Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will Senate Repubicans vote NO on this CR?

No. Not after refusing to vote on the Senate CR to make sure this passed first.

[Anonymous]

So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

I mean, is it not obvious this is the reason? They can’t come out and say it because then it’s no longer a proxy war. Obviously, Putin has world domination dreams. What is next after Ukraine? Come on.

Then it’s all the more imperative to debate it. Especially if we are deliberately sacrificing Ukrainian lives for our own ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

I mean, is it not obvious this is the reason? They can’t come out and say it because then it’s no longer a proxy war. Obviously, Putin has world domination dreams. What is next after Ukraine? Come on.

Then it’s all the more imperative to debate it. Especially if we are deliberately sacrificing Ukrainian lives for our own ends.

We are supporting Ukraine, as we have been doing for decades, and as we promised we would do when they disarmed. We wouldn't be reducing Russia's military capabilities, as we currently are doing, if they hadn't attacked Ukraine.

Our own ends line up with Ukraine's, which works out well for both of us, n'est-ce pas?

[Anonymous]

Well I guess I won't be having a staycation after all! Let's rest up and gear up for work again on Monday, folks.

[Anonymous]

So relieved -- I was not looking forward to issuing furlough notices on Monday, and then coming back after the shutdown to clean up whatever mess was left. I'll take boring day to day work over an uncertain length of a shutdown any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So relieved -- I was not looking forward to issuing furlough notices on Monday, and then coming back after the shutdown to clean up whatever mess was left. I'll take boring day to day work over an uncertain length of a shutdown any day.

Agreed

Hallelujah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The analysts were giving 70-90% for a shutdown so it is not like people were just making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

I mean, is it not obvious this is the reason? They can’t come out and say it because then it’s no longer a proxy war. Obviously, Putin has world domination dreams. What is next after Ukraine? Come on.

Then it’s all the more imperative to debate it. Especially if we are deliberately sacrificing Ukrainian lives for our own ends.

NP. What do you even mean "deliberately sacrificing Ukranian lives"....you do realize that it was the Ukranian's fierce resistance and sacrifices to fight for their freedom the galvanized the West behind them, right? They shocked the world and reminded us of who we aspire to be, the shining city on the hill that put down Hitler, stopped the Soviet Union, and - though it took a long, long time - finally brought justice down upon Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The analysts were giving 70-90% for a shutdown so it is not like people were just making stuff up.

Yes, conventional wisdom is conventional wisdom. Those with the ability to see beyond that due to wisdom and foresight are to be applauded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Some folks are just better than others at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The analysts were giving 70-90% for a shutdown so it is not like people were just making stuff up.

Everyone underestimated McCarthy. The ridiculous story about him yesterday in the NYT made me suspect as much. Instead of impartial political reporting, the DC media establishment prioritizes caricatures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/us/politics/mccarthy-government-shutdown.html