Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
I'm very not sure about how to evaluate the end of the shutdown.
On the one side, they didn't pull through with playing hardball, on the other hand, I'm not sure whether people would have gotten better results if the shutdown would have gone on for longer.
Pretty sure they opened up the gov for travel during the genocide celebration holiday in 2 weeks. Flights are already screwed up. Flying is enough of a hell. Etc.
(Fuck planes btw.)
Asked if Schumer should be replaced, Sanders replied: "By whom? That's the point."
But he offered a less-than-ringing endorsement of the top Senate Democrat, who Sanders said belongs to the party's "corporate wing." Sanders also said "it goes deeper than Schumer."
A politician is just a politician at the end of the day, but common sense should tell you that there are still degrees trustworthiness even among politicians. Comparing the immediate responses yesterday to the news that the Dems had caved, should make everyone really think about Sander's response to this question, and what he's really saying here.
When I compare the immediate response of the Dem I trust the most to the response of the Dem I trust the least, both seemed upset by this news. However, only one seemed genuinely perplexed, and immediately expressed his frustration on behalf of the Americans who would be harmed by the decision to cave. The other immediately began to push a strategy narrative calling for new leadership in the party.
Both gave subsequent interviews. One used every news outlet that would have him to continue spreading the narrative calling for new leadership. The other, again focused on the harm this would do to Americans. 24 hours later, guess which talking point has received the most attention?
When asked how he felt about calls for new leadership, for some reason the Dem that I trust the most didn't immediately hop on the band wagon that everyone else has been hyper focused on for the past 24 hours, but it's definitely not because he thinks the current leader of the party is the strongest and the most effective.
Replaced by whom? That's the point.