2023 Republican Government Shutdown: Same Shit, Same Story

[Francisco 2.0 32594]

FYI.  Here's an article from The Atlantic outlining why Federal workers cannot strike:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/shutdown-federal-workers-cant-strike/579793/

Quote

Eric Young is the president of the union that represents the approximately 30,000 employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who are working during the government shutdown.

Young’s members, scattered at 122 facilities located in largely rural areas across the country, aren’t being paid and don’t know when their next paycheck will come. Like the leaders of virtually every federal-employee union during the past three weeks, he has condemned the shutdown and its toll on innocent workers as “unconscionable.”

Quote

“My personal opinion,” Young told me over the phone from his office in Arkansas, “is that it constitutes involuntary servitude.”

Neither Young nor any of his partners in union leadership, however, will urge their members to do the one thing that would seem most natural for employees facing the same treatment in the private sector: If they don’t pay you, stay home.

“We can’t call or advocate for a strike,” Young said.

Spoiler

Since the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, federal employees have been legally prohibited from striking. That law was intended to prevent public-sector workers from leveraging a work stoppage that could cripple the U.S. government or major industries in negotiations for better pay, working conditions, and benefits. But it likely did not envision a scenario where the government would require its employees to work without paying them, as is the case now.

For hundreds of thousands of federal employees, the “involuntary servitude” that Young describes could continue indefinitely. President Donald Trump warned Democratic leaders last week that he could keep the government shuttered for “months or even years”—a scenario that union leaders told me they had never before contemplated. “A lot of things are possible under this president, so I think we have to start preparing,” said Randy Erwin, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.

Government shutdowns have only been a feature—or, more accurately, a bug—of fiscal impasses since the enactment of the modern congressional budget process in the 1970s. The current shutdown is a partial one affecting roughly 800,000 federal employees. Roughly half of them are on furlough, while the other half, whose jobs are considered essential to public health and safety, must report to work even though Congress has not appropriated the funds to pay them. This category includes the Secret Service agents who protect the president and his family, the Transportation Security Agents, pilots, and air-traffic controllers who keep the aviation system running, the corrections officers who staff federal prisons, and, yes, the Border Patrol agents who guard the southern divide with Mexico along which Trump wants to build a wall.

If they don’t show up, “they’d be considered absent without leave,” said Jacque Simon, the policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, by far the largest union representing federal employees. “When they’re told to come to work, they are required to come to work.” An awol designation could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. For longtime government employees, that could put in jeopardy a federal pension they’ve spent a career accruing, union leaders said.

By and large, federal employees have been reporting to work. The TSA has acknowledged, in response to a CNN report last week, that its agents have called out sick at higher rates since the shutdown began, but the TSA spokesman Michael Bilello saidthat the sick calls have had a “minimal impact” on air travel or wait times. The sick calls do not, as yet, appear to be widespread. Bilello said that 4.6 percent of employees had called out sick on Monday, compared with 3.8 percent of employees on the same date in 2018. “We understand that the current lapse in funding may be causing added stress for our workforce and want to continue to express that we are grateful to the more than 51,000 officers across the country who remain focused on the mission,” he tweeted.

Faced with a potentially indefinite shutdown, the unions have turned to the courts for relief. The American Federation of Government Employees has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that by requiring employees to work without pay, the government is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a 1938 law that mandates a minimum wage and overtime pay both to public- and private-sector workers. Another federal labor group, the National Treasury Employees Union, has filed a similar suit.

The unions are also holding rallies, highlighting the impact of the shutdown on federal workers who live paycheck to paycheck, and publicly urging Trump and congressional leaders to come to an agreement that reopens the government. That, however, is about as far as they’ll go to protest the shutdown.

Despite taking the government to court, neither union is encouraging its members to take part in any kind of work stoppage. “We encourage everyone who is being told to come to work to go to work,” Simon told me. “We are never going to advocate for something that’s illegal.”

As for reports of higher levels of sick calls by TSA agents, Simon said: “We aren’t coordinating that. We aren’t condoning that, and we don’t even really think it’s happening. We think it’s been greatly exaggerated in the press.”

Federal employees generally haven’t tested the prohibition on strikes since President Ronald Reagan famously fired more than 11,000 air-traffic controllers who refused his order to return to work during contract talks in 1981. The controllers walked out in demand of higher pay and a shorter workweek. Federal workers have never staged a mass walkout to protest the lack of pay during a shutdown. But even in that circumstance, the anti-strike law would probably hold up, said Zachary Henige, an attorney representing two federal employees in their lawsuit agains the government over the current shutdown.

The law “is going to prohibit these employees from striking,” Henige said. “And I don’t think whether they’re being paid or not paid is going to impact that.”

“The statute doesn’t make a distinction about what they’re protesting,” he added.

A federal shutdown has never lasted more than three weeks, and Congress has always promptly approved retroactive pay for both furloughed employees and those who had to work through the impasse. “Even for shutdowns this length, they’ve been through it,” Erwin said.

But Trump’s threat to keep the government closed for “months or even years” could test the willingness of federal employees to remain on the job, especially as missed paychecks mount. “In theory,” Erwin said, “you’d have to say, How long can I keep working with no paycheck? It’s kind of unrealistic. At some point, there would have to be some kind of change to the status quo if this really is an unprecedented shutdown.

“I don’t know when that would be at this point,” he said.

The burden on corrections officers is particularly acute, Young said, because they are, along with TSA agents, among the lowest-paid federal employees still required to work. Federal prisons had been suffering from staffing shortages and budget cuts even before the shutdown. Many employees, he said, learned on Christmas Eve that their leave plans had been cancelled.

“You’re going to have a lot of people starting to call in because they don’t have gas money,” Young warned. “It’s going to be a real big problem in the near future if not right now.”

“Basically, they’re between a rock and a hard stone.”

 

[4th&Five 42005]

 

[Biff Tannen 46167]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

That face from the turtle is fantastic.  "Well, geez, I don't know WHAT to do now."

[Horn Dog 10158]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It also opens the door for the next Democratic president to find a whole mess of national emergencies.

I'm thinking guns.

President AOC -   " Today I am declaring a National Emergency regarding the humanitarian crisis which is our health care system......" 

[Francisco 2.0 32594]

3 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

That look on the Senate R's faces when they finally realize they are being held hostage as well.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

"Well, geez, I don't know WHAT to do now."

This was a good play by McConnell.  It puts the shutdown more squarely in Trump's lap. 

[Bateshorn 9991]

If only there were a separate and coequal branch of government, we wouldn't be in this mess.  Ah well.

[hayden_horn 11402]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That face from the turtle is fantastic.  "Well, geez, I don't know WHAT to do now."

 

5 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

That look on the Senate R's faces when they finally realize they are being held hostage as well.  

that's what they get for enabling and empowering donald fucking trump, because they were too cowardly to stand up to him on issues a and b, and now, even though everyone knows that he wall idea is stupid, for some reason, they are acquiescing to the president when they should be, in their capacity as the legislative branch, to tell him to get fucked.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20921]

Who would win in a fight between McConnell's double chins and Bob Stoops' double chins?

[Patrick Bateman 3980]

11 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

That look on the Senate R's faces when they finally realize they are being held hostage as well.  

But they're not.... they could simply pass the clean CR to his desk.  They're complicit and should be held accountable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Tin foil but I think this could be part of a larger strategy by the Senate Republicans to minimize the political fallout when they inevitably throw Trump overboard.   

They're not stopping Trump from driving off the cliff with this shutdown.  

It needs to get bad enough where Republicans start calling for Trump to be removed from office. 

This could be a way to get there. 

[Captainant 28539]

6 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

But they're not.... they could simply pass the clean CR to his desk.  They're complicit and should be held accountable.

This is the infuriating thing imo. I called Cornyn's office today and his staffer on the line said "well, whatever we pass the president has to sign" and when I asked "well what about a veto override?" I got stammering and "I'll be sure to record your opinion, sir". Our representation is fucking abdicating their constitutional duty and overlooking their stature as a co-equal branch of government with checks against executive power.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Tin foil but I think this could be part of a larger strategy by the Senate Republicans to minimize the political fallout when they inevitably throw Trump overboard.   

They're not stopping Trump from driving off the cliff with this shutdown.  

It needs to get bad enough where Republicans start calling for Trump to be removed from office. 

This could be a way to get there. 

Will it ever be bad enough for them to survive a primary?

I think they're all just as boxed in as the president.

[Francisco 2.0 32594]

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/10/is-the-shutdown-an-impeachable-offense-time-for-mcconnell-to-call-trumps-bluff/

 

Quote

One of Washington’s favorite parlor games of late has been debating what constitutes an “impeachable” offense, and whether President Trump has committed one. An obvious candidate has gone unnoticed: the government shutdown itself.

Unlike previous presidents during shutdowns, Trump is not vetoing bills he objects to -- an action clearly within his purview. He is promising to veto bills he does not object to because Congress has not given him an appropriation he seeks -- $5.7 billion for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. He wants to shut down parts of the government -- for “months or years” -- until he gets his wall money.

Quote

Under the Constitution, he has no right to demand such an appropriation -- much less to hold vital government functions hostage to obtain it. The president is not coequal with Congress when it comes to appropriations -- the power of the purse belongs to the legislative branch, not the executive.

James Madison makes this clear in Federalist 58: "the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people."  Trump’s claim that he can build the wall anyway is even more flagrantly unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution is clear that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

 

Spoiler

Trump’s demand for an appropriation from Congress because of a security crisis on the border was anticipated by the drafters of the Constitution; they specifically refused to combine the power of the purse with the role of commander in chief. (This after all, was the specific grievance against the king of England that sparked the American Revolution itself.)

Worse, in shutting down the government to extort an appropriation he is not entitled to, Trump is violating his oath of office and breaching one of his core fiduciary duties: to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (Emphasis added.) Obviously, a shutdown of one-third of the government for “months or even years” will make the execution of many laws utterly impossible – particularly since the Department of Justice is one of the shuttered agencies. Trump cannot assert that he must shut down the DOJ. The Democrats have passed an appropriation for that department, to which he concedes he has no objection. He is merely trying to use the shutdown as blackmail to force Congress to fund the wall (or at least however much of it can be built for $5 billion).

Taking as our source the very Federalist Society from which Trump gets his judicial appointee punch list, breach of fiduciary duty is the key standard for the “misdemeanors” the Constitution cites, along with criminal acts, as grounds for impeachment.

Nor does the alleged national security crisis on the border offer a justification – even an extraconstitutional one – for Trump’s hostage-taking.  In fact, it makes his fiduciary breach even broader, given his willingness to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. The administration says the border, in its present state, is an unacceptable risk, because immigration officials have apprehended 3,000 “special interest” immigrants at that border. (Note – apprehended. The system apparently works.)

None of these people, let’s note, were terrorists. In fact no terrorist is ever known to have sought to cross the Mexican border.  On the other hand the Department of Homeland Security did apprehend 3,700 terrorist suspects  at airports and other legal points of entry not on the Mexican  border. Refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security for months or years, as the president has threatened to do, in order to stop a nonexistent threat on the border would thus greatly increase the risk of terrorists crossing into the U.S. in the way they have historically done so – that is, through other ports of entry.

So we are faced with a president who is seeking to overturn the congressional power of the purse. To achieve this unconstitutional end, he says he is ready to shut down the Justice Department — perhaps even for years. He is also willing to shut down the very agency that, since 9/11, has successfully protected the United States from terrorists entering the country – the Department of Homeland Security. This is abuse of power and fiduciary breach at its most definitive — with one important caveat.

Were the House to move articles of impeachment against Trump based on a prolonged shutdown, the president has, as of today, one powerful defense. He has not actually vetoed any bill to reopen the government, because the Senate has failed to place one before him. Since government can be funded only by legislation passed by both Houses and then signed by the president (or passed over his veto) Trump actually lacks the power to reopen the government – as long as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell persists in not allowing the Senate to vote on any bill Trump says he won’t sign.

This collusion by the Senate majority with Trump is fundamental, since the heart of Trump’s fiduciary breach lies in his usurpation of the congressional power of the purse.  McConnell, the leader of one chamber of Congress, is thus far fully complicit in this effort.

So solving the shutdown – without having to impeach the president – is quite simple. Enough senators – of both parties – must compel McConnell to bring bills to reopen the government before the Senate for a vote. Then, if President Trump holds the government hostage by vetoing those bills after they pass, those who wish to impeach him will have their ironclad impeachable offense. Meanwhile Congress can override the veto and restore law enforcement and other vital federal funding.

If McConnell calls Trump’s bluff, he could not only end the shutdown but also make a prolonged impeachment crisis much less likely.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Will it ever be bad enough for them to survive a primary?

 

Sure, they can be the heroes that saved America from Trump by removing him. (they're not) 

If Trump is to be removed. they have to get it done in the first half of this year. 

The election consequences are so far away they can re-package themselves enough to be competitive. 

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

there's a way forward, you feckless fuckface. vote on the goddamn bill that exists! force the president's hand. FUCKING GOVERN.

DO SOMETHING!

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sure, they can be the heroes that saved America from Trump by removing him. (they're not) 

If Trump is to be removed. they have to get it done in the first half of this year. 

The election consequences are so far away they can re-package themselves enough to be competitive. 

 

Voting against Donald Trump is political suicide for the vast majority of Republicans. Most aren't heroic enough to give up their job.

[Biff Tannen 46167]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

there's a way forward, you feckless fuckface. vote on the goddamn bill that exists! force the president's hand. FUCKING GOVERN.

DO SOMETHING!

I believe "feckless cunt" is the preferred nomenclature.

[Guest Lobo]

it continues to beg the question in my mind.  It's not what the Russians showed Trump they have on him.  It's they showed him what they have on hundreds of Republican lawmakers.  

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/10/is-the-shutdown-an-impeachable-offense-time-for-mcconnell-to-call-trumps-bluff/

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Trump’s demand for an appropriation from Congress because of a security crisis on the border was anticipated by the drafters of the Constitution; they specifically refused to combine the power of the purse with the role of commander in chief. (This after all, was the specific grievance against the king of England that sparked the American Revolution itself.)

Worse, in shutting down the government to extort an appropriation he is not entitled to, Trump is violating his oath of office and breaching one of his core fiduciary duties: to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (Emphasis added.) Obviously, a shutdown of one-third of the government for “months or even years” will make the execution of many laws utterly impossible – particularly since the Department of Justice is one of the shuttered agencies. Trump cannot assert that he must shut down the DOJ. The Democrats have passed an appropriation for that department, to which he concedes he has no objection. He is merely trying to use the shutdown as blackmail to force Congress to fund the wall (or at least however much of it can be built for $5 billion).

Taking as our source the very Federalist Society from which Trump gets his judicial appointee punch list, breach of fiduciary duty is the key standard for the “misdemeanors” the Constitution cites, along with criminal acts, as grounds for impeachment.

Nor does the alleged national security crisis on the border offer a justification – even an extraconstitutional one – for Trump’s hostage-taking.  In fact, it makes his fiduciary breach even broader, given his willingness to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. The administration says the border, in its present state, is an unacceptable risk, because immigration officials have apprehended 3,000 “special interest” immigrants at that border. (Note – apprehended. The system apparently works.)

None of these people, let’s note, were terrorists. In fact no terrorist is ever known to have sought to cross the Mexican border.  On the other hand the Department of Homeland Security did apprehend 3,700 terrorist suspects  at airports and other legal points of entry not on the Mexican  border. Refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security for months or years, as the president has threatened to do, in order to stop a nonexistent threat on the border would thus greatly increase the risk of terrorists crossing into the U.S. in the way they have historically done so – that is, through other ports of entry.

So we are faced with a president who is seeking to overturn the congressional power of the purse. To achieve this unconstitutional end, he says he is ready to shut down the Justice Department — perhaps even for years. He is also willing to shut down the very agency that, since 9/11, has successfully protected the United States from terrorists entering the country – the Department of Homeland Security. This is abuse of power and fiduciary breach at its most definitive — with one important caveat.

Were the House to move articles of impeachment against Trump based on a prolonged shutdown, the president has, as of today, one powerful defense. He has not actually vetoed any bill to reopen the government, because the Senate has failed to place one before him. Since government can be funded only by legislation passed by both Houses and then signed by the president (or passed over his veto) Trump actually lacks the power to reopen the government – as long as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell persists in not allowing the Senate to vote on any bill Trump says he won’t sign.

This collusion by the Senate majority with Trump is fundamental, since the heart of Trump’s fiduciary breach lies in his usurpation of the congressional power of the purse.  McConnell, the leader of one chamber of Congress, is thus far fully complicit in this effort.

So solving the shutdown – without having to impeach the president – is quite simple. Enough senators – of both parties – must compel McConnell to bring bills to reopen the government before the Senate for a vote. Then, if President Trump holds the government hostage by vetoing those bills after they pass, those who wish to impeach him will have their ironclad impeachable offense. Meanwhile Congress can override the veto and restore law enforcement and other vital federal funding.

If McConnell calls Trump’s bluff, he could not only end the shutdown but also make a prolonged impeachment crisis much less likely.

 

This.  He commits multiple, impeachable offenses every single day.  And we act like the frog in the slowly boiling water.  Aside from the constant violations of the foreign emoluments clause, already today he's done (1) this --holding government workers hostage for his pet project in violation of the Constitution's requirement that the power of the purse rests with Congress, and (2) violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by accusing news organizations, protected by the First Amendment, as being the enemies of the people. There's probably another 50 things he's done today to that we don't know about or I'm not thinking of.

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I believe "feckless cunt" is the preferred nomenclature.

i like the alliteration in the use of fuckface, but i'll accept cunt. either way, we now have cornyn and cruz with donald trump on the texas border. 

cruz can get fucked, but i really thought that cornyn would be a bit more of a grown-up. he's bending the knee. what a shithead.

[Biff Tannen 46167]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i like the alliteration in the use of fuckface, but i'll accept cunt. either way, we now have cornyn and cruz with donald trump on the texas border. 

cruz can get fucked, but i really thought that cornyn would be a bit more of a grown-up. he's bending the knee. what a shithead.

Go meteor!

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

35 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

When it comes down to it, the shutdown problem is really with the Senate GOP and McConnell in particular.   Based on his powers, Trump isn't doing anything wrong.  A President has a right to say that he veto a bill over signing it into law.    Trump is a jackass but everything he has done with this so far, isn't unprecedented.  At this point the ball is in the court of the Senate to override the veto and/or to create a bill that both houses can override a Presidential veto.

McConnell sitting back and saying that it's up to Pelosi and Schumer to figure it out is the opposite of being a Senate Leader.

I understand that McConnell doesn't want to take on this issue but when you're at the top, the tough decisions are usually tough.  The easy decisions don't make it to your level.

[Js1 87183]

Crosspost from 2020 Senate thread, but the GOP is going to cave easily. Why?

Quote

Does (your Republican Senator’s) support of President Trump’s plan to keep the government closed if he doesn’t get funding for a border wall make you more or less likely to support her/him in his next election, or does it not make a difference?

Alaska (Sullivan): 41% more likely; 50% less likely

Arizona (McSally): 37% more likely; 50% less likely

Colorado (Gardner): 37% more likely; 49% less likely

Georgia (Perdue): 41% more likely; 51% less likely

Iowa (Ernst): 37% more likely; 49% less likely

Maine (Collins): 32% more likely; 53% less likely

North Carolina (Tillis): 42% more likely; 48% less likely

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Voting against Donald Trump is political suicide for the vast majority of Republicans. Most aren't heroic enough to give up their job.

Yeah, at the moment.  In my scenario, it wouldn’t be if they keep letting Trump destroy himself.  

The GOP spin machine is incredibly powerful without Trump.  They just need the right narrative to pull off the divorce without alienating the “conservatives”.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Chad Fuck 18135]

48 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Who would win in a fight between McConnell's double chins and Bob Stoops' double chins?

Mangino's hot dog pack back neck fat.

[SimonBolivar 11064]

40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Voting against Donald Trump is political suicide for the vast majority of Republicans. Most aren't heroic enough to give up their job.

Yep his R approval rating hovers around 90%

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, at the moment.  In my scenario, it wouldn’t be if they keep letting Trump destroy himself.  

The GOP spin machine is incredibly powerful without Trump.  They just need the right narrative to pull off the divorce without alienating the “conservatives”.

If they ditch Trump, Rs will get completely destroyed by almost every Democrat they face in elections. These people currently in office are all on record defending Trump, and they will not be able to spin anything. I'd guess the "conservatives" make up about 10% of the party right now. A 3rd party of Trumpism would destroy the GOP in any election. 

Simply put, the GOP dies if/when they turn on Trump. 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8886]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Rs will get completely destroyed by almost every Democrat they face in elections.

2020 will be a bloodbath for GOP regardless. 

[Patrick Bateman 3980]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If they ditch Trump, Rs will get completely destroyed by almost every Democrat they face in elections. These people currently in office are all on record defending Trump, and they will not be able to spin anything. I'd guess the "conservatives" make up about 10% of the party right now. A 3rd party of Trumpism would destroy the GOP in any election. 

Simply put, the GOP dies if/when they turn on Trump. 

 

The wise members of the GOP should be rooting for Mueller more than anyone, but when they make their move on Trump (and they will), some folks will be pissed but they don't have anywhere else to go.  The could flee to a burgeoning conservative cause but they're not really aligned with conservatives.  Trump is a cult of personality who has their undying allegiance b/c he made the laugh on a reality TV show.  Mueller needs to be the GOP's white knight.

 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

2020 will be a bloodbath for GOP regardless. 

I'm talking way past 2020. In order for the GOP survive without Trumpism, they will literally and magically need to come up with 300 young "conservative" Republicans that have completely disavowed Trump from the very beginning to reset their entire existence in Congress. That seems unlikely.

Hell, the GOP has known for a long time that they've been in trouble. That's why they bent the knee to Trump so easily and put up such a pathetic fight in the Presidential primaries. He's the only way they survive and they will continue to hold on for dear life. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If they ditch Trump, Rs will get completely destroyed by almost every Democrat they face in elections. These people currently in office are all on record defending Trump, and they will not be able to spin anything. I'd guess the "conservatives" make up about 10% of the party right now. A 3rd party of Trumpism would destroy the GOP in any election. 

Simply put, the GOP dies if/when they turn on Trump. 

Are you suggesting these Trump supporting members of Congress will lose credibility? 

That’s a good one.

Most of them just got re-elected with outright lies.

They will do what is needed to win.  Y’all are missing the point that maybe this shutdown starts turning the tide on Trump within the GOP.

That would be a good thing

Edited January 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

2020 will be a bloodbath for GOP regardless. 

You would think that, but Class II between the myriad states and the retirees/primary vulnerable, it actually won't be that bad.  Not as easy going as 2018, but not the shitshow you wish it.  

[tantric superman 4668]

Has everyone sent their angry messages to their Reps?  I sent an extra one to Mitch M.C.

Wasn't particularly satisfying.

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are you suggesting these Trump supporting members of Congress will lose credibility? 

That’s a good one.

Most of them just got re-elected with outright lies.

They will do what is needed to win.  Y’all are completely missing the point that maybe this shutdown starts turning the tide on Trump within the GOP.

They got re-elected BECAUSE they stood behind Trump. The GOP cannot survive in the future without Trumpism.  The line has been crossed and there's no turning back. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

9 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

The wise members of the GOP should be rooting for Mueller more than anyone, but when they make their move on Trump (and they will), some folks will be pissed but they don't have anywhere else to go.  The could flee to a burgeoning conservative cause but they're not really aligned with conservatives.  Trump is a cult of personality who has their undying allegiance b/c he made the laugh on a reality TV show.  Mueller needs to be the GOP's white knight.

 

What? Who?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

They got re-elected BECAUSE they stood behind Trump. The GOP cannot survive in the future without Trumpism.  The line has been crossed and there's no turning back. 

Trumpism was the GOP playbook before Trump. They were just more clandestine about it.

It’s not going anywhere. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[4th&Five 42005]

 

[pacman 7508]

January 2017 - GOP majority

January 2017 Wall not an emergency February 2017 Wall not an emergency March 2017 Wall not an emergency

April 2017 Wall not an emergency

May 2017 Wall not an emergency

June 2017 Wall not an emergency

July 2017 Wall not an emergency

August 2017 Wall not an emergency September 2017 Wall not an emergency October 2017 Wall not an emergency November 2017 Wall not an emergency December 2017 Wall not an emergency January 2018 Wall not an emergency February 2018 Wall not an emergency March 2018 Wall not an emergency

April 2018 Wall not an emergency

May 2018 Wall not an emergency

June 2018 Wall not an emergency

July 2018 Wall not an emergency

August 2018 Wall not an emergency September 2018 Wall not an emergency October 2018 Wall not an emergency November 2018 Wall not an emergency November 2018 Democratic majority elected in House

January 2019 EMERGENCY!!! #TRUMPSHUTDOWN 2019

Facebook nugget

[tantric superman 4668]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Voting against Donald Trump is political suicide for the vast majority of Republicans. Most aren't heroic enough to give up their job.

Going to be satisfying to see them die on this particular hill. 

Letters to them need to simply point that out.

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trumpism was the GOP playbook before Trump. They were just more clandestine about it.

It’s not going anywhere. 

The GOP cannot go from closeted Trumpism, to fucking anything that moves in public for 2+ years with every incident recorded and saved, and then go back into the closet.

 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The GOP cannot go from closeted Trumpism, to fucking anything that moves in public for 2+ years with every incident recorded and saved, and then go back into the closet.

 

Sure they can.  Look how quickly they forgot about their support of the Iraq invasion.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The GOP cannot go from closeted Trumpism, to fucking anything that moves in public for 2+ years with every incident recorded and saved, and then go back into the closet.

Hopefully 

[Francisco 2.0 32594]

[Stephen]I'VE GOT IT.  LET'S TAKE MONEY FROM PUERTO RICO TO BUILD A WALL!!!!   HI 5'S ALL AROUND!!![/Miller]

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-could-take-billions-disaster-areas-fund-wall-n957281

 

Quote

President Donald Trump has been briefed on a plan that would use the Army Corps of Engineers and a portion of $13.9 billion of Army Corps funding to build 315 miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the briefing.

The money was set aside to fund projects all over the country including storm-damaged areas of Puerto Rico through fiscal year 2020, but the checks have not been written yet and, under an emergency declaration, the president could take the money from these civil works projects and use it to build the border wall, said officials familiar with the briefing and two congressional sources.

Quote

The plan could be implemented if Trump declares a national emergency in order to build the wall and would use more money and build more miles than the administration has requested from Congress. The president had requested $5.7 billion for a wall stretching 234 miles.

Under the proposal, the officials said, Trump could dip into the $2.4 billion allocated to projects in California, including flood prevention and protection projects along the Yuba River Basin and the Folsom Dam, as well as the $2.5 billion set aside for reconstruction projects in Puerto Rico, which is still recovering from Hurricane Maria.

Quote

Senior Defense Department officials discussed the proposal with Trump during his Thursday flight to the southern border, according to officials familiar with the briefing.

Trump was informed that the Army Corps could build 315 miles of border wall in about 18 months, according to officials familiar with the planning. The barrier would be a 30-foot bollard-style wall with a feature designed to prevent climbing, the officials said.

The Corps would focus first on the heavily trafficked border areas along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, in San Diego and El Centro in California, as well as Yuma, Arizona.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Francisco 2.0

[retread 2951]

Old tricks are the best tricks, hey?

Quote

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration is planning to shift more than $260 million to cover the rising cost and strain of housing thousands of undocumented immigrant children in their custody -- including millions of dollars from programs like cancer research and HIV/AIDS prevention.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/hhs-shifting-money-cancer-aids-immigrant-children/index.html

[Biff Tannen 46167]

8 minutes ago, retread said:

including millions of dollars from programs like cancer research and HIV/AIDS prevention.

That should go over well, considering the amount of people, both directly and indirectly affected by cancer.  Shit I know two people in my immediate family that have had some form of cancer that are, thankfully, both ok now.  People who have actually had family members die of cancer will surely be fine with this.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems like Trump is doing a great job of spending our tax dollars on housing and feeding tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants in camps.

Praise be to Trump for not letting them come in and exploit our social programs while contributing to the economy.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bat Guano 363]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That should go over well, considering the amount of people, both directly and indirectly affected by cancer.  Shit I know two people in my immediate family that have had some form of cancer that are, thankfully, both ok now.  People who have actually had family members die of cancer will surely be fine with this.

There are many people with cancer - maybe you don't know this, but it's true, they support the wall. I've had many, many people with HIV and cancer tell me that they can adapt, they are very resilient, and they understand the need for the wall. Believe me.

[retread 2951]

 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

 

I wonder what their creditors think.