Trump's Promises

[Pozzible]

Sorry to post another comment. I tried to edit the previous one but I took too much time. First, I didn’t mean you were missing two different points, I meant mixing two points. 

Then…

I don’t necessarily disagree with the concepts you’re expressing. However, you support each with one example. So we have to use specific examples to show how each party applies (or violates them).

Also, for me, it’s 4:00 in the morning, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to dig deep. 

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible Hopefully you got some sleep!

I'm taking about Democrats and the progressive wing in and of itself, across the last day or two of convos. By calling out that behavior there is no implied pro- Trump, MAGA, nor Republican stance. I was doing so in response to comment directed to me about the No Kings rally (see: way back to page one).

My point about radicalization included first hypocrisy. To your shutdown comments, go back and see how Dems spoke about past shutdowns and Republican behavior in real time back then. After that, consider if Dems living up to their own statements now, in and of themselves. 

My second point on radicalization is then rationalizing said hypocrisy. You're kinda doing that with the series of, "well they do it..." arguments -- I disagree with NONE of those, but that's not the point. On this one topic, Dems are hoping limit the political impact of the shutdown to their party and to appease their base with the healthcare push. But both parties can hold up any legislation claiming to help millions at any point in time, in their own view. It doesn't mean it's true nor does it always equal relevance (to said legislation, in and of itself).

[Rillion]

If Republicans don't want to compromise with Democrats they can change the rules which currently require they get 8 Democrats to vote for proceeding to a final vote (it would only by 7 but they can't even get all Republicans to agree to their CR). 

Right now they are basically saying we didn't consult you in crafting this bill and have not included a single thing you want in the bill, but you have to vote for it. In many prior shutdowns the party not providing votes was consulted and did get some of the things they wanted included but then demanded more. Here the Republicans have offered nothing. If they are not going to compromise on anything, they need to stop pretending they care about getting 60 votes and change the rules. 

[laguyinhou]

There are two choices: A. Healthcare subsidies go in like the Dems want or B. Your health insurance premiums-whether you have an exchange plan *OR* through work-will go up somewhere between 150% to 250% of what you're paying now.

So if you want that much more of your income to go to Healthcare, go ahead.

 

Edited yesterday at 08:11 AM by laguyinhou
Hit post too quickly

[tobetrained]

I'll respond here just to return the convo back to the original question.

@Rillion whether you're implied details are true, it's ultimately based on using the 60-vote threshold driven by the filibuster (or threat of same) which gets us back to the previous hypocrisy discussion re: progressives push from 2021-23 to eliminate that -- which would have meant, in the very unlikely event of that effort working, that now Reps would not need 60-votes. I'll leave it there.

@laguyinhou right. and if Reps are so stupid as to pass legislation that will hurt so many in such a stark way, then let them. In democracies we solve differences through elections. We should NOT hold federal workers pay and livelihoods nor sometimes live-saving services hostage to politics. At least that's what Democrats said before.

And, if the truth of their legislation is so bad, as you say, those elections will have a clear winner.

In 2017, Trump's first term, the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections had Dems winning by 14pp in NJ and 9pp in VA. Those elections happen again in a couple weeks. To @nanana original post question, re: holding Trump accountable and by what metrics, those would be very obvious benchmarks.

[tobetrained]

@laguyinhou an interesting piece from Politico. I highlight for the very important sub-point re: Dems position on healthcare subsidies re: shutdown: those subsidies were never supposed to be permanent nor budgeted for as such.

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/19/ro-khanna-agree-marjorie-taylor-greene-00615010

[Pozzible]

11 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@Rillion whether you're implied details are true, it's ultimately based on using the 60-vote threshold driven by the filibuster (or threat of same) which gets us back to the previous hypocrisy discussion re: progressives push from 2021-23 to eliminate that -- which would have meant, in the very unlikely event of that effort working, that now Reps would not need 60-votes. I'll leave it there

No, no, no. The filibuster is a tactic to delay a vote. (This gets way into the weeds, I’ll grant you.) Even the specific Wikipedia source cite that you previously used includes this important nugget tucked away. “Even bills supported by 60 or more senators (as well as nominations) may therefore be delayed by a filibuster.” If the Republicans want to change the rules about the filibuster they can. They just have to make a rule change which only requires a simple majority. That’s exactly what McConnell did after the Gorsuch nomination was filibustered. The Republicans voted to pass a change to the rules about filibusters to add that filibusters couldn’t be used to delay a vote to confirm a new Supreme Court nominee. To do this they just needed to 51 votes to pass that rule revision. At any time, the Senate could completely eliminate all filibusters by passing a rule change with 51 votes. 

12 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@laguyinhou right. and if Reps are so stupid as to pass legislation that will hurt so many in such a stark way, then let them. In democracies we solve differences through elections. We should NOT hold federal workers pay and livelihoods nor sometimes live-saving services hostage to politics. At least that's what Democrats said before.

And, if the truth of their legislation is so bad, as you say, those elections will have a clear winner.

I’m not sure I can fault your logic here. Except that you assume that this issue outweighs all others in the next election. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. However, in the mean time, most of the 24 million people who will face exorbitant increase in premiums will largely lose their health insurance which would cost countless lives. And as @laguyinhou noted, this would almost certainly result in premium increases to millions of voters who get health insurance through their employers. Also, if these massive numbers lose their health insurance, many hospitals (mostly rural) will close down due to loss of revenue from most of their visitors. An impact that can’t be undone in the future. 

On 10/18/2025 at 4:58 PM, tobetrained said:

To your shutdown comments, go back and see how Dems spoke about past shutdowns and Republican behavior in real time back then. After that, consider if Dems living up to their own statements now, in and of themselves.

I know you previously made that argument in response to me. Though I haven’t gone back to read them, I expect that’s exactly what many Dems said. However, I think the Democrats calculus this time is that the harms of allowing the ACA subsidies to lapse would be so catastrophic that it outweighs the horrific option of these federal workers having to wait to get their paychecks. I don’t think any Democrats like that choice, and I agree with them. The problem is, that we live in unique times. At some point, a “regular” president would negotiate a solution. Trump may not. Trump may not care that there are enormous numbers of people (those who lose insurance and federal workers awaiting delayed salaries) will face horrific outcomes no matter the choices they make. 

 

5 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@laguyinhou an interesting piece from Politico. I highlight for the very important sub-point re: Dems position on healthcare subsidies re: shutdown: those subsidies were never supposed to be permanent nor budgeted for as such

Yes, and this is not uncommon. Frequently Congress will opt to only pass a rule based on a short period into the future. This is especially true when it will have major economic impacts. This was how the incredible tax cuts for billionaires worked. When Trump got his tax package through in first administration, it only changed the tax rules for a limited number of years, so that the CBO calculations showed a smaller (though still enormous) impact on the federal deficit. Republicans are in control again when those cuts were due to expire, so they passed legislation extending those cuts. This is the reason the ACA subsidies were time-limited too. But Dems aren’t in charge, so the only way they can hope to extend subsidies is by negotiating to end shutdown. It’s a helluva mess. 

I know it’s more complicated than I can explain, but I think those answers sort of get the ideas across. Another reason Dems may feel this shutdown is especially important is that trying to fix things after the next presidential election may not occur as we expect. Many worry that 2028 may not be a free and fair election. Trump is readying us to not be surprised if (or when) he declares an insurrection. If he does declare an insurrection he can say that it’s impossible to conduct an election until after the insurrection is resolved. 

Am I being too dramatic?  Maybe. But Trump is definitely making changes that create a path for such actions. Sometimes I think I’m lucky to be so old. 

[hntnhole]

THIS discussion, sharing of viewpoints, is probably the biggest reason I like BZ: 

No guy has been throwing stones at some other guy.  Each guy has well-reasoned, well-written additions to the conversation.  

Thanks, each of you, and please do continue.  ❤️

Edited 3 hours ago by hntnhole
bad typing .... duh ....

[Pozzible]

Thanks so much @hntnhole! Reasoned political debate is something I also highly value on this site. As you have surely noted, sometimes I get carried away. 

And your responses on wide-ranging topics are always interesting and well-reasoned!