General Discussion

Probably along the lines of they would not vote for the CR unless it restored the ACA subsidies.

If I'm mistaken about that, let me know.

In regards to "good faith" all I can say is I have pursued this discussion using logic and my honest understanding of this matter with nearly 60 years of following national politics.

I understand that many Democrats are very upset right now that our Senate leadership insisted that restoration of ACA subsidies be included in the CR, then 8 votes in our caucus ended the filibuster even though ACA was not restored.

In good faith, I do not think you have applied critical thought to the limited options available, and the consequences.

Set your emotions aside if you can, and consider the options our Democratic senators faced.

They could have declined to filibuster, effectively rubber-stamping the the Republican CR. I have no doubt our voting base, myself included, would have been angry as hell for their lack of fight.

They could have filibustered, citing an issue in the CR that was unacceptable. I believe the ACA subsidies were the most important issue.

I also believe there was no chance Republicans would ever pass legislation to restore ACA, and you have acknowledged as much yourself.

This put Senate Democrats in a very difficult position, knowing there was no chance of achieving that goal and the government shutdown would start to cause real pain to real people as it dragged on.

People going hungry. Federal workers losing pay, then their jobs. Dismantling government agencies people depend on.

Republicans don't care about that pain, and their objective has been to dismantle federal agencies.

Senate Democrats knew their voting base would be furious if they ended the filibuster without restoration of ACA.

What did they personally have to gain by doing that? Why did they end the filibuster?

Is it possible they actually care about their constituents -- about people going hungry, losing their jobs, government agencies being decimated?

Keep in mind there was no chance that Republicans would pass legislation to restore the ACA, or that Trump would sign it.

Given all that, what did they have to gain by the filibuster in the first place?

I explained all that in an earlier post, but will do so again if necessary.