The Hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer

[Starlight]

Yes, quite a lot of activists are very annoyed that the Dems ceded 3 weeks on DACA rather than holding Republicans feet to the fire. There's some strong feelings among progressives that Dem politicians are chosen by rich donors to be a weak opposition and to buckle to Republican demands whenever any pressure whatsoever is put on them.

But you do make yourself look foolish Rogue by trying to classify establishment sources like Politico and NYT as "left". Progressive sources I listen to basically never have anything complementary to say about either outlet, and regard them as mouthpieces of the establishment.

[Darth Executor]

The establishment is a combination of progressives and centrists so it's fair to refer to the NYT as progressive. most full blown progressives simply have trouble admitting that they are part of the ruling coalition because their self-worth is based heavily on the idea that they are fighting truth to power as opposed to being hand puppets of the authorities.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, quite a lot of activists are very annoyed that the Dems ceded 3 weeks on DACA rather than holding Republicans feet to the fire.

They weren't holding Republicans feet to the fire, idiot, the polls started swinging on them because it is in fact the Dems shutting down the government and general population doesn't care enough about your invading anchor babies to sacrifice a functioning government for them.

Schumer is getting a lot of flak and he was dumb to shut down the government over it in the first place but this was pretty much is only move. As an aside, what is it with Democrats trying to copy stupid things republicans have done and blew up in their face, like government shut downs and middle eastern wars?

[Teallaura]

Originally Posted by Starlight
You're a crazy moron.

In related crazy moron news:
White House targets filibuster, calls for 'nuclear option' as shutdown enters day 2:

The White House on Sunday called for Senate Republicans to change the chamber's rules to resolve the funding impasse as the government shutdown continued into its second day.

President Donald Trump tweeted his call for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the so-called nuclear option and thereby remove leverage for Senate Democrats...

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said on CNN's "State of the Union" that eliminating the filibuster would be one avenue they back to ending the shutdown.

Senate rules impose a threshold of 60 votes to break a filibuster, and Senate Republicans currently hold a slim majority of 51 votes, meaning even if they can unite their members, they need nine more votes to end debate. The White House is calling for the Senate to change its rules and move the threshold to a simple majority of 51 votes.





Yeppers, still delusional.

I apologize. It irritated me when you blew me off the other day and I've been doing the same thing. I was wrong to do that.

[Teallaura]

I'm not convinced. Trump and Republicans dominated the news cycle, Dems introduced something into the budget bill that was not budget-related, and polls suggest a government shutdown was not worth the DACA issue. I'm not sure the Dems prevailed on this one, and they may have harmed their 2018 chances....

Historically, the party that gets the blame for a shutdown suffers a LOT in subsequent election cycles.

You may well be right about 2018 - which would actually be a bigger kick in the gut for the Dem party than 2016.

[Teallaura]

Oh the question of which side publicly 'won' / 'lost less' on the publicity / messaging / voter support front is complex, and to a large extent unanswerable.

I was talking purely from a policy standpoint - the Dems got a policy without ceding any policy ground.

They almost certainly lost ground - what they saved was a little face. Being the obstructionist party doesn't play well to anyone, not even the base.

[carpedm9587]

They weren't holding Republicans feet to the fire, idiot, the polls started swinging on them because it is in fact the Dems shutting down the government and general population doesn't care enough about your invading anchor babies to sacrifice a functioning government for them.

Schumer is getting a lot of flak and he was dumb to shut down the government over it in the first place but this was pretty much is only move. As an aside, what is it with Democrats trying to copy stupid things republicans have done and blew up in their face, like government shut downs and middle eastern wars?

To be clear, there is a difference between an anchor baby (a child born to undocumented parents that "anchors" the parents with the child) and a Dreamer (i.e., DACA recipient), who is a child brought here at a young age when they were not able to consent. The former is a full U.S. citizen. The latter is not. DACA is about Dreamers - not anchor babies, AFAIK.

[Darth Executor]

To be clear, there is a difference between an anchor baby (a child born to undocumented parents that "anchors" the parents with the child) and a Dreamer (i.e., DACA recipient), who is a child brought here at a young age when they were not able to consent. The former is a full U.S. citizen. The latter is not. DACA is about Dreamers - not anchor babies, AFAIK.

DACA is about smuggling in the rest of the invader population for the Democrats

[carpedm9587]

DACA is about smuggling in the rest of the invader population for the Democrats

No, it's not - but somehow I have a feeling that nothing is going to convince you otherwise, so I'll leave the last word to you.

[Terraceth]

I'm not convinced. Trump and Republicans dominated the news cycle, Dems introduced something into the budget bill that was not budget-related, and polls suggest a government shutdown was not worth the DACA issue. I'm not sure the Dems prevailed on this one, and they may have harmed their 2018 chances....

It's tricky to determine who gets more blame from the general public. I looked at some polls like this one. If you combine the number who blame Trump and the number who blame congressional Republicans, you end up with a much higher number than those that blame congressional Democrats. On the other hand, relatively little blame goes towards congressional Republicans (much less than congressional Democrats) and since they'rethe ones up for election, not Trump, this might have hurt Democrats during the midterms more than the Republicans.

Of course, it's also highly possible that by the time the midterms arrive this is mostly a memory that no one really cares about, and may have a very limited impact on it.

[Starlight]

Today's news is that Schumer seems to have done to Trump what Trump previously did to him - cancelled the deal. Schumer has told the WH that the previous Dem offer to fund the Wall if sufficient conditions were met, is now rescinded. Trump won't be able to have his transparent tall solar-powered beautiful wall (which would cut off Texans' ability to access the Rio Grande and basically cede that water to Mexico, and would do nothing to prevent Mexicans flying into the US on visitors visas and then overstaying which is how most illegal immigrants enter)...

At this stage everything seems on track for another shutdown in 3 weeks time.

[carpedm9587]

It's tricky to determine who gets more blame from the general public. I looked at some polls like this one. If you combine the number who blame Trump and the number who blame congressional Republicans, you end up with a much higher number than those that blame congressional Democrats. On the other hand, relatively little blame goes towards congressional Republicans (much less than congressional Democrats) and since they'rethe ones up for election, not Trump, this might have hurt Democrats during the midterms more than the Republicans.

Of course, it's also highly possible that by the time the midterms arrive this is mostly a memory that no one really cares about, and may have a very limited impact on it.

That last bit is a good point. Trump has such a record of churning the news cycle at an amazing rate, there is a good chance all of this will be a lost memory by November. Of course, it partially depends on what happens in February.

[Mountain Man]

Umm... I could not disagree more. Carter was a very weak president in terms of defense. He did try to hold the line on defense spending, which no other president since then has done. The military remains the one agency in government, AFAIK, that has never had a thorough audit and is desperately in need of one. Someone needs to explain to me why we need to pump more money into a part of our budget that exceeds the military spending (per capita) of almost any nation on earth, and still is, somehow, "weak" and "under-funded." We want to hold every other part of our government accountable, but somehow it becomes "unpatriotic" if someone suggests that we should also be holding the military establishment accountable.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that we're willing to spend the money where other nations won't. If America were to cut back its military to something like, say, New Zealand then the world would be virtually defenseless against maniacs like Kim Jong-un and Putin. I would suggest that the relative peace we enjoy in the world today is because the United States military has the resources to keep it that way. It would be great if other nations were to step up their game and take the pressure off us, but that's unlikely to happen any time soon.

[carpedm9587]

A lot of it has to do with the fact that we're willing to spend the money where other nations won't. If America were to cut back its military to something like, say, New Zealand then the world would be virtually defenseless against maniacs like Kim Jong-un and Putin. I would suggest that the relative peace we enjoy in the world today is because the United States military has the resources to keep it that way. It would be great if other nations were to step up their game and take the pressure off us, but that's unlikely to happen any time soon.

I do not disagree with any of that. That does not, however, give the military a pass on accountability. To my knowledge, there has never been an audit of this part of the government, and there are huge blocks of money that have disappeared with no knowledge of where they went. I recognize that some part of the military will be involved with black-ops that should not be made public. That does not mean it should be without fiscal oversight of any kind. Before another budget increase for the military, I advocate for a complete audit to ensure that our finances are being properly used. Every other federal department is subject to that requirement. So too should the defense department.

[Cerebrum123]

I do not disagree with any of that. That does not, however, give the military a pass on accountability. To my knowledge, there has never been an audit of this part of the government, and there are huge blocks of money that have disappeared with no knowledge of where they went. I recognize that some part of the military will be involved with black-ops that should not be made public. That does not mean it should be without fiscal oversight of any kind. Before another budget increase for the military, I advocate for a complete audit to ensure that our finances are being properly used. Every other federal department is subject to that requirement. So too should the defense department.

Come on, everyone knows stuff like that goes to Area 51.