Why would Trump sign? That is one step closer to releasing the Epstein files and proving that the President of the United States of America is a pedophile.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
119 points (97.6% liked)
politics
26325 readers
2715 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democratic senators voting in favor:
- Dick Durbin (Illinois)
- Angus King (Maine, independent caucusing with Democrats)
- Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire)
- Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
- Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada)
- Jacky Rosen (Nevada)
- John Fetterman (Pennsylvania)
- Tim Kaine (Virginia)
ugh. durbins a lame duck and I guess this is what he wants his legacy to be.
The Senate, however, is expected to leave for a previously scheduled weeklong recess as soon as it can clear the funding package for the House, which could incentivize lawmakers not to hold up the process.
Why work when you already get paid for doing absolutely nothing?
This is not the first time voting became a priority before vacation gets cancelled.
They have vacation plans that can’t be just ruined because some poors will lose access to healthcare, 85% of their campaign is funded by 5 people and they all have amazing healthcare.
OK, this is starting to make sense.
The deal says "You have to put the ACA subsidies to a vote by December. In return, we'll fund the government until January."
So they're not giving up their leverage, because if the Republicans fuck around the Dems can just slam the brakes on again right away. Meanwhile it puts the ball squarely in the Republicans court to actually do something about this issue that is raising healthcare prices for people all across America. It puts the focus on the Republican controlled House, and on Trump, letting the public really see who is fighting for them and who isn't.
I know it's easy to assume that this is another example of Shumer caving (God only knows, he does it so much I'm starting to think his spine is a paper straw), but looking at the details I'm starting to think this is actually a solid play.
This sounds naive, nothing personal. Mike Johnson already openly said he doesn't promise anything. There will either be no vote on the ACA or Republicans will just all vote against it.
Democrats got played and they deserve all the hatred thrown at them for it.
Democrats got played and they deserve all the hatred thrown at them for it.
Democrats did exactly what their donors wanted. If you think they were actually trying to help you you're the one that got played.
Their donors wanted a shutdown for 40 or so days ? And which specific donors ? Explain that to me, because it sounds idiotic and just a lazy argument. 'Oh the donors behind it all wanted this' doesn't mean anything.
Ok, let me explain. You see, when government gives some benefits to people (like SNAP) or when it hires federal workers private companies don't profit and people donating to both parties don't like that. They would like to every penny spend in the US to go through their hands so they can get a cut.
So for example, you have federal workers responsible for checking if people pay taxes, administering public roads, schools, collecting garbage and so on. When you shutdown the government and fire those people (as Trump did) they will not be hired back when the government re-opens. Government will not have enough people to do some of the things it used to do so it will hire private companies to do it. Those companies will pay their workers less, charge the government more and the donors will pocket the difference. That's taxpayers money going straight to their pockets. Money they couldn't get without a shutdown.
Same with benefits. When government gives people money for food it's just lost to the rich people. They don't get anything out of it. Cut SNAP and people will be even more desperate to work so it will be easier to exploit them. With all the benefits cut the government will have some money left in the budget so they will be able to lower the taxes for the rich: win-win.
Their goal is to privatize everything. Shutdown is a small step in that direction.
Fast forward to January:
Republicans: "This is the exact same budget that was passed two months ago. Democrats voted for it then so they have vote it again. We also had the ACA vote as we promised. Democrats can't be trusted so we're not negotiating".
Democrats: "Yes, we got the vote on ACA we got promised but it didn't pass so we're shutting down the government again."
How is that a win?
Disagree.
Democrats have the leverage now, and there isn't any reason why Republicans can't put a temporary extension in the ACA credits now anyway.
Buying time does nothing for democrats but gives Republicans slack to change the focus before committing to anything. This is a cowardly backpeddle, not a calculated maneuver
No, it really doesn't make sense. You've described a complicated setup when the simple setup would be to simply have the vote in question first. That way you don't have any risk of anyone lying to you.
But the other problem is that these Democrats caved once which means they're going to cave again because the Republicans can recreate the exact same setup. All Republicans need to do is promise to have a vote on something in the future in order to make the Democrats cave on any given issue now. That's the precedent that these eight senators have set.
What the American people want to see, and this is clear if you look at the numbers from across the country, is for Democrats to stand up and fight against the Republicans. Even if the promised vote takes place, which it won't, that won't actually help the average working American. We all know it, and we find it unforgivable that these senators would pretend otherwise.
Why would they release actual unredacted documents? It will just be a fairy tale about evil dems.
My thoughts on this aligh with you. But I'll add one more layer to what you've said... This forces the government to open even temporarily which now leaves no excuse for Speaker Mike Johnson for not swearing in Adaleta Grejalva (my apologies for the misspelling). And with her sworn in that is the final vote needed to move on releasing the Epstein files, which if the recent rumors floating around are to be believed then they are sooo much worse for trump than originally thought. But supposedly there's enough Republicans willing to sign on with the release that the it looks like the Dems are trying to pull this bait and switch... or atleast that's how I've taken all this movement in the last few days.
The deal is government opens. That's it.
Democrats just voted for that. That's it.
There is no assumption. The vote already happened.
I know it’s easy to assume that this is another example of Shumer caving
People are going to, but Schumer is at least saying he's against it, and wasn't one of the votes.
He's not a leader, he was there to relay orders from the DNC to politicians, and any "power" he had with that was the DNC bankrupting someone's state party if they refused to obey.
Without a corrupt DNC backing him, no one cares what Schumer says/thinks.
It's a big reason why Schumer needs replaced in leadership asap.
He's completely useless, so we might as well give it to a young/popular senator. Someone that Dem voters like at least. Everytime Schumer steps in front of a mic, it depresses Dem turnout.
Quick edit:
To be clear, this is how every neoliberal "led".
And why I hate people saying "Well, Pelosi was good at whipping votes"...
She was just willing to bankrupt entire state parties handing seats to republicans if anyone with a D by their name didn't do what the neoliberala running the DNC wanted.
That was never a good thing.
But now we're returning to a bottom-up structure. Where elected reps answer to voters, and all the DNC does is run unbiased primaries every four years and ensures the state parties are funded enough to compete.
We don't want a powerful DNC, that's been the problem for 30-50 years now....
When it comes down to it they don't want to shoulder the bad guy thing for the holidays. Problem is that folks have to decide on getting healthcare by end of november.
How would the Democrats "slam the brakes" exactly?
They're giving up a big part of it. They're funding several different departments through 2026.