Anonymous #2 5d

He’s using tariff revenue to fund WIC rn IIRC

1

Anonymous #3 5d

Animal farm is about the USSR.

-1

Anonymous #5 5d

And now it applies to the USA!

27

Anonymous #1 5d

I guarantee you and #3 are misinterpreting the part you’re referencing.

-2

Anonymous #6 5d

Is that why they keep voting against the CRs democrats propose?

5

Anonymous #2 5d

Because the Democrat’s CRs literally undo every Trump policy action and are full of pork. They’re holding the government hostage until they get what they want, and they’re fine with letting SNAP expire to do it.

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Womp womp. If pork was an issue then the OBBB shouldn’t have been passed

1

Anonymous #2 5d

So basically the Democrats are punishing Americans for electing Trump, with both the electoral and popular vote, and wanting his policies to be passed into law.

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Yeah? Where were you during Obama’s presidency lmfao. That’s exactly what Mitch McConnell did

6

Anonymous #2 5d

I was in elementary and I also hate Mitch McConnell

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Well open a history book then lmao, because I was in elementary school too but I still knew

2

Anonymous #2 5d

The claim in the post was that Trump was doing it, and you claimed it too. When I proved it wrong, you said “so what? A republican did it 15 years ago”. Not even trying to defend your original point lol

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Also it’s only 68 pages. For an appropriations bill that’s not that much btw

3

Anonymous #6 5d

I did. My defense is “womp womp”. The president is responsible for the shutdown. Republicans have all 3 branches of government

4

Anonymous #2 5d

It’s not about how much is in the bill, it’s about what it does, which is undoing every major Trump policy achievement

-1

Anonymous #2 5d

Don’t make me tap the sign

1

Anonymous #2 5d

What were democrats saying at the time?

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Do you know how many senate votes it takes to pass a CR?

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Yes. Do you know how many votes it takes to get rid of the filibuster?

2

Anonymous #5 5d

Clean CR if I remember correctly. Republicans held it up because they wanted an amendment banning vaccine mandates

4

Anonymous #2 5d

67

1

Anonymous #6 5d

That’s a good one!

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Long enough for SNAP to expire?

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Nope. Republican leadership told a small group of senators to basically stfu and deal with it. They didn’t want the entire party blamed for a shutdown during a pandemic over vaccine mandates that a handful wanted banned so badly that they wanted the gov shut down over it

5

Anonymous #2 5d

Good. Looks like democrats aren’t as concerned about losing SNAP as the republican leadership was.

1

Anonymous #6 5d

If they actually cared about anything other than optics (which was the main driver of them coming to agreement in 2021), then they wouldn’t have shut down the government in 2013. That time, they refused to fund the government unless they could cut funding for the Affordable Care Act 💀

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Again, not really supporting your original claim, which is that Trump is at fault for any of this.

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Trump can hold himself responsible if he wants, but the framing that Trump actively wants the shutdown to continue and that he wants snap to expire is abjectly false.

1

Anonymous #6 5d

Sounds like he thinks it’s a good thing. He’s still refusing to meet with Senate Dems until after it’s resolved, so he’s showing he’s not inclined to end it. And if he wanted SNAP funded he could use the tariff revenue. That’s how he’s paying ICE agents

1

Anonymous #2 5d

That’s in response to them failing to provide a clean CR.

0

Anonymous #6 5d

Nope, it was not. It was before the first vote

1

Anonymous #2 5d

The threat was pre-emptive but he didn’t do anything until after.

1

Anonymous #6 5d

So it wasn’t in response then? You contradicted yourself. They had time to provide a clean CR. He said that before the senate met

1

Anonymous #2 5d

The actions he took were in response to not getting a clean CR. No contradiction there. If an agreement was made beforehand, he would have supported it and wouldn’t have acted on his threats.

1

Anonymous #6 5d

There may have been an agreement beforehand. Senate Dems were supposed to meet with them. Then he cancelled last minute.

1

Anonymous #5 5d

Honey there’s no such thing as misinterpreting a work of fiction

5

Anonymous #7 5d

How so?

1

Anonymous #6 5d

The Death of the author

1

Anonymous #7 5d

Would it be fair to interpret this book as an endorsement of hitler?

5

Anonymous #5 5d

Yes, it’s sooo obvious! Who cares about the minutiae of “words” and “subtext” and “historical context”? Meaning is arbitrary!

3

Anonymous #5 5d

Sure!

1