[spacephysics]

I think we’re too in the weeds and too tribal with this analysis.

Outside of privacy-invading legislature (or corporate legislature), both sides of the aisle fail to agree or compromise on working for the people.

When there’s an opportunity to use leverage, it makes sense to use it. But it’s like MAD concept, they’re not going to actually let the US default. It’s not in either party’s self interest.

Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game.

To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

[cmh89]

>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal?

If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.

[PopAlongKid]

>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president.

But we're not talking about just "something", we're talking about paying the bills that have already been authorized.