Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
Pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal has empowered Iran to not only redevelop their program but to have the strength to rattle the saber at Israel. They were in check before Trump pulled out of the deal.
Pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal has empowered Iran to not only redevelop their program but to have the strength to rattle the saber at Israel. They were in check before Trump pulled out of the deal.
Yeah and I didn't even get into pulling out of TPP, which would have completely sidelined China. Instead, they are now taking the lead in a new set of trade agreements.
Oh and @EdsonNascimento, not only was Jan 6th completely disqualifying forevermore, it was criminal in my book. So I don't care if Harris has a policy that you can take a shit on sidewalks, that's still better than turning a mob on the Capitol.
And by the way I do not remotely believe the D party has a generally accepted stance on foreign policy or economic policy to name a couple. I would vote for Shapiro or Polis in a second and run screaming from Warren or Sanders. Last I checked Harris was closer to the latter but that was a long time ago and boy would I like to hear more.
There's a reason people like Sanders and Warren don't end up on top of the ticket. It's because pro-business people like me are influential in the party and move votes. And Harris is pragmatic. In 2020, she believed the center of the party was on the left side, with everyone thinking that the Sanders wing was going to dominate. I always believed in was the center-left, and it was. Harris isn't stupid, she moved to the middle. I don't have a problem with that. That's how you have success and get things done.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
In Philadelphia during the Influenza outbreak, city leaders refused to honor masking and isolation recommendations. Instead they had a parade, leading to huge acceleration of the outbreak, and of course significant death. You're right, we don't learn shit.
Oh and @EdsonNascimento, not only was Jan 6th completely disqualifying forevermore, it was criminal in my book. So I don't care if Harris has a policy that you can take a shit on sidewalks, that's still better than turning a mob on the Capitol.
Yeah, that’s my problem with some of this bad faith pushback (policy successes/failures, a president as a friend, vibes). Ignoring the failures on just a decent human being level, this man tried to overthrow the government. We’re comparing these people on an apples to apples basis. Which fine if Trumps presidency was normal, but it didn’t end normal at all.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justified
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
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justified
Evidently you just missed the sardonic nature of my post. I'm still struggling with your 'coin flip' comment.
But I guess we forgot to discuss Sudan as well, who got a guaranteed loan for their still, un-ratified treaty.
And do you give Biden credit for normalizing relations between Israel and Oman?
If Trump was the first president to negotiate normalized relations between an Arab country and Israel, then maybe some extra credit. But he wasn't.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic. Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.
Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel. Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot? I didn't. But I could have guessed Palestine.
Firm grasp of the region. I will let this lie and exit stage left.
Don't claim you've got peace in the middle east and don't even address Palestine. Like I said, those two countries are all well and good. Congrats. But Trump didn't attack the one that, to your point, vexes everyone. Sorry, it's not even close to moving my vote. And don't condescend me either. I've got a firm grasp, but I don't fall for shallow victories.
Look I'm sorry but if you're intimating that the Abraham Accords were about staving off a hot war between Bahrain and Israel, some light condescension is justified
I'm still struggling with your 'coin flip' comment.
A few pages back, @pjl44 brought up the very important point that, despite what you or I might think about the whole situation, Trump and Harris are still polling neck and neck for all intents and purposes. Given what you and I firmly believe in our hearts about the guy, why is this race so damn close?
There are moderate/independents who still need reaching, and for some like @pjl44 that requires a real thorough discussion of policy. Can't fault them for that and I agree, despite being sold on Harris by a long shot.
I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
So Trump didn’t mobilize and help get funding for the vaccines and get it produced in a record time? Ok
1994 : Memphis 1995 : New Orleans 1996 : Seattle
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2 2020 Phoenix, SD
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
That's about as long as a response needs to be. He treated the very people he needed to help get things under control terribly, and directed his cult following to do the same in the single largest assault - literally and figuratively - on my profession in my lifetime.
May as well pat him on the back for wearing a rubber while banging a porn star behind his pregnant wife's back.
I don’t blame him for Covid, but the Obama admin had in place a program to deal with a pandemic, but Trumps admin disregarded it.
I'm in healthcare/infectious disease, and the way he handled all of this - and directed his minions to handle it - was beyond mortifying and still pisses me right the F off. I have absolutely zero patience or tolerance for the anti-vax bullshit he forced on the country.
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
So Trump didn’t mobilize and help get funding for the vaccines and get it produced in a record time? Ok
He did, but he also sabotaged his own strategy with his comments and giving oxygen to the anti-vax movement. He was caught between what he knew to be right, and his MAGA base of crazy people.
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
That's about as long as a response needs to be. He treated the very people he needed to help get things under control terribly, and directed his cult following to do the same in the single largest assault - literally and figuratively - on my profession in my lifetime.
May as well pat him on the back for wearing a rubber while banging a porn star behind his pregnant wife's back.
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.
1994 : Memphis 1995 : New Orleans 1996 : Seattle
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2 2020 Phoenix, SD
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.
Well, now that we have the 20/20 hindsight, what should we have done better to prevent deaths and mitigate spreading the disease?
His playbook was straight out of 1920s Soviet Lysenkoism. Hard to say if our country's health care apparatus will ever recover, at least not until Darwin has taken his share.
Just because get credit for one thing doesn’t mean you get credit for all the things. That was a massive success. Doesn’t mean everything else went well.
He did many things well. Plenty of Democratic politicians (Newsom) in particular thanked Trump for bypassing red tape and getting their states what they needed quickly. You all hate Trump, you spend many hours of your lives each day justifying the hate to everyone here, I get it. There were many mistakes made by Trump and then Biden. Following Faucis science was now a fraud. No one knew what to do, even the so called experts.
Well, now that we have the 20/20 hindsight, what should we have done better to prevent deaths and mitigate spreading the disease?
I don’t think much. Covid is still around. A lot of people got sick in Ireland when Ed did earlier this year. Lockdowns hurt worse, people lost businesses, kids lost a year of education. All because of the 6 foot rule that Fauci made up. People thought masks really worked.
Only the KN95s did anything. People still wearing masks now 🤦♂️.
Majority of people that died had underlying factors. Friends of mine that died were overweight, diabetic etc. Maybe a more focused approach on them in hindsight. Forcing vaccines and mask mandates, lockdowns were wrong.
I don’t blame Trump or Biden on anything they mishandled. What does that solve? It’s something that is a once in a lifetime (hopefully) and I wouldn’t wish that on any President to have to deal with.
1994 : Memphis 1995 : New Orleans 1996 : Seattle
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2 2020 Phoenix, SD
Comments
2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues. He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front.
3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis. And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis. So what's next? Brown? Maybe. Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such. You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.
What are we doing here, folks? lol
At the same time, not unprecedented. There was a plague outbreak in San Francisco in the early 1900s and city/state politicians did everything they could to vilify the man leading the charge against it. Blamed the Chinese for it then, too. History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
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
But I guess we forgot to discuss Sudan as well, who got a guaranteed loan for their still, un-ratified treaty.
And do you give Biden credit for normalizing relations between Israel and Oman?
If Trump was the first president to negotiate normalized relations between an Arab country and Israel, then maybe some extra credit. But he wasn't.
There are moderate/independents who still need reaching, and for some like @pjl44 that requires a real thorough discussion of policy. Can't fault them for that and I agree, despite being sold on Harris by a long shot.
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2
2020 Phoenix, SD
May as well pat him on the back for wearing a rubber while banging a porn star behind his pregnant wife's back.
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2
2020 Phoenix, SD
Majority of people that died had underlying factors. Friends of mine that died were overweight, diabetic etc. Maybe a more focused approach on them in hindsight. Forcing vaccines and mask mandates, lockdowns were wrong.
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2
2020 Phoenix, SD