this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
371 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26230 readers
2348 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republicans are grappling with public polls showing the public places more blame on them, rather than the Democrats, for the shutdown, even as they argue they have the moral high ground in the shutdown fight.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republicans stress that they put no partisan poison pills in a GOP-crafted, House-passed stopgap to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly blocked that bill as they demand that Republicans first negotiate with them on health care issues, particularly on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expiring at the end of the year.

Poll after poll finds that slightly more Americans think Republicans are to blame for the shutdown than who think Democrats are at fault.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

20 days? Wow. What is a typical number?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I wasn't sure so I went looking. It fluctuates, but 150 days a year is what I found. So that would be 50 days per 4 months. Or rather that they have shown up about 40% of the norm.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (4 children)

So for them this isn't even much different than normal. And they're still getting paid. Not that many of them need their government salary with all the campaign donations and insider trading. And guaranteed lobbying jobs at triple the salary or more after they're done.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Id say it's more than a bit different. It would be like if you or I started going into work Monday and Tuesday, and skipping Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Except yeah, they still get paid the same. To bad we couldn't all have jobs like that.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The crazy thing is, with the productivity improvements recently in human history, and the amount of time wasted doing what amounts to fluffing people higher up the chain with busy work or literally just sitting there work, we could all probably work notably less than we do if that work was spread equally and not wasted on bullshit like ensuring poor people feel bad.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Agreed, I think with automation and technological improvements the only way forward is to supplement people's livings based off loss of work at a national level. 200 years ago, 70% of the U.S. were farmers. 1900, 38%. 1925, ~25%. 2025, less than 2%. Sure we can say about 10% of jobs surround agriculture in some way, but that is a drastic amount of work that has been offset. If we have offset 50% of the required work needed to keep our country fed, clothed and roofed, we need to develop ways to cut the workload by half for the people, and find other activities people can partake in that aren't just about making someone else money.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Lol, guys an imbecile. Even if "millions were living in space somehow im 20 years it would have nothing but a bad effect on earth. Population growth has us set to be at 9.7 billion people in 2045 from 8.2 billion people now. So say you got 5,000,000 people in space, which we won't, you've got 1,495,000,000 more people using resources on earth, and us sending resources into space to build shit. The cost to mine resources and maintain life in space would be so much harder than doing so on Earth, yet we can't get Earth right. Terra-forming a planet is all but a myth to us at this point. We aren't making acute changes to a planet we have everything to do it with on currently. Yet they think they'll somehow convince people they can manipulate an entire planet/moon that has temperature fluctuations drastically more uninhabitable than earths. Everyone who moves to space will die, only an idiot would think otherwise. Why, because you can't make peace on earth. We are already trying to bring weapons to space. It takes one suicidal person to end their entire community in space. When have we ever known someone willing to sacrifice a life to serve a cause. Today, yesterday, the day before, for every year mankind has existed. If you don't create a peaceful utopia, it is certain death and a massive waste of resources.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

and find other activities people can partake in that aren't just about making someone else money.

I can already think of a myuriad of things, though admittedly some would be surround eventually making money, but mostly because I want things to exist that don't exist.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago

Imagine working 2 days a week instead of 5. That's a pretty big difference.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 6 days ago

They spend most of their time fund raising

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 6 days ago

And news punditry.