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
Here are the POS all lined up in a row.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democrats-who-voted-to-end-shutdown-b2861979.html
Dick Durbin is the minority whip. There is no chance that the whip votes against the wishes of the senate minority leader. Despite Schumer's no vote, he supported the capitulation.
Again, unsubstantiated opinion.
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
Poof, substantiation
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but could you quote the proof you're referring to from the article? The two paragraphs I think you're referring to are (emphasis mine):
Being "widely assumed" isn't really solid proof, and having a proposal with an exchange of an extension isn't capitulation on Schumer's part. If anything, this whole thing shows Schumer's incompetence to be able to lead the democrats, but this doesn't seem supported or orchestrated on his part.
Reread the passage again, the part that was widely asusmed was that the flip votes were operating on thete own. The sentence about Schumers approval was started with the phrase 'In fact' because that is what's being reported as the truth. 'Widely assumed' is not even the same sentence with the allegations on Chuck so Im having trouble interpreting your comment in good faith.
I really don't care to defend Schumer, but posting this article as substantiated proof of him supporting Democrats capitulation is not really convincing. The article doesn't mention what changed between it being widely assumed and it being a fact? Just starting a sentence with "in fact" doesn't make it true. There are many other, more recent sources with his quotes saying he doesn't approve of their actions.
It's equally possible that Schumer has no control of the situation and the Senators who are voting for reopening the government know Schumer is spineless, and will only craft a strongly worded letter condemning their actions. The fact he went public with a proposal after reports of senators defecting isn't proof he is complicit in their capitulation, just that he was unable to convince all the Democratic Senators that his plan was a good plan they should remain consistent about. Is Schumer responsible as the minority leader of the senate and ultimately to take the blame for the Democrats fracturing over this; yes. But to say he is secretly supporting the capitulation as if he's Palpatine playing both sides is not really substantiated and frankly giving him too much credit.
Then stop doing it. You're making yourself look foolish to put it as charitably as possible.
What i'm saying is the prospect.org article is speculation of the events that happened behind closed doors. It jumps to conclusions to make a point of Schumers ineptitude by implying he orchestrated and supported the no votes, but doesn't provides any source for those claims. Other articles being reported on today outline plenty of reasons Schumer is unfit to lead without making things up. For example:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/10/progressives-call-for-schumers-resignation-after-shutdown-vote/87195871007/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253
From TNR: Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along
yes, these are the facts the other article is missing.
Is this Schumer’s fediverse alt?
I can only assume you don't know what the whips job is.
Shaheen just came out and said that Schumer knew about the deal. In other words he approved it.
Of those eight seats, only two are up in 2026, and those two Senators (Durbin, Shaheen) are not running for reelection. The others aren't up until 2028 or 2030. That's how they do these things. No one up in 2026 would have voted for it.
I'm on Tim Kaine's mailing list.
Since last November, his entire office/campaign has been heavy on optics throughout the state, all with a heavy lean towards business as usual. Only recently (late October) did he write about "challenging trump's reckless tariff policies", which was little more than a statement of fact than any actual coherent plan to solve anything. Most shockingly, this communique had ZERO mention about DOGE, and the thousands out of work right now in his state, let alone the government shutdown and the hungry poor people out there right now. Or any of the other politically relevant horrors we have going right now. It was easily one of the best written, carefully crafted, barely educational, worthless, tone-deaf, rage-inducing pieces of literature to hit my inbox, and includes a bottomless cornucopia of spam mail.
There's an old saying in politics: "never waste a good crisis." Well, this is a big one, and opportunities to be a hero with accolades and job security for life can be had at minimal effort. I can only conclude that the man's brain is located somewhere in the vicinity of his spine, both of which went missing back in 2024.
While I'm no longer a Virginian, I emplore those of you who are to vote this trash out.
I'm so happy to have moved to PA and will eventually get to vote against this pos.
He's no better than a republican, so I'll feel no guilt voting 3rd party if his ass isn't primaried out
In all fairness, you know they had the full support of the Democratic Party.
That is not true. You'll have to prove your point.
The Capitulation 8 aren't up for re-election. They were chosen, because they have the least risk of losing their positions in the next election.
Do you have texts or them saying this in a snapchat?
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
It seems either Leader Chuck Schumer conspired against the party at large, or they did have the support of Democrats.
Who tf is that source?
A professor who worked at the Boston Globe for 20 years before opening his own publication in 1990. Hes been a independent journalist since before most of Lemmy was born. Chuck knew and supported it. Or are you gonna ignore credible reporting that you don't like? We got a party for people like that in America.
I am not aware of him or his publication. The Heritage Foundation has been around a long time. Does he have a wikipedia page?
Yes, you're free to search him.
What's his name?
Are you really asking for the name of the author of the article?
A "publication" can be owned by someone different than the article. Are you saying he's the owner that' you're talking about?
Check out the Wikipedia page someone already suggested.
You are really being a pisser on this topic, but hey who knows what's going on for you personally, let me just DDG this for you: Robert Kuttner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kuttner
From TNR: Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along
You know it’s true. They aren’t going to go against the party on this.
I do not know that it's true, you're going to have to convince me.
Come on bro you know it’s true!