Davin News Server

Excerpt:

Why Democrats Have Leverage

The 60-vote rule is the fulcrum of the shutdown debate. Republicans hold a 53-
47 majority in the Senate. Even if every Republican votes for a CR, they would 
have only 53 votes - seven short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic 
filibuster.

If faggot Cuntnadian needs more info, he can look it up his damn self.

Oh, but wait... I'm sure there'll be more:

1.)	"The democrats didn't vote for a shutdown"
2.)	"Voting against the Republican budget isn't voting FOR a shutdown."
	Yes, it is. Without the vote against the budget, there'd BE no shutdown.
3.)	They voted against a shitty bill.
	No... they voted FOR a shitty bill, that included the usual Democrat 
	pork that gives free shit to the takers, so they'll vote Democrat. 

(more?)

=====

Why THE MINORITY PARTY Can Cause A Government Shutdown

The federal government shut down on Oct. 1,2025. Republicans control the White 
House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, but THE MINORITY 
DEMOCRATS HAVE USED THEIR PROCEDURAL POWER TO PREVENT PASSAGE OF A FUNDING 
BILL that would keep the government open.

This might be a surprise. The party in power should govern; when it fails, it 
should take the blame. But the reality is more complicated. Constitutional 
rules, Senate procedures, and political strategy combine to give the minority 
party real power to stop government funding.

This report explains how federal funding works, what happens during a 
shutdown, and why the Senate's rules give a minority party the power to halt 
government operations.

How Federal Funding Works

The government needs appropriated money to operate. Without it, agencies 
cannot pay employees or deliver services. When the funding process breaks 
down, the government shuts down.
Congress Controls the Money

The Constitution gives Congress the "power of the purse." Only Congress can 
authorize spending. The President cannot spend money without congressional 
approval. This process is called appropriations.

The federal fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. Congress must pass 
funding laws by Oct. 1. If it fails, a "funding gap" occurs.

The Annual Budget Process

In theory, the appropriations process follows "regular order." The President 
submits a budget request to Congress by the first Monday in February. The 
Office of Management and Budget compiles this proposal, which outlines 
spending priorities for every federal agency.

Congress then takes over. The House and Senate Budget Committees each draft a 
budget resolution. This sets an overall spending limit for discretionary 
spending - the portion Congress debates annually, covering defense, national 
parks, and other programs.

This total is divided among 12 appropriations subcommittees in both chambers. 
Each subcommittee drafts one of 12 annual appropriations bills funding 
specific agencies. For these bills to become law, identical versions must pass 
both the House and Senate before going to the President.

Continuing Resolutions Fill the Gaps

Regular order rarely works anymore. In today's polarized environment, Congress 
struggles to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time. When lawmakers cannot 
agree by Oct. 1, they use a Continuing Resolution (CR).

A CR is temporary legislation that keeps the government open for a limited 
period. CRs typically continue funding at the previous fiscal year's levels. 
They buy time for negotiations but signal deeper legislative problems.

Congress has not met the Oct. 1 deadline for all 12 bills since fiscal year 
1997. Since then, lawmakers have enacted 138 CRs to keep the government 
running. The formal appropriations process is broken. What should be routine 
governance has become recurring crisis negotiation.

What Happens During a Government Shutdown

A government shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass either full-year 
funding bills or a CR by Oct. 1. This creates a "lapse in appropriations." The 
government's authority to spend money expires.

The Legal Basis

Shutdowns are legally required, not just political choices. The Antideficiency 
Act, a law from the 19th century, prohibits federal agencies from spending 
money Congress has not approved.

For decades, agencies interpreted this law loosely. They would continue 
operating during funding gaps, expecting Congress to eventually provide money.

This changed in 1980 and 1981. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued 
legal opinions interpreting the Antideficiency Act strictly. He concluded that 
a lapse in appropriations requires the government to shut down all 
"nonessential" functions. This interpretation created the modern government 
shutdown.

Who Works and Who Stays Home

During a shutdown, federal employees are divided into two groups. 
"Nonessential" employees are furloughed. They are placed on mandatory, 
temporary, unpaid leave and cannot work.

"Essential" employees must continue working without paychecks. This group 
includes active-duty military personnel, air traffic controllers, federal law 
enforcement agents, and TSA officers. Since 2019, the Government Employee Fair 
Treatment Act guarantees all federal employees - furloughed or working - will 
receive back pay once the shutdown ends.

The 2025 standoff has introduced a significant change. The Trump 
administration's OMB has directed agencies to prepare not just for temporary 
furloughs but for permanent layoffs through a "Reduction in Force" (RIF). An 
OMB memo instructed agencies to ready RIF notices for employees in programs 
"not consistent with the President's priorities."

This fundamentally alters shutdowns. Historically, they were temporary 
standoffs over policy, causing service disruptions and financial hardship for 
workers. The RIF policy transforms a shutdown from a temporary funding lapse 
into a tool for permanently reshaping the federal government.

For the administration, a shutdown becomes an opportunity to eliminate 
programs and positions it opposes. One source close to the President stated he 
"privately welcomes the prospect of a shutdown because it will enable him to 
wield executive power to slash some government programs and salaries." For the 
opposition, this raises the stakes from a temporary fight to a battle over 
whether certain government functions will continue to exist.

Effects on the Public

Some core government functions continue during a shutdown. Social Security and 
Medicare payments are not affected because they are funded through mandatory 
spending laws that do not require annual appropriation. Mail delivery 
continues because the U.S. Postal Service is self-funded. Military and law 
enforcement operations proceed.

Many other services stop. National parks and Smithsonian museums close. 
Federal agencies stop processing passports, small business loans, and federal 
housing loans. Food safety inspections are curtailed. Immigration hearings are 
delayed. In a prolonged shutdown, food assistance programs like WIC and SNAP 
could face funding shortages.

The economic impact can be substantial. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimated that the 35-day partial shutdown in 2018-2019 cost the U.S. economy 
$11 billion, with $3 billion lost permanently.
The Senate Filibuster and the 60-Vote Rule

Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the presidency. So how can 
Democrats block funding and trigger a shutdown? The answer lies in Senate 
rules.

Unlimited Debate

The Senate has a long tradition of unlimited debate. Any senator or group of 
senators can speak as long as they wish on a topic, preventing a bill from 
coming to a vote. This delaying tactic is the filibuster. It was designed to 
protect minority rights and encourage consensus. In the modern era, it has 
become a tool for the minority party to block the majority.

Breaking a Filibuster

The only way to end a filibuster is through cloture. Under Senate Rule 22, 
cloture on most legislation requires three-fifths of all senators - 60 votes. 
This 60-vote threshold controls nearly all major legislative action in the 
Senate, including spending bills needed to keep the government open.
See also Why the Supreme Court Is Using Its Emergency Docket More Than Ever

Why Democrats Have Leverage

The 60-vote rule is the fulcrum of the shutdown debate. Republicans hold a 53-
47 majority in the Senate. Even if every Republican votes for a CR, they would 
have only 53 votes - seven short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic 
filibuster.

This gives Senate Democrats significant leverage. By threatening to filibuster 
the funding bill, they can prevent it from coming to a vote. Their votes are 
necessary for passage. When Senate Democrats withhold their votes to block a 
funding bill, they are not passive bystanders. They are active participants 
wielding procedural power that makes them co-responsible for the outcome.
The September/October 2025 Standoff

The Senate minority's procedural power becomes clear in the real-world battle 
over 2025 funding. The conflict is not over whether to fund the government, 
but over the terms.
The Republican Proposal

The Republican majority, backed by President Trump, has advanced what they 
call a "clean" Continuing Resolution. Their proposal would extend current 
government funding levels through November 21,2025, without major policy 
changes or additions. They argue this is the most responsible path forward, 
averting a shutdown while providing time to negotiate the 12 full-year 
appropriations bills.

Republican leadership has stated that Democrats are responsible for the 
shutdown.

President Trump said: "These people are crazy, the Democrats. If it has to 
shut down, it'll have to shut down. But they're the ones that are shutting it 
down." He has repeatedly characterized Democratic policy requests as 
"unserious and ridiculous demands."

Vice President JD Vance stated after a failed White House meeting: "I think 
we're headed into a shutdown because the Democrats won't do the right thing."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said: "What the Democrats have done here is 
take the federal government as a hostage - and by extension the American 
people - to try and get a whole laundry list of things that they want."
Democratic Demands

Democrats are using their filibuster power to refuse votes for the clean CR 
unless their policy priorities are addressed. Their demands focus primarily on 
health care:

Extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that help lower health insurance 
costs, which are set to expire
Reversing Medicaid cuts included in President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill 
Act"
Restoring federal funding for public media

Democratic leaders argue they are fighting for policies critical to millions 
of Americans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: "We're hearing from the American 
people that they need help on health care." After meeting with Trump, he 
added: "There are still large differences between us."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said: "We are ready, we are willing, we 
are able to find a bipartisan path forward... What we will not do is support a 
partisan Republican spending bill." In a joint statement with Schumer, he 
accused the President of 'marching the country toward a painful Republican 
shutdown."
Failed Negotiations

The standoff was marked by sharp public statements and unproductive 
meetings.President Trump initially canceled a scheduled meeting with Schumer 
and Jeffries, calling them "unserious." A later meeting was held but ended in 
stalemate with no deal reached.

Administration officials hinted at willingness to discuss ACA subsidies but 
insisted such talks could only happen "in the context of an open government." 
This means Democrats would have to vote to prevent a shutdown first. This 
political brinkmanship, with each side refusing to compromise, has resulted in 
a shutdown.
See also Can a President Block the Release of Epstein Court Documents?
The Political Calculus

A government shutdown is a high-stakes political gamble. Both parties weigh 
potential policy gains against the risk of public backlash, using history and 
polling to inform their strategies.
Historical Patterns

Past shutdowns offer lessons. The public tends to blame the party it perceives 
as the aggressor or as holding the government hostage for ideological demands.
Year(s)DurationPresident (Party)Congressional ControlCore DisputePerceived 
Political Outcome
1995-199621 daysBill Clinton (D)Republicans (House and Senate)Republican 
demands for deep spending cuts in a balanced budgetWidely seen as a political 
victory for President Clinton; Republicans were largely blamed
201316 daysBarack Obama (D)Divided (D Senate, R House)Republican demands to 
defund or delay the Affordable Care ActRepublicans received most of the blame 
and did not achieve their policy goals
Jan. 20183 daysDonald Trump (R)Republicans (House and Senate)Democratic 
demands for protections for "Dreamer" immigrantsEnded quickly with a promise 
for a future vote; seen as a tactical retreat by Democrats
2018-201935 daysDonald Trump (R)Divided (R Senate, D House)President Trump's 
demand for funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wallPresident Trump ultimately 
reopened government without securing wall funding; seen as a victory for 
Democrats

The pattern suggests that the party seen as initiating the crisis for narrow 
partisan goals often pays a political price. Republicans risk blame by 
refusing to negotiate on health care policies; Democrats risk blame by 
blocking a funding bill that would keep the government open.
Current Polling

Public opinion in 2025 leans toward blaming the party in power. A Morning 
Consult poll found that 45% of voters would blame congressional Republicans 
for a shutdown, compared to 32% who would blame Democrats. A Navigator 
Research poll showed a plurality blaming Trump and Republicans by a 22-point 
margin, widening to 25 points among independent voters. Current polling 
suggests Republicans face a greater risk of public blame.
Strategic Calculations

The Democratic decision to risk a shutdown rests on three factors. First is 
procedural leverage from the Senate filibuster, which gives them power to 
block the funding bill. Without the 60-vote rule, their opposition would be 
symbolic.

Second is the political appeal of their demands. They have anchored their 
fight in healthcare-extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts-an 
issue where they generally hold a public opinion advantage over Republicans. 
Polling shows voters view reversing Medicaid cuts as worth fighting for, even 
at the risk of a shutdown.

Third is perceived blame allocation. Armed with polling showing the public is 
more likely to blame the majority party, Democrats calculate they can use 
their leverage and have Republicans bear the brunt of political fallout.

Republicans are making the opposite bet. They believe the public will see 
Democratic actions as unreasonable obstruction and will reward the GOP for 
holding firm on a clean bill that performs the basic function of keeping the 
government open.

Both sides are engaged in a high-stakes gamble with the stability of 
government services and the paychecks of millions of federal workers hanging 
in the balance. While the majority party holds ultimate responsibility to fund 
the government, the minority's power to block that funding makes them a 
responsible party to the outcome.


=============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has 
been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the 
point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the 
Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or 
stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The 
president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were 
all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's 
vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of 
hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from 
reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk 
opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump 
announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would 
suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. 
There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be 
received positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 
2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for late-
night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first 
coined by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer back in 2003. 
The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in 
otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - 
the very existence of George W. Bush."