And so The Gap continues to widen, now over 8 1/2 percentage points:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
And the Dow continues to bow to reality, as the sugar pills the Trump administration and the Fed have tried to administer have worn off:
L L wrote:
https://www.axios.com/senate-inteligence-committee-russia-trump-b2f29fe2-4373-4cb5-9bc6-0f071a0be544.html
But we knew that. What we didn't know is if the intel community acted appropriately. Or if they acted wrongly, in an effort to 'get' trump.
This report, led by Republicans, found that the IC acted appropriately and without political motive. Which should make everyone, D and R and I, very happy.
Trump will lie and say that the report found the FBI guilty of treason, but Trump is a moran.
WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials’ determination that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald J. Trump’s candidacy was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics, according to a key Republican-led Senate review released on Tuesday. The findings undercut longstanding allegations by Mr. Trump and his allies that the officials were biased against him.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which conducted the three-year study, had already given the work of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. an interim stamp of approval, but the 158-page report on Tuesday presented new detail about the government’s attempts in 2016 and 2017 to make sense of Russia’s attacks. Much of the report’s contents about the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment were considered highly sensitive and blacked out by the Trump administration.
“The I.C.A. reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the panel’s chairman. “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”
Well, ok then wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Yes, and trump again is calling for a halt to all immigration. He’ll continue trying to blame this on Mexicans. Insane.
The cover story is that he's halting immigration to protect American jobs. It comes as quite the surprise that the recent tidal wave of unemployment claims is because the army of immigrants storming the border rather than the "Covid hoax" shutting down the economy, but there you have it.
remember it's all about the fight with Trump. He doesn't care if he hurts the nation as long as he appears to be fighting. That's what the red hat morans love. the fighting.
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Let me reiterate for the record: I believe Biden's running mate will be Elizabeth Warren.
It was very odd when Warren did not endorse Bernie after she dropped out. I think the fix was in. I think Biden promised her the vice presidency. Of course if she is the nominee, we will probably never know if that's what really happened.
Warren and Harris are the two obvious choices. Harris only helps if Biden needed African Americans. He doesn't. He already has them. Biden needs progressives, and Warren helps with that.
This campaign is going to be about recovery. Biden helped to lead us through the last recovery. And Warren helps to convince people that this time we will bail out Main Street instead of Wall Street.
I don't think Warren will be veep...I think she didn't endorse bernie because it was 100% obvious that bernie was going to lose so why anger the leader of your party and likely next president of the united states? That would get her nothing and just anger a lot of people.
I would be very, very surprised if Warren is made Veep. I think lefties seriously underestimate the dislike non-lefties have for her. People really, really, really don't want to be lectured at by teachers. And to me, that's 80% of her thing. lecturing and telling people she is right, they are wrong, and that there is something very wrong about those who disagree with her.
The other 20% is policy.
Having her on the ticket would be a mistake.
Everyone seems to like Harris, other than anti-police types. But those people aren't voting anyway. She's the right choice.
Would not surprise me if Warren is the VP choice. I agree with you agip though that she would not be the best choice. Kamala Harris would be a better choice as she would absolutely solidify the black vote; Biden alone doesn't get all of those votes...many don't vote who would if she is the VP. Klobuchar would be a better choice than Warren. Among the most progressive, people liked Bernie better than Warren. They all need to be vetted though so that no surprises come up.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
I don't think Warren will be veep...I think she didn't endorse bernie because it was 100% obvious that bernie was going to lose so why anger the leader of your party and likely next president of the united states? That would get her nothing and just anger a lot of people.
I would be very, very surprised if Warren is made Veep. I think lefties seriously underestimate the dislike non-lefties have for her. People really, really, really don't want to be lectured at by teachers. And to me, that's 80% of her thing. lecturing and telling people she is right, they are wrong, and that there is something very wrong about those who disagree with her.
The other 20% is policy.
Having her on the ticket would be a mistake.
Everyone seems to like Harris, other than anti-police types. But those people aren't voting anyway. She's the right choice.
Would not surprise me if Warren is the VP choice. I agree with you agip though that she would not be the best choice. Kamala Harris would be a better choice as she would absolutely solidify the black vote; Biden alone doesn't get all of those votes...many don't vote who would if she is the VP. Klobuchar would be a better choice than Warren. Among the most progressive, people liked Bernie better than Warren. They all need to be vetted though so that no surprises come up.
Howdy do FP. Hope you and your family are well.
One other thing about Warren...Mass has an R governor. So until a special election happens, Warren's replacement would be an R. Could be very important in senate balance, until a special election.
agip wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Would not surprise me if Warren is the VP choice. I agree with you agip though that she would not be the best choice. Kamala Harris would be a better choice as she would absolutely solidify the black vote; Biden alone doesn't get all of those votes...many don't vote who would if she is the VP. Klobuchar would be a better choice than Warren. Among the most progressive, people liked Bernie better than Warren. They all need to be vetted though so that no surprises come up.
Howdy do FP. Hope you and your family are well.
One other thing about Warren...Mass has an R governor. So until a special election happens, Warren's replacement would be an R. Could be very important in senate balance, until a special election.
Things are good here. Hope all is well for you and your family also.
The choice of who to pick for VP should be based off of who is better prepared to step in as president right away, not who would help more on this one single day of the election.
If you think Harris would be better at president than right now than Warren, so be it.
But let that be your reason for who you'd prefer as VP.
It looks like Mass does not have the governor appoint a senate replacement.
There has to be a special election within 146-160 days of the vacancy.
It does not look like the Mass governor could appoint a Republican.
(I learn so much through these threads)
https://ballotpedia.org/Filling_vacancies_in_the_U.S._Senate
L L wrote:
The choice of who to pick for VP should be based off of who is better prepared to step in as president right away, not who would help more on this one single day of the election.
If you think Harris would be better at president than right now than Warren, so be it.
But let that be your reason for who you'd prefer as VP.
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
Agip would never let facts get in the way of a self-serving theory!
Flagpole wrote:
L L wrote:
The choice of who to pick for VP should be based off of who is better prepared to step in as president right away, not who would help more on this one single day of the election.
If you think Harris would be better at president than right now than Warren, so be it.
But let that be your reason for who you'd prefer as VP.
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
The choice of veep has always been a mix of electoral and leadership capacity.
It would be naive to think otherwise.
That's how democracy works...you have to win in order to have power.
You don't get power just because you are capable and in a meritocracy.
That said, veep choice isn't usually much of a deal. Doesnt' affect many votes.
I think this year might be different because of Joe's age and the need to get suburban white women and older black people to vote. It's sharper than usual and Joe's old age makes the veep the likely next president.
L L wrote:
It looks like Mass does not have the governor appoint a senate replacement.
There has to be a special election within 146-160 days of the vacancy.
It does not look like the Mass governor could appoint a Republican.
(I learn so much through these threads)
https://ballotpedia.org/Filling_vacancies_in_the_U.S._Senate
Me too. I was about to concede the point and didn't want to take the time to look it up. Thanks L L.
Biden is already ceding ground to the progressives by saying he will lower Medicare eligibility to 60 years old. You could see that as throwing a bone or you could see it as an insight into how bad he thinks he needs progressives to come out for him.
Flagpole wrote:
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
Can you justify why being younger is good in this sense but Biden is the best choice for president?
Booker is even younger and is also more moderate.
Though he does have that pesky Y chromosome that disqualifies him under Biden's proclamation.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
It looks like Mass does not have the governor appoint a senate replacement.
There has to be a special election within 146-160 days of the vacancy.
It does not look like the Mass governor could appoint a Republican.
(I learn so much through these threads)
https://ballotpedia.org/Filling_vacancies_in_the_U.S._SenateMe too. I was about to concede the point and didn't want to take the time to look it up. Thanks L L.
Biden is already ceding ground to the progressives by saying he will lower Medicare eligibility to 60 years old. You could see that as throwing a bone or you could see it as an insight into how bad he thinks he needs progressives to come out for him.
The biden platform is already the leftiest D platform in US nominee history.
He's bent already. Which is fine.
On the other hand, Medicare at 60 is more moderate than Medicare for All.
Which might be how a BIden presidency works.
Flagpole wrote:
L L wrote:
The choice of who to pick for VP should be based off of who is better prepared to step in as president right away, not who would help more on this one single day of the election.
If you think Harris would be better at president than right now than Warren, so be it.
But let that be your reason for who you'd prefer as VP.
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
I question the "speaking to more people" part. Warren did a lot better in the primaries so she obviously spoke to more people.
The reason is that Warren is just a better politician. She's more convincing on the stump.
People like Harris. And she had a really good message. But she inspires nobody. She couldn't deliver.
L L wrote:
It looks like Mass does not have the governor appoint a senate replacement.
There has to be a special election within 146-160 days of the vacancy.
It does not look like the Mass governor could appoint a Republican.
(I learn so much through these threads)
https://ballotpedia.org/Filling_vacancies_in_the_U.S._Senate
not completely accurate.
The Mass governor does have to appoint a replacement for Warren.
But that interim senator would serve only until a special election was held.
So warren leaving the senate could very well allow Mitch to keep the senate for some time and do very bad things to hamstring a new president biden.
My point stands.
L L wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
Can you justify why being younger is good in this sense but Biden is the best choice for president?
Booker is even younger and is also more moderate.
Though he does have that pesky Y chromosome that disqualifies him under Biden's proclamation.
Ok.
1) I never said Biden was the best choice for President. Harris and Klobuchar were my favorites.
2) Booker is not as smart as Harris. AND, we are confining these to women right now because Biden said he would pick a woman as you mentioned, so you probably shouldn't have brought him up.
3) Regarding age, picking a younger person just adds to the diversity. We need newer ideas from people who might be around for a while yet.
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I agree, but I wouldn't compare it to NZ, which is different in many ways. The better comparison is to Sweden's neighbors, Norway and Finland.
it's not fair to compare Sweden, a nation with landlinks to Europe, to NZ, an island nation thousands of miles away from Europe. I mean come on.
This is a long game, not a short game. Sweden is betting than over the long run they will be better off getting the pain over now rather than spread pain over 12-18 months.
We'll have to wait a long time to see what strategies were correct. It's way too early to tell yet.
I have no opinion at this point of course.
I can say that i *hope* the Sweden model works, because that would suggest other nations can open up and function with the virus in the background. I'm not sure why anyone would not want the Sweden experiment to succeed.
Sweden could have closed its borders, as New Zealand did (a country very dependent on tourism, by the way), and imposed a lockdown. The results speak for themselves.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yes, I think Harris would be a better President right now than Warren. She is as smart. She's younger. She's more moderate. She can speak to more people than Warren.
I question the "speaking to more people" part. Warren did a lot better in the primaries so she obviously spoke to more people.
The reason is that Warren is just a better politician. She's more convincing on the stump.
People like Harris. And she had a really good message. But she inspires nobody. She couldn't deliver.
Honestly, if you just need a black woman on the ticket, Stacy Abrams is a better pick. She is more likeable and she puts Georgia in play where you could pick up 16 electoral votes and two senate seats.