Shutdown Rhetoric

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not resolved tonight. Shut down tomorrow. Next vote is now noon tomorrow.

Tomorrow's vote is for a 3 week CR and a "promise" to vote on DACA.

This time we'll believe this promise. For sure.

Trump and McConnell are not to be trusted or believed. That's already proven itself over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not resolved tonight. Shut down tomorrow. Next vote is now noon tomorrow.

Tomorrow's vote is for a 3 week CR and a "promise" to vote on DACA.

This time we'll believe this promise. For sure.

Feb 8 would be 17 days by my count, not three weeks.

[Anonymous]

Whatever they come up with.... won't it have to go back to the House?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think they will reach an agreement tonight?

Around 6 pm, Graham says he has 5 more Dems in favor of the new Feb 8 proposal (which includes some promise re DACA voting - but from what I can tell doesn't lay out a DACA solution). And the CT Dem senator was just on tv very very cautiously saying he's consider it. So looks like they could be up to 56. Don't follow politics much routinely but doesn't his seem like it ends tonight? How hard can it be to get 4 more?

So are we going through this again in two weeks? Eff that, no.

+1000

The thing is many American families CANNOT go 3 weeks without pay if they don't pass a CR. The military is only paid through January 30. They may not care about anyone else but if theybf*ck with the militarybthey will really anger the base. Decent senators do not want people furloughed and going without pay for weeks while this grinds out when they could pass a CR and spend the next 3 weeks coming to some agreement.

Both sides failed to realize that in a shutdown everyone looks bad. Even if we all have really strong political beliefs, when it comes down to it, my party's moral superiority doesn't pay my bills. People need their jobs.

Well one hopes it wouldn't take them three weeks to work out the issues....

Trump can’t articulate a principled, coherent policy about the Dreamers he once referred to as “incredible kids.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever they come up with.... won't it have to go back to the House?

Yes. #GOPShitshow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Graham’s DACA bill has the support of 56+ Senators. His comprehensive reform bill passed in 2013 with 68 votes. The Cotton-Purdue bill to slash legal immigration in half that Miller is pushing has the support of precisely 2 senators, themselves.

The problem is Graham/Durbin’s bill is really a democrat bill. It was OK for Harry Reid to bring up a bill supported by mostly democrats. But it will be hard for McConell to bring up anything that the vast majority of his conference is against.

And any bill with Graham’s name on it will die in the house. They have a rule that only bills with the majority of the majority support can be brought up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever they come up with.... won't it have to go back to the House?

Yes. #GOPShitshow

FUN FACT: The House passed a rule to vote the same day after it comes from the Senate.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This will be forever known as the Schumer Shutdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever they come up with.... won't it have to go back to the House?

Yes. #GOPShitshow

FUN FACT: The House passed a rule to vote the same day after it comes from the Senate.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This will be forever known as the Schumer Shutdown.

Yeah. Just like the War of Northern Aggression!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham’s DACA bill has the support of 56+ Senators. His comprehensive reform bill passed in 2013 with 68 votes. The Cotton-Purdue bill to slash legal immigration in half that Miller is pushing has the support of precisely 2 senators, themselves.

The problem is Graham/Durbin’s bill is really a democrat bill. It was OK for Harry Reid to bring up a bill supported by mostly democrats. But it will be hard for McConell to bring up anything that the vast majority of his conference is against.

And any bill with Graham’s name on it will die in the house. They have a rule that only bills with the majority of the majority support can be brought up?

Last time I checked, Graham was a republican. If you mean Durbin, then sure, take his name off. I doubt he would care, he wants results not vanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever they come up with.... won't it have to go back to the House?

Yes. #GOPShitshow

FUN FACT: The House passed a rule to vote the same day after it comes from the Senate.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: This will be forever known as the Schumer Shutdown.

Oh, go clean up some wreaths. You are not as clever with this as you think,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's cute how liberals pretend to love all these illegal immigrants yet obsess over not living near them and making sure their kids don't go to schools with any.

DACA are not illegal immigrants, no matter how much the Stephen Millers of the world would have you believe.

What do you have to base this on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump needs to start- rightly- calling Schumer the senator from the Mexican states.

People are catching on to the unholy leftis alliance.

Schumer is standing for what his US citizen constituents want — 1) DACA compromise, 2) not to pay for a useless wall.

Wasn’t Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

Working class Americans don’t want 80 dollar/day illegal labor. You do for your mansion. Go visit the fire halls in small town USA. You are an elitist like Schumer.

DP... The hundreds of thousands of American businesses that keep employing them obviously still want them. Need to acknowledge that and sort that out somehow.

Sorry, I don’t care about business that take advantage of this black market. MAGA

You are talking about farmers and small businesses all throughout the heartland. Seems you are the elitist who hates the heartland now.

Well, I am married to a hispanic, so I don't feel badly about the "brown person" stuff. And I grew up on and still own a farm so that elitist stuff doesn't tag me.

And I think Trump is a big hypocrite, so that doesn't rattle me either. I just want the border secured and illegal immigration stopped. Legal immigration -- especially merit based -- is great! Then, for me, MAGA is complete.

Better tell your hispanic spouse to carry proof of citizenship. ICE is out there asking for it.

She doesn't realize the MAGA crowd doesn't differentiate between "good" Hispanics like her husband and criminals who should be deported. They hate them all equally because they're brown.

Gee, that's funny. All the conservatives I know want illegal immigration curbed because we have plenty of brown people that are already citizens (brought here through slavery I might add) that are living in poverty. We conservatives feel their plight is much more important that illegal immigrants. But you already have American brown people votes, so it's best to keep them in poverty, make promises you don't intend to keep, and give money that can help them to those that have deliberately broken immigration laws.

Liberals don't care about brown people. They care about votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve come to the conclusion that it was a brilliant move by the Republicans to put CHIP in the chopping block. I don’t think they were ever really going to defund it, but now the dems has to fight for it. It turned into some liberal pet entitlement program as opposed to the bipartisan support it typically received. And now the Dems had a choice-fight for CHIP OR DACA, or go for both and risk looking greedy. Seriously, whoever came up with this idea should get a pay raise.

Looks like you love the terrorists who would take elderly and kids hostage and ask you to chose between the the two groups to save along with the ransom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's cute how liberals pretend to love all these illegal immigrants yet obsess over not living near them and making sure their kids don't go to schools with any.

DACA are not illegal immigrants, no matter how much the Stephen Millers of the world would have you believe.

What do you have to base this on?

DP. Technically, they did arrive illegally, but Obama granted them "temporary" protection from deportation. They're in a holding pattern of sorts.

The thing that gets me is that liberals talk about them as if they are a monolithic block of high-achieving young adults who made good with the illegal advantage their parents stole. But that's the minority. They've graduated from college at a much lower rate than American young adults, and more than 20% of them are high school drop-outs. The vast majority of the latter group will end up on welfare, along with their children, and we should not be fighting to protect the interests of illegal immigrants who were given every advantage to "make good" yet will now be a drain on society. We have enough poor, welfare-dependent people as it is.

I believe the DACA high school dropouts should go back, with their parents (and children I'd they have them) to their native country. The blew their chance. The rest can stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve come to the conclusion that it was a brilliant move by the Republicans to put CHIP in the chopping block. I don’t think they were ever really going to defund it, but now the dems has to fight for it. It turned into some liberal pet entitlement program as opposed to the bipartisan support it typically received. And now the Dems had a choice-fight for CHIP OR DACA, or go for both and risk looking greedy. Seriously, whoever came up with this idea should get a pay raise.

Looks like you love the terrorists who would take elderly and kids hostage and ask you to chose between the the two groups to save along with the ransom.

Not sure where the elderly enters into the debate, but I thought the Rs agreed to fund CHIP for six years.

Also, why not abolish CHIP and migrate those kids to Medicaid? Time for government to learn the word "efficiency"'and stop with overlapping programs.