistake; "all but" is a conjunction meaning "very nearly"1 so if you look at the whole phrase like that, the sentence will make sense.
Your reading works too. "All except certain" means almost certain, kind of like if a bill passes with 99/100 Senate votes, then it passes with all except one vote. When used with "certain", the...
Your reading works too. "All except certain" means almost certain, kind of like if a bill passes with 99/100 Senate votes, then it passes with all except one vote. When used with "certain", the bit missing to make it fully certain is implicit/unstated.
It's going to be interesting how things play out in the upcoming days. Who will back down first? As a side note, there's also this Wikipedia article detailing the history of government shutdowns...
It's going to be interesting how things play out in the upcoming days. Who will back down first?
As a side note, there's also this Wikipedia article detailing the history of government shutdowns in the US.
Yup. Congresspeople still get paid during a shutdown. And the White House doesn't lose any of its staff. The only impact on their lives is that a historic clock in the senate won't get wound. So...
Yup. Congresspeople still get paid during a shutdown. And the White House doesn't lose any of its staff. The only impact on their lives is that a historic clock in the senate won't get wound. So they'll have a slightly harder time keeping their schedule.
I missed an episode here. Trump wants wall funding. Neither the House nor the Senate want it, Republicans included. They can just pass a resolution to continue funding, Trump can veto it, and...
I missed an episode here. Trump wants wall funding. Neither the House nor the Senate want it, Republicans included. They can just pass a resolution to continue funding, Trump can veto it, and Congress can override the veto as long as there aren't any poison pll riders in the bill.
Obviously this cannot be right since we're looking at a shutdown. What am I missing here ?
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is refusing to have any more votes until an agreement is reached between the White House and Democratic & Republican congressional leaders. The problem here being...
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is refusing to have any more votes until an agreement is reached between the White House and Democratic & Republican congressional leaders. The problem here being Trump refusing to budge on his demands, and the Senate refusing to commit to a budget until the President commits to one.
So McConnell doesn't want Trump to end up with egg on his face ? Why are the Democrats involved, anyway ? Republicans have enough votes to pass the spending bill until the new congress is sworn in.
So McConnell doesn't want Trump to end up with egg on his face ?
Why are the Democrats involved, anyway ? Republicans have enough votes to pass the spending bill until the new congress is sworn in.
The wall won't pass in the Senate; he doesn't even have 50 votes, let alone the 60 he needs. The new House will likely pass a no-wall Continuing Resolution when they convene January 3rd. The...
The wall won't pass in the Senate; he doesn't even have 50 votes, let alone the 60 he needs.
The new House will likely pass a no-wall Continuing Resolution when they convene January 3rd. The Senate can put it to a vote or McConnell owns the shutdown, Trump can sign it or double-down and own the shutdown even more.
My understanding is that 51 votes passes a piece of legislation in the Senate, once it's brought to a vote and debate has ended. That debate is essentially indefinite and only ends when there's...
My understanding is that 51 votes passes a piece of legislation in the Senate, once it's brought to a vote and debate has ended. That debate is essentially indefinite and only ends when there's nothing left to say, or you have 60 votes to invoke cloture and proceed to the vote. Thus, if you have 41 Senators and a bone to pick with a piece of legislation you could potentially block it forever.
A couple of days ago the Senate passed a no-wall stopgap spending bill that would keep the government funded through Feb. 8, but Trump said he would not sign it. There's the concept of the Nuclear Option, but Senate Republicans have said they will not invoke it to pass the bill.
Afaik the filibuster doesn't apply to spending bills (with some arcane restrictions). That's how they got that absurd tax cut passed last year. Why should this be any different ?
Afaik the filibuster doesn't apply to spending bills (with some arcane restrictions). That's how they got that absurd tax cut passed last year. Why should this be any different ?
That absurd tax cut was passed under Reconciliation, and that allows for no-fillibusters and only a simple majority. But Reconciliation isn't something you swing around, you only get one per year...
That absurd tax cut was passed under Reconciliation, and that allows for no-fillibusters and only a simple majority. But Reconciliation isn't something you swing around, you only get one per year and you're bound to piss off a lot of people depending on how you use it which you'll need to consider if you're up for reelection soon.
Even then, there aren't 50 Republicans in the Senate who want the wall. It's just not going to happen.
What strange rules you Americans have... then again if I looked too deeply into Canadian Parliamentary procedures I am sure I would find plenty of the same. ;)
What strange rules you Americans have... then again if I looked too deeply into Canadian Parliamentary procedures I am sure I would find plenty of the same. ;)
I've learned a lot since this administration began, and have become very dissatisfied with the system in place. The lack of means and political will to remove a President so corrupt, so hostile to...
I've learned a lot since this administration began, and have become very dissatisfied with the system in place. The lack of means and political will to remove a President so corrupt, so hostile to our allies, so comforting to our enemies, so much the antithesis of the values held by the majority of voters, who likely is only in office due to actions in the spirit of treason if not in the letter of it, and is on the road to destabilizing the global markets, has made me wake up angry every day since this has began.
We have a lot of cleaning up to do, and this can never happen again.
It's really been eye opening how much the ideal of separation of powers has eroded. Exemplified by things like the unilateral imposition of tariffs and the extensive control over what legislation...
We have a lot of cleaning up to do, and this can never happen again.
It's really been eye opening how much the ideal of separation of powers has eroded. Exemplified by things like the unilateral imposition of tariffs and the extensive control over what legislation even gets to be voted on, the president and the senate majority leader both hold inordinate amounts of power, that needs desperately to be clawed back and distributed to more people.
Really? That is so frustrating. I can understand why people vote Republican. I get the appeal. But it always irritates me that they keep getting elected when they consistantly screw people over...
Really? That is so frustrating.
I can understand why people vote Republican. I get the appeal. But it always irritates me that they keep getting elected when they consistantly screw people over like this. This wouldn't have happened if they had the backbone to stand up to the President and say that the border wall wasn't happening.
But of course, the President is the real problem here. The level of delusion going around in our capital is apparantly at an all-time high, with him tweeting that the shutdown is fake news (naturally) and that he is in the White House working hard - which is apparantly also a lie according to CBS news.
Progressives say that we don't want Trump to leave the office because then we would get Pence. Honestly, at this point, I would welcome him in because I so deeply long for a mentally coherent President.
I never really understood what government shutdowns were. I have a vague memory of Barrack going through one because of some budget disagreement a few years ago, but whenever i read articles about...
I never really understood what government shutdowns were. I have a vague memory of Barrack going through one because of some budget disagreement a few years ago, but whenever i read articles about them it just talked about what X is hoping to get out of it and how Y will be affected, although never what it is and why it exists.
Surely it's a bit counter productive right? But it must serve a purpose otherwise someone wouldn't have put it in, even if it's "self destruct-lite"
It's a really odd thing, imo. It seems bizarre that shutting down government departments because of party political squabbling is built into the system. It's like collective punishment of workers...
It's a really odd thing, imo. It seems bizarre that shutting down government departments because of party political squabbling is built into the system.
It's like collective punishment of workers and citizens for the failure of leadership.
The shutdown isn't the primary effect, it's a side effect of an unwillingness to pass a budget on time, which then limits how and when money can be spent by the federal government. This does not...
The shutdown isn't the primary effect, it's a side effect of an unwillingness to pass a budget on time, which then limits how and when money can be spent by the federal government. This does not make it any better.
This is going to be a bad one. Several weeks or more, easily. God forbid he keeps it going trying to get his stupid fucking wall once the new Congress is sworn in. This will be a nightmare. Government Employees are not guaranteed back-pay, and we're often not paid so much as the private sector. People live paycheck-to-paycheck in government positions too.
It's an argument over such a tiny amount of money too.
There's a couple questions that can and should be argued about: Do we want a wall at all? Will it be be effective or not?
But the money is just so stupid. It could be $50 billion and it's still effectively just a rounding error in the total federal budget.
Trump turned down $25 Billion in February in exchange for a bipartisan DACA deal. The White House went all out to prevent it from happening.
Now he's throwing a temper tantrum like a child for 1/5th the amount.
The wall is a waste of money, as it won't prevent the issue it claims to solve, and as comparatively small $5B is to our budget a lot of tangible good can be done with so much money.
This article by Reuters is just a stub. For more information:
Washington Post: Partial government shutdown assured after lawmakers leave Capitol without budget deal
CNBC: Government shutdown is all but certain as Congress adjourns without a spending deal
I think this topic makes a good example of a place that I think replacing the link would be appropriate. Like you said, the linked article is basically a stub, and there are many other links that would be far more informative about the subject.
One of the main objections you've personally had to it is that you feel like comments are made in the context of a particular link, and that changing the link changes the context, so the existing comments will become irrelevant or ill-suited in some way to the new link. Imagine that I replaced the link with your Washington Post article—which of the comments here do you think would be out of context or otherwise negatively impacted by that switch?
Edit: Algernon_Asimov has replied to this comment here, to prevent this thread from getting too off-topic, so if you'd like to participate in the conversation please do so there instead of replying to this comment.
Maybe we should have a 3rd type of post?
Wiki posts with a link + text that's editable by most people and can display a history of the link / text & changes. Then the original poster can choose that they think the topic is imortant but they're not that wedded to this particular external content?
And it's possible to work out the context of the comments if not necessarily simple.
Off-topic, but could a native English speaker tell me why but is used to mean "only" in this headline? Because this is how I read it:
In that sentence, focusing on the but is a mistake; "all but" is a conjunction meaning "very nearly"1 so if you look at the whole phrase like that, the sentence will make sense.
1: Sometimes. It has another use as well.
I'd been passively wondering why it meant opposite things, but now it finally makes sense. Thank you!
Your reading works too. "All except certain" means almost certain, kind of like if a bill passes with 99/100 Senate votes, then it passes with all except one vote. When used with "certain", the bit missing to make it fully certain is implicit/unstated.
It's going to be interesting how things play out in the upcoming days. Who will back down first?
As a side note, there's also this Wikipedia article detailing the history of government shutdowns in the US.
What's confusing is all the people who would have needed to back down or not this time are all on the same 'side'...
Govt. shutdowns suck. Workers are fucked over by them, not politicians. Disappointing. Hope no one loses their living accommodations over this.
Yup. Congresspeople still get paid during a shutdown. And the White House doesn't lose any of its staff. The only impact on their lives is that a historic clock in the senate won't get wound. So they'll have a slightly harder time keeping their schedule.
I missed an episode here. Trump wants wall funding. Neither the House nor the Senate want it, Republicans included. They can just pass a resolution to continue funding, Trump can veto it, and Congress can override the veto as long as there aren't any poison pll riders in the bill.
Obviously this cannot be right since we're looking at a shutdown. What am I missing here ?
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is refusing to have any more votes until an agreement is reached between the White House and Democratic & Republican congressional leaders. The problem here being Trump refusing to budge on his demands, and the Senate refusing to commit to a budget until the President commits to one.
So McConnell doesn't want Trump to end up with egg on his face ?
Why are the Democrats involved, anyway ? Republicans have enough votes to pass the spending bill until the new congress is sworn in.
The wall won't pass in the Senate; he doesn't even have 50 votes, let alone the 60 he needs.
The new House will likely pass a no-wall Continuing Resolution when they convene January 3rd. The Senate can put it to a vote or McConnell owns the shutdown, Trump can sign it or double-down and own the shutdown even more.
Don't spending bills only need 50 votes ?
My understanding is that 51 votes passes a piece of legislation in the Senate, once it's brought to a vote and debate has ended. That debate is essentially indefinite and only ends when there's nothing left to say, or you have 60 votes to invoke cloture and proceed to the vote. Thus, if you have 41 Senators and a bone to pick with a piece of legislation you could potentially block it forever.
A couple of days ago the Senate passed a no-wall stopgap spending bill that would keep the government funded through Feb. 8, but Trump said he would not sign it. There's the concept of the Nuclear Option, but Senate Republicans have said they will not invoke it to pass the bill.
Afaik the filibuster doesn't apply to spending bills (with some arcane restrictions). That's how they got that absurd tax cut passed last year. Why should this be any different ?
That absurd tax cut was passed under Reconciliation, and that allows for no-fillibusters and only a simple majority. But Reconciliation isn't something you swing around, you only get one per year and you're bound to piss off a lot of people depending on how you use it which you'll need to consider if you're up for reelection soon.
Even then, there aren't 50 Republicans in the Senate who want the wall. It's just not going to happen.
What strange rules you Americans have... then again if I looked too deeply into Canadian Parliamentary procedures I am sure I would find plenty of the same. ;)
I've learned a lot since this administration began, and have become very dissatisfied with the system in place. The lack of means and political will to remove a President so corrupt, so hostile to our allies, so comforting to our enemies, so much the antithesis of the values held by the majority of voters, who likely is only in office due to actions in the spirit of treason if not in the letter of it, and is on the road to destabilizing the global markets, has made me wake up angry every day since this has began.
We have a lot of cleaning up to do, and this can never happen again.
It's really been eye opening how much the ideal of separation of powers has eroded. Exemplified by things like the unilateral imposition of tariffs and the extensive control over what legislation even gets to be voted on, the president and the senate majority leader both hold inordinate amounts of power, that needs desperately to be clawed back and distributed to more people.
We are soon to find out if it will. If that nincompoop gets reelected I honestly don't know... :/
Ah, thanks for taking the time to explain
Really? That is so frustrating.
I can understand why people vote Republican. I get the appeal. But it always irritates me that they keep getting elected when they consistantly screw people over like this. This wouldn't have happened if they had the backbone to stand up to the President and say that the border wall wasn't happening.
But of course, the President is the real problem here. The level of delusion going around in our capital is apparantly at an all-time high, with him tweeting that the shutdown is fake news (naturally) and that he is in the White House working hard - which is apparantly also a lie according to CBS news.
Progressives say that we don't want Trump to leave the office because then we would get Pence. Honestly, at this point, I would welcome him in because I so deeply long for a mentally coherent President.
I never really understood what government shutdowns were. I have a vague memory of Barrack going through one because of some budget disagreement a few years ago, but whenever i read articles about them it just talked about what X is hoping to get out of it and how Y will be affected, although never what it is and why it exists.
Surely it's a bit counter productive right? But it must serve a purpose otherwise someone wouldn't have put it in, even if it's "self destruct-lite"
It's a really odd thing, imo. It seems bizarre that shutting down government departments because of party political squabbling is built into the system.
It's like collective punishment of workers and citizens for the failure of leadership.
Like most bizarre things from the US, I assume it's something that made sense in the 1800s that they never adapted to modern times
Apparently these shutdowns really started only after 1980, when earlier law about budget started to get interpreted more strictly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States
The whole idea is very bizarre in any case. In many other countries, this level of failure tends to trigger an automatic re-election.
The shutdown isn't the primary effect, it's a side effect of an unwillingness to pass a budget on time, which then limits how and when money can be spent by the federal government. This does not make it any better.