The News Thread

Doesn't sound smart to me. He promised The Wall(tm) over and over and made it a top priority during the campaign, and then almost immediately dropped it once he was in office and had control of Congress. Republican turnout has been poor since then and a lot of Ann Coulter types have been riding his ass. I'm sure he'll see something of a spike as November nears, something which seems to happen to Republicans since at least the days of Nixon, but putting it off and continuing to dangle the carrot probably won't work as well as it did in 2016.
 
No he doesn't. It means that he failed his #1 promise with 2 years of a party majority in Congress and 4 years of sitting in the big seat. It's possible that he'll still win reelection due to a good economy and holding onto the Rust Belt, but I can't think of any cases where a president used failure to accomplish a goal as a positive. Political energy is fleeting in general as well; Obama saw a massive boost in the black vote in 2008, but half of those new voters sat out in 2012. Trump's new voters were proportionately much smaller than Obama's, and he's also facing an impending recapturing of the House. Even if this does inspire a red wave that holds onto the House by a slim majority, they need to double the currently projected Senate gain to overcome the filibuster. Will Trump vocally fight Congress for two years, including members of his own party, just to get the wall passed? Considering his current record of sending out a tweet when he sees something he doesn't like, doubtful. He'll say, "Great victory, huge successes, we won! I'll look into building that wall", and that will be about all.

I'll most likely vote for Trump in 2020, I don't really care much about the wall to begin with, but he's still been a weak, ineffective leader, far from the strongman type that parts of his base were probably hoping for. Slightly bigger balls than Bill Clinton and the Bushes, smaller ones than probably every other post-Hoover president.
 
No he doesn't. It means that he failed his #1 promise with 2 years of a party majority in Congress and 4 years of sitting in the big seat. It's possible that he'll still win reelection due to a good economy and holding onto the Rust Belt, but I can't think of any cases where a president used failure to accomplish a goal as a positive. Political energy is fleeting in general as well; Obama saw a massive boost in the black vote in 2008, but half of those new voters sat out in 2012. Trump's new voters were proportionately much smaller than Obama's, and he's also facing an impending recapturing of the House. Even if this does inspire a red wave that holds onto the House by a slim majority, they need to double the currently projected Senate gain to overcome the filibuster. Will Trump vocally fight Congress for two years, including members of his own party, just to get the wall passed? Considering his current record of sending out a tweet when he sees something he doesn't like, doubtful. He'll say, "Great victory, huge successes, we won! I'll look into building that wall", and that will be about all.

I'll most likely vote for Trump in 2020, I don't really care much about the wall to begin with, but he's still been a weak, ineffective leader, far from the strongman type that parts of his base were probably hoping for. Slightly bigger balls than Bill Clinton and the Bushes, smaller ones than probably every other post-Hoover president.


I think you're projecting your thoughts about it onto a large swath of the country that won't/doesn't think like that.
 
I think you're unfamiliar with both a long historical precedent of political grandstanding right before elections in order to rile up support, as well as poor Republican turnout observed in recent special elections.

What is the phrase you like to say a lot, something like "The best assumption to make from a trendline is a continuation of the trend"?
 
Aren't a good deal of Brexiteers basically white trash from the north who are dealing with the worst of EU immigration policies? What a shock that a bunch of football hooligan families aren't fapping over abstract art. :rolleyes:

It's almost like these people have no idea what working class culture is like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
What is the phrase you like to say a lot, something like "The best assumption to make from a trendline is a continuation of the trend"?

Well it's true, but Trump already broke a US trend (although it seems that he is part of a more global trend). Now the question is: Is a new trend developing in this respect? I'm not saying this one aspect is going to grant the turnout desired by the GOP for the midterms, but it's not a bad play. The American voter has a relatively short memory. Are they going to remember in 1.5 years that The Wall was "abandoned" if the bill gets killed in Congress by Democrats?
 
As an avid C-Span listener, I've heard quite a few "independent" voters call into Washington Journal to say they would not vote for Trump in 2020 if the wall wasn't built.
 
Aren't a good deal of Brexiteers basically white trash from the north who are dealing with the worst of EU immigration policies? What a shock that a bunch of football hooligan families aren't fapping over abstract art. :rolleyes:

It's almost like these people have no idea what working class culture is like.

Most "these people" have some idea. All it takes is walking through an art gallery and hearing someone say "I could do that" while looking at a Jackson Pollack painting. It's not some big mystery.

That being said, yeah that study was almost entirely pointless.
 
It really all depends on who is put forward to challenge Trump. People can virtue-signal all day long about "no wall, no vote" but I think it's pretty obvious that Trump voters and right-leaning independents will go for Trump if they throw another Hillary type at him or another Bernie type etc.

It's just posturing IMO.
 
Well it's true, but Trump already broke a US trend (although it seems that he is part of a more global trend). Now the question is: Is a new trend developing in this respect? I'm not saying this one aspect is going to grant the turnout desired by the GOP for the midterms, but it's not a bad play. The American voter has a relatively short memory. Are they going to remember in 1.5 years that The Wall was "abandoned" if the bill gets killed in Congress by Democrats?

Is Trump going to spend every waking moment of 2019 and 2020 lambasting Dems for blocking the wall? If not, doesn't matter.

As an avid C-Span listener, I've heard quite a few "independent" voters call into Washington Journal to say they would not vote for Trump in 2020 if the wall wasn't built.

Yep. When Trump signed the 2017 omnibus with wall money going to the Middle East, every Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Tucker Carlson was pissed off. Doesn't matter how many MAGA fanboys stay committed, Trump's and the Republican party's margins for error are razor thin and losing just a bit of the hardcore conservative base will kill them.
 
It really all depends on who is put forward to challenge Trump. People can virtue-signal all day long about "no wall, no vote" but I think it's pretty obvious that Trump voters and right-leaning independents will go for Trump if they throw another Hillary type at him or another Bernie type etc.

It's just posturing IMO.

The states that flipped for Trump did so with less than 1%. As long as Dems don't run someone like Kamala Harris (she probably won't survive the primary process to begin with), and as long as just a couple percent of 2016 Trump voters sit out (which would not be unusual based on the special elections so far), a 2020 defeat for Trump is highly plausible.
 
Aren't a good deal of Brexiteers basically white trash from the north who are dealing with the worst of EU immigration policies? What a shock that a bunch of football hooligan families aren't fapping over abstract art. :rolleyes:

It's almost like these people have no idea what working class culture is like.

Old age and low levels of education are the biggest indicators of voting to leave, not location. Most leave voting areas have low levels of immigrants and, in the areas you're talking about, they're more likely to be Indian/Pakistani. One of the things lead Brexiteers keep floating as a positive is that we'll be able to bring in more highly skilled Common Wealth (so, Indian...) immigrants once we put a limit on the pesky Europeans.
 
High skilled immigration doesn't impact the poor and working class as much as low skilled immigration does, which is why Eastern European immigration to the U.K. was such a core issue for Brexit, so sure I agree. I don't really see how you can say that low levels of education is an indicator for supporting leaving the EU but not location, as if the two don't significantly overlap lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
so what happened to the people who were trying to impeach Trump??
what happened with that??
did every one just kinda forget that he was supposedly doing impeach-worthy crimes??
 
Well, no one's mentioned this yet:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/...lights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.

The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,” said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization. “We were not aware of this just a few years ago.” The report was the first to be commissioned by world leaders under the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact by nations to fight global warming.

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

The new report, however, shows that many of those effects will come much sooner, at the 2.7-degree mark.

And in the meantime...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/...tml?rref=collection/sectioncollection/science

An Environmental Protection Agency panel that advises the agency’s leadership on the latest scientific information about soot in the atmosphere is not listed as continuing its work next year, an E.P.A. official said.

The 20-person Particulate Matter Review Panel, made up of experts in microscopic airborne pollutants known to cause respiratory disease, is responsible for helping the agency decide what levels of pollutants are safe to breathe. Agency officials declined to say why the E.P.A. intends to stop convening the panel next year, particularly as the agency considers whether to revise air quality standards.
 
Well I guess we will see. So far "An Inconvenient Truth" has failed to prove true. I get a chuckle every time there's some extreme weather and the comparison is within the last century since "the last time something like this happened", even more so when it's within the last 2-3 decades. People look at the destruction totals and forget we have been building up in very vulnerable areas during that entire time.

I do think there needs to be monitoring of environmental pollutants. Guess we take the good with the bad.

Anywho, what about all the media doing all but calling Kanye a House Buddypal?

ZvUOPyy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ozzman