Poll of the Day > The United States is shut down?

(+) Yeah! (+)

How does that work?

in before it doesn't
---

The United States are shut down
---

Trump doesn't like the government so he shut it down.

Too bad he doesn't know Mueller is still working and unaffected.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown

oh no the Zoo will be closed on Monday D:
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown

And fear not: Lawmakers will continue to receive their pay

Looks like I was up all night for nothing.
---

St_Kevin posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown

oh no the Zoo will be closed on Monday D:

I was able to visit it last summer so I'm good.
---

Yeah sorry world. America is out of business.
---

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

Lmao! Imagine being this stupid.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

lol imagine living in a world where this isn't the fault of Trump refusing every deal.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

lol imagine living in a world where this isn't the fault of Trump refusing every deal.

imagine living in a world without Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States

I assume you're gonna blame the 2013 one on Trump too eh?
---

Judgmenl posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

lol imagine living in a world where this isn't the fault of Trump refusing every deal.

imagine living in a world without Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States

I assume you're gonna blame the 2013 one on Trump too eh?

Republicans had control of the House in 2013.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

Every hissy fit?
---

Alright the government threatens shutdown every year when one party has a hissy fit because some piece of legislation doesn't fit their agenda. Doesn't usually happen, but in the past 30 years has frequently happened. Strange that it never hapened when Bush Jr. was in power.
---

It happened in 2013 as well.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

It is and I quote this...IMPOSSIBLE for the minority to cause a shut down when the majority has control of the House, Senate, and White House. The ONLY way for a shut down to happen under that circumstance is if the Majority refuses and guess what they did.

This is the first time a majority that has enough power that it can willfully ignore the entirety minority party and still get things passed, has caused a shut down because as the current heads of house and senate have stated they can't trust trump. They can't finalize deals because they don't know what Trump will agree upon and they can't plan out funding because they don't know what Trump will agree to. They don't know because every time they've had something Trump has gone back on his word and shut it down. That is why even with all the power they have utterly failed.
---

Trump wasn't asking for anything unrelilistic. He said what he wanted, and the Democrats refused to give it to him. I'd say they were the ones having a hissy fit.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Trump wasn't asking for anything unrelilistic

To pay for a 2,000-mile long wall that he repeatedly said a foreign government would pay for?

He also keeps changing what he wanted. Congressional GOP tied CHIP reauthorization to the bill, and the Trump tweets out that they shouldn't have done that.
---

So is Trump talking out his ass then?
https://youtu.be/fc5tIKFDy1s?t=50m5s
---

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks. Otherwise I miss the days when we had a government which didn't try to force through non-spending issues by derailing spending bills.

Hirokey123 posted...

It is and I quote this...IMPOSSIBLE for the minority to cause a shut down when the majority has control of the House, Senate, and White House. The ONLY way for a shut down to happen under that circumstance is if the Majority refuses and guess what they did.

It's clearly not impossible, because here we are. Usually minority parties don't the ability to have enough influence to force a shutdown

Tropic_Sunset posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown

And fear not: Lawmakers will continue to receive their pay

Looks like I was up all night for nothing.

Plus government workers get backpay anyway. iirc, even some of the ones who didn't work during the last shutdown still got compensation.
---

Zeus posted...

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks.

Literally neither president has control over that.

Zeus posted...

Usually minority parties don't the ability to have enough influence to force a shutdown

That's the majority party's decision to use the budget reconciliation procedure to pass the tax cut bill ahead of the federal budget.
---

Zeus posted...

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks

Nah he's just taking away their federal funding lmfao
---

Yes? Trump pretty much does nothing but talk out of his ass.

Zeus posted...

It's clearly not impossible, because here we are. Usually minority parties don't the ability to have enough influence to force a shutdown

Again we are here because the GOP caused this. The Dems have absolutely no power in this situation unless it's given to them and the only way for that to happen is if the Rebs can't agree. You have to have zero understanding of politics if you fail to grasp the very basic fact that if the Rebs had actually agreed this wouldn't have happened. They don't agree within their own party that's the cause now.
---

YOu think peple are gonna listen and follow the rules of closing parks and zoos? Heck no.

the zoo animals aint gonna feed themselves unless the giraffes are still at it with their plans

This sucks. So, more paychecks I'll have to wait for...
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Zeus posted...

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks.

Literally neither president has control over that.

They literally do. If you need more evidence, look at the total park shutdown over Obama vs Trump leaving the parks open but a few things won't be running.
---

Zeus posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Zeus posted...

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks.

Literally neither president has control over that.

They literally do. If you need more evidence, look at the total park shutdown over Obama vs Trump leaving the parks open but a few things won't be running.

That has to do with how the government defined "non-essential" for the past 5 years.

Hirokey123 posted...

Yes? Trump pretty much does nothing but talk out of his ass.

Zeus posted...

It's clearly not impossible, because here we are. Usually minority parties don't the ability to have enough influence to force a shutdown

Again we are here because the GOP caused this. The Dems have absolutely no power in this situation unless it's given to them and the only way for that to happen is if the Rebs can't agree. You have to have zero understanding of politics if you fail to grasp the very basic fact that if the Rebs had actually agreed this wouldn't have happened. They don't agree within their own party that's the cause now.

And you have zero understanding of politics if that's your excuse. Keep in mind that the "Republican Party" is really the Republican Party and the Tea Party now. The Tea Party are an anti-establishment, populist group with a vastly different ideology. Good luck marshaling your Whip to get them into line when their whole gimmick is being against the status quo and they won in the place of status quo, party-backed candidates. More importantly, in general things like this were ALWAYS bipartisan issues. The idea that it should only be one party forcing through everything is a more recent idea, possibly going back to the GWB administration where Democrats started to use obstructionism as a tactic and turned the filibuster into a weapon.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Zeus posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Zeus posted...

On the plus side, at least Trump isn't going to be as petty as Obama and shut down parks.

Literally neither president has control over that.

They literally do. If you need more evidence, look at the total park shutdown over Obama vs Trump leaving the parks open but a few things won't be running.

That has to do with how the government defined "non-essential" for the past 5 years.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24756934.html

Whatever definitions might be in place at vague at best and the administration has some sway over what's done.
---

St_Kevin posted...

How does that work?

they took the servers down for a patch.

Judgmenl posted...

So is Trump talking out his ass then?

Every fucking day.
---

Judgmenl posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Judgmenl posted...

Partial government shutdown happens every year when the minority party has a hissy fit.

lol imagine living in a world where this isn't the fault of Trump refusing every deal.

imagine living in a world without Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States

> says it "happens every year"
> posts link indicating that it has [previously] happened only once in over 20 years
---

Sahuagin posted...

> posts link indicating that it has happened only once in over 20 years

---

And nine times since 1980.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

yes, until now, or else I'd have said that it hadn't happened at all in over 20 years
---

Sahuagin posted...

yes, until now, or else I'd have said that it hadn't happened at all in over 20 years

But then it would've happened once.

I just don't understand this hip new lingo. Do we not count the one that's happened just now? Are we all really just like high school girls desperately trying to maintain that we are still virgins because it doesn't count if you ride the Hershey highway?
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

But then it would've happened once. I just don't understand this hip new lingo.

it's a comparison to what has happened previously versus what has happened now. previously, there was 1 shutdown in over 20 years, and now there's one more.

it doesn't make any sense to say that there are two in the last 20 years, including this one, and now there's one more. that's not a comparison.
---

Spoilers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJbRVXlpFEc
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Sahuagin posted...

yes, until now, or else I'd have said that it hadn't happened at all in over 20 years

But then it would've happened once.

I just don't understand this hip new lingo. Do we not count the one that's happened just now? Are we all really just like high school girls desperately trying to maintain that we are still virgins because it doesn't count if you ride the Hershey highway?

The older I get the more I realize how childish I was in High School. Didn't even talk to girls then, let alone hypnox or even have sex, yet there are girls as young as 14 getting pregnant.

I either really fucked up my life, or really dodged that bullet.
---

Sahuagin posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

But then it would've happened once. I just don't understand this hip new lingo.

it's a comparison to what has happened previously versus what has happened now. previously, there was 1 shutdown in over 20 years, and now there's one more.

it doesn't make any sense to say that there are two in the last 20 years, including this one, and now there's one more. that's not a comparison.

Oh, I would have thought you were comparing the shutdowns to his argument. 2 shutdowns in roughly 22 years is still an order of magnitude less frequent than every year.

But let's look at it from a different angle. According to his article (and only his article) there have been 8 shutdowns in the last 38 years (rounding up for the sake of argument and ease of calculation). That's an average of one shutdown every 4.75 years. That's less often than presidential elections. Hardly a yearly event. And that's ignoring every year prior to 1980 where there were no shutdowns.

But if they occurred like clockwork, exactly once every 4.75 years, what would be a more accurate statement?

A) We've had 2 shutdowns in 9.5 years, or
B) Except for right now, we've had one shutdown in 9.5 years?

That's ignoring the fact that the 17 year period is potentially an outlier. There's no reason to go so far in the other direction to disprove a claim that's absurd by it's own proof. Not counting the current shutdown in your calculation of time gives the previous one the benefit of all the time that took place before it and the previous one in 1996, as well as all time after it and this current one.
---

Judgmenl posted...

I either really fucked up my life, or really dodged that bullet.

Both, really.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Judgmenl posted...

I either really fucked up my life, or really dodged that bullet.

Both, really.

You took the words out of my mouth.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Oh, I would have thought you were comparing the shutdowns to his argument.

his claim was that the rate (before this one, because we're attempting to determine whether or not this one is unusual or not in comparison to something else) was 1 per year.

if I look at the history I see that the rate (before this one) was 1 in the last 20 years.

if the rate, before this one, had been 1 per year, then yes, this one in comparison would not have been unusual, as he implied.

given that the rate, before this one, (looking specifically at the last 20 years, which could actually be argued to be somewhat misleading), is 1 in over 20 years, then no, this one in comparison IS significantly more unusual than he implied.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

But if they occurred like clockwork, exactly once every 4.75 years, what would be a more accurate statement?

A) We've had 2 shutdowns in 9.5 years, or
B) Except for right now, we've had one shutdown in 9.5 years?

that doesn't make any sense, you subtracted it from the average. you don't subtract it from the average, you don't include it in the average in the first place.

think of it as drawing a line on the timeline. you're trying to compare one side of the line to the other, wherever the line might be. it doesn't make any sense to compare two *overlapping* time intervals.

it's like, if something happened a million times this year, and you wanted to know if that was significant or not, you wouldn't include the million in your average. you would take the average *before* the million, and the average of the million and compare the two distinct intervals.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Judgmenl posted...

I either really fucked up my life, or really dodged that bullet.

Both, really.

You took the words out of my mouth.

You have no idea who I am and don't get the right to criticize me. Basically anyone else who's been apart of this community for any meaningful amount of time? Yes.
---

Judgmenl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Judgmenl posted...

I either really fucked up my life, or really dodged that bullet.

Both, really.

You took the words out of my mouth.

You have no idea who I am and don't get the right to criticize me. Basically anyone else who's been apart of this community for any meaningful amount of time? Yes.

Hey. It's not bad. You did dodge a bullet. But maybe missed out of a little fun as well. I'm not too different. I was going around having sex at 14, either. Haha.
---

Sahuagin posted...

his claim was that the rate (before this one, because we're attempting to determine whether or not this one is unusual or not in comparison to something else) was 1 per year.

Right. I think we agree that this number (which I assume he meant as a facetious exaggeration as otherwise it would be laughably wrong) is outlandish and false.

Sahuagin posted...

that doesn't make any sense, you subtracted it from the average. you don't subtract it from the average, you don't include it in the average in the first place.

think of it as drawing a line on the timeline. you're trying to compare one side of the line to the other, wherever the line might be. it doesn't make any sense to compare two *overlapping* time intervals.

Right, that's kind of my point. If we continue to have more confusion, I can...try...to draw out what I'm saying, but I'm not exactly an artist.

So let me try a different way. Let's ignore this current shutdown since I think that's one of our sticking points. We cannot count overlapping time intervals. Do you use the time after the last shutdown? Or the time before? Every data point measured on a timeline will have both; time before the previous point, and time after until the next point. My point is that whether you include this current one (which I am inclined to do since I just think easier that way, personally), or include the one prior to the last one, you will have two. If you use all the time between the current shutdown and the 2013 shutdown, as well as the 2013 shutdown and the 1996 shutdown, you are doing a disservice to the real picture.

I realize you said 20 years and the last shutdown before the 2013 one was in 1996 (or technically 95 I guess) but I think that is part of the issue I have with it. You stop the gap just short of where you would need to measure another shutdown. Can you tell me that if the last shutdown was in 1986 rather than 1996 (or 95, whatever), you wouldn't be saying 30 years right now? Do you have a legitimate reason for choosing 20 years, or is that just a roundabout way of including the pre- and post- time periods for a single data point?

How about this: instead of choosing odd arbitrary numbers, let's just calculate the average number of shutdowns since 1976, not including this current one. According to NBC:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/08/6432513-this-would-be-18th-government-shutdown-in-us-history

There's been 17 shutdowns in a 42 year period. That's an average of one every 2.47 years. Granted, I am not sure if these are federal shutdowns, and have not looked into it, but let's assume they are not and go by the wikipedia article that says 7 shutdowns since this time. That's still an average of one every six years.
---