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
Genuinely astonished at how dogshit the Democratic party is at negotiating or even just behaving like an opposition party. How do you walk away with a worse deal than the one you were offered before negotiations started?
There are 47 senators + 213 representatives that are Dems or caucus with the Dems for a total of 260 total legislators.
It only took 8 of them, or 3%, to fuck over the rest. 97% of the party and independents that caucus with the party were screwed over by that 3%.
I find it suspicious that it was the exact amount of votes needed, all of whom just happen to not be up for reelection next year. Feels like they just happened to be the senators for whom it was "safest" to piss people off.
That's how the vote buying and horse trading works. They don't waste money or political capital getting extra votes on board, it's a buy and sell game, not anyone actually voting their conscience.
It is likely that getting the exact amount was actually difficult, and it isn't like the party came out ahead by folding the way they did. It is more likely that the ones who chose short term results on SNAP and paychecks over sky high healthcare costs starting in 2026 expect people to have forgotten it by then. It really does seem like they just didn't believe that the long term gains were worth the short term pains for whatever stupid reasons they have.
But yet again (because this happens on every critical vote) they won't face any consequences for their "betrayal". The real traitors are the Democratic leadership like Chuck Schumer who once again allowed this to happen, and who according to some sourced, "negotiated" the deal in the first place.
That may be sightly generous; Since the action was in the senate you could say it was 8+1 (counting Schumer) out of 47 senators, which is almost 1 in 5 senate dems, including the senate minority leader himself. It's not a complete fringe.
It was a response to a comment about the party as a whole so including the representatives who opposed in both chambers seemed relevant.
They got what their handlers wanted?