Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

> clean CR

So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown.

Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith.

They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.

Rammed through, is an interesting way to write that they had the votes and passed HR1.

When Democrats had the Admin, Senate, and House, they put the ACA provisions on sunsetting subsidies in. How dastardly are the Republicans that they forced Democrats to do that when it was done with almost zero Republican votes?

Your post is just game. “My side is good and their side is evil”… don’t you get tired of that?

What does this mean? If youre implying "clean CR" is perfectly fine can you just say that? If you don't think it's perfectly fine what ARE you trying to say?

“We passed clean government funding that cost 20 million people their health care coverage.”

You are falling for semantics games.

It’s the CR that Dems passed last year.

Stop. You aren’t even falling for it. They’re using shutdown as leverage to try and get something they couldn’t get when they had all three houses. You can agree or disagree that is a good idea or that it will work, but can’t pretend it isn’t what it is.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.

Dems voted for the BBB under threat of worse cuts coming with a shutdown. The cuts and illegal actions continued. Going along with the bullies only proved that the bullies can push further.

Then let Republicans remove the filibuster. They can do it with a simple majority.

Which side is also withholding emergency funds meant for SNAP?

At the big cost of insurance premiums going up substantially

That's not the way governance works. Did you feel that way when the Democrats held all three branches and still the Republicans did everything in their power to break government? Trump won the presidency by a slim margin... the Senate Republicans represent fewer people than the Democrats do. The government is designed to work together, unless one party decides to stop playing by any rules apparently.

Sure, it is a negotiation, and the shutdown is because neither side will agree to certain things the other side wants to do.

The Democrats won't agree to making the awful omnibus bill cuts permanent and essentially defunding the ACA, because they want to govern and actually help all our people.

The Republicans won't agree to providing and caring for Americans through programs that are already fully approved, because they want to destroy those programs without actually having the votes to repeal them, because they want to destroy the government and harm anyone who doesn't fit their particular view of what a "real American" is.

So while your words are technically true, they serve to obscure a very real difference in why each side is refusing to end the shutdown.

I don't know about you, but I think the side that actually wants to govern the country, uphold the rule of law, and help people in need, is really not the one that we should be blaming for refusing to compromise on their principles (however late they may have come to them).

Yes they seem to be discussing it now. It's odd that this mechanism lasted so long.

What did they do in their power to break the government? They voted to reauthorize spending during Biden's presidency many times, did they not?

The Democrats might "want to govern" but they lost the election, so what they want shouldn't matter.

The filibuster has essentially become a mechanism to ensure you have a somewhat broad consensus among the states, instead of being able to ram things through with a 51% majority.

Just keeping the lights on shouldn’t require a 60% consensus (it should be the default). This is represented by the reconciliation process, which is some budget related voting process that only requires a majority in the senate. But the reconciliation process was used up to pass the “one big beautiful bill.”

"look - this fight will be over if you stop trying to defend yourself from my swinging fists"

The United States is not an autocracy where one party wins and then gets to dictate everything. The Democrats are indeed still trying to govern, as in have the Constitutional US Government continue functioning. The Republicans are trying to destroy that system, to usher in whatever system Corporate America (ie Big Tech) wants instead. Think your rights were neutered by Xitter trying to cut down on disinformation? Try when that same account ban system is linked into your ability to post anywhere, or your ability to travel. And no, having supported it doesn't mean you will automatically get a pass to be treated well.

By equating it with last year you are pretending there is no context or history for negotiation and that budget resolutions are just housekeeping, which is exactly the republican talking point and is trivially shown to be untrue.

If you point your analysis at yourself you can see how you pivot perspectives in synchrony with the abusive behaviors as it supports your political alignment.

Please note the distinction between "govern" and "rule."

The Democratic Party is not seeking to rule. They are seeking to have the government do its damn job.

The Republican Party is seeking to rule, but not govern: that is, they get to be in charge, but they take no responsibility for anything that happens under their rule. (Most especially Trump and his administration; Congressional Republicans are a bit less of the former and a lot more of the latter.)

if republican party knew (had any desire) to actually govern the country would become 1-party within one election cycle.

[Citation needed]

The Republican aversion to governing is a very new thing.

Like, sure, the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" philosophy is not particularly new, but the idea that Republicans in Congress should actively oppose any and all attempts to make government function at a basic level? That the executive should be actively dismantling his entire branch?

None of that is even old enough to vote.

If what you say were true, then it would have happened back under GWB.

You keep saying filibuster, but it is the “vote for cloture” (similar to a quiet filibuster) which is the thing that has blocked most legislation.

I am curious why Republicans have not changed the parliamentary rules for cloture. The party seems to be pushing states to gerrymander to benefit their Congressional power as early as the next Congressional election. My best guess at the moment is there are a few Republican members who fear what the party leadership does with no opposition party constraints.

This comment makes you look willfully ignorant of the statements and actions of Republicans in power.

Start with DOGE and Russel Vought’s actions. Then look at Congressional Republican’s recision bill, their lack of Article 1 oversight of what Trump’s Executive is doing, their consistent support of the Executive against any attempt by the Judicial to enforce the law.

Republicans don't want to remove the filibuster because they want to keep it as a tool when they're in the minority and use it to blame Dems for not doing things while in the majority.

Fundamentally, Republicans just want tax breaks and judicial appointments, and the filibuster already doesn't block those. So it hasn't really been a problem for them. Since Dems in theory want the government to work, they can keep things working well enough to let the Dems deal with their time bombs like expiring ACA subsidies and middle class tax breaks.

So… absolutely normal politics.

If the Dems don’t like the political outcome of losing so many elections, they should propose popular policies ideas and candidates to win elections.

“We lost so many series of important elections that now we have no power. So, we’ll just obstruct the party in power and our “side” will support the very actions we would cry bloody murder over”