Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, pfife said:

Jeez that 'since 2003' wpuld include the great recession.   Thats spectacularly bad.

The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser."  Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.

Edited 20 hours ago by gehringer_2

[pfife]

10 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser."  Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.

I see what you're saying thanks for pointing that out.

[Motown Bombers]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser."  Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.

Essentially the worst since the last time Republicans were in office. 

[1984Echoes]

20 hours ago, pfife said:

candidate a:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.

candidate b:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.

candidate c :   has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. 

...

Did Joe Biden support a policy that would kill your spouse?

Because Trump sure supports a LOT of policies that will kill a LOT of spouses.

[guy incognito]

[Tiger337]

A real example of what I think PFife is talking about (I think):

There are a LOT of people (including very smarts ones) who think that we are screwed whether we have a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between because of global warming.  They think that neither party comes close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way.  Why should they vote for either party?  I'm not really with them because I don't know enough about it to know how bad it's going to get or how, so I vote for a democracy.  However, if I shared their dire views, I sure wouldn't worry about our form of government over the world surviving.   

Edited 16 hours ago by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

A real example of what I think PFife is talking about (I think):

There are a LOT of people (including very smarts ones) who think that we are screwed whether we have a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between because of global warming.  They think that neither party comes close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way.  Why should they vote for either party?  I'm not really with them because I don't know enough about it to know how bad it's going to get or how, so I vote for a democracy.  However, if I shared their dire views, I sure wouldn't worry about our form of government over the world surviving.   

I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless.  I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste  of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private  protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care.

What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless.  I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste  of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private  protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care.

What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.

Perhaps, it is the hope that they can start some kind of momentum.  Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.  That's a lot votes.  It didn't go anywhere, but perhaps the right person in the right time could change that. 

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Perhaps, it is the hope that they can start some kind of momentum.  Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.  That's a lot votes.  It didn't go anywhere, but perhaps the right person in the right time could change that. 

Yeah - There might have been enough voter sentiment to get a third party going at that point but Ross wasn't really interested in building a movement, he just wanted to be President. I tend to think if a new party takes hold - probably eventually displacing one of the main ones, it will start local, become a established presence in a few states first, then organize nationally once they have an established constituency. I don't see the likelihood of a viable new party coming out of independent Presidential bids.

[oblong]

To me voting third party is like signing a “change.org” petition or wearing a ribbon for cancer or whatever. 

[pfife]

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

Did Joe Biden support a policy that would kill your spouse

No

[pfife]

Fwiw it was pretty clear that i was going out of my way not to talk about a specific politician but the conversation started because hasan piker was talking about gavin newsome in 2028 none of which is related to biden.

I 100% do think Neswome supports policies that could be harmful to someone in my family.

[pfife]

Piker was also talking about Newsome vs JV Dance in 2028 but every post since acted like it was Newsome vs Trump, or at least glossed over any difference JVDance instead of trump would make in the voting calculus.

[gehringer_2]

31 minutes ago, pfife said:

Piker was also talking about Newsome vs JV Dance in 2028 but every post since acted like it was Newsome vs Trump, or at least glossed over any difference JVDance instead of trump would make in the voting calculus.

Newsom seems to be on a bit of a popularity roll in CA recently.

Just as discussion - I tend to think CA is not quite as progressive as people in other parts of the country think. There is a lot of upper middle class suburbia in CA and those people are never really that far from a low tax GOP that could bring itself back to sanity. Plus, as Trump was able to leverage in FLA for example, the Hispanic population is not as liberal on social issues as progressives are either, but of course for the time being the GOP has now totally poisoned the well with whatever support Trump got from them in 2024.. But still, if you take immigration/racism off the table in a post Trump GOP (of course not likely but just spitballing here) that's another population that's not just going to fall in line lockstep with a strongly progressive Dem party. So bottom line, I won't be surprised to see a lot of intraparty sparks fly if (when!) Newsom decides he's running in '28.

Personally, I have trouble trusting guys with perfect hair (Clinton, Newsom, Romney, Trump all qualify there)

Edited 13 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Sports_Freak]

OMG....LOL funny. The Trump administration is rolling back pollution regulations...including car tailpipe emissions. The article I'm reading said multiple agencies are taking the case to court, including EarthJustice, an environmental group and The American Lung Association. Trump's reply? "Don't worry about it." Seriously, what an uneducated idiot. No sugar coating it, the man is a complete fool and he's putting millions of lives in serious danger. From not just the air we breathe but also serious climate disasters. We need to elect democrats at the midterms to impeach this idiot and his entire corrupt administration. 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sports_Freak

[romad1]

Speaking of killing your spouse

 

[Tigeraholic1]

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[romad1]

Wishcasting

 

[romad1]

interesting that Gov Whitmer is there

 

[romad1]

 

[oblong]

The internets are having fun pointing out that Bondi sounded like drunk Parker Posey.  And she did.  

[Hongbit]

19 hours ago, chasfh said:

Alternate take: They want to assure that independents can feel good about voting Republican again. 

We know what’s coming next since they only have one play in their playbook.

They will find a single, isolated incident or possibly even make one up.  Magnify it 100x into an epidemic of lawlessness that endangers every American.  They will pump up how needed ICE was and blame it all on how soft the left is on crime.  Just for good measure they will find something to tie it all back to either Biden, Obama, or Clinton’s. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

You mean like Trump's former Labor Secretary Acosta who was the one who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal?