Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

[postman]

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

We'd have to cut out nearly all non-military discretionary spending just to balance the budget, no less enough to pay for the wall too.

 

[jc456]

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

We'd have to cut out nearly all non-military discretionary spending just to balance the budget, no less enough to pay for the wall too.

so cuts right? isn't that what I said? why are you against balancing a budget?

 

[danielpalos]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

first, the drug war, right wingers.

 

[jc456]

And the one about 3,000,000 illegals voting for Hillary was a good one, too. Proof? Nope, he doesn't think he needs to prove anything. He just blats it out on Twitter and his sheep dive in.

Didn't Trump promise to appoint a commission to investigate the millions of illegal votes. You would think finding proof of that many illegal votes would be a piece of cake.

how do you know he hasn't? seems you think investigations take a day. So why so long on russia?

 

[Tom Horn]

Thanks to Barry the Fairy we'll never pay down the debt without shutting down everything but the IRS.

DEFAULT....get it over with...fresh start, Constitutional Amendment the government can never borrow a dime again.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

And the one about 3,000,000 illegals voting for Hillary was a good one, too. Proof? Nope, he doesn't think he needs to prove anything. He just blats it out on Twitter and his sheep dive in.

Didn't Trump promise to appoint a commission to investigate the millions of illegal votes. You would think finding proof of that many illegal votes would be a piece of cake.

He promised to repeal the ACA in his first month, investigate Hillary and "lock her up", get rid of ISIS in the first month, ban Muslims in the first month and start building the Wall with Mexican pesos, too. So far he's got a SCOTUS appt. and that is it. He's a massive fuck up of intergalactic proportions.

 

[Tom Horn]

He promised to repeal the ACA in his first month, investigate Hillary and "lock her up", get rid of ISIS in the first month, ban Muslims in the first month and start building the Wall with Mexican pesos, too. So far he's got a SCOTUS appt. and that is it. He's a massive fuck up of intergalactic proportions.

Bulllshit. WaPo says he'd whip the psychotic witch AGAIN if the election was held tomorrow.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The lefties will push for a governmental shutdown, then they will scream when the agencies never open up again.

The "lefties" have no control. It will fall squarely on those that do.

 

[koshergrl]

His inaugural crowd worldwide, was..

Trump claimed the Washington DC crowd was the biggest in history. It wasn't even the biggest that weekend, because the womens day march that Saturday was almost twice the size of the inaugural crowd.

Psst..nobody cares.

I guess you missed that part of my post. I didn't dumb it down enough.

Apparently you do. Since you tried so hard to defend Trumps claim, only to go down in flames because Trump claimed the live crowd to be the biggest in history too.

No, that's not what he claimed. Though that is what you no doubt think he said, because you're a moron who doesn't pay attention to reality.
I see what you did there, lol. You changed from saying "he said it was the biggest crowd ever" to saying "he said it was the biggest LIVE crowd ever". That's called "lying".

 

[koshergrl]

He promised to repeal the ACA in his first month, investigate Hillary and "lock her up", get rid of ISIS in the first month, ban Muslims in the first month and start building the Wall with Mexican pesos, too. So far he's got a SCOTUS appt. and that is it. He's a massive fuck up of intergalactic proportions.

Bulllshit. WaPo says he'd whip the psychotic witch AGAIN if the election was held tomorrow.

The left presents that as if it's a win for their side. "Trump would only have won by XXX instead of XXX percentage points".

Takeaway...you still lost, you losers.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

 

[Tom Horn]

He promised to repeal the ACA in his first month, investigate Hillary and "lock her up", get rid of ISIS in the first month, ban Muslims in the first month and start building the Wall with Mexican pesos, too. So far he's got a SCOTUS appt. and that is it. He's a massive fuck up of intergalactic proportions.

Bulllshit. WaPo says he'd whip the psychotic witch AGAIN if the election was held tomorrow.

The left presents that as if it's a win for their side. "Trump would only have won by XXX instead of XXX percentage points".

Takeaway...you still lost, you losers.

If I read it right, Trump whips her 43-40. And remember, he's deported several thousand of her Kali voters.

 

[bodecea]

How does Trump win in a shut down when he and congress are both GOP?

That sneaky all-powerful Former President Obama is ruining it again!

 

[jc456]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

 

[Dschrute3]

Oh man, another tired lame 'Government Shutdown' farce. It's just so predictable and tiresome at this point. The reality is, neither Party is willing to seriously address our staggering $20 Trillion Debt. They can't even achieve a Balanced Budget. These arguments are so silly. And next year they'll do it all again. I stopped paying attention. It's just a stale 'Dog & Pony Show' at this point. I'm movin on...

 

[jc456]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not.

Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.

Has anybody figured out yet, if some services are "non-essential", why do we restart funding them at all after the shutdown is over?

 

[koshergrl]

Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not.

Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.

Has anybody figured out yet, if some services are "non-essential", why do we restart funding them at all after the shutdown is over?

Boom.

Why indeed.

Shut it down. And keep it shut down.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."

what does this mean? Money is still available, you know this right? Money may not be available for everything, you know this right? So, it seems if you don't have enough money coming in, some functions must be dealt with to match the incoming funds. Why is this so difficult for leftwingers? Cut some spending? you know this is an option right?

what does this mean?

That was among the most simple and straightforward posts I've written -- no "SAT-level" vocab, mostly simple sentence structures, simple ideas, and just one clarifying link -- and you wonder what it means. Are you seriously asking me that? I have to ask because I am hard pressed to envision how I can answer that question without appearing condescending. (I don't mind that some may take my comments that way, but I don't usually make a point of seeming that way.)

ahh humor me. As simple as you might think that is, it made absolutely no sense. The president doesn't have anything to do with the congress vote.

Okay....

To remind you, this is what I wrote:

In consideration of a government shutdown, who the losers are is more important than who be the winners. Moreover, the notion that a government shutdown actually produces "winners" is utterly absurd, unless one is an anarchist. At best, any "win" is nothing more than a collateral impact, and no leader, more precisely no cogent thinker who finds themselves serving as a leader, aims not for genuine wins, but rather for collateral "damage/gains" and thereby chooses their course of action to achieve those ancillary outcomes. Not even the most risky and outlandish political strategists posit ideas forged upon the notion of "winning as a result of shutting down the government."​

What that paragraph means is that:

• In the context of evaluating the impacts of a government shutdown, who wins matters less than does who loses.
• It is specious and sophistic to classify as a "presidential win" the outcomes of a government shutdown.
• Policy makers, responsible presidents who care about their country, don't make their decisions based on ancillary outcomes and consequences of shutting down the government; they decide based on the primary, maybe secondary, outcomes and consequences, and the tertiary, quaternary, quinary, etc. ones just "are what they are." Responsible and sane leaders don't devise plans for governance, or political success, in which a part of the process for achieving that success is shutting down the government.

I realize that's not all that different that what I first wrote, but that's because with a paragraph as simple and straightforward as that which I initially posted, there's not much a writer can do to simplify it. On the other hand, readers can take a variety of actions to accurately comprehend such passages.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct? when a couple of parties can't stop spending what they don't have, the populace is hurt. Hurt. The populace demands things get corrected as a result. A responsible person does not spend more than they have. Period. You agree? let's start here for now.

so the real losers is the american populace, correct?

The losers are described in the content you'll find at the link in my initial post. Had you clicked on it, you wouldn't have to ask me who the losers are.