Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

41,275 posts in this topic

 
 
 
 
 
3
1 hour ago, Lou Getchell said:

"no one ... disagrees with that" in the sense that now, at least, they'll all say "it's really important."  But how?  How is it important?  As the comprehensive all consuming threat/issue multiplier it is?  As a third tier environmental issue?  Purely from a social/environmental justice angle?  Classes and jobs?  How will you address it? With cap and trade, command and control, a tax, a combination, policy planning, none of the above?  How does it impact military operations, infrastructure planning, etc.?

An actual debate on it is hugely important and would illuminate why it is not just another issue, it is the issue that will affect all others in the coming decades.

 

Those would not be answered in a debate. They would be answered in a forum. Did everyone who came in blind to the debates get a good understand of those questions for healthcare? No. They just got sound bites about how it will or won't kill private insurance or will or won't shut down hospitals. You think If I showed people the debate then asked them about Medicare for All, Medicare for America, Bidencare, Kamala Medicare for All, they would know the differences and how each one would work? Of course not and voters said as much after the debates. They thought it was pointless bickering. 

Quote

Democratic debates didn’t do much to clarify candidates’ plans for health care — 2020′s most important issue

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/09/voters-struggle-to-figure-out-2020-democrats-health-care-reform-plans.html

 

Debates are about debating the details of your ideas, but if the people watching do not understand the details or why they are important, then it is pointless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

I don't think so man. If the economy goes south, he and Republicans will just blame it on "conditions, external factors" and "globalization" or "immigrants."  Nobody (figurative) that's not a Republican or "Fierce Independent" supports him. He can only be blamed for a recession in so much as he has no plan to address one if it does occur and his trade war isn't helping. So, who exactly would he lose if the Economy goes south? Nobody significant IMO.

 I don’t think a recession hurts him. We will just hear “if we are getting hit with a recession now, just imagine how things will be if Democrats win?  Vote for Trump or things will be worse“

And that will work because we are ******* idiots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HolyMoses said:

 I don’t think a recession hurts him. We will just hear “if we are getting hit with a recession now, just imagine how things will be if Democrats win?  Vote for Trump or things will be worse“

And that will work because we are ******* idiots.

 

Yeah, Wokez is already repeating that in an earlier post

https://boards.atlantafalcons.com/topic/4070622-not-the-new-donald-trump-presidency-thread/?do=findComment&comment=11515039

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

The economy is not why he won in 2016... how is it keeping him in office? He won't be impeached because of a recession...

The economy was part of why he won.  But the economy is the best predictor of the president’s approval rating, and the economy and approval ratings are the best predictors of presidential elections.  So yeah, the economy is the only thing that’s going to keep him in office and reelected next year.

And if the economy goes south, Trump’s approval ratings will slide to the low 30s or lower.  That opens the door for impeachment.  It would depend on the timing, of course, but he could get tossed out of office if the economy goes south quickly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

I don't think so man. If the economy goes south, he and Republicans will just blame it on "conditions, external factors" and "globalization" or "immigrants."  Nobody (figurative) that's not a Republican or "Fierce Independent" supports him. He can only be blamed for a recession in so much as he has no plan to address one if it does occur and his trade war isn't helping. So, who exactly would he lose if the Economy goes south? Nobody significant IMO.

 

4 minutes ago, HolyMoses said:

 I don’t think a recession hurts him. We will just hear “if we are getting hit with a recession now, just imagine how things will be if Democrats win?  Vote for Trump or things will be worse“

And that will work because we are ******* idiots.

 

Sorry, but all of the data and analysis says that’s not how any of this works.  

Yes, most Republicans won’t blame Trump for the recession or will otherwise find some deflection.  But that’s around 25-30% of them.  A 25-30% approval rating isn’t going to get Trump reelected and could inflict enough damage of the GOP as a party to make Republicans have second thoughts.

falconsd56, Big_Dog and HolyMoses like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The economy was part of why he won.  But the economy is the best predictor of the president’s approval rating, and the economy and approval ratings are the best predictors of presidential elections.  So yeah, the economy is the only thing that’s going to keep him in office and reelected next year.

And if the economy goes south, Trump’s approval ratings will slide to the low 30s or lower.  That opens the door for impeachment.  It would depend on the timing, of course, but he could get tossed out of office if the economy goes south quickly enough.

My point was that "he is in office until 2020 or 2024" not that a recession wouldn't affect his favorability (which could then affect his reelection chances). It may be a semantic argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

 

Sorry, but all of the data and analysis says that’s not how any of this works.  

Yes, most Republicans won’t blame Trump for the recession or will otherwise find some deflection.  But that’s around 25-30% of them.  A 25-30% approval rating isn’t going to get Trump reelected and could inflict enough damage of the GOP as a party to make Republicans have second thoughts.

You haven't seen what disinformation campaigns are coming against the Dems in 2020. And now Trump is in the White House, so the executive branch is not going to stop it from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

You haven't seen what disinformation campaigns are coming against the Dems in 2020. And now Trump is in the White House, so the executive branch is not going to stop it from happening.

:rolleyes:

Every election is unique and different and some “X factor” is going to swing it, until the results come in and pretty much align with what we’ve always known at the predictors of election outcomes.  The structural factors like the economy and approval ratings are the strongest factors.  It’s been true for all modern presidential elections and it will be true in 2020.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

:rolleyes:

Every election is unique and different and some “X factor” is going to swing it, until the results come in and pretty much align with what we’ve always known at the predictors of election outcomes.  The structural factors like the economy and approval ratings are the strongest factors.  It’s been true for all modern presidential elections and it will be true in 2020.  

I know; you are talking about the predictive power of statistics. I'm not. But you say "this is how things work" when you don't really know if it's going to apply to a future case in light of the massive failures of 2016's statisticians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

Sorry, but all of the data and analysis says that’s not how any of this works.  

Yes, most Republicans won’t blame Trump for the recession or will otherwise find some deflection.  But that’s around 25-30% of them.  A 25-30% approval rating isn’t going to get Trump reelected and could inflict enough damage of the GOP as a party to make Republicans have second thoughts.

 That’s why I think Democrats should make November 3, 2019 “ National Trump Amnesty Day”.  A day for all citizens, politicians, and corporate structures to officially renounce their support for Donald Trump. 

 No one will do it of course, but in the event that Trump loses, and or further humiliate himself in America, in the aftermath, we know **** well that everyone from Lindsey Graham to WFW  Will be saying “I never supported Trump yada yada yada”.   The silence through each Trump atrocity is deafening, but our memories are short.  

 Democrats should be able to point to national Trump amnesty day and say “You had your chance!  Where were you then?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Lengthy thread. Cannot emphasize enough how much Ngo deserved his *** kicking.

Republican Free speech = Free to lie, cheat and defraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

I know; you are talking about the predictive power of statistics. I'm not. But you say "this is how things work" when you don't really know if it's going to apply to a future case in light of the massive failures of 2016's statisticians.

Which statisticians are you talking about?  Most of the forecasting predictions based on structural factors were fairly close to the actual outcome, including my own which had Trump slightly ahead.  

And until I see some actual facts and evidence that things will be different this year than every other presidential election in modern history, I’ll stick with what’s always worked.  It’s served me well so far.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bdog 29 said:

So you're saying I originally had an FHA loan and am just now getting a conventional one? Not that it matters, I'm just happy to be done with PMI. I'm just curious.

No. You had a Conv and hit 78% based on payments.

falconsd56 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

No. You had a Conv and hit 78% based on payments.

Yup....if it were a fha done after 2010 or 2011 pmi does not go away...even at 78%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lou Getchell said:

 

So, I'd like to take a moment and use this Gish Gallop as a prompt for all the non-lunatics in this thread.

The first thing I'd that to address is the claim that climate change is "a huge hoax, concocted by Al Gore."  The science underlying our understanding of climate change goes back almost 200 years to Joseph Fourier, a french polymath who, using very basic calculations, figured out that given its distance from the sun, the Earth should not be as warm as it is.  He proposed that something in the atmosphere was keeping it warmer than it should be, and first described what we now refer to as the "greenhouse" effect (though he did not call it that).  It then proceeded in the 1860s with John Tyndall who, through his experiments, showed that many of the gases in our atmosphere, including water vapor and CO2, are capable of blocking infrared radiation from escaping back to space.  In the late 1890s, Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere (really, he calculated the effect of halving it) and suggested that man could, through its additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, increase the global average temperature.  He wasn't worried about it, mind you, but his calculations have held up remarkably well: about 3.5 degrees centigrade for a doubling of CO2 (which is right in the range projected by much more advanced modeling). 

The science lay dormant for awhile until the 1930s when Guy Callendar revived it, saying it may already be happening. The 1950s then produced significant research - much funded by the Office of Naval Research - that contributed to our knowledge, from scientists like Gilbert Plass, Roger Revelle, and Charles Keeling (who gave us the Keeling Curve). Gilbert Plass's seminal article, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, is the first time "climate change" or "climatic change" appeared in the scientific literature, that we know of.  In the 1960s, President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee presented a report to him with a section on CO2 warming, noting that the continued increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would "modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur."  Rudimentary general circulation models (GCMs) were first developed to simulate the atmosphere in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the 1970s, Wally Broecker published his seminal article Climatic Change: Are We On The Brink Of A Pronounced Global Warming.  It was the first time that "global warming" appeared in the literature, that we know of.  In 1979, the National Academy of Science, in a report for the president, found it "highly credible" that doubling CO2 would bring an additional 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming, noting that "a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late."  The World Climate Program was launched. The majority of articles in the literature predicted warming, the second larger portion was neutral, and a very small portion predicted cooling, mainly based on aerosols that we subsequently addressed successfully.  Despite a couple mainstream articles, the scientific community was not predicting a new ice age.

In the 1980s, modeling increased significantly, and in the late 1980s, the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was formed.

This is a very minimized, brief recap of the basic science. There is significantly more to the story both in the decades described and after.

 

The second thing I'd like to address is this: "For the last thousand years or so, weather has been cyclical, up and down."

First of all, no, it has not been cyclical globally. Second of all, what does that even mean?  What is the cause of this supposedly steady "up and down"?  Are we just to assume that mother Gaia is acting to keep things in order? Is there some reason it is going up and down at a global level over time?  Why is it not actually present in any of our global reconstructions? Why would that be the case given what we do know about planetary physics/chemistry and the various forcings and feedbacks that operate on this planet? Why would anyone feel comfortable saying this knowing that it would rely on scientific reconstructions of temperature from times before record measurements, while still decrying the scientists who would have presumably provided this information?

 

 

This has been your bi-annual climate change information update.

Ahem,

1000 years isn’t far enough back.

temperaturetimelineb.png?resize=700,1244

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are just so many things wrong with that graph. As for the 1,000 year thing, I was just addressing ya boy’s statement.

 

edit: like, sooooooo many things.

Edited by Lou Getchell
mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The economy was part of why he won.  But the economy is the best predictor of the president’s approval rating, and the economy and approval ratings are the best predictors of presidential elections.  So yeah, the economy is the only thing that’s going to keep him in office and reelected next year.

And if the economy goes south, Trump’s approval ratings will slide to the low 30s or lower.  That opens the door for impeachment.  It would depend on the timing, of course, but he could get tossed out of office if the economy goes south quickly enough.

With the market nose diving, a recession already predicted by the financial folks, the economy will soon hit the worst it has been in ages. We need the 'chosen one' run out of the Whitehouse because he doesn't realize or care that he's ****ed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now