If he shuts down the Govt

[DvlDog4WVU]

over the wall, I’m done. That shit yesterday, was entertaining in a deuce chilling sort of way. Watching Pelosi and Schumer squirm and try to shoehorn in sound bites and avoid transparency was overshadowed by the 1700 times Trump said “Wall” in the 8 minute clip. Errrrggg, shut the Govt down and I’m done with him. Such a golden opportunity to effect necessary change squandered.

 

[countryroads89]

Let me throw this out there for everyone to opine about. Take off your partisan hats for a moment.

If trump couldn’t previously get the votes to fund the wall, why could he now? What has changed? (Aside from the midterms, which actually hurts, I know the House is currently still the same until January 2019).

 

[WVUBRU]

Nothing has really changed. He is doing two things and they are related. He is attempting to change the narrative of all these legal problems with investigations by having a meeting that should not be in public view. Second, he thought he could set up the dems to be at fault. Both backfired on him. But in both instances he is trying to manipulate TV coverage to rally his base and continue the divisive nature of today's political environment. Hopefully more people will get tired of it and demand a government that acts on behalf of citizens before political bs.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Let me throw this out there for everyone to opine about. Take off your partisan hats for a moment.

If trump couldn’t previously get the votes to fund the wall, why could he now? What has changed? (Aside from the midterms, which actually hurts, I know the House is currently still the same until January 2019).

He doesn’t have the votes in the house and damn sure doesn’t in the Senate. Nothing changed. That’s my point, that’s why I would be done with him.

The only thing I’d even be remotely focused on is the Mueller report and FISA stuff, and the FISA stuff is what’s driving my curiosity.

 

[CpEER]

He won’t shut it down over the wall. Yesterday was all for show. He wants a fight over the wall more than the wall itself.

 

[dave]

He doesn’t have the votes in the house and damn sure doesn’t in the Senate. Nothing changed. That’s my point, that’s why I would be done with him.

The only thing I’d even be remotely focused on is the Mueller report and FISA stuff, and the FISA stuff is what’s driving my curiosity.

He will try to get a compromise and then use that to point out how important border security is. Next year will be several moments like this to drive it home heading into an election year.

 

[Mntneer]

over the wall, I’m done. That shit yesterday, was entertaining in a deuce chilling sort of way. Watching Pelosi and Schumer squirm and try to shoehorn in sound bites and avoid transparency was overshadowed by the 1700 times Trump said “Wall” in the 8 minute clip. Errrrggg, shut the Govt down and I’m done with him. Such a golden opportunity to effect necessary change squandered.

The only part of yesterday that I really enjoyed was when Pelosi started to complain that they were meeting in the open like that and not behind closed doors.

Otherwise.... same old shit. He knows he doesn't have the votes, and he knows that the Dems will NOT even come close to a compromise while he's in office. Both sides are dug in and neither is going to move at all.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The only part of yesterday that I really enjoyed was when Pelosi started to complain that they were meeting in the open like that and not behind closed doors.

Otherwise.... same old shit. He knows he doesn't have the votes, and he knows that the Dems will NOT even come close to a compromise while he's in office. Both sides are dug in and neither is going to move at all.

But electing Democrats will get things done! Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

[rog1187]

Shut it down...shut it all down

 

[WVU82]

midnight of the 21st IT WILL BE SHUTDOWN...

75% of America wants the wall...


the socialists should just act like they're sending cash to Iran...

problem solved...

 

[CpEER]

midnight of the 21st IT WILL BE SHUTDOWN...

75% of America wants the wall...


the socialists should just act like they're sending cash to Iran...

problem solved...

Want to bet one of your accounts?

 

[bamaEER]

over the wall, I’m done. That shit yesterday, was entertaining in a deuce chilling sort of way. Watching Pelosi and Schumer squirm and try to shoehorn in sound bites and avoid transparency was overshadowed by the 1700 times Trump said “Wall” in the 8 minute clip. Errrrggg, shut the Govt down and I’m done with him. Such a golden opportunity to effect necessary change squandered.

I really don’t think he’s prepared for dealing with this. His house is gone. His cabinet is a mess. And he can’t find a chief of staff.

Meanwhile, the wall continues to be a drumbeat he beats to the death for his 40% base. Yeah.

 

[dave]

I really don’t think he’s prepared for dealing with this. His house is gone. His cabinet is a mess. And he can’t find a chief of staff.

Meanwhile, the wall continues to be a drumbeat he beats to the death for his 40% base. Yeah.

Is that what your media told you? Bless your heart.

 

[Boomboom521]

Is that what your media told you? Bless your heart.

Let’s see, who do you blame for the wall not being built?
Trump? He had a GOP house and Senate for his first two years in office, and it was the most consistent chant at his “I’m the face of the new movement” rallies.
The GOP? They had the power to push the funding through without support from Dems, if they could’ve only got their party together for once. And as so many of you like to think, it was mandated by middle America.

Oh, yep, blame the liberal Dems for everything, including the fact that they don’t support funding for projects they don’t agree with at all.

Face it.....either Trump or the GOP failed on this one. But you guys still blame the boogie man, instead of looking at the reality of the problem. Which is: 1) Trump is a chump of a party leader and 2) the GOP blew an opportunity of substantial power because they can’t get together on anything but hating liberals

 

[dave]

Let’s see, who do you blame for the wall not being built?
Trump? He had a GOP house and Senate for his first two years in office, and it was the most consistent chant at his “I’m the face of the new movement” rallies.
The GOP? They had the power to push the funding through without support from Dems, if they could’ve only got their party together for once. And as so many of you like to think, it was mandated by middle America.

Oh, yep, blame the liberal Dems for everything, including the fact that they don’t support funding for projects they don’t agree with at all.

Face it.....either Trump or the GOP failed on this one. But you guys still blame the boogie man, instead of looking at the reality of the problem. Which is: 1) Trump is a chump of a party leader and 2) the GOP blew an opportunity of substantial power because they can’t get together on anything but hating liberals

He didnt have the senate. Hard to say the GOP didnt get together considering all they did get done.

 

[tjebarr]

But electing Democrats will get things done! Sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

he has had 2 years of total control to get shit done.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Is that what your media told you? Bless your heart.

Can you prove any of that wrong?

 

[dave]

Can you prove any of that wrong?

Can you prove any of it right?

 

[atlkvb]

He didnt have the senate. Hard to say the GOP didnt get together considering all they did get done.

That DACA deal was sitting there with wall funding and ready to be passed. Who turned down that exact same DACA fix they demanded six months earlier? Why? Over funding for the wall, which they know Trump got elected over!

Now they think voters are with them over NOT funding the wall?

This is why they are Democrats, and this is why they lose...they're simply out of touch.

 

[countryroads89]

He didnt have the senate.

DAFUQ?

 

[MountaineerWV]

over the wall, I’m done. That shit yesterday, was entertaining in a deuce chilling sort of way. Watching Pelosi and Schumer squirm and try to shoehorn in sound bites and avoid transparency was overshadowed by the 1700 times Trump said “Wall” in the 8 minute clip. Errrrggg, shut the Govt down and I’m done with him. Such a golden opportunity to effect necessary change squandered.

I'll save you a seat.........do you like window or aisle seat?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

DAFUQ?

He means the supermajority necessary to pass in the Senate, which means, we couldn’t have just jammed stuff through as the left continues to try and claim. It’s just nonsense talking points from both sides.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

He means the supermajority necessary to pass in the Senate, which means, we couldn’t have just jammed stuff through as the left continues to try and claim. It’s just nonsense talking points from both sides.

Worked on judges and tax cuts, no? Honest question, what’s the difference?

 

[Mntneer]

Worked on judges and tax cuts, no? Honest question, what’s the difference?

The subject at hand is the difference.

 

[bornaneer]

He means the supermajority necessary to pass in the Senate, which means, we couldn’t have just jammed stuff through as the left continues to try and claim. It’s just nonsense talking points from both sides.

Sooooo....You're ready to hitch your sled to the likes of Jerry Nadler,Richard Blumenthal and Maxine Waters?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The subject at hand is the difference.

Agreed. One party is fine owning health ins, taxes etc

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Sooooo....You're ready to hitch your sled to the likes of Jerry Nadler,Richard Blumenthal and Maxine Waters?

Oh well. Guess we just all give up. lol

 

[Boomboom521]

He means the supermajority necessary to pass in the Senate, which means, we couldn’t have just jammed stuff through as the left continues to try and claim. It’s just nonsense talking points from both sides.

When is a supermajority needed to pass legislation, other than overriding a veto, impeachment, ratification of a treaty, or ending a filibuster?

 

[countryroads89]

When is a supermajority needed to pass legislation, other than overriding a veto, impeachment, ratification of a treaty, or ending a filibuster?

It wasn't to pass legislation.

 

[Mntneer]

Agreed. One party is fine owning health ins, taxes etc

No, it's that some topics are easier for one party to grab enough Senators to get over that 60 vote closure hump. Other topics are so partisan that it become impossible to get anything done.

 

[CpEER]

I love that the narrative being spun is that trump was at some sort of disadvantage here.

 

[roadtrasheer]

I think all the closed door meetings should be open....that way we all can see the snakes on both side slithering .
Except military & things of national security..

 

[Mntneer]

I love that the narrative being spun is that trump was at some sort of disadvantage here.

Ironic that you use that GIF.

“Probably the one thing that we could change without a constitutional amendment that would make a difference here would be the elimination of the routine use of the filibuster in the Senate,” Obama told Vox. “In an era in which the parties are more polarized, it almost ensures greater gridlock and less clarity in terms of the positions of the parties.”

Seems Trump and Barry agree about the Senate and its rules.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I think all the closed door meetings should be open....that way we all can see the snakes on both side slithering .
Except military & things of national security..

And there are some real snakes in that group......

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Worked on judges and tax cuts, no? Honest question, what’s the difference?

Tax Cuts was pushed through on reconciliation, right? Judges went nuclear to only requiring a simple majority.

Could it have been changed to only require a simple majority? I don’t know. Maybe. Dangerous road to go down though for basic legislation.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I love that the narrative being spun is that trump was at some sort of disadvantage here.

Who is spinning that narrative?

 

[Boomboom521]

Tax Cuts was pushed through on reconciliation, right? Judges went nuclear to only requiring a simple majority.

Could it have been changed to only require a simple majority? I don’t know. Maybe. Dangerous road to go down though for basic legislation.

If it was the obvious “mandate” of middle America, and the keystone of the President’s agenda, and the GOP was standing together.....than going nuclear shouldn’t have been a dangerous option.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

If it was the obvious “mandate” of middle America, and the keystone of the President’s agenda, and the GOP was standing together.....than going nuclear shouldn’t have been a dangerous option.

I don’t think you can selectively go nuclear? I honestly don’t know. I thought it would have ended the requirement for a supermajority for all legislation. And honestly, I’m not comfortable for any legislation (tax cuts or ACA through reconciliation) to pass through the senate on a simple majority. That’s dangerous as hell, middle America mandate be damned. I apply this logic not for my own wants and needs but for what happens when the Senate switches majority. I’d rather nothing get done than some of the looney shit the extreme left/right would railroad through. Talk about death of a nation, that’d do it.

 

[Boomboom521]

I don’t think you can selectively go nuclear? I honestly don’t know. I thought it would have ended the requirement for a supermajority for all legislation. And honestly, I’m not comfortable for any legislation (tax cuts or ACA through reconciliation) to pass through the senate on a simple majority. That’s dangerous as hell, middle America mandate be damned. I apply this logic not for my own wants and needs but for what happens when the Senate switches majority. I’d rather nothing get done than some of the looney shit the extreme left/right would railroad through. Talk about death of a nation, that’d do it.

I think it would be a general rule change (one I’m in favor of)

 

[dave]

DAFUQ?

Its pretty simple civics. Ive explained it before. You have no excuse for this ignorance.