5 ms·

Remember, the pain this is causing everyone means less to the people in power than does the benefits of this shutdown (to them). We can argue about what those

by e40 11mo ago

Remember, the pain this is causing everyone means less to the people in power than does the benefits of this shutdown (to them). We can argue about what those benefits are all day long, but they wouldn't be refusing to have discussions with the Dems if there were not some benefit, be it political power they can wield, or whatever.

nostrademons 11mo ago
It's interesting how the effects of filter bubbles are playing out here. Everyone believes that they have the upper hand and the majority of the American people are on their side, because computerized personalization shows them only opinions from people who agree with them. As a result, they think that the negative popular opinion for the shutdown will fall primarily on the other party, and so it is rational for them to continue the shutdown until the other party blinks. Of course, the other party has the same information distortion in the opposite direction, so they also believe that if they just keep going, the American public will blame their opponents. In reality, the public is pretty close to split down the middle, and both parties are getting blamed, and the real message that people are taking away from this is that Congress is dysfunctional. It's a game of chicken where both parties think that the other side will blink, and so they just end up crashing.
- grebc 11mo ago
  Reminds me of the dysfunction the Roman Republic towards the end of it’s time. It’s not unique to the US however, I think maybe we are all approaching the end of the line for current political/civil systems without further work that no one seems interested in taking.
  - actionfromafar 11mo ago
    That Meta and Twitter seems interested in. The tail isn’t wagging the dog anymore, the tail(s) are the dog at this point.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lurquer 11mo ago
    Good grief. The shutdown is a temporary budget squabble in a stable democracy; a banal political stunt that has happened every few years for the past few decades. Rome’s dysfunction meant civil wars, assassinations, generals seizing poWer, private armies, and uprising (in a fundamentally different society where, incidentally, over 25% of the population was slaves.) There has been over 2000 years of history since Rome… when a the only analogy a person can come up with is some half-baked allusion to the Roman Empire/Republic it’s a good bet said person lacks a sense of history, knowledge of current events, and common sense. Sorry to be harsh.
    - more_corn 11mo ago
      We’re seeing deliberate attacks on: Fair elections Rule of law Independence of courts Checks and balances I expect if you don’t think this is going to get bad you’re not paying attention.
      - lurquer 11mo ago
        None of which has anything to do with the ‘last days of the Roman Republic.’ Feel free to panic and tear your hair out… that’s what both sides do. Boring. The post, however, make some pretentious analogy to the Roman Republic. The analogy was silly. That’s all. It’s just an annoying variant of Godwins law: Rome or Hitler… the only two analogies available to those ignorant of history.
        grebc 11mo ago
        No one’s panicking but you pal. I made an observation that the present day is rhyming with history. You’re now raising Godwin’s law. Good job.
    - grebc 11mo ago
      Assassination & attempted assassinations have all happened within 12ish months. You’ve got an executive branch stacking all open positions in judicial and legislative branches with their political appointees. And the executive is interpreting the law to gather as much power as possible to the head of state. It’s not hard to see the parallels but you keep on trucking dude.
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - summa_tech 11mo ago
    What does the Supreme Court or White House have to do with the bipartisan agreement between Senate garbagepersons to retain the insane filibuster policy that guarantees non-resolution of simple deadlocks?
    - actionfromafar 11mo ago
      [flagged]
  - docdeek 11mo ago
    Polling suggests that independents don’t “overwhelmingly" blame the GOP. It’s split 48/32/14 GOP/Dem/Equal "Democrats and Republicans hold each other's party more responsible for the government shutdown. Among independents, 48 percent think Republicans in Congress are more responsible, while 32 percent think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 14 percent volunteered that they think both parties are equally responsible.” https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938
    - estearum 11mo ago
      A 16 point difference is quite substantial in American politics. It's a matter of taste whether you consider it "overwhelming," but it's objectively not split down the middle.
    - fzeroracer 11mo ago
      This is true, but it's also changing every week to where people increasingly blame the Republicans. A lot of people are still completely insulated from the consequences of the current shutdown, but as food benefits lapse and air travel shuts down people are going to blame the very public president and party that's allowing this to happen.
  - 11mo ago
- techblueberry 11mo ago
  Trump said it was Republicans fault.
lesuorac 11mo ago
I mean they wouldn't talk to democrats before the shutdown so it seems entirely reasonable for them not to talk to them afterwards. I still find it (morbidly) hilarious that congress considers doing their job the "nuclear option". If they weren't hiding behind the filibuster and started legislating maybe their approval rating wouldn't be such trash.
tbrownaw 11mo ago
I'd kinda assumed that any "benefits" were mostly about the opportunity to blame it on the other party and try to corner them into blinking first. (Note this works identically well regardless of which side of the aisle you read it as being about.)
rainsford 11mo ago
The problem is that it's existential for both Democrats and Republicans. Given the current makeup of the federal government, Republicans basically have all the power and have been able to leverage that into spending the last 10 months doing whatever they want. The exception to that power is the Democrats' ability to filibuster in the Senate and shut down the government by not agreeing to whatever the Republicans put forward. The actual demands I think are essentially irrelevant. If Republicans give up anything to the Democrats, the spell of the last 10 months is broken and Republicans can no longer unilaterally control the direction of government. If Democrats don't get any concessions, they're essentially irrelevant for the next 14 months and that only changes if they win either the House or Senate in 2026. Given that, it's not obvious how this ends.
- consumer451 11mo ago
  > I’m glad there’s OxyContin and video games to keep those people quiet.
- mcphage 11mo ago
  > The problem is that it's existential for both Democrats and Republicans. > If Republicans give up anything to the Democrats, the spell of the last 10 months is broken and Republicans can no longer unilaterally control the direction of government. How is that in any way shape or form “existential”? Existential means “if they fail they cease to exist or matter”, not “if they fail they don’t get to whatever the fuck they want”.
  - rainsford 11mo ago
    Yeah I did think about that after I made the post. I agree that you and jaybrendansmith are probably right in that it should be a bigger deal for the Democrats than the Republicans. I'm not sure Congressional Republicans see it that way though and I was thinking more about how they view the standoff, since that's important in seeing how or if there is a path towards ending the shutdown. They've made a pretty unprecedented bet on unilateral party-line action and the legislative branch significantly deferring to the executive. I'm sure they're concerned about what the party looks like trying to transition back to a more normal way of doing business, especially given what their voters are now primed to expect. I agree this should not be existential, but I also don't understand congressional Republicans putting themselves in this situation in the first place, so clearly I'm not looking at the situation the same way they are.

by e40 11mo ago

nostrademons 11mo ago

It's interesting how the effects of filter bubbles are playing out here. Everyone believes that they have the upper hand and the majority of the American people are on their side, because computerized personalization shows them only opinions from people who agree with them. As a result, they think that the negative popular opinion for the shutdown will fall primarily on the other party, and so it is rational for them to continue the shutdown until the other party blinks. Of course, the other party has the same information distortion in the opposite direction, so they also believe that if they just keep going, the American public will blame their opponents. In reality, the public is pretty close to split down the middle, and both parties are getting blamed, and the real message that people are taking away from this is that Congress is dysfunctional. It's a game of chicken where both parties think that the other side will blink, and so they just end up crashing.

grebc 11mo ago
Reminds me of the dysfunction the Roman Republic towards the end of it’s time. It’s not unique to the US however, I think maybe we are all approaching the end of the line for current political/civil systems without further work that no one seems interested in taking.
- actionfromafar 11mo ago
  That Meta and Twitter seems interested in. The tail isn’t wagging the dog anymore, the tail(s) are the dog at this point.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- lurquer 11mo ago
  Good grief. The shutdown is a temporary budget squabble in a stable democracy; a banal political stunt that has happened every few years for the past few decades. Rome’s dysfunction meant civil wars, assassinations, generals seizing poWer, private armies, and uprising (in a fundamentally different society where, incidentally, over 25% of the population was slaves.) There has been over 2000 years of history since Rome… when a the only analogy a person can come up with is some half-baked allusion to the Roman Empire/Republic it’s a good bet said person lacks a sense of history, knowledge of current events, and common sense. Sorry to be harsh.
  - more_corn 11mo ago
    We’re seeing deliberate attacks on: Fair elections Rule of law Independence of courts Checks and balances I expect if you don’t think this is going to get bad you’re not paying attention.
    - lurquer 11mo ago
      None of which has anything to do with the ‘last days of the Roman Republic.’ Feel free to panic and tear your hair out… that’s what both sides do. Boring. The post, however, make some pretentious analogy to the Roman Republic. The analogy was silly. That’s all. It’s just an annoying variant of Godwins law: Rome or Hitler… the only two analogies available to those ignorant of history.
      - grebc 11mo ago
        No one’s panicking but you pal. I made an observation that the present day is rhyming with history. You’re now raising Godwin’s law. Good job.
  - grebc 11mo ago
    Assassination & attempted assassinations have all happened within 12ish months. You’ve got an executive branch stacking all open positions in judicial and legislative branches with their political appointees. And the executive is interpreting the law to gather as much power as possible to the head of state. It’s not hard to see the parallels but you keep on trucking dude.
lesuorac 11mo ago
[flagged]
- summa_tech 11mo ago
  What does the Supreme Court or White House have to do with the bipartisan agreement between Senate garbagepersons to retain the insane filibuster policy that guarantees non-resolution of simple deadlocks?
  - actionfromafar 11mo ago
    [flagged]
- docdeek 11mo ago
  Polling suggests that independents don’t “overwhelmingly" blame the GOP. It’s split 48/32/14 GOP/Dem/Equal "Democrats and Republicans hold each other's party more responsible for the government shutdown. Among independents, 48 percent think Republicans in Congress are more responsible, while 32 percent think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 14 percent volunteered that they think both parties are equally responsible.” https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938
  - estearum 11mo ago
    A 16 point difference is quite substantial in American politics. It's a matter of taste whether you consider it "overwhelming," but it's objectively not split down the middle.
  - fzeroracer 11mo ago
    This is true, but it's also changing every week to where people increasingly blame the Republicans. A lot of people are still completely insulated from the consequences of the current shutdown, but as food benefits lapse and air travel shuts down people are going to blame the very public president and party that's allowing this to happen.
- 11mo ago
techblueberry 11mo ago
Trump said it was Republicans fault.

lesuorac 11mo ago

I mean they wouldn't talk to democrats before the shutdown so it seems entirely reasonable for them not to talk to them afterwards. I still find it (morbidly) hilarious that congress considers doing their job the "nuclear option". If they weren't hiding behind the filibuster and started legislating maybe their approval rating wouldn't be such trash.

tbrownaw 11mo ago

I'd kinda assumed that any "benefits" were mostly about the opportunity to blame it on the other party and try to corner them into blinking first. (Note this works identically well regardless of which side of the aisle you read it as being about.)

rainsford 11mo ago

The problem is that it's existential for both Democrats and Republicans. Given the current makeup of the federal government, Republicans basically have all the power and have been able to leverage that into spending the last 10 months doing whatever they want. The exception to that power is the Democrats' ability to filibuster in the Senate and shut down the government by not agreeing to whatever the Republicans put forward. The actual demands I think are essentially irrelevant. If Republicans give up anything to the Democrats, the spell of the last 10 months is broken and Republicans can no longer unilaterally control the direction of government. If Democrats don't get any concessions, they're essentially irrelevant for the next 14 months and that only changes if they win either the House or Senate in 2026. Given that, it's not obvious how this ends.

consumer451 11mo ago
> I’m glad there’s OxyContin and video games to keep those people quiet.
mcphage 11mo ago
> The problem is that it's existential for both Democrats and Republicans. > If Republicans give up anything to the Democrats, the spell of the last 10 months is broken and Republicans can no longer unilaterally control the direction of government. How is that in any way shape or form “existential”? Existential means “if they fail they cease to exist or matter”, not “if they fail they don’t get to whatever the fuck they want”.
- rainsford 11mo ago
  Yeah I did think about that after I made the post. I agree that you and jaybrendansmith are probably right in that it should be a bigger deal for the Democrats than the Republicans. I'm not sure Congressional Republicans see it that way though and I was thinking more about how they view the standoff, since that's important in seeing how or if there is a path towards ending the shutdown. They've made a pretty unprecedented bet on unilateral party-line action and the legislative branch significantly deferring to the executive. I'm sure they're concerned about what the party looks like trying to transition back to a more normal way of doing business, especially given what their voters are now primed to expect. I agree this should not be existential, but I also don't understand congressional Republicans putting themselves in this situation in the first place, so clearly I'm not looking at the situation the same way they are.