@penguins18.bsky.social
Pretty firm denials and these days I wouldn’t trust anything the Department of Justice throws out there. Let’s see what the evidence is before convicting them.
November 10, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Pretty firm denials and these days I wouldn’t trust anything the Department of Justice throws out there. Let’s see what the evidence is before convicting them.
If it’s true. The Department of Justice has not exactly been a paragon of “we only indict if we have the evidence” lately.
November 10, 2025 at 3:04 PM
If it’s true. The Department of Justice has not exactly been a paragon of “we only indict if we have the evidence” lately.
Most teams make a lot less in profit than you think, I’ll bet. Less than a high end starting pitching free agent. And a few make nothing in annual profit. That’s not where the money is in sports franchise ownership.
November 10, 2025 at 5:32 AM
Most teams make a lot less in profit than you think, I’ll bet. Less than a high end starting pitching free agent. And a few make nothing in annual profit. That’s not where the money is in sports franchise ownership.
That's not how the Senate works. It's not the House. You can't "keep your caucus together."
November 10, 2025 at 2:03 AM
That's not how the Senate works. It's not the House. You can't "keep your caucus together."
The January 30 sunset is everything here. It’s actually a pretty decent way to go for Dems.
November 10, 2025 at 12:42 AM
The January 30 sunset is everything here. It’s actually a pretty decent way to go for Dems.
If the deal passes people will get their SNAP benefits back.
November 10, 2025 at 12:30 AM
If the deal passes people will get their SNAP benefits back.
THAT I agree with.
November 10, 2025 at 12:30 AM
THAT I agree with.
Yes, now do the people who are starving because of SNAP benefits. And no, we're not going to win the case at the Supreme Court.
November 10, 2025 at 12:29 AM
Yes, now do the people who are starving because of SNAP benefits. And no, we're not going to win the case at the Supreme Court.
There is no promise. That's what the early sunset does: It takes away their option to just ignore the deal and not hold a vote (or vote it down). If they do that, we're right back at it in 80 days.
November 10, 2025 at 12:29 AM
There is no promise. That's what the early sunset does: It takes away their option to just ignore the deal and not hold a vote (or vote it down). If they do that, we're right back at it in 80 days.
Those were set ten days ago. They won't change.
November 10, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Those were set ten days ago. They won't change.
No "if's" at all. That's what makes it a decent deal. If the R's don't deliver on that ACA vote (either not holding it or voting it down) there's another moment in January when Dems have even more moral high ground, and closer to the election. The sunset makes all the difference.
November 10, 2025 at 12:27 AM
No "if's" at all. That's what makes it a decent deal. If the R's don't deliver on that ACA vote (either not holding it or voting it down) there's another moment in January when Dems have even more moral high ground, and closer to the election. The sunset makes all the difference.
Appearing feckless to you and me. Most people are not following this at ALL.
November 10, 2025 at 12:25 AM
Appearing feckless to you and me. Most people are not following this at ALL.
That's all horseshit. It's meta on top of meta and kind of schoolyard logic. We're interested in getting on our side for the mid-terms people who just want to be able to eat and have health care. They don't care who's eating it.
November 10, 2025 at 12:25 AM
That's all horseshit. It's meta on top of meta and kind of schoolyard logic. We're interested in getting on our side for the mid-terms people who just want to be able to eat and have health care. They don't care who's eating it.
Hardly. There will be a vote before then and R's will have to vote no. And if there isn't such a vote or R's vote it down, Dems will have the extreme moral high ground on Jan 30.
November 10, 2025 at 12:23 AM
Hardly. There will be a vote before then and R's will have to vote no. And if there isn't such a vote or R's vote it down, Dems will have the extreme moral high ground on Jan 30.
Each time they do this, it's closer and closer to the mid-terms, and they lose more and more ground. I don't think it pays off tactically to look at this in playground "who's dominant and who's submissive" metrics.
November 10, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Each time they do this, it's closer and closer to the mid-terms, and they lose more and more ground. I don't think it pays off tactically to look at this in playground "who's dominant and who's submissive" metrics.
I don't know. But if there isn't, R's are back in the same muck in 80 days, this time closer to the mid-terms. And in the meantime, people can eat. In fact, they are in the same pickle even if there IS an ACA vote and it fails. This works for me.
November 10, 2025 at 12:20 AM
I don't know. But if there isn't, R's are back in the same muck in 80 days, this time closer to the mid-terms. And in the meantime, people can eat. In fact, they are in the same pickle even if there IS an ACA vote and it fails. This works for me.
This is a pretty decent deal Josh. The January 30 sunset is REALLY important. It's the only guarantee Dems could possibly extract out of an Approps bill that R's will extend the ACA subsidies. If they don't, we're back again, and this time even closer to the mid-terms.
November 10, 2025 at 12:18 AM
This is a pretty decent deal Josh. The January 30 sunset is REALLY important. It's the only guarantee Dems could possibly extract out of an Approps bill that R's will extend the ACA subsidies. If they don't, we're back again, and this time even closer to the mid-terms.
The deal is only until Jan 30. That's a pretty good outcome to be honest. R's have to hold that ACA vote (in both chambers) and it has to pass or the Dems will have another bite at the apple in 80 days. This works for me.
November 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
The deal is only until Jan 30. That's a pretty good outcome to be honest. R's have to hold that ACA vote (in both chambers) and it has to pass or the Dems will have another bite at the apple in 80 days. This works for me.
Gotta be honest I don't mind this deal at all. Dems are getting some real stuff (not least SNAP funds being disbursed) AND another chance for a showdown in 80 days if R's don't vote for the ACA subsidies. That's as good a guarantee that the vote will happen as you could get.
November 10, 2025 at 12:14 AM
Gotta be honest I don't mind this deal at all. Dems are getting some real stuff (not least SNAP funds being disbursed) AND another chance for a showdown in 80 days if R's don't vote for the ACA subsidies. That's as good a guarantee that the vote will happen as you could get.
They might well not have the votes. The Jan 30 sunset is anathema for R's (and for good reason ... the Dems just get another shot at it in 80 days).
November 10, 2025 at 12:11 AM
They might well not have the votes. The Jan 30 sunset is anathema for R's (and for good reason ... the Dems just get another shot at it in 80 days).
This isn't a bad deal at all. The key is the Jan 30 date. So the Dems get the government opened, Grijalva sworn in (because the House would have to go into session), a vote on ACA subsidies, a reduction in RIFs, AND another chance in 80 days if R's won't extend the subsidies.
November 10, 2025 at 12:11 AM
This isn't a bad deal at all. The key is the Jan 30 date. So the Dems get the government opened, Grijalva sworn in (because the House would have to go into session), a vote on ACA subsidies, a reduction in RIFs, AND another chance in 80 days if R's won't extend the subsidies.
This isn't a bad deal at all. The key is the Jan 30 date. So the Dems get the government opened, Grijalva sworn in (because the House would have to go into session), a vote on ACA subsidies, a reduction in RIFs, AND another chance in 80 days if R's won't extend the subsidies.
November 10, 2025 at 12:10 AM
This isn't a bad deal at all. The key is the Jan 30 date. So the Dems get the government opened, Grijalva sworn in (because the House would have to go into session), a vote on ACA subsidies, a reduction in RIFs, AND another chance in 80 days if R's won't extend the subsidies.
Also, if the CNN report is true, the deal is only through January. So it just sets up another showdown for then, but Dems get their vote in the meantime.
November 9, 2025 at 10:16 PM
Also, if the CNN report is true, the deal is only through January. So it just sets up another showdown for then, but Dems get their vote in the meantime.
This is just the list of Dem senators who have been meeting on the shutdown. There is zero indication that any of them support anything in particular. Fetterman isn't even on the list!
November 9, 2025 at 10:15 PM
This is just the list of Dem senators who have been meeting on the shutdown. There is zero indication that any of them support anything in particular. Fetterman isn't even on the list!