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
Well that's...a bit conspiracy heavy I suppose.
The other explanation is that they are from states harder hit from the shutdown, and this essentially gets everyone paid right now and sets up this vote from two weeks from now where they can just shut it down again if the GOP doesn't pony up.
We have confirmation from other articles that Schumer organized this, so why did he vote no himself? Don't fall for it.
Why did he vote no? For appearences.
I would assume that yes. The more progressive wing of democrats have been fed up with Chuck for a long time and so have a lot of the voters. Allowing riskier seats to have plausible deniability is the whole purpose of having the least risky seats be the ones to break. What worries me is Chuck is more than likely not the only one voting no now that there's enough yes votes but secretly in favor of it. How are we going to find those other people?
I haven’t seen those. Where should be looking?
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253
In this article Seth Moulton calls for Schumers removal putting the blame on him, because he knows what Chuck was doing. He's far from the only Democrat calling our Schumer specifically for this.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m5bpyndmlp2u
Clip from faux news
KILMEADE: Schumer says he's voting no. Did you do this outside leadership?
SHAHEEN: No. We kept leadership informed throughout.
Uh...
That first link definitely says that, but it doesn't actually back it up with anything...
The second link is a politician accusing Schumer of being ineffective, which is 100% true...
The third is fucking Faux News and just says Schumer was "informed"...
Like, not only do none of those three links back up what you're saying, if anything they paint the picture that Schumer is ineffective and couldn't have done anything if he wanted. Which is the most likely explanation.
Please. Schumer has been Republicans useful idiot for years. He's spineless when it comes to standing against them. Has been for years
I'm not disagreeing with that...
But that doesn't mean he's some fucking masteind that set this up.
He's too incompetent to do really anything, and the 10 that voted with republicans didn't need anyone to convince them. Because they're as big, or bigger, pieces of shit than Schumer.
Like, one of them is an ex DNC chair during some of the DNC's darkest times where we handed republicans a shit ton of seats to block progressives.
I know Schumer is the household name and all, but nothing in that comment made logical sense or even accurately represented what the link articles were saying.
We can't afford to just blame the easy targets, because that leaves the rel problems.
Stop falling for fucking scape goats
Thanks
We do? I haven't seen those. Link me.
It’s been reported since last week