• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

One Woman's Predictions About Trumps 100 Days and the Midterms

Status
Not open for further replies.

wildfire

Banned
http://www.alternatehistory.com/for...dia-infoboxes-iv.405334/page-47#post-13868883

Inaugural Address

Donald Trump ascended to the office of President of the United States with the lowest initial approval rating of any since the question had been first polled. At the inauguration, President Trump pledged himself to unifying a divided nation through restoring prosperity at home and peace abroad. The media gave the new President plaudits for his speech, although expectations were so low that it would have been nearly impossible to fail to exceed them. Many also expressed doubt that he could make good on his promises, as fights were expected in naming the various members of his Cabinet.

Cabinet appointments

The appointment of Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson to Secretary of State engendered controversy even among Republicans, as Tillerson had a pro-Russian foreign policy outlook, receiving the Order of Friendship from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and James Baker all publicly defended the choice for Tillerson, Russian hawks in the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, such as Marco Rubio of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, ultimately approved the pick. Rubio in particular argued that if Tillerson did anything untoward with the office, he would be investigated under the confines of the law and that as President, Trump should be permitted to pursue his desired foreign policy unimpeded by the Senate. The confirmation vote was almost strictly by party lines, with the exception of Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO), who voted against the confirmation, as well as Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), who voted for the confirmation.

Jeff Sessions was also confirmed for the position of Attorney General, with the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein wishing to allow Sessions to be subject to “a fair and complete review”. The rest of Trump’s confirmations were eventually approved as the Republicans held sizable majorities in both Houses of Congress, and Democratic minority leadership were uninterested in failing to give Trump “a fair shake at governing”. That being said, many nominees were subject to heavy scrutiny and extensive confirmation hearings[1].

Supreme Court appointment

For the Supreme Court, conservative pundits and officials were concerned with nominating “another David Souter”. Thus arch-conservative William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was selected to fill the seat left vacant by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. A filibuster against this decision was not sustained by the Democrats, as a majority of the public supported Pryor’s confirmation, especially as he was replacing the conservative Scalia.[2] Pryor thus became the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Pryor pledged to do all he could to overturn Roe v. Wade, calling the decision “an abomination” and arguing that “abortion is murder”.

Legislation in the first 100 Days

The 115th Congress would be the most productive in recent history, as President Trump embarked on fulfilling his domestic policy agenda with Speaker Ryan[3]. The first legislation they passed with bipartisan support was the Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. The law allowed individuals with incomes up to $250,000 to be eligible for income tax credits for up to four children and elderly independents[4]. The law would have also required employers to give up to six weeks of maternity leave to working mothers, but the House version of the bill eliminated this provision at Speaker Ryan’s behest[5]. Trump credited Ivanka Trump for the law, and had her attend his signing of it. Congress also passed, with bipartisan support, the End the Offshoring Act, which was originally proposed as a tariff but transformed into a payroll tax reduction for employers who moved jobs back from overseas in Congress[6], and the Restoring Community Safety Act, which increased funding for police training programs, law enforcement, prosecutors, and established the Task Force on Violent Crime[7].

Congress then passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act, which reduced the highest individual tax rate to 33%, reduced the corporate rate from 35% to 30%[8], and repealed the “death tax” or tax on inheritance. The Congressional Budget Office projected an additional trillion in debt over the next ten years, but most Americans approved of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act as it reduced taxes by an average of $2,940 or 4.1% of after-tax income[9]. Speaker Ryan claimed that the added debt that Democrats took issue with would be mitigated by “a gradual, sensible attrition policy” which would only permit one new employee to be hired by the federal government for every three federal workers who retire. This would be the “hiring freeze” that Trump had proposed, projected to save nearly half of the new debt ($49 billion) added by the tax cut[10]. Exceptions to this were made for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers[11], as well as those working for the military and in public safety and health[12].

The End Illegal Immigration Act was watered down in Congress, especially pertaining to “the wall” that Trump championed during the campaign[13]. Nonetheless, new mandatory minimum federal prison sentences were added for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, with more years to be served if one had felony convictions. The End Illegal Immigration Act was very similar to Kate’s Law, which been proposed by Republicans in Congress during 2015[14]. Increased spending on border security was paid for in part by a new tax on remittances[15].

President Trump also made good on his promise to end banking regulations that came to fruition after the Great Recession. Despite a filibuster led by Elizabeth Warren, major changes were made to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau[16] and the Volcker Rule[17]. The public had supported maintaining these regulations[18] but neither the public nor the Democrats could prevent the Republicans from bringing these fiscal regulations to end.

However, not all of Trump’s proposals were successful because of Congressional opposition from Republicans, Democrats, and sometimes an odd coalition of the two. On the Republican side of the ledger, a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress proposed by Trump on the campaign trail failed to attain the necessary two-thirds vote in the House[19], nor did it come to a vote in the Senate[20]. The Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act[21], the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act[22], and the American Energy and Infrastructure Act all either did not come to a vote, died in committee, or failed to attain majorities in either house.

Congressional Republicans also sought to defer the repeal of the Affordable Care Act when a consensus had emerged on its replacement. While House Republicans passed a bill (identical to H.R. 3762 from 2015)[23] to repeal the ACA[24], it died in the Senate HELP Committee because HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander insisted that a replacement plan needed to be made, and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn failed to organize the votes necessary for a discharge petition on the same basis[25]. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy also wanted to achieve consensus before repealing the ACA[26]. However, other reforms to the bill were immediately passed in a piecemeal fashion, such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines[27] and ending other regulations on the health insurance industry established by the ACA.

An attempt to defund Planned Parenthood was also scuttled despite pressure from conservative activists[28]. Firstly, even among the Republican caucus support for defunding PP was not universal. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both opposed the move, noting how funding to Planned Parenthood from the federal government would not and could not go to abortions anyway due to the Hyde Amendment. Secondly, the united Democratic minority pledged to filibuster any attempt to limit funding to these locations, and by a two-to-one margin the public was in their corner[29].

Executive actions on trade and immigration in the first 100 days

One of President Trump’s first unilateral actions as President was a withdrawal from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership[30]. His Treasury also labeled China a currency manipulator, a move that effectively did nothing to the Chinese economy or the American one[31].More consequential was changes to the enforcement of NAFTA. NAFTA failed to be repealed in Congress, but Trump used enforcement mechanisms written into the law to harass companies doing cross-border business[32]. This was mostly targeted at trade with Mexico, as Trump granted a State Department permit to TransCanada Corp. to begin building the Keystone XL pipeline[33].

On the Mexico-oriented front, Trump ended former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program[34]. Communities which did not cooperate with the deportation of undocumented immigrants, or “sanctuary cities”, had billions in federal fund set to go to them blocked by Trump[35]. Trump also expanded the definition of “criminal alien” to include drunk drivers and others, rapidly increasing the number of deportations although not to the levels promised at certain points during his campaign[36]. Trump also instructed the State Department to withhold visas from 23 countries deemed “recalcitrant” by ICE because of their failure to accept criminal aliens sent to them[37].

Beyond the first 100 days

Despite the attempt to pass maternity leave and the lack of priority given to defunding Planned Parenthood, the Trump administration was not socially liberal. Under Vice President Mike Pence’s guidance, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was passed as a part of an unrelated bill. The FADA allowed people and businesses to sue the federal government for enforcing anti-LGBT discrimination statutes[38]. Furthermore, President Barack Obama’s standing executive orders on transgender rights in public schools and LGBT rights in employment were reversed, with Trump arguing that he favored a “state-by-state” approach. The policy first enumerated under Hillary Clinton’s State Department permitting transgender Americans to change their gender identities on their passports was also quietly scuttled by the Trump administration.

Net neutrality was also killed despite a voracious fight put up by some technological giants in the field in a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Internet service providers began selling “internet fast lanes” and “digital customizable packages” to their customers[39]. Internet users now have to pay for “premium” packages to visit less highly-trafficked websites, with priority given to websites that have paid to be beneficiaries of the internet fast lanes[40]. Many smaller websites and user communities nearly collapsed overnight, as the diversity of content on the internet shrunk considerably. Much of the public did not oppose these measures when they were first proposed, being largely ignorant of what net neutrality was or what it entailed.[41]

In May 2017[42], Donald Trump became the first President not to invoke the presidential waiver for the Jerusalem Assembly Act. Since Bill Clinton’s second term, each President would invoke a waiver written into the law to defer the implementation of the Jerusalem Assembly Act on the basis of national security for a period of six months[43]. However, President Trump, after consultations with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, opted to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Congressional Democrats were severely divided in whether or not to unite in opposing this development. Mere days afterwards, the current embassy was attacked by a Palestinian suicide bomber, killing four and wounding fifty.

Trump’s immigration policies also engendered international controversy. Immigrants who are Muslim, from Muslim-majority countries or from a nation that had a recent terrorist incident were required to answer questions about Sharia law, gender equality, jihad, and the U.S. Constitution under the Restoring National Security Act[44]. The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was also reactivated, registering all men over sixteen from Muslim-majority nations[45]. No new Syrian refugees were permitted to enter the United States, and despite criticism from human rights groups, a majority of the public supported most if not all of these restrictions on Muslims entering the United States[46].

Ahead of the midterms, Congressional Republicans finally crafted a plan which enjoyed wide consensus from the House and Senate caucuses. The American Liberty Restoration Act[47], sponsored in the Senate by HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, would end the individual mandate beginning in fiscal year 2019. While critics argued that it would have destabilizing effects on the entire insurance market, the public had long opposed the individual mandate, with nearly two-thirds disapproving of being penalized for failing to carry health insurance[48]. President Trump signed the bill into law to great fanfare.

Despite the public largely favoring President Trump and the Republicans’ agenda, by the autumn of 2018, the economy was stagnating. While GDP growth had been 2.8% in 2017, it fell to 0.8% in 2018 and was well short of the goal of 4% growth promised by President Trump. After an initial decrease of just 0.2% from 2016 to 2017, the unemployment rate had increased from 4.8% to 5.7% by 2018, while the federal budget deficit had increased to $933.2 billion over the same period. Many Americans also faced a nearly 8% increase in the Consumer Price Index over the last two years[49] when it had only increased 12.4% over six and a half years under President Obama[50]. While the public overall approved of Trump’s job performance, there was no groundswell of support for him going to the polls in the midterm elections.

Sources in the link.

Senate determinations also in the link.

Ultimately I find this to be a useful tool simply to remember what Congress and Trump will be doing for at least the first year and it helps make a rough timeline of when each new political fight will start.
 

wildfire

Banned
I think this is like, politi-nerd satire, right?

If you look at the sources. No. The only criticism that can be made is that you can never predict the stuff that wasn't discussed on the campaign trail and that would be a silly point to make for obvious reasons.
 
If you look at the sources. No. The only criticism that can be made is that you can never predict the stuff that wasn't discussed on the campaign trail and that would be a silly point to make for obvious reasons.

Some of it was actually humorous, to be honest. And very optimistic in my opinion.. and I don't consider myself on the "the world's going to shit" bandwagon.

I half-way wish I was more educated so I'd pick up on the foreshadowed points of contention and to see what predictions turn up as true
 

mo60

Member
So according to the writer the GOP will be hurt during the 2018 midterm and the democrats may benefit from it.
 

JordanN

Banned
Ironically, the best we can hope for from a Drumpf presidency is if he continues to manage his business. It could distract him from actually doing presidential duties that would cause havoc on the world.

"Mr. President, we need you to sign these papers authorizing us to burn more coal and dump more oil into the sea."

"Uh, excuse me. I'm busy. I'm on the phone with my good pal Putin. He's cutting me on a deal to build not one but TWO Trump Hotels in Moscow. I don't know when I'll have time to sign this stuff. If ever. Now, leave my office."
 

Meffer

Member
The loss of net neutrality thing is the most scary thing. Many businesses and artists trying to show their work or projects (like me) are going to crash and burn.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
Random, but say Net Neutrality does fly out the window, which it sadly will probably be doing; it would still have a chance of coming back in 2020 right? I know a lot of people are going to be upset when they see their new internet bill after it's gone
 
Crazy fanfiction where Trump actually remembers even today, much less in several months time, that he promised to impose Congressional term limits or kick lobbyists out of Washington.

May as well throw Shadow the Hedgehog in at that point.
 

Meffer

Member
Random, but say Net Neutrality does fly out the window, which it sadly will probably be doing; it would still have a chance of coming back in 2020 right? I know a lot of people are going to be upset when they see their new internet bill after it's gone
Don't kid yourself.
Have fun paying more to go to NeoGaf like as if you were paying for NeoGaf Gold!
 

mo60

Member
The person who makes that prediction on the first year or two of trump's administration also makes a prediction on the 2018 midterms in that thread. I'm not going to spoil the prediction here.It's not super awful or great for the democrats. Another person predicts that pence will eventually become president, but that is probably a joke.
 

Meffer

Member
Random, but say Net Neutrality does fly out the window, which it sadly will probably be doing; it would still have a chance of coming back in 2020 right? I know a lot of people are going to be upset when they see their new internet bill after it's gone
And websites wouldn't be the only thing affected thing either. I bet my ass they'll restrict apps for priced packages too. Netflix, Steam and Discord being examples. It's scummy enough ISPs will do that shit.
Honestly the best chance to prevent this shit from happening is to really talk about it now. Not when it's at the cusp of the choice. Now make a HUGE stink about now. Tell everyone.
 
The loss of net neutrality thing is the most scary thing. Many businesses and artists trying to show their work or projects (like me) are going to crash and burn.

I highly, highly doubt it will come to that. Things may not be looking good right now, but that nightmare scenario in the post seems a bit too extreme to actually be realistic.

All we can do is keep throwing our voices out there to fight for Net Neutrality with all our might. Remember that nothing in that post is guaranteed. It's just speculation.
 

Meffer

Member
I highly, highly doubt it will come to that. Things may not be looking good right now, but that nightmare scenario in the post seems a bit too extreme to actually be realistic.

All we can do is keep throwing our voices out there to fight for Net Neutrality with all our might. Remember that nothing in that post is guaranteed. It's just speculation.
People thought Trump wouldn't become president. There's a difference saying no way it'll happen in a bubble to actually making the effort to prevent it.
 

wildfire

Banned
So according to the writer the GOP will be hurt during the 2018 midterm and the democrats may benefit from it.

The GOP won seats. You can click the link to see how many.


The loss of net neutrality thing is the most scary thing. Many businesses and artists trying to show their work or projects (like me) are going to crash and burn.

We're going to go through a weird phase when that shoe drops. The internet works partially because it allows fringe groups to work together. The death of net neutrality will cripple the fringe. I say kill instead of cripple because I think 2-3 large sites will arise to cater to the fringe communities. Reddit already serves this function and it seems Instagram is poised to do that but they could screw that up.

Hopefully whoever tries to compete with Reddit doesn't do a bad carbon copy and make themselves very different.


Don't kid yourself.
Have fun paying more to go to NeoGaf like as if you were paying for NeoGaf Gold!

NEOgaf is in the top 3 for largest messageboards. I doubt GAF will be affected by Net Neutrality in the same way smaller sites are especially with the funding it gets indirectly from users. Somethngawful might comeback in popularity and 4chan might get a crippling blow because S/A knows how to get money while 4chan is clearly strapped for cash and has been for awhile.
 

Trouble

Banned
A lot of this seems reasonably believable. I especially think that they won't repeal the ACA, because they'll realize there would be a ton of political fallout for literally killing people.

I think Ben Carson and maybe Rick Perry will withdraw after getting absolutely skewered during hearings because they are both supremely unqualified for their cabinet positions.
 
Yeah, I can't imagine the "overnight" scenario re: net neutrality being met with anything but a massive public uproar if it actually came to pass in reality.

Data caps and throttling are one thing (and is the more realistic immediate result of NN going bye-bye), but actually restricting viewing content? It'd be a madhouse regardless of political affiliation.
 

mo60

Member
The GOP won seats. You can click the link to see how many.




We're going to go through a weird phase when that shoe drops. The internet works partially because it allows fringe groups to work together. The death of net neutrality will cripple the fringe. I say kill instead of cripple because I think 2-3 large sites will arise to cater to the fringe communities. Reddit already serves this function and it seems Instagram is poised to do that but they could screw that up.

Hopefully whoever tries to compete with Reddit doesn't do a bad carbon copy and make themselves very different.




NEOgaf is in the top 3 for largest messageboards. I doubt GAF will be affected by Net Neutrality in the same way smaller sites are especially with the funding it gets indirectly from users. Somethngawful might comeback in popularity and 4chan might get a crippling blow because S/A knows how to get money while 4chan is clearly strapped for cash and has been for awhile.

I hinted at that in a post in this thread.
 
This has been the case for every Midterm ever barring special circumstances. President's party gets punished.

Yeah, only three times since the Civil War when this hasn't been true, with the most recent being 1998 (public mad at GOP for making such a big deal of Bill's infidelity) and 2002 (9/11). 1934 was the other, which was a pretty unique time.

I don't expect 2018 to be a fourth time. Question is how many seats will the Democrats win, in my opinion.
 

KingBroly

Banned
What is the basis for the drop in GDP?

Inflation rate increases take 2 years to really hit the market, which will slow the economy.


Personally I think this is a poor article.


IMO, Trump could appoint 3 SCOTUS Justices by year's end (Scalia's seat, along with Kennedy and Thomas if they retire). That's a real possibility. Maybe 4 in 3 years, depending on Ginsburg.
 

mo60

Member
Supposedly people in that thread have made other predictions related to US politics that actually look serious like predictions of Pence and Sherrod Brown getting the presidency eventually.

I would like this a lot more if this was written as predictions instead of as past-tense alternate history.

A lot of the predictions are like that in that thread including the ones involving countries like Canada, the UK and etc.Some are actually not serious like the Justin trudeau one and the Margaret Thatcher one. Some predictions are more focused on the future.
 
It was written as if all the Democrats were killed or didn't do anything to stop some of the crazy plans. I also see the general public rising against all of these policies which will make them very hard to pass. I am not saying that non in the list are going to happen, but a vast majority of them won't pass. We also have to consider 2018 election year and despite the not so good chances of Democrats winning majority, if they do Trump won't be able to do anything about his plans. The best thing that Democrats could do is to play the republican game directly instead of holding the moral ground. It's been proven over and over that having a more moral stance in politics in the States just cost you elections.
 
Inflation rate increases take 2 years to really hit the market, which will slow the economy.


Personally I think this is a poor article.


IMO, Trump could appoint 3 SCOTUS Justices by year's end (Scalia's seat, along with Kennedy and Thomas if they retire). That's a real possibility. Maybe 4 in 3 years, depending on Ginsburg.

That scenario actually seems fairly optimistic. Filling Scalia and Thomas' (if he retires) seats with rabid conservatives wouldn't change the ideological composition; we'd still have a conservative-leaning court with a swing vote (Kennedy). Only if Kennedy or Ginsburg/Breyer retire or expire will the court become firmly conservative. All of the others (Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito) seem young and healthy enough to survive through two Trump terms in a worst-case scenario.
 

ISOM

Member
And websites wouldn't be the only thing affected thing either. I bet my ass they'll restrict apps for priced packages too. Netflix, Steam and Discord being examples. It's scummy enough ISPs will do that shit.
Honestly the best chance to prevent this shit from happening is to really talk about it now. Not when it's at the cusp of the choice. Now make a HUGE stink about now. Tell everyone.

Talking about it won't do shit when the people elected in november cater to corporations more than the people. We had a choice, Democrats were firmly in the pronetneutrality camp and people chose Repulbicans knowing their procorpation stance. We're heading for the inevitable. Thanks Trump voters.
 
People thought Trump wouldn't become president. There's a difference saying no way it'll happen in a bubble to actually making the effort to prevent it.

People really need to stop playing this "People thought X wouldn't happen" card. It adds nothing to the discussion and only encourages people to keep up an attitude of defeatism when confronting future problems.

I'm not saying "no way it will happen." I'm saying it's highly unlikely it'll play out exactly like this scenario this person described.

I mean, if there is a massive effort by many major tech companies, I'd say it's likely that most of the public will be made aware of Net Neutrality's existence by them that will join the fight, to which they'd become aware of what could happen should it go away.

If the fight fails like she suggests, do you really expect ISPs to kick people while they're down and go straight to the scenario millions of people tried to avoid? No. They'd be aware of the massive backlash.

They'll most likely make things difficult with questionable services (like zero rating), but the prospect of millions of websites just shutting down at once is what feels like a huge exaggeration here.

Talking about it won't do shit when the people elected in november cater to corporations more than the people. We had a choice, Democrats were firmly in the pronetneutrality camp and people chose Repulbicans knowing their procorpation stance. We're heading for the inevitable. Thanks Trump voters.

Enough with this freaking defeatism. This kind of attitude is exactly what these people want. Stop acting like everything you fear is now 100% guaranteed. Now's the time to resist more than ever and make sure voices are heard.
 
People really need to stop playing this "People thought X wouldn't happen" card. It adds nothing to the discussion and only encourages people to keep up an attitude of defeatism when confronting future problems.

I'm not saying "no way it will happen." I'm saying it's highly unlikely it'll play out exactly like this scenario this person described.

I mean, if there is a massive effort by many major tech companies, I'd say it's likely that most of the public will be made aware of Net Neutrality's existence by them that will join the fight, to which they'd become aware of what could happen should it go away.

If the fight fails like she suggests, do you really expect ISPs to kick people while they're down and go straight to the scenario millions of people tried to avoid? No. They'd be aware of the massive backlash.

They'll most likely make things difficult with questionable services (like zero rating), but the prospect of millions of websites just shutting down at once is what feels like a huge exaggeration here.

Enough with this freaking defeatism. This kind of attitude is exactly what these people want. Stop acting like everything you fear is now 100% guaranteed. Now's the time to resist more than ever and make sure voices are heard.

LOL, so what if tech companies get involved and preach against it? You will still have other major companies that will be for it and thus muddying the information about just what "net neutrality" is such that the average consumer is left clueless and divided. And, ISPs only care about profit not what their consumers whine about, they'll shove it down our throats and when consumers finally complain they won't have anyone to turn to. If every ISP guts their services into "premium" packages what exactly can a consumer do?
 

Ozigizo

Member
LOL, so what if tech companies get involved and preach against it? You will still have other major companies that will be for it and thus muddying the information about just what "net neutrality" is such that the average consumer is left clueless and divided. And, ISPs only care about profit not what their consumers whine about, they'll shove it down our throats and when consumers finally complain they won't have anyone to turn to. If every ISP guts their services into "premium" packages what exactly can a consumer do?

You're talking about billion dollar tech giants that have spoken out against the end of net neutrality already. Like, it's already happened, why wouldn't it happen again?
 

ISOM

Member
Enough with this freaking defeatism. This kind of attitude is exactly what these people want. Stop acting like everything you fear is now 100% guaranteed. Now's the time to resist more than ever and make sure voices are heard.

I'm being realist because I knew what was at stake in November. Republicans campaigned on deregulation, and being for corporations. It seems like you guys didn't realize this and why you're trying to label me defeatist.
 

danthefan

Member
It'll be interesting to see how Trump deals with being massively unpopular, which surely must happen very quickly after he takes office. I wonder will he keep tweeting once he's in office.
 

DiscoJer

Member
Yeah, only three times since the Civil War when this hasn't been true, with the most recent being 1998 (public mad at GOP for making such a big deal of Bill's infidelity) and 2002 (9/11). 1934 was the other, which was a pretty unique time.

I don't expect 2018 to be a fourth time. Question is how many seats will the Democrats win, in my opinion.

In the house, sure, but in the Senate there are 23 Democrats up for re-election, compared to only 8 Republicans.

And here in Missouri it will be interesting, because McCaskill only won last time because she got the Republicans to nominate a crazy person (Todd Akin). And a lot of the other ones are in states that Trump won.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
Random, but say Net Neutrality does fly out the window, which it sadly will probably be doing; it would still have a chance of coming back in 2020 right? I know a lot of people are going to be upset when they see their new internet bill after it's gone
Definitely not happening. Once this income stream comes up, people aren't gonna let go of it.

In Canada, income tax was supposed to be a temporary wartime measure, but of course it didn't go away once the war was over.
 

komplanen

Member
I'm a foreigner and have never heard of this person. Can you give me a short introduction to who she is and why people take her for real on this?
 

Chichikov

Member
Seems pretty like a pretty decent prediction.
The one thing I think she's off is the net neutrality stuff. Don't get me wrong, I think it's gone, but I don't think it will play quite like that, I really don't see ISPs charging money for access to certain websites any time soon. I think what we'll see is major services/websites having to pay ISPs to get decent speed and to not count against data caps. I think this is awful and will really hurt innovation in the long term, but short term most people will not notice it, and that's how they'll get away with it.

Also this -
I would like this a lot more if this was written as predictions instead of as past-tense alternate history.
 
LOL, so what if tech companies get involved and preach against it? You will still have other major companies that will be for it and thus muddying the information about just what "net neutrality" is such that the average consumer is left clueless and divided. And, ISPs only care about profit not what their consumers whine about, they'll shove it down our throats and when consumers finally complain they won't have anyone to turn to. If every ISP guts their services into "premium" packages what exactly can a consumer do?

Literally the only companies that don't like Net Neutrality are ISPs. The rest of them are for it. Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. They made it clear what it was, there was a whole John Oliver segment on what it was, this is something that has broad bipartisan support among tons of people.

At the very least, people like them should be able to mitigate the damage a considerable amount.

I'm being realist because I knew what was at stake in November. Republicans campaigned on deregulation, and being for corporations. It seems like you guys didn't realize this and why you're trying to label me defeatist.

It's not realist at all. None of this is freaking guaranteed to happen.

I'm labeling you as defeatist because you're jumping to the conclusion that all attempts at making voices heard is immediately worthless because of one election.

It's never worthless, and you shouldn't encourage other people to think that way, as that what may end up doing the real damage.

Seems pretty like a pretty decent prediction.
The one thing I think she's off is the net neutrality stuff. Don't get me wrong, I think it's gone, but I don't think it will play quite like that, I really don't see ISPs charging money for access to certain websites any time soon. I think what we'll see is major services/websites having to pay ISPs to get decent speed and to not count against data caps. I think this is awful and will really hurt innovation in the long term, but short term most people will not notice it, and that's how they'll get away with it.

Also this -

See, this feels like a more realistic prediction that paints an accurate picture of what's at risk here.

Tech giants and advocates need to go on double time to be able to mitigate this to some extent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom