Damn them for not winning a no-win situation!

[genxlib]

This is why we lose.

This Country put the Democrats in a terrible position with no control across all branches of government.

And this week is the first of many no-win situations. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

This battle was lost in November. This is just the day when this particular casualty succumbed its injuries.

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion about what the Democrats should have done because all options suck. They are being forced to choose between which option sucks the least and I don't think there is a clear answer to that.

And yet here we are demanding for heads to roll. The Democrats are not the bad guys here.

Keep the focus on where the anger belongs.

I am sure I will get flamed for this. Just know that you will be proving my point when you do.

[FSogol]

1. Well said. N/t

[underpants]

2. I agree. I don't like it but Chuck is making the right call here.

[Think. Again.]

4. I disagree, schumer is wrong on this.

[rainy]

37. By Dave Troy of America 2.news

https://america2.news/to-survive-this-we-must-break-the-fourth-wall/

[rainy]

43. here:

https://america2.news/to-survive-this-we-must-break-the-fourth-wall/

[awesomerwb1]

54. Who??

Schumer is wrong.

[mr715]

90. Ah Hegel

I'm not sure his particular philosophy is supportive of the claim that Americans "need to break the 4th wall".

[flashman13]

60. He is absolutely wrong. This is war and you don't surrender while marching to the first battle.

[onenote]

79. And are those that will suffer in a prolonged shutdown acceptable collateral damage?

I support the judicial efforts to block various actions taken by Trump/Musk. And I'm pleased when those efforts are successful, because it means the employees and members of the public who would otherwise suffer are better off. Losing those cases would result in more harm and maybe that makes more people pissed at Trump/Musk. It's hard to have it both ways.

[gab13by13]

7. Art. 1, Section 8,

Clause 1 grants Congress the power to tax and spend money for the general welfare of the United States.

Chuck Schumer took an oath to defend the Constitution and he is going to give the powers of Congress to an illegal immigrant.

[InstantGratification]

26. Yes they have that power

They also have the power to delegate that authority. That is the same thing that goes on when congress delegates the right to a federal agency like the FAA to make rules about the safety of flight. It isn't unconstitutional to do that, it is irresponsible to delegate that authority to the executive branch without retaining the right to step in and override the executive when they go too far.

I'm torn on this one, I can imagine nightmare scenarios no matter which way this goes. I even wonder if the least worst option is for every Dem to vote against this, but not filibuster so it passes with a simple majority. At least that way, the D's can say "none of us voted for this and the R's will fully own the pain that is coming." That pain is coming and nothing D's do with this CR is going to prevent it.

This is the equivalent of playing max pass defense and giving up a first down to a run up the gut or playing max run defense and giving up the first down to a slant pass over the middle, we're screwed either way.

[in2herbs]

34. They may have the power to delegate that authority but at all times they are to retain their power

of oversight and control.

[Ocelot II]

70. It's not the same. Congress created the federal agencies to which they delegated certain powers,

but the agencies themselves don't have the power to appropriate money; they can only spend the money Congress appropriated for them. Delegating the authority to make rules isn't the same as delegating spending authority - that still belongs exclusively to Congress. SCOTUS has pretty much gutted the delegation doctrine anyhow.

[SSJVegeta]

95. He did.

[tritsofme]

114. What an utterly disgusting comment.

Chuck Schumer, our Democratic leader, has family who were killed by actual Nazis for the crime of being Jewish.

[lees1975]

83. I disagree. He needed to make them sweat it out a little bit.

Of course, if they'd have been a little less afraid of looking political, and a little more prophetically minded back in 2020, we would not be here now. It would have been a bold, but effective move to break the filibuster and pack that damn supreme court, saving Roe, avoiding a ridiculous and unconstitutional immunity ruling and making sure DJT got tagged an insurrectionist.

We would not be here now, that's for sure.

[Think. Again.]

3. The anger here is about Dem Senators supporting fascism or fighting fascism.

And there IS a clear answer to that.

[BComplex]

16. No. It's a lot more complicated than that.

And there are Dems on both side of the argument. Smart Dems and conservative dems and liberal dems and courageous dems and cowardly dems...all looking at this issue and not know which move causes less damage to their constituents.

[Think. Again.]

19. No, the bottom line is simple...

Any attempts to distract from that is just obfuscation by fascists.

[BComplex]

35. Number one: I'm not a "fascist" trying to obfuscate.

Number two: the only thing between us and trump/musk is the COURTS...which will be totally shut down if we have a total shut down! (duh?)

Furthermore: without the shut down, some of us will get our social security checks, which for millions of seniors and orphans and disabled people is the ONLY income. Will they eventually "Privatize" or do away with social security? They will definitely try. But NOT shutting the government down will at least borrow some 75+ million Americans another month or two of food/rent/insulin before they shut down social security. Is there a price to pay for that? Of course, whenever you're dealing with republicans, there's going to be a heavy price. But the alternative is worse...a total shut down. No court cases. No Social Security or medicare.

[Think. Again.]

36. No, the courts would not be shutdown...

That was a lie mistake from schumer...

Most proceedings and deadlines will occur as scheduled. In cases where an attorney from an Executive Branch agency is not working because of the shutdown, hearing and filing dates may be rescheduled.

The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system also will remain in operation for electronic filing of documents.

If the shutdown were to continue past three weeks and exhaust the federal Judiciary’s resources, the courts would then operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which allows work to continue during a lapse in appropriations if it is necessary to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers. Under this scenario, each court and federal defender’s office would determine the staffing resources necessary to support such work.

From: https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2018/12/22/judiciary-operating-during-shutdown

[BComplex]

38. That was passed just for that shut down, and the only courts open would be for criminal courts and

federal charges. THAT WOULD NOT help the cases against trump/musk that have, for instance, restored the jobs of thousands of American workers recently. So, no. That's not going to help us in this situation.

[Think. Again.]

39. The doge cases aren't Federal cases?

[BComplex]

58. They aren't criminal cases. n/t

[Think. Again.]

63. But they ARE Federal cases.

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2025, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

In general, many significant government services would continue in operation during a federal government shutdown. Even in a full government shutdown,....

-snip-

The Supreme Court and all appointed federal judges also get paid. Article III, Section 1, reads, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

From: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-federal-government-shutdowns

[questionseverything]

82. It wasn't "passed" , it's explaining how article 3 of the constitution

Keeps the courts moving

[Cirsium]

105. Hard to believe

The Republicans use the filibuster all of the time to get their way.

I don't find it in the least bit credible that anyone could truly believe that failing to use the filibuster to stop this monstrosity is the best thing for their constituents.

[-misanthroptimist]

61. You and I are SO on the same page on this

It amazes me the rationalizations I'm seeing to support cowardice and destruction.

[William769]

5. When they capitulate, thay are. nt

[stoned]

6. I certainly won't flame you for your post

We are directionless and leaderless.

Everyone can flame me instead, although I am correct.

[orangecrush]

8. If I prove your point by flaming you

Isn't that a no win situation?

[genxlib]

27. Yes it is

As intended.

A little proactive self defense on a controversial subject can be helpful.

[orangecrush]

67. ...

[ForgedCrank]

9. You will

get flamed for sure by some, but the position is valid.
A "damn the torpedoes" approach feels heroic, but there is so much at stake here that we can't really decide to ignore the consequences in the name of so many other people. In politics, being on the losing side is sometimes more than inconvenient, but we have to accept the reality of where we are.
Last night on here I expressed my own personal struggle of deciding which side of this argument to be on, and I'm still in the same place. There is no good decision and it sucks.

[LeftInTX]

55. I don't have much control over their decisions.

Yes, it's OK to get mad either way, but I really can't change minds. Schumer isn't my senator. And well, just about everyone in congress has a better grasp on the issues than I do. Is he making a mistake? Maybe, likely.

What am I gonna do about it?

Besides being an armchair quarterback and complaining online, there isn't much I can do.

I am disappointed, but he does have his point of view.


Is wanting to change leadership an acceptable response? Maybe?

Is wanting to kick Schumer out of the senate and kick him to the curb an acceptable response? I saw that here. But that is not acceptable in my book. Wanting to "get rid of Democrats" has got to be the worse response. A Republican might end up getting that seat. New York has had GOP governors in the past 40 years. That's all we need is a GOP senator from NY!

[ratchiweenie]

10. Shumer is a corporate Dem and always has been. I have no sympathy for him. We need new honest leadership.

[happy feet]

22. Distrust

What has he done that makes you assert he is dishonest?

I feel no sympathy for any of our leaders.

[questionseverything]

80. He is Wall Street's senator and he showed us all who he serves today

[ratchiweenie]

116. Yes, he is big time Wall Street and he will always come down on their side. Time for new leadership. Real leadership.

[SSJVegeta]

11. A shutdown would be a win for feds. Our congress contoninues to turn its back on the working class.

[onenote]

85. How so? Do you remember how bad the 2018-19 shutdown was for federal employees and the public?

That shutdown lasted from December 22, 2018 until January 25, 2019 -- the longest in history. During that time, around 800,000 federal workers either were furloughed or required to work without any known payment dates. Many federal employees had to find other paid work. Businesses that rely on the federal workforce, also suffered. Members of the public were harmed by reductions in payments from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, delays in processing billions in tax refund, and TSA staff shortages resulted in some airports closing down for periods of time. I personally witnessed long lines of federal employees waiting in the winter cold for free meals being provided by World Central Kitchen.

I get that we all hate Trump/Musk and what they're doing. But I'm not so Machiavellian as to believe the end justifies the mean to the extent we should be rooting for a devastating shutdown, for economic collapse that destroys people's retirement plans, for higher inflation that makes it hard for those on the margins to feed their families or keep their businesses afloat.

As I posted elsewhere -- I strongly support judicial efforts to block the Trump/Musk agenda. I wonder whether some here actually would be happier if those efforts failed if it then meant more harm to the country and thus more anger at Trump/

[SSJVegeta]

91. Ya I was there. We eventually got paid. Right now there isnt anything worse for us than what is happening right now

But thanks to this CR -giving Trump EVERYTHING he wants? There will be so much worse very soon for everybody. As a Fed worker, I'll hold my ground as long as I can, but when they get through me and our dedicated band of civil servants loyal to the constitution? The next step is to destroy, in every way, every single vulnerable person. Few have any idea how bad this is. We have been betrayed by so many elected representatives we trusted to stand in the way of authoritarianism and tyranny. This betrayal cuts deep and will never be forgotten.


Trump is using the government being open to eliminate it. Temporary shutdown would be temporarily awful. But let's see how bad things are when it is effectively permanently shut down.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

12. No flames from me

[snowybirdie]

13. It's about trust

I trust Democrats. So when a leader does something I disagree with or don't understand, I trust him or her. I don't rage against all democrats and generalize about all being weak or dumb. The alternative is so much worse and I'm not privy to all the ramifications of an issue like our leaders are. Trust our leaders please folks. They know more about issues than we sitting at home do.

[Escape]

14. We Democratic voters..

hold our Congressmen accountable for their actions and decisions. Republican voters don't.

Democrats are dedicated to fairness, honesty, truth and compassion. Republicans think those things are signs of weakness.

[HereForTheParty]

15. They deserve blame when they won't use what power they have

nm

[XanaDUer2]

17. Exactly nt

[uponit7771]

18. Americans were behind Democrats most would blame Trump/MAGA

[ms liberty]

20. There was no right answer, both options had traps and poison pills

But I have thought for a while now that Schumer is not the man for the job in this time period. Nothing personal and no fault to him.

[Martin Eden]

21. If the CR is "no win" then the decision has to be made based on a winning strategy

I think the POISON PILL of ceding Congressional authority to the Trump/Musk regime for a full year gives them free rein to destroy the institutions we are trying desperately to save.

It is a definite LOSE, akin to choosing certain death.

We don't know for certain how a government shut-down would play out. Public outcry could force Republicans back to the bargaining table.

[questionseverything]

81. Of course, public outrage could of changed some goals by the repubs

People have already got repubs scared to show up in town halls

We could of at least gained a clean cr instead of giving every part of the government to the great deceiver and his anti christ side kick

[littlemissmartypants]

23. Not having...

Served for years as a member of Congress myself and in view of the limited energy that I am able and willing to expend to entertain rage, I reserve judgment.

However, I do respect the rights of my fellow Americans to free speech and it's expression.

Thanks for sharing this, genxlib.

❤️

[Arazi]

24. Nope. Why cede these issues preemptively?

The courts are holding (atm). Nobody even knows if Trump or Vought have any of the powers Schumer believes might be authorized.

I lived through Senate Democrats arguing “we aren’t voting for war, we’re voting to give Bush the authority to wage war so Saddam can see we are unified and back down.”

Like I (and many others) said in 2002-3: You’re voting for the damn war and it’s wrong.

And here we are again.

[Bluetus]

25. Wrong. Damn them for not doing ANYTHING

There can be victory in losing. When you just hide in your bunker it is a guaranteed loss.

Why should anybody ever vote for a Democrat? That is really the question millions of people are asking themselves this morning.

This will prove to be a much bigger loss than Schumer, Gillibrand, and Fetterman understand.

When our very system of government is under attack, you have to fight, even if the outcome looks bleak.

[Wingus Dingus]

28. Yep, voters caused this. Let them soak in it.

Democrats want to see battles being fought and won by our guys in Congress, but the truth is, it's really over. We're completely out of power on a national level, and other than pointing out and condemning the damage and destruction to our nation, there's little to be done.

[Gore1FL]

29. I know it was fiction, but Jefferson Smith knew what needed to be done in a no-win situation.

We need some non-fictional heroes; I contend that they exist.

[Bluetus]

30. I wonder how many of the political geniuses here who are thrilled with yet another capitulation

are also among those who said, "Don't worry, the House can never get enough votes together to pass any legislation on their own."

[mymomwasright]

33. They're trading away for "maybe" six months down the road.

Pathetic! I'm glad Ukraine doesn't capitulate like this.

[Prairie Gates]

40. Not winning is one thing. Not fighting is another.

The kid who fought and lost always had more respect than the kid who backed down.

And you only learn how to fight by fighting.

[LizBeth]

53. What is they fight? What was the fight suppose to look at? If worse shutting down cause

trump has more control and power, why is the fight shutting down? I mean... What?

[Ping Tung]

41. Politics as usual.

It's all about making deals and showbiz
"Getting into politics is like stepping into dog shit." Che Guevara

[hadEnuf]

42. Once again, Democrats come off as weak capitulators who won't back their own perceived principals.

At this point the public doesn't give a shit if the Democrats are "administratively correct" about things. This is a street fight on a reality TV show and the Democrats keep getting beat up and having their pants yanked down around their ankles. Politics has degraded to this type of scenario and the current Democratic leadership has no clue on how to deal with it. We need street fighters.

Who cares if some people might think fighting Trump on principal might be "bad optics"? The Republicans have turned on their own legislation in the past just to stick it to Democrats. Trump still does it. Funny how the Republicans are now the ones in power and not us, eh?

Better to lose a fight than to crawl away as a victim of a bully.

[Gum Logger]

48. Democrats should have learn decades ago how to deal with the Lee Atwater political cesspool.

Maybe Dems should not run a non-white woman for POTUS unless they have their ducks in a row. Think of all the times the Repugs have successfully played the race card. Flailing away at your your enemies is probably ineffective.

[johnp3907]

44. Having us fighting each other is part of the plan.

Crazy to see how so many take the bait so easily.

[LeftInTX]

56. Exactly!!!!

[ColoradoHoosier]

45. Why get in the way of a perfectly good train wreck?

This rampaging “thing” the repubs are in control of is unsustainable and going down. I don’t think there is anything they can do about it at this point. That’s why they would absolutely love it if the dems did something/anything that they could apportion blame to.
Stay off the tracks.

[genxlib]

73. This is the argument for getting out of their way

I am not convinced that it is correct either. Again, I think both options are terrible.

But I do not consider it capitulating. I consider it getting out of the way as their shit hits the fan.

This administration has thrown a bunch of knives into the air. I don't want the Democrats trying to catch them. Some of them are already having an impact but most won't really be felt for the next 2-6 months. There will be backlash.

We are in a race against time to turn the American people against their actions to the point where they have to stop. The only question is how much damage they get done before any further push becomes unpalatable. Frankly, I think that is why they are rushing. Putting us in a position to take some blame for a painful shutdown will only slow down that turning point.

[Hotler]

46. It's simple, you either stand for democracy or you stand for fascism, there is no middle ground.

Voting yes is not defending the constitution or defending against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[CaptainTruth]

47. You're right.

Some folks seem to think Dem politicians (& law enforcement/prosecutors) have Magic Wands they can waive to do the impossible.

What frustrates me about that is those folks seem to stubbornly refuse to learn why the Magic Wands they want simply won't work. That gets tiring.

[Hornedfrog2000]

49. We have trusted this leadership

Off of a cliff. We have been told to trust the process for nearly 10 years. I dont think they understand we are literally at war. Democrats had the presidency and could have destroyed trump, and we watched at Garland did NOTHING. They did NOTHING.

[Stuckinthebush]

50. Exactly!

Great post. Dems are NOT the bad guys here. It was a crappy situation and I'm leaning toward supporting Chuck on this. No-win situation.

[LizBeth]

51. Exactly. Just posted the same in another thread blamin Schumer. From what I can see,

What I have heard, both bad, CR least bad. Trump wins either way. We lose either way.

[wryter2000]

52. Democrats are always wrong

[Ocelot II]

57. No flames from me. I've stayed out of this whole discussion

because I honestly don't know what to think. There were two available choices, both of them bad. There is no good outcome whether or not the CR is approved. If the government is shut down the Dems would be blamed and shitty things will happen because what's left of the government will stop working along with the parts DOGE already scrapped. If it isn't shut down and the CR is approved shitty things will still happen, and the Dems will be blamed for not shutting down the government and allowing the shitty things to happen. It's all bad. I suppose voting for the CR is a good thing for the federal employees that haven't already been fired, and it's a good thing to keep the courts running at normal capacity because there are still some judges willing to throw sand in Trump's gears. But it's clearly a bad thing to give Trump the power to control federal spending, which according to the Constitution is an exclusive power of the legislative branch. Maybe that part of the CR will be challenged in court since it's probably unconstitutional. In the meantime it's all bad and we're stuck with it, but it seems to me that busting on the Democrats won't improve anything. Sure, call/email/write Schumer and your senators and give them an earful, but we can't forget for a minute who the real adversaries are.

[DownriverDem]

59. Totally agree

trump gains more power if the CR doesn't pass. So all you Dem attackers, please tell us what you want the Dems to do.

[Orrex]

62. That whole "this is why we lose" shtick is pure gaslighting

Walk me through the thinking on that: we lose because… why exactly? Because we want our elected legislators to defend the constitution and represent the interests of their constituents? How does that lead to defeat, exactly?

Democrats lose because they fail again and again to control the narrative, which has been entirely dominated by KKKonservatives for 4+ decades.

Blaming the voters for the legislators’ failure is blaming the victim. Just like the cheerleaders blaming DUers when we criticized Garland’s endless slog toward nothing.


And we see it again and again and again and again and again on DU.

[ananda]

64. Agree.

However, I don't think things can go on like this for
too much longer.

I'm not sure exactly how much longer, though.

[Happy Hoosier]

65. Gonna disagree...

Just because it's a no win situation doesn't mean you don't fight.

We need leaders who understand that.

Chuck is acting all this is fiarly normal. He'll tsk, tsk, and shake his head as he looks at his over his grandpa glasses, but he doesn't have a plan... at least not one he can articulate. I'd be okay with picking our fights if I had any confidence there was going actually BE a fight. But I don't see it. Do you? AS best as I can tell, their plan is do nothing and hope people vote Democrat by default. But if Democrats aren't actively and loudly fighting back, what are we actually voting for?

[Happy Hoosier]

66. Hey, Mt. Passive aggressive....

"I am sure I will get flamed for this. Just know that you will be proving my point when you do."

UttYou post some snarky-ass BS and then "don't flame me Bro!" passive aggressive nonsense.

I am unwilling to just let things happen. If you are, well, that's on you. If Democrats in the Senate can't use the only leverage they have, WTF good are they?

[genxlib]

74. I will accept the 'passive aggressive' criticism as valid

I should have framed my closing otherwise so I apologize.

But I am still not the bad guy here. So any anger directed towards me is not productive which is all I was trying to say.

[MontanaMama]

68. As of this morning. FOTUS is praising

Schumer’s “support of the budget”. Schumer is wrong on this. Yes, a shutdown is painful and rethugs need to be hung with this budget.

[Autumn]

69. Democrats lose because they don't fight. Their silly Congressional traditions are more

important than our democracy.

[Upthevibe]

71. genxlib ...........

I agree with you 100%! Thank you.............

[Sneederbunk]

72. We needed strength and Schumer gave us this.

[Progressive dog]

75. Thanks

[Skittles]

76. no

we LOSE because we DON'T SHOW REAL COURAGE

Link to tweet

[Gimpyknee]

92. The Onion speaks truth once again.

[questionseverything]

77. The power we had was to not help them with the 60 vote threshold

But that power was huge

So your opinion is wrong, we had power , the senate minority leader squandered it

[Gimpyknee]

94. It's time for new leadership.

I hope that Schumer and Durbin are serving their last terms. It’s time to put these two to pasture.

[pat_k]

78. Largely agree, as posted ...

...here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220139065

The thing is, our constitution has a remedy for a lawless, out-of-control executive led by a lawless out-of-control president and vice president and that's articles of impeachment against both of them declaring the full nature of their crimes against the American people.

Remind the American people that they ARE NOT at the mercy of a criminal executive backed by a corrupt supreme court. It is ultimately up to We the People, through our representatives in the House (to set forth offenses against us) and the people we elected to the Senate (to pass judgement on those offenses).

I believe drafting articles and making that the vehicle behind which we organize, whatever the outcome, and however many times introduction is blocked, is the only completely consistent response.

They are commiting crimes against us in plain sight. We have a remedy. This is it and they can draft articles and call on everyone in the nation who is committed to defending our constitution to lobby their representatives to co-sign or be voted out in favor of someone who will.

We ARE NOT POWERLESS.

The most effective way to give the American people the hope they can fix this that is absolutely necessary to mobilize action is to remind them that we created a constitution that gave them an enormous power beyond our power to vote: We gave ourselves the power of impeachment and removal.

The outcome is irrelevant. Do NOT accept "can't win so don't fight" preemptive surrender.

Fighting for the remedy We the People put in place to ensure WE had the ultimate say over an executive who is commiting high crimes against our founding principles is absolutely necessary.

The judiciary may save us, but we must not rely on that. They are not the ultimate judges of what constitutes high crimes against us by a President or Vice President. To demand they condemn the actions as crimes against us, without demanding that our representatives fight for impeachment, is essentially to accept our impotence.

And if members of SCOTUS fail to do their jobs; if they prove themselves co-conspirators in the crimes against us, then we must demand that articles of impeachment be brought against them for those crimes.

We DO have the power.

[JustAnotherGen]

84. Chuck Schumer

And Durbin need to be replaced as leaders.

Booker and Duckworth?

I think they are in better positions and have the right level.of cynicism to meet the moment. Schumer and Durbin are needed in our Senate -

But they don't have the fight in them to lead an Opposition Party.

[Trueblue Texan]

86. When all options are losers, shouldn't you just opt for what is moral? nt

[mcar]

87. All their options sucked

Because the country elected anarchists.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220139581

[godsentme]

88. IMHO it is a lose .. lose choice for Dems

I somewhat lean towards shutting down but it seems to me that Dems lose either way.

[Buzz cook]

89. They don't have to win, just fight.

Choosing the not fighting option is always going to lose.
The democratic party had a chance to bring the republicans to the bargaining table. They decided to let the fascists have free rein instead because closing down the government would be a bad look.

[Sessuch]

96. I agree.

Since they ave quit fighting, I have quit fighting for the DEMs. Monday I will be at the registrar's office to cancel my DEM registration.

[Buddyzbuddy]

93. This was not a coin flip, the Democratic majority

of Senators wanted a no vote. This wasn't a no vote just to say no. It was purposeful. Chuck Schumer needed to back the majority not provide cover for the others that weren't willing to do what was needed. Sure, tough decision but his way gave all control and support to a Republican party that is making bad decision upon bad decision. When we had an opportunity to give support to our fighters he told them to lay down their only available weapon. He did so during a moment that
they needed a win. A bitter sweet win but a win nevertheless. It could have forced 1. a possible delay of 1 month and 2. the proposals of the Democrats would've need to be considered. A small semblance of control.
Instead Senator weak knees surrendered. To what, fight another day? Now they have to face their constituents and carry your water because you were too weak.
Durbin has been weak on the Judicial committee, Gillibrand was exposed during the primaries, Fetterman has been the biggest disappointment since Sinema, 3 Senators are heading for the exits and now we have Masto to deal with. This is who you gave support to. Schumer, you are such a limp noodle. You don't deserve support from anybody, for anything. Leader my arse. I don't imagine you could do anything to earn my respect back and I know I'm not alone. You crumb.

[Hekate]

99. What "Democratic majority of Senators" are you talking about? Our Dems are in the minority in both Houses.

This sht is what happens when a party is in the minority. They didn’t ask for this — they are dealing with it as best they can. Now what are we the Dem voters going to do about it? Throw them (the Dems) all out of office at the first opportunity? Wow, that’ll help.

[Buddyzbuddy]

103. The majority of Democratic Senators.

I think we all know they are the minority party.
1. They don't all come up for election at the same time.
2. More stringent screening is need before they get our votes and yes, sometimes they'll slip by.
3. That's the kind of thinking Schumer is counting on.
Heaven forbid we should hold our own accountable, because that's the solution.
If the majority of the Democratic Party says this is the way we should go, and here are the reasons why but you decide, nope, I'm going to do things my way, how does that help? That sounds like somebody else we know and he's referred to himself as a King. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Schumer has made that claim but clearly his one vote was more that just a vote.
We all agree, this was a difficult call but in that case, why would you vote against the majority. The subject of the vote, not simple, the choice of the vote, clearly simple. Support your party, not the cowardly Republicans willing to give the Felon everything he wants.

[rickyhall]

97. Cheating bastards

[Hekate]

98. Thx genxlib

[SunSeeker]

100. Exactly. You don't blame the kidnapping on the parent who paid the ransom.

Although I know this encourages more kidnappings.

But it's the Republicans who are the criminals.

[Morbius]

101. The darkness approaches.

We are in the twilight of American democracy. We have a few months, maybe less. We may not have any chance of saving the nation we love, but I absolutely guarantee we will fail if we do not stand together.

Bitch about Schumer all you like. It's music to Trump's ears.

[yourout]

102. The anger is because he never really tried.

[Cirsium]

104. It wasn't "no win"

Republicans win all of the time using the filibuster.

[iemanja]

106. Bullshit

Pelosi handled such situations and managed to get concessions. Schumer didn’t even try. His career is over.

I have nothing but disgust for capitulation to the far right, which has become commonplace of late. We even see celebration of actions undermining the First Amendment. This is how authoritarianism prevails.

[J_William_Ryan]

107. "This battle was lost in November."

Exactly.

And shutting down the government would have done nothing to stop Trump; it wouldn't have 'sent a message.'

It would have backfired on Democrats as it did Republicans in the past.

To attack Senator Schumer is unwarranted and wrongheaded.

[BidenRocks]

108. The Kobayashi Maru

In Star Trek, the ultimate no win scenario.
Kirk beat it by cheating.
Life imitates art, no?

[Raine]

109. Agree ... nt

[Cha]

110. lol... I like your Spirit, genXlib.

Thank You!

[Meowmee]

111. I listened to his reasoning on Chris Hayes' show

It seems if there is a shut down the executive branch, etc., and all the others get to do whatever they want to with no way to stop it. He didn’t elaborate on that so I’m not sure if that’s true or not. And if that was always the case. That if there is a shut down, all the power goes to the executive and the party in power. That would certainly be a worse situation than this although I don’t know how you could get even worse than this- it seems hard to believe.

Also, since they would have that extra power, they are the ones that decide when the shut down will end I suppose- it could go on forever while they keep destroying the government. Some have said that the courts will stay open, but I read that they will stay open for 35 days and then it will be bare bones. So what happens then if the shutdown goes longer than 35 days?

I think if you’re going to say this is what is going to happen and this is why I’m doing it. You should also explain exactly and specifically which laws, etc. are now allowing this to happen. I have never heard anything like that about a shutdown before.

If this is true, it just hammers home for me once again how crazy the system is here. The system is why you have any of this even happening because you have no standards for who can run for office.

I also wonder why anyone thinks R are going to be pressured to negotiate a better cr if there is a shutdown. I just don’t see that happening. I think they’re just intent on destroying and looting the government etc. any way they can. Short of eliminating their own jobs etc. You would have to have massive protests and social disruption in order for them to really feel pressure imo. In which case psycho could do the marshall law move etc.

[PunkinPi]

112. K&R nt

[Pototan]

113. I couldn't agree with you more

Well said.

[True Dough]

115. A hearty rec!

I want righteous indignation. I want obstacles to Trump and his Project 2025 agenda.

But the American people put Dems in a corner for now. It seems like the worst possible time for that to happen, but it happened, most unfortunately.