Politics, local-national-global-galactic

[Bartimaeus]

30 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

We are getting the government we deserve

An administration, whether this one or the last, imposing its will in ways that are unpopular with >=60% of the population should receive a serious civil response - but a combination of cheering for one's own team, being used to and apathetic to or overwhelmed by it, being afraid of potential consequences, or being too busy to do anything about it has apparently robbed most of us of our voices. We are indeed getting the kakistocracy we deserve. It's not any one person's fault as to how we got to this point, but ultimately we collectively did vote these jokers in.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Isn't that how Executive branch works in US? President elected to be the guy in charge?

Also why would you be afraid that NSC members are gone? As far as I remember they werent there few years ago and everything was ok. Wasn't it Obama who inflated NSC members through the roof?

Trump is just doing what he promises by deflating the number of people in administration. People voted for that.

Obama gave us a different kind of bad thing. The selected a bunch of people he deemed subject matter experts, his so called "czars" and placed them in charge of multiple regulatory agencies. The people were not confirmed by nor answerable to the Senate. Meaning they could wield executive power with no accountability to the people they wielded it over. That is scary.

Trump just runs off anyone who tells him he's wrong. That is a different kind of scary. No President knows enough to do everything himself. Especially not this fool.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Obama gave us a different kind of bad thing. The selected a bunch of people he deemed subject matter experts, his so called "czars" and placed them in charge of multiple regulatory agencies. The people were not confirmed by nor answerable to the Senate. Meaning they could wield executive power with no accountability to the people they wielded it over. That is scary.

Trump just runs off anyone who tells him he's wrong. That is a different kind of scary. No President knows enough to do everything himself. Especially not this fool.

I think he will not do much damage in his next two terms and will leave the US in far better shape then before him. And after that it might turn out you will not get another Obama to not create another Trump and Executive branch will be watched much closely after him. So you might be in the end more happy than not that he was the president.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Skarpen

[Malcador]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

I suppose it was inevitable we were going to elect someone who has no idea what they were doing.

Seems founders thought so as well, no ?  I guess they didn't foresee the Legislative branch becoming servile, though.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Seems founders thought so as well, no ?  I guess they didn't foresee the Legislative branch becoming servile, though.

keep in mind the chief executive as envisioned by the founders were prohibitive unlikely to be an entity to which Congress would become servile. President were never a popular elected position in the traditional sense, which is why the electoral college complaints misidentify core problems.  has also taken a long time for Congress to empower the Presidency to its current state by building the bureaucracy and making grants o' specific legislative function to the executive. finally, we have never had anybody so narcissistic and mendacious run for the office o' President and then get elected. 

more than servile, Congress became greedy and indollent. there were many rich guys in Congress over the years, but serving in Congress were not a great way to get rich. once again, we refer to citizens united as a recent and major turning point. also, Congress discovered, increasingly post nixon, it is better to suffer recriminations for doing nothing than it is to try and fail. the American public has become increasing frustrated with Congress and its inability to rouse itself to take on issues o' true national import, but Congressmen know they will get reelected just so long as voters remain frustrated instead o' genuine angry. voters get angry when Congress does, not when Congress fails to do.

in related news

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

too little. too late.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 13, 2020 by Gromnir

[ComradeYellow]

Abolish the Electoral College.  It has served it's last gasp reminder of how bad it is 2000-2016.

Trump is literally the same as Hillary Clinton as far as policies go, especially foreign PROTECT ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS policy.

Only difference here is that Trump seems to attract the Christian Zionists and white supremacists, and we all know what happens to them in the end.  See 1865 and 1945 for reference.

Edit: 2025?  80 year intervals ol' whitey seems to need a lesson in manners.

We got this.

Edited February 13, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[ktchong]

I am saying this as a Bernie supporter myself:

Bernie has the best chance to beat Trump in this election cycle, BUT Bernie has already lost to Trump.

(Meaning NONE of the Democratic candidates will be able to defeat Trump in November.)

It is just math.  Back in 2016, when almost every media pundits and pollsters predicted that Hillary would defeat Trump in a landslide, only TWO university professors, HELMUT NORPOTH and ALLAN LICHTMAN, (links to their 2016 predictions before Trump won,) correctly predicted that Trump would win and become the President.

In particular: Prof. Norpoth used a purely mathematical model called the “Primary Model”, which uses the turnout sizes of the early state primaries to gauge voter enthusiasm for any individual candidates — and to “calculate” the final winner of the general election. (The “early” primary states taken into consideration are New Hampshire and South Carolina; caucus states are NOT considered.)

Link: http://primarymodel.com/

Using primary turnouts as the criteria, Bernie has already lost to Trump, by a wide margin.

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-gets-50-fewer-votes-in-new-hampshire-than-2016-trump-gets-24-more/

It is just math, no personal bias or emotion.

Edited February 13, 2020 by ktchong

[Gorth]

...or it could be sheer coincidence. If you ask 10000 people to predict the outcome of an election, using different models. Some might get the outcome right (seriously, it's a 50/50 chance even if doing a random guess), even if their model is flawed. The litmus test is, can they get it consistently right?

 

I was more impressed by Paul the Octopus who got all of his soccer match predictions for Germany in the FIFA 2010 World Cup right, to the point where the Russian mafia offered half a million USD for him (no kidding)

Television even started showing his predictions on live TV, so convinced were they that he would get the outcomes right.

Unfortunately for Paul, he predicted that Germany would lose to Spain.

"The prediction led to German fans calling for Paul to be eaten. In response, the Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero offered to send Paul official state protection, and the Industry Minister Miguel Sebastian called for Paul to be given safe haven in Spain"

 

Who needs complicated mathematical models? All you need is a psychic octopus

 

Edit: "Paul's notoriety attracted criticism from the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who accused him of being a symbol of Western decadence and decay."

 

Paul, a threat to the Iranian regime:

 

Edit2: Paul according to Iran:

[Guard Dog]

Or even better... a hippo:

 

[Malcador]

Fiona committing lewd acts by schools, disgusting.

 

She should run for President.

[ktchong]

Here is how I think the whole Democratic primary will play out:

After Super Tuesday, Bernie will NOT be able to win the decisive majority of delegates, (i.e., 2,376 of all 4,750 delegates.) So the final decision go to the DNC and super-delegates. However, the DNC and superdelegates will want to stay out of it -- because they know Bernie supporters will refuse to accept their decision. So, the DNC and superdelegates will NOT step in. Instead, they will instruct the candidates to work out a deal among themselves.

As a general rule: when a dropped-out candidate endorsed another candidate, all the delegates he won would transfer to that other candidate.

That means, at current count, Bernie has won 21 delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire.

On the other hand, Michael Bloomberg already got 43 delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire -- which he will eventually receive from Bootyjuggs, Klobuchar, Warren and Biden. And I will tell you exactly why Bootyjuggs, Klobuchar, Warren and Biden will all endorse Bloomberg: Bloomberg will just pay for their endorsements -- and delegates, in exchange for donations to their political campaigns in the future, or just money to whatever private enterprises or foundations they want to start (for Biden who will score a nice retirement package from Bloomberg.) So there you go: 43 delegates will go to Bloomberg, plus whatever Bootyjuggs, Klobuchar, Warren and Biden will win from Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday. They will all go to Bloomberg in the end.

I can already tell you what the candidates' final deal will be: all the centrist/establishment/moderate candidates will combine their delegates and transfer all his/her delegates to... Michael Bloomberg, (whom IMO will squeeze out all other establishment candidates on Super Tuesday.) You know as well as I do that those centrist/moderate candidates will NOT give their delegates to Bernie. And frankly, they should not -- because their own supporters voted for a centrist/moderate/establishment candidate in the primaries, and Bernie does not reflect those people's politics or votes.

(So Bloomberg's strategy is becoming clearer now: he expects other centrists/moderates to drop out -- and then buy their delegates from early primary states and Super Tuesday.  That is how a multi-billionaire roll.)

So, the DNC and superdelegates will NOT step in to make a decision. The candidates themselves will make the decision... based on the "will" of their supporters, and Bernie will still lose.

Bernie is to be blamed as well: he cannot just "barely win" in every primary state, and keep limping from one win to another. He needs to win every state DECISIVELY, with a huge margin, beating out the combined delegates of other establishment candidates. He will need to win the majority of delegates BY HIMSELF, (i.e., >2,376 delegates.) Otherwise, he will not make it.

Which could actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise -- as I am starting to see the numbers (based on the turnouts of the early primary states on both Democratic and Republican sides,) and I think NONE of the Democratic candidate will able to beat Trump.  If Bernie wins the nomination and then loses to Trump, it will be devastating to the progressives movements -- everyone will blame the failure on progressive movements and socialism. Progressives will NEVER be able to recover from that fatal blow.

Edited February 14, 2020 by ktchong

[Gorth]

Who cares about primaries? Iran's worst nightmare, Paul for President

(too many beers at work on a Friday afternoon does that to you)

 

[Gromnir]

Trump’s story about Cincinnati veteran’s comeback was not quite true

sure, trump played fast and loose with economic numbers, but he didn't even bother to be honest with his feel good stories in the state of the union address 'cause he knew it didn't matter. 

"Rankins, who indeed moved out of his car and into an apartment since landing a job refurbishing a Nashville hotel two years ago, doesn’t work at a site taking advantage of the breaks and never has done so. In fact, he started that job four months before the Treasury Department published its final list of neighborhoods eligible for the breaks. And the hotel where he worked couldn’t benefit even now because it’s an area that didn’t make the cut."

ok, so trump lied... a little white lie where he took credit for a 1996 tax incentive program signed into law by bill clinton, but how 'bout the adorable little girl he saved with a scholarship?

"Trump dramatically announced that a Philadelphia fourth-grader, Janiyah Davis, would be getting a scholarship that would allow her to transfer from a “failing government” school to a charter school of her choice. But The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that she had already been attending a charter school for months and that students there don’t have to pay tuition."

doesn't matter. confront folks with reality and they will blame on fake news or the vindictive do-nothing democrats who have been out to get trump from day-1. blame immigrants? why not? am sure we can find some way to blame immigrants for trump lies. build the wall. maybe blame john kelly for not keeping his mouth shut?  has nothing to do with current story but such has never stopped this administration. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

how 'bout the adorable little girl he saved with a scholarship?

Attacking a kid to bash the president. Must be a new low.

[Guard Dog]

There is a reason why I've stopped watching the SOTU address. You need a cart to haul the BS shoveled that night. Although that is hardly new to Trump the BS that gets shoveled by him is definitely heavier, wetter, and smellier than his predecessors. 

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Attacking a kid to bash the president. Must be a new low.

Calling a kid adorable is an attack...?

[Skarpen]

44 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Calling a kid adorable is an attack...?

Let's not pretend that background check on a kid that was present at SOTU and proud of getting the scholarship and insinuating she's lying is not attack on her. 

[213374U]

It's clearly not. It's an attack on Trump distorting facts. But your mendacious attempt to spin it as an attack on a poor kid (will no one think of the children?!) perfectly illustrates the obtuseness of the 30% who will support Trump no matter what.

"Background check"? Yeah, never let silly facts get in the way of perfectly good political bull****.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Let's not pretend that background check on a kid that was present at SOTU and proud of getting the scholarship and insinuating she's lying is not attack on her. 

Well, you're being creative, will have to give you that much.  Shame the girl and her parents didn't decide to not be involved with all that bull****, was a school night too.

[Guard Dog]

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

Who cares about primaries? Iran's worst nightmare, Paul for President

(too many beers at work on a Friday afternoon does that to you)

 

Cthulhu 2020: Don't vote for a LESSER evil!

[redneckdevil]

16 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Abolish the Electoral College.  It has served it's last gasp reminder of how bad it is 2000-2016.

Trump is literally the same as Hillary Clinton as far as policies go, especially foreign PROTECT ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS policy.

Only difference here is that Trump seems to attract the Christian Zionists and white supremacists, and we all know what happens to them in the end.  See 1865 and 1945 for reference.

Edit: 2025?  80 year intervals ol' whitey seems to need a lesson in manners.

We got this.

Instead of abolishing the electoral college, how bout we actually let it go the way it DESIGNED and do away with the winner take all.

not only will people’s vote actually count BUT also the best way to get away from a 2 party system by giving them actual choices.  Also best way to increase voter turn out as well. 
 

instead of abolishing a system and go with one where 4 states decide what the other 46 get, get rid of the “winner take all” instead and watch as rep/dem voting numbers go down and independent/libertarian/socialist/etc voting numbers go up and give an election or 2 and u will have more than the 2 party system WITHOUT any drastic changes and we can keep everything going the way it is now.  It’s KISS.

[Skarpen]

42 minutes ago, 213374U said:

It's clearly not. It's an attack on Trump distorting facts. But your mendacious attempt to spin it as an attack on a poor kid (will no one think of the children?!) perfectly illustrates the obtuseness of the 30% who will support Trump no matter what.

"Background check"? Yeah, never let silly facts get in the way of perfectly good political bull****.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Investigating poor kid because Trump = good

Investigating rich kid of politician = bad

Got it 

[Amentep]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Let's not pretend that background check on a kid that was present at SOTU and proud of getting the scholarship and insinuating she's lying is not attack on her. 

Where does he insinuate that she wasn't proud of the scholarship or that she was lying?

My understanding of Gromnir's post was that Trump had said she was getting a scholarship and moving to a charter school, not her, so the "background check" would be on his claims, not hers.  

[Skarpen]

4 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Where does he insinuate that she wasn't proud of the scholarship or that she was lying?

My understanding of Gromnir's post was that Trump had said she was getting a scholarship and moving to a charter school, not her, so the "background check" would be on his claims, not hers.  

The article does. Gromnir just jumped the wagon to bash president, but in doing so he advocates the witchhunt of a child.

[Amentep]

I can't read the article, so can't comment on it.