how likely is a shutdown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

Then do a stand-alone appropriations bill for Ukraine so everyone can be on the record for however many billions they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

Then do a stand-alone appropriations bill for Ukraine so everyone can be on the record for however many billions they want.

Why go through the theatrics? Is it really worth the several billions of dollars even a short shut down would waste? I mean it would waste more in shutdown than the money going to Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

Then do a stand-alone appropriations bill for Ukraine so everyone can be on the record for however many billions they want.

Why go through the theatrics? Is it really worth the several billions of dollars even a short shut down would waste? I mean it would waste more in shutdown than the money going to Ukraine.

NP. Debating the pros and cons of additional Ukrainian funding is not theatrics. It’s kind of what a legislature does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

Then do a stand-alone appropriations bill for Ukraine so everyone can be on the record for however many billions they want.

Why go through the theatrics? Is it really worth the several billions of dollars even a short shut down would waste? I mean it would waste more in shutdown than the money going to Ukraine.

NP. Debating the pros and cons of additional Ukrainian funding is not theatrics. It’s kind of what a legislature does.

Then they should do at at the committee level months ago, not wait to the last minute and have it be a floor debate. What has the foreign service committee done for the past 7 months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be hard to do if McCarthy didn’t lead it. He can pull all of their committee assignments to punish them.

He may actually want them to do this though. It would get him out of his current jam. He doesn't want to put a CR on the floor because the crazies will file a motion to vacate. But if he doesn't, then a CR can't pass. This is one way to get a CR on the floor without him being responsible for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

It's going to be really awkward when the DoD approps bill fails and the Ukraine one passes. Wonder if Kevin has thought this one through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

It's going to be really awkward when the DoD approps bill fails and the Ukraine one passes. Wonder if Kevin has thought this one through.

Oh like Kevin “I know who Putin pays - Trump and Rohrabacher” McCarthy ever thinks anything through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

Guess we will see how many Republicans are owned by Putin then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

Guess we will see how many Republicans are owned by Putin then.

Please stop with the “owned by Putin”. GOP are pro Putin because Trump is pro-Putin. They aren’t getting paid, they do this willingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

Guess we will see how many Republicans are owned by Putin then.

Please stop with the “owned by Putin”. GOP are pro Putin because Trump is pro-Putin. They aren’t getting paid, they do this willingly.

Which is even more disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

Guess we will see how many Republicans are owned by Putin then.

Please stop with the “owned by Putin”. GOP are pro Putin because Trump is pro-Putin. They aren’t getting paid, they do this willingly.

Nope, they are being blackmailed and have been since 2016. Sad that many simply retired and walked away rather than be there to fight for our country. Totally feckless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need 5. Anything before that is just noise.

But someone has to get the ball rolling. Sometimes it takes someone to publicly announce a choice for others to be able to step up and join them. Some of the others are leery of being the first to step up.

Kudos to these two for stepping up and being willing to make national headlines in order to get the ball rolling. There are a couple dozen more that are considering it, but before these two, many of the others were not willing to take the first step.

This.

Good to see that some Representatives are stepping up.

On Ukraine assistance, that would certainly be dramatic. I find it difficult to believe that there are enough Republicans though. Support for Ukraine remains a popular bipartisan issue.

Then do a stand-alone appropriations bill for Ukraine so everyone can be on the record for however many billions they want.

Why go through the theatrics? Is it really worth the several billions of dollars even a short shut down would waste? I mean it would waste more in shutdown than the money going to Ukraine.

NP. Debating the pros and cons of additional Ukrainian funding is not theatrics. It’s kind of what a legislature does.

Then they should do at at the committee level months ago, not wait to the last minute and have it be a floor debate. What has the foreign service committee done for the past 7 months?

+1

These clowns have had months and months to get their budget proposals in order. It’s just really hard to imagine what they spent their days doing. They have one Constitutional job, to appropriate funds to run the government and THEY’VE DONE NOTHING. It’s completely unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to make a bet that there is only ONE issue the Republicans are holding out for? Removal of funding for Ukraine. My guess is the Republican Party is owned by Putin.

Bingo.

Guess we will see how many Republicans are owned by Putin then.

Please stop with the “owned by Putin”. GOP are pro Putin because Trump is pro-Putin. They aren’t getting paid, they do this willingly.

Nope, they are being blackmailed and have been since 2016. Sad that many simply retired and walked away rather than be there to fight for our country. Totally feckless.

It seems this way to me too, but I can’t understand what he has on them individually. But the way they act, it truly seems like they are Russian agents.