Hereโs what the shutdown is really about:
09.11.2025 05:26 โ ๐ 345 ๐ 154 ๐ฌ 12 ๐ 5@mrdetermined.bsky.social
Hereโs what the shutdown is really about:
09.11.2025 05:26 โ ๐ 345 ๐ 154 ๐ฌ 12 ๐ 5Nope! Vote against them in their primaries, but we have to get the GOP out.
10.11.2025 00:49 โ ๐ 11 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 2 ๐ 0In primaries as they come, in 2 and 4 years.
Sorry kids, there's no fast way to play this game. Everyone should have shown up last year.
Don't know the details on that, but I suspect that nonsense is purposely there to throw it out so it can be said that the GOP "gave something up." Don't buy that. ๐
10.11.2025 00:46 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0No. The majority of Dems are screaming not to take it. We're talking about 8-10 Senators, not "The Dems."
Always remember the problem here is the GOP.
I know Fetterman is one. I think Gillibrand is another. We'll know soon enough.
10.11.2025 00:43 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 3 ๐ 0At least one of them won't be in another 4 years (Fetterman).
10.11.2025 00:42 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0No. SOME Dems (a few Senators) may be. Not "the Dems."
09.11.2025 23:06 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0That's not the case. They are feeling pressure from the rise in ACA premiums, from SNAP not being spent, from the drop in flights, and from not releasing the Epstein Files.
It's not all from the same people but the majority of people aren't "fine" with any of it.
It's not "Senate Dems" -it's a small cluster of them that are feeling more pressure from big donors and Big Money than voters.
09.11.2025 21:55 โ ๐ 12 ๐ 3 ๐ฌ 2 ๐ 0If the House votes to release them and the White House doesn't, it's another reason to get people to vote for a Democratic House next year.
09.11.2025 17:35 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0It's not "so what". You have a vote and hold it over the head of the Republicans who won't vote to release them. That hurts them with a bunch of voters in enough districts. To "save themselves" they would have to vote to release them.
09.11.2025 17:34 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0You make the claim, YOU provide the link.
Those are the rules, dude, and don't cry that they aren't. I don't do YOUR work for you. ๐ฅฑ
Nah, I just showed you were wrong. ๐
09.11.2025 02:39 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0You are arguing for the OPPOSITE- Democrats putting in a vote that would fail but where the onus would not just be on the GOP. So that's a completely different situation. ๐
09.11.2025 02:39 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0You didn't link to the article, and it's easy to see why. Those votes were held to hurt the GOP before an election. They were running on it to energize their voters against Republicans-
www.minnpost.com/christian-sc...
Please cite when. Pelosi as Speaker never put anything on the floor without knowing it had the votes to pass.
The rules are different in the Senate. The majority leaders have less control and will have votes purposely fail so they can vote against it- which allows them to bring back again.
Again dude, you simply don't get it.
09.11.2025 02:29 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0You clearly did not read the analysis above. What Justice Jackson did is make it happen faster thru her ruling. Follow the details.
09.11.2025 02:27 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Again, you don't get it.
There are some votes you want to put people on record- like voting against the ACA now. Or the Epstein Files.
A party is not going to put up a vote that won't pass so their base knows who to get mad at. Come on. ๐
The problem here is the Republican party and don't forget it.
09.11.2025 02:19 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0You don't understand.
It's not the number of actual Democratic votes that they had. It's the number of Democrats that would vote for it. There weren't enough amongst Democrats.
Plus the Senate filibuster meant they did not "control" the Senate, they just had a majority of 50 + 1.
Read about WHY Ketanji Brown Jackson stayed the SNAP order. Her move is probably the best solution for getting SNAP benefits approved quickly. open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...
08.11.2025 04:04 โ ๐ 8299 ๐ 3028 ๐ฌ 304 ๐ 318Her vote would force a vote which would put everyone on the record for or against it.
08.11.2025 20:57 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0So you only want rich people in Congress? Bad idea.
08.11.2025 20:50 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Career politician is not a bad thing.
Being a bad politician is.
Don't conflate the two.
Just stop and come back when you know what you're talking about.
08.11.2025 20:48 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0They didn't have the votes for it, for crying out loud. ๐
08.11.2025 20:47 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0They didn't have the votes for it. You're welcome.
08.11.2025 20:46 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0No, it won't.
There will always be 2 parties under our system.
The GOP is at fault here and everyone has to know it.