politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dick Durbin is the minority whip. There is no chance that the whip votes against the wishes of the senate minority leader. Despite Schumer's no vote, he supported the capitulation.
Again, unsubstantiated opinion.
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
Poof, substantiation
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but could you quote the proof you're referring to from the article? The two paragraphs I think you're referring to are (emphasis mine):
Being "widely assumed" isn't really solid proof, and having a proposal with an exchange of an extension isn't capitulation on Schumer's part. If anything, this whole thing shows Schumer's incompetence to be able to lead the democrats, but this doesn't seem supported or orchestrated on his part.
Reread the passage again, the part that was widely asusmed was that the flip votes were operating on thete own. The sentence about Schumers approval was started with the phrase 'In fact' because that is what's being reported as the truth. 'Widely assumed' is not even the same sentence with the allegations on Chuck so Im having trouble interpreting your comment in good faith.
I really don't care to defend Schumer, but posting this article as substantiated proof of him supporting Democrats capitulation is not really convincing. The article doesn't mention what changed between it being widely assumed and it being a fact? Just starting a sentence with "in fact" doesn't make it true. There are many other, more recent sources with his quotes saying he doesn't approve of their actions.
It's equally possible that Schumer has no control of the situation and the Senators who are voting for reopening the government know Schumer is spineless, and will only craft a strongly worded letter condemning their actions. The fact he went public with a proposal after reports of senators defecting isn't proof he is complicit in their capitulation, just that he was unable to convince all the Democratic Senators that his plan was a good plan they should remain consistent about. Is Schumer responsible as the minority leader of the senate and ultimately to take the blame for the Democrats fracturing over this; yes. But to say he is secretly supporting the capitulation as if he's Palpatine playing both sides is not really substantiated and frankly giving him too much credit.
Then stop doing it. You're making yourself look foolish to put it as charitably as possible.
They weren't. Insisting on credible standards to draw conclusions before accepting any bullshit isn't defending. It's called integrity.
What i'm saying is the prospect.org article is speculation of the events that happened behind closed doors. It jumps to conclusions to make a point of Schumers ineptitude by implying he orchestrated and supported the no votes, but doesn't provides any source for those claims. Other articles being reported on today outline plenty of reasons Schumer is unfit to lead without making things up. For example:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/10/progressives-call-for-schumers-resignation-after-shutdown-vote/87195871007/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253
From TNR: Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along
yes, these are the facts the other article is missing.
Is this Schumer’s fediverse alt?
I can only assume you don't know what the whips job is.
Shaheen just came out and said that Schumer knew about the deal. In other words he approved it.