|
Post by gabi on Nov 2, 2017 21:03:07 GMT
so almost a year with Trump, how do yall think he is faring politically if we avoid all the shit he says
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Nov 2, 2017 22:09:31 GMT
so almost a year with Trump, how do yall think he is faring politically if we avoid all the shit he says Going along just like the sane people expected it would. If he can last to the mid-terms (Nov 2018), I believe he will be faring better than we expected. If he resigns or is impeached before then, he is faring worse than expected. He is not doing any better or worse than what I expected so far though. Politically, he has succeeded in 3 things: electing supreme court justice, pulling out of the trade agreement TPP, tax reform bill ( IF it passes). His approval ratings are like 33%. He is toxic to side with politically, and the GOP knows it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Nov 2, 2017 22:58:03 GMT
so almost a year with Trump, how do yall think he is faring politically if we avoid all the shit he says Going along just like the sane people expected it would. If he can last to the mid-terms (Nov 2018), I believe he will be faring better than we expected. If he resigns or is impeached before then, he is faring worse than expected. He is not doing any better or worse than what I expected so far though. Politically, he has succeeded in 3 things: electing supreme court justice, pulling out of the trade agreement TPP, tax reform bill ( IF it passes). His approval ratings are like 33%. He is toxic to side with politically, and the GOP knows it. aside from your bias, hasnt he done anything positive in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Nov 2, 2017 23:33:49 GMT
Just because he hasn't really done anything hes not as bad as I thought. The only irreversibly awful thing hes done is get rid of the TPP so China can fuck us hard in a couple decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Nov 3, 2017 0:27:29 GMT
Going along just like the sane people expected it would. If he can last to the mid-terms (Nov 2018), I believe he will be faring better than we expected. If he resigns or is impeached before then, he is faring worse than expected. He is not doing any better or worse than what I expected so far though. Politically, he has succeeded in 3 things: electing supreme court justice, pulling out of the trade agreement TPP, tax reform bill ( IF it passes). His approval ratings are like 33%. He is toxic to side with politically, and the GOP knows it. aside from your bias, hasnt he done anything positive in your opinion? hmmmm, positive things... Electing supreme court justice. That might be it. Pulling out of TPP is hard to say positive or negative so far - I supported that move though. Tax bill, if passed, looks like it will be positive for the wealthy/poor possibly, negative for the middle class.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 7, 2017 5:38:59 GMT
Big race today in Virginia but some things to keep in mind: polling in Governor's races is pretty rough, it's not as bad as special elections polling but it's rough. Northam should win, but the polls tightened. IF Northam is behind late by a point or so that's fine-DC suburbs report late usually, and they're heavily heavily Democrat.
Also get ready for a shitton of articles no matter the outcome there.
In NJ Phil Murphy should coast to victory by double digits or so. In NH a few seats should swap on the state level to Democrat. Maine is voting on expanding the ACA, we'll see how that goes. De Blasio is gonna steamroll in the NYC mayor race.
The utah house race for Chaffetz seat should be way more reported than it is. Moderate democrat is running against a favorite Republican, but there's a third party liberal candidate, and an additional third party candidate running under the Utah United party. Might split the vote enough for someone to beat the Republican there. Hopefully Chaffetz gets to see his family soon, he's probably forgotten what they look like over the last 12 months or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 2:05:38 GMT
Great night for Democrats pretty consistent with general trends Murphy stomped in New Jersey and Northam is up around 8 points in Virginia. A lot of the polls were probably just noise there late but oh well. Gerrymandering in Virginia will break in 2020 and that's all that matters there.
For Republicans no matter how you measure it, this is sharp rejection of Trumpism. Gillespie went from typical Republican (maybe a bit right of that but not much) to hardcore trumper protect muh southern heritage/culture/statues even though he's from New Jersey, weird. Racist, name calling, etc. All the Trump Traits
Anyway, this is probably the scariest part long term for Republicans. via David Wasserman
Which is crazy. Virginia isn't gerrymandered nearly as bad as say Wisconsin or Texas, but it's probably in the top 5-7 or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 2:42:55 GMT
Goddamn
Utah should start reporting in about 20 minutes I think, the Republican should coast to victory but given what's happened in Virginia I think it might be close if the votes peeled off when the right way.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 2:49:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 2:55:14 GMT
Also I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my boss man helping Democrats win big tonight in Virginia. Let America Vote definitely had a huge impact there. That's gonna boost his standings for sure coming into 2020, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't mentioned a lot more in articles in the coming days and weeks about that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorMurder on Nov 8, 2017 3:42:17 GMT
Dope. I went and voted this afternoon and was gonna snap the i voted sticker, but got lazy... I might set an appointment with some insurance fucks to see if this would actually help me this year. Regardless, glad it passed even if I'm still boned. The parents of an old middle school friend were running the polls, so I had to talk to them. Got accosted to sign a ranked choice vote thing and another healthcare thing after voting... even so, made it in and out in like 11 minutes. Oh and it was in my old middle school that shut down when I graduated from 8th grade. It is now a community center. So that was cool to go in again... and it was like 2 feet from my house.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 4:08:42 GMT
Republican candidate already announced that he's lost Atlanta. it's gonna be a 2016 style battle between Fort (bernie backed) and Bottoms (establishment backed) or Bottoms vs Norwood who is more moderate.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 8, 2017 4:14:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Nov 8, 2017 7:48:34 GMT
Hell hath struck for the Republicans thanks to the orange muppet. Watch them distance themselves from Trump in 2018. Check, Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Nov 8, 2017 18:21:55 GMT
ugh, the transgender debate i still ongoing, can theses mentally ill people get some meds and stfu
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 10, 2017 0:40:30 GMT
This Roy Moore scandal could be interesting on a lot of levels.
But the most interesting angle on this is that the party can't legally remove him this close to the election. There's a precedent for changing the candidate via a court ruling (New Jersey in 02), but they'd have to move very very fast. Moore doesn't want to step down and there's zero chance he's throwing McConnell a bone after McConnell stumped for Strange and very much wanted Strange in the primary. Moore is very very Bannonlike. He hates the establishment, he hates Washington DC period, he doesn't like rights or institutions he's basically the physical embodiment of everything Bannon wants in a candidate.
So they're left with three options: no more funding/stumping for Moore, the court injunction so they can fill in the seat with whoever they want*, or start a write in campaign for Strange or whoever. There's a few problems with that though. If they do the write in, there's a good chance they split the vote enough for Jones to win with 36% or something like that. Then Strange actually wasn't that popular in Alabama polls anyway both against Moore and Doug Jones (democrat in the race). They really need the seat because they can't afford to lose one with Murkowski/McCain/Collins thumping their healthcare plans back routinely. If Corker and Flake decide they want to start voting against some of the Trump nominees/stuff they're trying to get through they could lose a lot of power that way too and they barely have any to give up, given how they've struggled to pass anything this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Nov 13, 2017 0:31:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Nov 15, 2017 16:39:29 GMT
I attended a conference where we invited the Charge D'affairs from USA today and he was speaking of international relations between Sweden and USA, a very informative lecture. Interesting thing he said was among other thing that Sweden was the first nation not involved in the war that recognised USA as a state, that is apart from France and UK of course. Another thing was he said was that Axel von Fersen, a Swede with close relations to Marie-Antoinette, present at the war, was key figure in keeping France in the war supporting USA, there is a painting of him in the Capitol building. So yall defintely welcome for that.
Anyway, we talked a bit about the challenges of Europe in the coming years and he said that immigration would be the biggest stepping stone, he had seen this problem in US with latin America, as they weren't emigrating when they were poor but rather when they started to become more well funded, learn the language and have connections in those countries. It was quite interesting theory he had in that the challenges for USA was in those 20 years when Latin Americas economy was doing better and better, and they stopped emigrating at such great rate when they reached a point where it wasn't worth to emigrate anymore.
He said that Europe is facing the same now with Africa and Asia as their economy is consistently improving and sooner or later, mass immigration will hit harder than it has, its unavoidable apparently, but rather than sit back one of Europes plans is to accelerate the economic growth in those parts of the world and basically shorten the time span of where it becomes not worth to emigrate, he said USA had a 20 year period, and Europe is looking to shorten that to around 10 years.
Basically what i learnt today... Eh, how do you see about this theory of emigration? i am currently in the works of trying to find data that supports it with no luck.s
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Nov 16, 2017 23:03:59 GMT
Latin America isnt exactly a shining example of consistent growth. You have a lot of countries like Cuba and Argentina that were once on the right track (or on argentina's case one of the wealthiest countries in the world) and then regressed. Theres tons of those examples. Mexico is making progress, chile is making progress, but who knows what itll be like 20 years from now. I think most immigratiom to the US is from central america right now though. In 20 years it could be India or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi on Nov 17, 2017 16:06:30 GMT
Latin America isnt exactly a shining example of consistent growth. You have a lot of countries like Cuba and Argentina that were once on the right track (or on argentina's case one of the wealthiest countries in the world) and then regressed. Theres tons of those examples. Mexico is making progress, chile is making progress, but who knows what itll be like 20 years from now. I think most immigratiom to the US is from central america right now though. In 20 years it could be India or something. His point was that immigration happened mostly when those countries started getting richer and not when they were at their poorest. And stagnated when they actually became a developed country. He means that africa and Asia today is at a point where they are growing, and people the last couple of years have afforded to smuggle then self in to Europe. But sometime along their growth it won't be worth it anymore to leave everything behind to try your luck in a whole different continent. I think Sweden also had something like this between 1860-1920 where we had one fourth of the country leave for US and for a period there Chicago had as many swedes as our 2nd biggest city. But after 1920 the emigration stopped and it wasn't worth to try your luck in a new continent but rather staying was the best option. He was saying that it wasn't sustainable if so many people from those places came, so best option was to stimulate their economy and make it more worthwhile to stay rather than leave for Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Nov 18, 2017 2:08:36 GMT
Latin America isnt exactly a shining example of consistent growth. You have a lot of countries like Cuba and Argentina that were once on the right track (or on argentina's case one of the wealthiest countries in the world) and then regressed. Theres tons of those examples. Mexico is making progress, chile is making progress, but who knows what itll be like 20 years from now. I think most immigratiom to the US is from central america right now though. In 20 years it could be India or something. His point was that immigration happened mostly when those countries started getting richer and not when they were at their poorest. And stagnated when they actually became a developed country. He means that africa and Asia today is at a point where they are growing, and people the last couple of years have afforded to smuggle then self in to Europe. But sometime along their growth it won't be worth it anymore to leave everything behind to try your luck in a whole different continent. I think Sweden also had something like this between 1860-1920 where we had one fourth of the country leave for US and for a period there Chicago had as many swedes as our 2nd biggest city. But after 1920 the emigration stopped and it wasn't worth to try your luck in a new continent but rather staying was the best option. He was saying that it wasn't sustainable if so many people from those places came, so best option was to stimulate their economy and make it more worthwhile to stay rather than leave for Europe. That's always the pattern for the US though. There are just waves of different immigrants during different periods in our and those country's histories.
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Dec 7, 2017 1:59:38 GMT
Guvment shutdown happening Friday night/Saturday morning.
why?
What's it gonna take to pass? Supposedly the House is gonna pass a two week funding bill because they want to pass wealthcare. The Senate is where it gets tricky. You gotta have 60 in the Senate. Not a single democrat should vote to pass an extension because every time they do they get fucked, and they have nothing to lose at this point and will avoid the blame for it.
Force them to drop wealthcare or at least postpone it until after the government is reopened. In exchange you get CHIP, Alexander-Murray, a clean DREAM Act, and whatever else that should have been done the past few months while Republicans were trying to fuck people over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bandito. on Dec 7, 2017 14:57:12 GMT
They should make loot boxes type games have a ESRB rating of adult. It is kinda like betting, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Dec 23, 2017 2:49:23 GMT
For OutRosez aka memethew aka I hate taxbreaks
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Dec 23, 2017 2:58:47 GMT
By the way, if anyone here wants to know what the new tax bill does with an unbiased view, heres a good rundown
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/7k6nul/discussion_thread/drczorb/
|
|
|
|
Post by OutRosez on Dec 23, 2017 6:18:52 GMT
For OutRosez aka memethew aka I hate taxbreaks Wow Bernie's tax bill sounded great. Can't wait till 2021
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Dec 23, 2017 8:27:54 GMT
By the way, if anyone here wants to know what the new tax bill does with an unbiased view, heres a good rundown https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/7k6nul/discussion_thread/drczorb/ I expect that to continue to separate the chasm between rich and poor. I am not too worked up over that tax bill tbh, but what comes next is worrying. Tax bill shows a deficit of about 1.5 trillion over the next decade so I expect them to return to pay that difference through massive cuts in medicare/medicaid/social security. It is coming in quarter 1 of new year. They are not finished. Tax bill is just the opening act. What irritates me is these bastards have no issue with taking apart Obamacare but have nothing worthwhile to replace it with. Not even single-payer insurance or universal Healthcare if we go the full way. Single-payer is worthwhile to consider for savings across the board. It doesn't have to be completely tax funded either so folks could still co-pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Only thing would be insurance companies would pretty vanish except for some private insurances for those who can afford absolute top coverage (rich folks essentially). , jobs would be damaged in the short term. But imagine the savings.. It would be like medicare with government negotiating directly with big pharma. Medicare has been very successful since day 1. Medicare has tons of people working under it so you would still have plenty of jobs. Cutting out the middleman in insurance companies would save hundreds of billions yearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Dec 24, 2017 0:15:54 GMT
By the way, if anyone here wants to know what the new tax bill does with an unbiased view, heres a good rundown https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/7k6nul/discussion_thread/drczorb/ I expect that to continue to separate the chasm between rich and poor. I am not too worked up over that tax bill tbh, but what comes next is worrying. Tax bill shows a deficit of about 1.5 trillion over the next decade so I expect them to return to pay that difference through massive cuts in medicare/medicaid/social security. It is coming in quarter 1 of new year. They are not finished. Tax bill is just the opening act. What irritates me is these bastards have no issue with taking apart Obamacare but have nothing worthwhile to replace it with. Not even single-payer insurance or universal Healthcare if we go the full way. Single-payer is worthwhile to consider for savings across the board. It doesn't have to be completely tax funded either so folks could still co-pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Only thing would be insurance companies would pretty vanish except for some private insurances for those who can afford absolute top coverage (rich folks essentially). , jobs would be damaged in the short term. But imagine the savings.. It would be like medicare with government negotiating directly with big pharma. Medicare has been very successful since day 1. Medicare has tons of people working under it so you would still have plenty of jobs. Cutting out the middleman in insurance companies would save hundreds of billions yearly. Single payer does not make healthcare magically cheaper unless you ration treatment heavily, and medicare/aid/SS all need to be cut/reworked to be sustainable.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Dec 24, 2017 0:16:33 GMT
For OutRosez aka memethew aka I hate taxbreaks Wow Bernie's tax bill sounded great. Can't wait till 2021 Thats the republican tax bill #memethew
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Dec 24, 2017 1:34:23 GMT
I expect that to continue to separate the chasm between rich and poor. I am not too worked up over that tax bill tbh, but what comes next is worrying. Tax bill shows a deficit of about 1.5 trillion over the next decade so I expect them to return to pay that difference through massive cuts in medicare/medicaid/social security. It is coming in quarter 1 of new year. They are not finished. Tax bill is just the opening act. What irritates me is these bastards have no issue with taking apart Obamacare but have nothing worthwhile to replace it with. Not even single-payer insurance or universal Healthcare if we go the full way. Single-payer is worthwhile to consider for savings across the board. It doesn't have to be completely tax funded either so folks could still co-pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Only thing would be insurance companies would pretty vanish except for some private insurances for those who can afford absolute top coverage (rich folks essentially). , jobs would be damaged in the short term. But imagine the savings.. It would be like medicare with government negotiating directly with big pharma. Medicare has been very successful since day 1. Medicare has tons of people working under it so you would still have plenty of jobs. Cutting out the middleman in insurance companies would save hundreds of billions yearly. Single payer does not make healthcare magically cheaper unless you ration treatment heavily, and medicare/aid/SS all need to be cut/reworked to be sustainable. It does take the middleman in insurance companies out though. Single-payer would lead to direct negotiation with big pharma to bring down the cost, elimination of the middleman of thousands of insurance companies (and administrative costs), equalize costs for medicine/care across the board (right now it varies based on insurance rather than procedure/medicine/location), and everyone contributes into it based on income just like medicare currently. At the same time you eliminate medicare/medicaid altogether. In the end, it would lead to savings and healthcare for everyone.
|
|
|