sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:BearlySane88 said:dajo9 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:
Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They can pass any bill if they really want to.
The 60-vote threshold: For most legislation, including funding bills, the Senate requires a three-fifths supermajority to advance to a final vote. With 53 Republicans in the Senate, they are short of the 60 votes needed and cannot pass a bill without some Democratic support.
If Senate Republicans want to vote to remove the filibuster, they can. It's already happened for a lot of other stuff. If they don't want to do that, then they need to give the Democrats something. Pretty simple.
While Senate Republicans have considered using the "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster for appropriations bills, they have been hesitant to do so. This reluctance stems from concerns about setting a precedent that Democrats could use against them if the Senate's power dynamics were to change in the future.
So if they don't want to do it, need to give the Democrats something. Pretty simple.
It's not that the "Senate" requires 60 votes. What the Senate requires is dictated by the Constitution and the Constitution says nothing like that.
The Republican majority in the Senate requires 60 votes. Why would Democrats vote to allow Healthcare costs to explode for Americans? If that's what the Republicans want they should pass it with their 53 vote majority.
So they'd rather choose to vote for not reopening the government, hurting millions anyways in the process?
They don't want to change the rules just because the democrat babies don't want to fund the government. Changing the rules is kind of a drastic measure.
They were happy to do it for a Supreme Court seat.
Okay.
Which goes to show that they are willing to take votes to override Democrats when it's important enough to them. Seems like reopening the government is not important enough.
The argument for most of my voting life has been that the Democrats always need to be the responsible adults and prevent the worst things from happening even when they have little power. Maybe it's time for another approach. The people voted for full Republican control over the federal government, even after seeing the example of Trump's first term. Let them see what that is actually like. Democrats aren't coming to rescue anyone. Republicans can pass a budget if they really want to.
The Democrats voted 12 times against a clean bill that reopened the government and are complaining that the government is not open. Period.
Republicans can vote to pass that bill without any Democrats.
Since the Republicans can change the rules and overcome the Democratic opposition to funding the government and SNAP, the Democrats are only 99% at fault.
Democrats' ask is to maintain the Medicaid expansion. It could also pass if Republicans included that in the bill.
And they will not pass a clean bill that funds the government and will pay SNAP and will then seat that congressperson the dems claim to need to get the epstein files out. Thank you for confirming that the democrat babies want something else and are therefore holding back funding the government.
Yes, they want to get something in exchange for funding Trump's government. Is that not how these negotiations have always worked?
Not always. The democrats need to live with the consequences of playing hardball and not funding SNAP.
Yes, everyone is playing hardball. Trump could fund SNAP too if he wanted. But it's always only the Democrats who are supposed to be responsible.
Except the Republicans passed the Dems CR during the 2020 cycle for Bidens worthless Build Back Better bill
