Next US government shutdown in a few weeks

[TysonLPrice]

Two of things republicans are demanding or will not pass a budget are addressing “the unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department and FBI,” and revoking the “cancerous woke policies in the Pentagon,”.

Now how are they going to write the laws for those?

[TysonLPrice]

The republicans couldn't get the defense appropriations bill to the floor. That one is traditionally a "no brainer". With a couple weeks left before funding runs out that isn't a good sign.

[wes4dbt]

The GOP is certainly putting on a side show. They seem to be their own worse enemy.

[dilettante]

Isn't the battle mostly about Pentagon policies pushing child killing and dealing with the porous borders drugs and criminals are streaming through? I'm sure their constituents express it that way. If so, aren't they just doing what they were elected to do?

People just don't want to sit down and shut up and let duopolitan elites drive the bus over a cliff any more.

Those who want to live in an authoritarian monarchy bent on a globalist colonial agenda can always move to the UK. That's cheaper now than it was when they found themselves on the losing side of the Revolution.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Dil's got a point. They aren't their own worst enemies. They are doing what they were elected to do. So long as enough people vote for those viewpoints, then they will be well represented in Congress and we get what we get.

A big part of this is the primary system and the gerrymandering. Gerrymandering creates safe seats, but no seat is truly safe. There is always a way to challenge the incumbents, it's just that they are now being challenged from the fringes and not the center. That means that the primaries will guarantee the election of a congress with large numbers of fringe views. The senate isn't quite like that, since they are elected statewide, but it still applies a bit because of the primary system.

If those views didn't get people elected, then there wouldn't be any of them in Congress. The system supports them, and so they're there.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Where I disagree with Dil about is where he seems to think that there is something better on the fringe. The US is not the largest country in the world, nor has it been gifted with an unusual abundance of natural resources, yet it is the largest and most vibrant economy in history. He seems to think that happened despite the policies of the government. I don't. In any system there will be winners and losers. There are more winners in the US than anywhere, and more winners who think they are losers, which makes them whiners. Whether there are more of those than elsewhere, I can't say.

It's kind of like that comedian said about listening to people complain about delays at an airport, "and then what happened? You flew through the air like a god!"

[dilettante]

That reminds me of the old country, where workers made their homes on the dirt floors of stalls at the other end of the barn from the cattle. The rich farmer expressed disdain at their complaints, since he sold them the best gruel money could buy... around his mouthfuls of roast beef, grease dripping down his many chins.

[wes4dbt]

Dil's got a point. They aren't their own worst enemies. They are doing what they were elected to do. So long as enough people vote for those viewpoints, then they will be well represented in Congress and we get what we get.

It's not them representing the viewpoints that got them elected, it's the way they are doing it. The insults are harsher than the usual political word play. This level of attack is usually aimed at the opposing party. But I'm not too surprised to hear this type of rhetoric from Gaetz but McCarthy usually has more class.

[dilettante]

... they are now being challenged from the fringes and not the center. That means that the primaries will guarantee the election of a congress with large numbers of fringe views.

That seems pretty accurate. But the question is why is this true now compared to the past?

I don't think it can be blamed on bugaboos like gerrymandering, which hurts everyone but also isn't new at all. I suspect it is because extremists are easy to push buttons on, so the media have been directed to give extremists outsized voices.

[TysonLPrice]

It's not them representing the viewpoints that got them elected, it's the way they are doing it. The insults are harsher than the usual political word play. This level of attack is usually aimed at the opposing party. But I'm not too surprised to hear this type of rhetoric from Gaetz but McCarthy usually has more class.

Yeah...here is his class:

Several lawmakers and aides recalled that McCarthy told lawmakers to move or file “a f---ing motion” to oust him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...hutdown-chaos/

Rep. Matt Gaetz replied...Move the F****** spending bill.

Two weeks to go...who votes for these people?

But it is full steam ahead for Biden a impeachment for corruption linked to his son.

McCarthy has never had class...power/ego/position is what he is all about.

[wes4dbt]

Several lawmakers and aides recalled that McCarthy told lawmakers to move or file “a f---ing motion” to oust him.

That's what I'm talking about. I've never seen a quote that vulgar(or unprofessional, how ever you want to describe it) by him before. But I'm no expert on him.

[dilettante]

They made a movie about you guys. Judge Smails and his Bushwood cronies in Caddyshack.

[TysonLPrice]

you guys

Are you above the fray and the only one that is right?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't think it can be blamed on bugaboos like gerrymandering, which hurts everyone but also isn't new at all. I suspect it is because extremists are easy to push buttons on, so the media have been directed to give extremists outsized voices.

Gerrymandering might be more effective than ever before, thanks to better databases, but generally, you're right that gerrymandering has been around for a very long time. It may be worse now, it may be more effective now, but it may also just be that it's far easier to get access to extreme views...or activate views that were dormant.

I've said it before: Prior to the internet, a view that was held by a 0.1% minority was so rare that many people holding that view wouldn't encounter anybody else with that view. These days, they have their own chat rooms, because in just the US, a 0.1% minority view is shared by over three million people. Get them all together and they'd be a crowd...even though once you got them all together, NOBODY else would agree with them, by definition.

Humans are inherently tribal. If our views didn't match the tribe, our views often shifted enough to fit with the tribe. These days, we just find a tribe where the views do fit.

[wes4dbt]

because in just the US, a 0.1% minority view is shared by over three million people.

I believe that would be @ 330,000 people. Which is still a loud voice.

Humans are inherently tribal. If our views didn't match the tribe, our views often shifted enough to fit with the tribe. These days, we just find a tribe where the views do fit.

That's an interesting point. The amount of organized subgroups does seem to be larger.

[wes4dbt]

Are you above the fray and the only one that is right?

I've been trying to figure out which of "you guys" is part of the country club set. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

I believe that would be @ 330,000 people. Which is still a loud voice.



That's an interesting point. The amount of organized subgroups does seem to be larger.

Oops, I started with 1%, then changed it.

[TysonLPrice]

There is a glimmer of a CR and it fails, then again, and yesterday again. A member of congress is quoted as saying "that any compromise with Democrats would be a last-case scenario for Republicans". That is our current government, comprise is a last resort

[dilettante]

I think a problem is that people misuse "compromise" to suggest a one-sided partial capitulation.

But language is a lost art now anyway. Look how often people will say "conspiracy" when they mean "conspiracy theory." This confusion almost writes a blank check for the conspirators, creating a blind spot. But then that's probably exactly why the media does this.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Under the current rules governing federal politics in the US, partial capitulation = total capitulation.

The politicians are playing by the rules of the game as they currently stand. Asking them to be bigger than that is all well and good, but it's also fairly rare. They were elected by their party in a primary that selects for the most partisan, uncompromising, people.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Idaho is an interesting case. Back in 2011, the Republicans closed the primaries. They spoke in lofty terms about their reasons, but everybody who paid attention to the personalities involved knew what it was about. There was a leadership group in the party that was at odds with the highest elected officials (governor, federal elected office holders, and I think the speaker of the house at the time). The leadership group wanted to elect more ardent conservatives in what is already a pretty red state. They felt too many moderates were getting elected. Since that time, too many moderates have still gotten elected for their tastes, but it's hard to further restrict the primary to, "just those who will vote the way we want them to."

In any case, there is now a ballot measure circulating (or about to circulate) to create open, non-partisan, primaries. That would be an amazingly progressive move for the state, so the AG is actively attempting to muddy the water. He has been pretty open about his support for increased partisanship, not less of it.

[dilettante]

Under the current rules governing federal politics in the US, partial capitulation = total capitulation.

Well that's a problem, isn't it.

The politicians are playing by the rules of the game as they currently stand. Asking them to be bigger than that is all well and good, but it's also fairly rare.

Agreed, but "rare" doesn't mean non-existent. So how do we encourage the politicians willing to bargain in good faith?

I don't believe the answer is to game the system to achieve a total takeover instead, and then force-feed the will of 50.001% onto 49.999% of the people. That seems like a recipe for ongoing strife and chaos. Or maybe even worse if that slim majority has been utterly duped against their own interests, distracted by promises of a Chuck E. Cheese Ball Pit In The Sky that gives out long strips of free prize tickets.

Scary that the future was seen so clearly over 100 years ago by H. G. Wells. Of course being a member of the liberal elite himself, Wells characterized the Morlocks as antagonists.

[TysonLPrice]

Rules and tradition have been contorted so that as few as five members control the chamber. And just one can make a motion to oust the speaker. McCarthy is already reneging on what he negotiated in the spring and is running an impeachment inquiry against the leader of the democratic party. No love lost there...but the democrats may have to bail him out.

[FunkyDexter]

but the democrats may have to bail him out

...which they ain't gonna do and we're going to have a repeat of last year when they try to elect a new speaker. Except that I feel the Freedom Caucus (Gaetz, Boebert, Green at al) have lost a lot of credibility over the last year. So, although they can still lock out the vote if they choose to, the social dynamics are likely to be very different and they may just end up damaging their own credibility even further. It'll be interesting to watch. Bring popcorn.

[TysonLPrice]

The status of negotiations on both a short-term funding solution and long-term appropriations legislation declined so severely Thursday that lawmakers began to return home, with no votes scheduled for the rest of the week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cans-spending/

They want $120 billion less than McCarthy and Biden agreed to in May. If they will not stand by an agreement they made just a few months ago why should anyone trust them now?

The tail is wagging the dog and McCarthy is the one that allowed it. Pelosi and the democrats kept the nuts and the screwballs in the attic away from the public. Republicans put them in charge.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

What a country...

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't you get started. You aren't doing all that much better.

[2kaud]

Potentially we're worse - as we don't have any check on borrowing other than Market reaction....

[TysonLPrice]

OK...they will be back from their weekend off tomorrow. Now they can get back to trying to fund the government

[TysonLPrice]

Alright the...the government is going to shutdown not because republicans and democrats cannot agree, it is because republicans cannot agree with republicans. Hey Dilettante...how about an informative video????

[dilettante]

I think your mistake is thinking that Republicans and Democrats are unified blocs. They never have been, are arguably less so than they've been for a long time, and that's even more true if you talk about the voters who lean toward one or the other. This might be easier to comprehend when living in less authoritarian States where voters are not required to register with a Party or coerced into Party affiliation simply by casting a ballot.

More than that, the power elite in the extremes of the two Parties is basically the same group with the same goals. At their level its about power, skimming money from corporate donations above and below the table, and things like influence peddling for personal monetary gain.

Most people fall close to the center politically. These are the voters the Parties want to disenfranchise. They rely upon extremists to create more of these easily manipulated extremists.

A video? I wouldn't expect you to watch one. But if you insist maybe look here:

CNN: Welcome to the Fractured States of America
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...-one-fredrick/

It attempts to break things down into small words.

[TysonLPrice]

I think your mistake is thinking that Republicans and Democrats are unified blocs.

Did you even read the post?

"it is because republicans cannot agree with republicans" Does that read like I think they are a unified bloc?

You were right...I don't look at the videos

[dilettante]

You were right...I don't look at the videos

Heaver forbid one might get de-Bubbled!

[dilettante]

Did you even read the post?

"it is because republicans cannot agree with republicans" Does that read like I think they are a unified bloc?

Your error is thinking this is just Republicans. Both camps are divided. How do you think Trump got into office?

[Peter Porter]

Did you even read the post?

"it is because republicans cannot agree with republicans." Does that read like I think they are a unified bloc?

Your error is thinking this is just Republicans. Both camps are divided. How do you think Trump got into office?

Good move, Dil. Ignore Tyson's post about the shutdown because Republicans can't agree with Republicans:

Alright the...the government is going to shutdown not because republicans and democrats cannot agree, it is because republicans cannot agree with republicans.

...and reply to the one that only shows part of his original post so you can continue to ignore the above fact.

Too bad I'm around to rerail this train.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think Dil has a point here, though he's more pessimistic than I am (though I'm certainly in one of those authoritarian states, a point which I think is mostly true...aside from the fact that even in Idaho it is a power struggle between two blocks of Republicans). Long time coalitions have fractured quite a bit over the last couple decades. It does feel like the parties are in flux, more so than usual.

On the other hand, the Democrats have never been an organized party.

[TysonLPrice]

On the other hand, the Democrats have never been an organized party.

Relative to the current discussion the democrats have been extremely organized. Pelosi kept the house in line and they passed things. As soon as the republicans and McCarthy got the house it turned into a clown show.

If you mean the democratic partly in a more general sense I'm still not sure I agree. They are solidly supporting Biden. Although most of them, including me, would prefer someone younger.

[sapator]

Although most of them, including me, would prefer someone younger.

Of course. Biden's son!

[TysonLPrice]

Of course. Biden's son!

I would prefer no more Bidens, Trumps, Clintons, Bushs, and anyone over seventy.

[sapator]

Why not Bush? I miss the little warmonger. And very intelligent also.
OK then how about Kennedy (you missed him! Lol) ?