Front Office Football Central
Page 77 of 320 « First < 2767686970717273747576 77 78798081828384858687127177 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Trump Presidency – 2016 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=92014)

mckerney 12-09-2017 10:13 AM
Ford to Build Electric Cars in Mexico, Boost Investment at Michigan Facility | WNEP.com

Quote:
DETROIT — Ford will build its next generation all-electric car in Mexico, rather than at the plant in Michigan where it promised to build it.

The automaker announced in January that it would invest $700 million and create 700 jobs at a plant in Flat Rock, Michigan to build EV’s, and that it would scrap plans for a new small car plant in Mexico.

The news was celebrated by the incoming Trump administration, which claimed that it had convinced U.S. automakers to bring jobs home.

Mark Fields, Ford’s CEO at the time, referred to the plans for the Michigan plant as a “vote of confidence” in the Trump administration.

BBT 12-09-2017 10:40 AM
The Jobs Report Is Overhyped. Here’s Why That’s A Problem.

Quote:
On Aug. 4, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released monthly hiring data for July. A pack of economists and journalists pounced, excited to spread the numbers across social media. Good news! The United States had added 209,000 jobs, an above-average result that exceeded the consensus prediction of Wall Street analysts.

“America’s economy has beaten expectations,” the Guardian reported. Stock markets jumped when trading opened an hour later; the Dow Jones industrial average climbed to a record high. President Trump was moved to open his Twitter account. “Excellent Jobs Numbers just released – and I have only just begun,” he said. “Many job stifling regulations continue to fall. Movement back to USA!”

Here’s the thing: The U.S. didn’t add 209,000 jobs in July. Not even close.

One month after the announcement, the BLS revised its original estimate. The new number: 189,000 — decent, but unimpressive. And then in October, the BLS revised the July figure a third and final time: 138,000 — mediocre at best.

Don’t be too hard on yourself if you were still under the impression that the U.S. economy had had a summer for the ages. The shift from “excellent” to so-so did not receive much attention from the media. The mainstream press went bananas over the BLS’s headline employment number, as it usually does when the first estimate of the data comes out, and then barely acknowledged the revisions, also standard practice. This flawed approach affects how people view the economy.

Edward64 12-09-2017 12:28 PM
CNN sloppy reporting isn't helping ...

CNN corrects story on email to Trumps about Wikileaks - Dec. 8, 2017
Quote:
CNN on Friday afternoon corrected an exclusive report that said candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had received an email providing a web address and decryption key allowing them to access hacked documents from WikiLeaks before such documents were publicly available.

When first published Friday morning, the story, written by senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju and politics reporter Jeremy Herb, said the email was sent to the Trumps on September 4, 2016. It was corrected to say that the email was actually sent on September 14, one day after WikiLeaks made the documents public.

"CNN's initial reporting of the date on an email sent to members of the Trump campaign about Wikileaks documents, which was confirmed by two sources to CNN, was incorrect," CNN said in a statement. "We have updated our story to include the correct date, and present the proper context for the timing of email."

In its updated story, CNN acknowledged, "The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported."

JPhillips 12-09-2017 12:34 PM
It sounds less like sloppy reporting and more like a coordinated set of lies fed to CNN. It sounds like they followed their guidelines.

kingfc22 12-09-2017 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3187671)
It sounds less like sloppy reporting and more like a coordinated set of lies fed to CNN. It sounds like they followed their guidelines.

Either way the "Fake News minus anything Trump lies about crowd" will just bang this drum over and over again.

Take a look at last night when Trump gushed about the "Blacks for Trump" in the crowd and how "Blacks" had higher home ownership now that he is President.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump off on black homeownership, trade - The Washington Post

Quote:
TRUMP, surveying the crowd: “Look at these guys, ‘blacks for Trump.’ I love you. I love you. By the way, now that you bring it up, black homeownership just hit the highest level it has ever been in the history of our country. Congratulations.”
THE FACTS: Not true or even close.
The U.S. Census finds that the black homeownership rate peaked during 2004, when 49.7 percent of black households owned homes (the rate for all races that year reached 69.2 percent, also a modern record). The black homeownership rate stayed in similar territory until the recession, when it dropped to the mid-40s.
This year: 42.7 percent in the first quarter, 42.3 percent in the second and 42 percent in the third. That’s an uptick from last year but far from a record. Quarterly rates this year for the total U.S. population: 63.6 percent, 63.7 percent and 63.9 percent.

PilotMan 12-10-2017 03:19 PM
You know, we really shouldn't get all bent out of shape over people who choose to use 'alternative facts' in addressing anything about trump, since the man himself disregards the truth and has no problem using that to browbeat anyone else.

Or..

We really care about the truth and facts, and even if a Wapo writer has to step down, then in the name of standards the president should too. All things being equal, of course.

BBT 12-11-2017 12:22 PM


JPhillips 12-11-2017 12:35 PM
The Pentagon just announced that transgender people can enlist starting Jan. 1. That really needs some explanation. Did Trump change his mind or is the Pentagon ignoring him?

Thomkal 12-11-2017 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3187882)
The Pentagon just announced that transgender people can enlist starting Jan. 1. That really needs some explanation. Did Trump change his mind or is the Pentagon ignoring him?

More like the courts are saying its not legal:

Transgender People Can Enlist in Military Jan. 1, Pentagon Says - Bloomberg

BBT 12-12-2017 01:58 AM
The Trump-Russia Probe Is About to Get Uglier

Quote:
And that's keeping in mind an important reminder from Bill Ruckelshaus, a former acting FBI director who was a hero of Watergate when he quit Nixon's Justice Department in 1973 rather than following an order to impede the investigation of that landmark case. What's publicly known about inquiries like this one, he told me in June, is just a little of what's actually happening.

There is, for example, evidence that Mueller has expanded his investigation to look at financial deals involving Trump family interests.

Robert Anderson, a top counterintelligence and cybersecurity aide to Mueller when the latter was FBI director from 2001 to 2013, wrote in Time last month that Mueller "appears to have uncovered details of a far-reaching Russian political-influence campaign." Anderson predicted that the conspiracy would prove to involve wire fraud, mail fraud and moving money around illicitly between countries. He said more informants are likely to emerge, and declared, "When the people who may be cooperating with the investigation start consensually recording conversations, it's all over."

The issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted is unsettled. Those who know Mueller believe that he's less likely to pursue a prosecution than to send Trump's case to Congress to consider impeachment.


Trump loyalists have already started fighting that battle, with bitter preemptive counterattacks issuing from top congressional Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and even Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley. They've made it clear that they're more interested in discrediting Mueller than in learning about what happened between the Trump camp and Russia.

Trump, if caged, will lash out furiously. Maybe he'd try to fire Mueller and issue pardons for his family and friends. He'd rally his hardcore supporters, urging them to protest against the threat to him. Thus it's impossible to envision a peaceful resolution like the one that occurred in 1974, when Nixon was forced out to avoid impeachment.

"At the end of the day, Richard Nixon was found to have a sense of shame," notes Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste. "It remains to be seen whether anything can shame Donald Trump."

BBT 12-12-2017 02:02 AM
DOLA:

Fascinating, yet terrifying look into our current president

Inside Trump's Hour-by-Hour Battle for Self-Preservation

Quote:
The ammunition for his Twitter war is television. No one touches the remote control except Mr. Trump and the technical support staff — at least that’s the rule. During meetings, the 60-inch screen mounted in the dining room may be muted, but Mr. Trump keeps an eye on scrolling headlines. What he misses he checks out later on what he calls his “Super TiVo,” a state-of-the-art system that records cable news.

Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day.

But he is leery of being seen as tube-glued — a perception that reinforces the criticism that he is not taking the job seriously. On his recent trip to Asia, the president was told of a list of 51 fact-checking questions for this article, including one about his prodigious television watching habits. Instead of responding through an aide, he delivered a broadside on his viewing habits to befuddled reporters from other outlets on Air Force One heading to Vietnam.

“I do not watch much television,” he insisted. “I know they like to say — people that don’t know me — they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources — you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot.”

Later, he groused about being forced to watch CNN in the Philippines because nothing else was available.

cuervo72 12-12-2017 07:13 AM
THE BEST DOCUMENTS.

Jas_lov 12-12-2017 07:47 AM
The tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand today is disgusting. Do his supporters actually like these tweets?

Ben E Lou 12-12-2017 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 3187958)
The tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand today is disgusting. Do his supporters actually like these tweets?
There's unquestionably a segment of his supporters that likes him *because* he does stuff like that, not in spite of it.

PilotMan 12-12-2017 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 3187958)
The tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand today is disgusting. Do his supporters actually like these tweets?

let's go down the imagination path again and think about Obama saying this. Or let's imagine if a CEO of a major corporation said this in an interview. I mean, wow. The people who continue to simply pass this off as tolerable because he is "taking back America" have lost all my respect.

digamma 12-12-2017 10:17 AM
Well, just my opinion, but I don't think America is great (or being made great) when we insinuate women are sluts and campaign for people like Roy Moore.

NobodyHere 12-12-2017 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 3187958)
The tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand today is disgusting. Do his supporters actually like these tweets?

Was the tweet wrong?

"Someone once said that politics is the second-oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first."

BBT 12-12-2017 11:59 AM
Well, that would require evidence, which wasn't provided and probably won't be.

Unlike the evidence mounting that Trump and his colleagues/family whored themselves, and the country, out to Putin/Russia.

JPhillips 12-12-2017 12:54 PM
Ed Gillespie sums up the problem the GOP has had for years. I'm not personally racist, but the only way to win is to motivate racists to go out and vote.

Quote:
CONTROVERSIAL CAMPAIGN ADS

Gillespie faced a firestorm of criticism during the campaign for ads that critics called racially incendiary and misleading.

Several sought to link MS-13 gang violence to Northam’s vote against a ban on sanctuary cities, even though Virginia doesn’t have sanctuary cities that choose not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And a final ad push highlighted the case of a sex offender whose his rights were temporarily restored under a sweeping voter rights restoration order that Northam supports. Northam, a pediatrician, responded with an ad that said Gillespie’s suggestion that he would tolerate anyone hurting a child “despicable.”

Gillespie told Axelrod he ran those ads because message testing suggested it would help him win. But he said they were not the issues he wanted to focus on.

“Are those the issues I would have chosen to run on as opposed to the tax cuts and frankly even the criminal justice reform innovative proposals I put forward?” said Gillespie. “That’s where I rather the race have been about, but those weren’t what was indicating was going to move numbers and help me win.”

Gillespie said his campaign message about Virginia’s economy lagging didn’t resonate as well in the prosperous D.C. suburbs — which is why he had to focus on public safety to sway votes.

“The issue that looked like it was going to move voters in the suburbs of Northern Virginia was public safety,” he said. “Clearly, (the MS-13 ads) didn’t work. Did it create a backlash? I don’t think so. But I don’t know.”

JPhillips 12-12-2017 12:57 PM
dola

Rand Paul is full of shit.

Quote:
I cannot in good conscience vote to add more to the already massive $20 trillion debt. I promised Kentucky to vote against reckless, deficit spending and I will do just that.

But he'll vote for the tax cut package without hesitation.

RainMaker 12-12-2017 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBT (Post 3187932)
DOLA:

Fascinating, yet terrifying look into our current president

Inside Trump's Hour-by-Hour Battle for Self-Preservation

It's weird because as President you have access to so much cool information and you spend 8 hours a day watching what they put on in hospital waiting rooms.

Ben E Lou 12-12-2017 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3188001)
It's weird because as President you have access to so much cool information and you spend 8 hours a day watching what they put on in hospital waiting rooms.
I don't think it's that weird. A person who has narcissistic tendencies and seems to lack basic intellectual curiosity about the world is going to be much more interested in "what are they saying about me" than in cool information.

JPhillips 12-12-2017 02:16 PM
And all of those briefings require reading.

cuervo72 12-12-2017 02:18 PM
Well he's the healthiest president ever, so he's never IN hospital waiting rooms.

Kodos 12-12-2017 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuervo72 (Post 3188007)
Well he's the healthiest president ever, so he's never IN hospital waiting rooms.

That's what drinking 12 diet cokes a day will do for you: Absolute health.

CrimsonFox 12-12-2017 10:01 PM
Meanwhile...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politi...sis/index.html

BBT 12-12-2017 11:37 PM
With Moore's loss tonight in Alabama, the Repubs in the Senate have to be looking hard at impeaching Trump prior to next year's mid-terms, right?

Exit-polling showed Trump with a less than 50% popularity...in Alabama. This has continued a trend of Trump-backed candidates performing poorly since last year's election. What will it be in Nevada or Arizona...or even Tennessee or Texas next year? Are they really willing to go into the election cycle with that albatross hanging around their necks?

And Pence is sitting right there to enact everything they want and do it in some kind of presidential manner. Sure, there will be some blowback for impeaching Trump, and he'll probably try to burn everything to the ground on the way out, but, once it blows over, their base will probably still be there just in time to possibly salvage the Senate (fully expect the House to flip next year).

Seems like the sooner it's done, the better; otherwise, they face the possibility of a Dem-controlled Senate and House with a president that just wants "wins" and doesn't care which side of the aisle they come from.

JPhillips 12-13-2017 09:21 AM
Omarosa is getting fired.

Thomkal 12-13-2017 09:58 AM
USA Today sinking to Donald's level:

USA Today Calls Trump Unfit To Clean Obama's Toilets In Scathing Editorial

bhlloy 12-13-2017 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBT (Post 3188092)
With Moore's loss tonight in Alabama, the Repubs in the Senate have to be looking hard at impeaching Trump prior to next year's mid-terms, right?

Exit-polling showed Trump with a less than 50% popularity...in Alabama. This has continued a trend of Trump-backed candidates performing poorly since last year's election. What will it be in Nevada or Arizona...or even Tennessee or Texas next year? Are they really willing to go into the election cycle with that albatross hanging around their necks?

And Pence is sitting right there to enact everything they want and do it in some kind of presidential manner. Sure, there will be some blowback for impeaching Trump, and he'll probably try to burn everything to the ground on the way out, but, once it blows over, their base will probably still be there just in time to possibly salvage the Senate (fully expect the House to flip next year).

Seems like the sooner it's done, the better; otherwise, they face the possibility of a Dem-controlled Senate and House with a president that just wants "wins" and doesn't care which side of the aisle they come from.

I think impeachment is still a pipe dream, but you are going to see anyone who could possibly be within 10 points of a Democrat next year doing anything they possibly can to distance themselves at this point.

The other interesting thing is what it means for close votes from now until then. This will surely embolden anyone who was thinking that voting with Trump on controversial high profile matters right now just might not be worth it for their long term career.

Probably shouldn’t get too giddy about this, as ultimately there were mitigating factors other than trump in the Alabama race the kind we will probably never see again. But I think the Dems can be very encouraged with the minority turnout and the underlying approval numbers for Trump are definitely going to start to give R’s a lot of sleepless nights.

SackAttack 12-13-2017 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBT (Post 3188092)
With Moore's loss tonight in Alabama, the Repubs in the Senate have to be looking hard at impeaching Trump prior to next year's mid-terms, right?

Exit-polling showed Trump with a less than 50% popularity...in Alabama. This has continued a trend of Trump-backed candidates performing poorly since last year's election. What will it be in Nevada or Arizona...or even Tennessee or Texas next year? Are they really willing to go into the election cycle with that albatross hanging around their necks?

And Pence is sitting right there to enact everything they want and do it in some kind of presidential manner. Sure, there will be some blowback for impeaching Trump, and he'll probably try to burn everything to the ground on the way out, but, once it blows over, their base will probably still be there just in time to possibly salvage the Senate (fully expect the House to flip next year).

Seems like the sooner it's done, the better; otherwise, they face the possibility of a Dem-controlled Senate and House with a president that just wants "wins" and doesn't care which side of the aisle they come from.



Look at this real hard.

Montana and North Dakota are not what you'd call "Democratic-friendly" states in election years, and 2018 is going to be a midterm where Democrats are playing defense. Indiana has a Democratic Senator, but Donnelly scraped 50.04% of the popular vote in a Presidential election year. What's he going to do in an off year? West Virginia's got a Democratic senator in Manchin, but even as a conservative Democrat he's still going to be at risk of his constituents saying "why should we vote for a lookalike Democrat when we can have an actual Republican?"

Wisconsin and Michigan are historically Democratic territory, but they went for Trump and Wisconsin has been trending redder in the last ten years, so, again - ain't saying the Democrats can't hang onto those seats, but even with Trump's unpopularity, there are still headwinds. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are flip opportunities also.

Looking at the other direction: Arizona? Eehh. Maybe. The American Southwest keeps getting talked about in "demographics are destiny" terms, and New Mexico seems to have settled in as a blue state. Sinema might be able to win against an unknown challenger. Not sure she'd beat Flake if he weren't retiring.

Wyoming, Utah, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas? lolno.

Nevada's got possibilities.

So, I mean, last night was monumental, but two takeaways:

1) the math is still very much against the Senate flipping unless the scandal to end all scandals embroils the Republican Party and irrevocably taints the brand. Sexual harassment ain't gonna cut it. Too many Republican voters are willing to dismiss women as opportunistic liars who are only in it for the fame, talk show circuit, and to destroy powerful men with lies and why didn't they speak up 40 years ago when they were teenagers hmm.

You're not even going to be able to hang Moore around the necks of the party at large after Alabama elected Jones.

To take the Senate, Democrats need to run the table on defense, including holding onto seats in four overtly hostile states and in three or four purplish states in a midterm, when Democratic turnout is unpredictable.

THEN they need to win two seats from the 8 currently-Republican seats as well. One ain't going to cut it, because Pence still breaks ties. Their opportunities are pretty much Arizona and Nevada on that front (again, barring a massive scandal with a clear smoking gun).

I'm just not seeing a realistic path to those last couple seats. Granted, I didn't expect Jones to beat Moore, either, but that's not exactly a replicable set of circumstances, either.

The Jones win is a massive result for Democrats, but I think it's super temporary. In two years, Alabama going to nominate a Republican who isn't the dumpster fire Roy Moore is, and that seat will once again be a Republican seat. And it's not the sort of win they can leverage into greater gains unless it fires up the turnout machine.

2020 might be a more realistic goal for flipping the Senate; aside from the aforementioned Alabama, most of the (remarkably few) seats Democrats have to defend are in historically 'safe' territory. There aren't any obvious flip targets for the Republican seats, but there are some possibilities; Maine, Iowa and North Carolina are all winnable if Democrats drive their base to the polls to vote against Trump; Georgia keeps getting talked about in the same "demographics are destiny" breathless whispers that have followed Arizona and Texas around, but I don't think it's ready yet; and Kentucky could be in play if Bannon somehow engineers a primary coup against McConnell.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a much bigger wave coming in 2018 than I think there is. I'm even skeptical that the House is going to flip, considering that Democrats stayed home in a census year, allowing Republicans to capture state legislatures just as it was time to redraw the boundaries.

I wouldn't complain if Republicans lost control of either chamber, but I do think expectations should be tempered even after last night's result.

PilotMan 12-13-2017 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3188113)
Omarosa is getting fired.

Gotta be a Kelly move. How long until Trump is done with him? She wasn't just fired, she was allegedly physically removed.

CrimsonFox 12-13-2017 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3188147)
Gotta be a Kelly move. How long until Trump is done with him? She wasn't just fired, she was allegedly physically removed.

I see the words "tantrum" and "Kicking and screaming" show up in articles. I wonder if there is video.

JPhillips 12-13-2017 02:24 PM
Supposedly she tried to get to Trump in the residence and had to be physically restrained by the Secret Service.

Edward64 12-15-2017 10:55 AM
Assuming these are questions a Fed judge is supposed to know, I would withdraw my nomination after being humiliated like this.

Trump Judicial Nominee Can't Answer Basic Questions About The Law In Disastrous Hearing | HuffPost
Quote:
Petersen, who is currently the chairman of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, struggled to answer more questions as it became clear he did not have the experience typically expected of a federal judge.

KENNEDY: As a trial judge, you’re obviously going to have witnesses. Can you tell me what the Daubert standard is?

PETERSEN: Sen. Kennedy, I don’t have that readily at my disposal but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That is not something I’ve had to contend with.

KENNEDY: Do you know what a motion in limine is?

PETERSEN: Yes.. I haven’t, I’m, again, my background is not in litigation as when I was replying to Chairman (Chuck) Grassley (R-Iowa), I haven’t had to um, again, do a deep dive.

Petersen then began ticking off his experience “in a decision-making role” at the FEC. Kennedy interrupted him:

KENNEDY: Yes, I’ve read your resume. Just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is?

PETERSEN: I would probably not be able to give you a good definition right here at the table.

KENNEDY: Do you know what the Younger abstention doctrine is?

PETERSEN: Um, I’ve heard of it... but I, again.

KENNEDY: How about the Pullman abstention doctrine?

PETERSEN: I... I heard...

KENNEDY: Y’all see that a lot in federal court.

A number of Trump’s judicial nominees have come under fire for not being fit to serve on the federal bench. Four of his court picks have been rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association ― an embarrassingly high number to receive the abysmal rating in a president’s first year. One of them, district court court nominee Brett Talley, withdrew his nomination this week.

JPhillips 12-15-2017 11:06 AM
And this guy was rated qualified by the ABA.

JPhillips 12-15-2017 05:23 PM
Dear Lord, the tax bill is 1000 pages!

I'm sure the GOP will vote against such a long and complicated bill.

GOP process arguments are never sincere.

corbes 12-15-2017 06:20 PM
Daubert and a motion in limine are things any courtroom lawyer ought to know unreservedly. It'd be the equivalent of asking a candidate for football GM to explain the offsides rule and what a salary cap is.

Abstention is more arcane, but a federal judge candidate ought to be at least conversant.

bronconick 12-15-2017 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SackAttack (Post 3188145)


Look at this real hard.

Montana and North Dakota are not what you'd call "Democratic-friendly" states in election years, and 2018 is going to be a midterm where Democrats are playing defense. Indiana has a Democratic Senator, but Donnelly scraped 50.04% of the popular vote in a Presidential election year. What's he going to do in an off year? West Virginia's got a Democratic senator in Manchin, but even as a conservative Democrat he's still going to be at risk of his constituents saying "why should we vote for a lookalike Democrat when we can have an actual Republican?"

Wisconsin and Michigan are historically Democratic territory, but they went for Trump and Wisconsin has been trending redder in the last ten years, so, again - ain't saying the Democrats can't hang onto those seats, but even with Trump's unpopularity, there are still headwinds. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are flip opportunities also.

Looking at the other direction: Arizona? Eehh. Maybe. The American Southwest keeps getting talked about in "demographics are destiny" terms, and New Mexico seems to have settled in as a blue state. Sinema might be able to win against an unknown challenger. Not sure she'd beat Flake if he weren't retiring.

Wyoming, Utah, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas? lolno.

Nevada's got possibilities.

So, I mean, last night was monumental, but two takeaways:

1) the math is still very much against the Senate flipping unless the scandal to end all scandals embroils the Republican Party and irrevocably taints the brand. Sexual harassment ain't gonna cut it. Too many Republican voters are willing to dismiss women as opportunistic liars who are only in it for the fame, talk show circuit, and to destroy powerful men with lies and why didn't they speak up 40 years ago when they were teenagers hmm.

You're not even going to be able to hang Moore around the necks of the party at large after Alabama elected Jones.

To take the Senate, Democrats need to run the table on defense, including holding onto seats in four overtly hostile states and in three or four purplish states in a midterm, when Democratic turnout is unpredictable.

THEN they need to win two seats from the 8 currently-Republican seats as well. One ain't going to cut it, because Pence still breaks ties. Their opportunities are pretty much Arizona and Nevada on that front (again, barring a massive scandal with a clear smoking gun).

I'm just not seeing a realistic path to those last couple seats. Granted, I didn't expect Jones to beat Moore, either, but that's not exactly a replicable set of circumstances, either.

The Jones win is a massive result for Democrats, but I think it's super temporary. In two years, Alabama going to nominate a Republican who isn't the dumpster fire Roy Moore is, and that seat will once again be a Republican seat. And it's not the sort of win they can leverage into greater gains unless it fires up the turnout machine.

2020 might be a more realistic goal for flipping the Senate; aside from the aforementioned Alabama, most of the (remarkably few) seats Democrats have to defend are in historically 'safe' territory. There aren't any obvious flip targets for the Republican seats, but there are some possibilities; Maine, Iowa and North Carolina are all winnable if Democrats drive their base to the polls to vote against Trump; Georgia keeps getting talked about in the same "demographics are destiny" breathless whispers that have followed Arizona and Texas around, but I don't think it's ready yet; and Kentucky could be in play if Bannon somehow engineers a primary coup against McConnell.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a much bigger wave coming in 2018 than I think there is. I'm even skeptical that the House is going to flip, considering that Democrats stayed home in a census year, allowing Republicans to capture state legislatures just as it was time to redraw the boundaries.

I wouldn't complain if Republicans lost control of either chamber, but I do think expectations should be tempered even after last night's result.


The Senate is a pipe dream. If the 48-37 generic ballot (per 538) holds in November, they'll take the House despite the gerrymandering

JPhillips 12-15-2017 08:01 PM
Quote:
Trump admin gives CDC, the nation's top public health agency, a list of words/phrases it is prohibited from using. Words/phrases are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based" & “science-based”

Wouldn't want those scientists talking about evidence.

bronconick 12-15-2017 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3188431)
Wouldn't want those scientists talking about evidence.

Wonder who made the list, given that Trump can't even spell those words

Scoobz0202 12-15-2017 08:50 PM
If you were a betting man/woman, what are the odds that Trump and Co. fire Mueller over the holidays.

Edit: I ask because I read this earlier:




Quote:
Since March, our investigation has made important progress. We’ve interviewed numerous key witnesses behind closed doors, held public hearings, reviewed thousands of documents, identified new leads — all to understand and expose Russia's meddling and protect our democracy. Yet, Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2017. We have dozens of outstanding witnesses on key aspects of our investigation that they refuse to contact and many document requests they continue to sit on.It appears Republicans want to conduct just enough interviews to give the impression of a serious investigation.Next week, they scheduled critical witness interviews out of state, when we are voting on the tax bill and vital government funding bills and no Members will be able to ask questions, in an effort to squeeze them in before end of year. These witnesses are willing to come to DC.
Despite our repeated urging, Majority has declined to issue subpoenas in numerous avenues of the investigation, where there's simply no other way to get the information. Some refusals we’ve made public, like witnesses hiding behind nonexistent privileges, many others we haven’t.




The responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation, or to prevent one, ultimately falls on @SpeakerRyan. I’m concerned he's heeding the calls of Bannon and @POTUS to “DO SOMETHING” by closing down the Russia investigation & opening up another investigation of Hilary Clinton Beyond our investigation, here’s what has me really concerned: The attacks on Mueller, DOJ and FBI this week make it clear they plan to go after Mueller’s investigation. Aggressively and soon.By shutting down the congressional investigations when they continue to discover new and important evidence, the White House can exert tremendous pressure to end or curtail Mueller’s investigation or cast doubt on it. We cannot let that happen.



Izulde 12-15-2017 10:30 PM
Nevada hinges entirely on who the Republican nominee is. Heller committed political suicide by voting for Obamacare repeal, so he's vulnerable to Tarkanian. If he somehow fends Tarkanian off, and is the Republican nominee, Democrats pick up the seat. If he gets primaried by Tarkanian, like I think he will be, the seat stays comfortably Republican.

JPhillips 12-15-2017 10:45 PM
Reid can do some amazing work in NV and his machine is still active.

stevew 12-16-2017 02:32 AM
Is there a website called whatcrazyshittrumpdidtoday dot com? Cause if not that needs to happen.

Groundhog 12-16-2017 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 3188466)
Is there a website called whatcrazyshittrumpdidtoday dot com? Cause if not that needs to happen.

Not the same domain name, but this is what you're looking for: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) | Twitter

Edward64 12-16-2017 09:21 AM
Looks likely that Trump will get a major win with the Tax bill (and history books). The extra bonus is the gutting of individual mandate (and, I assume, the ultimate collapse of Obamacare in its current state).

GOP tax plan: Key details of the final bill, explained - Dec. 15, 2017
Quote:
Just six weeks after lawmakers and the public got their first glimpse of the first draft of a tax overhaul bill, Republicans on Friday released their final version. They aim to pass it next week and send it to President Trump for his signature.

The final bill still leans heavily toward tax cuts for corporations and business owners. But it also expands or restores some tax benefits for individuals relative to the earlier bills passed by the House and Senate.

The individual provisions would expire by the end of 2025, but most of the corporate provisions would be permanent.

All told, the final bill includes trillions in tax cuts, most of which but not all are offset by revenue-raising measures. The bill on net would increase deficits by an estimated $1.46 trillion over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. That number would be much higher if, as Republicans assume, a future Congress does not allow the individual tax cuts to expire after 2025.

JPhillips 12-16-2017 09:50 AM
It's funny how passing anything has now become a win. This bill is opposed by almost 60% of the public.

bronconick 12-16-2017 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3188476)
It's funny how passing anything has now become a win. This bill is opposed by almost 60% of the public.

It's a Pyrrhic win.

miked 12-16-2017 01:06 PM
I hear if we give businesses more money, they raise wages and pass it down to the workers and NOT the shareholders. The only thing standing in the way of businesses investing in their own operations is that pesky tax rate!

JPhillips 12-17-2017 03:33 PM
Dear God the Dems are infuriating. Doug Jones wins in AL after calling for Franken to resign and now says we should move on from accusations against Trump. In VA Northam, who ran on Medicaid expansion, is now saying he won't pressure the GOP to expand Medicaid and will instead look to find bipartisan ways to control costs, in other words, limit access to healthcare.

NobodyHere 12-17-2017 03:42 PM
I lean left and gotta agree with Jones on this one. As long as accusation remain accusations and not charges then there's not really much you can do. Trump won't be ran out of town like Franken was.

JPhillips 12-17-2017 03:44 PM
But you sure as hell don't say Kumbya and move on. How hard is it to say, The accusations are serious, should be investigated, he should be held to the same standard...

It isn't that hard to say the right thing, especially after so many women voted to give you your job.

NobodyHere 12-17-2017 04:11 PM
And he said "We will see how things go." which is basically what you're wanting him to say.

Thomkal 12-17-2017 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3188620)
Dear God the Dems are infuriating. Doug Jones wins in AL after calling for Franken to resign and now says we should move on from accusations against Trump. In VA Northam, who ran on Medicaid expansion, is now saying he won't pressure the GOP to expand Medicaid and will instead look to find bipartisan ways to control costs, in other words, limit access to healthcare.

For Jones part, I think that was done because over 600,000 Alabamans voted for Moore, and some (most?) did that because they voted for/supported Trump. Not coming out of the gates attacking Trump was probably a wise move on his part.

RainMaker 12-17-2017 04:32 PM
I see the frustration but he also just won a state where nearly half the state voted for a pedophile. I doubt they care about sexual assault of adults if they don't care about it with kids.

Thomkal 12-17-2017 05:39 PM
McCain going back to Arizona for cancer treatment, will miss tax vote

RainMaker 12-17-2017 06:03 PM
This isn't specific to McCain or a knock on him. But as a country, shouldn't we be voting in younger Senators? This seems like a tough enough job on it's own but asking someone in their mid-80's to do it seems tough. And the odds of missing important votes seems much higher.

Like this isn't McCain specific, just something I noticed. 8 of our 100 Senators are over the age of 80. Some in their mid-80's with terms that will push 90. I mean aren't they trying to talk Hatch into running for another term?

JPhillips 12-17-2017 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3188635)
For Jones part, I think that was done because over 600,000 Alabamans voted for Moore, and some (most?) did that because they voted for/supported Trump. Not coming out of the gates attacking Trump was probably a wise move on his part.

With respect, that's horseshit. :)

He doesn't have to attack Trump, but starting things by contradicting himself and his voters in a vain attempt to win over voters that hate him isn't good. It's the Democrat way of things to spend too much energy trying to win over the people least likely to ever vote for you.

RainMaker 12-17-2017 06:36 PM
It looks like this is how they got Corker to flip.

Donald Trump And GOP Leaders Could Be Enriched By Last Minute Tax Break Inserted Into Final Bill

Thomkal 12-17-2017 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3188671)
With respect, that's horseshit. :)

He doesn't have to attack Trump, but starting things by contradicting himself and his voters in a vain attempt to win over voters that hate him isn't good. It's the Democrat way of things to spend too much energy trying to win over the people least likely to ever vote for you.

with respect and no horse shit, I disagree :)

Thomkal 12-17-2017 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3188674)

Corker is acting like he had no knowledge of how that tax break got included in the final report:

Corker asks how real-estate provision ended up in tax bill | TheHill

Jas_lov 12-17-2017 07:52 PM
Thad Cochran has been missing votes as well for health issues.

Thomkal 12-17-2017 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 3188691)
Thad Cochran has been missing votes as well for health issues.

yeah skin cancer I heard, but last reports I heard was he would be back for the tax vote

Thomkal 12-17-2017 08:04 PM
Could be an interesting Monday-UN Security Council to vote on a resolution that would nullify Trump's move to name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And apparently it cannot be vetoed by the US or any of the "big 5"

UN Security Council to vote on resolution voiding Trump's Jerusalem announcement: report | TheHill

cuervo72 12-17-2017 08:17 PM
I'm...not sure how that works.

US: "We recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."
UN: "No you don't."

I mean, just because we recognize it doesn't mean it *is* the capital or that the UN has to recognize it. Yeah, they can call us on a stance they don't like but they're just going to rile up Trump and the anti-UN folks.

NobodyHere 12-17-2017 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3188695)
Could be an interesting Monday-UN Security Council to vote on a resolution that would nullify Trump's move to name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And apparently it cannot be vetoed by the US or any of the "big 5"

UN Security Council to vote on resolution voiding Trump's Jerusalem announcement: report | TheHill

Other news sources are saying the US can veto it, so who knows.

larrymcg421 12-18-2017 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3188698)
Other news sources are saying the US can veto it, so who knows.

So does that news source.

NobodyHere 12-18-2017 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 3188748)
So does that news source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
In order to pass, the resolution would need the votes of nine of the 15 members of the council. It also cannot be vetoed by the U.S., France, Britain, Russia or China.

I just read it again. I think bad wording makes the paragraph ambiguous.

AlexB 12-18-2017 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 3188469)
Not the same domain name, but this is what you're looking for: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) | Twitter

This post deserved more love :lol:

Thomkal 12-18-2017 01:55 PM
Well I guess we know the answer now:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ted/960247001/

I thought the "big 5" had a permanent veto but the article I posted about this said that the US did not have a veto here. Note all other countries voting on this voted against Trump.

NobodyHere 12-18-2017 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3188813)
Well I guess we know the answer now:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ted/960247001/

I thought the "big 5" had a permanent veto but the article I posted about this said that the US did not have a veto here. Note all other countries voting on this voted against Trump.

I think you misread the article (as I did). It's actually saying that the motion could only pass if there was no veto. It is poorly worded.

Thomkal 12-18-2017 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3188828)
I think you misread the article (as I did). It's actually saying that the motion could only pass if there was no veto. It is poorly worded.

Yep reading comprehension for the win :)

larrymcg421 12-18-2017 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3188813)
Well I guess we know the answer now:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ted/960247001/

I thought the "big 5" had a permanent veto but the article I posted about this said that the US did not have a veto here. Note all other countries voting on this voted against Trump.

No, as NobodyHere said, the wording is confusing. They meant that for it to pass, the US cannot veto it.

JPhillips 12-18-2017 05:09 PM
I'm so old I remember when it would have been a big deal when a former DNI called the President a Kremlin asset.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 01:40 PM
Senate panel rejects Trump's nominee to lead Ex-Im Bank | TheHill

Not that big of news, but the nominee was a former Congressman...who you guessed it, tried to shut this bank down. Trump wanted him there pretty badly.

PilotMan 12-19-2017 01:44 PM
This is it right? I mean, all the stuff that has come down the line the last 12 months and our discussion is pretty much dead. The non-stop circus has won and we're numb and burned out from it.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 01:44 PM
House passes final tax bill, edging GOP closer to win | TheHill

Butter 12-19-2017 01:48 PM
I think this is just the calm before the real storm.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3188909)
This is it right? I mean, all the stuff that has come down the line the last 12 months and our discussion is pretty much dead. The non-stop circus has won and we're numb and burned out from it.

numb describes it pretty well I think. Nearly every day the Trump govt does/says something that annoys Dems/Liberals. We know the only way that is going to change is to concentrate on the mid-terms and next Presidential election. If we can get control of Senate or House, we can begin to fight back against Trump. Sadly he's got all the cards right now.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3188829)
Yep reading comprehension for the win :)

So let's see if I read this correctly. It's round two for the condemnation of Trump's move to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is not binding on the US, but they would not be able to veto it:

UN to hold emergency meeting, new vote on Trump's Jerusalem decision: report | TheHill

JPhillips 12-19-2017 02:43 PM
As of this afternoon the last Virginia House race recount shows the Dem ahead by one vote.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 03:10 PM
wow

NobodyHere 12-19-2017 05:27 PM
Senate Republicans unite around tax bill as Corker flips to 'yes'

Sen. Bob Corker Failed to Properly Disclose Millions of Dollars in Income

Yeah, no ethical wrongdoing whatsoever here. Move along.

RainMaker 12-19-2017 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3188922)

I mentioned earlier that they likely know what's coming in 2018. A bunch of them are stepping down at the end of their terms. At this point it's just about enriching themselves.

Flasch186 12-19-2017 06:20 PM
When dems take congress and presidency it'll all unravel like obamacare now. We're staring at so much pass/undo gov't for the next 50 years it'll be a shit show.

mckerney 12-19-2017 08:03 PM
Senator John Cornyn on Twitter: "Under #TaxCutsandJobsAct a married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,… https://t.co/vThZOZYNYY"
Quote:
Under #TaxCutsandJobsAct a married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,000 in business income) will receive a tax cut of $2,603.50, a reduction of nearly 24 percent.

Good to see they have their finger on the pulse to know who the common man is, those making $100k with $40k of it coming from business income from multiple entities.

Haven't seen something so absolutely in touch with the plight of the working man since the newspaper graphic showing how a tax bill would affect a single mother making over $250k a year.

Thomkal 12-19-2017 08:42 PM
Loved the comments on his tweet

cuervo72 12-19-2017 08:57 PM
I wonder if "non-corporate" business income includes things like LuLaRoe or Rodan + Fields.

Or Amway.

Atocep 12-19-2017 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckerney (Post 3188929)
Senator John Cornyn on Twitter: "Under #TaxCutsandJobsAct a married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,… https://t.co/vThZOZYNYY"


Good to see they have their finger on the pulse to know who the common man is, those making $100k with $40k of it coming from business income from multiple entities.

Haven't seen something so absolutely in touch with the plight of the working man since the newspaper graphic showing how a tax bill would affect a single mother making over $250k a year.

Maybe McDonalds can update their sample budget for employees to not need a 2nd job with all the tax savings coming their way.

Izulde 12-20-2017 04:34 AM
Top Republicans are already talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security next - Vox

Fuck.Them.

I mean, I'm against capital punishment, but I wouldn't exactly shed a tear if every single one of these assholes disappeared and were never seen again.

miked 12-20-2017 10:21 AM
Who knew?!?!

Will companies spend tax savings to create jobs? - Dec. 19, 2017

Quote:
Just 14% of CEOs surveyed by Yale University said their companies plan to make large, immediate capital investments in the United States if the tax overhaul passes. Capital investments, like building plants and upgrading equipment, can lead to hiring.

This one is my favorite...

Quote:
And at The Wall Street Journal's CEO Council in November, only a few business leaders raised their hands when they were asked whether the tax plan would lead them to increase investment in the United States. Gary Cohn, Trump's top economic adviser, was surprised.

"Why aren't the other hands up?" he asked from on stage.


digamma 12-20-2017 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckerney (Post 3188929)
Senator John Cornyn on Twitter: "Under #TaxCutsandJobsAct a married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,… https://t.co/vThZOZYNYY"


Good to see they have their finger on the pulse to know who the common man is, those making $100k with $40k of it coming from business income from multiple entities.

Haven't seen something so absolutely in touch with the plight of the working man since the newspaper graphic showing how a tax bill would affect a single mother making over $250k a year.

While I certainly agree with this, Democratic messaging on this bill has been nothing short of awful. If I read another thing about how the tax bill will affect what I do in 2027 I'm gonna puke. No one cares about 2027.

JPhillips 12-20-2017 11:30 AM
A solid majority is opposed to the bill, so something is getting through.

Logan 12-20-2017 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 3188966)

The worst part is that about 14% of CEOs are likely lying.

Fidatelo 12-20-2017 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma (Post 3188972)
While I certainly agree with this, Democratic messaging on this bill has been nothing short of awful. If I read another thing about how the tax bill will affect what I do in 2027 I'm gonna puke. No one cares about 2027.

I think that's the real problem right there.

Ben E Lou 12-20-2017 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma (Post 3188972)
While I certainly agree with this, Democratic messaging on this bill has been nothing short of awful. If I read another thing about how the tax bill will affect what I do in 2027 I'm gonna puke. No one cares about 2027.
Yup.

On that note, am I correct in assuming that some percentage of the country will see an increase in take-home pay at some point in 2018? Assuming also that Republicans have calibrated the bill to make that percentage to be high enough, wouldn't it then play a significant role in the midterms? ("My Party voted to give you that extra money in your paycheck every month; the other guy's Party voted to keep your money.") Isn't that all that really matters politically here? Yes, I get that long-term ramifications matter in many other ways, but to the average dolt voting...

molson 12-20-2017 12:34 PM
It will be interesting to see what impact this will have on state budgets. It looks like it will increase the revenue in some states and decrease it in others. I'm definitely expecting furloughs to wipe out any tax benefits I get. And if that happens, state employees are generally instructed not to work a second more than required, which slows everything down and makes the government generally less responsive.

Jas_lov 12-20-2017 12:38 PM
Depends if the tax cut in their withholdings is large enough for them to notice. If regular people don't get much of a cut it won't make a difference. I doubt corporations will give them wage bumps. Right now the bill is seen as a big giveaway to rich people and corporations. If they start talking about medicare/SS cuts it'll be more ammo for Democrats to use against this bill. Trump's approval rating is going to matter a lot more in the midterms.

BBT 12-20-2017 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou (Post 3188985)
Yup.

On that note, am I correct in assuming that some percentage of the country will see an increase in take-home pay at some point in 2018? Assuming that the Republicans have calculated that percentage to be high enough, wouldn't it then play a significant role in the midterms? ("My Party voted to give you that extra money in your paycheck every month; the other guy's Party voted to keep you money.") Isn't that all that really matters politically here? Yes, I get that long-term ramifications matter in many other ways, but to the average dolt voting...

I'm sure that's what the Republicans are aiming for. However, with the individual mandate being cut, many will see their med insurance rates rise with some having to drop their insurance. With further cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the Republicans will be going after programs that affect a lot of the likely voters come '18.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 AM.
Page 77 of 320 « First < 2767686970717273747576 77 78798081828384858687127177 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.