ADVERTISEMENT

The Democrats Own the Shutdown

OKSTATE1

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
47,608
62,882
113
Edmond, Oklahoma
January 22, 2019
The Democrats Own the Shutdown
By William Sullivan
Chuck Schumer may well have been pleased when President Trump signified his willingness to shut down the government to advance border security to fulfill his most politically charged campaign promise. Even some conservative pundits were aghast at Trump’s audacity in making such a proclamation, because, as everyone knows, Americans hate government shutdowns.

But Schumer and company don’t really hate government shutdowns. In fact, back in November, Schumer threatened to shut down the federal government over his demand that the Mueller investigation be protected by Congress after the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“If [Trump’s interim Attorney General] Whitaker does not recuse himself,” wrote Michele Blood at LifeZette on November 11, “Schumer said he would attach a demand for Whitaker’s non-interference to “must pass” legislation such as the spending bill -- then risking another shutdown.”

Where were all the headlines about Schumer’s desire to shut down the government to protect Mueller’s investigation? To say that they were few and far between would be unjustifiably generous to the media.

There are two things that are absolutely certain. First, “must-spend” legislation is far more common than it used to be, given that we now have a make-believe debt limit which is ignored (“suspension” is the verbiage used more often, in an effort to feign fiscal responsibility) and exceeded. In other words, most new spending legislation requires congressional agreement on how much will be spent, and on what, or the government will shut down. Second, Democrats believe that a government shutdown, for any reason, can be blamed on Republicans, and that the media will help advance that narrative.

Schumer believed that the government shutdown has become a powerful weapon in the Democratic Party’s political arsenal, and that a shutdown, if it can convincingly be blamed upon Republicans, helps Democrats to turn public opinion against his opponents. Again, many conservative pundits agreed with that.But Trump willfully owning the shutdown turned the tables, because he recognizes that the shutdown is not the issue. What Americans care about is the issue that triggers the shutdown.

Trump was elected on the promise to build better border security infrastructure, and a barrier has long been, for both parties, a logical means of achieving that outcome. Even Schumer and then-senator Hillary Clinton voted to construct a border fence back in 2006.

And history doesn’t exactly confirm that government shutdowns are always bad for the party whose adherence to principles leads to the political stalemates which cause them. It was in late 2013 that Ted Cruz threatened a shutdown over ObamaCare funding. The ensuing shutdown lasted for 16 days, or just over an average American’s pay period.

Americans discovered it wasn’t the big deal it was made out to be. In fact, few outside the mainstream media, who were busy blaming Republicans for the shutdown, even noticed. All essential federal spending continued. Nonessential spending did not (which should raise the perpetual question as to why we have any “nonessential” federal expenditures while being many trillions of dollars in debt), but in the day-to-day life of the vast majority of Americans, the government shutdown was such an inconsequential event that Barack Obama had to close open-air federal war memorials, prompting older veterans to push past his barricades and grab headlines for having done so -- just so that Democrats could remind the public that the government had been shut down.

But Republicans would certainly be the ones to pay for it, we were told, because the American people hate government shutdowns more than they disliked ObamaCare.

Then, in November of 2014, Republicans gained a majority in the Senate and expanded their control of the House. The result of the 2014 midterm election was a collective shoulder shrug by the American people as it relates to government shutdowns.

But there’s something that does makes this one different. Democrats are now clinging to the shutdown because they believe that continuing the shutdown allows them to better highlight the pain being inflicted.

I personally know people who are going without pay right now, and it is causing them financial pain. It is Trump who is seeking to negotiate a compromise which would fund a border barrier to secure our porous Southern border, and he is offering to fulfill the long-held Democratic desire to provide protection from deportation for beneficiaries of the Obama’s DACA executive order to do so. This would allow Congress time to negotiate a deal on what to do about Dreamers, in accordance to constitutional protocol rather than via unilateral executive orders. In the meantime, Dreamers would have protection from deportation, border security would obtain funding, and furloughed government employees could go back to work.

But Democrats are refusing to provide protection for Dreamers, not because they are against a wall, but because they are against giving an inch to President Trump. Even if it means continued pain for federal workers going without pay.

It is clear that the Democrats are not acting as a reasonable party to negotiation. And, in spite of the shutdown, polls suggest that support for a border wall is actually increasing.

So congratulations, Democrats. This continuing shutdown is all yours now. And Republicans, led by President Trump, have made that fact so obvious that no amount of media spin can keep any but the most ardent left-wing zealots from seeing it plainly.
 
I think that politics are so polarized right now that which party you supports tells you who you blame for the shutdown. This thought that there is all these undecideds in the middle is quickly becoming a fallacy and without them to be convinced one way or the other the assignment of blame is pointless.
 
Putin owns Trump.

Trump owns the shutdown.

Mexico owns Trump’s wall.

They’re sending us a check for $25Billion.
 

What?

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
I guess we didn't actually learn any lesson about jumping to conclusions after only seeing one side of a story.

You calling the Representative a liar? This was from an actual Rep, not some lame media person trying to create a narrative. If you have the facts to prove him wrong, prove him wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
You calling the Representative a liar?
Are you calling a Native American Veteran a liar?
This was from an actual Rep, not some lame media person trying to create a narrative.
Congressional reps would never try to create a narrative.
If you have the facts to prove him wrong, prove him wrong.
Yep no lessons learned. Go with the first thing you hear, don't look into it, wait for someone else to correct you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Are you calling a Native American Veteran a liar?

It has been proven now he never fought in Vietnam.

Congressional reps would never try to create a narrative.

Did not say that, said prove him wrong, he was correct, it was voted down by the House.

Yep no lessons learned. Go with the first thing you hear, don't look into it, wait for someone else to correct you.

Libs bought the Covington narrative, hook, line, and sinker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
So the correct play is to turn around and buy the Crenshaw narrative hook line and sinker.

Your narrative, not mine. There is no dispute about what the Rep said, right or wrong, we have the facts of what was said. We never had that from the beginning on Covington. The Rep made a comment about a VOTE, what was Covington about and do we have documentation like we do in Congress in the form of a vote, in other words, documentation of facts before a comment is made by media? No.
 
Last edited:
Your narrative, not mine. There is no dispute about what the Rep said, right or wrong, we have the facts of what was said. We never had that from the beginning on Covington. The Rep made a comment about a VOTE, what was Covington about and do we have a documentation like we do in Congress in the form of a vote, in other words, documentation of facts before a comment is made by media? No.
Yes I disputed it, he mischaracterized what the vote was on:

"That was a vote to send the resolution back to committee and change the funding period to Jan 15 2019. The house passed the resolution as is with funding extended to Feb 28 2019. Again it pays to look into these things."

Your dumbass ran with it just a couple days after a great example of it being a good idea to look before you leap. No lessons learned.
 
Yes I disputed it, he mischaracterized what the vote was on:

"That was a vote to send the resolution back to committee and change the funding period to Jan 15 2019. The house passed the resolution as is with funding extended to Feb 28 2019. Again it pays to look into these things."

Your dumbass ran with it just a couple days after a great example of it being a good idea to look before you leap. No lessons learned.

Take a good look.....they could have enacted this and made it effective the date he indicated. It says the earlier of....He was off by one on Dems that voted for it, it was 6, not 7, he was being kind.



Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/14/2019)

Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019

This joint resolution provides continuing FY2019 appropriations to several federal agencies through the earlier of February 28, 2019, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations legislation.

It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and ends the partial government shutdown that began after the existing CR expired on December 21, 2018, because seven of the remaining FY2019 appropriations bills have not been enacted.

(Five of the FY2019 appropriations bills were enacted last year, including

  • the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and
  • the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.)
Additionally, the CR has the effect of extending through February 28, 2019, several authorities and programs that were extended in prior CRs, including

  • the Violence Against Women Act,
  • the authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and spend certain fees related to pesticides,
  • the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and
  • several authorities related to immigration.
 
Take a good look.....they could have enacted this and made it effective the date he indicated. It says the earlier of....He was off by one on Dems that voted for it, it was 6, not 7, he was being kind.



Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/14/2019)

Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019

This joint resolution provides continuing FY2019 appropriations to several federal agencies through the earlier of February 28, 2019, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations legislation.

It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and ends the partial government shutdown that began after the existing CR expired on December 21, 2018, because seven of the remaining FY2019 appropriations bills have not been enacted.

(Five of the FY2019 appropriations bills were enacted last year, including

  • the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;
  • the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and
  • the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.)
Additionally, the CR has the effect of extending through February 28, 2019, several authorities and programs that were extended in prior CRs, including

  • the Violence Against Women Act,
  • the authority for the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and spend certain fees related to pesticides,
  • the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and
  • several authorities related to immigration.
No it is only effective through the date he indicated. Rather than have the government open only through Jan 15, the Democrats did the sensible thing and voted to have it open through Feb 28.
 
No it is only effective through the date he indicated. Rather than have the government open only through Jan 15, the Democrats did the sensible thing and voted to have it open through Feb 28.

The wording was the wording. So you are claiming a vote on the 17th was to keep it open thru the 15th? A date in the past? You must believe they are that stupid.
 
The wording was the wording. So you are claiming a vote on the 17th was to keep it open thru the 15th? A date in the past? You must believe they are that stupid.
Yes.
Carefully look at this webpage: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...ns?overview=closed&q={"roll-call-vote":"all"}

First notice that HR 28 passed.
Second notice the roll call vote that Crenshaw is talking about isn't to pass the bill it is to recommit the bill to committee with instructions
Third notice that the instructions are to strike February 28 2019 and replace it with January 15 2019.
 
Important point

It is when he’s being presented as a “Vietnam Vet,” because that’s very misleading. He was a refrigerator repair guy stateside with 3 AWOL’s and was discharged as a private.

I believe the combat vet term for this guy is “REMF” but I could be wrong.

He’s also clearly lied about the event.
 
It is when he’s being presented as a “Vietnam Vet,” because that’s very misleading. He was a refrigerator repair guy stateside with 3 AWOL’s and was discharged as a private.

I believe the combat vet term for this guy is “REMF” but I could be wrong.

He’s also clearly lied about the event.
Again very germane to the topic at hand
 
Trying to find a single instance of someone referring to Philips as a Vietnam vet in this thread and coming up empty. But very important to adjudicate his combat record in this thread about the government shut down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
Trying to find a single instance of someone referring to Philips as a Vietnam vet in this thread and coming up empty. But very important to adjudicate his combat record in this thread about the government shut down.

Playing dumb or outright lying to own the.....who the hell knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaPoke
the draft ended 01/1973 and the paris peace accord was 01/73 also so there was some shit going on in 1972 in Vietnam...but this guy wasn't part of it.

Throughout 1970, U.S. Marine forces continued to withdraw from Vietnam. The new policy emanating from Washington was "Vietnamization." With U.S. airpower and advisors, the ground war was increasingly turned over to the South Vietnamese. While the invasion of Cambodia was the major military undertaking of 1970, only a limited number of Marine aviation assets were involved. Marines still conducted aggressive campaigns against the enemy, most notably Colonel Edmund G. Derning's 7th Marines participation in Operation Pickens Forest and Colonel Paul X. Kelley's 1st Marines actions near Da Nang. But by the end of 1970, more Marines were leaving than arriving as replacements. On 14 April 1971, III MAF redeployed to Okinawa, and two months later the last ground troops, the 13,000 men of the 3d MAB, flew out from Da Nang.

http://paperlessarchives.com/vw_marine_corps_official_histo.html
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT