Us Government Shuts Down After Senate Fails to Pass Last-Ditch Funding Plan

Right, each house of the US legislature starts the session with a >50% vote to re-adopt a slowly mutating package of rules that it used last time and has carried forward for decades, defining how work is scheduled, what committees exist, how seniority is calculated, who gets the nice office with the window, etc.

This leads to the "nuclear option" of a special >50% vote to remove the underlying rule which imposes the larger vote-margin for certain situations.

I’d probably argue for an exception on that one, given the Whitlam government didn’t have a senate majority… but at the very least, I feel like a single case in the last 50 years is pretty supportive of my argument. The US government is on the verge of shutdown so often these days that I wonder how many people are desensitised to the situation!

The Republican Party has made it painfully clear over the past decade that they care more about winning than governing. The initial stages of this were when they vowed not to let any of Obama's priorities pass, to "make him a one-term president" (in their own words).

They have to win, and they have to punish the loser.

The money the US (that's us folks) spend on medicine is crimally stupid. Heck I had doctor in laws.. one runs medstar in dc both of who have nothing nice to say about the finance/insurance side of medicine.

Now, I hasten to add let's not throw the baby out with the bath water: doctors and nurses are generally people who want to help through science, and that's a good thing.

The salient points are just two:

- extremes make extremes and neither is good for the US

- congress needs competent technocratic solutions to budget, debt, and other things in the practical realm of running a government.

Pretty boys on tv talking s** means nothing. The fiest 40 minutes of the breakfast club is the problem.

Meanwhile, what power might this give him that he hasn't already seized without resistance from Congress? He's taken spending power and partially claimed taxation power already. He's been illegally firing people his entire term so far, often en masse. So what's the "more power"?

Same with his lie that there are liberal groups funding people like the Utah shooter. It's complete bullshit and he knows it.

He is one of the most sleazy people in politics right now, and that's saying something.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-fre...

We don't spend federal dollars like Medicaid or Medicare on illegal immigrants. We literally just don't.

If you think we do, remember: we don't. That doesn't happen. You are misremembering. That has never happened.

If someone tells you that is happening, remember: they are wrong. They are lying. They don't understand what they are saying.

Okay, I ask again. What benefit has he provided for the people? Did the jobs come back? Is it safer to walk on the streets? has land value increased? Are groceries less scarce?

Border patrol seems to have long forgotten what the end goal is for the americans, and no one can seem to answer thta question anymore (for what I see are clearly obvious reasons).

>Trump also appointed the judges that got Roe overturned

Same question. Is illegal abortion improving the lives of everyday citizens.

>but Republicans don't approve of the ACA

Same question. Where's that money going that benefits the americans?

This is the whole issue. We can't point to lives being improved, only fears that were manufactured by the same rich elite being quelled. A society powered by fear isn't a democracy.

Because that's not a benefit. You just described the government taking more money from me.

Nothing is actually improved in my life, or your life, or anyone's life.

People have gotten so brainwashed that they're legitimately arguing that what's good for them doesn't matter. What matters is how many random people they don't know they manage to hurt.

Unbelievable.

That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. Republican policies of 30 years ago didn't look much like Republican policies of 60 years ago.

The current ones don't fail to be Republican. It is just that Republican now means something different than it used to.

The same exact comments could be made about Democrats. For example look at Joe Biden's legislative record. He was President as a champion of DEI and LBGTQ+ rights. But back in the Clinton era, he sponsored a crime bill that put a ton of blacks in prison, and sponsored DOMA, a bill that blocked federal recognition of gay marriages.

> In other words a pretty much typical liberal of 20 years ago, but one who no longer really fits in the modern Democrat demographic.

Sure. But its hardly conceivable that such a person would fir in the MAGA party either.

Of course even someone like Mussolini was a socialist activist for years so people's views do change...

That brief span of perhaps a few months was probably the last window of time we had to save the US—maybe, still would have been a long shot. But nothing was even attempted.

He still has 140k subs on YouTube. He peaked at $4000/month on patron but still makes $200 today /after 9 years of barely snyghubv)

You're never hitting zero after a certain point unless you shit down yourself. Joe Rogan is still popular but Alex Jones is definitely hit

And of course, it's peak paranoia. You can't be performing a hostile, illegal siezure of power and call anyone who wants to follow the law an insurrectionist. The Consistution defines that for us.

This will sound very mean, but when you open up your voterbase to more people, you open up democracy to be swayed more by pathos rather than ethos/logos. An educated, informed voterbase can make smart decisions and have a 3rd party rise up and defy the philosophy of the splinter vote.

Now, the US is 300m+ people with a voter base of about 170m. the searches for "is Biden running for president" on elecion day spiked more than the day he stepped down. Sentiment at this size adjusts too slowly to have a 3rd party rise at the national level, and if one gains momentum, the panic of a lost election will scamble all that progress.

If we want 3rd parties, we need to vote to enact voting that ancourages it, like ranked choice voting.

Certainly for congressional elections, at least. Presidential elections might be more feasible if still highly far fetched. Of course at this point any 3rd party candidate is more likely to split the left-wing and moderate electorate than the radical/MAGA voters who usually don't really carry about specific policies or stances on most economic or other important issues.