• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Government shutdown watch

"It is irresponsible and reckless for Democrats not to completely rearrange their policy priorities around the misguided tweets of unelected billionaires. Clearly, they are the true villains in this story."
 
We could say both parties, but clearly one of them was much more heavily invested in stopping that bill than the other one.
Absolutely. The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.
 
Absolutely. The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.

Can you imagine being led around by the nose by a billionaire and then simp for him at the same time? It's like a beaten dog effect in real-time.
 
Can you imagine being led around by the nose by a billionaire and then simp for him at the same time? It's like a beaten dog effect in real-time.

elonia has promised to fund primary challenges against anyone who doesn't kowtow to him and trump, so hardly surprising they're practically reduced to grovelling.
 
The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.
The "guilt" for a bill failing to pass is borne in proportion to the count of the "no" votes cast.

Again, I implore you all to do the math.
 
Last edited:
"It is irresponsible and reckless for Democrats not to completely rearrange their policy priorities around the misguided tweets of unelected billionaires. Clearly, they are the true villains in this story."
There should be a disgusting-sounding word for putting strawmen in scare quotes.
 
The "guilt" for a bill failing to pass is borne in proportion to the count of the "no" votes cast.

Again, I implore you all to do the math.
Why would anyone vote yes on a broken agreement that asks for more than what was bargained?

If I agree to sell you my widget for $100, what would you do if a few days later I said the new price is $150? If you agree, then why wouldn't I say the adjusted price is actually $250? Come to think of it, $500 seems the most fair.

If you fail to participate in my bad faith negotiation, then it's your fault that the deal failed, right?
 
There should be a disgusting-sounding word for putting strawmen in scare quotes.
There was a bipartisan agreement in place and ready to go. Musk sends off a tweetstorm with a bunch of disinformation and the deal collapsed when Republicans suddenly refused to vote for it. A more right-wing bill was put forward in an attempt to make Republicans happy (which failed). Democrats didn't vote for the new bill. And you are trying to put the blame for the bill's failure on the Democrats.

Look, I know that a lot of people have internalized Murc's Law, but Democrats are not obligated to vote for things they disagree with, they are not obligated to be bipartisan in the face of Republican partisanship, and they are not obligated to rescue Republicans from self-inflicted wounds.
 
Look, I know that a lot of people have internalized Murc's Law, but Democrats are not obligated to vote for things they disagree with, they are not obligated to be bipartisan in the face of Republican partisanship, and they are not obligated to rescue Republicans from self-inflicted wounds.
Meet me half way!
*Takes a step back*
Meet me half way!
*Takes a step back*
Meet me half way!
 
He's also white. If the richest man were Indian, Chinese or Hispanic then perhaps they wouldn't be quite so enthusiastic.
I mean... The richest man in China is probably a scumbag beyond Musk's wildest dreams.

And I suspect most Americans would be alright with an Indian-American or Chinese-American billionaire, so long as they perceived his wealth as arising from good old fashioned western capitalist ventures.
 
I mean... The richest man in China is probably a scumbag beyond Musk's wildest dreams.

And I suspect most Americans would be alright with an Indian-American or Chinese-American billionaire, so long as they perceived his wealth as arising from good old fashioned western capitalist ventures.
So... Same MO as all the Chinese billionaires, then?
 
Musk sends off a tweetstorm with a bunch of disinformation and the deal collapsed when Republicans suddenly refused to vote for it.
What fraction of Republicans refused to vote for this "deal" compared to what fraction of Democrats refused?
I'm sure you know this isn't how it works.
I, too, have been guilty of being certain in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Why would anyone vote yes on a broken agreement that asks for more than what was bargained?
Show us what was bargained for and who agreed to it.

So far you are all serving nothing but partisan talking points.
 
Last edited:
What fraction of Republicans refused to vote for this "deal" compared to what fraction of Democrats refused?
I'm not sure there was a full vote for the original bipartisan deal, or at least I can't find a number on that. There were basically no Democratic votes for the second, post-Musk-Tweet, all GOP plan.
 
I'm not sure there was a full vote for the original bipartisan deal, or at least I can't find a number on that. There were basically no Democratic votes for the second, post-Musk-Tweet, all GOP plan.
If there wasn't a vote on it, then we cannot attribute credit or blame except perhaps to House leadership.

Did any Democrats publish the essentials of this bipartisan deal?
 
If there wasn't a vote on it, then we cannot attribute credit or blame except perhaps to House leadership.

Did any Democrats publish the essentials of this bipartisan deal?
???

Uh, what deal do you think Musk was complaining about? What do you think happened here?
 
"House rejects Speaker Johnson's revised funding bill as government barrels toward a shutdown" see post #36

If you want to explain Musk's role, please do so but it doesn't seem likely that he influenced the overwhelming Democratic no vote.

ETA: Possibly we're talking past each other, about two different votes?
 
When do
"House rejects Speaker Johnson's revised funding bill as government barrels toward a shutdown" see post #36

If you want to explain Musk's role, please do so but it doesn't seem likely that he influenced the overwhelming Democratic no vote.

ETA: Possibly we're talking past each other, about two different votes?
Ya think?? ;)
 
"House rejects Speaker Johnson's revised funding bill as government barrels toward a shutdown" see post #36

If you want to explain Musk's role, please do so but it doesn't seem likely that he influenced the overwhelming Democratic no vote.

ETA: Possibly we're talking past each other, about two different votes?
OK, first, there was a bipartisan agreement between House Republicans and Democrats. This took several weeks and a bunch of horse trading between the parties to hammer out an agreement that 218 congresspeople would agree to.

But before it went up for the formal vote, Elon Musk sent out a string of tweets denouncing the agreement and saying that people should vote against it because it was filled with porkbarrel waste, like child cancer research. He encouraged his followers to call their reps, there was much yelling and shouting, some people changed their votes, and the bipartisan deal collapsed.

Then they tied to pass a budget in the House using only GOP votes, with a pared down bill. Trump helped out by demanding that a debt ceiling raise be put in there as well (as he doesn't want to have to deal with that as President) and demanding that Republicans vote for it. This was the revised bill that got zero Democratic votes (unsurprisingly) and quite a few no votes from Republicans (which does not bode well for the next few years if you like orderly government).

They then realized that an all-GOP bill isn't going to happen, and cobbled together a bipartisan stopgap bill with Republicans and Democrats voting to keep the government open until March.

The thing to remember is that the GOP has a majority in the house, but not a working majority. The dozen or so most extreme Republican members and the dozen or so Republicans reps from districts Biden won, have different ideas about how to do things, and with only a three vote margin to get something passed, Johnson frequently has to go to the Democrats for votes. This math will not change if Johnson is replaced.
 
The thing to remember is that the GOP has a majority in the house, but not a working majority. The dozen or so most extreme Republican members and the dozen or so Republicans reps from districts Biden won, have different ideas about how to do things, and with only a three vote margin to get something passed, Johnson frequently has to go to the Democrats for votes. This math will not change if Johnson is replaced.
Doesn't it depend on who gets the job?

If they choose someone (no, I don't know who) whose personality/behaviour pisses off enough Republicans, it could make things worse for them.
 
Doesn't it depend on who gets the job?

If they choose someone (no, I don't know who) whose personality/behaviour pisses off enough Republicans, it could make things worse for them.
Yeah but remember the process for selecting a new Speaker of the House. They need a majority of all House members. With the Democratic minority voting for Jeffries, the GOP speaker would need near unanimous acceptance from the GOP side. By default, the job goes the least hated person in the majority party who actually wants the job.
 
Yeah but remember the process for selecting a new Speaker of the House. They need a majority of all House members. With the Democratic minority voting for Jeffries, the GOP speaker would need near unanimous acceptance from the GOP side. By default, the job goes the least hated person in the majority party who actually wants the job.
Nope. It goes to a majority of votes in the House for a named candidate. In practice, this has (almost) always been the presiding party's candidate as they have the majority of votes. But if at least 50% +1 vote for another candidate then there's your new speaker. Further, only present members may vote. So if some of the GOP members are not present, it is conceivable that the minority Dem leader may be elected.
 
Nope. It goes to a majority of votes in the House for a named candidate. In practice, this has (almost) always been the presiding party's candidate as they have the majority of votes. But if at least 50% +1 vote for another candidate then there's your new speaker. Further, only present members may vote. So if some of the GOP members are not present, it is conceivable that the minority Dem leader may be elected.

Which, with this circus in the House, could be the first time that happens.
 
...Elon Musk sent out a string of tweets denouncing the agreement and saying that people should vote against it because it was filled with porkbarrel waste, like child cancer research. He encouraged his followers to call their reps, there was much yelling and shouting, some people changed their votes, and the bipartisan deal collapsed.
Okay, so that was what happened to this bill.

It would be interesting to know who walked back their votes from the majority party whip count.
Then they tied to pass a budget in the House using only GOP votes, with a pared down bill. Trump helped out by demanding that a debt ceiling raise be put in there as well (as he doesn't want to have to deal with that as President) and demanding that Republicans vote for it. This was the revised bill that got zero Democratic votes (unsurprisingly) and quite a few no votes from Republicans (which does not bode well for the next few years if you like orderly government).
Not seeing a bill which got zero Dem votes. Are you sure you're not thinking of this bill?
They then realized that an all-GOP bill isn't going to happen, and cobbled together a bipartisan stopgap bill with Republicans and Democrats voting to keep the government open until March.
Okay, that was this bill.
The thing to remember is that the GOP has a majority in the house, but not a working majority. The dozen or so most extreme Republican members and the dozen or so Republicans reps from districts Biden won, have different ideas about how to do things, and with only a three vote margin to get something passed, Johnson frequently has to go to the Democrats for votes. This math will not change if Johnson is replaced.
I assume he will be, but maybe he'll cobble together a working coalition despite being hobbled by wealthy influencers.
 
Jesus Christ, imagine being so needy for a "wull ackshually" comment that you're splitting hairs between 0 and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 2.
 
Imagine being so sloppy with facts that you cannot see the difference.
I can see the difference just fine but it doesn't change anything about the point of the post. The fact remains the Dems weren't voting for it. Two out of 200+ is functionally none. What difference does your correction make? None, the point is still the same.

Super dope correction though. Props to you for catching it. That changed the entire context of the debate.
 
Imagine being so sloppy with facts that you cannot see the difference.
Sorry about not recognizing those two votes. I was thinking of "effectively zero support" or "two votes" and they got twisted in my head.

Regardless, there was little support from Democrats for the second bill.

This is what it is going to be like for the next two years. With a razor thin majority in the House, the GOP will be forced to choose between its extremist faction and its moderate faction plus Democrats over and over again. Since the numbers are not there to get even basic housekeeping votes done by choosing the extremists, the Speaker (whoever that may be) will be forced to choose the moderate Republicans and Democrats over and over again, leading to extremists trying to unseat the Speaker. Johnson has the same problem as McCarthy before him. Or Ryan before him. Or Boehner before him. Unending backbiting and crisis after crisis.
 
What difference does your correction make?
With a razor-thin majority in the House, possibly all the difference when it comes to passing bills going forward.

This is what it is going to be like for the next two years. With a razor thin majority in the House, the GOP will be forced to choose between its extremist faction and its moderate faction plus Democrats over and over again. Since the numbers are not there to get even basic housekeeping votes done by choosing the extremists, the Speaker (whoever that may be) will be forced to choose the moderate Republicans and Democrats over and over again, leading to extremists trying to unseat the Speaker.
I'm here for all of this, especially the empowerment of the centrists.

Until the GOP learns to stand up to the tea partiers and assorted other wack-a-loons they cannot hope to function as a governing party.
 
I suppose you have to read the small print on those poly market bets. The question is will there be a government shutdown. There was not, but “Yes” won because it required that something be signed by Biden by a certain time and not on whether there was a government shutdown at all.

Hmmm….
 
I suppose you have to read the small print on those poly market bets. The question is will there be a government shutdown. There was not, but “Yes” won because it required that something be signed by Biden by a certain time and not on whether there was a government shutdown at all.
This doesn't make any sense at all, given the original terms of the prediction contract.
 
The key point is that Trump did not get what he wanted: the removal of the debt ceiling.

I have nothing but comtempt for the House GOPers, but it is clear that they are willing to not give Donniw everything he wants on occasiosn.
 
Back
Top Bottom