2023 Republican Government Shutdown: Same Shit, Same Story

[retread 2,951]

1 hour ago, texasdago said:

Pompeo hinting to King Abdullah of Jordan that Trump is going to make a lot of news tonight.  

great 

Maybe some military strikes for show tonight?

[Js1 85,528]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

We're almost there.  The Senate has been subverted.  We have no Senate confirmed Attorney General or Sec of Defense. Trump has already used the military for domestic operations.  The courts and the press are holding on by a thread.  

Yeah......

Those are all bad things.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Yeah......

Those are all bad things.

The opinion seems to be that an Acting Secretary can stay in place for 210 days without confirmation.  Can a President continue to nominate new acting secretaries every 210 days?  Can he repeat the people to a new Acting term?   How does this not subvert the Advise and Consent power?

[horncyclist 1,391]

19 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

This would be a huge step along that path, but we're clearly already on the path already.

He really is following the classic dictator playbook. Some luck with the economy and a war to consolidate support and he could suspend the constitution and GOP would just nod their heads. That's where we're at. Frog in a pot of water heating to a boil.

[Chuckie Finster 22,726]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The opinion seems to be that an Acting Secretary can stay in place for 210 days without confirmation.  Can a President continue to nominate new acting secretaries every 210 days?  Can he repeat the people to a new Acting term?   How does this not subvert the Advise and Consent power?

It's becoming apparent that so much of our democracy relies on three separate functioning branches.  It's incredible how easy it is for the executive to abuse power when the other branches refuse to hold him accountable.

[retread 2,951]

We also seem to rely too much on the president not saying, "You didn't tell me I couldn't do this, so I'm going to do it."

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

Just now, retread said:

We also seem to rely too much on the president not saying, "You didn't tell me I couldn't do this, so I'm going to do it."

He seems to get rid of aides that tell him something is against the law.

[lemonlime 5,503]

35 minutes ago, kevwun said:

This is not a path we want to start down.  A BS national emergency that is a naked power grab is the road to a dictatorship.

We're already well down that path.  He's already commandeered the military for an entirely made up caravan crisis for political purposes and it outright lying to the American people about threats at the border.  

And we let it happen.

[lemonlime 5,503]

15 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The opinion seems to be that an Acting Secretary can stay in place for 210 days without confirmation.  Can a President continue to nominate new acting secretaries every 210 days?  Can he repeat the people to a new Acting term?   How does this not subvert the Advise and Consent power?

Who is going to stop him from keeping the Acting Secretary in place?  The GOP Senate?  Kavanaugh?

[SubliminalHorn 6,811]

I really fucking hate the GOP. 

[wildcat09 29,376]

37 minutes ago, kevwun said:

This is not a path we want to start down.  A BS national emergency that is a naked power grab is the road to a dictatorship.

It's not inconceivable that he announces tonight that the border "emergency" constitutes a national emergency that justifies giving him unlimited power and doubles as an excuse to keep the rest of the government shut down for the next two years (which his dumb pudding brain probably thinks means the Democratic house couldn't investigate him). 

[lemonlime 5,503]

I think it's at least as likely that he doesn't claim an "emergency" at all.  Then claims he's being restrained.  Meanwhile, he continues to take power, use the military for political purposes, lie about threats, etc., and the media and the republicans pretend he's a regular, non-authoritarian president.

[Js1 85,528]

32 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The opinion seems to be that an Acting Secretary can stay in place for 210 days without confirmation.  Can a President continue to nominate new acting secretaries every 210 days?  Can he repeat the people to a new Acting term?   How does this not subvert the Advise and Consent power?

Apparently the 210 day clock restarts once a nomination is put forth to the Senate.  If it's rejected, they get another 210 days.  They can have that extra 210 day period twice.

So they could serve 209 days, have the President put forth a nomination, serve 209 more, have the Senate reject the nomination, serve 209 more, have the President put forth a nomination, serve 209 more, have the Senate reject a second nomination, serve 210 more.  Then done?

So an "acting" could serve for almost 3 years if the Senate rejects nominees for the position twice.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

58 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Apparently the 210 day clock restarts once a nomination is put forth to the Senate.  If it's rejected, they get another 210 days.  They can have that extra 210 day period twice.

So they could serve 209 days, have the President put forth a nomination, serve 209 more, have the Senate reject the nomination, serve 209 more, have the President put forth a nomination, serve 209 more, have the Senate reject a second nomination, serve 210 more.  Then done?

So an "acting" could serve for almost 3 years if the Senate rejects nominees for the position twice.

Theoretically, this kind of abuse could be challenged in the courts because it runs contrary to the reasoning for Senate confirmation.  

[Js1 85,528]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Theoretically, this kind of abuse could be challenged in the courts because it runs contrary to the reasoning for Senate confirmation.  

Lol the courts 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Lol the courts 

The courts have actually been the only authority that has held Trump back except for the recent wall funding by the House.

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Insane to think this would all be over if Mitch just took a vote.

[retread 2,951]

^^Screwing over hundreds of thousand of Americans and couldn't care less.

Schiff would be my choice to deliver the D response tonight.

Edited January 8, 2019 by retread

[kevwun 15,856]

Schiff is too busy preparing to crawl all up inside Trump's ass with the HIC.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So, question from a layman here, what are the pundits and nate silver's saying the odds are that this gambit by Trump works and he successfully, basically extorts the Dem's, to get a couple of billy's for a steel/concrete/chain-link fence?

It seems like, by holding out still, that surely there's got to be a chance, like trying to draw for a gut-shot straight or something similar in odds. Surely he's not drawing dead, right?

You don’t understand, this operation is already a success for Trump.  The goal was never about getting money for a border wall.  This is about exerting power. 

[ruitxn 298]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You don’t understand, this operation is already a success for Trump.  The goal was never about getting money for a border wall.  This is about exerting power. 

Exerting power and creating demons to rant about.

Edited January 8, 2019 by ruitxn

[Brisketexan 105,275]

I see. I don't disagree, I guess, but that exerting power operation should have lasted 10 days. Once you get past that you are hurting your Chesteron, WV and Cincinnati, OH salt of the earth type people. Everyday this prolongs is a diminishing return to where you are venturing into net negative territory which I think we started to see with the whole "he hurtin' the wrong people!"

If you’ve undertaken even a cursory examination of Trump’s business history, you’ll see that “realizing significant returns” isn’t his strength. A dartboard has a better investment track record.

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

26 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

Mitch knows the GOP will probably lose the Senate.   He’s on the SS Trumptanic and is picking out which lifeboat he will be in.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I see. I don't disagree, I guess, but that exerting power operation should have lasted 10 days. Once you get past that you are hurting your Chesteron, WV and Cincinnati, OH salt of the earth type people. Everyday this prolongs is a diminishing return to where you are venturing into net negative territory

The cruelty is the point. 

Trump will keep hurting Americans until someone stops him. 

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

I think it's at least as likely that he doesn't claim an "emergency" at all.  Then claims he's being restrained.  Meanwhile, he continues to take power, use the military for political purposes, lie about threats, etc., and the media and the republicans pretend he's a regular, non-authoritarian president.

As of this morning, we are closer to that collusion he’s claiming never happened.   

Hes at risk of looking weak to the Senate and his base   

So I bump it up to around 60% or better that he goes through with the emergency thing.  

[retread 2,951]

How many instances of his cruelty are needed for people to see him for what he is? Both sides have good people, shithole countries, unpaid fed employees will 'adjust,' separating immigrant families and putting the kids in cages, etc.

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I really fucking hate the GOP. 

I cannot see any reason why I will vote for any of them at this point, even at the local or state level, going forward.  

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

the national networks really caved on this one.  They wouldn't let Obama have the national airwaves for topics they deemed too political but they are bowing down to Trump's bullying tactics because they know he will attack them afterwards.  Which he would but they are too cowardly to stand up to him.

You’re overthinking this   It’s not about bullying or being cowardly.

Obama policy talk = boring and low ratings

Trump ranting like a nut = high ratings. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Cruelty doesn't vote.

Have you seen a Trump rally?  Cruelty absolutely votes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

You’re assuming people vote in their own interests.  They don’t. 

[Homercles 10,206]

I really fucking hate the GOP. 

That whole Tea Party and Party of No thing really cemented my hatred of how they operate.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The cruelty is the point. 

Trump will keep hurting Americans until someone stops him. 

it's that feeling of power he gets inflicting cruelty. he gets off on that.

all dictators do. that's the thing, and it's part of why i cannot believe the republicans are just letting him run roughshod like they are. they are cowards of the highest order, and they are borderline traitors at this point.

[DixonHur 11,362]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

You’re overthinking this   It’s not about bullying or being cowardly.

Obama policy talk = boring and low ratings

Trump ranting like a nut = high ratings. 

I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.  Although chronologically speaking it wasn't that long ago, the Obama presidency is lightyears behind us in terms of how politics works today, so any comparison between them is fruitless.

Ratings for primetime TV schedule won't increase because of Trump, in fact, they might actually decrease.  The reason ABC, CNN, NBC, etc., are covering this abortion is because Fox is going to air it and they don't want to feed into Trump's narrative that they are biased against him.  

Get used to it...Fox News is the new leader of the "free world".  They give the POTUS his talking points, they decide when the government should be shut down, and they dictate what gets covered by other outlets.  

It's checkmate, y'all.

[Brisketexan 105,275]

But we aren't talking about fungible things like money, we are talking about vague ideas like "power" and perception of "winning"
And you can argue his whole business history is a case study in exchanging money/value, sacrificing profit, for perception of success and power.

In a completely different environment. Pelosi and Schumer aren’t cowardly business sycophants hoping to join in the graft. What had currency in his former world, and even in the election, has little currency in the real-world political or diplomatic milieu.

[tantric superman 4,667]

I for one, am going to do my best to siphon off whatever little policy they throw into their speeches and see if I can learn anything.

I think it is going to be an interesting exercise and I am going to enjoy it.

Frankly am somewhat appalled that anyone thinks the President shouldn't get air time.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.  Although chronologically speaking it wasn't that long ago, the Obama presidency is lightyears behind us in terms of how politics works today, so any comparison between them is fruitless.

Ratings for primetime TV schedule won't increase because of Trump, in fact, they might actually decrease.  The reason ABC, CNN, NBC, etc., are covering this abortion is because Fox is going to air it and they don't want to feed into Trump's narrative that they are biased against him.  

Get used to it...Fox News is the new leader of the "free world".  They give the POTUS his talking points, they decide when the government should be shut down, and they dictate what gets covered by other outlets.  

It's checkmate, y'all.

People will tune in an watch a train wreck.  

Particularly when that train wreck is potentially impacting their travel plans, tax refunds, etc.

[DixonHur 11,362]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

People will tune in an watch a train wreck.  

Particularly when that train wreck is potentially impacting their travel plans, tax refunds, etc.

His whole presidency has been a train wreck.  I think we're past the point where most people find any of this shit amusing.  The only people that will be tuning in en masse are his base, and they'll all be watching on Fox.

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I really fucking hate the GOP. 

Hate really isn't a strong enough word. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

His whole presidency has been a train wreck.  I think we're past the point where most people find any of this shit amusing.  The only people that will be tuning in en masse are his base, and they'll all be watching on Fox.

 This,  I have zero desire to hear him lie and sniff for whatever length of time he feels like we should drop everything and make him the center of the universe.  I'm sure whatever either word salad or speech written by Stephen Miller read in monotone he gives, it will be easy enough to read what was said either here, twitter, or the WaPo.  

[thrillhammer 684]

i really wanted to watch the longhorn bball game tonight, but this should be interesting.  cnn is airing the democrat response.  i wonder if fox will.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

45 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Frankly am somewhat appalled that anyone thinks the President shouldn't get air time.

What has this president done to deserve airtime? 

The media has an obligation to serve the public, not the president. 

Again, this is a power play. 

No one can say NO to Trump.

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

I think he’ll go off-speech and it will be hilarious.  He will be so anxious and angry at the same time, that he will just skip the speech after 30 seconds and start rambling and ranting   He won’t have real-time audience feedback, so he’ll go off what he is imagining the crowd is doing in his head.

He also knows Chuck and Nancy are delivering a follow-up, and with today’s Manafort stuff, he’s going to be projecting like mad.   And all of this after the House started back up, and a Congresswoman dared to call him a motherfucker that should be impeached.

We forget - he is backed into a corner on the wall/budget stuff as well.   Any sign of him backing down on the budget will get rebukes from Rush, Laura, Coulter, etc. and he’s terrified of that.  

Edited January 8, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[tantric superman 4,667]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What has this president done to deserve airtime? 

The media has an obligation to serve the public, not the president. 

Again, this is a power play. 

No one can say NO to Trump.

The President wants to address the people.It's news. 

The President wants to address us.  Film it so that we can see it.

I don't give a shit if his motives are shitty.  I want to see him and see through his bullshit. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The President wants to address the people.It's news. 

The President wants to address us.  Film it so that we can see it.

I don't give a shit if his motives are shitty.  I want to see him and see through his bullshit. 

Why do we have to see it live?  Yes, it should be filmed, and yes we should know what he says.  But they could film it, fact check it, and then play it with his lies pointed out.  It's not like it would be even the tiniest bit difficult to find out what he said if the speech wasn't covered live.  They are under no obligation to give him a platform for live television just because he wants it.  

[tantric superman 4,667]

I'm just not getting the argument.

I want to see live statements.  I am happy to letter see later taped statements with the lies pointed out, or talking heads pontificating about it, after the fact.  The point is, if this guy wants to howl at the moon, I think the media should cover "President howls at the moon".  I don't want to be protected, and I don't want my fellow americans to be protected, from what is essentially marketing by this guy. 

If I say I want to address the nation, it's not newsworthy.  If the President wants to, it's newsworthy, and we have the technology, I want it covered. 

If I am going to protect the media and support the media I want them to do their job, and yes, part of the job is communicating the thoughts of the President to the people, and live if you got it.

Edited January 8, 2019 by tantric superman

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

13 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The President wants to address the people.It's news. 

The President wants to address us.  Film it so that we can see it.

I don't give a shit if his motives are shitty.  I want to see him and see through his bullshit. 

A private company should be able to choose whether or not to broadcast State propaganda.  If the network executives determine that the President’s content is harmful to the public, they should act in a socially conscious way not to be complicit in having their platform weaponized by the state. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,919]

Quote

Public support for a border wall has shifted considerably over the past few years as it became a centerpiece of the Trump agenda. The poll found that 41 percent of the public supports building additional border fencing, down 12 points from a similar poll that ran in the first week of 2015, as opposition doubled among Democrats.

It also found that only 35 percent of adults in the United States support a congressional spending bill that includes funding for the wall, and 25 percent support Trump’s decision to keep the government closed until Congress approves funding for the wall.

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A private company should be able to choose whether or not to broadcast State propaganda.  If the network executives determine that the President’s content is harmful to the public, they should act in a socially conscious way not to be complicit in having their platform weaponized by the state. 

Sure.

In this case they should show it, because it deals with the president acting to pursue policies that are harmful to the public, and they will show the response to that policy.

If he wanted to show everyone his weiner, then no, don't show it.

[lemonlime 5,503]

5 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

"Another 32 percent blame congressional Democrats for the shutdown and 7 percent blame congressional Republicans, according to the poll. "

So 58% blame GOP to 32 % dems should be the headline.  And if we're only picking one to blame, I would put it on the congressional Republicans.  Trump is a mentally ill man who belongs in a dementia ward.  Which isn't to absolve him of being a horrible person.  But his enablers in congress should burn for this.