Jump to content
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: It’s beginning to look a lot like Rescission

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Walls only work if they are manned.  To be manned we’d need people about every 100ft or so.  Over a 2000 mile border that’s around 92,000 people in three shifts a day for 276,000 people on the “border wall force”.  To pay the people standing there (just the people standing there nothing for administration or supervision), conservatively, $40,000.00 a year (just pay not counting for equipment, training, and other such) is $11,040,000,000.00 a year.

Trumpanistas are crazy.

Yeah the actual costs have never been realistic. I regret not posting it here, but I heard an analyses a few weeks back that broke down the cost per foot of what’s already been done and it was insane. $5,000,000,000.00 will only cover a few percent of what would actually be needed to build a racist wall.

(Also, for your calculations, I think it’s more like 1,000-1,200 miles of actual wall. There’s no way you could build an intact wall across the entire border).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah the actual costs have never been realistic. I regret not posting it here, but I heard an analyses a few weeks back that broke down the cost per foot of what’s already been done and it was insane. $5,000,000,000.00 will only cover a few percent of what would actually be needed to build a racist wall.

(Also, for your calculations, I think it’s more like 1,000-1,200 miles of actual wall. There’s no way you could build an intact wall across the entire border).

Even then the Trumpanistas don’t think about the cost of manning and maintaining their “wall”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Trumpkins? Trump-asses?

Trumpets (f. Trumpettes), or Trumpkinheads (chide yourself if you got that reference to what is probably not even a B-Movie horror movie series).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Maithanet said:

* of course, actual federal employees will get screwed, but nobody cares about them.  It's just people not getting their paychecks right before Christmas, no big deal. 

Unfortunately there's a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who immediately proved the above is not hyperbole, at least for himself:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmaker-doubts-government-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/ar-BBRfjcz?ocid=spartandhp

I am amazed he made the claim that workers in the private sector have to deal with this "all the time." Just how often do workers in the private sector experience having a paycheck delayed because their employer is having financial problems? Though I know this isn't unheard of, it seems like it's a rare event to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabato had an interesting analysis about 2018 House Results that I hadn't seen before.  The advantage of incumbency has been declining for a while, and that trend continued or accelerated in 2018.  I can't quote a table, but it showed that Democrats won 100% (6/6) of open seats in districts that Clinton won or Trump won by less than 5 points.  When running against incumbents, Democrats won 20/25 seats (80%).  Those incumbents really didn't do much better.

Likewise, if you look at districts Trump won by 5+ points, Republicans won most of the time.  Democrats only flipped 2/28 Open seats (7%), and only 11/203 seats (5.4%) against Republican incumbents.  Once again, incumbents did a little better, but really not much.  At this point, you could argue that the "advantage" of incumbency is just that terrible candidates probably don't win elections ever, and so you have a select group of candidates who are at least able to win elections in good times (a la, no Roy Moore type candidates).  There are definitely a few candidates on both sides that even before the ballots were counted had demonstrated themselves to be very weak campaigners. 

Quote

These results suggest that the outcomes of House contests in 2018 had very little to do with the characteristics of the local House candidates. In making their choices, voters apparently were far more concerned about which party would control the House than about who would represent their district. As a result, the advantage of incumbency reached its lowest level in decades — less than three points in terms of margin, according to an analysis by Gary Jacobson.

 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Even then the Trumpanistas don’t think about the cost of manning and maintaining their “wall”.

That’s because the wall has always been symbolic, a means to maintain whiteness. I’ve yet to meet a Trump supporter who is for the wall that has actually thought it out financially and physically.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Sabato had an interesting analysis about 2018 House Results that I hadn't seen before.  The advantage of incumbency has been declining for a while, and that trend continued or accelerated in 2018.  I can't quote a table, but it showed that Democrats won 100% (6/6) of open seats in districts that Clinton won or Trump won by less than 5 points.  When running against incumbents, Democrats won 20/25 seats (80%).  Those incumbents really didn't do much better.

Likewise, if you look at districts Trump won by 5+ points, Republicans won most of the time.  Democrats only flipped 2/28 Open seats (7%), and only 11/203 seats (5.4%) against Republican incumbents.  Once again, incumbents did a little better, but really not much.  At this point, you could argue that the "advantage" of incumbency is just that terrible candidates probably don't win elections ever, and so you have a select group of candidates who are at least able to win elections in good times (a la, no Roy Moore type candidates).  There are definitely a few candidates on both sides that even before the ballots were counted had demonstrated themselves to be very weak campaigners. 

 

And for the handful of House Republicans that held on in very unfavorable districts to them (Katko, Fitzpatrick, Hurd, a few others) it's not that they had an incumbency advantage so much as they are just very good at campaigning in their districts. And in some cases were also helped by underfunded or weak Democratic opponents; so long as 2020 is even a moderately good Democratic year I would expect Democrats to pick up a few of those seats, even if they are losing some of the redder seats won this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Serious Callers Only said:

Just call them what they are: racist fascists.

That doesn't roll off the tongue too well, and seems idiotic.

I'm putting it to a vote.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Unfortunately there's a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who immediately proved the above is not hyperbole, at least for himself:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmaker-doubts-government-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/ar-BBRfjcz?ocid=spartandhp

I am amazed he made the claim that workers in the private sector have to deal with this "all the time." Just how often do workers in the private sector experience having a paycheck delayed because their employer is having financial problems? Though I know this isn't unheard of, it seems like it's a rare event to me. 

Pretty common in construction.  Out of three different contractors I've worked for for longer than a year, two of them routinely paid 30-60 days late.  And it would usually be random "sorry, no check this week, see you Monday at 7".

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s because the wall has always been symbolic, a means to maintain whiteness. I’ve yet to meet a Trump supporter who is for the wall that has actually thought it out financially and physically.  

The actual purpose of the 'wall' is the FIVE BILLION tax payer dollars that are to go into the pockets of the destroyers who are the insane orange nazi's cronies and runners.  That 'wall' will never be built because that money is earmarked for private corporations who don't expect or plan to do any buildling at all (shows again how willingly duped the base is).  They got SO MUCH money in the stupid Iraq war -- pallets of millions of dollars just flew away in the wind as they came off the planes -- that they've been slavering for more.  After all, it's been a damned long time since they got all that, with the Bush Depression and the Obama maturity of correction and pulling shyte back together.  They've waiting damned long enough for another injection of OUR MONEY.  Besides, the insane treasonous orange nazi is tanking the markets here at home and globally.  They must get their money from somewhere.

In the meantime the sexual abuse of the detained immigrant children in those 'shelters' is being reported left and right.  That will be the monument erected to the orange nazi asshole: a bronze plaque with the names of all the raped children.  And probably a nuclear crater or a dozen, which, in that case, monuments of any kind to anything and anyone are moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty common in construction.  Out of three different contractors I've worked for for longer than a year, two of them routinely paid 30-60 days late.  And it would usually be random "sorry, no check this week, see you Monday at 7".

Yeah I know for a fact that this is a regular occurrence in construction, especially common among sub-contractors paying their workers (from both personal experience when I used to work construction and from the many people I've known who work construction jobs).

I think it's also common among very small businesses or among seasonal business or businesses employing itinerant workers (think landscaping or agricultural workers) although I don't have any statistics ready-to-hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Rich weighs in:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/gop-leaders-wont-tolerate-trumps-chaos-for-much-longer.html
 

Quote

 

The beginning of the end of the Trump presidency came and went a long time ago. I have never wavered from my oft-stated convictions that (a) Trump will not finish out his term, and (b), the end will be triggered by a presidential meltdown that forces the Vichy Republicans in Washington to mount an insurrection — if only to save their own asses, not the country. This week was a big step toward that endgame, and surely one of the most remarkable weeks in American history.

We have a president of the United States who is moving to shut down the government at the same moment that he is inviting America’s adversaries to breach its defenses. The withdrawals in Syria and Afghanistan, combined with the exit of the last top administration official who aspired to serve the national interest rather than Trump’s, invites hostile moves against the United States from ISIS, Russia, China, North Korea, and the Taliban. This has even grabbed the cynical Mitch McConnell’s attention: He has declared himself “distressed” by Mattis’s resignation, a major step in rhetorical escalation in a party where Susan Collins’s pathetic periodic expressions of “concern” are what pass for criticism of an outlaw president. Marco Rubio’s words were stronger, a move to protect his viability for another presidential run, but more outrage from more GOP leaders will follow. What will move them is not necessarily Trump’s hara-kiri isolationist agenda but the damage his behavior both abroad and at home is inflicting on the financial markets. The sheer uncertainty of a chaos presidency is pushing the Dow to its worst December since the Great Depression. McConnell and his humiliated departing peer Paul Ryan have tolerated Trump’s racism, misogyny, and nativism, his wreckage of American alliances, his kleptocracy, and his allegiance to Vladimir Putin. They have tolerated as well his con job on the coal miners, steelworkers, and automobile-industry workers of his base. But they’ll be damned if they will stand for a president who threatens the bottom line of the GOP donor class.

The Mattis resignation is huge. It’s not that he was the last “adult in the room” but that as a retired military man and a secretary of Defense with access to both foreign intelligence and the inner workings of the White House, he knows treason when he sees it....

 

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I like Trumapnistas because the comparison with Spanish speaking Sandanistas in Nicaragua will irritate them.

I have been using Trumpanistas as well, after trying some of the others, and for the same reason, lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back at that Oval Office live televised event in which the devil without disguise declared he proudly owned any future gummit shut-down, he himself and him would be doing that for the sake of his 'wall' give-away of 5 billion dollars to the pockets of the private corps such as Erik Prince's pretend to 'build; something sort -- I asked who was making book that very shortly he'd either say "I didn't say that" or that "It's the Democrats" [or both].

So.  Anyway.  He also denies federal workers their Christmas paychecks.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/422162-obama-plays-santa-for-pediatric-hospital-visit

In the meantime, Angel Without Wings, President Obama, delivers gifts to pediatric patients in hospital in Santa Claus cap.  The orange nazi can't even be arsed to do even do anything even as marginally presidential as that.  What a piece of shyte he is. But at least, maybe a turd could help fertilize a field. But this guy is nothing but poison to everyone and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have been using Trumpanistas as well, after trying some of the others, and for the same reason, lol!

You could at least as equally call them Contras. It was Samoza aqnd his Contras that Reagan and the CIA used to bring the crack epidemic to the US, using their army, in order to fund arms to Israel to take out Iran that Congress wouldn't fund.  It's the Contras that were condemned internationally for many a human rights violation, particularly torture (by torturers trained by the CIA).  Much, much else.  But then -- the trumpistas wouldn't know a sandinista from a contra or Samoza from Jeremyn Corbin, and all like that. :read:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×