| ▲ | cyanydeez 2 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I thought the whole reason they're not funded was that Democrats refused to pass the bill unless it contained ICE reforms? Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms it's a bit disingenuous to characterize it as "Republicans are working hard to abuse people" |
| |
| ▲ | delecti 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Senate unanimously passed a DHS (excluding ICE/CBP) funding bill this week, which Mike Johnson blocked in the House. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/senate-agreement-dhs... | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | And it's important to note that ICE and CBP don't need additional funding. They were overfunded with the last spending bill by about 10x their actual needs. That's the reason why ICE and CBP agents are still collecting paychecks while the rest of DHS is not. It's actually a bit silly that Republicans, the party of limited government, have been holding up funding the TSA and FEMA because an agency they already overspent on won't get additional dollars. Not very DOGE. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why won’t Republicans agree to the reforms? Seems like a pretty reasonable ask from the Democrats to restore law enforcement norms that reflect a civil society. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Why won’t Republicans agree to the reforms? Doesn't that mean statements like "Republicans are working hard to abuse people" are just a long winded way of saying "grr I hate Republicans"? It doesn't matter who's doing the blocking, because your side is always right and Fighting For The People™, and the other side are just obstructionists blocking reasonable reforms? | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Would you mind answering the question, please, instead of embarking on a side quest? | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Would you mind answering the question, please, instead of embarking on a side quest? Funny you're accusing me of derailing the topic when in my initial comment I specifically mentioned I wasn't interested in arguing over the merits of those reforms >[...] Even if you're sympathetic to those reforms [...] And for the record, in case you wanted to interpret my refusal of discussing that topic as some sort of sign I'm against them: I'm not. I just believe the topic has been discussed to death and there's no point relitigating it. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Then why are you even participating in the discussion? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So if you want to derail the discussion it's "Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch", but when I do it, it's "... instead of embarking on a side quest"? | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you ever answer questions directly? Feels like you’re not engaging in good faith, but would rather argue for arguments’ sake and try to “win” through any means other than substantive contribution. To ask why Republicans won’t participate in passing these reforms is not “derailing” the conversation. It speaks to the very heart of the problem, because if they would, we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. The public has made it pretty clear that they don’t like the status quo about how ICE has been operating lately. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | convolvatron 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| its seems far more likely that they are just playing politics as sport. that is they are quite content to cause suffering if they can point the finger at the other team. just like the snap monies in the last shutdown. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >just like the snap monies in the last shutdown. You know, prior to this sentence "they" could have referred to either party. After all, the last shutdown was largely because the Democrats were fighting for ACA subsidy extensions, but I guess it's only "playing politics as sport" when you don't agree with the justification? | | |
| ▲ | convolvatron 2 days ago | parent [-] | | this is the problem isn't it? this is supposed to be why trump co is running the country. that governance has collapsed and they were supposed to refocus it on things that's mattered. see how that's going. but yes, I think the result is that we have even less effective governance then we had a year ago. and I find it pretty troubling that the narrative that's being actively reinforced is that we really don't need to bother with the legislative process anymore since they are obviously completely useless |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I know, I can't believe they refuse to pass the bill that would fund TSA. Wait a minute, I'm getting additional information....you're not gonna believe this, but Republicans have been voting for it. I wonder who the holdup is, then.... |
| |
| ▲ | rpdillon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yesterday morning, CNN: > In a remarkable 24 hours in Washington, House Republicans snubbed a bipartisan funding deal cut by their own Senate GOP counterparts and instead approved an entirely different plan — prolonging the Department of Homeland Security shutdown. > Then, they left town. It's obvious what's happening. https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/27/politics/dhs-shutdown-fundin... | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not just bipartisan. That bill was unanimously passed in the Senate. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present. It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not. Thune, the republican senate majority leader, was the one that put up the unanimous consent motion. There were more than just 5 people there. Though it was late at night. You can't push something through unanimous consent if there's not a quorum. That requires at least 51% of each party to be present. Now, it's possible they waited until some of the big objectors to the bill fell asleep or left. But, that doesn't really change the fact that Thune pushed this through. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call. | | |
| ▲ | Simulacra 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member. The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call. I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the Senate. You are correct. The Speaker of the House is a toady who is held in line in the house by a small cabal of super MAGA people. Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation. His supine nature is also probably the strategy for the “3rd term” loophole. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Given some of his unusual personal situations, (for one, he supposedly has no bank account or financial assets) there’s likely a blackmail situation 1. source on the bank account claim? 2. I don't think you need to involve theories that he's being financially blackmailed, when it's pretty clear that Trump has a tight grip over the Republican party, and isn't afraid to attack or back primary challengers for Republicans that he doesn't agree with, eg. Thomas Massie. | | |
| |
| ▲ | antiframe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And this is why bills sound cover one topic and not a bundle of topics. "I heard it was X who blocked the bill that would actually make gas prices low (which also meant voting was eliminated)" | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bobmcnamara 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The party who controls all three branches of federal government? |
|
