More than 80% think he will be elected to a second term at this point. 18 to 4. A higher % than I was expecting.
EH I mean we do have to remember that the people taking this poll are mostly going to be libertarians. And while Trump isn't a libertarian by any means, he is the closest when you're comparing with Dems and other members of the GOP. He's like -- the best of the many evils in the eyes of many libertarians / people that like less regulation, smaller gov, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Wonder how expensive these fucking things are, and who would be able to obtain and use them for -- not so good purposes.
Imagine what the US military (and others have) around the world, if this is what our private researchers are allowed to tell us about?
A friend of mine just bought the night vision stuff with the last COD game, shit was pretty wild and that was a cheap device. Imagine what a couple hundred thousand dollars gets you.
|
|
|
|
Four witnesses scheduled for tomorrow:
Morning Hearing:
Jennifer Williams
- Mike Pence's special adviser for Europe and Russia
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
- National Security Council
Afternoon Hearing:
Kurt Volker
- Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
- Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine (resigned in September)
Timothy Morrison
- National Security Council member, "Russia Expert"
Only on here who I think is going to be pretty interesting is Kurt Volker, though it seems like he's going to make the statement that he didn't know that ukraine aid was tied to investigations of Biden ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html) Unsure of what the info the others are potentially going to be present. ALSO: About the Trump impeachment polls, seems like Indys and Republicans dont think Trump should be impeached, while Democrats (laregely) think he should be. I think the poll data I reasing says 80 percent of Republicans think Trump SHOULDN'T be impeached, 55 percent of Indys think he shouldnt, while 15 percent of Dems think he shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Checked out that tweet. Apparently they've also burned a university too!
Kinda weird that they took out their anger on a bank rather than directly on the government that cut down subsidies. Taking something away from people never really turn out well so there's a high potential for this escalating. Remember, the Arab Spring started from one disgruntled man burning himself in public.
What's happening in Iran? seems news is quite silent about them. The last days I see Africa is burning, more protests and dissatisfaction from their citizens. I hope this will not escalate, they are harming more their nations. Look at Hong Kong, their protest leads to investor fleeing their country, they suffer more. . The protest in HK is far tamer. The protesters still go to work, that's why the protests are larger during weekends. And it still haven't got to the point that buildings are erupting in flames. These protesters in Iran really want to destroy stuff. I'm surprised the Iranian government haven't yet blamed "foreign agents" for instigating the protests. I'm not going to comment on what side is tamer, as I truly don't know. But if you are to look at both protests based on sheer magnitude of members, sheer amount of news coverage and so on and so forth -- HK is the winner here, without a doubt. More and more people have started hating banks and the banking system in general.
This is absolutely a great advantage for bitcoin combined to the fact that young people have already acquired bitcoin and the ecosystem becomes widely known.
I believe that more protests around the world are going to begin in the near future.
... You're a spammer and this has been reported. You didn't read anything or get involved in the conversation at all, just spammed something about banks because BANKS ARE BAD.. |
|
|
|
Surprised that NYT covered this story. The outside world has already heard about the reeducation camps before so I'm not surprised that it is still ongoing. That they've opened up their economy don't mean they'll just change these policies. It seems it actually allowed them to EXPAND these programs since they now got more money.
What shocked me was organ harvesting being done to the Uyghurs they put in these camps. Even I never imagined the Communists doing it.
It wasn't just organ harvesting, it was organ harvesting while the people were still alive and were fully able to feel everything. No medicine given to these people. Their organs just ripped out while they're stil living, they're all working in fucking work camps. China has LITERAL concentration camps in their country, and the west turns a blind eye because its good for business. |
|
|
|
I mean I think the Iranians are stuck b/w a rock and a hard place here. They've already worked with the US on the first iteration of the Iranian deal, and they gave up all of their enriched uranium -- what they got out of it was sanction relief -- but now they got fucked, cause now they don't have any enriched uranium to use as part of their negotiations with the US to get a better deal, and their economy is under constant pressure from the sanctions. The only thing they can do to stop this is to renegotiate the Uranium deal with the US, unless they enrich uranium again to the 2011?  levels to get a better deal. Iran probably does not have a path forward, unless they fall to the US or continue to enrich uranium and pray that the US doesn't make their sanctions worse -- as they may lose the public support battle. Agreed. Trump clearly got out of the deal almost entirely for political reasons, and he'd probably accept even a slightly better deal. But if Iran went along with this -- allowing a counterparty to break a deal on a whim -- it'd make them look really weak. Meanwhile, there's nothing really pressing the US to back down. I suppose that Iran's strategy is to pick at the US and its allies with small strikes, but make it small-scale/ambiguous enough, and set things up politically (eg. pointing to the broken nuclear deal) that the US couldn't rely on many allies if it wanted to invade Iran fully. The US doesn't have the political will to sustain a real war against Iran for long. The US could do a lot of airstrikes etc., though, and I'm not convinced that small strikes by Iran will ever get them anywhere. Oh yeah, getting out of the Iran deal was done because OBAMAS SIGNATURE WAS ON IT and conservatives didn't think the deal was strict enough. Iran would be more then willing to get a deal done, though they'd want it to go through Congress instead of just being signed as the stroke of a pen from the President. Which is what they should've demanded from Obama (I'm assuming they did, but still) I think that public support could shift to bombing Iran depending on what they do -- but boots on the ground is is a TOTAL NO. Unless they try to kill American soliders or something along those lines ---- |
|
|
|
I'm far from an expert, but AFAIK, Iran is a very socialist and authoritarian country, similar to China but with an Islamic flavor and much less competent leaders. Combined with this economic mismanagement, you have US sanctions designed to destroy the Iranian economy, and probably constant CIA activity fomenting unrest. Also, many powerful players in the US and elsewhere would love any excuse to escalate militarily with Iran. This seems like a pretty much impossible situation. I'm surprised that a little bank-burning is all Iran's experiencing. What is Iran's path forward? Can it actually continue on as-is?
I mean I think the Iranians are stuck b/w a rock and a hard place here. They've already worked with the US on the first iteration of the Iranian deal, and they gave up all of their enriched uranium -- what they got out of it was sanction relief -- but now they got fucked, cause now they don't have any enriched uranium to use as part of their negotiations with the US to get a better deal, and their economy is under constant pressure from the sanctions. The only thing they can do to stop this is to renegotiate the Uranium deal with the US, unless they enrich uranium again to the 2011? levels to get a better deal. Iran probably does not have a path forward, unless they fall to the US or continue to enrich uranium and pray that the US doesn't make their sanctions worse -- as they may lose the public support battle. |
|
|
|
--SNIP OF 538 STUFF--
I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win. Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at. Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold. This is all fair, imo - although I question the silent majority part. If you think you know what they think, they aren't really silent...even if they haven't said anything. The most interesting takeaway, imo, is not the actual numbers, just the shift in opinion after each event. Mueller Report: Not a big shift. Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift. Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift. I don't mean silent in the sense that they keep all their views to themselves, I say silent in the sense that they keep to themselves. They're not going to be out in the streets protesting, they're not going to be on social media talking about things, they're not those types of people. They're going to impose their will at the 2020 pres election. Also in regards to the polling shift : We're not going to know if this is a temporary bump until a few weeks / months from now. It could normalize if nothing comes out of this or the GOP is able to spin it well. We'll see. |
|
|
|
--SNIP OF 538 STUFF--
I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win. Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at. Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold. |
|
|
|
Would vote "i have no idea" if I could.
I mean this is the most logical choice. None of us truly have no idea if Trump is going to be reelected because anything could fucking happen at this point. All of the current candidates are so old it wouldn't be surprising if someone dropped dead, dropped out due to health reasons, or finding dirt on Trump, finding dirt on Biden etc. This is literally the weirdest timeline of politics which is possible, and we have the ability to live through it and see what's going on. This is great, literally can't wait until Dem primary stuff starts. Pretty boring just seeing BS polls, annoying impeachment stuff, and no REAL races. |
|
|
|
|
Without a doubt due to the new US sanctions and further enforcement of such sanctions, though I don't think the people understand that there isn't much that the Iranian government is going to be able to do, unless they're willing to negotiate with the US on a new deal relating to the nuclear deal. Because the US isn't going to work with them unless they're willing to give up a lot.
As I find new news reports on the topic I'll continue to update what I've written here.
|
|
|
|
... but we know what happened last time to Bernie regarding the DNC fucking him -- I can see them doing it again to favor Biden. At least it wouldn't surprise me.
If the DNC is credibly accused of fucking with the process again or "rigging it" for Biden or any centrist the DNC risks alienating a pretty big portion of their base which could tamp down enthusiasm, this election isn't about flipping moderate republicans or indies as the GOP base is so riled up the only way to beat them this time is to turn out their base in record numbers. The corporate dems are shitting their pants right now (see bloomberg and the former gov of MA joining the race so late, if they had confidence in Biden they would be loading him up with money rather than getting new candidates late into the race). They've written Bernie off (wrongfully) and have focused on attacking Warren. Latest IPSOS national poll has Bernie and Biden tied at 19% with Warren dropping to 3rd with only 13%, Buttigeig is rocking a massive 6% (Although Buttigeig did poll #1 in IA and if he wins IA his national polling could go up as a result). The best news for Bernie right now is to have everyone attacking Biden and Warren from both the right and left!!!!!! I mean the DNC has done it once, I wouldn't be surprised if they were to do it again. The DNC is still the party with super delagates, they've said they have removed them as well but the only truth to that is that now super delegates have a reduced role in the process -- meaning if a brokered convention is to occur, then they'll be used. Pretty much saying that if no one has a clear majority come to the convention, we'll ensure that our candidate wins. Isn't that something? Hehe. But yes -- we'll see what happens soon -- Feb is quickly approaching and Iowa comes! |
|
|
|
Hate to be the one to tell you this, but Bernie isn't going to be the nominee of the party. You're either going to have Warren or Biden, that's it.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to early to be saying things like above bold. Bernie is by no means out of it already despite what you might hear over and over again from the MSM. Buttigieg isn't out of it yet either (although I don't give him much chance to win the nom). Bloomberg could get in and that would likely help Warren and Sanders A LOT. I doubt Bernie is going to surge in the polls with all these other people crowding the field. But I'd love to hear what you think about the matter.
Bernie is ticking up in National and early state polls since his return from the heart attack, Biden seems to have hit a range of a few points and is treading water for the last couple weeks, Warren seems to have peaked and has ticked down just a bit in the last couple weeks ( maybe she peaked too early??). This fight is still in the early rounds and no one can predict who will stumble and get knocked down or out. Eh, even if we're this far I can't see the DNC allowing him to be the nominee. I think this is a Warren or Biden race. I've already seen a couple articles saying that Wall Street isn't even happy about Warren being the nominee and they're withholding money from Schumers efforts to take back the senate due to her having the chance to become the nominee. You're right about this being early and anything can happen, but we know what happened last time to Bernie regarding the DNC fucking him -- I can see them doing it again to favor Biden. At least it wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
Responding to this post. Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid. But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians. They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally". I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security. I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine. From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.
One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that pretty much anyone and everyone on foreign policy doesn't like the way Trump goes about doing things, it most likely makes things hard for them as he isn't typical in the way that he negotiates, some news could be handeled on twitter, he holds a deep distrust for career burecrats who he feels are apart of the swamp, and he also feels the intelligence community was out to get him (which is true to a certain point, some did try to make him look bad) So yeah -- I mean I'm not saying these people are lying, I'm just saying there is without a doubt a bias present as they most likely don't like this president. Also: What threw ya over the edge Twitchy to move over to the Self mod ? |
|
|
|
I'm assuming you mean Jeb Bush? I think Neil Bush is the businessman of the family, with no real ties to Epstein (that I can find from first glance at least)
Sorry, I did get Neil Bush mixed up with Jeb Bush, corrected Jeb doesn't have direct ties with Epstein either AFAIK, simply that the light-touch prosecution deal was brokered under his watch (Jeb Bush was Florida's governor at the time)
This whole story seems like MORE bullshit tbh, the newsroom anchors are just autocue readers that don't really care about the content they're delivering. Let it never be forgotten that newsanchor Katie Couric was one of many celebrities attending Epstein's overt "Welcome Home from your child prostitution prison sentence, Jeff!" mansion party in New York. Presumably Couric's excuse is that she was there "reporting undercover", or that she "didn't know"  And so it seems like the reaction we're supposed to have to this "leak" is: 'Oh this anchorwoman is a total hero! She's SO against this corruption at the ABC newsroom, I'll totally trust everything that comes out her mouth from now on!!'. She could've quit and gone public, yet she chose to keep her job and keep quiet How stupid do ABC think it's (non) viewers are? Gotcha. Thought you might've seen some connection between Neil Bush, and I wouldn't have been surprised if there were some other random rich people involved as well. Also -- I don't think you could say this is under the watch of Jeb Bush as Alexander Acosta was a federal attorney (picked by the president, and confiemd by the Senate) I mean he may have some ties to the Bush family or something along those lines, but I can't find that info. Also yes: The whole reason the anchor is mad isn't that she missed the opportunity to bury a horrible person for doing horrible things. She's mad because she lost a story and this was a big one. |
|
|
|
Was that an impeachment investigation? I like how you are simultaneously arguing its ok to change the rules when it is "your turn" while pointing fingers at people changing the rules at the same time. No double think there at all.
What are you even arguing here? All I'm saying that that is what the parties do. They change the rules when it benefits them. Both parties do it, and nothing changes. Do you even understand what I originally said? Good for you. My analysis of your statement is that you are creating false equivalence in specific places where none exists using broad generalizations. What I am arguing is throwing your hands up and saying "what are you gonna do, this is what they all do, oh well lets excuse it again!" is not a logical position to take. Additionally, you aren't talking about an impeachment proceeding, which is a very big difference. [/quote] I'm not saying that it's okay, I'm just saying that's the way that it is. It's not an excuse on my part here, it's just the reality we live in. Do we want to change things? Yes. We have to elect the correct people for these things to change and these people may not be in the (R) or (D) category. I don't understand why you're trying to pick a fight here. There's no reason for that. |
|
|
|
Like can you please piss off with this spam? No one wants you here and you've been reported to the mods for @Flying Hellfish for such activity. But onto the subject here for ya OG. Actual odds would have to be dependent on the candidate facing him -- if he's going against a scandal free Biden, I would have to say this is probably a coin flip. If he's going against Bernie, Warren, etc -- I just don't see the dems being able to bring out Indys and the moderates from the party. I think if he faces a candidate like that, a Warren or Bernie I'd put his odds at 70-30. We'll see as this gets closer and the impeachment stuff in the house heats up. |
|
|
|
Well yeah, this is how the party system works. They're happy when its them abusing the power, but once it flips to the other side they scream bloody murder but don't actually change anything. Both sides get to benefit when they're the winners.
Was that an impeachment investigation? I like how you are simultaneously arguing its ok to change the rules when it is "your turn" while pointing fingers at people changing the rules at the same time. No double think there at all. What are you even arguing here? All I'm saying that that is what the parties do. They change the rules when it benefits them. Both parties do it, and nothing changes. Do you even understand what I originally said? |
|
|
|
...
Yeah, it's possible that it was just a coincidence that after 2 months of withholding the money, they decided to release it 2 days after realizing the whole thing was likely to be investigated by Congress. There is going to be a ton of evidence that doesn't prove something 100% did or did not happen. It doesn't mean we should just ignore it.
If the money had been released a week earlier, when the only potential motivation was to help Ukraine, the GOPs "the money was released, Ukraine didn't investigate, end of story" defense would be solid. But it wasn't.
Or the Dems knew the upcoming date of funds release, and scheduled their announcement two days prior. Knowing they'd have no "case" in two days. Emails or other communications showing a chain of causation, show a chain of causation. Two dates do not. Honestly not a bad point. Does not make much sense to pick an arbitrary date to release the funds. What would've been massively suspicious is if they released the funds an hour or two after the announcement of the investigation. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems had some advance knowledge of when money was going to be released. But then again, that would have to be proved to be legitimate -- and as of right now we see no evidence of that. Republicans in the senate have the power to subpoena and can use it..... ...
Trump has blocked the release of all documents and testimonies of his inner circle, which weakens the "there are no emails, documents or testimonies from high ranking officials that prove Trump did something bad" argument. I'm not saying it proves anything one way or another, but it's definitely something to consider.
Sure, consider it. If the Dems had just used standard parliamentary procedure, equal rights to counter a witness, they wouldn't be dealing with this block. Listening to Rush Limbaugh a bit today, he was essentially telling Pelosi to give this up, saying it's already looking bad for the Dems. I agree but for differing reasons. The impression I got was really one of Deep State Wants To Run Things. So what's going on? After arguing there was no deep state for several years, now the Dems have embraced it? In 2015, when the Republicans controlled the House and were investigating Obama, they changed the rules on issuing subpoenas and voted to give the Chairman final say on every subpoena. At the time the Democrats screamed bloody murder, called it McCarthyism etc. Now of course they are cool with it and it's the Republicans having a tantrum. It was the same for Bush and Clinton. There is no such thing as an investigation into the president where the presidents allies don't say some variation of all the same things Republicans are saying today. I really don't think Trump blocking all his witnesses have anything to do with the 'procedure'. The White House already stated that the only way they would cooperate was if the entire impeachment inquiry was cancelled Also, if Trump is innocent, and there are E mails and documents or other evidence that would prove this, then he's only hurting himself politically by refusing to cooperate. Well yeah, this is how the party system works. They're happy when its them abusing the power, but once it flips to the other side they scream bloody murder but don't actually change anything. Both sides get to benefit when they're the winners. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
