Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
I think Biden is way more likeable than Hillary Clinton is/was. I don't even think it's close, to be honest.
With Bush....he had that personality that even if you didn't like him or hated his policies he came across as a nice guy. Trump is anti that to most people other his ardent 30% super diehard base. There is about 10-13% of his base that does not like him at all, but voted for him because they hated Hillary. Some of these people voted for Obama. These are the people I think Trump is likely to lose not matter who the candidate is (well, hopefully its not Bernie or Warren--I wouldn't be so sure of that). But a perceived moderate like Biden can get those people back for sure.
I've always been interested in polls. I didn't think he would win but I knew there was a chance. I feel like a broken record but the polls were mostly accurate back then. She won the popular vote by a few million people and 2% or so......this was all factored into the polling. The thing that was not very accurate were the state specific polling in the few states that ended up deciding the election by the amount of people that can fit into a football stadium. I would assume more effort is being put in to make those more accurate this time around.
And I think the approval rating is a great indicator of how he will do because it largely correlates with how he was tracking and how he actually ended up doing on election night. Low 40% range...historically low. He is the first president to not grow his base at all. He has not made an ounce of effort into growing his base. Bush worked his ass off to grow his base, especially Hispanic voters. So he had that ceiling of support close to 60% that was at least thinking of voting for him. Trump goes in with the disadvantage of an historically low ceiling and almost 60% of the country not thinking of voting for him. Couple that with a much more likeable candidate and the odds are low, in my opinion, of Trump winning again, barring any foreign shenanigans happening again. Of course that is always a wild card with him.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
I think Biden is way more likeable than Hillary Clinton is/was. I don't even think it's close, to be honest.
With Bush....he had that personality that even if you didn't like him or hated his policies he came across as a nice guy. Trump is anti that to most people other his ardent 30% super diehard base. There is about 10-13% of his base that does not like him at all, but voted for him because they hated Hillary. Some of these people voted for Obama. These are the people I think Trump is likely to lose not matter who the candidate is (well, hopefully its not Bernie or Warren--I wouldn't be so sure of that). But a perceived moderate like Biden can get those people back for sure.
I've always been interested in polls. I didn't think he would win but I knew there was a chance. I feel like a broken record but the polls were mostly accurate back then. She won the popular vote by a few million people and 2% or so......this was all factored into the polling. The thing that was not very accurate were the state specific polling in the few states that ended up deciding the election by the amount of people that can fit into a football stadium. I would assume more effort is being put in to make those more accurate this time around.
And I think the approval rating is a great indicator of how he will do because it largely correlates with how he was tracking and how he actually ended up doing on election night. Low 40% range...historically low. He is the first president to not grow his base at all. He has not made an ounce of effort into growing his base. Bush worked his ass off to grow his base, especially Hispanic voters. So he had that ceiling of support close to 60% that was at least thinking of voting for him. Trump goes in with the disadvantage of an historically low ceiling and almost 60% of the country not thinking of voting for him. Couple that with a much more likeable candidate and the odds are low, in my opinion, of Trump winning again, barring any foreign shenanigans happening again. Of course that is always a wild card with him.
Yeah I agree Biden is way more likeable than Hillary, but I do fear his time has passed. And I also think he's someone that nobody will be excited for. He's like Hillary and Romney in that respect (boring). Obama, Sanders, and Trump somehow had people PUMPED over them in 2008 and 2016 respectively. So I guess that's what I'd like to see from Trump's 2020 opponent: real excitement for people to vote for them. Without that excitement, a lot of voters might not even bother voting. I don't have any 2016 stats to back this up, but I'd wager a guess that for every person like myself ("Well...I guess I HAVE to vote for Hillary so I will"), there were probably more that just didn't vote at all.
Really, I think Biden should have ran in 2016 (I know his son died around that time, but still). He would have easily beaten Hillary and Trump I think. This year, I think he's the only one I think has a real chance with moderates and Trump-hating Republicans. I think if you're a Trump-hating Republican, and Biden is the Dem nominee, you're likely to vote for Biden over Trump. But I also think if you're a Trump-hating Republican, and Warren or Sanders is the Dem nominee, you're likely to not vote at all, or begrudgingly vote for Trump.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
If Russians are that adept at US Presidential campaign strategy, maybe hire some Russians this time around?
voter enthusiasm for potential dem candidate is higher than i can remember.
I completely disagree. I think there's enthusiasm for the notion of no more Trump. But enthusiasm FOR these Dems as individuals? I don't see it at all. Remember Obama in 2008? Or even Sanders' 2016 primary campaign. Those are some examples of enthusiasm for the actual individual candidate.
voter enthusiasm for potential dem candidate is higher than i can remember.
I completely disagree. I think there's enthusiasm for the notion of no more Trump. But enthusiasm FOR these Dems as individuals? I don't see it at all. Remember Obama in 2008? Or even Sanders' 2016 primary campaign. Those are some examples of enthusiasm for the actual individual candidate.
I agree. Given how divided we are and the electoral college, a Democrat needs to deltas people to the polls. OBAMA did that. He was new, affable, a breath of fresh air. There is nobody like that in the current field. And every candidate fails a lot of leftist purity tests. Hilary was more hated than, we’ll, anyone. But I think they need an Obama. Trump should win by roughly the same margin he did last time. Maybe more because “the economy.”
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
If Russians are that adept at US Presidential campaign strategy, maybe hire some Russians this time around?
RNC, NRA and Cambridge Analytica advised Putin on the ritz and Putin on the ritz’s troll farms micro targeted key districts and blocs of voters in key states, overwhelmingly pro Team Trump Treason and anti-Hillary. It’s already started with very slick heavily edited film of Biden to appear to be saying things he never said, let alone would have thought.
Low information voters lacking critical thinking skills are Putin on the ritz’s and Moscow Mitchy Baby’s target audience this go around.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
If Russians are that adept at US Presidential campaign strategy, maybe hire some Russians this time around?
RNC, NRA and Cambridge Analytica advised Putin on the ritz and Putin on the ritz’s troll farms micro targeted key districts and blocs of voters in key states, overwhelmingly pro Team Trump Treason and anti-Hillary. It’s already started with very slick heavily edited film of Biden to appear to be saying things he never said, let alone would have thought.
Low information voters lacking critical thinking skills are Putin on the ritz’s and Moscow Mitchy Baby’s target audience this go around.
And all that time we thought it was Team MAGA who would be incapable of accepting election results
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
If Russians are that adept at US Presidential campaign strategy, maybe hire some Russians this time around?
RNC, NRA and Cambridge Analytica advised Putin on the ritz and Putin on the ritz’s troll farms micro targeted key districts and blocs of voters in key states, overwhelmingly pro Team Trump Treason and anti-Hillary. It’s already started with very slick heavily edited film of Biden to appear to be saying things he never said, let alone would have thought.
Low information voters lacking critical thinking skills are Putin on the ritz’s and Moscow Mitchy Baby’s target audience this go around.
And all that time we thought it was Team MAGA who would be incapable of accepting election results
I think Hillary was very classy and humble in her concession. People worry about Trump, not team Maga. Consider he spent much of the fall of 16 talking about if he didn't win, it was rigged and stolen. Big difference between supporters and a candidate.
Baghdad (AP) — Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport Friday, Iraqi television and three Iraqi officials said.
The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, the officials said.
Their deaths are a potential turning point in the Middle East and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the Middle East against Israel and American interests.
The PMF blamed the United States for an attack at Baghdad International Airport Friday.
There was no immediate comment from the U.S. or Iran.
A senior Iraqi politician and a high-level security official confirmed to the Associated Press that Soleimani and al-Muhandis were among those killed in the attack. Two militia leaders loyal to Iran also confirmed the deaths, including an official with the Kataeb Hezbollah, which was involved in the attack on the U.S. Embassy this week.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said al-Muhandis had arrived to the airport in a convoy to receive Soleimani whose plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The airstrike occurred as soon as he descended from the plane to be greeted by al-Muhandis and his companions, killing them all.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject and because they were not authorized to give official statements.
The senior politician said Soleimani's body was identified by the ring he wore.
Soleimani had been rumored dead several times, including in a 2006 airplane crash that killed other military officials in northwestern Iran and following a 2012 bombing in Damascus that killed top aides of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad. More recently, rumors circulated in November 2015 that Soleimani was killed or seriously wounded leading forces loyal to Assad as they fought around Syria’s Aleppo.
Earlier Friday, an official with an Iran-backed paramilitary force said that seven people were killed by a missile fired at Baghdad International Airport, blaming the United States.
The official with the group known as the Popular Mobilization Forces said the dead included its airport protocol officer, identifying him as Mohammed Reda.
A security official confirmed that seven people were killed in the attack on the airport, describing it as an airstrike. Earlier, Iraq’s Security Media Cell, which releases information regarding Iraqi security, said Katyusha rockets landed near the airport's cargo hall, killing several people and setting two cars on fire.
It was not immediately clear who fired the missile or rockets or who was targeted. There was no immediate comment from the U.S.
The attack came amid tensions with the United States after a New Year's Eve attack by Iran-backed militias on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The two-day embassy attack which ended Wednesday prompted President Donald Trump to order about 750 U.S. soldiers deployed to the Middle East.
The breach at the embassy followed U.S. airstrikes on Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. military said the strikes were in retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that the U.S. blamed on the militia.
U.S. officials have suggested they were prepared to engage in further retaliatory attacks in Iraq.
“The game has changed,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Thursday, telling reporters that violent acts by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq — including the rocket attack on Dec. 27 that killed one American — will be met with U.S. military force.
He said the Iraqi government has fallen short of its obligation to defend its American partner in the attack on the U.S. embassy.
The developments also represent a major downturn in Iraq-U.S. relations that could further undermine U.S. influence in the region and American troops in Iraq and weaken Washington’s hand in its pressure campaign against Iran.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I personally don’t feel/see any enthusiasm for any democratic candidate this cycle like we did for Obama in 2008. Shit, I was all in on Obama after his speech at the 2004 convention. We knew at this time in 2008 who would win the election that year. I know people aren’t excited to put a Biden sign in their yards. Shit, I still see Bernie 16 stickers everywhere.
Post edited by Hi! on
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. There are unconfirmed reports that Qasem Soleimani commander of Qods Force (Iran's external security agency) has been killed in drone strikes. If true, this will be a major moment in US-Iran relations & Supreme Leader will undoubtedly see this as a major provocation/act of war <a href="https://t.co/nLZNbvalsT">pic.twitter.com/nLZNbvalsT</a></p>— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) <a href="
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This attack feels disproportionate, which is a central tenant of modern war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "attack" against the embassy didn't have any casualties, did it?
This attack feels disproportionate, which is a central tenant of modern war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "attack" against the embassy didn't have any casualties, did it?
i don't know for sure about the number of causalities.
trump did this to distract from impeachment. the journalists on twitter are speculating that mcconnell will not take up the articles and put trump on trial while we are in an open conflict in the middle east. this attack is the catalyst to mcconnell's out. mcconnell potentially just got out of having to hold a trial. he has no articles sent to him, he is not obligated to move forward.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
This attack feels disproportionate, which is a central tenant of modern war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "attack" against the embassy didn't have any casualties, did it?
i don't know for sure about the number of causalities.
trump did this to distract from impeachment. the journalists on twitter are speculating that mcconnell will not take up the articles and put trump on trial while we are in an open conflict in the middle east. this attack is the catalyst to mcconnell's out. mcconnell potentially just got out of having to hold a trial. he has no articles sent to him, he is not obligated to move forward.
I don't know if that's his reason or just a benefit. His whole schtick about bringing troops home was always BS. I would wager he is more pro war than any recent president simply because he has no understanding or care for the gravity of his decisions. Look how swiftly he sent troops to help SA, and now this quick trigger finger?. He's not a peace president.
Couldn't agree more. Impeached Trump will be voted out of office and face legal troubles the rest of his life until his health fully fails from living a horrible lifestyle and being a greedy shmuck who gladly duped 60 million plus people.
That all sounds nice. But how I think it'll go down is Impeached Trump will not be voted out of office, he'll be re-elected as President in November, and nearly everyone here will complain about it for four more years.
Well that'll give us something to do at least.
Well hopefully there's actual Pearl Jam stuff to talk about in 2020 so that Trump can be on the backburner. An album, a North American tour, something to celebrate the band's 30th anniversary....anything.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, anything they do pales in comparison to the horrendous shit this asshole is able to do on a daily basis that will impact this country and the world for years to come.
I'm a pessisimist, but no way this guy gets the miracle slim wins he got in those flipped states in 2016. Do you think his support, has grown or even stayed the same? All of those "swing" voters that voted against Hillary just because they hated her won't have the same luxury of using that excuse, as lame as it was in the first place. Sure, lots of supporters hiding in the shadows, but no more than those that already came out and voted last time. He got his max voting results in 2016. No way he clears 60 million again.
I think he wins by a larger margin this time, like Bush in 2004. For all her faults, I think Hillary was a much better candidate than whoever the 2020 Dem is going to be.
Bush's pre Iraq war ceiling was 58%. Trump's is 43%. That explains why Bush had a chance of doing better in '04.
No shot in hell Trump builds his base anywhere close to that. He's lucky to keep it the same.
Well the point I'm trying to make (but didn't actually articulate it) is about the opponent, not the incumbent. As bad as Bush seemed, I think a lot of people just liked him more than they like Kerry. I think the 2020 Dem might be in a similar position. We know Trump's base loves him to death. Are any of the Dems going to get similar support based on what they bring to the table? Or do they just expect to win because Trump is so awful? Like, Obama seemed pretty loved. Hillary? "Eh, well, I guess I'll vote for her. She's the democrat." And that was Hillary with all her resources and know-how. These 2020 Dems seem like second-stringers compared to her.
On a sidebar, I've noticed over the past few months that you're really, really in polls. Nothing wrong with that. I wasn't on the board much around 2016 (and probably not on AET at all) so I have to ask: were you expecting Trump to win in 2016 based on the polls beginning around say late 2015?
I knew Trump was going to win in 2016. The only person that can corroberate this is my father who I bet $20 that summer that Trump would win (calm down everyone, I still voted for Queen Hillary). But how I came to that conclusion was based simply on a drive from Philly to Scranton, Scranton to Pittsburgh, and then back to Philly. I counted political signs on those drives. The final tally? 49 Donald Trump signs, 2 Hillary Clinton signs. I thought if rural Pennsylvania is all about Trump, why not rural Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc?
Now I'm not trying to say that they should do away with polling and everyone should drive in a huge triangle around their state looking at signs. I just think between small sample sizes (isn't a typical presidential poll only 1,000 people?), people not being forthcoming with who they'll vote for (I contend there were a lot of Trump supporters in 2016 that wouldn't admit it because they didn't want to be made fun of for it), and the fact that most people look at national polls when really they should be focusing on like 9 states and few particular districts within them, widens the margin of error even larger than it's been deemed to be.
Most polls you'd see were national polls and Clinton won the popular vote by about what was projected. I think I've read that it's tough to do state-by-state polling for sampling reasons. Or maybe cost? Either way, if you're really trying to divine the electoral college results, that's the data you'd want.
The state level polling can be iffy. In 2016 it was this, combined with the higher than normal percentage of people reporting that they were undecided that was throwing things off.
Our Russian friends knew this dynamic and the key swing states, so they advised the trump campaign accordingly.
If Russians are that adept at US Presidential campaign strategy, maybe hire some Russians this time around?
RNC, NRA and Cambridge Analytica advised Putin on the ritz and Putin on the ritz’s troll farms micro targeted key districts and blocs of voters in key states, overwhelmingly pro Team Trump Treason and anti-Hillary. It’s already started with very slick heavily edited film of Biden to appear to be saying things he never said, let alone would have thought.
Low information voters lacking critical thinking skills are Putin on the ritz’s and Moscow Mitchy Baby’s target audience this go around.
And all that time we thought it was Team MAGA who would be incapable of accepting election results
Election results that were heavily influenced by Putin on the ritz. Do you deny that?
This attack feels disproportionate, which is a central tenant of modern war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "attack" against the embassy didn't have any casualties, did it?
i don't know for sure about the number of causalities.
trump did this to distract from impeachment. the journalists on twitter are speculating that mcconnell will not take up the articles and put trump on trial while we are in an open conflict in the middle east. this attack is the catalyst to mcconnell's out. mcconnell potentially just got out of having to hold a trial. he has no articles sent to him, he is not obligated to move forward.
How convenient. Wow, this just sucks.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
With Bush....he had that personality that even if you didn't like him or hated his policies he came across as a nice guy. Trump is anti that to most people other his ardent 30% super diehard base. There is about 10-13% of his base that does not like him at all, but voted for him because they hated Hillary. Some of these people voted for Obama. These are the people I think Trump is likely to lose not matter who the candidate is (well, hopefully its not Bernie or Warren--I wouldn't be so sure of that). But a perceived moderate like Biden can get those people back for sure.
I've always been interested in polls. I didn't think he would win but I knew there was a chance. I feel like a broken record but the polls were mostly accurate back then. She won the popular vote by a few million people and 2% or so......this was all factored into the polling. The thing that was not very accurate were the state specific polling in the few states that ended up deciding the election by the amount of people that can fit into a football stadium. I would assume more effort is being put in to make those more accurate this time around.
And I think the approval rating is a great indicator of how he will do because it largely correlates with how he was tracking and how he actually ended up doing on election night. Low 40% range...historically low. He is the first president to not grow his base at all. He has not made an ounce of effort into growing his base. Bush worked his ass off to grow his base, especially Hispanic voters. So he had that ceiling of support close to 60% that was at least thinking of voting for him. Trump goes in with the disadvantage of an historically low ceiling and almost 60% of the country not thinking of voting for him. Couple that with a much more likeable candidate and the odds are low, in my opinion, of Trump winning again, barring any foreign shenanigans happening again. Of course that is always a wild card with him.
Really, I think Biden should have ran in 2016 (I know his son died around that time, but still). He would have easily beaten Hillary and Trump I think. This year, I think he's the only one I think has a real chance with moderates and Trump-hating Republicans. I think if you're a Trump-hating Republican, and Biden is the Dem nominee, you're likely to vote for Biden over Trump. But I also think if you're a Trump-hating Republican, and Warren or Sanders is the Dem nominee, you're likely to not vote at all, or begrudgingly vote for Trump.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
voter enthusiasm for potential dem candidate is higher than i can remember. most dems are "vote blue no matter who".
dems will not stay home because we all want a chance to put our own little individual nail into this motherfucker's political coffin.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2020-front-runners-arent-as-well-liked-as-past-contenders/
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Low information voters lacking critical thinking skills are Putin on the ritz’s and Moscow Mitchy Baby’s target audience this go around.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Iran's Gen. Soleimani killed in airstrike at Baghdad airport
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iraq-least-3-katyusha-rockets-232725596.html
Baghdad (AP) — Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport Friday, Iraqi television and three Iraqi officials said.
The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, the officials said.
Their deaths are a potential turning point in the Middle East and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the Middle East against Israel and American interests.
The PMF blamed the United States for an attack at Baghdad International Airport Friday.
There was no immediate comment from the U.S. or Iran.
A senior Iraqi politician and a high-level security official confirmed to the Associated Press that Soleimani and al-Muhandis were among those killed in the attack. Two militia leaders loyal to Iran also confirmed the deaths, including an official with the Kataeb Hezbollah, which was involved in the attack on the U.S. Embassy this week.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said al-Muhandis had arrived to the airport in a convoy to receive Soleimani whose plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The airstrike occurred as soon as he descended from the plane to be greeted by al-Muhandis and his companions, killing them all.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject and because they were not authorized to give official statements.
The senior politician said Soleimani's body was identified by the ring he wore.
Soleimani had been rumored dead several times, including in a 2006 airplane crash that killed other military officials in northwestern Iran and following a 2012 bombing in Damascus that killed top aides of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad. More recently, rumors circulated in November 2015 that Soleimani was killed or seriously wounded leading forces loyal to Assad as they fought around Syria’s Aleppo.
Earlier Friday, an official with an Iran-backed paramilitary force said that seven people were killed by a missile fired at Baghdad International Airport, blaming the United States.
The official with the group known as the Popular Mobilization Forces said the dead included its airport protocol officer, identifying him as Mohammed Reda.
A security official confirmed that seven people were killed in the attack on the airport, describing it as an airstrike. Earlier, Iraq’s Security Media Cell, which releases information regarding Iraqi security, said Katyusha rockets landed near the airport's cargo hall, killing several people and setting two cars on fire.
It was not immediately clear who fired the missile or rockets or who was targeted. There was no immediate comment from the U.S.
The attack came amid tensions with the United States after a New Year's Eve attack by Iran-backed militias on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The two-day embassy attack which ended Wednesday prompted President Donald Trump to order about 750 U.S. soldiers deployed to the Middle East.
The breach at the embassy followed U.S. airstrikes on Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. military said the strikes were in retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that the U.S. blamed on the militia.
U.S. officials have suggested they were prepared to engage in further retaliatory attacks in Iraq.
“The game has changed,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Thursday, telling reporters that violent acts by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq — including the rocket attack on Dec. 27 that killed one American — will be met with U.S. military force.
He said the Iraqi government has fallen short of its obligation to defend its American partner in the attack on the U.S. embassy.
The developments also represent a major downturn in Iraq-U.S. relations that could further undermine U.S. influence in the region and American troops in Iraq and weaken Washington’s hand in its pressure campaign against Iran.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I know people aren’t excited to put a Biden sign in their yards. Shit, I still see Bernie 16 stickers everywhere.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. There are unconfirmed reports that Qasem Soleimani commander of Qods Force (Iran's external security agency) has been killed in drone strikes. If true, this will be a major moment in US-Iran relations & Supreme Leader will undoubtedly see this as a major provocation/act of war <a href="https://t.co/nLZNbvalsT">pic.twitter.com/nLZNbvalsT</a></p>— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
trump did this to distract from impeachment. the journalists on twitter are speculating that mcconnell will not take up the articles and put trump on trial while we are in an open conflict in the middle east. this attack is the catalyst to mcconnell's out. mcconnell potentially just got out of having to hold a trial. he has no articles sent to him, he is not obligated to move forward.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
al jazeera and other middle eastern news outlets are saying it was katyusha rockets, something that is not a known weapon of the us military.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He's not a peace president.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
How convenient. Wow, this just sucks.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/middleeast/baghdad-airport-rockets/index.html