I believe they’ll have a vote in the Senate. And I believe even if it passes, Republicans only agreed to it after confirming Johnson won’t even hold a vote in the House.

The shift this time was particularly remarkable given that the legislation Republicans have offered does not address Democrats’ main demand in the shutdown fight: the extension of health insurance tax credits that are slated to expire at the end of the year.

Instead, the Democratic splinter group appeared to have received a commitment from Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, to allow a vote in December on extending the tax credits for a year. Many Democrats have said for weeks that such a pledge would be insufficient to win them over, since such a bill has appeared all but certain to die in the Republican-led Congress.

I guess I jinxed it by starting to hope democrats had learned anything at all about negotiation.

Anyone have a list of the defectors?

Edit/Edit2: silence7’s other post has the list, here.

Two thoughts I saw elsewhere, but I agree with:

1. The Democrats were winning the PR battle with Republicans owning (as they should) all the pain they are causing. Democrats for no coherent reason decided to change their votes. So now they probably will own this, since it now looks like they held out for nothing. They volunteered to take the heat for Republicans in exchange for the incredible prize of unaffordable healthcare.

2. The people who defected apparently are not going to be up for election soon or ever, and are in states that have been purple at least recently. Shaheen isn’t seeking reelection. Hassan and Fetterman are 2028. Kaine and King are 2030. This does allow for the possibility they are just taking the heat for something the caucus jointly decided, and the outrage by others (including Schumer) is totally performative.

[Grab shoulders and shake violently enough to cause Shaken Adult Syndrome]

BUT IT’S SO VERSATILE! STOP SLEEPING ON IT!

The article doesn’t make clear, but it seems like there is no reasoning or opinion given since this is an emergency order.

But most interesting is that this appears to be the sole decision of Justice Jackson, possibly the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court. So I’d love to know what the rationale was.

After a Boston appeals court declined to immediately intervene, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an order late Friday pausing the requirement to distribute full SNAP payments until the appeals court rules on whether to issue a more lasting pause. Jackson handles emergency matters from Massachusetts.

The push for reeducation instead of funding for coal is one factor that likely sank HilDog’s 2016 campaign. The debate on their side never got past “Me, change? No, you change!”

Good! You can’t trust him, or republicans!

“Give us what we want now and you’ll get what you want later, maybe” is exactly the kind of illusory compromise the democrats usually fall for - are they actually finally learning?

Healthcare is a perfect case in point: While most independents are blaming republicans for the shutdown, republican voters are still blaming democrats despite democrats trying to keep healthcare costs from rising. Because their version of “not paying attention to politics” is uncritically accepting Fox News’ narrative that democrats want to give illegal immigrants free healthcare.

They won’t even critically engage until they are personally harmed, and by then, they have already sunk-cost-fallacied themselves into blaming democrats and just need Fox to update the new reason for the blame.

Honestly, this is fine. This is a healthy community. If we had an exponential growth curve, the AI bots, clout-chasting influencers, marketers and data-mining scrapers would be all over these instances, and Lemmy frankly has very poor tools to deal with it.

There aren’t the niche communities, I agree that that’s regrettable. But we really do run into scaling problems.

Right, what you said, but I’d remove the part where it increases productivity.

The headline is clickbait and false by omission, even in the text of the article.

When you actually watch the interview, she says she regrets her vote “in terms of food insecurity” but can’t help immediately pivoting to “he’s doing a great job with the border.” (Presumably, his great job at the southern border in…Portland Oregon.) When asked if it will affect her voting decisions, she hems and haws that it “depends” on the administration’s response.

So in reality: She barely regrets one part of her vote but declines to say she regrets her vote overall. I’m guessing she’ll be voting straight ticket for Trump’s third term or whatever her feed tells her to.

And that’s the best she can do for her daughter, a diabetic who is on SNAP. Lots of self-reflection going on here.

Some of this information was available but read the entire article. It’s very good reporting on just how clear Trump’s intent to break the law was, the extreme sensitivity of the documents, and the clear lies Trump told in response to the raid and demands. Just an example excerpt:

Olsen’s minders then told him about a fourth stack of documents, stored in a separate safe, explaining that only one agent in the field office was approved to handle them. Each of the documents in the safe bore a ticket with coding that described its unique handling instructions — above and beyond the strict approvals for highly sensitive top-secret and sensitive compartmented information.

Olsen got on the phone with his counsel to read the codes aloud, one by one, to determine if he had permission to view them. Some of the documents were so restricted that top Justice Department security officials reacted with surprise to the code names: They had never heard of them before. Some involved special access programs that required the president or a cabinet member to grant approval to view.

The documents that Trump did not turn over - after repeated requests were ignored, after turning over the initial boxes, the false “complete” folder of additional documents, showing the FBI the room with other boxes that was staged after they moved out other incriminating documents - were documents so sensitive that infosec policy required the acting president or cabinet member to personally authorize any request to view them.

If Trump “authorizes” the DOJ to settle his frivolous lawsuit related to the FBI raid, it will be a criminal openly stealing public funds in retribution for catching him red-handed after he repeatedly lied to police, and for nearly but not even making him face consequences. It gives me a headache how corrupt, unethical, and immoral that would be.

It’s the glycerin. Look at the contents of nearly every protein bar, and glycerin is in the first four ingredients, and man, once you know that, you can taste it, it coats your mouth, it doesn’t leave, and it tastes exactly like it sounds.