I don't understand what you are arguing. My original point is that the Dems are not really that opposed to the periodic shutdowns because they, being neoliberals, don't actually care about providing government services or funding anything other than the military and their rich friends/donors. Your original question was
What's the specific interest in Democrats getting a government shutdown?
My answer is (again), they don't really care if the reps shut it down or not. Despite what they say when they campaign, they don't actually care about keeping anything other than the military and the carceral/border control systems running. It's not an elaborate 3D chess move. It is the same Janusarian one-party shit they always pull. Pretend like they are fighting the republicans tooth and nail to keep shit going, but when it actually comes down to it, they will happily shed stuff like gender-affirming care for military kids as part of the "bargain" to get the bombs to Ukraine and the Zionist entity.
The shut downs don't hurt them or their donors, only the working class people whose services get interrupted and whose living conditions suffer, which coincidentally also helps their donors.
Every shutdown leads to a negotiation of the new budget that invariably entails more "austerity" and cuts to government services. You see it in the most recent proposal to keep the government open and the things they cut. I haven't done deep research on the last 3 government shutdowns to list out what has been privatized each time, but the ratchet of privatization continues to turn and each shutdown creates a big loss and austerity aftermath that paves the way for the next round of privatizaiton.
I’d flip it around on you. What is their interest in avoiding a shutdown? Assuming a neoliberal ideology, a shutdown creates the conditions for further privatization of government functions and excuses to cut social programs. They love it.
They could all collectively just not listen to the unelected Musk. The election had been going this way for months before Musk got in. And the democrats could, you know, pretend that their name meant something and push back against oligarchical control of government. But all of that is based on the false premise that the Dems aren’t doing exactly what they want and that they have any interest in stopping any of this.
A warning about the Aubrey-Maturin books: once you start them, you will have to force yourself to read other books (my strategy is to read something else between every book but it is not easy). And every circumnavigation of the series reveals depths you had missed on prior readings. If you like audiobooks, the versions narrated by Patrick Tull are perfect, in my opinion. Because he understands the jargon (and the jokes) his narration helps you get the feel for what's happening before you fully absorb the language.
On Zweig (you may already know this), but The Grand Budapest Hotel was based on a long-short-story of his and the Kirsten Dunst Marie Antoinette movie was based on his biography of her (Marie Antoinette, not KD). The World of Yesterday is a really special book though. Zweig was a collector of original manuscripts and an art critic more than an artist himself. He lived in Austria before, during and after WWI. However, he had to escape from Austria and then from Europe fleeing the Nazis. He wrote this book, his memoirs, in Rio de Janeiro without any of his collections or note or anything and all from memory. He and his lady friend committed suicide shortly after he finished the book and before WWII had ended, so unlike most writers, his backwards-looking lens was not refracted through the defeat of the Nazis.
I totally get where you are coming from and, with discipline, was able to limit myself to strictly posting PPB and no actual replies. And I also get the anxiety caused by thinking about analogous situations you may have been in before.
I say this not as a refutation of what you say but in the hope that it will make the sting you feel/felt lessen and make space between the experiences you compare: this poster was not genuinely interested in learning anything or thinking any differently before the “debate” began. If you come into a space with a mind open to receive information and process it in a way that might change your preconceived notions, people will get that and even though there may be an asshole or two, you shouldn’t get dogpiled. This is true even if you don’t send the appropriate social signals in “neurotypical” ways. Stan got dogpiled because Stan wasn’t doing any of that. Stan was going to say anything and never give an inch. And then Stan was going to do some very typically and offensive things when Stan got backed into a corner.
I don't understand what you are arguing. My original point is that the Dems are not really that opposed to the periodic shutdowns because they, being neoliberals, don't actually care about providing government services or funding anything other than the military and their rich friends/donors. Your original question was
My answer is (again), they don't really care if the reps shut it down or not. Despite what they say when they campaign, they don't actually care about keeping anything other than the military and the carceral/border control systems running. It's not an elaborate 3D chess move. It is the same Janusarian one-party shit they always pull. Pretend like they are fighting the republicans tooth and nail to keep shit going, but when it actually comes down to it, they will happily shed stuff like gender-affirming care for military kids as part of the "bargain" to get the bombs to Ukraine and the Zionist entity.
The shut downs don't hurt them or their donors, only the working class people whose services get interrupted and whose living conditions suffer, which coincidentally also helps their donors.