Kent Lind
@camasonian.bsky.social
Former NOAA fisheries biologist now in my second career as a HS science teacher. I'm interested in all things related to environmental policy, cycling as transportation, and public education.
Look, Dems had a losing hand here.
Did they play it as best as they could have? Probably not. But we were always going to end up at this same place.
I don't know what sort of end game would have guaranteed more success. I don't see one.
What was YOUR preferred end game?
Did they play it as best as they could have? Probably not. But we were always going to end up at this same place.
I don't know what sort of end game would have guaranteed more success. I don't see one.
What was YOUR preferred end game?
November 10, 2025 at 9:55 PM
Look, Dems had a losing hand here.
Did they play it as best as they could have? Probably not. But we were always going to end up at this same place.
I don't know what sort of end game would have guaranteed more success. I don't see one.
What was YOUR preferred end game?
Did they play it as best as they could have? Probably not. But we were always going to end up at this same place.
I don't know what sort of end game would have guaranteed more success. I don't see one.
What was YOUR preferred end game?
They didn't need to blow up the filibuster.
They could passed a Senate vote, watched the House fail to go along, and then killed them again in a reconciliation bill with no filibuster.
Dems had no winning hand. And #1 is still true. Trump will continue to sink as ACA bills come in.
They could passed a Senate vote, watched the House fail to go along, and then killed them again in a reconciliation bill with no filibuster.
Dems had no winning hand. And #1 is still true. Trump will continue to sink as ACA bills come in.
November 10, 2025 at 9:48 PM
They didn't need to blow up the filibuster.
They could passed a Senate vote, watched the House fail to go along, and then killed them again in a reconciliation bill with no filibuster.
Dems had no winning hand. And #1 is still true. Trump will continue to sink as ACA bills come in.
They could passed a Senate vote, watched the House fail to go along, and then killed them again in a reconciliation bill with no filibuster.
Dems had no winning hand. And #1 is still true. Trump will continue to sink as ACA bills come in.
Despite the wish casting. This is not 100% of the blame going to the GOP. Would bringing the country to a halt during Thanksgiving have changed anything? I dunno. It would likely have rebounded against the Dems as well.
Especially as it wouldn't have accomplished anything.
Especially as it wouldn't have accomplished anything.
November 10, 2025 at 9:38 PM
Despite the wish casting. This is not 100% of the blame going to the GOP. Would bringing the country to a halt during Thanksgiving have changed anything? I dunno. It would likely have rebounded against the Dems as well.
Especially as it wouldn't have accomplished anything.
Especially as it wouldn't have accomplished anything.
Only on BlueSky would the GOP have taken 100% of the blame.
We don't actually live in that world. We live in a Facebook/Twitter/TikToc/Fox News world.
And in that world all politicians would have shared the blame.
Dems don't control the media environment. And Americans are stupid.
We don't actually live in that world. We live in a Facebook/Twitter/TikToc/Fox News world.
And in that world all politicians would have shared the blame.
Dems don't control the media environment. And Americans are stupid.
November 10, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Only on BlueSky would the GOP have taken 100% of the blame.
We don't actually live in that world. We live in a Facebook/Twitter/TikToc/Fox News world.
And in that world all politicians would have shared the blame.
Dems don't control the media environment. And Americans are stupid.
We don't actually live in that world. We live in a Facebook/Twitter/TikToc/Fox News world.
And in that world all politicians would have shared the blame.
Dems don't control the media environment. And Americans are stupid.
The Dems as minority party had a losing hand. There was no way to turn it into a winning hand. All they were going to accomplish is make a scene and illustrate to the public who was really to blame for health care price increases.
Did they play their losing hand as best as possible? I dunno.
Did they play their losing hand as best as possible? I dunno.
November 10, 2025 at 8:55 PM
The Dems as minority party had a losing hand. There was no way to turn it into a winning hand. All they were going to accomplish is make a scene and illustrate to the public who was really to blame for health care price increases.
Did they play their losing hand as best as possible? I dunno.
Did they play their losing hand as best as possible? I dunno.
I think you underestimate how much public rage over destroying Thanksgiving for "nothing" would have been directed towards ALL politicians and not just the GOP. That would be the media drumbeat.
Remember, the GOP wins when politics is destroyed. They don't actually want Congress to work.
Remember, the GOP wins when politics is destroyed. They don't actually want Congress to work.
November 10, 2025 at 8:51 PM
I think you underestimate how much public rage over destroying Thanksgiving for "nothing" would have been directed towards ALL politicians and not just the GOP. That would be the media drumbeat.
Remember, the GOP wins when politics is destroyed. They don't actually want Congress to work.
Remember, the GOP wins when politics is destroyed. They don't actually want Congress to work.
My point is that even if they did it win their objective of a vote in the Senate it wouldn't accomplish anything without the House going along. Which they won't.
GOP holds all the cards and they could have ended this without killing the filibuster while blaming Dems for killing Thanksgiving.
GOP holds all the cards and they could have ended this without killing the filibuster while blaming Dems for killing Thanksgiving.
November 10, 2025 at 8:44 PM
My point is that even if they did it win their objective of a vote in the Senate it wouldn't accomplish anything without the House going along. Which they won't.
GOP holds all the cards and they could have ended this without killing the filibuster while blaming Dems for killing Thanksgiving.
GOP holds all the cards and they could have ended this without killing the filibuster while blaming Dems for killing Thanksgiving.
More likely scenario:
1. Dems gain a vote on ACA subsidies in the Senate which they win.
2. House doesn't go along.
3. Congress passes a reconciliation bill without ACA subsidies which passes on a party line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
4. We end at the same place
1. Dems gain a vote on ACA subsidies in the Senate which they win.
2. House doesn't go along.
3. Congress passes a reconciliation bill without ACA subsidies which passes on a party line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
4. We end at the same place
November 10, 2025 at 8:38 PM
More likely scenario:
1. Dems gain a vote on ACA subsidies in the Senate which they win.
2. House doesn't go along.
3. Congress passes a reconciliation bill without ACA subsidies which passes on a party line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
4. We end at the same place
1. Dems gain a vote on ACA subsidies in the Senate which they win.
2. House doesn't go along.
3. Congress passes a reconciliation bill without ACA subsidies which passes on a party line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
4. We end at the same place
What happens next is that the GOP in the House and Senate pass a reconciliation bill that doesn't include ACA subsidies and they approve it on a party-line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
Then we destroyed Thanksgiving for nada. And public opinion is a pox on both houses.
Then we destroyed Thanksgiving for nada. And public opinion is a pox on both houses.
November 10, 2025 at 8:23 PM
What happens next is that the GOP in the House and Senate pass a reconciliation bill that doesn't include ACA subsidies and they approve it on a party-line vote since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered.
Then we destroyed Thanksgiving for nada. And public opinion is a pox on both houses.
Then we destroyed Thanksgiving for nada. And public opinion is a pox on both houses.
They had no good end game here.
Say they had extended the shutdown through thanksgiving and destroyed the holiday for everyone. In order to get a Senate vote on ACA subsidies.
Then what? It goes back to the House which likely doesn't go along. What happens next?
Say they had extended the shutdown through thanksgiving and destroyed the holiday for everyone. In order to get a Senate vote on ACA subsidies.
Then what? It goes back to the House which likely doesn't go along. What happens next?
November 10, 2025 at 8:21 PM
They had no good end game here.
Say they had extended the shutdown through thanksgiving and destroyed the holiday for everyone. In order to get a Senate vote on ACA subsidies.
Then what? It goes back to the House which likely doesn't go along. What happens next?
Say they had extended the shutdown through thanksgiving and destroyed the holiday for everyone. In order to get a Senate vote on ACA subsidies.
Then what? It goes back to the House which likely doesn't go along. What happens next?
What do you think the plausible end-game would have been if they ran the shutdown through Thanksgiving?
Say they got a Senate vote to restore the ACA subsidies. Then it goes back to the House which doesn't go along. Then what?
Answer: They have a reconciliation bill which can't be filibustered.
Say they got a Senate vote to restore the ACA subsidies. Then it goes back to the House which doesn't go along. Then what?
Answer: They have a reconciliation bill which can't be filibustered.
November 10, 2025 at 8:14 PM
What do you think the plausible end-game would have been if they ran the shutdown through Thanksgiving?
Say they got a Senate vote to restore the ACA subsidies. Then it goes back to the House which doesn't go along. Then what?
Answer: They have a reconciliation bill which can't be filibustered.
Say they got a Senate vote to restore the ACA subsidies. Then it goes back to the House which doesn't go along. Then what?
Answer: They have a reconciliation bill which can't be filibustered.
Exactly. These are ultra-processed foods, not French Fries:
November 10, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Exactly. These are ultra-processed foods, not French Fries:
Look, I don't think this ended well.
But I also don't think there was any plausible end-game that was going to achieve Democratic objectives when they are the minority party in both houses and the GOP literally doesn't give a shit.
This was never going to end any other way.
But I also don't think there was any plausible end-game that was going to achieve Democratic objectives when they are the minority party in both houses and the GOP literally doesn't give a shit.
This was never going to end any other way.
November 10, 2025 at 8:05 PM
Look, I don't think this ended well.
But I also don't think there was any plausible end-game that was going to achieve Democratic objectives when they are the minority party in both houses and the GOP literally doesn't give a shit.
This was never going to end any other way.
But I also don't think there was any plausible end-game that was going to achieve Democratic objectives when they are the minority party in both houses and the GOP literally doesn't give a shit.
This was never going to end any other way.
I'd give 1,000 to 1 odds that he hasn't actually read any books let alone these.
Rather, he asked Grok to create him a list of "must read" books to post on Twitter.
Rather, he asked Grok to create him a list of "must read" books to post on Twitter.
November 10, 2025 at 8:02 PM
I'd give 1,000 to 1 odds that he hasn't actually read any books let alone these.
Rather, he asked Grok to create him a list of "must read" books to post on Twitter.
Rather, he asked Grok to create him a list of "must read" books to post on Twitter.
Politics.
"I will fight for you" is always good politics.
It would be insanely bad politics to give the Senate GOP any more votes that they don't need.
Taking back Congress is the only plausible path to stopping Trump. And we do that by making him less popular and forcing him to own bad policy.
"I will fight for you" is always good politics.
It would be insanely bad politics to give the Senate GOP any more votes that they don't need.
Taking back Congress is the only plausible path to stopping Trump. And we do that by making him less popular and forcing him to own bad policy.
November 10, 2025 at 8:00 PM
Politics.
"I will fight for you" is always good politics.
It would be insanely bad politics to give the Senate GOP any more votes that they don't need.
Taking back Congress is the only plausible path to stopping Trump. And we do that by making him less popular and forcing him to own bad policy.
"I will fight for you" is always good politics.
It would be insanely bad politics to give the Senate GOP any more votes that they don't need.
Taking back Congress is the only plausible path to stopping Trump. And we do that by making him less popular and forcing him to own bad policy.
Public schools still use those.
How else are you going to send documents to another school building? Like say turning in receipts for reimbursement?
Yeah... I know, email. But a lot of it is signed forms and the education bureaucracy hasn't caught up to e-signing stuff.
How else are you going to send documents to another school building? Like say turning in receipts for reimbursement?
Yeah... I know, email. But a lot of it is signed forms and the education bureaucracy hasn't caught up to e-signing stuff.
November 10, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Public schools still use those.
How else are you going to send documents to another school building? Like say turning in receipts for reimbursement?
Yeah... I know, email. But a lot of it is signed forms and the education bureaucracy hasn't caught up to e-signing stuff.
How else are you going to send documents to another school building? Like say turning in receipts for reimbursement?
Yeah... I know, email. But a lot of it is signed forms and the education bureaucracy hasn't caught up to e-signing stuff.
What was the actual end game?
Get the GOP to tank the filibuster and remove any Dem leverage over the next 3 years?
Get both the GOP House and Senate to defy Trump and their own agenda?
The only achievable end-game was to get the GOP to own the ACA cuts which they accomplished.
Get the GOP to tank the filibuster and remove any Dem leverage over the next 3 years?
Get both the GOP House and Senate to defy Trump and their own agenda?
The only achievable end-game was to get the GOP to own the ACA cuts which they accomplished.
November 10, 2025 at 7:44 PM
What was the actual end game?
Get the GOP to tank the filibuster and remove any Dem leverage over the next 3 years?
Get both the GOP House and Senate to defy Trump and their own agenda?
The only achievable end-game was to get the GOP to own the ACA cuts which they accomplished.
Get the GOP to tank the filibuster and remove any Dem leverage over the next 3 years?
Get both the GOP House and Senate to defy Trump and their own agenda?
The only achievable end-game was to get the GOP to own the ACA cuts which they accomplished.
Henry James, Edith Wharton, Thomas Hardy, Anthony Trollope EM Forster, D. H. Lawrence., Ezra Pound, Oscar Wilde, etc.
Major alpha energy there.
Major alpha energy there.
November 10, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Henry James, Edith Wharton, Thomas Hardy, Anthony Trollope EM Forster, D. H. Lawrence., Ezra Pound, Oscar Wilde, etc.
Major alpha energy there.
Major alpha energy there.
Yeah, like Elon Musk has actually READ the Iliad.
And Andreson has actually read any 19th Century literature.
And Andreson has actually read any 19th Century literature.
November 10, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Yeah, like Elon Musk has actually READ the Iliad.
And Andreson has actually read any 19th Century literature.
And Andreson has actually read any 19th Century literature.
There is a reason for this trend. And we are seeing it. Very difficult to show "leadership" from within the Senate. Or actually accomplish anything, especially when you are the minority party.
Sanders is as good as anyone at doing it but he hasn't really gotten much done in his long Sen. career.
Sanders is as good as anyone at doing it but he hasn't really gotten much done in his long Sen. career.
November 10, 2025 at 7:24 PM
There is a reason for this trend. And we are seeing it. Very difficult to show "leadership" from within the Senate. Or actually accomplish anything, especially when you are the minority party.
Sanders is as good as anyone at doing it but he hasn't really gotten much done in his long Sen. career.
Sanders is as good as anyone at doing it but he hasn't really gotten much done in his long Sen. career.
So peanut butter and marshmallow rather than peanut butter and jelly?
eesh.
eesh.
November 10, 2025 at 7:20 PM
So peanut butter and marshmallow rather than peanut butter and jelly?
eesh.
eesh.
In the past 100 years only 2 sitting Senators won and they were both generational talents.
FDR: Gov.
Truman: VP
Eisenhower: General
**Kennedy: Sen.**
LBJ: VP
Nixon: VP
Ford: VP
Carter: Gov.
Reagan: Gov.
Bush I: VP
Clinton: Gov.
Bush II: Gov.
**Obama: Sen.**
Trump: Biz
Biden: VP
FDR: Gov.
Truman: VP
Eisenhower: General
**Kennedy: Sen.**
LBJ: VP
Nixon: VP
Ford: VP
Carter: Gov.
Reagan: Gov.
Bush I: VP
Clinton: Gov.
Bush II: Gov.
**Obama: Sen.**
Trump: Biz
Biden: VP
November 10, 2025 at 7:16 PM
In the past 100 years only 2 sitting Senators won and they were both generational talents.
FDR: Gov.
Truman: VP
Eisenhower: General
**Kennedy: Sen.**
LBJ: VP
Nixon: VP
Ford: VP
Carter: Gov.
Reagan: Gov.
Bush I: VP
Clinton: Gov.
Bush II: Gov.
**Obama: Sen.**
Trump: Biz
Biden: VP
FDR: Gov.
Truman: VP
Eisenhower: General
**Kennedy: Sen.**
LBJ: VP
Nixon: VP
Ford: VP
Carter: Gov.
Reagan: Gov.
Bush I: VP
Clinton: Gov.
Bush II: Gov.
**Obama: Sen.**
Trump: Biz
Biden: VP
Is this something disgusting that they put on cheesesteaks or some such?
Inquiring western minds (who have never heard of fluff) want to know.
Inquiring western minds (who have never heard of fluff) want to know.
November 10, 2025 at 7:06 PM
Is this something disgusting that they put on cheesesteaks or some such?
Inquiring western minds (who have never heard of fluff) want to know.
Inquiring western minds (who have never heard of fluff) want to know.
I swear, this is just about the most "boomer" "kids these days" thing I have ever read.
Teach the kids "personal finance". Are they going to pick stocks and learn how to balance their checkbooks?
Sheesh....
Teach the kids "personal finance". Are they going to pick stocks and learn how to balance their checkbooks?
Sheesh....
November 10, 2025 at 6:59 PM
I swear, this is just about the most "boomer" "kids these days" thing I have ever read.
Teach the kids "personal finance". Are they going to pick stocks and learn how to balance their checkbooks?
Sheesh....
Teach the kids "personal finance". Are they going to pick stocks and learn how to balance their checkbooks?
Sheesh....
It is MUCH harder to test generalized knowledge of literature than it is to test student's ability to dissect and deconstruct specific text excerpts.
You can't reduce Toni Morrison to a multiple choice question. But you can do that with a random paragraph extract. So you teach what you test.
You can't reduce Toni Morrison to a multiple choice question. But you can do that with a random paragraph extract. So you teach what you test.
November 10, 2025 at 6:27 PM
It is MUCH harder to test generalized knowledge of literature than it is to test student's ability to dissect and deconstruct specific text excerpts.
You can't reduce Toni Morrison to a multiple choice question. But you can do that with a random paragraph extract. So you teach what you test.
You can't reduce Toni Morrison to a multiple choice question. But you can do that with a random paragraph extract. So you teach what you test.