US Government Shutdown- It's Over!... For Now

[Attempted Socialism]

There's been no Trump hate. There's been a dignified evaluation of Trump, on the merits, which was more than he deserved after we had seen him during the election.
Meanwhile, the GOP did think Obama was literally the Anti-Christ:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... y-theories

The politics of passing a bill and overriding a veto are different, as you can see from other times bipartisan bills have been vetoed. Especially with the GOP following their President, it's to be expected that they flip the second he's against (As they've done so many times before). The Democrats are, for once, entirely innocent, as Trump himself noted in a rare, lucid moment with Pelosi and Schumer.

There's been no Trump hate?

Indeed, as I said:

There's been a dignified evaluation of Trump, on the merits, which was more than he deserved after we had seen him during the election.

It's kind of like saying the Allies "hated" Hitler in 1945. Saying true things about Trump isn't hate, it's neutrality.

Also, Obama is way off topic, and I'm not a member of GOP, so I see no reason to engage in that beloved tantrum of yours. And yes, the Democrats are just innocent lambs, out to be slaughtered by evil Trump.

I didn't say that at all, but it's a nice strawman. They're blameless, or innocent, in the Trump Shutdown.

Yeah, no Trump hate here at all:

(Image)

Indeed not (Even if it's an image made and promoted by e.g. Democrats and not something Trump-supporters made up).

Hate would have been to do what the Republicans did after 2010, and hold the government hostage several times to defund passed laws, where no bills were passed at all. The Democrats have gone very far to accomodate Trump policies, and have compromised even in the bipartisan bill that Trump threatened to veto, setting this mess in motion.

Edit:

But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

I'm not a resident of the US, or member of any US party, and if I were, I wouldn't be a member of a centre-right party like the Democrats.
I like your strawmen, they're cute.

[The South Falls]

There's definitely been Trump hate. That doesn't exonerate him from primary fault in this current shutdown.

Of course not. He wanted a showdown with the Democrats, and that partially inspired a shutdown. He is to blame. But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

Yea, it's not like the Democrats are a 100% innocent here, but just asking them to cave is wrong.

[Trotskylvania]

You know, you could always read the research.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... t-it-does/

Relevant bit quoted from the researchers:

They're lab animals being used to help model human sexual behavior because humans can't be so easily studied, but thanks to evolution most animals have mologous responses to drugs.

The take home from this is that Rand Paul should not be trusted. Ever.

That has several assumptions:

1. Quails are turned on as quickly as humans
2. Cocaine affects quails the same way as it affects humans
3. Humans consuming cocaine will somehow care about sexual motivation, and consume less cocaine as a result
4. That there are greater odds that sexual behavior of quails on cocaine will decrease use of cocaine by humans, than the opposite; otherwise you're just studying quails on cocaine to increase human cocaine consumption, which is even worse than what Rand Paul suggested

It's a dumb study. It's a waste of money. If someone's addicted to cocaine, rough sex isn't going to magically get most of them to quit; however who's to say that for every cocaine addict who quits because of rough sex, someone else didn't try cocaine, and get addicted to it, in order to aid their rough sex?

You have managed to exactly invert the purpose. The goal is to do preliminary research to determine if cocaine actually increases high risk sexual behavior. Birds being intelligent, social animals makes them better for this preliminary research than say rats. If you want to actually study humans given the ethical constraints, you've got to establish important groundwork. If cocaine doesn't increase high risk sexual behavior in other animals, there is no point trying to study it in humans

[Shofercia]

That has several assumptions:

1. Quails are turned on as quickly as humans
2. Cocaine affects quails the same way as it affects humans
3. Humans consuming cocaine will somehow care about sexual motivation, and consume less cocaine as a result
4. That there are greater odds that sexual behavior of quails on cocaine will decrease use of cocaine by humans, than the opposite; otherwise you're just studying quails on cocaine to increase human cocaine consumption, which is even worse than what Rand Paul suggested

It's a dumb study. It's a waste of money. If someone's addicted to cocaine, rough sex isn't going to magically get most of them to quit; however who's to say that for every cocaine addict who quits because of rough sex, someone else didn't try cocaine, and get addicted to it, in order to aid their rough sex?

You have managed to exactly invert the purpose. The goal is to do preliminary research to determine if cocaine actually increases high risk sexual behavior. Birds being intelligent, social animals makes them better for this preliminary research than say rats. If you want to actually study humans given the ethical constraints, you've got to establish important groundwork. If cocaine doesn't increase high risk sexual behavior in other animals, there is no point trying to study it in humans

Again, why in the World would you waste Government Funds attempting to study frisky sexual behavior in quails to use it to see how cocaine use will affect humans? I can understand a quail based study to see how quickly quails can defeat their addiction to cocaine in order to help out humans, and what methods helped out the quails. But it is not the Government's job to protect cocaine addicts from rough sex. I'm all for spending money on Government research, but it has to be productive research, where the end result needs to be something that helps society, or could help society, not rough sex among cocaine addicts.

Let's say that you prove that quails like it rougher with cocaine, and that it applies to humans. Where's the proof that said study will be a net positive for the country? People who become cocaine addicts do so either due to a sense of adventure, societal pressure, or because they're destitute and demoralized. They don't become cocaine addicts because they want safer sex. If you want to spend your own money on it - go for it, I can see how it could be interesting. But to spend Government funds on this shit, I'm sorry, it's a waste.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

I don't see the problem. Republicans refused to have a functioning supreme Court for 9 months until they got what they wanted. I see no reason why Democrats wouldn't do the same for 3 weeks.

Personally I am against the wall. It is expensive, doesn't work unless it is garrisoned, and only border states will benefit from it's construction/manning. I say if Texas wants to keep the brown people out then they can pay for it.

[Shofercia]

Of course not. He wanted a showdown with the Democrats, and that partially inspired a shutdown. He is to blame. But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

Yea, it's not like the Democrats are a 100% innocent here, but just asking them to cave is wrong.

If they don't want to cave, then they need to come up with an alternative program that will effectively deal with the issue. I suggested penalizing employers, with hefty fines, who hired illegal immigrants while paying them under the table, and/or below the market. If Juanita the housekeeper is truly family for you, why don't you pay Juanita a living wage?

What's been going on in California is that employers who hire them get to pay them below what they would've paid American workers, as a result the taxes they pay are shit, because they earn a shitty amount of money, they send their kids to schools, and get free healthcare, so their employer gets all the benefits of their labor, and society bears all the costs.

I don't see the problem. Republicans refused to have a functioning supreme Court for 9 months until they got what they wanted. I see no reason why Democrats wouldn't do the same for 3 weeks.

Personally I am against the wall. It is expensive, doesn't work unless it is garrisoned, and only border states will benefit from it's construction/manning. I say if Texas wants to keep the brown people out then they can pay for it.

SCOTUS was functioning. It doesn't need 9 Judges to function.

[Shofercia]

There's been no Trump hate?

Indeed, as I said:

There's been a dignified evaluation of Trump, on the merits, which was more than he deserved after we had seen him during the election.

It's kind of like saying the Allies "hated" Hitler in 1945. Saying true things about Trump isn't hate, it's neutrality.

So a mock decapitation of politicians is something that you consider neutral criticism. Interesting.

Also, Obama is way off topic, and I'm not a member of GOP, so I see no reason to engage in that beloved tantrum of yours. And yes, the Democrats are just innocent lambs, out to be slaughtered by evil Trump.

I didn't say that at all, but it's a nice strawman. They're blameless, or innocent, in the Trump Shutdown.

So they're not innocent, but they're innocent. Gotcha.

Yeah, no Trump hate here at all:

(Image)

Indeed not (Even if it's an image made and promoted by e.g. Democrats and not something Trump-supporters made up).

Hate would have been to do what the Republicans did after 2010, and hold the government hostage several times to defund passed laws, where no bills were passed at all. The Democrats have gone very far to accomodate Trump policies, and have compromised even in the bipartisan bill that Trump threatened to veto, setting this mess in motion.

Ahh yes, a bill so bipartisan, that it cannot even get past a presidential veto. In the post-FDR period, 52 presidential vetoes have been overridden. Your beloved Obama had one of his vetoes overridden. So yes, you can override a presidential veto, if you have true bipartisanship. Ford's vetoes were overridden twelve times. It's doable. That's for those of us who actually know the History.

But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

I'm not a resident of the US, or member of any US party, and if I were, I wouldn't be a member of a centre-right party like the Democrats.
I like your strawmen, they're cute.

Wasn't a response to you, but I like your strawmen accusations though, they're cute.

[Chernoslavia]

I don't see the problem. Republicans refused to have a functioning supreme Court for 9 months until they got what they wanted. I see no reason why Democrats wouldn't do the same for 3 weeks.

Personally I am against the wall. It is expensive, doesn't work unless it is garrisoned, and only border states will benefit from it's construction/manning. I say if Texas wants to keep the brown people out then they can pay for it.

If you or anyone against the wall want to be taken seriously, this race bait needs to stop.

[Katganistan]

This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
B: They want to block everything the president does. Hopefully the voters see this and decide not to vote for the hive-minds on the left.

Reminder that there was a bipartisan spending bill that passed both houses and Trump vetoedsaid he'd veto it.

[Chernoslavia]

Dude, have you not seen what's been going on in the press? Ever since the election, it's been Trump hate. And yes, Trump is to blame for the shutdown, I never said otherwise. And the Democrats are also to blame. If the bill had genuine bi-partisan support, it would've been able to surpass the presidential veto, so stop yelling "muh bi-partisanship!" - that might work with CNN viewers, but not those of us who actually read the US Constitution.

There's been no Trump hate. There's been a dignified evaluation of Trump, on the merits, which was more than he deserved after we had seen him during the election.
Meanwhile, the GOP did think Obama was literally the Anti-Christ:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... y-theories

The politics of passing a bill and overriding a veto are different, as you can see from other times bipartisan bills have been vetoed. Especially with the GOP following their President, it's to be expected that they flip the second he's against (As they've done so many times before). The Democrats are, for once, entirely innocent, as Trump himself noted in a rare, lucid moment with Pelosi and Schumer.

You're really just blaming Republicans for Obama hate while refusing to acknowledge that the same is happening to Trump.

[Katganistan]

But MheXIxo will pay for the wALl

Nope. We will -- and by we, I mean not-the-billionaires-he's-given-the-country-to.

[Trotskylvania]

You have managed to exactly invert the purpose. The goal is to do preliminary research to determine if cocaine actually increases high risk sexual behavior. Birds being intelligent, social animals makes them better for this preliminary research than say rats. If you want to actually study humans given the ethical constraints, you've got to establish important groundwork. If cocaine doesn't increase high risk sexual behavior in other animals, there is no point trying to study it in humans

Again, why in the World would you waste Government Funds attempting to study frisky sexual behavior in quails to use it to see how cocaine use will affect humans? I can understand a quail based study to see how quickly quails can defeat their addiction to cocaine in order to help out humans, and what methods helped out the quails. But it is not the Government's job to protect cocaine addicts from rough sex. I'm all for spending money on Government research, but it has to be productive research, where the end result needs to be something that helps society, or could help society, not rough sex among cocaine addicts.

Let's say that you prove that quails like it rougher with cocaine, and that it applies to humans. Where's the proof that said study will be a net positive for the country? People who become cocaine addicts do so either due to a sense of adventure, societal pressure, or because they're destitute and demoralized. They don't become cocaine addicts because they want safer sex. If you want to spend your own money on it - go for it, I can see how it could be interesting. But to spend Government funds on this shit, I'm sorry, it's a waste.

Risky sex is not the same as rough sex. They're studying how much cocaine diminishes inhibitions and leads people to have sex with partners they do not know or would not ordinarily have sexual relationships with. This is a really important question for epidemiology for all manner of sexual health and medicine questions. Including fertility and the spread of infectious diseases

[Republicanana]

I don't see the problem. Republicans refused to have a functioning supreme Court for 9 months until they got what they wanted. I see no reason why Democrats wouldn't do the same for 3 weeks.

Personally I am against the wall. It is expensive, doesn't work unless it is garrisoned, and only border states will benefit from it's construction/manning. I say if Texas wants to keep the brown people out then they can pay for it.

It is not like once the Dems take over the House on the 3rd, this thing would automatically end, at least I do not think it would.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Deleted.

[Myrensis]

There's definitely been Trump hate. That doesn't exonerate him from primary fault in this current shutdown.

Of course not. He wanted a showdown with the Democrats, and that partially inspired a shutdown. He is to blame. But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

What bait was there exactly? Trump spiked a bipartisan spending bill to demand a wall that is only popular with his own base, the Democrats said No.

Haha! Silly Democrats, you fell for the bait, don't you know the only way to beat Trump is to...just give him everything and anything he demands from moment to moment without question!?

There was no bait, there is no master plan. Trump was, per usual, utterly indifferent to anything happening in Congress, until he sat down for his daily 12 hours of 'Executive TV Time" and a bunch of conservative talking heads suggested he wouldn't be the most smartest and handsomest and bravest President ever if he didn't get the wall, so he threw a fit and provoked a shutdown with no greater planning or thought behind it.

Don't we already have a fence? Why do we need a wall?

We've all ready downgraded to a fence, well, Trump prefers to say 'Barrier' because otherwise even his goldfish like cultists might vaguely remember that at one point it was a Very Big Deal(tm) that it was definitely going to be a Big Beautiful WALL and definitely not just a FENCE like a bunch of other weak loser Presidents have put up.

Which really is all the more reason for Democrats to hold out. Another year or so and we'll give him 50 dollars for a white picket fence and the red-hats will call it the most beautiful and amazing wall they've ever seen, because the alternative would be admitting that Trump has been lying to them from day one and views them as nothing more than a pack of drooling idiot personal ego fluffers.

I don't see the problem. Republicans refused to have a functioning supreme Court for 9 months until they got what they wanted. I see no reason why Democrats wouldn't do the same for 3 weeks.

Personally I am against the wall. It is expensive, doesn't work unless it is garrisoned, and only border states will benefit from it's construction/manning. I say if Texas wants to keep the brown people out then they can pay for it.

It is not like once the Dems take over the House on the 3rd, this thing would automatically end, at least I do not think it would.

Once Dems take over the House on the 3rd it will have been almost three weeks since Trump has been golfing at Mar A Lago, and wall funding will be dead in the House while we all ready know the Senate is perfectly willing to pass a clean bill, meaning that all blame for the shutdown will pretty much land squarely on Trump.

But hey sure, if there's one thing we've learned in the last couple of years, it's that Trump is always willing to stoically bear any criticism, to accept any blame, and to fight to the last for the conservative principles he deeply believes in!



Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.

[Shofercia]

Of course not. He wanted a showdown with the Democrats, and that partially inspired a shutdown. He is to blame. But when we get members of the other party trying to portray the Democrats as innocent lambs, (rather than the party that took his bait and went right into the shutdown,) just to be slaughtered by evil president, I just can't help but laugh. That said, I completely agree with your post.

What bait was there exactly? Trump spiked a bipartisan spending bill to demand a wall that is only popular with his own base, the Democrats said No.

Haha! Silly Democrats, you fell for the bait, don't you know the only way to beat Trump is to...just give him everything and anything he demands from moment to moment without question!?

There was no bait, there is no master plan. Trump was, per usual, utterly indifferent to anything happening in Congress, until he sat down for his daily 12 hours of 'Executive TV Time" and a bunch of conservative talking heads suggested he wouldn't be the most smartest and handsomest and bravest President ever if he didn't get the wall, so he threw a fit and provoked a shutdown with no greater planning or thought behind it.

Again, if the bill was so bipartisan, why not override the veto? Since FDR, over 10 percent of non-pocket vetoes (52/496) were overridden.

[The South Falls]

What bait was there exactly? Trump spiked a bipartisan spending bill to demand a wall that is only popular with his own base, the Democrats said No.

Haha! Silly Democrats, you fell for the bait, don't you know the only way to beat Trump is to...just give him everything and anything he demands from moment to moment without question!?

There was no bait, there is no master plan. Trump was, per usual, utterly indifferent to anything happening in Congress, until he sat down for his daily 12 hours of 'Executive TV Time" and a bunch of conservative talking heads suggested he wouldn't be the most smartest and handsomest and bravest President ever if he didn't get the wall, so he threw a fit and provoked a shutdown with no greater planning or thought behind it.

Again, if the bill was so bipartisan, why not override the veto? Since FDR, over 10 percent of non-pocket vetoes (52/496) were overridden.

This should have happened. I wonder why there's no one doing this.

[Myrensis]

What bait was there exactly? Trump spiked a bipartisan spending bill to demand a wall that is only popular with his own base, the Democrats said No.

Haha! Silly Democrats, you fell for the bait, don't you know the only way to beat Trump is to...just give him everything and anything he demands from moment to moment without question!?

There was no bait, there is no master plan. Trump was, per usual, utterly indifferent to anything happening in Congress, until he sat down for his daily 12 hours of 'Executive TV Time" and a bunch of conservative talking heads suggested he wouldn't be the most smartest and handsomest and bravest President ever if he didn't get the wall, so he threw a fit and provoked a shutdown with no greater planning or thought behind it.

Again, if the bill was so bipartisan, why not override the veto? Since FDR, over 10 percent of non-pocket vetoes (52/496) were overridden.

Because the Republicans are terrified that Trump will turn his cultists on them?

The 'clean' bill passed the Senate unanimously, you have Republican Senators going home for the holidays and responding to questions with "Whatever, call me when there's something to vote on.". The Senate Republicans don't give two shits about the wall, but they won't override Trump for fear that he'll point his tiny fingers at them and tell his rabid red-hatters that they're the ones stopping him from making America great again.

Wall funding only got through the House because, in case their "We need to investigate Hillary for more things!" sessions haven't clued you in, the House Republicans have dedicated the lame duck session to being spiteful little weasels after losing their majority. Come January 3 wall funding is dead in the House, and the only thing prolonging the shutdown will be Senate Republican cowardice and the Man-Child in Chiefs tantrums.

[Shofercia]

Again, if the bill was so bipartisan, why not override the veto? Since FDR, over 10 percent of non-pocket vetoes (52/496) were overridden.

Because the Republicans are terrified that Trump will turn his cultists on them?

The 'clean' bill passed the Senate unanimously, you have Republican Senators going home for the holidays and responding to questions with "Whatever, call me when there's something to vote on.". The Senate Republicans don't give two shits about the wall, but they won't override Trump for fear that he'll point his tiny fingers at them and tell his rabid red-hatters that they're the ones stopping him from making America great again.

Wall funding only got through the House because, in case their "We need to investigate Hillary for more things!" sessions haven't clued you in, the House Republicans have dedicated the lame duck session to being spiteful little weasels after losing their majority. Come January 3 wall funding is dead in the House, and the only thing prolonging the shutdown will be Senate Republican cowardice and the Man-Child in Chiefs tantrums.

Ahh yes, the 60+ Senators that won't be up for reelection, and the ones running in safe states, must be absolutely terrified of Trump... riiight. There are 22 Republican Seats up for reelection, so let's see here, 100-22 = 78, and uhhh 78/100, that's a bit higher than 67, which is what's needed for the override. Also, Senate Republicans got to humiliate Democrats with Kavanaugh, whereas House Republicans didn't, which might be a better explanation than "my opponent's party are a bunch of deplorable butthurt losers!"

[Myrensis]

Because the Republicans are terrified that Trump will turn his cultists on them?

The 'clean' bill passed the Senate unanimously, you have Republican Senators going home for the holidays and responding to questions with "Whatever, call me when there's something to vote on.". The Senate Republicans don't give two shits about the wall, but they won't override Trump for fear that he'll point his tiny fingers at them and tell his rabid red-hatters that they're the ones stopping him from making America great again.

Wall funding only got through the House because, in case their "We need to investigate Hillary for more things!" sessions haven't clued you in, the House Republicans have dedicated the lame duck session to being spiteful little weasels after losing their majority. Come January 3 wall funding is dead in the House, and the only thing prolonging the shutdown will be Senate Republican cowardice and the Man-Child in Chiefs tantrums.

Ahh yes, the 60+ Senators that won't be up for reelection, and the ones running in safe states, must be absolutely terrified of Trump... riiight. There are 22 Republican Seats up for reelection, so let's see here, 100-22 = 78, and uhhh 78/100, that's a bit higher than 67, which is what's needed for the override. Also, Senate Republicans got to humiliate Democrats with Kavanaugh, whereas House Republicans didn't, which might be a better explanation than "my opponent's party are a bunch of deplorable butthurt losers!"

100 Senators voting for a bill with no wall is also more than the 67 needed to override a veto of a bill with no wall, but here we are.

So the House Republicans aren't being deplorable butthurt losers about the election, they're being deplorable butthurt winners about Kavanaugh? ... K.

[Olthar]

Wait, the government shut down? I didn't even notice.

[Shofercia]

Ahh yes, the 60+ Senators that won't be up for reelection, and the ones running in safe states, must be absolutely terrified of Trump... riiight. There are 22 Republican Seats up for reelection, so let's see here, 100-22 = 78, and uhhh 78/100, that's a bit higher than 67, which is what's needed for the override. Also, Senate Republicans got to humiliate Democrats with Kavanaugh, whereas House Republicans didn't, which might be a better explanation than "my opponent's party are a bunch of deplorable butthurt losers!"

100 Senators voting for a bill with no wall is also more than the 67 needed to override a veto of a bill with no wall, but here we are.

So the House Republicans aren't being deplorable butthurt losers about the election, they're being deplorable butthurt winners about Kavanaugh? ... K.

With Senators taking a vacation during the holidays? And it appears from his Twitter feed that Rand Paul is not a fan of the new bill, and I doubt that he's terrified of Trump. Also, wouldn't it be hard for House members to be winners of Senate Hearings?

[Shofercia]

Wait, the government shut down? I didn't even notice.

*rimshot*

[Phoenicaea]

greetings. to know, how does shutdown work? which is the decision about what facilities work and what don t, and that makes how large part of them?

if it is real, then is great. in my country, there is nothing quite as this (it means the public spending goes, whatever licit or not, while it has been voted, or not).

[The New California Republic]

greetings. to know, how does shutdown work? which is the decision about what facilities work and what don t, and that makes how large part of them?

if it is real, then is great. in my country, there is nothing quite as this (it means the public spending goes, whatever licit or not, while it has been voted, or not).

There are articles available on most major news sites that list the specific departments that are closed, but it includes (but not limited to): the IRS, national parks, and housing. Payment of salary for some other departments will also be delayed.