-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
General News Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GatoDelFuego
- Start date
- Status
That's the point.
Edit: I think that also includes the dact that Trump just gave vets a 3.1% payraise.
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/21/trump-adviser-republicans-voter-suppression
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
gotta love it when theyre tryna charm so hard that the mask accidentally slips
“Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. ... Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”
gotta love it when theyre tryna charm so hard that the mask accidentally slips
"Neglect of the severely ill is not only barbarically inhumane, it is also economically stupid. And the prison, police, emergency room solutions to mental illness are not only ridiculously inappropriate, they are also ridiculously expensive. Decent care for the severely ill is not only a moral imperative, it is the only rational public policy.
Why is it that the rest of the developed world gets this and what makes us the laggard outlier? How can it be that the richest country in the world is most neglectful of its most vulnerable citizens? The simplest answer to this complicated question is the misplaced US faith that market forces are always the most efficient vehicle for solving problems. Adam Smith—the father of modern economics—knew better and strongly supported the role of government in providing vital public services undervalued by the market. "
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/couch-crisis/dungeons-and-back-alleys-fate-mentally-ill-america
Some doctors would like to believe that the main big problem with mental illness treatment currently is lack of new drug targets, particularly at the genetic level, as drugs that target neurotransmitters are increasingly unsatisfactory. The idea in that case, not a topic of the article I posted, is that by creating drugs that target gene expression you can address mental health on a 'moment-to-moment' level. However, this way of thinking elides that actual context in which every 'moment' emerges, particularly the socio-psychological stage in which the subject of the mental illness exists. In my reckoning, addressing 'the whole picture', the world the patient inhabits and its material dimensions (economic, social, political), is the most likely way to intervene on a 'moment-to-moment' level, addressing institutional neglect by releasing patients into appropriate care settings will have a much greater impact on each moment lived by the patient than potential drug therapies they may be subjected to while the conditions that substantially brought about their symptoms persist in their environment.
Why is it that the rest of the developed world gets this and what makes us the laggard outlier? How can it be that the richest country in the world is most neglectful of its most vulnerable citizens? The simplest answer to this complicated question is the misplaced US faith that market forces are always the most efficient vehicle for solving problems. Adam Smith—the father of modern economics—knew better and strongly supported the role of government in providing vital public services undervalued by the market. "
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/couch-crisis/dungeons-and-back-alleys-fate-mentally-ill-america
Some doctors would like to believe that the main big problem with mental illness treatment currently is lack of new drug targets, particularly at the genetic level, as drugs that target neurotransmitters are increasingly unsatisfactory. The idea in that case, not a topic of the article I posted, is that by creating drugs that target gene expression you can address mental health on a 'moment-to-moment' level. However, this way of thinking elides that actual context in which every 'moment' emerges, particularly the socio-psychological stage in which the subject of the mental illness exists. In my reckoning, addressing 'the whole picture', the world the patient inhabits and its material dimensions (economic, social, political), is the most likely way to intervene on a 'moment-to-moment' level, addressing institutional neglect by releasing patients into appropriate care settings will have a much greater impact on each moment lived by the patient than potential drug therapies they may be subjected to while the conditions that substantially brought about their symptoms persist in their environment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463
Interesting (/worrying) stuff. This seems a a few steps above the usual american posturing - actually killing an overt member of their armed forces in an open attack, let alone it being such a notable member. It seems unlikely that Iran can just back down after this without losing face, which leaves more extreme stuff likely to happen.
Interesting (/worrying) stuff. This seems a a few steps above the usual american posturing - actually killing an overt member of their armed forces in an open attack, let alone it being such a notable member. It seems unlikely that Iran can just back down after this without losing face, which leaves more extreme stuff likely to happen.
War time folks, they've tried for years to loop iran in and this time they just made the decision for us by striking first
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-plan-to-use-the-advantages-of-climate-change
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-suleimani-killing-iraqi-parliament-us-troops
a scary news round up, feel the need bring attention to this: russia isn't even tryna hide its game anymore wrt climate change. meanwhile it seems like things are really escalating in m.e but i hope to be wrong about the rapid political movements occuring leading to war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-suleimani-killing-iraqi-parliament-us-troops
a scary news round up, feel the need bring attention to this: russia isn't even tryna hide its game anymore wrt climate change. meanwhile it seems like things are really escalating in m.e but i hope to be wrong about the rapid political movements occuring leading to war.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...uhan-coronavirus-and-how-worried-should-we-be
The coronavirus is pretty scary. China locking down while it spreads around the world. Old news, but stay safe and be proactive, especially since we live in a society:
https://www.theguardian.com/science...says-she-evaded-coronavirus-checks-fly-france
The coronavirus is pretty scary. China locking down while it spreads around the world. Old news, but stay safe and be proactive, especially since we live in a society:
https://www.theguardian.com/science...says-she-evaded-coronavirus-checks-fly-france
How exactly would you go about creating antitrust laws for big tech companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple? Like if busness were a pokemon meta game, in policy making how would you suspect test/rules clause OP business models? I ask this here because some pokemon viability proBan/Don’t Ban/Semi Ban debates here sound like an government debating on issue mons that require new laws. Just curious, how would ppl go about it.
Is it considered uncompetitive for a supplier like Amazon to be able to compete with buinesses that use its platform, do market research on their own products, make knock offs, then move the Original product to the no man’s land section of a buy list. I’m not positive but I feel antitrust laws from the 20th century and earlier were not written with the internet business model in mind.
Tl;dr - If business were a meta game, how would you consider suspect testing the Big Tech companies. And what new antitrust laws/rules would you introduce to make the business metagame balanced and keep it from becoming uncompetitive?
Is it considered uncompetitive for a supplier like Amazon to be able to compete with buinesses that use its platform, do market research on their own products, make knock offs, then move the Original product to the no man’s land section of a buy list. I’m not positive but I feel antitrust laws from the 20th century and earlier were not written with the internet business model in mind.
Tl;dr - If business were a meta game, how would you consider suspect testing the Big Tech companies. And what new antitrust laws/rules would you introduce to make the business metagame balanced and keep it from becoming uncompetitive?
The Congressional Budget Office released a revised economic forecast yesterday. The report predicts economic growth of 2.2% this year (slowing to an average rate of 1.7% between 2021-2030) and a federal deficit exceeding $1T for the first time since 2012. Federal debt is expected to reach $31T by 2030 (up from $17T today), driven primarily by tax cuts and spending on mandatory federal programs (e.g. Social Security and Medicare).
More context: Federal debt is projected to reach 98% of GDP by 2030, the highest level since the end of World War II.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility...
More context: Federal debt is projected to reach 98% of GDP by 2030, the highest level since the end of World War II.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility...
We are supposed to be. For the good that Trump has done (a quick note, this was just the largest list I've found, I don't necessarily agree with everything, but the good generally outweighs the bad), he has not been good at cutting the budget/ being fiscally responsible. Mostly because in order to keep some of his spending, like increased military spending, he had to increase stuff that Dems wanted to keep. However, most of the problems are created by Medicare and social security (44% of the budget is those 2 items) and probably even more from Medicaid, though I don't have the numbers. These programs are losing money and can not be sustained. The longer they are a part of our system in their current state, we will keep losing money and increasing the debt hand over fist.
Until they are either reworked or removed, they will keep adding to the national debt until we inflate the currency to uselessness (Zimbabwe, post WW1 Germany) or someone from the libertarian party (not the general definitions of libertarians, but the anarchist versions) we can't resolve this. Was that last sentence hyperbolic, yes, but it gives the idea. We can't keep spending tons of money on things that will be ineffective/ debunk (SS) or not making enough to sustain itself (Medicare).
The tax cuts did exactly as they were supposed to. The decreased the federal income by billions. Talk of a booming economy and extreme growth was snake oil. We've got no more growth than we had before the plan.
Where did the money go? Exactly where it was supposed to: https://itep.org/notadime/
Where did the money go? Exactly where it was supposed to: https://itep.org/notadime/
I completely agree with all of this, but that doesn't necessarily make it an excuse on Trump's end to keep raising our national debt. I do, funny enough, agree with MikeDawg on that front that many Republicans bar the libertarian wing haven't cared much about our ever increasing government spending, and I personally do not like that. That's something that has been a serious issue since the Bush administration, and now its only accelerating. Trump can always veto for a spending bill he wants as opposed to defending certain pointless big government programs like social security (I think that needs serious reform, but that's a discussion for another day) and curving other big government programs.
The military was run almost completely dry under Obama, and in addition, our vets haven't had a raise in almost a decade prior to the one Trump recently gave across the board. I believe that can explain at least part of the spending increase in that department. Other than that, sometimes funding the military during a time of peace is meant to keep the peace, which is what many conservatives stand by including myself. I mentioned this long before: speak softly and carry a big stick as a means to prevent conflicts, and keeping peace through strength. There are plenty of other programs that have overblown their spending and then some; Rand Paul even made a report of wasteful spending by the government in 2019. There are plenty of other areas to cut funding, and I would imagine that there may be certain small areas in the military where there's not a massive point in increasing funding (I can't give you specifics right now, but if you'd like to present some within the military budget, I'd gladly give you my say as to whether I'd define them as wasteful or not).
Yea, the tax cuts did do what they were supposed to do: 1. Keep more of the hard earned money made by Americans in their pockets (although Trump hasn't done much on the estate tax, I'm still holding out for that one and I'd be disappointed if he didn't deliver on that promise), and 2. To get the tax rate much closer to the hump of the Laffer Curve, which is estimated to be at around 33%. Anything higher and the government loses out on revenue due to less job creation and less incentive to work.
As for your link, I can speak for Amazon since this just happened early last year I believe, but liberals aren't innocent of offering tax incentives through breaks. When Amazon was exploring putting its new headquarters in New York (New York being blue as all shit), they offered plenty of incentives and ways for the company to keep more of its money that New York didn't offer for other businesses as a means to convince them to relocate there, among a slew of other financial bonuses. I'm not necessarily speaking against that type of stuff, I am pointing out however that this is not a uniquely conservative issue. AOC may be a complete and utter dolt, but hey at least she's consistent when she drives away thousands of jobs in the name of anti-business expansionism! Even she recognized the hypocrisy.
Also fun fact: businesses/higher wage earners as a whole practically carry our economy right now, even with the stats you presented on how much money businesses have saved through certain tax breaks and loopholes. https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/heres-how-much-wealthy-americans-pay-in-taxes
"Overall, the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes."
Furthermore, the top 10% actually pay 71% of all federal income taxes: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
This is all considering the fact that our government spending, as discussed previously, has been heavy across the board right now as it is, and y'all are proposing to increase it many times more than under the current conservative government (which as acknowledged is not making things much better by any stretch of the imagination). People are allowed to keep their hard-earned money, and in my humble opinion, going any further than our already pretty progressive tax bracket is batshit lunacy.
Edit: messed up on my first reply. MikeDawg not termi. Myb
Last edited:
Why is this a problem? Should the US not incentivize workers going directly into the workforce (such as trade schools or other education or immediately into craftsman trades) rather than spending close to a decade in "peace-time" combat? It is honorable that people feel a sort of patriotism towards their country and their kinsmen however I think it is laughable the idea that they are "fighting for our freedoms" (not that you said that). It is all and good to have and keep a militia but to constantly be expanding a militia despite no active wars, no threat to american freedom I think is silly. The military currently offers a ton of benefits for underprivileged individuals (education, pension for some, health care and whatnot) but how is it any different from a welfare based subsidy? Veterans return from their tours often broken, physically and mentally. It is not a "good" thing to fight overseas, which is why people hold being a part of the military in such high regards, but the issue comes when those people return to their country without help from the VA and with traumatizing disorders. Frankly i see it as very little difference from the inflamed "school to prison pipeline."
This is an inefficient means with which to "keep the peace." Here is a good article which details the budget shortfalls that globally violence inflicts upon the world.
If one wanted to really keep the peace they would focus on building up infrastructure, increasing education, and disseminating natural resources back to their host countries. Spending wasteful money on the newest jets, military technology, bullets, and tactical gear is not what's keeping the peace. Despite us trying to "keep the peace," ME violence has escalated, Russia continues to encroach upon satellite territories, China makes moves controlling the African continent. I think it's honorable that people might try to view the US military as some mediator between conflicts on the geo-political playground, but the reality is that they are much more of a bully wielding their military might to proxy occupy territory globally.
IMO peacekeeping through a show of strength is a very similar tactic to our current drug war; people aren't just naturally pre-disposed to violence and conflict, the first step to eliminating conflict globally is to address global inflictions. I'd wager a guess that attempting to tackle poverty in disenfranchised areas would decrease global conflict by an exponentially larger percentage than attempting to be reactive by responding to already devastating attacks.
Here, read this article. This type of "use it or lose it" spending is prevalent in basic finances. There are numerous stories of the american military simply eliminating "old" (re: not old) technology, dumping perfectly good aircraft and landcraft into the ocean so they can spend money to replace it for fear their budget gets cut. This is not an uncommon thing in attempting to tackle a burgeoning budget.
Yes, I cut some stuff out, but I kept most of it to focus in on the main points I'd like to discuss. Anyways, you keep military (not a militia, military is full time, trained combatants, militia is local. Think army vs army reserves, there is an important difference) spending because every break through the military has will make its way down to you. I'll list off a few examples: computers, internet, gps, jet planes, duct tape, super glue, microwave, EpiPen, feminine hygiene products, digital cameras, RC vehicles, and more. I can also tell you that there is military technology that has been out for years that is leagues above what we have now, but NDA's exist, so I digress. These are vital to our current society and came about because of military spending. JKF makes this point eloquently clear when discussing space exploration, which is almost a direct corollary to military. "Why pay when we are not at war" and "why explore space, what benefit does it have" are similar logical beliefs, and both have had a huge impact on society.
As far as vets go, yes, this country needs to treat them better, but that onus isn't solely on the government. Yes, the government should help the people who fought for our freedoms (quick tangent, "fighting for our freedoms" is still important, our freedoms are our right to not live in fear of terrorism, to know that we are free to say what we want, when we want. Our freedom is to live in the freest, most prosperous society of all time, bar none. As someone who has had many family serve in the armies, it is rather insulting to say they aren't fighting for our freedoms, and your freedom to think they are laughable for thinking that.) and whether they made it home or made the ultimate sacrifice, they should be respected and supported. As a society, we need to support them and welcome them in. They did something we didn't have the balls to do, and we should also do our absolute best to make sure they get the help they need when they need it.
To go to your second point, infrastructure and education are great things to build up. We should focus on the next generation and make their lives better at our expense. But to say that will keep the peace is foolhardy. There will always be fighting, always be war, and there will always be people who want to hurt others. Take the middle east's conflict with Israel for example, a state that was given land by the UN after the holocaust so that the Israeli people wouldn't face persecution. The Israeli state has accepted every peace treaty that has gone there way that enables them to stay a nation, including, but not limited to, ceding back land that they rightfully won, accepting Jews from other areas, and, in the beginning, even being an indefensible state. Instead, they are constantly attacked by people who deny the holocaust and seek to eliminate all jews. Israel wants peace and to focus on building itself up, but it can't. If you want an example close to home, just look at terrorism. If you don't have a military ready, you can be attacked and not be able to respond.
Srength is often a very good feature of foreign policy. Theodore Roosevelt was fond of saying "speak softly and carry a big stick". The threat of going into conflict, and losing, gives a lot of political leverage. Look at what Trump just did with Iran. He takes the foremost terrorist in the world, who just orchestrated the Baghdad attack, and the second in command of an extremist state who want to take over the land of the surrounding nations and oppress those whom they disagree with. We kill him with no collateral and how does Iran respond? They shot missiles at us, but gave us advance notice so that we could move our troops and not incite us further. Why, because they knew we could destroy their navy, just take out their leadership, and any military conflict would result with them being annihilated. Did the USA want military conflict, no, because no one wants military conflict. However, the potential threat of it means that Iran has to come to the table with diplomacy.
That is a big difference to the war on drugs, which is just throw anyone caught with illegal substances in jail and not help their recovery. Deterence uses strength once to allow nations to come to the table with mutual diplomacy verses just throwing everyone in jail for having possession of cocaine. Deterrence is a closer example to locking up the dealer and approaching the people struggling wit addiction. They showed that they don't want people doing these drugs, but they are willing to work with you to come to a greater good.
One might argue that the highest earners, multibillionaires of various sorts, aren't "hard working" at all. One could easily argue that people at the top are already making so much more money than they ever need to live comfortably, if not lavishly, that no amount of additional tax is going to seriously curtail attempts to make more. You mention the Laffer Curve, of which we can only guess about to begin with, but how about the marginal value of money? Your first ten thousand (yearly) is essential to support yourself at the most basic level in modern society, your first 100k might allow you to live relatively posh. Your second billion effectively has ZERO value.
As long as you're not taxing literally 100%, it doesn't matter what the tax is because at that point those people are only using it for high score anyway, a dick-measuring contest versus their fellow multibillionaires. There's no practical purpose to gathering that much money, all that matters is how much you're getting back compared to others who are all bound by the same tax rate whether it's 40% or 90%. However, the higher tax rate generates more revenue for the government, allowing for more benefits to greater society and directed help to individuals most in need. Take an extra million from the multibillionare and their life is literally not impacted at all, yet it feeds/houses another 100 destitute people.
Some big businessmen might entertain moving to another country, but there's a certain level of prestige and outsized political influence to be gained from staying within the U.S. that money can't buy. What good is earning an extra 40% in Zimbabwe if you can't influence the society around you with it? Besides, whichever markets are left by ginormo multinationals, if any, smaller businesses will necessarily begin to fill in the gaps and flourish.
Last edited:
I'll avoid the text wall (this time, hopefully) and give three simple arguments. The first is that money can go to charity/ other philanthropic organizations. Those organizations will do a better job than the government. Governments throw money at problems, charities use people to solve them. I would rather those billionaires send those millions of dollars to charity where they know where it will be spent, how it will be spent, and knowing that it will actually have an impact. You can't do that with the government, you can do that with charity. Want proof, look at Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the world, donating about 99% of his wealth to charity in his inheritance. Charity helps the destitute in a more helpful way than throwing money at it. Yes, they use the money, but they also help give them job skills, help them find employment, find cheap housing, and can do it much more personally than a massive government can. A charity can do more to help those 100 destitute people with less money than government can.
The other reason is for posterity. Parents want the best for their children/ grandchildren, and allowing them to be financially stable is incredibly important to them. Whatever you think of the guy as President, Trump as a businessman proved this point exactly. His family was well off, no one is denying that, but he used the money from that to increase the size of his estate massively, which in turn created more jobs as his company expanded. He has further enabled his children to be able to lead successful lives without having to worry about money.
Which leads to the final point, and probably the easiest, people want money. People want to be able to have more and be wealthier, it is the American Dream. Who wants to be wealthy when they just get taxed more and can't keep the wealth that they worked for and earned. Your "hardly working" statement is not even right, as almost all of the incredibly rich people had to work to get there. Bill Gates was struggling before he redefined computer technology, Jeff Bezos grew an online book distributor to the largest company in the world, Elon Musk keeps adding new endeavors to propel technology. They worked hard to get the money that they have and if the reward for that is "we are going to take 90% of that" why work hard when there is no reward?
Nah charity is just a way of laundering ones' reputation as a robber baron while avoiding taxes. look at bezos and trumpo, they put millions in private foundations where they can put it towards whatever they want or even take it out and withdraw contributions whenever they feel like it. He's just moved money from one pocket to the other and flipped off the tax man. Charity doesn't even come close to matching the scale of the government when it comes to providing a social safety net and leaves all the power in the hands of the wealthy, unlike the government which is in theory democratically accountable. Many charities are also purposely wasteful and give large salaries to administrators that do very little.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/philanthropy-charity-inequality-taxes/
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ant-billionaires-philanthropy-pay-their-taxes
"
There’s another issue, too. The decision on how philanthropic money is spent is made on the whims and personal interests of the wealthy, rather than what is best. In the US, for example, only 12% of philanthropic money went to human services: it was more likely be spent on arts and higher education. Those choosing where the money goes are often highly unrepresentative of the broader population, and thus more likely to be out of touch with their needs. In the US, 85% of charitable foundation board members are white, and just 7% are African Americans. Money raised by progressive taxation, on the other hand, is spent by democratically accountable governments that have to justify their priorities, which are far more likely to relate to social need.
What is striking is that even as the rich get richer, they are spending less on charity, while the poor give a higher percentage of their income to good causes. That the world’s eight richest people have as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity is a damning indictment of our entire social order. The answer to that is not self-serving philanthropy, which makes a wealthy elite determined to put vast fortunes out of reach of the authorities look good. We need global tax justice, not charitable scraps dictated by the fancies of the elite."
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/philanthropy-charity-inequality-taxes/
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ant-billionaires-philanthropy-pay-their-taxes
"
There’s another issue, too. The decision on how philanthropic money is spent is made on the whims and personal interests of the wealthy, rather than what is best. In the US, for example, only 12% of philanthropic money went to human services: it was more likely be spent on arts and higher education. Those choosing where the money goes are often highly unrepresentative of the broader population, and thus more likely to be out of touch with their needs. In the US, 85% of charitable foundation board members are white, and just 7% are African Americans. Money raised by progressive taxation, on the other hand, is spent by democratically accountable governments that have to justify their priorities, which are far more likely to relate to social need.
What is striking is that even as the rich get richer, they are spending less on charity, while the poor give a higher percentage of their income to good causes. That the world’s eight richest people have as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity is a damning indictment of our entire social order. The answer to that is not self-serving philanthropy, which makes a wealthy elite determined to put vast fortunes out of reach of the authorities look good. We need global tax justice, not charitable scraps dictated by the fancies of the elite."
This is getting out of the scope of this thread, and of the actual news clip most recently posted
This was absolutely the case for Murkowski and Collins on the witness vote (definitely a political decision to try to keep the Maine senate seat at a minimum). But I don’t agree that this was a point scoring thing for Romney to vote guilty. Trump cancelled the scheduled press conference he had after it was reported Romney would vote convict (he was having a tantrum cause he was blindsided, if it were a purely political maneuver he would have had the heads up). It also makes no sense to let the political points go to a senator from Utah. While Trump is unpopular there compared to other republicans, the
Personally I think Romney is just very conscious of his own legacy, and while I think many of his views are objectively wrong I don’t think he’s okay with being remembered as a willing participant in the Republicans putting party above country. Explains the whole twitter thing he had going on as well.
Not sure if this will have any long term affects on Trump’s political standing, but I do think it’s part of an interesting pattern where Republican senators (that aren’t on Trump’s teat) are not willing to defend his actions at all. Murkowski is the most interesting to me because while Alaska is a red state, it has a strong independent streak and certain dems could win state wide, she easily could have said Trump’s call was “perfect” (the White House line), but she said it was an abuse of power, he has learned his lesson from the impeachment proceedings (lol), so she won’t convict. Rubio and Collins had similar lines.
Republicans seem to have given up on the CO seat (probably smartly), I think the only thing Romney did was make it harder to triage the seats in Maine and AZ, as “what he did was wrong but not impeachment worthy” is a harder line to walk if someone else in your party in a safe seat is saying it’s wrong and impeachment worthy. It’ll be interesting to see if Romney’s actions or future twitter exchanges influence public opinion on Trump’s actions at all (independents and more moderate republicans mostly). But the optics certainly aren’t good for Trump.
sorry to talk at you, just think this kind of political point scoring shit is fascinating
Last edited:
Murkowski is not worried about being primaried. She's lost a primary before and then won the seat anyway as a write-in candidate. So I don't think her decision was political either.
Collins' decision was def at least partially political. Unfortunately for her, Romney's vote takes away some of her cover. She was already on pretty thin ice, but now I think she's dead in the water. The likely primary winner Sara Gideon is a strong candidate and has a LOT to run against in a state that did not vote for Trump in 2016 and has turned bluer since.
The last poll I saw from months ago showed Collins losing to a democratic opponent by about the same margin of 5-10 points whether Collins supported or opposed impeachment. The problem was in the hypothetical where she opposed impeachment there were not many undecideds, making it very hard for her to overcome that 5-10 point deficit.
Collins' decision was def at least partially political. Unfortunately for her, Romney's vote takes away some of her cover. She was already on pretty thin ice, but now I think she's dead in the water. The likely primary winner Sara Gideon is a strong candidate and has a LOT to run against in a state that did not vote for Trump in 2016 and has turned bluer since.
The last poll I saw from months ago showed Collins losing to a democratic opponent by about the same margin of 5-10 points whether Collins supported or opposed impeachment. The problem was in the hypothetical where she opposed impeachment there were not many undecideds, making it very hard for her to overcome that 5-10 point deficit.
It seems there’s one thing washington is bipartisan on at least. Both sides agree that something needs to be done about big tech’s business practices. Even the EU are setting up tech taxes. What are peoples thoughts about this?
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...ogle-facebook-house-hearing-congress-break-up
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...st-investigation-amazon-apple-google-facebook
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...al-against-eu-antitrust-decisions-11581516872
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...st-probe-expands-as-states-beef-up-staff.html
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...ogle-facebook-house-hearing-congress-break-up
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...st-investigation-amazon-apple-google-facebook
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...al-against-eu-antitrust-decisions-11581516872
•https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...st-probe-expands-as-states-beef-up-staff.html
- Status