Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352
C

Cackalacky

Guest
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Poll: Convicted ex-coal CEO in the lead one day ahead of West Virginia Senate primary, sparking panic in GOP <a href="https://t.co/1jWE4hoIbj">https://t.co/1jWE4hoIbj</a> <a href="https://t.co/3wVP5fHscG">pic.twitter.com/3wVP5fHscG</a></p>— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/993541481901252608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
#NoWonderTrumpWon
#Winnig
#MAGA
#ChinaPerson
#CocaineMitch
#GOPProud

This guy makes Manchin look like Karl Marx
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
The poll I saw was Dems -9, but Rep. only +1. Millennials are coming to the conclusion as are most Americans that no party represents them anymore.

Huge if accurate.

3f0d010f1f5f635f0b0a9463521b1c09.jpg

I think they, like most of us want a third party thats not maniacal.
They strongly disapprove of Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/millennial-poll-strong-majority-want-third-political-party-n824526
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
FYI - Frank Luntz,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,[1] pollster, and "public opinion guru"[2] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He advocated use of vocabulary crafted to produce a desired effect; including use of the term death tax instead of estate tax, and climate change instead of global warming.

Luntz's most recent work has been with Fox News as a frequent commentator and analyst, as well as running focus groups during and after presidential debates on CBSN.[3] Luntz describes his specialty as "testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate."[4] He is also an author of business books dealing with communication strategies and public opinion. Luntz's current company, Luntz Global, LLC, specializes in message creation and image management for commercial and political clients.

From: 1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups | Pew Research Center
MARCH 20, 2018
WIDE GENDER GAP, GROWING EDUCATIONAL DIVIDE IN VOTERS’ PARTY IDENTIFICATION
1. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups

While there is a gender gap in partisan affiliation within every generational cohort, it is particularly pronounced among Millennial voters. A large majority of Millennial women (70%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 49% of Millennial men.

This wide gender gap among Millennial voters is largely attributable to a marked shift among Millennial women. As recently as 2014, the Democratic advantage among Millennial women was a narrower – but still substantial – 21 percentage points, compared with 47 points today. The balance of partisanship among Millennial men was similar in 2014 as it is today (50% Democratic vs. 40% Republican).
url]
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
It got cut off when I only had the screenshot to post, but that wasn't Luntz' data. It was from Reuters/Ipsos April 30.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH

Thanks. Please post the article next time so we don't see it as propaganda from a party hack whose sounding board is Twitter and Fox News.

Anyway, the Reuters article survey only polled registered millennial voters with their stated party affiliation addressing which party's candidates in their district they would vote for at this time. With the primaries still to come, we shall see who the candidates are.

Interestingly, two-thirds view Trump very unfavorably and that only 28% polled overt support for Republicans. Hovering over the bars in the graph, it looks like of respondents, those who identify themselves as Republican are the same (27% in 2016, 28% in 2018). But Dems have lost ground (55% to 46% in 2018) mostly to Undecideds (18% to 26% in 2018). One out of four are now undecided about who they will vote for their district's House rep.

I'm sure that economic factors like less taxes and improving employment opportunities, concern about paying back student loan debt, affordable housing, quality of education in their districts for their kids and social justice issues like gender equality are very important. Also of interest is the lack of further analysis as to gender and race (except white males), and education level, which the Pew study addresses from March 2018.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"How'd you get that STD, Bob?"<br>"Well, I tripped and fell on a racist stigma."<br>"...oh." <a href="https://t.co/hIS2bzZpAR">pic.twitter.com/hIS2bzZpAR</a></p>— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/993586672536178693?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I have recently learned more about the Iran-Contra affair. The Independent Counsel's investigation lasted four years, the violations involved top Administration - National Security Council, Sec of Defense, foreign policy advisors - dealing with an acknowledged enemy as well as Intelligence figures, weapons (1500 missiles) were given to Iran to fight Iraq for hostages violating Congressional laws, prominent figures involved were convicted of felonies based on testimony obtained by granting immunity to some witnesses, attorney-client privilege was invoked by the DC attorney - Brendon Sullivan - in front of a House Committee - objecting frequently for his client, Oliver North, and pardons were issued by the subsequent President. Sullivan recently turned down representing Trump. No impeachment, but the opposite party swept into power to control both branches of Congress due to the public's perception of a corrupt administration blatantly in defiance of their legal limitations and the Rule of Law. Lots of subpoenas with trials by the IC. Congress and the President let the process play out. The President was found to be not involved in the felonies, but his polling fell to an all-time low with the public thinking otherwise and the disregard for the law causing concern for an Imperial Presidency.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BLUF: US IC assessment is that Iran to date has complied with JCPOA terms. So, if Trump kills the deal, it is NOT based on our intelligence, rather the contrary.</p>— John Schindler (@20committee) <a href="https://twitter.com/20committee/status/993916239499145217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Estimated Surplus in April 2018: $218 Billion
The federal government realized a surplus of $218 billion in April 2018, CBO estimates—$35 billion larger than the surplus in April 2017.
CBO estimates that receipts in April 2018 totaled $515 billion—$59 billion (or 13 percent) more than those in the same month last year. Individual income and payroll taxes rose by $73 billion (or 20 percent), on net. Nonwithheld payments for those taxes, largely final payments of 2017 taxes, rose by $60 billion. Withholding of individual income and payroll taxes rose by $7 billion (or 4 percent). Withheld taxes rose
both because wages and salaries were higher and because April 2018 had one more business day than April 2017. However, those factors were partially offset because the share of wages withheld for taxes was
lower, CBO estimates, reflecting the new withholding tables issued in January. Corporate income tax payments declined by $14 billion (or 24 percent).

Interesting to see if this trend continues (withhold taxes) or is a one month blip.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
What, specifically, is delicious?

You are begging to be disappointed with a response from him. He is literally a troll of highest order.

My assessment is this is possibly the worst thing Trump could have done.

Hot take.... no negations begin and therefore no NEW deal, Iran begins enriching again without observation, war drums beat, Israel comes to the US wanting help becasue they antagonized Iran again, and Bolton lets the war dogs off the chain and Russia gets exactly what it wanted.

This will effectively throw us into chaos and signal to anyone in the world that our deals are not legitimate and can be unilaterally dismantled. Why would NK negotiate under those circumstances?
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,010
This will effectively throw us into chaos and signal to anyone in the world that our deals are not legitimate and can be unilaterally dismantled. Why would NK negotiate under those circumstances?

Presidents aren't able to make lasting deals on their own. I'm sure you were aware of that.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You are begging to be disappointed with a response from him. He is literally a troll of highest order.

My assessment is this is possibly the worst thing Trump could have done.

Hot take.... no negations begin and therefore no NEW deal, Iran begins enriching again without observation, war drums beat, Israel comes to the US wanting help becasue they antagonized Iran again, and Bolton lets the war dogs off the chain and Russia gets exactly what it wanted.

This will effectively throw us into chaos and signal to anyone in the world that our deals are not legitimate and can be unilaterally dismantled. Why would NK negotiate under those circumstances?

Nah.

Europe and Co go along with the deal and world leaders wait out Trump's term and hope for an adult to be elected in 2020.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Nah.

Europe and Co go along with the deal and world leaders wait out Trump's term and hope for an adult to be elected in 2020.
Hating the Iran deal isn't a Trump lunatic position. That's mainstream Republican. The Republican adults likely would have made the same decision.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Hating the Iran deal isn't a Trump lunatic position. That's mainstream Republican. The Republican adults likely would have made the same decision.
In that case... mainstream republicans are against virtually all assessments that the deal is necessary and beneficial to the US and is actually working.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/352463-top-general-says-iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mattis-says-staying-in-iran-deal-is-in-u-s-interests/
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Nah.

Europe and Co go along with the deal and world leaders wait out Trump's term and hope for an adult to be elected in 2020.

Would they go along with it knowing the US doesn't have the back of Europe? Will Iran start enriching again? IDK

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iran's president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium 'more than before ... in next weeks.' <a href="https://t.co/6xZ2HXZjcO">https://t.co/6xZ2HXZjcO</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/993930377935941633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My thoughts on President Trump’s Iran statement: <a href="https://t.co/E5A12PKnnx">pic.twitter.com/E5A12PKnnx</a></p>— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnKerry/status/993932444859600900?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iranian president Rouhani: "Iran will be conferring with the world's two super powers, Russia and China"</p>— Mohamed Yehia (@yeh1a) <a href="https://twitter.com/yeh1a/status/993925191905566720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.
BO
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Nah.

Europe and Co go along with the deal and world leaders wait out Trump's term and hope for an adult to be elected in 2020.

Easier said than done. The sanctions will make it very difficult to do business in Iran, whether you an American company or not.

IMO, the best case is that the next 6 months resolve whatever issues exist in the administration, especially as it becomes clear November is going to be painful for Trump.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,523
Reaction score
17,410
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iranian president Rouhani: "Iran will be conferring with the world's two super powers, Russia and China"</p>— Mohamed Yehia (@yeh1a) <a href="https://twitter.com/yeh1a/status/993925191905566720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

BossyScratchyGosling.gif
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: In the RNC's voter files, Mike Braun — the front-runner in Tuesday's <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INSen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INSen</a> GOP primary — is labeled a "hard Democrat." <br><br>He didn't vote in the competitive GOP primaries that gave Indiana Mitch Daniels, Dan Coats and more. Story: <a href="https://t.co/dTKlkSEcXU">https://t.co/dTKlkSEcXU</a></p>— Eric Bradner (@ericbradner) <a href="https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/992846324520374272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
As for the Iran stuff, it seems like a colossal blunder that was completely unprovoked. I guess this is what happens when you hire a fucktard like Bolton with a track record of destabilizing the Middle East.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: In the RNC's voter files, Mike Braun — the front-runner in Tuesday's <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INSen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INSen</a> GOP primary — is labeled a "hard Democrat." <br><br>He didn't vote in the competitive GOP primaries that gave Indiana Mitch Daniels, Dan Coats and more. Story: <a href="https://t.co/dTKlkSEcXU">https://t.co/dTKlkSEcXU</a></p>— Eric Bradner (@ericbradner) <a href="https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/992846324520374272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I just saw this. Not shocked he won though. Indiana seems desperate for outsiders at the moment. Bernie beat HRC in the primary, Trump, now Braun. I think he'll beat Donnelly too. Either way, IN ends up with basically centrists politicians. Joe, center-left and Braun, center-right. Not a bad thing, I guess. But I don't know all the ins and outs, just drive-by analysis from the locals.
 
Top