It's not a dumb idea, it's almost certainly what's occurring, with the caveat that I don't think they actually want to shut the government down. Whenever you hear about an impending government shutdown, it is always a game of political chicken, trying to find out who will cave first, while simultaneously trying to preemptively sell the public that it's the other party's fault. Look at the messaging from the white House and congressional majority leadership. It's all "oooh the Democrats aren't willing to pass our super clean funding bill to keep the government open, they are unserious and willing to hold the American people hostage in order to continue mutilating babies". Meanwhile, Democrats state (accurately) that Republicans need Democrat votes to pass anything, therefore it is incumbent upon them to negotiate in good faith.
There's nothing more antithetical to Trumpism than good faith negotiation and compromise, so he's doing everything in his power to avoid that, lest it appear like he had to cave to Schumer, to include cancelling the meeting they had scheduled last week in favor of doing the meeting today, at the 11th hour, to further pressure the Dems into capitulating.
Now, it's important to note that, for all of the political brinkmanship on display, shutting down the government is, historically, far more damaging for the majority party than the minority, though the public tends to take a dim view of everyone involved in this sort of situation. Therefore, Dems have reason to stand fast and Republicans have an incentive to make concessions. This is in addition to the fact that Schumer got a lot of flak for instructing Dems to fund the government back in the spring, so he's also likely motivated to feign some backbone in this particular tete a tete.
I consider the occupation of certain cities to be mostly unrelated to the funding fight. In fact, it would have behooved Trump to not antagonize Dems leading up to this for the aforementioned reasons. With that being said, Trump doesn't do things according to what makes political sense, and, to your point, I can see a scenario where Trump is the only person at the negotiation table today who is totally ambivalent about whether a deal is struck or not. A local (Republican) representative was quoted with a statement to the effect of, "I'm not sure if the Dems have considered the fact that the Presidency is granted additional powers in the event of a budget related shutdown, maybe they should think about that".
So, you've got Dems at the table who are motivated to follow through with a shutdown unless they get certain carve outs. You've got congressional Reps at the table who are aware that the American public has historically always blamed the party in power when a shutdown occurs, and are thus motivated to make concessions, but quietly. And then you've got Trump et al, who gain additional emergency powers in the event of a shutdown, further diminishing the legitimacy of the other branches of government and increasing the consolidation of power within the executive branch. However, if the government doesn't shut down, Trump will likely spin this as yet another example of his brilliant negotiating ability (see also the Gaza peace plan released this week), even if there's a snowballs chance in hell that any concession appears in further funding bills the next time this occurs.
Idk if any of that holds any water in the face of evidence, but it's compelling speculation.
Wrong! Or, at least, in Lincoln's case, you're both kind of correct. Lincoln had, at the insistence of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, at least one company of Union cavalry assigned to his protection. This was in addition to Ward Lamon, a personal friend of Lincoln's from his lawyer days who took it upon himself to act as his bodyguard. Indeed, Lamon and Pinkerton clashed over the President's security even before the war broke out. Pinkerton claimed an assassination plot was afoot in the lead up to Lincoln's inauguration in early 1861. There is some debate over the validity of these claims, as Pinkerton's intelligence gathering capabilities seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Regardless, the cabinet took these claims seriously enough to change Lincoln's travel plans at the last minute, and he arrived in DC under the cover of night and with only Lamon present with him during the legs of the journey where Pinkerton claimed the most danger lie. Once inaugurated, and in the midst of the war, his protection became a military matter, which is when the cavalry companies stepped in. However, he routinely delighted in giving them the slip. In 1864, someone took a pot shot at him whilst riding through DC, and he was forced to take his protection more seriously. It was at this point that the DC police assembled a 4 man permanent bodyguard detail.
So, depending on when exactly you're looking, Lincoln's protection detail could have consisted of 2 companies of Union Army troops, Pinkertons, a self-appointed bodyguard cum lawyer pal, 4 police officers, a Freedman valet/bodyguard (William Henry Johnson), and a partridge in a pear tree.
Can't speak to Mission Log, but the Nextlander Watch cast is in the midst of their Summer of Trek, and have just hit the midway point of season 2. Seems like they do a couple episodes every week. The crew is made up of former Gamespot/Giant Bomb employees (Vinny Caravella, Alex Navarro, and Brad Shoemaker), if you're familiar with their previous work.
Surveillance of the crew isn't Worf's typical MO, but the captain is worried about Lieutenant Yar. In her romantic life, it seems like she's lost control.
I mean, we can only go off of what is presented in the story, while acknowledging it's 4chan and therefore both fake and gay. Within that frame, the new guy has been tagged with a nickname, he has mentioned to his colleagues that he'd prefer they not call him the nickname, and they are continuing to call him the name he's expressly said he'd prefer they didn't use. That's a textbook hostile work environment, at a minimum.
He's upset enough that he voiced his preference. Choosing to ignore that stated preference might be fine in this context, or it might not be. But, assuming that someone is not actually upset about a behavior that they've requsted change seems like an unnecessary leap of faith.
Don Bacon represents one of the most purple districts in the US, according to polls. He is continuing the proud Nebraska tradition, spearheaded by Ben Sasse, of making occasional headlines separating himself from the MAGA movement to appeal to "centrist" voters, while also doing nothing of consequence with his votes or committee placements to actually hinder the agenda he is "calling out" here.
Also, personally, interacting with Don is like sticking your hands in old dish water and rooting around for bit. But that's neither here nor there.
You're rephrasing the post as though you're making a "gotcha!" statement, when it's just the thing they said. Their argument is that the Dems needed to lose for any chance of party reform to occur, and they voted in a way that would encourage that outcome.
It's an argument that I find compelling, especially given the fact that the Democrat leadership seems to be actively trying to learn all the wrong lessons from their humiliation, where they are trying to learn anything at all. This indicates to me that, to some degree, OP is correct and there wasn't even a snowball's chance in hell that party leadership would have done anything significant had they coasted to victory based solely on being not-Nazis.
To seat his logic in another context, where the Trump of it all is not a factor, it's the same argument I've heard lefties trot out in a discussion about legal vs illegal protest tactics. Which is to say, effective protest is protest which forces people to engage with the issue being discussed, and legal protest is ineffective because, by design, it is easily ignored by both the public and the powers that be.
All that being said, the argument is not so compelling as to convince me that any pain caused to the Dems in service of organizing an actual progressive wing is worth the pain Trump's election is causing people, the environment, or the world in general. I don't know anything about OP, so I don't want to state this as fact, but, to me, it smacks of the privilege that comes with figuring they will make it through this period okay (if not particularly great). Therefore, it's worth it to them to endure this inconvenience, in the hopes that it effects change in the Dems. Attack their argument on that front all you like, but you're not contributing anything by saying "you helped elect Trump!" when that's what they said they did and they'd do it again.
He's making an economics joke I believe. Econ 101 was a long time ago, so I could be off the mark here, or misremembering, but I believe money is counted every time it changes hands. Alice buys something from Bob for a nickel, Bob turns right around and purchases something from Alice using that same nickel. The nickel is still only worth 5 cents, but its responsible for 10 cents worth of GDP.
Or maybe not, and I'm REALLY misremembering econ 101.
It's not a dumb idea, it's almost certainly what's occurring, with the caveat that I don't think they actually want to shut the government down. Whenever you hear about an impending government shutdown, it is always a game of political chicken, trying to find out who will cave first, while simultaneously trying to preemptively sell the public that it's the other party's fault. Look at the messaging from the white House and congressional majority leadership. It's all "oooh the Democrats aren't willing to pass our super clean funding bill to keep the government open, they are unserious and willing to hold the American people hostage in order to continue mutilating babies". Meanwhile, Democrats state (accurately) that Republicans need Democrat votes to pass anything, therefore it is incumbent upon them to negotiate in good faith.
There's nothing more antithetical to Trumpism than good faith negotiation and compromise, so he's doing everything in his power to avoid that, lest it appear like he had to cave to Schumer, to include cancelling the meeting they had scheduled last week in favor of doing the meeting today, at the 11th hour, to further pressure the Dems into capitulating.
Now, it's important to note that, for all of the political brinkmanship on display, shutting down the government is, historically, far more damaging for the majority party than the minority, though the public tends to take a dim view of everyone involved in this sort of situation. Therefore, Dems have reason to stand fast and Republicans have an incentive to make concessions. This is in addition to the fact that Schumer got a lot of flak for instructing Dems to fund the government back in the spring, so he's also likely motivated to feign some backbone in this particular tete a tete.
I consider the occupation of certain cities to be mostly unrelated to the funding fight. In fact, it would have behooved Trump to not antagonize Dems leading up to this for the aforementioned reasons. With that being said, Trump doesn't do things according to what makes political sense, and, to your point, I can see a scenario where Trump is the only person at the negotiation table today who is totally ambivalent about whether a deal is struck or not. A local (Republican) representative was quoted with a statement to the effect of, "I'm not sure if the Dems have considered the fact that the Presidency is granted additional powers in the event of a budget related shutdown, maybe they should think about that".
So, you've got Dems at the table who are motivated to follow through with a shutdown unless they get certain carve outs. You've got congressional Reps at the table who are aware that the American public has historically always blamed the party in power when a shutdown occurs, and are thus motivated to make concessions, but quietly. And then you've got Trump et al, who gain additional emergency powers in the event of a shutdown, further diminishing the legitimacy of the other branches of government and increasing the consolidation of power within the executive branch. However, if the government doesn't shut down, Trump will likely spin this as yet another example of his brilliant negotiating ability (see also the Gaza peace plan released this week), even if there's a snowballs chance in hell that any concession appears in further funding bills the next time this occurs.
Idk if any of that holds any water in the face of evidence, but it's compelling speculation.