Andrew Parker
@andrewparker.bsky.social
Formerly of the birdsite as Apark2453, but staking my claim to the full name!
Lawyer, overanalyzer of godawful subcultures, always up to dunk on some chuds.
If you’re into all of that too… I’m sorry, but welcome friend!
Lawyer, overanalyzer of godawful subcultures, always up to dunk on some chuds.
If you’re into all of that too… I’m sorry, but welcome friend!
“Including investments… to be made” is fascinating language to include in what is being implied as a $3 trillion lump sum
It means he’s almost certainly including shit like “Korea promised $20B in investment for the next ten years” as “$200B lost immediately” rather than “$20B not gained this year”
It means he’s almost certainly including shit like “Korea promised $20B in investment for the next ten years” as “$200B lost immediately” rather than “$20B not gained this year”
November 11, 2025 at 5:57 AM
“Including investments… to be made” is fascinating language to include in what is being implied as a $3 trillion lump sum
It means he’s almost certainly including shit like “Korea promised $20B in investment for the next ten years” as “$200B lost immediately” rather than “$20B not gained this year”
It means he’s almost certainly including shit like “Korea promised $20B in investment for the next ten years” as “$200B lost immediately” rather than “$20B not gained this year”
I keep returning to this because I simply can't put into words how insane it is to compare "presuming the leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus has a hand in leading it" to antisemitic tropes about Jews "secretly controlling everything from the shadows"
It's not a secret, it's literally his title.
It's not a secret, it's literally his title.
November 11, 2025 at 5:01 AM
I keep returning to this because I simply can't put into words how insane it is to compare "presuming the leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus has a hand in leading it" to antisemitic tropes about Jews "secretly controlling everything from the shadows"
It's not a secret, it's literally his title.
It's not a secret, it's literally his title.
Please help me understand this vast and deep gulf between "negotiated for a deal trading Democratic votes for Trump's budget in exchange for a doomed vote" and "negotiated for a deal trading Democratic votes for Trump's budget in exchange for a doomed vote with a different composition of votes"
No if you assume he made the deal he acted very differently from the times we know he DID make deals.
If you assume he didn't make the deal he acted differently by not making the deal.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
November 11, 2025 at 4:18 AM
Please help me understand this vast and deep gulf between "negotiated for a deal trading Democratic votes for Trump's budget in exchange for a doomed vote" and "negotiated for a deal trading Democratic votes for Trump's budget in exchange for a doomed vote with a different composition of votes"
If you assume he didn't make the deal he acted differently by not making the deal.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
No I've decided that because there literally isn't anything there. You've got literally no evidence. "Well when he behaved completely differently in the past he caved" is not in fact evidence.
I mean the thing is there is, you've just decided it doesn't count because Chuck said nuh-uh.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
November 11, 2025 at 4:10 AM
If you assume he didn't make the deal he acted differently by not making the deal.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
Great analysis!
Now if we assume politicians can lie about their involvement in things, a deal to trade "pass Trump budget" for "doomed votes on other things" is classic Chuck.
I mean the thing is there is, you've just decided it doesn't count because Chuck said nuh-uh.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
I mean the thing is the total LACK of evidence to draw inferences from. And then there's the real conspiracy mongers who've decided AIPAC actually ordered it.
November 11, 2025 at 3:56 AM
I mean the thing is there is, you've just decided it doesn't count because Chuck said nuh-uh.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
The fact that you don't find it sufficient to overcome the risible benefit of the doubt you've inexplicably decided to extend to Chuck Schumer does not Thanos snap it out of existence.
If you sincerely can’t comprehend the difference between “Jews secretly control everything” and “this elected official whose title is Minority Leader leads the party and was probably involved in this deal identical to ones he himself made”, I can only recommend touching grass.
"What's 'secret' about a scheme that no one has evidence for & everyone denies?" LMAO
What in the name of god is “secret” about the leader of the Democratic Senate Caucus being involved in leading the Democratic Senate Caucus?
November 11, 2025 at 12:41 AM
If you sincerely can’t comprehend the difference between “Jews secretly control everything” and “this elected official whose title is Minority Leader leads the party and was probably involved in this deal identical to ones he himself made”, I can only recommend touching grass.
What in the name of god is “secret” about the leader of the Democratic Senate Caucus being involved in leading the Democratic Senate Caucus?
I feel like the "secretly controlling everything from the shadows" is where the antisemitism comes in.
November 11, 2025 at 12:27 AM
What in the name of god is “secret” about the leader of the Democratic Senate Caucus being involved in leading the Democratic Senate Caucus?
As long as you ignore that his vote on the CR in March was in exchange for being allowed to offer amendments which would actually be voted on (all of which failed).
And in January 2018 was in exchange for republicans allowing debate on the DREAM Act.
And in January 2018 was in exchange for republicans allowing debate on the DREAM Act.
Like this is what I'm talking about. Literally nothing in how Schumer has behaved during this showdown has been similar to his earlier caves. Straight nothing.
Always fun to see criticism about a specific asshole who happens to be Jewish conflated with antisemitic beliefs about our entire people.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
November 10, 2025 at 11:59 PM
As long as you ignore that his vote on the CR in March was in exchange for being allowed to offer amendments which would actually be voted on (all of which failed).
And in January 2018 was in exchange for republicans allowing debate on the DREAM Act.
And in January 2018 was in exchange for republicans allowing debate on the DREAM Act.
The way a fighting force ensures it is “fighting united” is by punishing those who break ranks or refuse to follow orders.
Recrimination seems like a mild punishment for those who disregarded the clear orders from Democratic voters to stand and fight, and instead turned against us to help Trump.
Recrimination seems like a mild punishment for those who disregarded the clear orders from Democratic voters to stand and fight, and instead turned against us to help Trump.
The sooner we get past internal recriminations and back to fighting united, the better off we all are — the likelier our victory next November.
November 10, 2025 at 11:54 PM
The way a fighting force ensures it is “fighting united” is by punishing those who break ranks or refuse to follow orders.
Recrimination seems like a mild punishment for those who disregarded the clear orders from Democratic voters to stand and fight, and instead turned against us to help Trump.
Recrimination seems like a mild punishment for those who disregarded the clear orders from Democratic voters to stand and fight, and instead turned against us to help Trump.
Always fun to see criticism about a specific asshole who happens to be Jewish conflated with antisemitic beliefs about our entire people.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
I gotta say the evidence that Schumer is secretly controlling the cave caucus is some real thin gruel. It basically rests on the assumption of a level of Senate partisan discipline normally seen in a parliamentary democracy when it isn't just leaning on even grosser "perfidious jew" tropes.
November 10, 2025 at 11:31 PM
Always fun to see criticism about a specific asshole who happens to be Jewish conflated with antisemitic beliefs about our entire people.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
The claims that Schumer was part of caving in exchange for the promise of a vote are credible not because he’s Jewish, but because he’s done it twice before.
“I’ve heard from so many alcoholics that they’re willing to go into rehab, willing to stop drinking, willing to work with us on recovery, once they get through this last bender. Now we’ll see if they’re really going to work with us.”
- person explaining buying a fifth of vodka for an alcoholic
- person explaining buying a fifth of vodka for an alcoholic
Shaheen: "We've heard from a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they're willing to come to the table, they're willing to work with us once the govt is open to get this done. We've heard the same thing from the White House. So now we'll see if they're really gonna work w/us"
November 10, 2025 at 3:29 PM
“I’ve heard from so many alcoholics that they’re willing to go into rehab, willing to stop drinking, willing to work with us on recovery, once they get through this last bender. Now we’ll see if they’re really going to work with us.”
- person explaining buying a fifth of vodka for an alcoholic
- person explaining buying a fifth of vodka for an alcoholic
I’m trying to reconcile their “this strategy isn’t working because republicans aren’t going to pass what we want and we can’t wait for electoral consequences” rhetoric with their “our strategy is getting republicans to hold a vote which won’t pass so there are electoral consequences” rhetoric.
weirdly honest messaging from the breakaway mod/institutionalist leaders who blew up the party strategy
they're explicitly giving up. "It wasn't working so we quit" that's the message
they're explicitly giving up. "It wasn't working so we quit" that's the message
November 10, 2025 at 2:53 PM
I’m trying to reconcile their “this strategy isn’t working because republicans aren’t going to pass what we want and we can’t wait for electoral consequences” rhetoric with their “our strategy is getting republicans to hold a vote which won’t pass so there are electoral consequences” rhetoric.
I know I blame The West Wing for a lot, but this is peak Sorkin brain worms.
It’d be almost charmingly optimistic to think republicans will vote based on what the voters want, otherwise the voters will oust them, if it weren’t so obviously stupid.
It’d be almost charmingly optimistic to think republicans will vote based on what the voters want, otherwise the voters will oust them, if it weren’t so obviously stupid.
Shaheen: "I think we can get a bipartisan bill out of the Senate that will address this [healthcare] issue. And if not, we know that the voters are going to know who's on their side and who's going to hold them accountable."
November 10, 2025 at 2:29 PM
I know I blame The West Wing for a lot, but this is peak Sorkin brain worms.
It’d be almost charmingly optimistic to think republicans will vote based on what the voters want, otherwise the voters will oust them, if it weren’t so obviously stupid.
It’d be almost charmingly optimistic to think republicans will vote based on what the voters want, otherwise the voters will oust them, if it weren’t so obviously stupid.
It’s like watching the Somme Offensive, thousands upon thousands suffering for nothing.
Opposing Trump was always going to require suffering and sacrifice but dear god at least let it be put to good use.
Opposing Trump was always going to require suffering and sacrifice but dear god at least let it be put to good use.
November 10, 2025 at 2:23 PM
It’s like watching the Somme Offensive, thousands upon thousands suffering for nothing.
Opposing Trump was always going to require suffering and sacrifice but dear god at least let it be put to good use.
Opposing Trump was always going to require suffering and sacrifice but dear god at least let it be put to good use.
It’s disheartening how many Democrats seem to think “well now we can force them on an up-or-down vote on a big issue” is more leverage than a government shutdown people hold republicans responsible for.
So the Senate Democratic traitors' message tonight is "The Republicans own this now!" Um, the Republicans ALWAYS OWNED THIS! And judging by last week's election, voters clearly know it! I am just so angry at how out of touch our leadership is. Hiding behind retiring senators.
November 10, 2025 at 4:17 AM
It’s disheartening how many Democrats seem to think “well now we can force them on an up-or-down vote on a big issue” is more leverage than a government shutdown people hold republicans responsible for.
“We shall fight in the fields and the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we will never surrender… oh, wow… I’m being told we did just surrender like we surrendered six months ago but now I assure you we will never surrender unless we do”
Democrats have been fighting for months to address America's healthcare crisis
For the millions who will lose coverage
For people with cancer who won't get the care they need
For working families who can't afford to pay $25K more a year for healthcare
We will keep fighting
For the millions who will lose coverage
For people with cancer who won't get the care they need
For working families who can't afford to pay $25K more a year for healthcare
We will keep fighting
November 10, 2025 at 4:04 AM
“We shall fight in the fields and the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we will never surrender… oh, wow… I’m being told we did just surrender like we surrendered six months ago but now I assure you we will never surrender unless we do”
If Schumer can't keep a sixth of his caucus from negotiating a bad deal to give up all leverage and passing it against his will, he's so profoundly bad at the primary job of party leadership that at the very least he needs to resign as minority leader.
Schumer is voting No.
He can’t stop Fetterman from voting Yes.
He can’t stop Fetterman from voting Yes.
November 10, 2025 at 1:37 AM
If Schumer can't keep a sixth of his caucus from negotiating a bad deal to give up all leverage and passing it against his will, he's so profoundly bad at the primary job of party leadership that at the very least he needs to resign as minority leader.
I'm no master negotiator, but I feel like trading the leverage you have right now for a future vote in which you have even less leverage isn't a great deal.
Major concession from Democrats here is enhanced ACA funds aren’t extended. Preserving them was Dems’ central demand in this fight. They secured a promise of a vote (which Thune has been offering for weeks), but that could still fail. Even if it passes, Johnson has made no promise of a House vote.
Tentative Senate deal to end shutdown, multiple sources tell me & @frankthorp.bsky.social:
—CR through Jan 30
—Approps minibus
—Fully funds SNAP
—Reverses Trump’s shutdown RIFs
—Promise of Senate vote on ACA subsidies by Dec second week (details/outcome uncertain)
—Led by King/Shaheen/Hassan
—CR through Jan 30
—Approps minibus
—Fully funds SNAP
—Reverses Trump’s shutdown RIFs
—Promise of Senate vote on ACA subsidies by Dec second week (details/outcome uncertain)
—Led by King/Shaheen/Hassan
November 10, 2025 at 1:27 AM
I'm no master negotiator, but I feel like trading the leverage you have right now for a future vote in which you have even less leverage isn't a great deal.
Even ignoring the naivete required to think that "Republicans promise to hold a vote" is "a path toward" doing anything but losing a vote, this is pathetic.
A "critical step" is ensuring that federal workers get the protections and pay already required by existing laws?
Did you hit your head?
A "critical step" is ensuring that federal workers get the protections and pay already required by existing laws?
Did you hit your head?
My statement on the funding deal to reopen government, protect federal employees, and vote to protect health care:
November 10, 2025 at 1:24 AM
Even ignoring the naivete required to think that "Republicans promise to hold a vote" is "a path toward" doing anything but losing a vote, this is pathetic.
A "critical step" is ensuring that federal workers get the protections and pay already required by existing laws?
Did you hit your head?
A "critical step" is ensuring that federal workers get the protections and pay already required by existing laws?
Did you hit your head?
Dear Democratic Senators,
Please stop making me like Rand Paul more than I like you.
Thanks!
Please stop making me like Rand Paul more than I like you.
Thanks!
From Politico: I guess suggesting that Rand Paul will stall things even if Schumer tried to accelerate.
www.politico.com/live-updates...
www.politico.com/live-updates...
November 10, 2025 at 1:21 AM
Dear Democratic Senators,
Please stop making me like Rand Paul more than I like you.
Thanks!
Please stop making me like Rand Paul more than I like you.
Thanks!
I can't think of anything dumber than Democrats thinking they should give up the leverage they have now in exchange for the promise of a vote later with the hope that Republicans will either vote for it or lose an election even later.
Kaine (D-VA) supports the deal
“This deal guarantees a vote to extend ACA premium tax credits, which Republicans weren’t willing to do. Lawmakers know their constituents expect them to vote for it, and if they don’t, they could very well be replaced at the ballot box by someone who will.”
“This deal guarantees a vote to extend ACA premium tax credits, which Republicans weren’t willing to do. Lawmakers know their constituents expect them to vote for it, and if they don’t, they could very well be replaced at the ballot box by someone who will.”
November 10, 2025 at 1:17 AM
I can't think of anything dumber than Democrats thinking they should give up the leverage they have now in exchange for the promise of a vote later with the hope that Republicans will either vote for it or lose an election even later.
This also applies to the purported RIF "protections". Unless, again, I'm missing something pretty substantial, this only stops Trump "between the date of enactment of this Act and the date specified in section 106(3)."
So until January 30. He can fire everyone again in three months?
So until January 30. He can fire everyone again in three months?
November 10, 2025 at 1:15 AM
This also applies to the purported RIF "protections". Unless, again, I'm missing something pretty substantial, this only stops Trump "between the date of enactment of this Act and the date specified in section 106(3)."
So until January 30. He can fire everyone again in three months?
So until January 30. He can fire everyone again in three months?
I'm seeing a decent number of claims that the Democratic cave-in somehow extends SNAP funding for a long time, and I don't know where that's coming from.
I'm just a simple country hyperchicken, and I could have missed it. But unless I did, it funds SNAP through January 30, 2026. Three months.
I'm just a simple country hyperchicken, and I could have missed it. But unless I did, it funds SNAP through January 30, 2026. Three months.
November 10, 2025 at 12:37 AM
I'm seeing a decent number of claims that the Democratic cave-in somehow extends SNAP funding for a long time, and I don't know where that's coming from.
I'm just a simple country hyperchicken, and I could have missed it. But unless I did, it funds SNAP through January 30, 2026. Three months.
I'm just a simple country hyperchicken, and I could have missed it. But unless I did, it funds SNAP through January 30, 2026. Three months.
When the going gets tough the Dems go home.
My read of it (with very incomplete information) is scoring more political points would have required destroying Thanksgiving travel and at least 10 Dem Senators don’t have the stomach for that.
November 10, 2025 at 12:22 AM
When the going gets tough the Dems go home.
If a quarter of the Democratic caucus was already willing to defect in exchange for "no more reductions in force... for two months" and "eventually there will be a vote on an ACA bill that will inevitably fail" what was the fucking point of the shutdown?
November 10, 2025 at 12:19 AM
If a quarter of the Democratic caucus was already willing to defect in exchange for "no more reductions in force... for two months" and "eventually there will be a vote on an ACA bill that will inevitably fail" what was the fucking point of the shutdown?