Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think you are right. I lost respect for him after Jan 6 when he crawled back to Trump. But this is the second time (debt ceiling being the first) he's proven that when he's really up against it, he puts country first. I'm as surprised as anybody, but very glad that it seems we still have some adults in charge.

Sure. It’s not so much about liking and respect, but actually accurately reporting what’s going in. This shouldn’t be a surprise.

PP. I'm not a reporter, so I don't really understand your comment.

My comment is that it is naive to decide that McCarthy is weak politically based on ideological beliefs. I get why civilians reason that way, but I expect more from political reporters.

Ah I understand, thanks for clarifying, but my view that McCarthy was weak wasn't based on ideological beliefs, it was based on the fact that McCarthy was having discussions about removing Trump from office for what he did on Jan 6th, and then backtracking just days later. That was accurate reporting of his actions that made McCarthy appear weak, and had led to a lot of people, including myself, underestimating him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some folks are just better than others at this.

Knock it off. You just made a lucky guess this time. Why are you so needy for applause?

Nope. Not a guess at all—just a reasoned, rational prognostication. Moving forward, please, everyone out there, don’t label those with reasonable contrary views “trolls.”

My, my. Super needy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some folks are just better than others at this.

Knock it off. You just made a lucky guess this time. Why are you so needy for applause?

Nope. Not a guess at all—just a reasoned, rational prognostication. Moving forward, please, everyone out there, don’t label those with reasonable contrary views “trolls.”

DP - if you and the other “optimists” hadn’t been so smug and condescending, you wouldn’t have gotten the backlash you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think you are right. I lost respect for him after Jan 6 when he crawled back to Trump. But this is the second time (debt ceiling being the first) he's proven that when he's really up against it, he puts country first. I'm as surprised as anybody, but very glad that it seems we still have some adults in charge.

Sure. It’s not so much about liking and respect, but actually accurately reporting what’s going in. This shouldn’t be a surprise.

PP. I'm not a reporter, so I don't really understand your comment.

My comment is that it is naive to decide that McCarthy is weak politically based on ideological beliefs. I get why civilians reason that way, but I expect more from political reporters.

Ah I understand, thanks for clarifying, but my view that McCarthy was weak wasn't based on ideological beliefs, it was based on the fact that McCarthy was having discussions about removing Trump from office for what he did on Jan 6th, and then backtracking just days later. That was accurate reporting of his actions that made McCarthy appear weak, and had led to a lot of people, including myself, underestimating him.

Everyone backtracked on that. That’s politics. You thought McCarthy was weak because the news sources you read/listen to are not doing a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some folks are just better than others at this.

Knock it off. You just made a lucky guess this time. Why are you so needy for applause?

Nope. Not a guess at all—just a reasoned, rational prognostication. Moving forward, please, everyone out there, don’t label those with reasonable contrary views “trolls.”

DP - if you and the other “optimists” hadn’t been so smug and condescending, you wouldn’t have gotten the backlash you did.

DP. You’re being absurd. Do you think this is some kind of fight with your sister?

[Anonymous]

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.

Your example is pretty good. Because there is no universe in which the US invades Mexico to annex it. Russia, on other hand, has stated that they intend to annex Ukraine and, after that, other places.

Yes there is no universe because the situation doesn’t exist. There isn’t a Chinese funded anti American military alliance in South America. Now imagine for a second that there was. And then that military alliance kept expanding and getting closer and closer to the US. And then China and the rest of the members of the military alliance kept hinting that Mexico would join this alliance. The US then invades Mexico and China starts funding the Mexican government’s resistance to the US. Sounds absurd right? It would never happen because China would never get away with something like that. The US would never allow a Chinese funded and pro-Chinese military alliance to exist in South America in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had already mentally committed to a vacation so this is not good news.

Haha yeah, I have no idea when I'll ever get my upstairs painted now.

[Anonymous]

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.

Except that we shouldn’t be in a proxy war with a nuclear power. Remember how dangerous the Cold War era was? And second, the Ukrainians will never win this war. Instead the US’s goal is to exhaust the Russians till the last Ukrainian. It is fighting its proxy war till the last Ukrainian. This is what the US did when it funded Afghan fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Russians.

[Anonymous]

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.

Except that we shouldn’t be in a proxy war with a nuclear power. Remember how dangerous the Cold War era was? And second, the Ukrainians will never win this war. Instead the US’s goal is to exhaust the Russians till the last Ukrainian. It is fighting its proxy war till the last Ukrainian. This is what the US did when it funded Afghan fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Russians.

Umm, the Ukrainians are successfully pushing Russia out of the Crimea. Not fast, but it's happening.

[Anonymous]

lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

Agreed, but honestly I wasn't sure he'd be willing to risk his speakership, or he would have done so earlier to just say "we made a deal, fall in line." I wouldn't say this makes him look strong, per se, but I thought people would have to actually suffer before he'd risk his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

well, now he gets to make Gaetz et al look like fools. I feel like the consistent critique of McCarthy is that he “caves” and gets “humiliated” by a drawn-out process, yet here he is still standing & government running.

[Anonymous]

CRs should be illegal. It makes it hard to get things done at work. Not everything can be perfectly funded 1/12. A lot of things require up front funding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

Agreed, but honestly I wasn't sure he'd be willing to risk his speakership, or he would have done so earlier to just say "we made a deal, fall in line." I wouldn't say this makes him look strong, per se, but I thought people would have to actually suffer before he'd risk his job.

He waited just until ppl WERE going to suffer and then moved. We’ll see if the attempt to remove him gets any traction. Do note that Trump has been silent and given zero encouragement in the past few days to the HFC.

[Anonymous]

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.

Except that we shouldn’t be in a proxy war with a nuclear power. Remember how dangerous the Cold War era was? And second, the Ukrainians will never win this war. Instead the US’s goal is to exhaust the Russians till the last Ukrainian. It is fighting its proxy war till the last Ukrainian. This is what the US did when it funded Afghan fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Russians.

Umm, the Ukrainians are successfully pushing Russia out of the Crimea. Not fast, but it's happening.

It’s not happening. Just like Assad being toppled didn’t happen and the Taliban losing didn’t happen. It didn’t happen just like in Vietnam.