I think Johnson has found enough no's to prevent passage.

I don't think they had the authority. A judge had sealed them because of on-going litigation.

Well they are making assholes of themselves in public but I get your point. I haven't experienced anything as bad as you. I deal with rude people by saying something rude back and blocking them.

do that is another matter but they lose either way. They lose if there is no vote and they lose if there is one and they vote against the subsidies. The argument that the Dems shouldve held out for more is based on the assumption that at some point the rethugs would be reasonable.

Actually you did in your initial post. I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. Don't dish it out if you aren't prepared to take it. As for your argument--it was the Rethugs who put the squeeze on. It isn't an agreement to discuss. It is an agreement to have a vote. (Whether or not the Rethugs

The belief that holding out longer wouldve gotten a better deal is based on the assumption that the Rethugs AREN"T a bunch of sociopathic assholes incapable of human decency and incapable of being seen to back down first. But they are. They were benefiting from the shutdown and would not blink first

I think the Dems won the shutdown because now fed workers will get paid and the Rethugs will be forced in Jan to either support funding the ACA or accept the blame for rising costs. The idea that Dems caved is based on the mistaken assumption that holding out longer wouldve gotten a better deal.

I think so. They will do whatever they can think of to avoid a vote in Jan but no matter what they do THEY will be blamed for increased insurance costs--which affect red states more than blue.

I don't think we should assume that Dems would have gained anything by keeping the shut down going longer. That assumes that Rethugs would at some point be moved by the suffering caused by the shutdown or moved by their negative numbers and there is no basis for that assumption.

Well the ACA may have been saved and if it isn't the blame will be entirely on the Rethugs. Federal workers are going to be paid which relieves significant hardship. The problem is this: the Rethugs weren't going to end the shutdown. Ever. They are sociopathic and didn't care who they were hurting.

Weird that you don't apply that to yourself.

That means either the ACA will be saved or the Rethugs will get the blame--both good outcomes. So what have we lost? Nothing, really, if you think about it. The R budget is horrible but given that they have a majority it was going to pass eventually. The Dems mousetrapped the Rs.

Okay. The govt is funded until Jan, which saves federal workers who are extremely stretched. If there is a shut down in Jan, they will still be paid. The ACA is punted until Jan. meanwhile rates go up. In Jan Rethugs will either have to vote yes to restore the ACA, vote no or show that they lied.

Me too.

No. People are supposed to use their brains, not act on brain stem stimulus response. Thinking is a good thing. If you have a thoughtful POV, I'd be happy to read it.

I've had a chance to think and I think we won. Here's why: in Jan SNAP and federal workers will be protected if there's another shut down. Rethugs will either have to vote or prevent a vote on the ACA which will put the blame on them after their constituents have been massively screwed. It's a win.

Shawn, ignore the carping and sniping and the demands that you are sufficiently concerned about someone's special issue and the purity tests--all that comes from people who aren't running for office, just backseat driving those that do. Thank you for running. Good luck.