That’s exactly what I’m saying. This doesn’t equate until an investigation is performed.

Of course you’re “both sides” on this. You do understand that the Secret Service oversaw the server, and that Trump’s DoJ investigated it?

Do you also know that the NSA explicitly advised against the use of Signal for any governmental purpose, citing recent exploits by Russian hackers? Hell, Gmail even states that it reads your emails during signup. Still, Republicans are refusing an investigation.

This is not a both sides argument anymore. Get off the soapbox. Ya done.

Maybe that’s a good reason to stop providing classified intel to an unelected, unconfirmed official who has taken no oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Exactly right. He should have been more compelling with his peers over the dangers of a shutdown. The dissent just gave people the impression of weakness.

All of the appointments with the exception of Rubio were split 50 Republican/50 Democrat with Vance as the tie breaker. Look them up for yourself.

I’m with you on the rest. I’m just saying they’re actively trying to stop Trump. We need to primary out the deadwood centrists in favor of progressives that will actually fight for the working class.

Thanks! That was a well written breakdown for sure. The irony is I really dislike Schumer. Everyone else dropped out of the primary, so he was mo only option. I’m even less fond of defending a moderate standpoint, but I’ll advocate for fact over opinion, and this was simply not the leverage people make it out to be.

Democrats voted and spoke out against Trump’s cabinet nominations, forced a 15-day vote against Trump’s executive order, confirmed Biden’s pending judicial appointments when Republican attendance is low, and are the ones bringing these cases to the courts. I wouldn’t call that clutching pearls.

The alternative would be a much faster replacement of the non-essential workforce. I’m not defending it. I’m stating Schumer’s reasoning because I’m sick of people painting it as if we somehow had full control of a situation and gave it away. It’s just not that simple.

I’m not. I’m saying it was a lose/lose. People who make it seem like leverage don’t understand the effects of a shutdown and how the EO would allow Trump to complete that massive step in no time.

I’m not a fan of Schumer, or any centrists for that matter. Every candidate besides Schumer and Gillibrand dropped out before the primary. I’m hoping AOC runs a NY Senate bid in 2028 so we can finally get the deadwood out.

I wholeheartedly wanted to understand your opinion. I’m no fan of Schumer. Everyone withdrew but him and Gillibrand in the primary, so I didn’t have much of a choice. Regardless, he’s my Senator, and I message and call his office often. I appreciate your point about the EO. At the end of the day, it really is no different than the others being challenged in court. That’s a valid point I’ll be taking up with his office later today. Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. Sorry if I frustrated you.

I’m aware. I’m not saying it was the right choice. I’m saying it was a lose/lose situation. The military powers are more of a formality to keep the Republicans in Congress’s hands clean. They have majority regardless.

Those terminations are either of probationary employees (less than two years in role), or are currently being challenged by the courts. Project 2025 outlines a complete replacement of all hired federal employees with loyalists.

The CR/shutdown was a lose/lose. According to EO 14210, Trump could terminate non-essential government employees in a large-scale reduction of workforce if there is insufficient funding. It would expedite Project 2025.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/don-t-use-shutdown-plans-to-slash-the-federal-workforce

I understand the riders aren’t temporary, but the budget itself is. That means there will be another chance at a shutdown in September. I don’t need you to explain how this works. I need you to explain why you think it’s a better choice to give Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees than to have control of the budget. It’s your opinion that I find elusive, not the facts.

This isn’t a popularity contest. Handing Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees under EO 14210 would expedite Project 2025. It was a lose/lose situation.

So you agree that it’s temporary? Isn’t that the point you challenged?

Again, it is not a lie. EO 14210 provides Trump with the ability to terminate non-essential government employees if any of three conditions are not met, and funding is one of them.

Read it for yourself: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/don-t-use-shutdown-plans-to-slash-the-federal-workforce

What loss alone? Again, be specific. The alternative was a shutdown.

Then why does this only fund the government through September, rather than the full calendar?

False. You need to learn the difference between a continuing resolution and a budget reconciliation bill.

https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-a-continuing-resolution/

There was no leverage to extract concessions from the minority without inducing a shutdown. I just wish they all openly discussed this and voted together. People are more upset by the appearance of dissent than the choice made given the available options.