He expressed that a shutdown will favor Trump and Musk, so sounds reasonable?
Because a shutdown of a fascist government is better than the fascist government being able to function.
Trump thanked Schumer for the vote, and so “shutdown was not the greater favour to agenda”
Unanimity over being a terrible bill, and one of the rare opportunities for democrats to ask for anything at all as ammendments, or simply offer a clean CR to force Republicans to take responsibility for shutdown with their “terrible/unacceptable conditions/amendments” insistence was a basic path.
Chuck Schumer as a zionist supremacist favorite of the DNC, now on a hasbara book tour, means that the opportunity for military to be paid during their assistance/extension of Israel genocide to Yemen helps their motivation to conduct it. DNC as an institution has zionist supremacism as its first mandate. Winning or resisting or Americans, if they don’t matter as much as that first mandate, don’t matter.
Schumer said that a shutdown would enable Trump to arbitrarily shutter parts of the government he doesn’t like.
Trump is already shuttering the parts of the government he doesn’t like, and the “CR” gives those acts the veneer of lawfulness.
If there had been a shutdown there would likely have been more pain in more places. But the Dems could have plausibly negotiated for a better result than what Schumer voted for, and aside from the pain of the shutdown itself it’s not at all clear how the end result would be any worse than what we got
And despite what Fetterman and the other Senate Democrat collaborators might claim, a vote for cloture was a vote for the bill to become law. The rules of the Senate are dumb, but “this bill would not have passed save for that vote” is a pretty empirical rebuttal.
and the “CR” gives those acts the veneer of lawfulness.
No, it literally makes them legal…
The way it’s always worked is a budget say $X goes to Y agency.
This says “here’s $x, idgaf what you use it for”.
We expanded presidential powers.
trump can now say he doesn’t want to pay for Housing Assistance, he wants to use it to harass minorities with ICE and CBP, so he can legally just take money from one pile to another.
Which is why a shutdown would have been preferable.
Instead Schumer and a few other Dems decided only shutting down what trump doesn’t like is better than shutting down everything.
So we gave Republicans everything they wanted, got nothing in exchange, because Schumer wanted to kick off his book tour, it’s a book about how bad Israel is being treated, so that obviously took priority
Actually, I see a parallel here to the Obama era, when then Speaker John Boehner broke with the rank-and-file GOP to support a clean bill avoid hitting the debt ceiling limit (as per https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/11/boehner-backs-down-republicans-debt-ceiling )
So generally the leadership tends to be more likely to throw support to the other side and avert shutdowns etc. I don’t entirely get why but it seems like a fairly stable trend from both sides.
support a clean bill avoid hitting the debt ceiling limit
this is opposite of what Schumer did.
Yeah, not disagreeing. There are other differences too (debt ceiling - which has never been breached, vs shutdown - which is becoming a regular thing, if it isn’t already) - but my hot take is that these differences weren’t enough to prevent whatever “staticism” Schumer felt.
Clean CR would have been “statist enough”. GOP could do the statist thing of agreeing to it. Supporting the BS added by GOP to the CR is unacceptable, and unnecessary. The horrible gaslighting that polls showing slight approval of Trump means helping him harm Americans, is going to have him blamed for Trump’s evil. To this day, dismay over genocide joe gets justified for failing to stop Trump win. Lack of enthusiasm for DNC is going to be a continuing problem, that GOP can leverage the same way they did last election.
GOP could do the
Ha, there’s your problem right there!
The horrible gaslighting that polls showing
The problem is that those polls seem to be accurate. I was reading https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-2024-election-democrats-david-shor ( archive: https://archive.is/S7mNy ) which explains how many younger voters are coming out as more conservative.
To this day, dismay over genocide … gets justified for failing to stop Trump win
Yeah, some of those folks are starting to feel regret over that.
Aside from potentially being more conservative to begin with (and thus having traditionally being with Dems only on the strength of a single issue that was all important tot hem), there’s an element that I missed back during the elections that I think explains why folks would have thought that Drumpf 2.0 would not have been as bad.
https://people.com/politics/tiffany-trump-marries-michael-boulos-mar-a-lago-wedding/
So basically, it would have looked like the daughter who had a middle eastern Arab father-in-law would have been influential on the new administration. Drumpf would now be related through in-laws to both Jews and Arabs.
So I now get why those folks were so easily mislead.
GOP can leverage the same way they did last election.
The reality is far worse than this. There is a way, I believe a workable way, that I haven’t seen discussed anywhere (and I’m deliberately keeping quiet about it to prevent it from spreading to MAGA-land), one that I think would get supreme court blessing, that’d make any party other than the GOP moot.
good link thank you. Main takeaway was low information/politically disengaged people who voted.
Feminist/Queer supremacism/activism
Trump fanatics I know are obsessed on this issue. Young men understandably affected. Immigrants/blacks tending to be more religious than average could also have been affected. Tolerance and inclusion as a centrist liberal value, that democracts correctly support, gets them tainted by also having the supremacist vote. Low information/disengaged are especially prone to the disinformation of “supremacists vote left”. Also, the disinformation that a mexican was accused of rape, or a haitian accused of eating a neighbours cat works in racist smearing of entire groups, and a city/police/complaining neighbour saying the cat came back the next day is met with death threats to keep the disinformation/hate going.
Tricks in getting the disengaged angry are easier as internet evolves. Stupidity/reflection/attention span getting more negative. Even here, pithy/thoughtless group think comments on a paywalled article dominate extremely.
Cost of living
Low information/education voters will believe any lie over responsibility of President on everything. At the same time, war on Russia creating the inflation is a direct responsibility even if few people say it out loud, and Dem candidates were not going to say ending the war to bring prices down was path forward. Psychotic reaction of left/Europe on more war with Russia, and Trump is a puppet of Putin, is simply not a good mid term strategy, or 2028 strategy. Non corrupt high information voters will not help the evil self destruction.
Hey why did you downvote this @[email protected] [email protected] ?
If a shutdown would favor trump and musk, than why were they celebrating his vote to keep the government open?
Because he’s lying. He just didn’t want to lose his staff and clubhouse access for however long it lasted.
I also understand it’s reasonable. But you have to remember this bill will hurt many people. The logic is that Dems should show opposition not complicity for those people to have a positive reason to vote for them in 2y, and maybe to reach a deal that prevents some harm. Otherwise people might not even know the bill happened, and what the consequences were, and why republicans suck. The other strategy though is to let Trump fuck everything up so bad over 4y people basically riot to oust him. In that scenario you don’t want to give him the chance to say any of the things he did wrong were your fault, which interference would cause. The problem is he will anyway, because he’s a pathological liar.
I believe the expression is “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Pretty much. And if you take this view, why not go down fighting? Dems really need the advertising. Schumer is basically rolling over for big donors, and unwittingly opening the door for more progressive politicians to take over the mindshare in the party more permanently.
Unlike in 2016, there definitely won’t be a moderate “Hillary bro” crowd in 2026. There will be the people who literally want to behead Trump in the White House lawn, and the AoC/Bernie party.
I disagree with that take.
Trump’s gutting of federal agencies has only highlighted all the things we take for granted and/or didn’t even know were benefiting us. With a shutdown, that all comes to a stop, and the workers who are deemed “essential” still have to work but don’t get paid. Remember the last shutdowns?
TSA workers still have to work unpaid. ICE isn’t going anywhere. Think they’re thugs now? Wait till they’re not getting a paycheck and taking their (extra) anger out on their victims.
And Musk/DOGE? With all but essential workers furloughed, I have no doubt the dismantling and fuckery will continue except now they’re basically running around with even less supervision than they have now.
Like it or not, Schumer made a hard, but likely correct, call to see the bigger picture.
The budget is the death nail to those agencies so they are going away shut down or not.
But if we shutdown EVERYTHING we might be able to show how stupid that is and make it temporary or get some concessions.
I couldn’t find the specifics in a quick Google search, and since this is OOTL I guess I’ll ask here.
And I know I’m about to be shit on for even asking, genuinely, what are the parts of the bill that will hurt people?
All the articles I could find were just how trump would weaponize the shutdown, nothing I could find stated the specifics of the bill.
From what I’ve heard it’s just a complete funding cut to all the agencies he’s promised to “destroy”, whose firings have already affected lives like with USAID, the EPA, etc. Idk if there’s medical cuts in there, but there’s definitely cuts to research grants on medicine. And instead of using the savings to pay off the deficit, he’s using it to fund tax cuts to his billionaire friends.
I will never understand how Americans are dumb enough to believe you can cut taxes and pay off the deficit. It’s like if you had credit card debt then quit your job. Oh and in this case you don’t get to quit your job, it’s your neighbor in the mansion next door who probably got us into debt to begin with or owns the debt.
I will never understand how Americans are dumb enough to believe you can cut taxes and pay off the deficit.
If your cuts to programs are greater than the loss from cutting taxes it’s absolutely possible. That’s simple math. Not that I agree with trump obviously but your argument is flawed.
Well that’s what they say they are doing but it’s still not flawed. If I wanted to pay off my debt effectively and quickly I’d get a better job AND reduce my spending. So higher taxes (preferably on the rich) and reduce spending (preferably on non essentials like the military overspending)
All I’m saying is as my parents let’s say you would question my decisions if I did what you suggest, cut my hours but cut my spending MORE. That would be kinda sus.
That’s a much more logical approach, and I think the argument makes it pretty clear that fixing the deficit is not in Republican interests, it’s just lip service. Which is a big problem since the deficit could destroy the economy in the near future.
Oh I agree. Also some of these programs are pretty important. And even the less important ones exist for a reason. I’m not necessarily against trimming the fat but it should be given more consideration than “CLOSE ALL THE THINGS!!”
The spouse of an abusive partner will often say the beatings and abuse of them and their children is better than the family being without the abusive spouse…
They’re not right, but they say it
Schumer wasn’t right when he said a shutdown would be worse, but he did say it
Funny how no one seems to know why a shutdown is worse, while AOC can clearly explain why agreeing to fund the bill is worse (as per https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5194630-ocasio-cortez-schumer-government-shutdown/ she explains that it hurts the position of Dems who won house seats in Drumpf territory by explicitly supporting SS, Medicaid/care, etc.)
I mean there are some obvious drawbacks to a shutdown:
- Easy for Republicans to point at democrats as the problem
- People may confuse layoffs or other impacts of cuts to the shut down rather than the Trump admin
- Less noise about all the terrible things the Trump admin is doing while shutdown takes the forefront
At the end of the day, it’s “maybe this will stop the Republicans from dismantling the entire federal government” vs “why stop your enemy from completely shooting themselves in the foot”
Personally I’m not sure which is better, but the wait and see game (that Schumer is playing) relies on things not going completely off the rails (and things seem pretty crazy right now).
Thanks, this makes sense!
While I’d personally contend that a shutdown wouldn’t normally be considered “completely going off the rails” I can kinda also see the other point of view - not wanting to add to the current level of craziness.
I agree, sadly a government shutdown is actually pretty normal for the US now. What I meant by that line (off the rails) was that Schumer is acting like this is just normal politics, so letting Trump continue to shoot himself in the foot should work out for the Democrats. However, I’m not so sure, this doesn’t seem like a normal admin and things have been escalating. Schumersl’s strategy won’t work if things continue to escalate at their current rate.
Hey why did you downvote this @[email protected] [email protected] ?
Actually, to be honest, I cannot remember so I assume I must have misclicked. However, it is maybe a little worrying that you monitor me and/or comment votes?
Could also be that I shut off my brain at some point. Your messaging is also not really super clear.
Basically I’m in the same boat as AOC and all the folks feeling betrayed, and I’m skeptical of Schumer’s intention because the news articles I’ve browsed over don’t include any detailed reasoning on why Schumer voted the way he did - but others on this thread have since provided a decent explanation.
And … when folks reply to me saying that my point is unclear, I’m always happy to clarify my meaning. Typically, that engagement turns out to be fulfilling on both ends.
A lone misclick isn’t a big deal - accidents happen and technology can sometimes be hard to use, so I tend to let these go. That said, I noticed that after writing your reply, you went ahead and downvoted three more of my comments on this post… so please try to be more careful with the misclicking. Especially considering that downvotes are essentially public.
I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional. Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrong.
That being said, I need not careful nor do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”. I appreciate that you want honest discussions, but policing other people’s reactions is really just your reaction to someone else’s content and does not help you attain your goal.
I appreciate that you want honest discussions,
Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrongSo this is exactly why I ask - I’m curious then as to what you thought was wrong. One comment that got downvoted was me thanking another commenter for an explanation behind Schumer et al, and another was just me asking someone else about their downvote - so presumably there’s a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions that you could share here. And if you chose to do so, I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion on them.
I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional.
do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”.Well, I just meant that I don’t usually ask for folks to reverse or revert their downvote if it’s a misclick or some other accidental thing. Getting a downvote undone is actually pretty rare in this case.
but policing other people’s reactions
I’m asking for an opinion, not policing them! That’s more like in lemmy.world/c/politics (where mods had explicitly set up the rule that you shouldn’t downvote just because you disagree - see rule no. 5 there).
I mean, you can see that I didn’t even downvote you back in retaliation.
That being said, I need not careful
Not when it comes to me, to be sure. I don’t police and often don’t even downvote back as I wrote above. And of course I have no objections to you downvoting as long as it’s done intentionally - it’s just another way to express your opinion. (I just like asking why since it’s a chance to have a good discourse and maybe learn something.)
But in general, I do think one should be careful to avoid downvoting by misclicking or otherwise by accident - downvotes and upvotes are public and folks are trying to figure out how to use this to make bots that check for other bots, autoban users (I think st.itjust.works is already using one) and so on. So being careful and deliberate with your up and down votes is helps to avoid getting caught in some kind of dragnet.
is really just your reaction to someone else’s content
This part, I didn’t understand.
does not help you attain your goal.
My gut feel on this is that:
2 out of 10 times, the downvoter doesn’t respond to my post (explaining the reason for downvoting isn’t obligatory on most magazines after all), so I don’t gain anything (but neither do I seem to lose anything just by asking).
1 out of 10 times, the downvoter downvoted because they legitimately disagree, but we both end up particpating in a good convo about the issue.
3 out of 10 times, the downvoter misunderstood what I said, but wouldn’t have downvoted if I had gotten the point across in the beginning.
4 out of 10 times, it’s just an accident.
So 8 out of 10 times I attain my goal. I think that’s a pretty good track record, don’t you?
After reading this I still don’t know why everyone is criticizing Schumer.
Government shutdowns are bad. For everyone employed by the government, receiving government services, working with government agencies, or in case anything unexpected happens. Continuing as-is is easily preferable to not continuing.
I do wonder if a shutdown invokes some sort of procedural change leaving us open to even more shenanigans.
But really the only hint I see is the term “Clean CR”. By definition , you expect a Continuing Resolution to continue. Was this not clean? Were there changes embedded that we would object to? If so, I haven’t seen any detail on this
My, quite possibly naive, take is that i think people are mad because he flipped. He said that he absolutely wouldn’t vote for it and then flipped a day latter and said he would. This riled Dems up to fight and then immediately sent against what he had started. I also don’t think that he has explained himself as to why he changed his mind.
More than just flipping, flipping from right to wrong is the issue.
