I mean, the argument is that the party that causes a shutdown usually becomes much less popular. Maybe this will be an exception, as that's always been Republicans in the past, but it's a pretty coherent argument.
I found Ezra's column compelling. That probably means I'm wrong.
Republicans have the majorities. Let them pass what they can. If they need Democratic votes, they're gonna have to offer something. Given that the head of their party lies all the time and can be trusted about as far as he can be spat, it better be one hell of an offer.
The counterargument is that people have no idea which party causes the shutdown and ascribe it to whatever party holds the presidency.
I don't care. Do things, don't do things. Whatever.
They wouldn't because they're completely cooked about how to behave as an opposition party. As someone said on Bluesky, the GOP senators have two things they want: passing a budget and pushing the *enormous* leap in Obamacare premiums out past the midterms, and Schumer's plan is apparently to give them the first in exchange for giving them the second.
The counterargument that gives me pause is: courts. A lot of bad stuff has gotten slowed down or stopped by the court system, and turning that off feels extra bad when it's about the only thing slowing things down at all.
(I'm not absolutely sure that it's a deal-breaker, but it's the part I find the most worrisome)
A shutdown is more disruptive to people in our coalition than to people in the other. Also, it gives Trump an excuse to blame Dems for the economic harm he's been causing.
I'm not saying either of these are reason enough to sign on to bad bills. Whether a shutdown is worth it depends entirely on two things that are not at all in Schumer's control: (a) whether the public, led by the quisling media, blames him for everything that goes wrong, and (b) whether he ends up getting a deal that is seen as having justified the pain, again filtered through the quisling media.
Maybe October 2025 is the best time for a shutdown.
The best time for a government shutdown is twenty years ago. The second best time is today.
6: But, then the Supreme Court overrules them all the time. I feel like we just need to get the message out that this all an absolute 5 alarm fire emergency. But yeah, we need a better message about what Dems are offering.
Republicans have the majorities. Let them pass what they can. If they need Democratic votes, they're gonna have to offer something.
This is one of those weird situations where smart people with a sophisticated understanding of the situation are entirely, ridiculously wrong. People whose opinons I respect - even Ezra! - keep saying shit like this and it's insane. What will the Republicans be willing to offer?
There are two arguments being proffered in favor of a shutdown. There is the Yes, Minister argument: We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this.
And there is the Underpants Gnome argument: 1. Shut down the government 2. ????? 3. Profit!!!
What exactly is the threat here? That shutting down the government fucks over the country? Seriously? You think that's what motivates Republicans?
Everybody with any sense of decency is pissed off and feeling desperate, and they want to see the Democrats claim some sense of agency. But nobody wants to talk about the outcome of this particular strategy -- and for good reason. Since the Democrats absolutely do not want the blame for what happens to the government and the economy under Trump, the Democrats will have to cave. That is to say, if they could be persuaded to do something this stupid in the first place, the small number of Democrats necessary to achieve cloture would inevitably back down before too long.
And my goodness that cave would be ugly. Even if the Democrats persuaded the Republicans to give them something symbolic to save face (and why would the Republicans do that?) the Democratic rank-and-file who are today calling for a shutdown would be enraged by this inevitable result.
I've talked about the Superman problem here before. The villains are routinely able to exploit Kal El's weakness, which is that he cares about the innocent bystanders. Similarly, other people talk about the "shoot the hostage" strategy. The problem is that the Democrats care about hostage, while killing the hostages is more or less the central plank in the Republicans' de facto platform.
People are frustrated at the lack of power of the Democrats. But asking the Democrats to claim agency here is to ask Democrats to accept the consequences of policy choices that are terrible. Let Trump own his own fuckups. And if, in the end, the judgment of the American people is that authoritarianism makes the trains run on time, well, that's not something the Democrats can prevent or ameliorate with a shutdown. The only thing the Dems can do here is to claim a share of the responsibility for the late trains.
Quoting Doug again*: "they're gonna have to offer something." That's step three in Underpants Gnome theory. Step 2 is the thing that the Republicans are going to offer that makes it all worthwhile. What is that thing?
*I don't mean to pick on Doug. You're all idiots.
11: Now don't be daft, my dear idiot. Democrats would not be empty-handed.
They have to respond to the three most atrocious parts of the Republicans budget bill, and shut down the government by pointing to those three things. "We absolutely refuse to kick grandmothers, shoot puppies, and eat children*. We demand concessions."
Make the concessions too big for Trump to okay before September 30th.
* I originally put "eat puppies and shoot children" but quickly realized that everyone is used to shooting children. Why would we stop that?
Young people don't vote, older people don't have living grandparents.
Are we still arguing? Or just making small talk?
I demand a strong push from Jeffries for eating puppies.
As said by 3, given that the Republicans have majorities in all branches of government, why cooperate at all?
Any time anyone asks, just point out that the Republican bill is so terrible that even the Republicans aren't willing to pass it. If they can't get their shit together, the Democrats have no obligation to save them.
Historically, the Republicans have been blamed for government shutdowns. About two weeks into the 35-day shutdown in Trump 1 it became clear that people were blaming the Republicans, not the Democrats.
Also, thanks to Kristi Noem, Republicans are already on record as being pro-puppy shooting.
JMM thinks (Senate) Dem refusal to cooperate might get Trump to lean heavily on the GOP to ditch the filibuster which would be a good thing in the long run (one hopes before we are all dead)
"We absolutely refuse to kick grandmothers, shoot puppies, and eat children*. We demand concessions."
Again: What concessions? And what do the Dems do when the Republicans respond with laughter?
Republicans are never going to admit to shooting puppies, and at best, the media will report the controversy. Meanwhile, there will be general agreement by all parties (Democrats, Repubicans, the media) that the Democrats shut down the government -- and that they, therefore, share responsibility (or have sole responsibility) for any grandmas that get kicked as a result. The Democrats would no doubt try to explain that grandmas had to be kicked in order to pursue some important goal that they won't achieve in any event.
If you think child-eating is unpopular, then you want that policy to be judged on its own merits, and the blame attributed in simple terms to the grandma-kickers and puppy shooters. You don't want the Republicans to say -- in a way that the media will directly endorse -- "Well, we were against eating all but the most delicious children, but the Democrats refused to let the majority to govern."
This isn't the Texas gerrymander -- where the Dems could be on the right side of a clearly defined issue, and where there were no bad consequences from their intransigence. But even there, the Dems caved without getting anything in return.
Historically, the Republicans have been blamed for government shutdowns.
This is another really weird thing that you see smart people saying all the time. Republicans have been blamed for shutdowns because they have forced shutdowns.
Republicans are never going to admit to shooting puppies
No, but apparently they'll admit to domestic violence.
https://bsky.app/profile/phillewis.bsky.social/post/3lydkbzv5s22d
Sorry - 23 was glib and oversimple. I would say rather that the Dems won that one, instead of saying they weren't blamed.
Trump's goals and methods have changed since then. In 2019, Trump had an interest in the continued function of government. And heck, maybe the Dems could win something today as trivial as they won in 2019. But when they do, I predict people -- that Democrats -- won't be satisfied.
@23 -- Democrats were historically blamed for deficits and poor economic conditions. Despite these things being typically the fault of Republicans.
Perhaps the smart people are merely expressing surprise that the public correctly attributes blame in this singular circumstance?
24: heebie and I were being metaphorical. They're happy to cop to shooting puppies too.
28: Oops. I'm working too fast here and being careless. I'm also doing that in my day job, but nobody really pays attention to what I do there.
21: JMM is one of those smart people who have surprised me by being so dumb. Eliminating the filibuster is 1.) A worthy goal, at least in theory, and 2.) Plausibly achievable through a government shutdown.
But ... the Dems can do that with 51 votes whenever they get 51 votes -- and it won't be useful to the Dems until they can get 51 votes. To give that up now is to surrender a tool that actually has some utility in the current environment.
21: The problem is that Republicans might just do a small filibuster carveout for passing a continuing resolution, just like reconciliation for the annual budget bill. That's not nothing, but it still leaves the filibuster in place for lots of stuff the Dems might want to pass.
We just have to play the hand we've been dealt, don't rock the boat, win a little on the margins because that's all we have to look forward to, no other strategy is imaginable, and wait for the midterms.
That was supposed to be signed
Professor Pangloss, D-Garden City, age 83, undergoing treatment for multiple terminal illnesses, running for re-election, ranking member on multiple committees
[shakes Congressional health care card in anger at the comment box]
30 The precedents point that way, for sure. I think Reid really did have to exempt the judiciary back in whatever year, but the people saying there would be some real consequences weren't wrong either.
31: Professor Pangloss, I'm surprised at your stance on this. I would really expect you to be seeking solutions in our democratically elected Congress, which is the proper forum for such issues to be resolved, and which can be counted on to deliver the best of all possible worlds eventually.
Me, I'm not so optimistic. I fear that Natilo knows the right answer here, and that the real action at this stage has to take place in the streets.
But if we must seek institutional solutions, yeah, okay, people need to vote better. And if we can't count on our fellow citizens to do the right thing at the national level, then okay, maybe we're stuck with asking politicians to do it for us at the state level, where Democrats in some locations have some actual executive authority and can do things beyond merely throwing a wrench in the works.
Blind rage really only works for Trump because he's one guy with an iron grip on two houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Democrats are democrats, and have to contend with disparate views and people who can't be counted on to fall into line.
What if trying to provoke another stroke in Trump is the best option?
Maybe we could have the lady from the Phillies game grab a Trump Buck from Eric?
People need to vote better for sure. That also applies in solidly Dem House Districts.
In MA, primaries are so crowded, and because we don't have ranked choice voting the eventual nominee can have a very small percentage. So Jesse Mermell, the strongest progressive candidate lost to Jake Auchincloss (21.1% to 22.4%) even though if you added up all of the other Progressive voters, there were way more people who would prefer her to Auchincloss.
My Rep Lori Trahan was an aide to Congressman Marty Meehan. Her primary had 10 candidates and she beat the number 2 guy by 140 votes. But now we will have her for as long as she wants the seat, because nobody will vote for a Republican. I kind of wish someone would primary her, because she 's just complete meh, and I think there has to be someone better in this district.
A good column that is close to the pf analysis: https://goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/shutdown-politics
As far as a shutdown?. Look: The most important constraint that anyone starting a government shutdown needs to know about is that shutdowns end. With divided government, that means that eventually the leaders of both parties and the president will have to come to some agreement, whether it's before the deadline or after a shutdown lasting a day, a week, or six weeks. In this case, however, there's an option available to the Democrats of never voting for a bill...as long as they are willing to live with Republicans nuking the filibuster and passing a hard-line bill, probably far more conservative than what the Democrats would get through negotiation.
Shutdowns, like it or not, have been proven again and again to be utterly useless as negotiating tactics. And in this case it will likely be even worse.
There's also the even uglier (for the Democrats) possibility that the caucus could break over time, eventually giving Republicans the seven votes they need in exchange for just getting the ordeal over with. That's a possibility Schumer cannot ignore.
As I said, on balance I think the downside of cutting a deal is worse than the risks of a shutdown by filibuster.
But make no mistake: A shutdown will end, and it will end without Democrats winning anything.
I think the issue with PF/39 is that we haven't yet seen the budget to see what specific turd we're being asked to swallow. Of course we don't know yet what our talking points or concessions are. And if the budget isn't abhorrent, we don't necessarily need a shutdown. It's just a safe bet that it will be.
40: No, let's preemptively treat the current administration and budget like a totally normal political context and in the absence of any detail reason from there until we reach the conclusion that there is no budget Trump could offer that the Dems could refuse to vote for. Refusing to vote for a Trump budget is exactly the same as declaring a shutdown and that's such a winning argument that we should make sure everyone speaks in those terms and carries that association in their minds.
Then it will be exactly the correct choice when the Democrats support the motion to pass the budget. They'll be saving the country and only the ungrateful base, ignorant in the ways of governing, will unjustifiably call them cowards who caved.
Baffling to me why any Democrats ever feel the need to vote for any Republican budget. Do you know how many Conservatives voted for the Labour government budget in March this year? I'll give you a clue: it's a round number. Or, depending on your font, an oval number.
Why isn't the default, at least in cases like this where the Republicans have majorities, "oh, you have a budget? Go on and pass it then."
42 As you know, the Senate cannot pass the appropriations bills without some Democratic senators having voted to end debate. Why would any do so? Because if they don't, then the government runs out of authorized money and shuts down. Eventually, seven or eight or ten Democratic senators are going to vote for something. What? That'll depend on how hot they think their personal political situation has become, and how badly the bill in question gores oxen they care about.
The Republicans have an alternative to offering enough concessions to win the few votes they need: changing the rules (while ignoring the rules about when and how rules can be changed) so that they don't need any Democratic votes at all.
Why isn't the default, at least in cases like this where the Republicans have majorities, "oh, you have a budget? Go on and pass it then."
This isn't a great answer but, from the article:
But we're coming up on one event in which it appears that Senate Democrats have some leverage: The end of the government fiscal year, at the end of this month. Congress must pass a measure to keep the government running, and Senate procedures allow the use of the filibuster against spending bills. Which means, essentially, that the 53 Republican Senators need 60 votes to pass anything. Without that, the government shuts down.
...
By the way, there is one other possibility. Democrats were defeated earlier this year because they assumed that Republicans couldn't find the votes to pass a spending bill. They were wrong. This time, they are surely anticipating that Speaker Mike Johnson will find the votes for a Republican-only bill, and whatever House Republicans pass will have at least 50 Republicans plus the vice-president in the Senate. But it at least possible that Johnson will fall short, leaving the possibility of a GOP shutdown or a real bipartisan bill. Democrats need to be ready in case that happens, but they shouldn't count on it.
This is part of the argument against the filibuster by Ezra Klein
How, from a voter's perspective, is American politics supposed to work? In theory, something like this: Parties propose agendas during elections. Voters choose the agenda -- and thus the party -- they like most. The newly elected party passes a substantial portion of their agenda into law. Voters judge the results and choose whether to return that party to power in the next election or give the opposition a turn at the wheel.
This is, of course, not how American politics works. Even in the absence of the filibuster, the American political system is thick with veto points and clashing institutions. It is also deeply undemocratic, with Republicans currently holding the White House and Senate despite winning fewer votes in the relevant elections. And then, layered atop all that, is the filibuster, which imposes a 60-vote supermajority requirement.
As a result, the feedback loop of American politics is fundamentally broken. Parties propose agendas during elections. Voter choose the agenda -- and thus the party -- they like most. That party may or may not win power, depending on the vicissitudes of gerrymandering, geography, and the Electoral College. Even if the voters' chosen party does win power, it can't enact the agenda it has promised, as it is almost impossible to win 60 Senate seats, and otherwise, the filibuster blocks most of what parties promise to do. As a result, rather than judging the results of the agenda they voted for, voters are left assessing why so little has happened, and trying to understand who is to blame for their problems going unsolved.
or Saiselgy
I think the biggest thing today's moderate Democrats get wrong about the filibuster is they keep wanting it to result in bipartisan compromises (which give them helpful political cover) and they fear that a majority rule senate would generate a lot of left-wing legislation that they're uncomfortable with.
But just look around: Is the Senate in fact passing lots of moderate bipartisan bills that make the public feel good about incumbents? Not really. And does Mitch McConnell -- the architect of the universal filibuster -- seem like someone who's passionate about problem-solving legislating, bipartisan compromise, and ideas that help red state Democrats hold their seats? Again, not really.
I get that they could carve out a filibuster exception, or do away with the filibuster. But that seems like a quaint concern? Like, they've done away with the Supreme Court and they're firing whoever the fuck they want, and extracting House seats from Texas and Florida and whoever else. They could do away with the filibuster or they could just ignore it starting tomorrow. They could decide they don't need a budget at all (like mossy mentioned in the other thread).
It feels like the case goes: Democrats should vote for Trump's budget because Mitch McConnell in 2014 is willing to escalate his repudiation of Senate norms, and he's taking no prisoners!
40: We're getting in over my head here, but I don't think we're talking about budgets or appropriations. We're just talking about a continuing resolution that will keep funding at current levels, subject to whatever the Democrats can force the Republicans to accept in the resolution.
Oh that's a fair point. I forgot this is most likely a CR.
46 We vote for humans not parties.
Some people pick candidates because of their party's stated agenda -- often whether or not the candidate supports all or merely part of it. Others pick because of what they imagine the agenda to be (or the other party's agenda to be.) Lots of people pick the candidate because they like the person and/or dislike the other person. Plenty more vote based on vibes.
Our system is designed to make power diffuse, and to make actions/decisions more difficult, especially when there isn't real consensus. This is frustrating to everyone: why can't we just do what I want and tell everyone else to fuck off?
46 We vote for humans not parties.
Yes, and that fact creates a variety of tensions -- there are ways in which it would be simpler if we voted for parties -- but at its best it's a good principle.
50.3: Of course it's not frustrating to everyone -- just those of us who prefer democracy. The Republican Party, via Trump, has neatly circumvented this problem in a way that I don't think the Democrats can duplicate.
Oh, I think it's frustrating to them, too. They would have been happy with perfect compliance all along.
I'm fucking done paying attention to the news this week. Oliver North and Fawn Hall got married. Someone is playing games to mess with my head and I'm not paying attention anymore.
Kids today might not understand that women's underwear big enough to hide a document in was common at the time.
I wonder if she just wears documents around the house.
I mean, not just. Of course she wears newspapers and lamps and chairs.
What's a good history of Iran-Contra? I am old enough to remember it in the news, young enough to not have followed it contemporaneously, and lazy enough to not do any research of my own into what to read about it.
I enjoyed the You're Wrong About episode on the topic, if you want something pre-chewed. I think that's where I found out who Fawn Hall is.
I KNOW, everyone here reads big volumes of text and fa already knows a podcast's worth of details. But it was new to me.
Or at least it clarified some of the basic structure of the scandal to me.
(Although I kinda thought Michael was being dumb, because he kept harping on this one argument that went, "It's actually two unrelated scandals - selling arms to Iran and funding rebels in Nicaragua - and the media just thought it was jazzier to string them together. But money is fungible and so they weren't LITERALLY connected."
But no, weren't they in fact LITERALLY connected because the whole point was to keep it off the books? So you don't actually have any other income streams, despite the fungibility of money?)
Speaking of LITERALLY, Ace was telling me that in Algebra, they were doing a worksheet on "Literal Equations". I kept correcting them that they meant "Linear Equations". Ace said no, they mean things like "y=mx+b, solve for x" or "P=2L+2W, solve for w". I said those are both linear.
Joke's on me: there are now things called Literal Equations, and it seems to be problems where you import equations from other subjects or other parts of math, and practice isolating a variable? I hate that I inadvertently played the roll of Boomer Hater of Math These Days, but I do in fact hate this label for this skill.
61: I still think Lawrence Walsh's Firewall is great. It's from 1997, so there may be something more recent (and probably shorter--it's 531 pages), but it's hard to imagine anything more comprehensive.
I've listened to a lot of You're Wrong About and unfortunately very little of it has remained in my memory. I can't remember if I listened to that one. I didn't pick up the podcast until not long before Hobbes left and then binge-listened to a lot of episodes while doing long drives.
66: Thanks!
45: I mean, what is the benefit of voting to close debate end preserve all these arcane rules at this point? The Republicans will do what they want.
Someone who understands Nepal should explain to me why their seat of government is on fire.
The headline just keep saying it's Gen Z. The Millennials killed mayonnaise and Gen Z killed Nepal.
64: This seems correct to me, and is why Iran-Contra was literally treasonous -- it was a conspiracy to commit crimes to subvert the democratically enacted foreign policy of the US. Even back in the good old days, you couldn't keep Republicans from committing treason.
45: yeah, exactly. They can eventually at the cost of a great deal of time and trouble pass a budget with a simple majority. So make them do it! Be Fabian!
"We vote for humans not parties."
Only true in an extremely technical sense, ie it isn't a pure PR system with party lists. In reality party affiliation probably predicts about 95% of vote share.
72: Or grift. Ollie North and crew were dipping heavily into the illegal proceeds of the illegal heavy weapons sales.
On the main point: The central problem is that neither the actions nor the rhetoric of the Democratic party elite have offered effective solutions to or even incisive analyses of the many profound problems facing everyone under the age of, say, 40.
I see zero reason to believe that Republicans have a monopoly on using anger as political fuel. Indeed, I'd say that progressives have at least one advantage, if Democrats ever saw fit to harness it, in that we don't have to manufacture reasons to be outraged.
74 That's truer now, here, but back when Steve Bullock and Jon Tester were winning elections, it wasn't. Or maybe that's fairly included in your 5%. In 2024, Tester has a specific target number of people who were also voting for Trump that he needed to get.
We see zero reason to believe that politicians have a monopoly on using anger as political fuel.
77: "The numbers are even more striking if considered as a percentage of the total vote. Trump received, on average, 1.57 percentage points of the total vote more than Republican candidates. Meanwhile, Harris received an average 0.92 percentage points less than Democratic senatorial candidates."
https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/2024-election-analysis-trump-outperformed-senate-candidates-harris-underperformed
This is considered "striking", to be clear, because 1.57 percentage points is an unusually large margin of outperformance by Trump.
72: it also underlines that the US government is lying (to be clear, lying in this case is a good strategy) when it says "we do not negotiate with terrorists". Of course the US government negotiates with terrorists. The US government loves negotiating with terrorists so much that it will literally set up massive intercontinental drug conspiracies purely in order to be able to give terrorists what they ask for in the negotiations!
84: Long live the new king of Murdochiana. May the information spaces of major English-speaking democracies remain well and truly fucked in perpetuity.
54: Truly one of the more unexpected "back in the news together after all these years" ever, My first thought was that someone was posting something that happened decades ago for some inscrutable reason.
72: you couldn't keep Republicans from committing treason.
Including the first real important work of Bill Barr on the national stage* George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan were facing the possibility of treason charges. Who did they call? Bill Barr.
*Although he did actually refuse to bite on the absurd Whitewater allegations dangled before him during the '92 campaign. Something the NYT-led press would subsequently wallow in for the next 8 years.
Speaking of old Republican hacks. here's a thing I've speculated about but not seen anywhere; the raid on John Bolton's house came a short time before the story came out about the botched raid on North Korea in 2019 (whicl Bolton was NSA). I'm sure they contacted the WH for comment on the story before publishing, and I was wondering if the WH assumed Bolton was talking to the reporters.
Would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.
Not that it is either here or there.
Meanwhile at the Washington Post formerly known as a newspaper: "No Clear Answer on Whether Trump Signed Epstein's Birthday Book." (and yes it is a news article*...)
*By the execrable Matt Wiser who amongst other R-friendly shit was a useful mule for Hunter Biden lies and disinfo.
CNN reported what was, to me, a shocking and depressing election result in the Virginia special election for the US House of Representatives:
Situated in the suburbs of Washington, DC, the district includes a large swath of Fairfax County and is home to thousands of federal workers. It voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris over President Donald Trump by 34 percentage points in the 2024 election. Connolly sailed to reelection by that same margin.
The same margin? Has 2025 taught voters nothing?
Well, it turns out that if you want the facts, you can go to ... Fox News!
With the vast majority of votes counted on Tuesday evening, Walkinshaw appeared headed for a roughly 50-point victory margin over Whitson. Connolly won re-election by nearly 34 points last December, and by 33 points in the 2022 midterms.
(The Downballot, which is the actual reliable source for these things, says it was a 16% swing.)
Fox, unlike CNN, was also able to put the election in its proper perspective, saying up front that this result was about Trump.
Democrats will hold onto a vacant congressional seat in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., in a special election seen as a referendum on President Donald Trump and his sweeping and controversial agenda.
It took CNN four paragraphs to mention Trump -- and only did so in the context of a quote from the winner.
I blame CNN for Trump as much as Fox. Mostly because of the coverage in 2016. I haven't really watched it since.
Adding to the unseriousness of mass deportations: this ICE raid on Hyundai was AIUI (one of?) the largest ever. To pull it off, ICE required personnel from DEA and Georgia state police; they captured ~500 people. Undocumented migrants in the US are estimated somewhere north of 10 million. It's a clown show with war crimes.
The purpose is the crimes. Some think the crimes will cause people to flee, some just to establish a hierarchy where people know their place because they'll get beaten otherwise.
70: I'm not claiming to understand Nepal, but they already burned down the monarchy and that didn't do the trick. So I guess this falls under "Keep trying."
Apparently they burned sheen the prime minister's wife, which could be a problem.
Their parents burned down the monarchy. These kids don't even remember that.
I don't even know how my phone put "sheen" in that last comment
What's a monarch but the worst kind of nepo baby?
Yeah. People are too upset about Gracie Abrams.
I have been called pushy.
92: Of course. Just picking up the thread from heebie (?) a while ago.
Trump is obviously dumber than a box of rocks on this. He keeps talking about wanting the right kind of immigrants and the way ICE is acting is pretty obviously going to drive away immigrants with valuable skills. They have other options.
91 "a clown show with war crimes" is a great turn of phrase.
They burned down the Hilton in Kathmandu, so now I can't use my rewards points if I visit.