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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sahuagin posted...

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.

Well, you're not wrong. But the application is loose, at best. Part of the reason for that is that, in both instances, time is the constant. A year is a year no matter when you are measuring it. Calculating the average number of times something happens in a year, and calculating the average number of years it takes for something to happen, are two fairly different calculations. They do have some similarities, but the consideration is different. Let's take your example here. In your example, you are trying to determine if something happening a million times in a year is a significant deviation. So my first question for you would be, when the measurements are reversed (the number of years for an occurance vs yearly occurances): what is the average number of years it takes before we see a federal shutdown? Answering that, would having only one in any 20 year period be significant?
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

You stop the gap just short of where you would need to measure another shutdown.

the way I was looking at it was not really comparing averages, but taking the statement "1 per year" and going backwards from now. counting down from 2017, until you get to 1996 you will have hit only 1 other year in all that time that had a shutdown. that's like 19 misses and 1 hit, or so. note also that the further you get from the present, the less relevant it is to compare to the present.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

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?

then it'd be 29 misses and 1 hit. even if going back to the start of the USA, the average *was* 1 per year, it would still be pretty relevant that in spite of that being the average, there was only 1/30 in the past 3 decades.
---

Sahuagin posted...

the way I was looking at it was not really comparing averages, but taking the statement "1 per year" and going backwards from now. counting down from 2017, until you get to 1996 you will have hit only 1 other year in all that time that had a shutdown. that's like 19 misses and 1 hit, or so. note also that the further you get from the present, the less relevant it is to compare to the present.

Okay, I think I see where I diverged now. I was taking an actual statistical analysis of the situation and playing in more safe than sorry, rather than just looking at all the time between the 1996 and now to see what's happened.

I would still advise not to put too much faith in that thinking, especially given the increasingly contentious nature of politics in these days (not necessarily unfounded contentiousness, to be fair), but I think I can see where you are coming from. Unless I'm wrong, you're saying his claim was ESPECIALLY wrong in modern times specifically because of the infrequency in the last few decades, after a relatively rocky start. That's not an unfair assessment.

That said, you are not wrong in saying that going back farther is less relevant for modern day realities, but when you have something that happens at most once a year, a half century isn't exactly undesirable for determining trends. And for determining yearly trends in general, a couple of decades isn't bad either. It can, in fact, lend credence to the idea that times are changing.

Sahuagin posted...

then it'd be 29 misses and 1 hit. even if going back to the start of the USA, the average *was* 1 per year, it would still be pretty relevant that in spite of that being the average, there was only 1/30 in the past 3 decades.

That's also...mostly true. You'd still have to consider outliers, not to mention much more nuance than simply "amount of time vs number of shutdowns". What caused the shutdowns? What other factors were at play? Was the largest gap just a matter of dumb luck? Is it likely to happen again, and often? It may be relevant, but just like averages, it is not it's own point.
---

Yeah. Women are suddenly pissed. Not when Bill was blown.
---

Think Billy didnt coherence her to blow him?
---

Judgmenl posted...

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

whiny post, if ive ever heard one

my opposing side causes me so much anxiety that i post things that upset them so i can cause them anxiety back!

what a baby
---

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?

Your statement is bull shit. So no. I never said that, this is completely unrelated to the minority party.

2013 was entirely on Ted Cruz and he proudly took credit for it.

Dems when the govt shut down during Obama's presidency:

"Stupid republicans won't cooperate and it's all their fault!"

Dems when the govt shuts down during Trump presidency:

"Stupid republicans bullying the dems!"

Dems when confronted with Bill Clinton's sexual promiscuity:

"His romantic relationships are nobody's business but his and his wife's."

Dems when Trump is accused of having an affair:

"Grrrrr!!! What an asshole! Let's impeach him!"

OhhhJa posted...

Dems when the govt shut down during Obama's presidency:

"Stupid republicans won't cooperate and it's all their fault!"

Dems when the govt shuts down during Trump presidency:

"Stupid republicans bullying the dems!"

There was a deal bipartisan deal. Trump refused it.

This is Trump wanting a shut down, he probably thinks this will stop Mueller. It won't.

BlackScythe0 posted...

This is Trump wanting a shut down, he probably thinks this will stop Mueller. It won't

Lol I don't think that has anything to do with it but I'm sure wapo has a different take on it. This investigation has been going for quite a while now. Haven't heard anything new for a while. I remember when everyone was saying Trump wouldn't make it a year yet here we are

BlackScythe0 posted...

There was a deal bipartisan deal. Trump refused it.

No shit, Trump isn't even the president the Republicans want. Trump is president so unfortunately they do have to play ball and he's not budging on a campaign promise so it's somewhat admirable.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Dems when the govt shut down during Obama's presidency:

"Stupid republicans won't cooperate and it's all their fault!"

Dems when the govt shuts down during Trump presidency:

"Stupid republicans bullying the dems!"

There was a deal bipartisan deal. Trump refused it.

This is Trump wanting a shut down, he probably thinks this will stop Mueller. It won't.

Uh no, it's pretty clearly Democrats trying to undermine the administration, which is why the biggest part of this "deal" involved something completely unrelated to any spending and then was pushed further to a point that Democrats knew Trump -- or any rational politician -- wouldn't agree to. It makes the previous shutdown look tame by comparison. Even NPR is blaming the Democrats. You're one of the last holdouts.
---

Zeus posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Dems when the govt shut down during Obama's presidency:

"Stupid republicans won't cooperate and it's all their fault!"

Dems when the govt shuts down during Trump presidency:

"Stupid republicans bullying the dems!"

There was a deal bipartisan deal. Trump refused it.

This is Trump wanting a shut down, he probably thinks this will stop Mueller. It won't.

Uh no, it's pretty clearly Democrats trying to undermine the administration, which is why the biggest part of this "deal" involved something completely unrelated to any spending and then was pushed further to a point that Democrats knew Trump -- or any rational politician -- wouldn't agree to. It makes the previous shutdown look tame by comparison. Even NPR is blaming the Democrats. You're one of the last holdouts.

Lies.

Democrats aren't pushing for anything that doesn't have widespread support among both parties.

And your claim that no politician would agree is bull shit since it was a bipartisan deal which had the support it needed. The only people who hated it were Trump and his alt-right shills like Cotton.

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/954849090986283009
---

Jen0125 posted...

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/954849090986283009

I hate Trump so much.

Jen0125 posted...

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/954849090986283009

Is that for real?!?!

It reminds me of this dick at Costco who kept passive-aggressively insulting this guy (who accidentally cut in line because said dick was standing off to the side) to his kid after the guy apologized. After a while, I just told him to shut the fuck up because nobody wanted to hear it.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Democrats aren't pushing for anything that doesn't have widespread support among both parties.

Granting amnesty to the parents of illegal immigrants has widespread support? lolwut? And the only people who support it are illegals looking to bypass immigration law, since this sets up a system that completely subverts legal immigration.

BlackScythe0 posted...

And your claim that no politician would agree is bull shit since it was a bipartisan deal which had the support it needed. The only people who hated it were Trump and his alt-right shills like Cotton.

...except no, it didn't have support. The temporary DACA extension had support, but Democrats wanted to push shit further -- expanding on their demands -- so the deal would break and trigger a shutdown. More importantly, this shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. This is a routine spending bill.

If Trump is at fault for anything, it was for entertaining this nonsense in the first place. As NPR notes, he would have been better off just taking a hardline stance against *all* of DACA instead of suggesting he'd be okay with any part of it. No other first-world nation would illegal immigration get to the point where this even hit the table. Even Canada -- a land far more liberal than us -- is far faster to deport illegal immigrants.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Jen0125 posted...

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/954849090986283009

I hate Trump so much.

...literally the kind of nonsense Obama was doing.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Is that for real?!?!

https://www.snopes.com/white-house-comment-line-trump/
---

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.

Three questions:
1) Does this require a simple majority or super majority to avoid?
2) If super majority, how many votes would that require?
3) How many seats do the Republicans hold?
---

Blaqthourne posted...

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.

Three questions:
1) Does this require a simple majority or super majority to avoid?
2) If super majority, how many votes would that require?
3) How many seats do the Republicans hold?

1)At this point a simple majority would have allowed them to achieve passing a budget.
2)IIRC in theory it would be 60
3)51 republicans and 49 dems
---

Hirokey123 posted...

1)At this point a simple majority would have allowed them to achieve passing a budget.

What do you mean by "At this point"?
After doing a simple Google search, I got this:
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/20/politics/senate-vote-government-shutdown/index.html
"Legislation to prevent the government from shutting down failed Friday night in the Senate ahead of the midnight deadline. The total on the procedural motion was 50-49, but 60 votes were needed to advance the bill."
---