Wjca's point about whether Johnson will bring the House back or not is an interesting one. He's kind of between a rock and a hard place.
But overall I'm with wonkie.
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies. Trump hates the ACA because people call it Obamacare and he hates hates hates hates hates Obama because that uppity black man made fun of him.
The "deal" is for a vote in the Senate. Which may or may not happen. There is no deal with the House. Trump has Johnson on some kind of weird short leash, which means there will not be a deal in the House.
And yes, what most people are going to take away from all of this is (a) the Dems caved and (b) my health insurance costs are going to be utterly unsustainable.
I'll also say that I find the "wailing and rending of garments on the left" line a bit offensive. This isn't some political inside baseball thing. People are going to have to choose between health insurance and other really essential things. They're gonna have to work another job, or sell their house, or not go to college. Stuff like that.
Or, just not have health insurance, cross their fingers, and hope they get lucky. Which some of them will not be, and some of those folks will die.
GftNC, you have to understand. For some, the options were a) cave in like this (their phrasing, not mine), or b) hang tough a tiny bit longer until the Republicans cave. If those were indeed the choices, their rage over option a) would be well placed.
But those weren't actually the options. Instead we had
a) accept a continuing resolution for the next couple of months, get some relief for a whole lot of Federal workers, and pick up the fight again in January. There is, after all, no chance the GOP will be in any better position then than now. Oh yes, and get a couple of elected Democrats seated finally.
Or
b) hang tough, no matter the collateral damage. While a lot of Federal workers go bankrupt, SNAP money runs out (for real), and a lot of people see their health insurance premiums skyrocket -- except they hear a lot about how the Democrats wouldn't let a bill to fix it even come to a vote.
Be clear, getting ACA funding done wasn't going to happen either way. (At least not for several more months minimum.). But this way, it's starkly obvious that the Republicans have sole ownership of the mess.
Now our strategy going forward to save the Democrats from complete disgrace is to run hard against the Cowardly Cave-in Caucus and get headlines that say "Don't Blame the Whole Party for the Acts of Few" which is a muddled message with nowhere near the power of the bad press the CCC has given us. Still, it's the only way to have any credibility in the midterms. Dems running for Congress will have to run hard against the decision to end the shut down without saving the ACA. 'Making this deal is malpractice.' It's Democrat vs. Democrat as shutdown nears end
These are not the kind of headlines that lead to a blue wave in the midterms. These are the kind of headlines that lead to "Both parties suck, there's no point in voting, vote third party, Dems are weak, Dems don't fight..." Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in Hand
"Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there."
The idea wasn't total victory--only saving people who get ACA insurance. That's all. There was never an effort to save Medicaid, prevent the cuts in Medicare that are coming because of the increased deficit, roll back the tax cuts for the rich...the Republican bill sucks in every aspect but the Dems in Congress chose only one to stand on and they caved on that one.
Now all those people will lose their insurance because they won't be able to afford the rate increase. I lost my insurance temporarily a while ago and had to pay 900 for a one-month COBRA. It's not the kind of experience people forget or forgive.
I agree that strategy and tactics are not core competencies with the DSA left. It should be obvious though that for DECADES strategy and tactics have not been core to Congressional Dems either, not when it comes to national issues.
They completely fail to understand that they are not going to get MAGA votes, that the Republican party never operates in good faith, and that outside of MAGA most voters (especially indies) vote emotionally and have no clue at all about insider baseball tactics or policies and want to be able to vote for perceived strength and commitment.
Acting in a way that leads to headlines that say, "Dems agree to end shutdown" followed by millions suffering rate increases is fucking stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid--on an order of stupid as supporting the war in Iraq.
What a spineless bunch they are, or maybe just so stupid and naive they still think they're essentially dealing with politics as usual. They are the very definition of the frog in the heating-up pot.
Pretty clear where this is going. First, it isn't going anywhere unless Johnson is willing to bring the House back into session to vote on the changes from what they previously passed. In which case . . . Epstein Files! And if he won't, no cover about "if only the Democrats would let the Senate vote." They totally own the mess.
Second, assuming it passes, then what. First, a lot of Federal employees who were stuck working without pay, or were furloughed, get their family economies patched up thru the holidays. Also, the new funding bill only runs thru the end of January. Which means that we probably see another shutdown then -- lest voters forget this shutdown by the time voting starts.
Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there.
My bet is that the Democrats end up with a big boost out of this, come next November. And that's assuming (and frankly, it's a heroic assumption) that, some time next spring, the Republicans in Congress get themselves together without another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, i.e. next fall, right before the election.
First Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the SNAP ruling, and Justice Jackson has given the administration until 11am to decide whether they want to continue with the appeal.
Should have waited for this to hit before caving on cloture.
It seems there is always a faction of Democrats who find a way to take two steps back as soon as the party manages one step forward. It's too easy to be the lesser of two evils when the greater evil is evil itself.
Cortez Masto (NV), Fetterman (PA), Durbin (IL), Hassan (NH), Kaine (VA), Rosen (NV), Shaheen (NH), King (Ind. ME).
The Nevada contingent aren't much of a surprise. Fetterman is Manchin in a hoodie. Shaheen and Durbin are retiring and probably decided to throw themselves on the cloture grenade to end the shutdown because there were other Dems that were wavering and wanted cover.
I really wish that they would have held out at least until the First Circuit handed down their decision on SNAP. If they had affirmed that SNAP needed covering, then the cloture could have come right after The Ancient Orange One went on record *yet again* to deny aid to hungry children and seniors. The Dems could have been the compassionate ones in that moment. Had the First Circuit sided with The Ancient Orange One, the Dems could play it just the same and be the ones coming to the rescue of the needy.
This just looks like a loss of courage in the wake of a Blue Wave, and it kills any sense of momentum or hope.
A lot of Reactionary Centrists have been arguing that this was inevitable, and that the people who wanted to continue the shutdown were all callously ignoring the plight of the needy from positions of privilege. They consistently fail to see beyond electoral politics.
Please don’t be so “revolutionary” that you think electoral politics never matter and please don’t be so “moderate” that you think electoral politics are all that matter. - Abiola Agoro
I think the tendency of Congressional Democrats to try to find compromise and "solutions" is a positive that functions as a negative. I am so completely disgusted by the stupidity of the Senate Dems of the Cowardly Cave In Caucus.
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
Well, the SCOTUS precedent is clear: Aryans are welcome - provided they are NOT Indian (even if they out-racist most Nazis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
Didn't mean to denigrate Uncle Charlie or the others. Its just that a hallmark of American conservatism in my life has been the ability to build a wall between people they care about and ones they don't. Its how you get compassionate and caring people who see no problem with ICE wearing masks and shooting a priest in the face with pepper balls. I don't believe one negates the other, but one doesn't excuse the other either. Its complicated, like people do.
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
wj - ...actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had — all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it.
Agreed, but look at what I said: What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with. Note that I did not say that they need to have that precise experience, just enough to act as a bridge between their own experience and others'. As russell says, it takes empathy, or as they used to say "fellow feelings." An AI has no experiences, and isn't a person, so can have no personal perspective and cannot reflect. It has to be trained to extrapolate within very narrow ranges and cannot imagine or improvise or project. Even a sociopath has a better perspective for understanding. At least the sociopath is embodied and sensate and conscious. An AI is a database with a good costuming department.
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have. They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had -- all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “When virtues become vices”
Wjca's point about whether Johnson will bring the House back or not is an interesting one. He's kind of between a rock and a hard place.
But overall I'm with wonkie.
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies. Trump hates the ACA because people call it Obamacare and he hates hates hates hates hates Obama because that uppity black man made fun of him.
The "deal" is for a vote in the Senate. Which may or may not happen. There is no deal with the House. Trump has Johnson on some kind of weird short leash, which means there will not be a deal in the House.
And yes, what most people are going to take away from all of this is (a) the Dems caved and (b) my health insurance costs are going to be utterly unsustainable.
I'll also say that I find the "wailing and rending of garments on the left" line a bit offensive. This isn't some political inside baseball thing. People are going to have to choose between health insurance and other really essential things. They're gonna have to work another job, or sell their house, or not go to college. Stuff like that.
Or, just not have health insurance, cross their fingers, and hope they get lucky. Which some of them will not be, and some of those folks will die.
It's a fucking disaster.
"
GftNC, you have to understand. For some, the options were a) cave in like this (their phrasing, not mine), or b) hang tough a tiny bit longer until the Republicans cave. If those were indeed the choices, their rage over option a) would be well placed.
But those weren't actually the options. Instead we had
a) accept a continuing resolution for the next couple of months, get some relief for a whole lot of Federal workers, and pick up the fight again in January. There is, after all, no chance the GOP will be in any better position then than now. Oh yes, and get a couple of elected Democrats seated finally.
Or
b) hang tough, no matter the collateral damage. While a lot of Federal workers go bankrupt, SNAP money runs out (for real), and a lot of people see their health insurance premiums skyrocket -- except they hear a lot about how the Democrats wouldn't let a bill to fix it even come to a vote.
Be clear, getting ACA funding done wasn't going to happen either way. (At least not for several more months minimum.). But this way, it's starkly obvious that the Republicans have sole ownership of the mess.
"
Josh Marshall seems reasonably sanguine about it:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win/sharetoken/32bf02be-00e6-4b69-8f8e-4aa805cf9e0e
Also:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/with-a-day-to-think-about-it
"
Now our strategy going forward to save the Democrats from complete disgrace is to run hard against the Cowardly Cave-in Caucus and get headlines that say "Don't Blame the Whole Party for the Acts of Few" which is a muddled message with nowhere near the power of the bad press the CCC has given us. Still, it's the only way to have any credibility in the midterms. Dems running for Congress will have to run hard against the decision to end the shut down without saving the ACA. 'Making this deal is malpractice.' It's Democrat vs. Democrat as shutdown nears end
"
These are not the kind of headlines that lead to a blue wave in the midterms. These are the kind of headlines that lead to "Both parties suck, there's no point in voting, vote third party, Dems are weak, Dems don't fight..." Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in Hand
"
"Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there."
The idea wasn't total victory--only saving people who get ACA insurance. That's all. There was never an effort to save Medicaid, prevent the cuts in Medicare that are coming because of the increased deficit, roll back the tax cuts for the rich...the Republican bill sucks in every aspect but the Dems in Congress chose only one to stand on and they caved on that one.
Now all those people will lose their insurance because they won't be able to afford the rate increase. I lost my insurance temporarily a while ago and had to pay 900 for a one-month COBRA. It's not the kind of experience people forget or forgive.
I agree that strategy and tactics are not core competencies with the DSA left. It should be obvious though that for DECADES strategy and tactics have not been core to Congressional Dems either, not when it comes to national issues.
They completely fail to understand that they are not going to get MAGA votes, that the Republican party never operates in good faith, and that outside of MAGA most voters (especially indies) vote emotionally and have no clue at all about insider baseball tactics or policies and want to be able to vote for perceived strength and commitment.
Acting in a way that leads to headlines that say, "Dems agree to end shutdown" followed by millions suffering rate increases is fucking stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid--on an order of stupid as supporting the war in Iraq.
"
What a spineless bunch they are, or maybe just so stupid and naive they still think they're essentially dealing with politics as usual. They are the very definition of the frog in the heating-up pot.
"
Pretty clear where this is going. First, it isn't going anywhere unless Johnson is willing to bring the House back into session to vote on the changes from what they previously passed. In which case . . . Epstein Files! And if he won't, no cover about "if only the Democrats would let the Senate vote." They totally own the mess.
Second, assuming it passes, then what. First, a lot of Federal employees who were stuck working without pay, or were furloughed, get their family economies patched up thru the holidays. Also, the new funding bill only runs thru the end of January. Which means that we probably see another shutdown then -- lest voters forget this shutdown by the time voting starts.
Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there.
My bet is that the Democrats end up with a big boost out of this, come next November. And that's assuming (and frankly, it's a heroic assumption) that, some time next spring, the Republicans in Congress get themselves together without another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, i.e. next fall, right before the election.
"
First Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the SNAP ruling, and Justice Jackson has given the administration until 11am to decide whether they want to continue with the appeal.
Should have waited for this to hit before caving on cloture.
"
It seems there is always a faction of Democrats who find a way to take two steps back as soon as the party manages one step forward. It's too easy to be the lesser of two evils when the greater evil is evil itself.
"
Done deal:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/09/democrat-senators-who-voted-end-shutdown/87190180007/
Cortez Masto (NV), Fetterman (PA), Durbin (IL), Hassan (NH), Kaine (VA), Rosen (NV), Shaheen (NH), King (Ind. ME).
The Nevada contingent aren't much of a surprise. Fetterman is Manchin in a hoodie. Shaheen and Durbin are retiring and probably decided to throw themselves on the cloture grenade to end the shutdown because there were other Dems that were wavering and wanted cover.
I really wish that they would have held out at least until the First Circuit handed down their decision on SNAP. If they had affirmed that SNAP needed covering, then the cloture could have come right after The Ancient Orange One went on record *yet again* to deny aid to hungry children and seniors. The Dems could have been the compassionate ones in that moment. Had the First Circuit sided with The Ancient Orange One, the Dems could play it just the same and be the ones coming to the rescue of the needy.
This just looks like a loss of courage in the wake of a Blue Wave, and it kills any sense of momentum or hope.
A lot of Reactionary Centrists have been arguing that this was inevitable, and that the people who wanted to continue the shutdown were all callously ignoring the plight of the needy from positions of privilege. They consistently fail to see beyond electoral politics.
This feels premature.
"
wonkie, that's an excellent observation, especially if the dems do fold on the shutdown as has been reported.
"
I think the tendency of Congressional Democrats to try to find compromise and "solutions" is a positive that functions as a negative. I am so completely disgusted by the stupidity of the Senate Dems of the Cowardly Cave In Caucus.
On “People and poliltics”
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
That's all I got. Make of it what you will.
On “When virtues become vices”
If or to what extent....
"
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCRF_CkCtm_1560slsmw2zv8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"
Well, the SCOTUS precedent is clear: Aryans are welcome - provided they are NOT Indian (even if they out-racist most Nazis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
"
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
On “People and poliltics”
Perhaps it's A Conflict of Visions.
"
Didn't mean to denigrate Uncle Charlie or the others. Its just that a hallmark of American conservatism in my life has been the ability to build a wall between people they care about and ones they don't. Its how you get compassionate and caring people who see no problem with ICE wearing masks and shooting a priest in the face with pepper balls. I don't believe one negates the other, but one doesn't excuse the other either. Its complicated, like people do.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
Beyond that, I don't think so.
"
wj - ...actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had — all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it.
Agreed, but look at what I said: What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with. Note that I did not say that they need to have that precise experience, just enough to act as a bridge between their own experience and others'. As russell says, it takes empathy, or as they used to say "fellow feelings." An AI has no experiences, and isn't a person, so can have no personal perspective and cannot reflect. It has to be trained to extrapolate within very narrow ranges and cannot imagine or improvise or project. Even a sociopath has a better perspective for understanding. At least the sociopath is embodied and sensate and conscious. An AI is a database with a good costuming department.
"
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
"
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
"
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had -- all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.