> It’s the dems that are refusing to govern in this case.
Congressional republicans are refusing to govern at the macro scale, by failing to enforce the law against the executive.
Congress has the power of the purse, but Trump has decided that he can just do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and violate the Hatch act. Why should the dems not use a filibuster against a congress that colludes with a criminal?
“In this case” refers to passing the CR and shutting down the government.
The dems are choosing to shut down the government that they willingly funded earlier in the year for their reasons.
You may agree with the reasons behind their disagreement with the GOP and the president—but if you are agreeing with their tactics than you are ok with shutting down the government to get them. You and I can disagree on whether or not that is governing. I don’t believe it is, I believe it’s a tantrum that will ultimately backfire on them.
The other tools they have is to primary to find good candidates and win elections. They have chosen to rig and skip primaries to front lousy candidates. They could modify their platform to find issues that wont turn off centrist voters and avoid shedding off those voters who are more interested in the 80 part of the 80/20 issues.
> The dems are choosing to shut down the government that they willingly funded earlier in the year for their reasons.
Those reasons are 'The funding congress voted for isn't being spent on the things congress voted for'. They have every right to stop further spending.
> I believe it’s a tantrum that will ultimately backfire on them.
The recent history of the Republican party and Trump is nothing but one political tantrum after another, while they screech from the rooftops about some social wedge 20% distraction issue[1]. If any of that actually caused political blowback from centerist voters, they'd have about 30 seats in the Senate and 180 in the house.
[1] It's interesting that you seem to think that access to healthcare is some pet 20% issue.
> It's interesting that you seem to think that access to healthcare is some pet 20% issue.
Well of course it is. Depends wholly on who that “some” is. Redefining illegal immigrants as legal to gain access to healthcare is definitely on the 20% side of that ratio.
Congressional republicans are refusing to govern at the macro scale, by failing to enforce the law against the executive.
Congress has the power of the purse, but Trump has decided that he can just do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and violate the Hatch act. Why should the dems not use a filibuster against a congress that colludes with a criminal?
What other tools do they have to enforce the law?