this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
109 points (96.6% liked)

Progressive Politics

2227 readers
848 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

House Democrats are known to be wary of playing any kind of role in shutting down the government. Hell, they hate being perceived as having even considered the idea that a government shutdown could do them political good.

During the 118th Congress, they routinely bailed out a narrow Republican majority when GOP lawmakers just couldn’t pass their own agenda. But now, in the age of Elon and DOGE and with the latest government funding deadline approaching and the House Republican majority as narrow and fractious as ever, there’s real skepticism that Democrats will save Republican leaders from their own failures.

Republican lawmakers certainly are concerned, as evidenced by the fact that they’re already blaming Democrats for not bailing them out.

“Republicans do not have the votes to keep government open on our own,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.). “So if Democrats want to shut it down, they can.”

Such spin runs hard into some pretty obvious realities. As Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, noted to The Bulwark, Republicans hold the agenda-setting White House, comfortably control the Senate, and maintain a House majority, their whisper-thin two-seat margin notwithstanding. With a governing trifecta come opportunities but also responsibilities.

“Who’s in charge? White House, House, and Senate,” DeLauro said. “They got it all. They got the trifecta. Where are they? They can’t govern.”

While Democrats still don’t want the perception of cheering on a shutdown, the party has also grown convinced that it must secure some concession from Republicans in any government funding arrangement. House Democrats aren’t eager to cut a deal with an administration that has thrown government contracts, appropriated funds, and whole agencies into a woodchipper without lawmakers’ input, let alone consent.

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 81 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Do literally anything you fucking clowns

[–] THB@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So much this. "Should we?" Yes you should, fucking do it already.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 8 points 2 weeks ago

I hate them so fucking much man.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

how do you feel about ukraine and gaza?

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like I’ve been protesting against the gaza and West Bank and Palestinian genocide for 20 years, and I feel like Biden pushing Ukraine into nato set off the Russia Ukraine war. I don’t think the current us regime is going to stop it. I just don’t want people to suffer and die

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 58 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hey Dem politicians, it's very clear. You do what the repubs always do when they're in the minority. You vote against every. single. thing. they try to pass. You make speeches against every single thing they want to do on the floor of Congress, in every committee meeting, every town hall, every interview and every tweet. You also make sure to point out that repubs have the trifecta and everything bad that happens is their fault.

There is no moral ambiguity here, nothing to debate about, nothing to agonize over. "ooh we shouldn't let the govt be shut down should we?" stop that! It's already being shut down, you idiots--it's being dismantled right before your eyes. If the question "should I go along with them on this one thing?" pops into your mind, the answer is NO. If you hear another Dem suggest going along with them on something, you slap that Dem in the face and tell them the next time they say that, it'll be a punch them in the nose. Now replace Hakeem "wimp living in the past" Jeffries with Jasmine Crockett as Leader and get to it!

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I keep seeing this Jeffries guy everywhere and he just seems like an animated limp dick who loves saying "the American people" every other sentence he utters. He's not it, not even close to it

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You vote against every. single. thing. they try to pass.

Nah. If the GqP offers a bill that isn't cruel and evil, dems need to be ready to actually let it go through. Not that it'll happen, but we don't hate the party -- just what they do when it's evil.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Is that you, Hakeem?

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 36 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay. How about this? For a moment, Dems should pretend they are the govenrning majority of the House, prepare a sensible budget. Then wait for either Repubs to magically come up with many of the proposals for themselves. Or bargain for them to control Congress.

Do anything other than give in and give up.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They will reject the handouts Republicans want for billionaires and then wait until the last minute and vote for it anyway.

At least that's what they usually do when the Republicans want to fuck the budget.

If they had balls they would shut down the government until Trump is out of office.

[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

FFS yes they should, but they won't.

Anything that slows down the wheel that crushes us is good, but the DNC doesn't know how to do anything but hand-wring and give performative speeches.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They can’t do anything actionable without pissing off the megadonors. The same megadonors bribing the Republicans. And they’d rather lose than piss them off.

Following the Citizens United ruling, this was always the inevitable outcome.

[–] CoffeeBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm by no means suggesting anyone go and do it. But doesn't the constitution give the right to bear arms so the people can stand up to a tyrannical government? Seems like it would be legal

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It would be legal if you win. But until you win, you'd be criminals.

[–] shadowDingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

the bourgeoisie is already seen as criminals to their eyes

might as well give them hell while they whine

[–] Today@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Shit has to get worse before it gets better. We may as well start now. Bring it on.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Dems should unironically be required to email out five points of what they did last week