Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
obviously a charlie kirk reference
Not sure about that. I mean yes, Charlie Kirk said that Trayvon Martin hunted the guy who murdered him and yes, Charlie Kirk described George Floyd as a scumbag. But just because he attacks and blames the victims of murder doesn’t mean he celebrates their deaths. He just wants the narrative to be about the choices the victims made and how they don’t deserve sympathy.
think you got it the wrong way. charlie kirk was murdered. there were many people on the left who celebrated his death. razydas point is democrats = left = celebrated murder.
if im wrong im sure razyda would clarify
Yes, I was pointing out that not only did Democrats not celebrate the murder of Charlie Kirk, it's also pure projection. Charlie Kirk is the guy they imagine Democrats to be.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
No centre person get behind this kind of stuff and fact that democrats behave like a bunch of spoiled brats doesnt help.
Wait, Democratic politicians are trying to make ICE agents hard?
I must have been out of the loop on this one, wow!
For the rest of the list, it was covered, but some swell highlihghts of the quality of Right wing thought:
"dragging Trump through courts entire election" - according to you, Elections = 4 year periods where inept morons like Merick Garland aided by corrupt judges like Cannon in Florida and the compromised supreme court fail to prosecute one of the biggest criminals of all time, who is now, publicly doing crime in the form of accepting bribes and running crypto scams (among other things)
"idiotic nazi rhetoric" - you mean like JD Vance calling Trump Hitler? Or the fact that all the Nazi rethoric turned out to be pretty spot on given the ICE gestapo activities and prosecution of political opponents?
Oh boy, you are getting even more unglued then usual, mate, you might need to go outside and touch grass.
the VP just said kids tell stupid jokes, we should not ruin their lives over it. "I love Hitler" is just edgy and also not in any way connected to celebrating murder.
nothing to see on this side, but did you see those terrible Kirk haters? we should revoke their visas and fire them over edgy social media comments - freedom of speech & suck it Libtard!
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
I would take issue with your thoughts on all of those but that last one is just embarrassing subjugation of reason to partisanship. If I hadn't been reading your posts for years I would think it was just dishonesty. Almost all Republicans in both houses voted for the CR, it's just not possible to be mostly their fault. It's not the 2010s anymore, blindly assigning blame to the GOP makes no sense. Idk why this of all things in the last weeks bothers me but it's just obviously *absurd* I guess.
Edit: without dems filibustering it, it would have passed. It just can't be the GOPs fault, ppl claiming it is should just lean into it like some dems are instead of this rediculous and embarrassing pretense
The Republicans - who have control of all branches of government - decided to shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans. Or, as Razyda would put it, they're behaving "like a bunch of spoiled brats".
Did you forget the filibuster or do you need it explained to you? The CR passed the House and got more than GOP senators.
The second half of that sentence is wrong too. The increased subsidies expire at the end of the year, per a law Democrats passed during COVID. It's their expiration date, it isn't happening right now, and it doesn't have anything to do with keeping the government open. Your argument doesn't even follow logically. Somehow them "getting caught" caused them to shut down the govenment???
As an aside this is why I laugh at accusations of "bad faith" by posters here. The people making such an accusation are either acting without the slightest bit of good faith themselves or are so deep into the mire that they can't see the sun anymore.
Complete long shot but have they tried passing a budget that doesn't result in millions of Americans losing their healthcare?
The fact that this is the best you can muster means you should probably just bite the bullet and say that "Republicans wanting to make healthcare more expensive for millions is a good reason to shut down the government 3 months before subsidies expire" then try to blame them instead. Indeed, some dems have said that.
But I get the problem, dems have spent years, nay, decades, saying government shutdowns are awful events that cause so much pain for eveyone that it's hard to reconcile that with what they are doing now.
But it literally is a good reason.
Ok? Then maybe we can both agree that the statement "Republicans shut down the government" is false?
I think it is more complicated than that. You can presumably imagine something that would be a complete dealbreaker for the Republicans were the Democrats to insist upon it. This is like that, but substitute the parties.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
No centre person get behind this kind of stuff and fact that democrats behave like a bunch of spoiled brats doesnt help.
Wait, Democratic politicians are trying to make ICE agents hard?
I must have been out of the loop on this one, wow!
For the rest of the list, it was covered, but some swell highlihghts of the quality of Right wing thought:
"dragging Trump through courts entire election" - according to you, Elections = 4 year periods where inept morons like Merick Garland aided by corrupt judges like Cannon in Florida and the compromised supreme court fail to prosecute one of the biggest criminals of all time, who is now, publicly doing crime in the form of accepting bribes and running crypto scams (among other things)
"idiotic nazi rhetoric" - you mean like JD Vance calling Trump Hitler? Or the fact that all the Nazi rethoric turned out to be pretty spot on given the ICE gestapo activities and prosecution of political opponents?
Oh boy, you are getting even more unglued then usual, mate, you might need to go outside and touch grass.
I don't think ICE agents can get any harder, considering they get to beat up brown people with no consequences.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
I would take issue with your thoughts on all of those but that last one is just embarrassing subjugation of reason to partisanship. If I hadn't been reading your posts for years I would think it was just dishonesty. Almost all Republicans in both houses voted for the CR, it's just not possible to be mostly their fault. It's not the 2010s anymore, blindly assigning blame to the GOP makes no sense. Idk why this of all things in the last weeks bothers me but it's just obviously *absurd* I guess.
Edit: without dems filibustering it, it would have passed. It just can't be the GOPs fault, ppl claiming it is should just lean into it like some dems are instead of this rediculous and embarrassing pretense
The Republicans - who have control of all branches of government - decided to shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans. Or, as Razyda would put it, they're behaving "like a bunch of spoiled brats".
Did you forget the filibuster or do you need it explained to you? The CR passed the House and got more than GOP senators.
The second half of that sentence is wrong too. The increased subsidies expire at the end of the year, per a law Democrats passed during COVID. It's their expiration date, it isn't happening right now, and it doesn't have anything to do with keeping the government open. Your argument doesn't even follow logically. Somehow them "getting caught" caused them to shut down the govenment???
As an aside this is why I laugh at accusations of "bad faith" by posters here. The people making such an accusation are either acting without the slightest bit of good faith themselves or are so deep into the mire that they can't see the sun anymore.
I didn't forget about the filibuster. Democrats are not in the wrong here; Republicans are. Just because Republicans overwhelmingly voted for something terrible doesn't mean Democrats are the bad guys for not allowing it to pass. Republicans have been pushing and pushing forever, and finally Democrats have started to slightly resist. Congressional Democrats have been cowards for years, as Republicans pull whatever strings they need to do to win over and over again. Do you realize just how absurdly detrimental this bill needed to be for even Congressional Democrats to say "okay this is too much, even for me"!? Republicans are the reason the government is shut down, because they pushed too far. They overplayed their hand, for once. Dial it back even a small amount, and the Democrats would resume their usual "yes you can steamroll us".
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
obviously a charlie kirk reference
Not sure about that. I mean yes, Charlie Kirk said that Trayvon Martin hunted the guy who murdered him and yes, Charlie Kirk described George Floyd as a scumbag. But just because he attacks and blames the victims of murder doesn’t mean he celebrates their deaths. He just wants the narrative to be about the choices the victims made and how they don’t deserve sympathy.
think you got it the wrong way. charlie kirk was murdered. there were many people on the left who celebrated his death. razydas point is democrats = left = celebrated murder.
if im wrong im sure razyda would clarify
As previously explained, Razyda is wrong if that's where their logic is going.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
I would take issue with your thoughts on all of those but that last one is just embarrassing subjugation of reason to partisanship. If I hadn't been reading your posts for years I would think it was just dishonesty. Almost all Republicans in both houses voted for the CR, it's just not possible to be mostly their fault. It's not the 2010s anymore, blindly assigning blame to the GOP makes no sense. Idk why this of all things in the last weeks bothers me but it's just obviously *absurd* I guess.
Edit: without dems filibustering it, it would have passed. It just can't be the GOPs fault, ppl claiming it is should just lean into it like some dems are instead of this rediculous and embarrassing pretense
The Republicans - who have control of all branches of government - decided to shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans. Or, as Razyda would put it, they're behaving "like a bunch of spoiled brats".
If Republicans do control all 3 branches of government, why wouldn't they pass their budget anyway? Even without the removed healthcare?
Is health insurance expensive? Yes. Is that partly because care is also expensive? Yes, we know the US is the top spender on both globally. Is the answer letting insurers raise premiums 10-20% per year and having the government pay more of it in return? Possibly, possibly not. When Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government in Biden's term, they passed the American Rescue Act, creating extra ACA subsidies. In 2022, they extended those subsidies until 2025 (The max you can extend spending that costs the government more than it makes like that is 10 years because you have to sunset deficit spending unless you have 60 votes in the Senate). They didn't extend to the full 10 years at that time because even until 2025 was known to add significant costs and they had the razorest majority of 51-50.
What those acts did is extend ACA subsidies (which means for people who get insurance from healthcare.gov, the Marketplace, the government picks up a certain amount of the tab) at the top end. It capped premiums for people earning over 400%. So when we say it "capped premiums," that means from the individual's perspective. So an insurance company could charge 17% of someone's income for an insurance plan if they're making over 4x the poverty line. However, that person would only pay 8.5% of their income, and Uncle Sam would still pay the rest. This is reflected in predictions of "rates for some could double" because it doesn't reflect the idea reducing subsidies means insurance and providers have to charge what people can pay rather than knowing they have a guaranteed gravy train from the federal government.
There are still not unlimited subsidies. There are people currently who say they won't be able to afford spending more than 8.5% of their income on health insurance. That sucks, but there are also some now who can't even afford the 8.5%. If you do the math, the now-expiring subsidies could still be leaving people dead compared to a simple flat Medicare for All plan. Why wouldn't Senate Dems hold out for that? Obviously there is a policy line somewhere and abolishing the health insurance industry would not bode well for politicians' finances.
The enhanced premium tax credits set to expire this year have made costs far more manageable for many of them, allowing some lower-income enrollees to get health care with no premiums and higher earners to pay no more than 8.5% of their income.
If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to the KFF analysis.
While some premium tax credits will remain, the level of support will decrease for most enrollees. Anyone earning more than 400% of the poverty level — or around $63,000 per year for a single person — won’t be eligible for the remaining tax credits.
As a result, especially hard-hit groups will include a small number of higher earners who’ll have to pay a lot more without the extra subsidies and a large number of lower earners who’ll have to pay a small amount more, said Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at KFF.
These are temporary subsidies passed on partisan lines during covid. These are not subsidies that existed forever, or even since the beginning of ACA, that Republicans are stealing. If they are that important to Democrats, Democrats could at any time vote to pass the budget proposal in the Senate, reopen the federal government, and then make a political deal separately to secure what they want.
There are still lots of existing ACA subsidies even without extending the 2021/2022 enhanced premium tax credits. And there could be even stronger, greater subsidies than the 2021/2022 credits, but Democrats aren't holding out for that. They are holding out for Republicans to re-pass Democratic covid policy, years after covid, for no reason. It's not rational. They could let the budget pass, then negotiate separately and maybe get a 12% or 8% or even 4% cap on premiums. The reason they don't want to negotiate is at this point they can't concede to Trump on any single issue. Trading something in exchange for more ACA subsidies would involve giving something up to Trump so it's unacceptable. I believe people over 4x the poverty line should probably be able to pay for insurance themselves, and so did the law starting from 2010 until 2020. I don't think it would end the country if they had further subsidies, but then as a corollary I don't believe it's worth risking the country over the whole issue of moving that subsidy line on this one issue a couple of percent in this direction or that for a couple years.
Here's why.
Right now, the cost of the shutdown is furloughing hundreds of thousands of nonessential government workers, and according to Bessent a $15 billion per week hit to the economy. And letting Trump trim the federal government, probably further dismantling Democrat goals. Why? All because Republicans won't pass the same subsidies that Democrats were only able to pass as a temporary measure when they controlled everything? By not letting the Senate spending bill even be voted on, Democrats in the Senate are through their actions saying they weigh the $25 billion annually in subsidies mostly for people over 4x the poverty line to be worth more than all those above negative consequences put together. That's the specific calculation being made. + Show Spoiler +
It's not like Democrats are sitting on a secret button where you can press it and not a single person will die in the streets, and the US will have no drug addiction, or obesity, or diabetes, or cancer, or heart disease, and the Republicans are holding the government hostage until Democrats destroy the magic button. It's a pretty specific weighing of issues.
They do not even have to vote yes on the ruling party's budgets that have a majority in both chambers... They simply have to vote to allow the bill to be voted on. 60 people do that, and then when the actual bill is voted on, Democrats can still all vote no, go home and tell their constituents they voted no and opposed Trump, and yet didn't sabotage the system to the point of shutting down the government. That's how cloture/the filibuster work.
So where we are is similar to someone threatens to shoot your dog unless you give them money, you don't give them money, they shoot your dog. Then it's your fault the dog was shot. That's true only in a very cynical way. It's mainly the fault of the guy who shot it.
Even though Democrats could get what they want with a deal, which would involve a small cost, they can't accept a small cost. Therefore they are reduced to the much higher cost of shutting down the entire government, and probably not getting what they want in the end anyway. It's not a shrewd move here at all, because Trump is malleable on the subject of healthcare and on a personal level would be easily swayed by being known as the person who "took care of people" even better than Obama.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
I would take issue with your thoughts on all of those but that last one is just embarrassing subjugation of reason to partisanship. If I hadn't been reading your posts for years I would think it was just dishonesty. Almost all Republicans in both houses voted for the CR, it's just not possible to be mostly their fault. It's not the 2010s anymore, blindly assigning blame to the GOP makes no sense. Idk why this of all things in the last weeks bothers me but it's just obviously *absurd* I guess.
Edit: without dems filibustering it, it would have passed. It just can't be the GOPs fault, ppl claiming it is should just lean into it like some dems are instead of this rediculous and embarrassing pretense
The Republicans - who have control of all branches of government - decided to shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans. Or, as Razyda would put it, they're behaving "like a bunch of spoiled brats".
If Republicans do control all 3 branches of government, why wouldn't they pass their budget anyway? Even without the removed healthcare?
I'm not a Congressional Republican, but if you want me to guess, I'd say it's because they're used to dominating so many recent showdowns against Congressional Democrats that they felt they could continue pushing their agenda harder and harder, without ever coming across serious resistance, and without ever needing to compromise. And this was, apparently, the final straw, so now Republicans need to either dial back their insanity a tiny bit (i.e., allow for a minor compromise) or wait out the Democrats. (I'm just as surprised as Congressional Republicans are that the Democrats finally grew a very tiny backbone, but that doesn't mean the Democrats are to blame here. If you want me to make another prediction, it'd be that the Democrats ultimately fold before Republicans concede anything substantial, but I hope I'm wrong.)
These are temporary subsidies passed on partisan lines during covid. These are not subsidies that existed forever, or even since the beginning of ACA, that Republicans are stealing. If they are that important to Democrats, Democrats could at any time vote to pass the budget proposal in the Senate, reopen the federal government, and then make a political deal separately to secure what they want.
tell that to former Republican voters. I dare you. pissed off people now radicalized and armed to the teeth. especially once they catch up to this fact AND the fact Republicans cared more about extending - what's the word - "temporary subsidies" a.k.a tax cuts to rich people instead of keeping health care premiums down.
time is on Democrats side. you just don't like them playing the same BS game (with facts on their side though funnily enough) that propelled Republicans into office.
On October 17 2025 00:29 Razyda wrote: I do agree that democrats only chance is to appeal to centrist. Thing is current iteration of democratic party lost them. Covid, Hunter laptop, dragging Trump through courts entire election, celebrating murder, idiotic nazi rhetoric. On top of that they keep going, riots, attacks on federal agents (which are, whether you like it or not, officers of the law) and on top of that democrats politicians going out of their way to make said federal agents harder. Add government shutdown to it.
"covid" = exacerbated by Republicans through their anti-vax rhetoric and disease denialism "Hunter laptop" = an irrelevant issue that Republicans were hyperfocused on (not Democrats) "dragging Trump through courts" = he committed dozens of felonies and should be held accountable "celebrating murder" = ??? "idiotic nazi rhetoric" = that's the Republicans, not the Democrats "riots" = you mean like January 6th? "attacks on federal agents" = you mean like Portland residents dancing in front of the ICE gestapo? "government shutdown" = Republicans are more to blame for this than Democrats
I would take issue with your thoughts on all of those but that last one is just embarrassing subjugation of reason to partisanship. If I hadn't been reading your posts for years I would think it was just dishonesty. Almost all Republicans in both houses voted for the CR, it's just not possible to be mostly their fault. It's not the 2010s anymore, blindly assigning blame to the GOP makes no sense. Idk why this of all things in the last weeks bothers me but it's just obviously *absurd* I guess.
Edit: without dems filibustering it, it would have passed. It just can't be the GOPs fault, ppl claiming it is should just lean into it like some dems are instead of this rediculous and embarrassing pretense
The Republicans - who have control of all branches of government - decided to shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans. Or, as Razyda would put it, they're behaving "like a bunch of spoiled brats".
If Republicans do control all 3 branches of government, why wouldn't they pass their budget anyway? Even without the removed healthcare?
I'm not a Congressional Republican, but if you want me to guess, I'd say it's because they're used to dominating so many recent showdowns against Congressional Democrats that they felt they could continue pushing their agenda harder and harder, without ever coming across serious resistance, and without ever needing to compromise. And this was, apparently, the final straw, so now Republicans need to either dial back their insanity a tiny bit (i.e., allow for a minor compromise) or wait out the Democrats. (I'm just as surprised as Congressional Republicans are that the Democrats finally grew a very tiny backbone, but that doesn't mean the Democrats are to blame here. If you want me to make another prediction, it'd be that the Democrats ultimately fold before Republicans concede anything substantial, but I hope I'm wrong.)
I'm having trouble with the consistency of what you're saying. You said Republicans, controlling all 3 branches of government, decided to shut down the government.
When we say "control" it should be qualified because if you have 53 votes but need 60 to do something I don't know if you can really be said to "control" it. But fine, either way, whatever.
Then where is the very tiny Democrat backbone? If Republicans are the ones who decided to shut down the government, I would think they would be the ones showing their backbone fighting determinedly against premium tax credits for health insurance premiums for people far above the poverty line. What did the Democrats do that exhibits their backbone, do you think?
They could have gotten their own party to pass these subsidies past 2025 to begin with in 2021/2022. I don't think it takes a lot of backbone to attack someone else for not doing what they couldn't do themselves.
The tax credits in question expire at the end of this year. This shutdown situation started at the beginning of this month, October, when the fiscal year ended and the government ran out of funding. The original subsidies were not part of a CR, they were part of the American Rescue Act and then extended in the Inflation Reduction Act. (Those were passed by reconciliation which is why they only needed 51 votes.) Therefore there's no particular reason they need to be in this CR, is there? They're not inherently intertwined. The House could pass the CR, the Senate could allow a vote on the CR and then pass it, fund the whole government and keep the government open and all the workers unfired, and then Jeffries and Schumer could admit they're in the minority party, go separately to the Republicans, and concede something to make a deal for the subsidies they want, maybe even more subsidies. They could have done that at any time over the past 9 months actually. Something-for-nothing politics seems like wishful thinking.
On September 25 2025 20:42 ThaddeusK wrote: The filibuster is a rule that says you need 60 votes that only needs 51 votes to be changed, its a no-op that politicians use to convince voters there's nothing they can do even though there is.
fuck it I'll post it again. this was one of Mango Mussolini's answers to Democrats wanting to negotiate.
explaining technicalities no one but nerds in here cares about might be fun when things are fine. things are not fine, shit is gonna hit the fan and Republicans are front and center when it happens.
Can someone explain why the US would even want to bail out Argentina to a sum of $20 billion and potentially provide a backstop to an additional $20 billion?
If I got my timeline right, the US is promising to hand over the billions if Milei’s government wins the election. But Argentina needs money now so they’ve basically pared back export tariffs on soy so multinationals who control most of the supply chain are incentivised to export more soy.
So the current situation is that China is getting cheap soy at the detriment of local Argentinian farmers (since multinationals are the ones exporting) and American farmers who have expensive soy that China doesn’t need.
Is this $20 billion (and maybe +$20 billion more) there in hopes that Argentina is going to reverse course and so in a roundabout way save American farmers by indirectly intervening in another country’s economic policy? But Milei wants to do this so why wouldn’t he just keep policy the same and just take the $20 billion to continue exporting soy to China while American farmers still eat shit.
The republicans just did the nuclear option and bypassed the filbuster when it came to apointing federalist judges why don't they just do it again now that they've passed the Rubicon?
Republicans want democrats to go along with their bill so that they can share the blame for when it goes wrong. Democrats have named their price and republicans laughed and shut down the government anyway.
On October 17 2025 05:55 Hat Trick of Today wrote: Can someone explain why the US would even want to bail out Argentina to a sum of $20 billion and potentially provide a backstop to an additional $20 billion?
If I got my timeline right, the US is promising to hand over the billions if Milei’s government wins the election. But Argentina needs money now so they’ve basically pared back export tariffs on soy so multinationals who control most of the supply chain are incentivised to export more soy.
So the current situation is that China is getting cheap soy at the detriment of local Argentinian farmers (since multinationals are the ones exporting) and American farmers who have expensive soy that China doesn’t need.
Is this $20 billion (and maybe +$20 billion more) there in hopes that Argentina is going to reverse course and so in a roundabout way save American farmers by indirectly intervening in another country’s economic policy? But Milei wants to do this so why wouldn’t he just keep policy the same and just take the $20 billion to continue exporting soy to China while American farmers still eat shit.
The order of operations is that argentina needed $20 billion to stablize its currency, it got it then removed tariffs beacuse its currency was stable, china came in and bought soybeans to replace the american farmers who had that market before. Now beacuse of that chinese purchase their currency is unstable again and turmp needs to throw $20 billion more into the hole or the first 20 is wasted.
On October 17 2025 05:55 Hat Trick of Today wrote: Can someone explain why the US would even want to bail out Argentina to a sum of $20 billion and potentially provide a backstop to an additional $20 billion?
If I got my timeline right, the US is promising to hand over the billions if Milei’s government wins the election. But Argentina needs money now so they’ve basically pared back export tariffs on soy so multinationals who control most of the supply chain are incentivised to export more soy.
So the current situation is that China is getting cheap soy at the detriment of local Argentinian farmers (since multinationals are the ones exporting) and American farmers who have expensive soy that China doesn’t need.
Is this $20 billion (and maybe +$20 billion more) there in hopes that Argentina is going to reverse course and so in a roundabout way save American farmers by indirectly intervening in another country’s economic policy? But Milei wants to do this so why wouldn’t he just keep policy the same and just take the $20 billion to continue exporting soy to China while American farmers still eat shit.
Milei is the libertarian posterboy. So for the Magats, he is on their team. You gotta support your team no matter what.
Don't look for any deeper thoughts than those, they don't exist. They might eventually find some vague reason to paint above that, but this is what it is all about.
Also, wouldn't it be silly if it turns out that the whole libertarianism fails completely stupidly in Argentina after they all said how awesome it would be? So you have to prop him up.
Fun fact, afaik this whole Argentina thing is more expensive for the US than USAID used to be.
On October 17 2025 05:55 Hat Trick of Today wrote: Can someone explain why the US would even want to bail out Argentina to a sum of $20 billion and potentially provide a backstop to an additional $20 billion?
If I got my timeline right, the US is promising to hand over the billions if Milei’s government wins the election. But Argentina needs money now so they’ve basically pared back export tariffs on soy so multinationals who control most of the supply chain are incentivised to export more soy.
So the current situation is that China is getting cheap soy at the detriment of local Argentinian farmers (since multinationals are the ones exporting) and American farmers who have expensive soy that China doesn’t need.
Is this $20 billion (and maybe +$20 billion more) there in hopes that Argentina is going to reverse course and so in a roundabout way save American farmers by indirectly intervening in another country’s economic policy? But Milei wants to do this so why wouldn’t he just keep policy the same and just take the $20 billion to continue exporting soy to China while American farmers still eat shit.
The order of operations is that argentina needed $20 billion to stablize its currency, it got it then removed tariffs beacuse its currency was stable, china came in and bought soybeans to replace the american farmers who had that market before. Now beacuse of that chinese purchase their currency is unstable again and turmp needs to throw $20 billion more into the hole or the first 20 is wasted.
But the election hasn’t happened so has the US handed the first $20 billion over yet? They’re being coy about the actual reasoning but I’m fairly sure they’re holding the funds until Milei wins.
As far as I know, people don’t trust the Argentinian government so the peso still sucks compared to the dollar. Is the goal the dollarisation of Argentina of all places?
Of course I can just stop thinking and just assume grift and theft because of course these guys would do that.
On October 17 2025 05:55 Hat Trick of Today wrote: Can someone explain why the US would even want to bail out Argentina to a sum of $20 billion and potentially provide a backstop to an additional $20 billion?
If I got my timeline right, the US is promising to hand over the billions if Milei’s government wins the election. But Argentina needs money now so they’ve basically pared back export tariffs on soy so multinationals who control most of the supply chain are incentivised to export more soy.
So the current situation is that China is getting cheap soy at the detriment of local Argentinian farmers (since multinationals are the ones exporting) and American farmers who have expensive soy that China doesn’t need.
Is this $20 billion (and maybe +$20 billion more) there in hopes that Argentina is going to reverse course and so in a roundabout way save American farmers by indirectly intervening in another country’s economic policy? But Milei wants to do this so why wouldn’t he just keep policy the same and just take the $20 billion to continue exporting soy to China while American farmers still eat shit.
The conspiracy theory answer is that Hedge fund buddies of Treasury Secretary Bessent invested in Argentina in the gamble that the country would turn itself around. It hasn't. And now the US taxpayer is trying to artificially prop up Argentina so that the hedge funds can pull out with minimal losses. The first 20 billion apparently didn't convince international markets so now they are considering setting another 20 bil on fire.
Its as good a reason as any, since the US absolutely doesn't benefit from throwing money at a country that has defaulted 3 times in the last 25 years.
EPT
