Rolling potential Republican shutdown thread

NEWS — JEFFRIES just now — DEMS ONLY WILL ACCEPT CLEAN CR

“We will only accept a clean continuing resolution that maintains the status quo to allow for continued negotiations around reaching a year end spending agreement, consistent with the bipartisan fiscal responsibility act that Republicans themselves negotiated.”

https://x.com/jakesherman/status/1722333127564034272

Republicans are too divided/incompetent/nihilist to pass a budget without Ds bailing them out. Also, a clean CR cost McCarthy his job.

Looks like we got a shutdown coming.

That's fine. Government doesn't do anything for me anyway.

You and Aunt Alice are the only self sufficient people in America

Who the

Who the fuck is aunt AliCe?

I aspire to be a substitute welder who rides his bike to work because my POS jeep was repoed, or some supposed nepo baby who has to work in subway because my dead mom changed the locks.

Catch the fuck up Mr. the boy.

Oh god damnit.

I predict another last-second resolution.

There's no such thing as a clean CR, the whole process is dirty.

I don't know. I cannot figure out if the new speaker is a OG republican who will quietly fund the MIC and government, or if he is beholdent to the terrorist right and will shut it all down. He could be either.

It really scapes me that he got past the insane bunch of MTG, rapey Mcforehead, and Botard. I do not have any idea what that means either he has fooled them with his lies, whiuch might be the case, or he is batshit insane and they know it.

I guess we will be finding out.

☀️ JOHNSON’S BIG TEST

after weeks of talks with republicans and vowing to change Washington, Johnson opts for a clean govt funding bill with no cuts, no policy changes.

Will more Dems support this than Rs?

https://x.com/jakesherman/status/1724027668767932480

Same as it ever was.

Anyone else pretty impressed with how Jeffries/House Ds have handled this?

A couple weeks ago someone I listen to (James Carville?) mentioned he was lucky to get his feet wet under an incompetent/fragmented majority. He’s basically getting to lead without the spotlight or expectations.

NEWS — Schumer announces on floor that the Senate will no longer vote tonight to advance a legislative vehicle for a CR. He says they’ll wait and see what the House can do with its CR.

@AndrewDesiderio

https://x.com/jakesherman/status/1724187031192977448

Clearly he wants to push it to the end of December and blame it on the Republicans.

Selfishly, I hope we have another government shutdown because it would guarantee me time off for Thanksgiving week and Christmas week. But I also really don't want it to happen. Really cool living through every federal government shutdown that lasted more than a day. Perfectly normal democracy we have.

I’m taking you off of ignore for now. You wanna talk about democracy, fine, let’s talk about democracy. The Democrats have the senate, that’s fine, the republicans have the house. Most republican voters don’t want/ don’t like continuing resolutions. Why? Because congress people on both sides agree at the last minute to vote on the CR so that they can claim that they had to vote for X to get Z. Then they run on that “compromise”, except it isn’t a compromise because neither side wants to take the blame for it if it affects the next election. There are some Democrats that do want up and down bills, meaning they want funding bills for each and every bill without amendments By law that’s what’s supposed to happen, but it doesn’t. People like @Ancalagon like to talk a big game about following the law, but at the end of the day, they support the CR. Does that look like democracy to you? To me it looks like Horace Greeley making back room deals with a bunch of white men smoking cigars. I thought you guys were against that.

Dems prepare to save another GOP speaker from a shutdown

In a private caucus meeting, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined all the ways Speaker Mike Johnson's spending bill was a win for the party.

https://www.politico.com/live-updat...use-dems-ready-to-bail-out-gop-again-00127034

Thankfully there are some adults in Congress.

First off, CRs aren’t illegal. If you are gonna try and claim it show your work.

Secondly, which chamber has passed more stand alone appropriations bills this session, the House or the Senate?

I didn't say they were illegal. They're supposed to pass 12 individual appropriation bills, but instead pass continuing resolutions and the far right wing rag Politico rightly identified the problem nearly a decade ago.

They also are right to point out that both parties participate in dirty trick to try and fool the public.

If you want to talk about democracy, well what can I say, Politico got that one right as well. This budget process curtails democracy and invited the donor class and special interests into the process.

Of course in the mid 90s congress tried to fix some of this with a line item veto, but the Supreme Court struck it down. Democrats have opposed a line item veto for decades.

Politico also rightly points out that most in Congress hate this process. I'd say that some of them hide behind it so that they don't have to go on record, but that's just my opinion.

One does wonder if they hate it so much, then why don't they change it? Politico hints at the answer without outright saying it.

They're lazy.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/sto...gressional-budget-control-act-history-000282/

As for the rest, I don't really care who does what, just do something. Yeah, the House sucks, they've been sucking for over 20 + years. Some people, like the TEA Party people in 2010 and now the Freedom Caucus are trying to change that, but the establishment is happy to continue to take money from the donor class and engage in insider trading.

Kid.


How many times do we have to explain to you what an Op-Ed is?

Just because Politico publishes an Op-Ed written by the head of a Right-Wing Think Tank that doesn’t mean Politico endorses that opinion or even fact checked it.

Can you refute the substance of the article?

IT’S NOT AN ARTICLE YOU DUNCE!

It is an Op-Ed.

Fuck! I JUST pointed that out to you.

The word you are looking for is ‘piece’. It is a piece not an article.

You gotta get that SAT Verbal up or you’re gonna end up at a Directional School.

Can you refute it or not?

Can you prove there's substance there to start with?

This is what happens every time. Someone replies to something I say and they ask me to "prove it". I post my proof, they don't like the source or they don't like what the source has to say so they attack it and laugh and think they've "won" then other people pile on and I get mad and tell you to go fuck yourself. You guys point and laugh, all the while refusing to read what I posted and unable to refute any of it and then we move on. Next time we can just skip the performative act and I can just tell you to go fuck yourself and move on.

You are the joke of WF for multiple reasons but an important one is that you act like a kid who just wants to argue and not an adult who wants to learn.

Immediately pushing back against ‘your enemies’ is more important than having a logically coherent position.

I am going to quote you two of your own posts that were made one after the other (bolding mine):

So… CRs are not ‘following the law’ but also not illegal?

The fact that once challenged you grab the first google result that looks like it supports your position without even bothering to see who wrote it (or even read it most of the time) is a symptom of your childish ‘immediately lash out’ problem not the cause of the board’s contempt of you.

By law they are supposed to have 12 separate appropriation bills, but they found a work around with the continuing resolution. That's not to say that CR's are illegal. Nowhere did I say it was illegal, but by the law, that's what they are supposed to be doing.

As far as the source I chose, you're making a lot of assumptions that you can't back up. I don't care about the source. If "I'mforfullon100%Marxism.com" has an article I like or I agree with, I'm going to post it. I know that's a difficult concept for you, but if the information within the article is accurate, then I'm going to post it. Most of the time I stick to Reason or The Hill or something like that, but even that gets attacked because it's not a source you like. If the board has contempt for me, then oh well. I don't think this is true, I think some people might, but not all of them.

It's the fact that you always think you're right and if I don't answer your specific questions and don't follow your biased narrative, that makes you think that I'm stupid. I don't answer your questions because sometimes I don't have the answer or you ask a question that isn't relevant to what I was attempting to discuss or you ask a question with the intention of changing the subject. or because you refer to me as kid and therefore you've forfeited your question. If you want to have a discussion then let's have one, but you don't want that, you just want to point and laugh.

An opinion is NOT proof.
At best, it is secondary evidence.

Do they make the special ed kids take the SAT?