politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Democrats shouldn't have made the offer anyhow.
This is actually better. What they offered was a common sense path forward on the issue of the healthcare subsidies. Continue to fund them for a year, and in the meantime form a congressional committee to find options for how to proceed beyond that.
Republicans turning this down just places the blame for continuing the shutdown, firmly in their laps. At this point any talk of this still being the Democrats fault, is beyond ridiculous. They're actually negotiating, while Republicans are simply refusing to even try.
Exactly! I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere that this is actually a good strategic move as much as I want Jeffries and Schumer gone.
Follow me:
The GOP are forking Democrats to choose a loss of SNAP benefits, or a loss of healthcare tax subsidies that will see premiums skyrocket to unaffordable levels for millions.
Democrats DO have the negotiating leverage right now considering Trump's approval is plummeting and more Americans blame Republicans than Democrats.
However, this move has a slightly veiled one: It punts the issue to become a talking-point on healthcare right around midterms next year, which will be hugely beneficial to Democratic talking points.
As a result, Democrats seize a win for the American people in both restoring SNAP benefits and ACA tax subsidies for a year more, while at the same time loading up political leverage for midterms next year.
NOT TO MENTION: It solidifies the side who is trying to viably come to the table and to HELP the American people. Makes them look like the adults in the room.
Dare I say, great move.
Exactly. The only way they could fuck this up, is to cave. That would be the definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let's hope they don't...because honestly, I do not have a lot of faith in their ability to hold the line.
I think the offer was fine, especially since it was rejected. Shows goodwill negotiation that independents say they like, doesn't cost anything
Forcing the Republicans to shoot this down only makes Republicans look worse.
Exactly. I bet this time next week cluck cluck chuck will cave.
When that doesn't happen, I bet you won't be admitting you were wrong.
Because you cant admit you’re wrong, I can’t?
I would be delighted to be wrong. And you’re fooling yourself if you think Schumer is up for a fight.
What was I wrong about?
No, you won't admit it. You'll continue to oppose Schumer at all times and in all circumstances even when he does the thing you say you want him to do.
Well for one thing, I do admit when I’m wrong.
You’re full of shit, so I assume it’s all projection.
Furthermore, this attempt at negotiating and compromise signals an intent to… you know… compromise…. With people that haven’t actually compromised in 20 years.
Which, if you have not been paying attention, is how we’ve come to be here.
Yeah, I have no reason to believe Schumer is going to do the right thing here, either.