this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
172 points (97.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3485 readers
413 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No memes/pics of text
Post news related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
His proposal pushes the healthcare debate into the height of midterm season, all while demonstrating an eagerness to reopen the government. He's eliminating republican talking points regarding the shutdown while forcing the debate on the campaign trail. This is a smart move.
All caving does is make Dems look weak against Trump. Again. No one gives a shit if it’s “good politics” or “strategy”.
There’s no reason to cave. GOP controls the govt. Make them nuke the filibuster if they want the govt open.
My point is, at least in part, that the proposal to extend healthcare subsidies for a year is not caving.
Bullshit. It's caving and saying that they can let them expire in a year. The subsidy needs to be ironclad - and the alternative is that we repeal every law related for-profit health care as anything legal.
And in that year, it will be used as a talking point to motivate people to vote. And then (hopefully), enough of congress will agree to a budget that includes the subsidies, among other things
Oh yeah, like Roe v Wade! That went great!
Since Roe v Wade was overturned, nearly every vote to grant abortion access passed. It's an issue that motivates voters to act.
However, it would seem that enough dems caved to the republican budget that it doesn't matter. So basically everything I've said in this thread regarding the hopeful strategy that was put forth is moot. I'm back to being disappointed.
Row v Wade was only able to be overturned because Democrats wanted to be able to run on the platform of defending it, rather than just codifying it into law
The belief in the courts and with politicians was that it was settled law and therefore not up for debate. The dems, at least as far as I know, had nothing to do with the case being overturned. It wasn't codified into law for two main reasons - there wouldn't have been enough votes and/or a president wouldn't veto it, and it wasn't seen as necessary given the fact that it was settled law.
Do you have sources for any of this? Because it sounds a little too ridiculous to be truthful
Here's a couple good articles, one that is basically a timeline of the abortion rights debate, and another that is commentary around the overturning of Roe v Wade
There will be no debate. It will be extended until after the election. Democrats will try to make it a campaign issue, but since there will be no shutdown forcing attention, Republicans will just ignore it. Like they did up until the shutdown happened. People may be vaguely worried, but it won't be a thing that's happening now so they'll just assume something will be done, and the extension now will condition them to believe that.
If you think fighting about politics now is not important to the midterms, then demonstrating willingness to open the government and eliminating Republican taking points is also unimportant. However solidifying that Republicans are powerful and Democrats will always roll over is important. Not just for elections, but for standing up against fascism now.
Chuck Schumer is not and has not ever been an electoral genius.
The point is that this is fighting now, and setting up for the midterms
If the main issue with the shutdown are healthcare subsidies, this will end the shutdown and provide those subsidies for the next year. If midterms go well for the dems, it's a win for the long term. If the midterms don't go well for the dems, we're in the exact same position in one year as we are today, which sucks.
Then don't pass a CR and keep things shut down. Reveal how weak our system is.
I think it's become very clear how weak the system is. But people shouldn't have to suffer. Keeping things shut down is using government workers and those who rely on SNAP as pawns.
Let them be pawns then. Democrat votes now are about accepting short-term agony for long-term benefits and hoping Republicans don't mess things up in the long term. Whatever needs to happen to make sure that the Republicans don't get what they want is the mandatory action.
Yeah, worked out really well when he caved this spring so we could force the debate during the current elections so he can cave again to push it off to next year's elections.
Totally not kicking the can down the road.
In fact, I'd argue that perpetually kicking a hugely popular Democratic issue to the next election cycle says he specifically doesn't want it solved, so that it can keep the same campaign literature.
Schumer can't let the party actually eat the carrot, then they might stop following him.
he needs continued support for israel thats his real reason, his donors are getting nervous,.
Not sure if optimism or naïveté.
It's neither - I'm just pointing out how the game is played
There is no more game. Either we destroy every part of Project 2025, and we imprison all the people involved. And that means 90% of the MAGApublicans.
it isnt a game, when its one side that holds all the cards, pushing an unfavorable legislation isnt going to help dems get re-elected in the house.
This ain’t a fucking game, you entitled twatwaffle. People are dying while you gloat over old white men playing politics.
In what way am I entitled? In what way am I gloating?
I understand the stakes, and I hate what the country has become. It is disgusting that republicans are using people who rely on SNAP and healthcare subsidies as pawns to advance this stupid agenda that's making life worse for the majority of the country.
Instead of hurling insults at someone analyzing the situation, maybe you could educate yourself on political game theory. Perhaps then you'll understand where I'm coming from in referring to politics as a game.
says the person who thinks it's a good thing the democrats just traded promises of absolutely nothing for everything the republicans wanted. you're celebrating that the democrats just condemned ~50,000 people to death every year because they won't be able to afford health insurance as a genius political move in some grand game you've made up in your head. you're pretty fucking disgusting, dude.
Did you miss the part where all of this was said before they caved, and the proposal was to extend healthcare subsidies for a year as a compromise to reopen the government? Which would give dems what they asked for while forcing the debate during midterms?
Maybe this will help you understand
Sorry, did me pointing out how you're getting mad at someone on the same side as you for analyzing the situation upset you?
Maybe take your own advice, twatwaffle
first of all, you're not on the same side as me, liberal. you're slightly left of republicans, and still right of center. nobody who is celebrating poor people dying gets to say they're on the same side as me.
second, you didn't point out shit. you're argument was so unbelievably stupid that literally nobody has agreed with you. you're getting downvoted because you have a grade school understanding of politics and think you're far more clever than you actually are, and naturally you're the only person who thinks that. the reason I'm responding to you with memes is because I'm quite sure you aren't capable of grasping anything more substantial. I'm half tempted to use grunts when speaking to you, as I'm sure with your neanderthal level of intelligence, it would be more comfortable to hear your native tongue. you don't have the capability to upset me. the only emotion you'll ever provoke out of me is sympathy for how hard I imagine it is to tie your shoes.
First and foremost, I'm very liberal. I've also pointed out in this thread and other other comments on this post that I am firmly against the pause on SNAP benefits, among other things.
The original proposal was to extend healthcare subsidies for a year as a compromise to agree to the budget. I've pointed out, in this thread and others, why that's a good idea - it reopens the government, which means government employees will finally be paid, it gets SNAP funds moving again, and it extends the healthcare subsidies which can be a talking point to motivate voters in the next election (which would then hopefully mean laws would be passed to ensure affordable healthcare to everyone). Again, all of this was based on that proposal, and before dems caved to the budget as it stands.
Think about this for a moment - by having the government shut down, and not compromising on anything, more people will go hungry and die and more people fall below the poverty line. That is what your position enables - the exact opposite of what you're saying you stand for.
Would it be great if the republicans caved first? Absolutely, without a doubt. But, with the number of congresspeople under trumps thumb, and with the strategies being suggested (like ending the filibuster), that was unlikely.
Instead of considering all of that, you've made all sorts of assumptions about me, and did your best to insult me.
I'm sorry you're frustrated with the state of the world right now. I am too, along with millions of others. We might not agree on a path forward, but at least we can agree that none of what's happening is okay and that things need to change
They punted Trumps prosecutions for the same reason. It's a stupid plan.
The plan doesn't work all the time - there's always risk
That being said, punting on the prosecutions is the most disappointing and disgusting thing that led trump to power. They relied on the idea that voters wouldn't elect him simply based on j6 and the indictments, but underestimated the stupidity of voters and the way trump manipulates his base. Having bootlickers in places of power to slow it all down certainly did not help.
Regardless, a bunch of dems caved to the budget without the extension of subsidies, so none of it matters anyway