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
Schumer didn't cave. He didn't vote to end the shutdown. Put the blame where it belongs.
AHAHAHAHAHA, must be one big fucking coincidence that all the people who caved aren't up for re-election this next round, huh?
Totally not a co-ordinated cave
So you have no proof whatsoever. You guys are essentially Trumpers just on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Factual reality just does not matter to you. Just "vibes". It's absolutely pathetic.
First and foremost, he voted against it. You have no proof that he only did so because he coordinated with others to vote for it. That's a conspiracy that you have concocted because you HAVE to believe Schumer is evil because you've already decided that he is.
He opposed it on the floor. He was NOT part of the group of Democrats that negotiated with Republicans.
The shut down was ended by the choice of individual Senators, not a party-wide dictum. The reasons they gave, right or wrong, were based on their constituencies. Some over SNAP. Some because they represent a good deal of federal workers and got concessions from Republicans on that front.
Durbin said Schumer had nothing to do with it and that Schumer was "not happy" about it.
Only Durbin and Shaheen have said they're retiring at the end of their current term. That's only 2 out of the 8 Democrats that voted fort he stopgap.
Schumer is your boogeyman "establishment" scapegoat that you have NO ISSUE being blatantly dishonest about because you think your particular misinformation and conspiracy theories are morally justified. They're not.
You guys will stop at nothing to continue to ensure Republicans destroy this country.
Lol, this your first time following national politics on a controversial issue? Or are you naive enough to think that a POLITICIAN won't play POLITICS? You're right that I have no proof, but the Democratic party has long lost the benefit of the doubt in my mind. I still vote for them because there's no other option, but I'm not going to pretend like their shit doesn't stink.
Classic response for pointing out how CONVENIENT the expected democratic belly roll ends up being. Also, way to completely disregard the actual point while you're busy defending the shit moves the Dems make
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/09/senate-democrats-shutdown-vote-00644146?brid=nztfdfQOFPJD_U_g5DZdXg
But yeah, the person who wants the democratic party to fight for the people instead of rolling over is totally wanting the republicans to win.
Go back to the circus 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
He wanted to be the leader, and he was the leader of the ones who chose to end the shutdown. Either he orchestrated it or he has no control. Either way, fuck him
Being a leader doesn't mean the rest of the Senators in his party are his slaves that have to do his bidding. Republicans break ranks sometimes too. It happens because Senators focus on their constituency because that's what keeps them in power.
Yeah fuck him, not the people who actually voted to reopen the government. That makes sense. Using scapegoats instead of those who are actually to blame. Using emotion instead of logic. It's pathetic.
There is literally nothing Schumer could do that wouldn't result in you criticizing him, made plenty clear by the ridiculous stretch you're taking here. You've prejudged any action he could take. He's the evil "establishment" Democrat that people like you have decided are worse than Republicans. Just admit the truth.
He caved in exchange for a vote he knew would fail and logrolled the votes so that the I'll informed would think he didnt have a hand in it.
The shutdown was painful, but what comes next will be a lot more painful.
No, he did not cave because he did not vote for the stopgap. He was not involved in the group of Democrats that negotiated with Republicans. Saying he "caved" is 100% false.
The vote passed, it didn't fail. Somehow I'm not surprised that such fundamental details are lost on you. Assuming you meant he knew that it would pass, you have no proof whatsoever to back up the assertion that he only voted against it due to that and not due to other reasons. No, your hatred of Schumer and "establishment" Democrats is not proof.
Angus King isn't even a Democrat.
You guys can't seem to decide if Schumer is all-powerful or completely powerless.
I agree. Ending the shut down was a mistake and killed momentum they had gained from recent elections. Not too mention giving credence to the idea that they're weak. The eight Senators who voted for the stopgap are the ones we should be criticizing but I never see them named in these threads. You're not interested in the truth, you're only interested in furthering your agenda.
You're deliberately misreading what I said, and if you think that he didn't know or wasn't part of the negotiation as to exactly who was going to vote to end the shutdown amongst senators who wanted it to end but didn't want their fingerprints on it, I have several pieces of waterfront property for sale. For their part, senators Durbin, King, Hassan, Shaheen, Masto, Rozen, Fetterman and Kaine should not have a place within the Democratic party (Also Manchin, Sinema had she not already fucked off of her own accord).
If you want to be a pedant, there has been no vote on the ACA subsidies other than a failed cloture vote. The vote to re-open the govt passed. The agreement to have a vote on the ACA subsidies was the "compromise" that was the condition of voting to pass the appropriations bill and end the shutdown.
Schumer is neither all-powerful or completely powerless, but he is the leader of his party in the Senate, so he is ultimately responsible for actions taken by Senate democrats. He is either insufficiently committed or insufficiently competent, for the family who's health insurance costs become unaffordable, it doesn't really matter which.
Dems are weak because they can't win elections because they fail to deliver results (because they can't win elections). The shutdown was the only real lever that they were able to pull unilaterally, they picked the right hill to die on, and ultimately accomplished nothing.
My agenda is being able to leave my job for a year to focus on finishing a degree and a couple of professional licenses without completely wiping out what little savings I'm able to scrape together by delaying every other financial goal and for my peers to have an easier time with similar hard choices. Whatever makes that happen, yeah, I'm fine with.
Word on the hill was he was trying to get people to vote for it, but didn't want to put his name on it after all the backlash last time. No way to confirm this tho
Look at the people who voted to end the shutdown: no one who's up for re-election this next cycle.
Either Schumer is one hell of a terrible leader, or there was a very obvious attempt at co-ordinating the vote to take advantage of voters' (lack of) long term memory.
6 of the 8 are due in 2028, just a bit more than two years away. Senators serve a 6 year term. Voters would have to support a primary challenge, possible but difficult. It would have to be based entirely on their decision to fund the stopgap, which would be tough as they can give their reasoning as to how they thought they were helping constituents. Given the power of incumbency, I have serious doubt many of them were worried about being voted out a year later. You're right about the memory of the voters, it is short and 12 months is a long time.
Schumer being a "leader" doesn't mean he controls other Senators. That's just not how it works. Senators are accountable to their constituency, not the informal leader of their party. These Senators did not consult with Schumer because they DIDN'T HAVE TO. They are federally elected Senators and can think and act according to their own logic.
In fact, demanding this kind of conformity or slavish adherence to a single leader is something you'd likely criticize if you saw it happening on the other side of the aisle.
"word on the hill" sounds like nonsense that conveniently supports a predisposed argument. People who have already decided that Schumer and "establishment" Democrats are the enemy will jump on anything that feeds their confirmation bias.
These people aren't looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion. They've come to a conclusion are only looking for "evidence" that confirms it.
Nuance is a lemmy antagonist. Just so you know.
This place has shown me that disregard for facts isn't solely a problem on the right.