The egg is the only possible correct answer to this.

Modern chickens didn’t exist until something like 10,000 years ago. The egg was a key development in allowing animals to live on land, and first came about somewhere around 300 million years ago.

But if you want to narrow it down to just chicken eggs, then you have it right. The immediate predecessor to the first thing that can be called a ‘chicken’ laid a chicken egg from which hatched a chicken.

The egg absolutely came first.

Don’t threaten us with a good time…

WFH isn’t available to most people. To have a WFH opportunity, you have to have a job that’s almost entirely done on a computer with no need to be on-site almost ever. That’s just not a reality for most people. For some? Sure. But even most people with jobs that are largely WFH still have to go into their office once or twice a week.

I’m not debating the the Democratic Party has moved to the right over the past decade. However, (a) I wouldn’t call the Democrats Progressive, and they never really have been. There is a fringe of the party that is progressive, but they’ve never been the majority or leadership. And (b) both progressives and the Democratic Party are still to the left of George W Bush on most issues. He campaigned on a same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. He was a climate denier. He fabricated evidence of WMDs in Iraq in order to start his second of what would become decades-long wars. He opened Gitmo. He institutionalized a torture program as policy. None of that is anywhere close to what progressives are pushing for now.

I guess my main question to you is this: who are you defining as ‘progressives’?

All the President’s Men is my favorite political movie.

I’m not claiming the Democrats had full control of anything. And no, a shut down would not have been much faster. It would have been more chaotic, but not faster. And maybe the chaos would have helped get more people into the streets resisting. I don’t know.

But I do know that capitulating to fascists is never a good strategy. There has never once been a situation where capitulating to fascists has resulted in a better outcome. Schumer got played. You got played.

Right, it was lose/lose. Either way bad things are going to happen. So why sign on to participate and take ownership of it? What does anyone gain by that.

The situation would not be worse under a shutdown. It would just be a different type of bad. Trump and Musk are still firing anyone they want without regard to the law or courts. They’re still gutting funding wherever they want.

The ONLY difference between passing this CR and not is that the Vichy Democrats put their stamp of approval on what’s happening now.

I need you to explain why you think it’s a better choice to give Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees than to have control of the budget.

Who do you think has control of the budget? Do you really think that by rolling over and giving Trump everything he wants now Schumer will somehow have control of anything in September?

And why do you think passing the CR will stop Trump and Musk from terminating anyone they want? They’re still doing that.

ALL spending bills are “temporary” in that they don’t provide unlimited funds for forever. The CR doesn’t say, “give as much money as is needed until September.” It says “we allocated $XXXX”. And since we know how to predict how much money the government spends, we know that amount of money will run out in September.

This is the same way it works if they passed an appropriations bill. The only difference is that they based spending levels on the previous spending bills rather than on a budget bill.

You have no clue what you’re talking about, which is demonstrated by your repeated use of the term “budget reconciliation bill” as if it applies to anything here. The budget reconciliation process can only happen after an appropriation bill is passed, which this CR was.

So you are admitting that passing the CR did nothing to protect these jobs you seem so concerned for? Then why are you arguing so fervently in favor of Vichy collaborationists?

Why are you pretending like they’re not doing that anyways? There are people right now lined up outside NIH and HHS buildings because DOGE has shut them out and is firing them. The last of the USAID workers lost their jobs yesterday. Yet you’re here pretending like allowing the CR to pass prevented people from losing their jobs? Brother, you’ve been duped into being a collaborationist!

Yes. Let them take the shutdown and own it. You seem to be operating from the premise that a shutdown would have been popular and had no negative political blowback on the fascists. History does not support this assumption.

Make Trump and Musk go tell people that they don’t deserve the services they’d lose from a shutdown. Instead, Schumer said that Democrats agree with all the cuts that were already in the CR.

If you can’t extract concessions, then you let them take the loss alone. Instead, Vichy Schumer just agreed to sign the Democrats on as collaborators.

You don’t understand what a CR is if you think it’s permanent. A continuing resolution is stopgap funding when a budget reconciliation fails to be passed.

You don’t understand how Congress works. A CR isn’t used when Budget Reconciliation isn’t passed. It’s used when spending bills don’t pass.

The "normal’ (or what’s supposed to be normal) process for funding the government is that the Congress passes a Budget, which is a set of funding guidelines, but doesn’t actually allocate money. That budget is then used by various committees to write appropriations bills, which is what actually allows the government to spend money. Those spending bills are typically supposed to only cover 1 year, with new appropriations given every year.

Except Congress has been a dysfunctional mess for decades. They rarely actually pass Budget or appropriations bills. That’s why we’re always under these shutdown threats, because Congress doesn’t work as it’s supposed to. So when they come down to crunch time and can’t pass spending bills, they pass a Continuing Resolution (CR). A CR is an appropriations bill, but instead of using a recent budget as a guideline, the CR just says “continue funding the government at the exact levels it was with these minor adjustments” (usually cutting funding by 2-5% and/or increasing in specific areas, like disaster relief if there was just a hurricane or something).

A CR, just like a normal appropriations bill, funds only to a set level. They don’t have a time limit in that they say “funding will stop on X date”, but they know how fast the government spends money, so they can predict that $XXX will last YYY days. In that way, they can say “fund $XXX worth” knowing that will expire on a certain date. CRs are just as “permanent” as any appropriations bill

A Budget Reconciliation is a completely different thing. It’s a process that allows the Senate to adjust existing spending bills while bypassing the 60 vote threshold for cloture required by the filibuster rules. When the Congress writes a spending bill, they include language within it to say, “this portion of the budget can later be adjusted through reconciliation”. The intention is to strip out particularly contentious parts of the larger bill to allow the larger bill to pass while letting Congress then address the stickier issue on its own. So, for example, you don’t have to hold up funding national parks just because you can’t decide how much to spend on a new military drone program, for example.

However, since Reconciliation allows the majority party to bypass the filibuster, it’s use is primarily to pass legislation that the majority knows they can’t do through normal legislation (due to the 60 vote threshold the filibuster puts on everything). There are certain rules which I can get into if you want that limit what types of things can be done through reconciliation and how often. But your framing in your comment above about how CRs are supposedly temporary until a Reconciliation Bill is passed is just flat out wrong.

By rubber stamping, in this specific instance, I mean Schumer allowing the CR to pass without extracting any concessions. When the most powerful Democrat in the country, and the only one with power to prevent the CR from passing, just lets it happen, it sends the message that this is business as normal and nothing people need to be overly concerned with.

I agree that a shutdown would have also been bad. But it also would have send the message that Democrats aren’t going to be collaborationists. It would have said, “this is a shit sandwich, but it’s yours and I want no part of it.” Instead, Schumer took a big bite out of that shit sandwich and said, “Democrats and Republicans are in this together.”

You said it was a lose/lose? Sure, no argument on that. But let them take the political loss rather than giving the fascists cover, FFS.

This is where we are now with the filibuster. Pretty much every single bill that doesn’t enjoy broad bipartisan support gets a silent filibuster as a matter of course. This means that basically all legislation coming out of the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. That means that the minority gets to set the agenda since it’s easier to come up with 41 votes against something than 60 votes for something. This contributes to and feeds off of the hyper polarization in our politics. A minority party knows that if they can just keep all their members in line, they can easily block pretty much anything the majority wants to do unless it gets enough national attention that blocking it would garner negative press on the minority party. But even that is heavily mitigated by the existence of stuff like Fox News and media echochambers (of which, the Right is WAY better at creating and controlling).

It’s also important to recognize that the silent filibuster is a big part of how we got to the point in our politics where Congress is so incredibly dysfunctional that Trump can actually just ignore and bypass Congress as much as he wants. All the shit he’s done since taking office this time has been done without Congress. In a previous era, that might have drawn a lot more criticism, even from his own party. But the existence of the silent filibuster and 60 vote threshold to pass legislation has created the conditions where we’re all used to Congress not doing anything at all. People want action, and they’re used to Congress not being able to do anything, so Trump doing it through Executive Order seems like a relief to them. And the same thing, although to a much less authoritarian degree, happened under Biden, Obama, and W Bush, too. Remember Biden trying to cancel student loans through EO? Remember Obama creating DACA by EO or telling the DEA to not enforce cannabis prohibition in states where cannabis is legal? That’s all stuff Congress is supposed to be doing but can’t because of the silent filibuster and 60 vote threshold.

Since the late 90s, any speaking filibuster in the Senate, like we’re seeing Booker do now, is purely political theater. It’s done to attract national attention and news coverage, not to actually block or prevent legislation. Which is fine, so long as we all understand the purpose. Political theater is important to actually getting stuff done sometimes because it can drive mass action or sentiment.

My overall point here, though, is that everything about this history of the filibuster and how it works today was the result of short-term thinking to solve an immediate problem without consideration of the long-term consequences.

A little nitpick on how we got to the modern silent filibuster, because I think the history is important and demonstrates how creating rules that might seem well-intentioned at the time end up having disastrous effects when you don’t think about the long-term impacts.

Literally everything about the evolution of the filibuster was the result of unintended consequences. When the Senate was first created, they included a rule which was common among legislatures in Colonial American and England called the “previous question” rule. There were no rules on how long debate could take place, but, at any time (including in the middle of a speaker’s turn) anyone could call for the immediate consideration of the previous question. If that got a majority support (50%+1), debate was immediately stopped and the issue was put to an immediate vote. The word ‘filibuster’ didn’t exist at the time, but this was very similar to our modern cloture motion, which is used to end filibusters, except the previous question only required a simple majority of those present, where was cloture requires 3/5 of all members (including those not present). The previous question was a lower bar to clear than cloture is.

However, in the early days of the Senate it was a very collegial institution. All the Senators, even those opposed to each other on policy, were all friendly with each other. As such, after the first 15ish years, they had never had the need to use the previous question rule. Whenever a Senator was taking too long during debate, someone would gently tell them to wrap it up and they would. They relied more on the collegial atmosphere and friendships than the actual rules. In 1805, then-VP Aaron Burr (of murdering Hamilton and trying to steal half of North America to turn himself into a monarch fame) wanted to reform Senate rules. Mostly, he was trying to eliminate unnecessary rules to streamline the Senate. One of the rules he got rid of was the previous question. The intention was just to get rid of a rule that had never been used, but this effectively meant that there was no longer any institutional way to end debate if a Senator decided to just keep talking.

This didn’t have much of an impact for about a century. There were occasional filibusters here and there, but they were very limited and extremely rare. The top issue that got filibusters was anything related to slavery and (after the Civil War) civil rights. Senators from slave states (or former slave states), would filibuster any legislation they saw as a threat to slavery and white supremacy. In general, these filibusters ended because the Senators who introduced whatever piece of legislation would withdraw their legislation and offer to water it down in exchange for an end to the filibuster. In this way, over the 19th century the predominate use of the filibuster was to prevent or slow reforms that would weaken white supremacy.

As time went on, the use of the filibuster increased in frequency. The general way it would work was that a bill would be introduced. A group of Senators from the minority opposing it would organize to filibuster. Rather than just 1 person holding the floor, they’d swap out using a rule that allows the speaker to temporarily cede the floor for a question, but they’d get the floor back when the question ended. But their allied Senator who was ostensibly just asking a question would then spend hours asking that question, which gave the filibuster leader time to take a break. When they were ready to continue, the question would end and the floor would go back to the original speaker. In the meantime, the allies of the filibustering Senators would meet with the sponsors of the legislation to get them to water down their bill in whatever way that made it acceptable. Once that agreement was made, they’d end the filibuster and move on. It’s important to note that the filibuster at this time was not seen as a tool to kill legislation, but rather to force a concession.

The culminated in 1917 when Woodrow Wilson was trying to get a law passed that would allow the Navy to arm merchant ships during WW1. A group of anti-war Senators filibustered and got this provision removed. This enraged Wilson and he insisted the Senate adopt a cloture rule which would allow 2/3 of the Senators present in the chamber to vote to immediately end debate and bring the issue to a vote (this would later be changed to 3/5 of all members, regardless if they were present in the chamber). The existence of this rule dramatically changed how the filibuster was used. Rather than being a tool to force a concession, it now became something that could actually kill legislation. The supporters now had to arrange to have a 2/3 majority in the chamber when the cloture vote was pulled in order to pass the legislation. This shifted power from the majority to the minority. The minority just had to ensure they controlled 1/3+1 of the chamber at any given time to prevent cloture. Rather than the impetus being on the minority to actually continue the filibuster and negotiate a concession, it was now on the majority to produce a super-majority. The intention was to create a rule that prevented Senate business from being ground to a halt, but the effect was just the opposite. It gave more power to the minority than the majority.

This directly led to an increase in the frequency of use of the filibuster. Over the next half-century the filibuster was primarily used to prevent any Civil Rights Legislation from reforming the Jim Crow South. Since there was now a real possibility that a filibuster could actually kill a bill, there was no longer any reason for the filibustering party to negotiate concessions with the majority. They just sat back and continued their filibusters until the majority either got sick of it and pulled the bill or managed to produce a super-majority (which has always been damn near impossible in the Senate, only 2 cloture votes were ever successful between 1917-1964). This culminated in 1964 with a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which, when it eventually passed, effectively ended Jim Crow). A group of segregationist Senators from the South organized to filibuster for over 2 months. Whenever the Senate was in session over those 2 months, the segregationists held the floor and mostly spewed racists screeds about the evils of integration and other white supremacist nonsense. Eventually the pro-Civil Rights caucus managed to get a few people who were just sick of the unending filibuster and passed a cloture motion. However, this was a huge embarrassment for the Senate and they knew they needed to change the rules.

The problem, as they saw it, was that only a single issue was allowed before the Senate at a time. When a bill or nomination vote, etc was put forth, that issue had to be fully resolved before they could move onto the next thing. Either it had to get a vote up or down, or the sponsor had to pull it (meaning the issue was dead). During this time, no other Senate business can happen. No other issues can be debated or voted upon. Committees can’t meet. Nothing else can happen. So when the segregationists filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 2 months, literally NO other Senate business was able to happen. This was an extremely high profile bill (it had originally be proposed, filibustered, and pulled the previous year while JFK was president, then reintroduce in 1964 after LBJ took office and was promoted as JFK’s legacy), so it couldn’t just be pulled to mollify the filibusterers. And this was an election year where 2/3 of the Senate was going back to their home state to ask for another term and had to justify the fact they sat on their asses doing nothing for 2 months while segregationists were allowed to spew white supremacy on the Senate floor.

So, just like Burr did when he eliminated the previous question rule, and just like Wilson did when he insisted on the cloture rule, Senate leadership created a rule aimed at solving the immediate problem without looking at what the long-term implications were. They created the multi-track legislative process we have today. Under this system, the Senate Majority Leader could take whatever issue was before the Senate now and “temporarily” table it so they could move on to another issue. Whereas previously an issue had to be either pulled or voted upon before the Senate could move on, now they could just leave it in limbo. The issue wasn’t pulled, but it also wouldn’t get a vote. The Majority Leader could then go back to it whenever they wanted. The idea was that if a filibuster started, they could switch tracks to something else. If/when they went back to that filibustered issue, the filibustering Senator would get the floor back and could continue, but if they couldn’t come up with the votes for cloture (which were now expanded to 3/5 of the entire Senate, which made cloture even more difficult than it was before) they could just move on to something else without wasting the Senate’s time.

Again, though, this shifted the entire dynamic of how the filibuster was actually used. The new rules went into place in 1972. The use of the filibuster (just like after cloture was first created in 1917) began to increase, and the speed of increase went up over time. At first, through the 80s and early 90s, a Senator would actually have to start their filibuster before the issue would be put on the back burner and the Senate move on to another issue. By the early 2000s, though, all a Senator had to do was tell the Majority leader they intended to filibuster if the issue came to the floor and the Majority leader would just automatically table it, never even allowing for debate.

So your argument is that it’s actually the best decision to just rubber stamp everything the fascists do because trying to oppose it might end up worse? And that if we just rubber stamp everything now, they’ll be nicer and not try to make an even worse budget/CR in September?

That’s some Neville Chamberlain-level appeasement bullshit right there. "pea

History is written by the victors

I have a BIG nitpick with this framing. While it is correct in many instances, it’s imprecise, and sometimes just flat out wrong.

A better framing is “History is written by the historians”. In other words, the historical narrative is set by those who put forth the effort to do so. In many cases, those historians are writing from the perspective of the victors, but not always.

I’ll give you a few examples:

The Mongol Empire was one of (if not the) largest contiguous land empires in world history. They conquered everything from China to eastern Europe and Mesopotamia. By any interpretation of the word, the Mongols were the victors in virtually every conflict they had. Yet they also didn’t really write histories. There’s only 1 real Mongolian historical text we have: The Secret History of the Mongols. It was an account of the life and conquests of Genghis Kahn written shortly after his death. Yet, as the title alludes to, it wasn’t a public document. It was written for the ruling dynasty. The earliest copy we know of is a copy from ~200 years after the original was written, and it didn’t become widely read until another 300 years after that. For the first half-millennia after the Mongol conquests, the historical narrative was entirely based on the accounts people who were conquered by the Mongols. In other words, the history of the Mongol conquests and their subsequent empire were almost entirely written not by the victors, but by the conquered. This heavily influences our popular conception of the Mongols as barbaric war mongers who committed horrific acts of violence. We don’t think much about any other contributions the Mongols had in the realms of culture, economics, political administration, philosophy, diplomacy, etc because the people who wrote about the Mongols (and set the historical narrative) had no interest in portraying them in a positive light. Compare that to someone like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc. All of them were similarly successful conquerors and warlords, yet the historical narrative about them is FAR more complex and positive than that of Genghis Kahn. Because the history of Genghis Kahn was not written by the victors.

Another example which is probably more accessible to a lot of people: The American Civil War. For most of the 150 years after the war ended up until just the past couple of decades, the prevailing popular narrative portrayed in pop culture and taught in schools was the Lost Cause narrative. The war was about States’ Rights. Slavery was not a part of the war at the beginning and the Union only brought it in later to justify their aggression towards the South. It was called the War of Northern Aggression by many. The South was primarily fighting to preserve a pastoral and romanticized way of life, etc, etc. This is the narrative portrayed in fiction such as Gone With the Wind and The Birth of a Nation. Of course, we know this to be bullshit. It was a war over slavery and the South was fighting to maintain the most brutal and oppressive form of slavery the world has ever seen. Yet for over a century that wasn’t the broadly accepted historical narrative because after the war ended people in the South put a lot of effort into creating and disseminating the Lost Cause narrative while the victors (the Union) didn’t put any effort into crafting an historical narrative. The North was more concerned with reuniting the nation and rebuilding, so much so that they completely gave up on Reconstruction and let the same people who had led the Confederacy run the South as an apartheid state for the next century.

These are just 2 examples, but they aren’t the only ones by a long shot. History is not always written by the victors. It’s written by the people who put forth the effort to write it, and the historical narrative ends up reflecting this down to the modern day.