McConnell Objects to Bill for Military Pay

[_Res Ipsa]

The Senate has some pretty arcane rules, which make it hard to understand why things are done the way they are. What the the Senator did was ask for unanimous consent to bring an old bill to the floor and amend it to simply provide for paying the military (the reference to the amendment at the desk) and proceed straight to a vote. I suspect introducing the bill and amending it has some procedural advantage to introducing her amendment as a new bill. At any rate, Subgenius’s point is irrelevant — she could have used any still-pending bill as the vehicle for her amendment.

But this is all Kabuki, with both sides playing a disingenuous game. The senator is correct that no one in the Senate wants to deprive military folks of their pay. But both sides are willing to use the military as a cudgel to claim that the other wants to hurt the military. It’s simply a symptom of the dysfunction in our government.

We deserve better.

[_Kevin Graham]

Here's an interesting take on the negotiations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 720a0e49aa

TL;DR - The Democrats just needed a reason to pass the budget, and it was basically just posturing on their part.

Let me know if I'm off on that.

- Doc

The jury is still out for the next few weeks. until then we won't really know if the Democrats succeeded in getting a DACA vote. All of the knee-jerk pieces in the media seem to jump to the conclusion that the Democrats caved under pressure, but I can see how they actually made progress by getting McConnell to commit to a vote before Feb 8th. If it doesn't happen then they'll just shutdown the gov again probably and it will be on the Republicans because they knew in advance what would happen if they reneged on DACA.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm.

If I were a betting man I'd say a DACA deal gets done, probably when no one is looking because Trump will do something incredibly outrageous, and our attention will be divided. I'm not sure how another shutdown is going to serve either side at this point, and with us moving closer to the '18 Congressional elections why give either side a talking point? But then November might as well be 10 years away with our attention span the way it is.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

But both sides are willing to use the military as a cudgel to claim that the other wants to hurt the military. It’s simply a symptom of the dysfunction in our government.

We deserve better.

Well Pence and Trump have gone on record saying Democrats want to intentionally hurt the military. Yet, I haven't seen any Democrat lawmakers saying the same about Republicans, despite having a much stronger case.

[_Res Ipsa]

But both sides are willing to use the military as a cudgel to claim that the other wants to hurt the military. It’s simply a symptom of the dysfunction in our government.

We deserve better.

Well Pence and Trump have gone on record saying Democrats want to intentionally hurt the military. Yet, I haven't seen any Democrat lawmakers saying the same about Republicans, despite having a much stronger case.

They don’t have to. They can rely on guys like you to do it for them. Look at your headline. Now, how many military folks were actually denied pay as a result of McConnell’s objection?

[_Kevin Graham]

They don’t have to. They can rely on guys like you to do it for them. Look at your headline. Now, how many military folks were actually denied pay as a result of McConnell’s objection?

So despite there being no equation, you're going to equate anyway and blame it on me?

And FTR, my headline is 100% accurate and it is obviously a response to what Pence/Trump just said to the media as well as what we're always being told by Right Wing trolls who insist the Democrats resent the military. I submit that McConnell objected to McCaskill's proposal because he didn't want a Democrat to get credit for it. No one really believes either side wants to "hurt the military" as you asserted, but only one side is actually saying this in the media. Maybe you don't want to accept it because you're one of those Libertarians who follows the rule to attack both sides equally because you think both sides are equal. Well, they're not. At least EA can occasionally admit the Right and their propaganda is far more extreme than the Left.

Your logic that McConnell wasn't denying military pay because the shutdown didn't last long enough, is pretty ridiculous. It is also undermined by his subsequent remarks about how the immediate shutdown was going to get a lot worse before it got better. He had every reason to believe the military wouldn't get their next paycheck.

[_Res Ipsa]

They don’t have to. They can rely on guys like you to do it for them. Look at your headline. Now, how many military folks were actually denied pay as a result of McConnell’s objection?

So despite there being no equation, you're going to equate anyway and blame it on me?

And FTR, my headline is 100% accurate and it is obviously a response to what Pence/Trump just said to the media as well as what we're always being told by Right Wing trolls who insist the Democrats resent the military. I submit that McConnell objected to McCaskill's proposal because he didn't want a Democrat to get credit for it. No one really believes either side wants to "hurt the military" as you asserted, but only one side is actually saying this in the media. Maybe you don't want to accept it because you're one of those Libertarians who follows the rule to attack both sides equally because you think both sides are equal. Well, they're not. At least EAllusion can occasionally admit the Right and their propaganda is far more extreme than the Left.

Your logic that McConnell wasn't denying military pay because the shutdown didn't last long enough, is pretty ridiculous. It is also undermined by his subsequent remarks about how the immediate shutdown was going to get a lot worse before it got better. He had every reason to believe the military wouldn't get their next paycheck.

So, the answer to my question is that no one in the military was denied any pay. Your headline says the exact opposite.

I watched the vote and the aftermath live. McConnell looked to me like he was completely blindsided by the vote and wasn’t prepared with a plan B. He responded to the request by first acknowledging that making special provisions for military pay was done in 2013, recognizing the precedent for doing so. He then stated that his preference was to solve the problem as a whole, but acknowledged that they may have to revisit the issue. I have no doubt that, had the Democrats held fast to the position that they would not vote for a funding bill without DACA, a military funding bill would have been passed.

As I recall, this issue first arose forty years ago. Both parties have had ample opportunity to pass a bill that provided for military pay in the event of a shutdown. But they would rather play games than do something they all agree on.

As for me being a libertarian, is disagreeing with KG some new definition I haven’t heard about? EA is gonna laugh his ass off.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

As for me being a libertarian, is disagreeing with Kevin Graham some new definition I haven’t heard about? EAllusion is gonna laugh his ass off.

Hey, man. Fair warning. Disagree with KG enough and before you know it you're a bigot, supremacist, or some variation of the two.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

So, the answer to my question is that no one in the military was denied any pay. Your headline says the exact opposite.

The military was effectively being denied further pay at the time the shutdown occurred, which is why military personnel started having a conniption fit about it on social media. The fact that the shutdown ended before their next pay day doesn't change the fact that McConnell was perfectly willing to deny them pay. He was probably willing to do this because he assumed Democrats would take the blame for it.

I watched the vote and the aftermath live. McConnell looked to me like he was completely blindsided by the vote and wasn’t prepared with a plan B.

I'm sure you're right. But I don't know how that changes anything. So, he was caught off guard and didn't have a better strategy so he decided to object first and sleep on it second.

He responded to the request by first acknowledging that making special provisions for military pay was done in 2013, recognizing the precedent for doing so. He then stated that his preference was to solve the problem as a whole, but acknowledged that they may have to revisit the issue.

Which is a joke because he had no problem having a vote on something he knew for a fact wouldn't pass. Republicans LOVE doing this (i.e. Obamacare repeal). He certainly wasn't blindsided by the results of the vote, as the entire country was discussing an imminent shutdown prior to the vote. So for him to say "Oh I'd rather fund everything instead" is pretty disingenuous considering they just tried that and failed. And he didn't say they "may" have to revisit the issue, he said, and I quote, "we will discuss again tomorrow." That was pretty much part of his justification for objecting that night. Because they'd discuss it in the morning. But tomorrow came, and it wasn't discussed.

I have no doubt that, had the Democrats held fast to the position that they would not vote for a funding bill without DACA, a military funding bill would have been passed.

Well of course, but that is beside the point.

As for me being a libertarian, is disagreeing with Kevin Graham some new definition I haven’t heard about? EAllusion is gonna laugh his ass off.

You're not Libertarian? I seem to recall you indicating that you were at some point prior. If you're not, then I apologize. Equating both Democrats with Republicans on all things regardless of evidence is certainly characteristic of Libertarian mentality, in my experience anyway. It wasn't intended as an insult, just an observation.

[_Kevin Graham]

As for me being a libertarian, is disagreeing with Kevin Graham some new definition I haven’t heard about? EAllusion is gonna laugh his ass off.

Hey, man. Fair warning. Disagree with Kevin Graham enough and before you know it you're a bigot, supremacist, or some variation of the two.

- Doc

You may have a point if I were the only one to point this out. But I'm almost certain that I'm not.