this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
166 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25647 readers
2767 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republicans say they're considering a short-term funding bill to keep the government afloat for seven weeks. But they'll need bipartisan votes to pass it.

A standoff over how to prevent a government shutdown intensified Monday as Donald Trump called on Republicans to write a funding bill on their own and cut Democrats out of the process.

But any funding bill, including a stopgap to buy more time, requires 60 votes to pass the Senate, where Republicans control 53 seats and therefore need at least seven Democratic votes.

Democratic leaders say Republicans are following Trump’s wishes and are refusing to negotiate, making a shutdown likelier. Congress has until 11:59 p.m. Sept. 30 to find a solution or the government will shut down.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Since it seems you're asking a question in good faith I'll try to answer. I'm not the person you replied to but here...

I think the main thing that has changed is the disappearance of Elon Musk. Last time around there was what I consider to be valid concern that Musk would pay his flunkies out of pocket to keep working and tearing apart the Federal government during the shutdown. With most Federal employees going home during a shutdown, it would leave very few at the helm to be able to stop DOGE in their iteration at the time. Musk was making hay at the time of how they could do things on weekends because no one was there to stop them, and it was very reasonable to consider that he would personally pay his flunkies to tear shit apart while people were furloughed during a shutdown. As frustrating as it was, and as much as I fucking loathe the likes of Chuck Schumer and his corporate cock sucking ilk, I personally did see Musk as a legitimate threat if the shutdown occurred last time around. Musk is gone and there is no one to pay DOGE employees to keep working while everyone else goes home, so it stands to reason that you might actually maybe get these old chucklefucks on board for doing something right for once. Not making any promises, though, as I agree with another poster that characterized Schumer as a last minute pants pisser.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

They could dismantle and rebuild things during this potential shutdown too.

Elon is not the only own able to bankroll looting the temples.