Do…they…really think they’ve “ended Trump’s cruelty?”

This is battered spouse logic.

True story-

When MST3K did their college tour back in the 90s, I went to it alone because I loved it that much. The auditorium was PACKED, I barely got in the last row.

The show started, we all sang the entire intro song perfectly, myself included, and that’s when I realized I was in a cult. 🤷‍♂️

So does that make him more or less likely to appear on College Gameday?

I don’t necessarily believe that. I just want the Congress to become more representative, and diluting each Senator’s power is one way to do that. I was just throwing out examples. (Personally I prefer to abolish the Senate altogether, but.)

Surely you heard of Enron? With enough pressure, auditors and accountants will acquiesce to the client’s demand to sign off on [fraud or whatever].

The last chapter of the book on it* was titled “Isn’t Anyone Sorry?” The answer was no, sadly.

*The Smartest Guys In The Room

If you actually want a more united front, the most obvious choice is replace Schumer as leader because he has zero credibility and people rightly loathe him. But at a bare minimum if you want to at least make some gesture, replace Durbin as whip. He's retiring anyway. There would be no downside.

Unless and until you call for replacing Schumer and Durbin, you can just STFU.

I am more crude- I believe every single one of them has traded on inside info, or taken a bribe, or visited Epstein island (or Thailand or whatever), or laundered cartel money, or etc.

Yes, lazy aristocrats all. So which one would be a good choice to replace Schumer? Again, genuine question.

Ohhh ok, you’re talking about specific battles to wage *right effing now*. Gotcha, then yeah any new Dem leader has to insist on The Rule of Law and obeying Congressional orders. Yep.

Another genuine but awkward question- how many Dem Senators truly believe in the Rule of Law?

Hmm. I agree, but the answer (from Republicans) would be a hard “no and whaddaya gonna do about it?”

I misunderstand your question, perhaps? On specifics of “fight vs cave,” I want Dems to fight *for* [X]. IMO it’s permanent reform of the government so that it’s sustainably representative, but uh…

Genuine question- would it be reasonable to ask new Senate leaders to get the federal government back to “normal” funding and appropriations? Or should the demands be more specific/incremental, eg statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, and/or abolishing the Electoral College?

For the record I am not excited. That’s why I keep reaching for any possible path that avoids/minimizes the violence. The Union won’t survive past 2030, IMO, and I would like the maximum number of people to live through its dissolution.

I was thinking of the Balkans in the 90s as an example to fear & avoid, but yeah, we’re on the same page. Sadly.

I’m still hoping, and I’m still rooting for increasing the probability of a non-violent breakup. But yeah you’re probably right.

Right, so you’re underestimating the natural dysfunction of the US federal government funding process, and you’re still underestimating the natural chaos of fascist personalities.

We’re shutting down again. Why is it so important that you argue that point?

“Functioning perfectly”

Question: when was the last time the US federal government was funded on time and according to normal procedures?