Political Roundtable Part XXV

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

Pointgod...you just linked an article to Matthew Yglesias. Chief Hillary asskisser.

But I'm the one who's incredibly biased.

Dude...with all due respect:



You hillary hoes are incredible. Thank god she's not running because I don't even want to talk about her terrible, loser ass. And I don't want to talk to her loser cult members either. Put me on ignore, dweeb. I don't want to read your **** anymore.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Jamaaliver]

'It's over': Miami Beach tries to outrace climate change's rising seas

Harold Wanless, director of the University of Miami’s geological sciences department and a leading expert on sea level rise, marvels at the level of denial the latest building boom requires.

“Just using the U.S. government projections, we could be at 11 to over 13 feet [of sea level rise] by the end of century,” Wanless, 77, says. “There’s only 3 percent of Miami-Dade County that’s greater than 12 feet above sea level. With another 2 feet of sea level rise, I don’t think any of these barrier islands are inhabitable in the normal sense that we live on them today."

In a 2018 study, The Union of Concerned Scientists found that flooding exacerbated by sea level rise will, by the year 2045, threaten 12,095 homes in Miami Beach valued at $6.4 billion.

By the end of the century, nationwide losses are projected to top $1 trillion, including damage to an estimated 2.4 million homes. With the scale of the coming disruption almost too large to comprehend, NOAA has built a website that lets users glimpse the inundated future on coastal maps and toggle up a dystopian amount of sea level rise.

“People have to understand how serious this is going to be quickly, in the next two or three decades,” Wanless says. “We’re just seeing the beginning of this accelerated ice melt.”

Yahoo Sports

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Do Americans feel like they’re taking crazy pills when they see what a functioning government looks like?

[Pointgod]

Pointgod...you just linked an article to Matthew Yglesias. Chief Hillary asskisser.

But I'm the one who's incredibly biased.

Dude...with all due respect:



You hillary hoes are incredible. Thank god she's not running because I don't even want to talk about her terrible, loser ass. And I don't want to talk to her loser cult members either. Put me on ignore, dweeb. I don't want to read your **** anymore.

No. I want you to answer which of Hillary’s policies that I posted you’re against.

[Jamaaliver]

Oh, boy...

How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide

Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020. But a faltering economy or giant scandal could change everything



President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

Credit a strong U.S. economy featuring low unemployment, rising wages and low gas prices — along with the historic advantage held by incumbent presidents.

While Trump appears to be in a much stronger position than his approval rating and conventional Beltway wisdom might suggest, he also could wind up in trouble if the economy slows markedly between now and next fall, as many analysts predict it will.

Spoiler:

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, also shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” winning 54 percent of the popular vote to 46 for the Democrat, he said. Fair’s model also predicted a Trump win in 2016 though it missed on Trump’s share of the popular vote.

Politico

[queridiculo]

Do Americans feel like they’re taking crazy pills when they see what a functioning government looks like?

I checked out Breitbart to get a feel for how the derposphere reacts to this.

About what I expected, the third comment is what I imagined the overall sentiment would be like.

The Left, Gun Control Advocates, and Leftists Politicians want people to take a bullet or multiple bullets from terrorists, gang members, drug dealers, criminals, rapists, thieves, and other bad people. They don't want people to defend their life, their family members, and their community.

To the Left they believe people should get murdered and injured by bad people than to be armed and save your life or others.

You can bet those Muslims at the mosque wished that they had guns to protect themselves. If they had guns then that would have saved lives and many would not have been injured.

Fight Back for your Gun Rights and Protect your Life, your Family, and Community. Your lives are important.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Allowing politicians like Beto, Obama and HRC to be technocratic incrementalists hiding under the veil of pragmatism serves who exactly?

Let's be fair, it's more than just hiding under the veil of pragmatism, though it varies from example to example. Pragmatism does have strengths. What good does it actually do to go in guns blazing with a bunch of policy goals that will never happen and then try to force them knowing they're going to fail? Pragmatist politicians tend to be relatively pro-active overall if there is a means to actually achieve something desirable. Obama, for example, attempted to begin the push towards universal health care with the ACA. It didn't work out for several reasons but I don't see any evidence to suggest he didn't want to improve the system and figure out how to make it work better in the long run. Suggesting it's a bad idea to consider all of the implications of what is happening before you act isn't actually a bad thing unless you wind up paralyzed in thought. The paralysis I've seen lately has been more because of an ever-increasing political divide rather than a paralysis of analysis. Just throwing somebody in who's going to make a long list of desirable things and not really talk about how they're going to achieve those desirable things besides explanations that obviously won't serve anyone any better.

For what it's worth, I don't really get the comparisons you've made between Beto, Obama and HRC. They're superficial at best. I suggested Justin Trudeau for Beto earlier and stand by that comparison. Obama was rather different quite a few ways and HRC, too.

[closg00]

Oh, boy...

How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide

Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020. But a faltering economy or giant scandal could change everything



President Donald Trump has a low approval rating. He is engaging in bitter Twitter wars and facing metastasizing investigations.

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

Credit a strong U.S. economy featuring low unemployment, rising wages and low gas prices — along with the historic advantage held by incumbent presidents.

While Trump appears to be in a much stronger position than his approval rating and conventional Beltway wisdom might suggest, he also could wind up in trouble if the economy slows markedly between now and next fall, as many analysts predict it will.

Spoiler:

Models maintained by economists and market strategists like Luskin tend to ignore election polls and personal characteristics of candidates. Instead, they begin with historical trends and then build in key economic data including growth rates, wages, unemployment, inflation and gas prices to predict voting behavior and election outcomes.

Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, also shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

“Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy — and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election — that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin,” winning 54 percent of the popular vote to 46 for the Democrat, he said. Fair’s model also predicted a Trump win in 2016 though it missed on Trump’s share of the popular vote.

Politico

I saw this as-well. However, in the state polls to-date, Trump is down several must-win states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If the Dems put-up the wrong candidate (Harris/Warren), Trump wins again

[stilldropin20]

guys, you have no chance of winning 2020. none what so ever.

Trump will keep 3 of north carolina, ohio, florida, and pennsylvania. thats all he needs.

[stilldropin20]

dems would be better served carving out their policy now. figuring what works and how to pay for it and how it works for people in ohio, penn, NC, SC, Florida, arizona.

thats all you have to do....no longer will the american people accept a salesman that doesn't carve out his policy with details in how to enact it and how to pay for it.

[Jamaaliver]

I saw this as-well. However, in the state polls to-date, Trump is down several must-win states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If the Dems put-up the wrong candidate (Harris/Warren), Trump wins again

LOL

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania don't vote for women?








Actually, yeah. That tracks.

[Jamaaliver]

The paradox of AOC -- and the hard truth young progressives aren't ready to accept.

Mike Huckabee calls AOC the 'best thing' for Trump

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday called the rise of Democratic freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "the best thing" for President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

“She’s making quite a name for herself, and I hope that she continues to be the face of the Democratic Party,” Huckabee said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.

“It’s amazing how big a deal she has become — to be a 29-year-old with no major accomplishments to her credit other than making really bizarre policy pronouncements about the 'New Green Deal' and getting rid of the Amazon jobs in New York,” Huckabee said.

The young representative has 3.5 million Twitter followers and this week was featured on the cover of Time magazine, which published an article analyzing the increasingly polarizing effect she seems to have as her popularity grows.

Politico

Spoiler:

[Pointgod]

Do Americans feel like they’re taking crazy pills when they see what a functioning government looks like?

I checked out Breitbart to get a feel for how the derposphere reacts to this.

About what I expected, the third comment is what I imagined the overall sentiment would be like.

The Left, Gun Control Advocates, and Leftists Politicians want people to take a bullet or multiple bullets from terrorists, gang members, drug dealers, criminals, rapists, thieves, and other bad people. They don't want people to defend their life, their family members, and their community.

To the Left they believe people should get murdered and injured by bad people than to be armed and save your life or others.

You can bet those Muslims at the mosque wished that they had guns to protect themselves. If they had guns then that would have saved lives and many would not have been injured.

Fight Back for your Gun Rights and Protect your Life, your Family, and Community. Your lives are important.

Don’t read Breibart. Don’t invite that type of evil into your life lol. That comment reads like STD wrote it. Just pure unfiltered bull and stupidity

[dckingsfan]

No. I want you to answer which of Hillary’s policies that I posted you’re against.

Hmmm, actually reading the policy proposals - isn't there an easier way?

[dckingsfan]

Looks like he is in...
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Buttigieg-meets-fundraising-threshold-for-debates-507320121.html

[Pointgod]

Allowing politicians like Beto, Obama and HRC to be technocratic incrementalists hiding under the veil of pragmatism serves who exactly?

Let's be fair, it's more than just hiding under the veil of pragmatism, though it varies from example to example. Pragmatism does have strengths. What good does it actually do to go in guns blazing with a bunch of policy goals that will never happen and then try to force them knowing they're going to fail? Pragmatist politicians tend to be relatively pro-active overall if there is a means to actually achieve something desirable. Obama, for example, attempted to begin the push towards universal health care with the ACA. It didn't work out for several reasons but I don't see any evidence to suggest he didn't want to improve the system and figure out how to make it work better in the long run. Suggesting it's a bad idea to consider all of the implications of what is happening before you act isn't actually a bad thing unless you wind up paralyzed in thought. The paralysis I've seen lately has been more because of an ever-increasing political divide rather than a paralysis of analysis. Just throwing somebody in who's going to make a long list of desirable things and not really talk about how they're going to achieve those desirable things besides explanations that obviously won't serve anyone any better.

For what it's worth, I don't really get the comparisons you've made between Beto, Obama and HRC. They're superficial at best. I suggested Justin Trudeau for Beto earlier and stand by that comparison. Obama was rather different quite a few ways and HRC, too.

Pragmatism also helps to protect the voters from themselves. If you promise the world to voters, you risk receiving a backlash because low information voters don’t realize that being President doesn’t mean you’re an emperor. There’s two other coequal branches of government and in a functioning Democray they should be working to hold each other accountable. Which means that getting things passed are slow, require compromise and incremental movement. Hell Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government for 2 years and despite completely having their heads in Trumps ass could only pass the dog **** legislation that was the corporate tax giveaway. Trump hasn’t actually made good on the majority of his campaign promises.

I understand setting bold goals and aspirations but at a certain point you need to actually have a plan. That’s why I like what Warren is doing. She’s putting out bold ideas but also policies behind them whether or not you agree with them.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The paradox of AOC -- and the hard truth young progressives aren't ready to accept.

Mike Huckabee calls AOC the 'best thing' for Trump

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday called the rise of Democratic freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "the best thing" for President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

“She’s making quite a name for herself, and I hope that she continues to be the face of the Democratic Party,” Huckabee said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.

“It’s amazing how big a deal she has become — to be a 29-year-old with no major accomplishments to her credit other than making really bizarre policy pronouncements about the 'New Green Deal' and getting rid of the Amazon jobs in New York,” Huckabee said.

The young representative has 3.5 million Twitter followers and this week was featured on the cover of Time magazine, which published an article analyzing the increasingly polarizing effect she seems to have as her popularity grows.

Politico

Spoiler:

I dunno. From that angle she actually seems like a positive that many Democrats aren't willing to embrace just yet. Republicans weren't happy with Trump, either. They laughed at him, he made ridiculous policy pronouncements about a wall, and he was an easy target for Democrats in a field of easy targets. The one thing he did well (for the Republican Party) was bring in a host of supporters in key locations that allowed him to actually win the presidential election.

AOC comes with a youth demographic she has the potential to absolutely inspire to vote, and it's a demographic that often doesn't vote, either, so if she can turn that, I sort of expect Huckabee will wind up eating his words. While she's an easy target for Republicans, she isn't the kind of person who's going to inspire fear. Heck, even with Hillary, it wasn't fear they whipped up there - it was Obama (without using his name so much) and the wave of racism that hit.

The real challenge she represents to the Democratic party is an internal one as they figure out how to fit her into what they're doing. They're going to need to adapt or die, not totally unlike the Republicans with Trump, so it's in their interests to try and keep her invested and front and center while at the same time focus her a bit more on certain issues while putting a few others on the backburner a bit. If they got her to focus specifically on environmental issues, her green new deal wouldn't necessarily be horrible despite a need for some reworking. It's the guaranteed jobs part (UBI probably makes more sense, though there needs to be thought/study here and it needs to happen fast) and the health care structural parts that are a bit of a nightmare. AOC represents the Democrats best chance of increasing voter turnout amongst younger voters AND among Latino voters. If even one of those demographics moved, the Republican Party would be finished. Huckabee knows this, though, which is why he's so invested in trying to take her down - and it's got nothing to do with policies.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I understand setting bold goals and aspirations but at a certain point you need to actually have a plan. That’s why I like what Warren is doing. She’s putting out bold ideas but also policies behind them whether or not you agree with them.

I agree. I have certain reservations about Warren but that's true to varying degrees and for different reasons for every candidate out there. Warren, at the very least, is basically better at everything than Bernie other than the popularity side of things, which matters, but is also a bit revealing. If a person doesn't like that line of thinking or such policies, that's absolutely understandable, but if a person does, the difference in depth between Warren and Bernie is substantial. Honestly, I feel Bernie lags behind Yang in that respect, though something feels odd about Yang in the sense that he's basically a meme on one hand and not taken seriously on the other which is a situation I'm not sure I've really quite seen before but I get a dose of racism in there from every angle (just my gut - I could be wrong).

Beto, I do think he pushes things a little too far and would like to see a bit more specifics from him. I'm guessing it's a strategic decision not to do so, though. It works, like it or not. Will it work enough for him? I don't honestly know at this point. If he were to come out attacking cost drivers in health care, prison systems, etc., I'd like him a bit more. I do like the stance he's taken on environmental issues so far, though. If there were a way to pair him up with Warren or someone like that (AOC won't run but would make an interesting counterpoint) - it wouldn't matter who was pres or vp - and let him ease up a bit on the bolder propositions, I think I'd actually like that. Who knows, though.