Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

Trump on Hannity tonight. The backtracking by Fox News is hilarious to watch.

 

[Retromelon]

To be fair, if i ever had to point out an interview where Stewart got rekt, that'd be it.

Also does a wonderful job of showing how... weird Rumfeld's thought process is, tho.

The point being, if you had seen it you would be hard pressed to say jons debating skills are lacking

 

[Poodlestrike]

Im pretty sure war has changed. There are no more nation states that will go toe to toe with us unless they want to get bulldozed by America's mighty dick like Baathist Iraq. No matter how much the Republicans want to bomb Iran, we will never face off with them. What we will be seeing a lot of is ISIS styled insurgency if a war does break out.

War has changed.

What I'm concerned about is it changing back. War between comparably powerful nation-states is currently impossible because of MAD; anybody without enough firepower to compete with the US in any theater at all also probably has nukes, which makes any sort of large-scale conflict between us and them basically impossible because at the end of the day nobody wants to end the world just to prove a point.

But that will not always be the case. Somebody, somewhere, at some point will develop, deploy, and publicize a reliable countermeasure to ICBMs. That's going to change... everything, really.

 

[Coriolanus]

But that will not always be the case. Somebody, somewhere, at some point will develop, deploy, and publicize a reliable countermeasure to ICBMs. That's going to change... everything, really.

You're thinking of direct strikes. If you expand your view of ICBMs to factor the indirect damage that you can cause with them, there's no reason to worry about that time coming any time soon.

I mean, tsar bomba was more than fifty years ago.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/general-election-tight-in-iowa.html

Tight polling in Iowa. At this point, looks much more like 2004 than 2008 or 2012. Caveat: the election is in 15 months.

 

[Retromelon]

War has changed.

What I'm concerned about is it changing back. War between comparably powerful nation-states is currently impossible because of MAD; anybody without enough firepower to compete with the US in any theater at all also probably has nukes, which makes any sort of large-scale conflict between us and them basically impossible because at the end of the day nobody wants to end the world just to prove a point.

But that will not always be the case. Somebody, somewhere, at some point will develop, deploy, and publicize a reliable countermeasure to ICBMs. That's going to change... everything, really.

There are a million other weapons and technologies that are just as brutal. When an icbm defense is developed, it doesnt guarantee that wars in the old way will follow. Technology has given us too much capability to inflict harm and intolerable battlefield conditions for that. Nukes are just the catch all symbol for this, not the one impediment to world war 3

 

[Poodlestrike]

You're thinking of direct strikes. If you expand your view of ICBMs to factor the indirect damage that you can cause with them, there's no reason to worry about that time coming any time soon.

I mean, tsar bomba was more than fifty years ago.

Maybe. Depends on the method of denial. If you can kill it while it's still in the upper atmosphere, damage could (potentially) be pretty minimal.

There are a million other weapons and technologies that are just as brutal. When an icbm defense is developed, it doesnt guarantee that wars in the old way will follow. Technology has given us too much capability to inflict harm and intolerable battlefield conditions for that. Nukes are just the catch all symbol for this, not the one impediment to world war 3

They said that after WWI. Second strike capability ensures MAD, and second strike depends on ICBMs. Everything else is just better versions of what we've had before.

 

[Retromelon]

'Just better versions' is a mite dismissive for 100 years of progress. I remain unconvinced.

 

[Konka]

There are a million other weapons and technologies that are just as brutal. When an icbm defense is developed, it doesnt guarantee that wars in the old way will follow. Technology has given us too much capability to inflict harm and intolerable battlefield conditions for that. Nukes are just the catch all symbol for this, not the one impediment to world war 3

Eh, nukes are the only weapons we have that could really cause the end of society as we know it.

 

[Poodlestrike]

'Just better versions' is a mite dismissive for 100 years of progress. I remain unconvinced.

I'm just saying; the horror at the deployment of conventional weapons lasts 1-2 generations, tops. What's maintained the current (relative) peace between major powers is the looming threat of permanent annihilation. Take that out of the equation, and Russia invades Poland tomorrow.

Or maybe not exactly that, but shit gets real very fucking quickly.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/general-election-tight-in-iowa.html

Tight polling in Iowa. At this point, looks much more like 2004 than 2008 or 2012. Caveat: the election is in 15 months.

Trump's 21% standing as an independent becomes a little less impressive when you consider that Deez Nuts also polls at 7% as an independent, which sort of suggests that might be the floor for a third party candidate. (Clinton leads Trump 41/36 in the iteration of the horse race including Mr. Nuts.)

...

 

[Fragamemnon]

They said that after WWI. Second strike capability ensures MAD, and second strike depends on ICBMs. Everything else is just better versions of what we've had before.

SLBMs - the thing that actually makes modern MAD safe and effective - would be much much harder to counter than land based ICBMs and if you had the general technology to counter them you could likely do even worse things to enemies with other applications of that technology.

Symmetrical warfare is something that we have to have plans for but always considering the opportunity cost of doing so is extremely high due to its low probability. The real problem is that we have programs for symmetrical warfare that are getting terrible bang for the buck. Everyone is fine funding the military, just- like other government agencies-make them shitbin doomed projects sooner and faster.

 

[Plinko]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/general-election-tight-in-iowa.html

Tight polling in Iowa. At this point, looks much more like 2004 than 2008 or 2012. Caveat: the election is in 15 months.

LOL at Carson leading. I give him two more debates before he craters.

 

[Retromelon]

Everyone is fine funding the military, just- like other government agencies-make them shitbin doomed projects sooner and faster.

There is no legislation that could enforce that. It would have to be a chain of command thing and would therefore be highly unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Fragamemnon]

There is no legislation that could enforce that. It would have to be a chain of command thing and would therefore be highly unlikely to ever happen.

Congress gets involved in per-project funding battles with the Pentagon all the time, usually to prop up failed or unwanted weapons platforms in order to prop up local economies.

 

[Ecotic]

I'm just saying; the horror at the deployment of conventional weapons lasts 1-2 generations, tops. What's maintained the current (relative) peace between major powers is the looming threat of permanent annihilation. Take that out of the equation, and Russia invades Poland tomorrow.

Or maybe not exactly that, but shit gets real very fucking quickly.

What about economic interdependence and wealth creation keeping the peace? Russia is practically the only major power that's a threat to relative stability because their economy is so dismal. Even China if unrestrained would only want Taiwan and the South China Sea, relatively small potatoes, and China might not even attempt to take Taiwan due to hopes for a peaceful reunification and how costly a war it would be.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm reading about the Effective Altruism Global conference on Vox. That is, the idea that philanthropy and charity is not really effective despite how much we give, so using modern tools (tech, etc.) to help us determine how to better allocate our charity would make us more 'effective'.

Oh my god.


I had a laugh caught in my throat. I suppose over-intelligence wrecks the brain's ability to reason for some things.

Screw people!

On that note, is there any part of Silicon Valley/SF technolibertarian thought that isn't awful? Even if you get past the uniform misogyny and ageism of the movement, you're left with these ideas that don't actually benefit people and allocate resources very poorly.

"The one thing I don't like about our own AI is that it's almost too good."

You are all wrong. They are being very responsible. They are just thinking very long term. I don't expect a lot of people to understand but I expect better from PoliGAF.

Many of the biggest problems mankind faces are the solutions we create for previous problems. Human labor is slow and wimpy so we had an industrial revolution that solved that problem. However, it created technology that enabled the biggest shit shows the world has ever seen, WW1 & WW2. Death on efficient mass production scale.

The Fritz-Haber process for creating fertilizer and the green revolution allowed us to reproduce like algae such that we now have a staggering population that is becoming more and more difficult to sustain and is swallowing up non renewable resources at an alarming rate.

Our industrialization and massive population is now so powerful that we are altering the composition of the atmosphere thus causing climate change. Sea levels are rising, heat waves massive fires, etc.

You can't just directly address short-term problems with band-aid solutions. That often just creates more problems. If you feed a bunch of starving people in the desert then what you will end up with is MORE starving people in the desert. You need to look at the longer term possible implications of the solutions you create to try to avoid potential unforeseen consequences.

So the silicon valley people are funding some efforts to investigate and try to prevent/mitigate long term potential problems from the technology they create. That is a good thing. Are the potential problems as big some think? Who knows? But that is the point . . . try to make sure those potential unforeseen problems don't exist or are prevented. And they are spending millions of dollars on this, not billions.

That math presented is very interesting and makes sense. Some of this stuff is very long-term. Elon Musk in particular is into that. Hence his donation to the AI danger stuff, his long-term goal of making humans a two planet species, a transformation to non internal combustion based transport, a transformation to solar PV harvested energy, etc.

And the Google guys too. They've been huge supporters of EVs and renewable energy.

JUST feeding starving people is not a good idea. Things must be done to make situations more sustainable. And this is why things like Bill Gates' move to address childhood diseases is a big one since if you lower childhood mortality, you'll reduce the fertility rate since people won't produce so many children if they know their children will survive.


On the AI danger stuff . . . I've actually done some work in the field. Personally, I think they are jumping the gun a bit. I don't think we are within 20 years of superpowerful AI. It might not even be possible within a 100 years due to technology limitations (hitting the end of the Moore's law, quantum effects, thermal issues, leakage, etc.). But it might be. And it doesn't hurt to throw a few million at looking at potential long term problems.

It would have been nice if the inventors of the internal combustion engine and automatic weaponry had tried to create a proto-united nations. And we should all be grateful for the inventor of dynamite who created a Peace Prize to promote peace efforts.

 

[Retromelon]

Congress gets involved in per-project funding battles with the Pentagon all the time, usually to prop up failed or unwanted weapons platforms in order to prop up local economies.

1. What about all the secret projects that don't get press, if the military doesnt want to deal with the prospect of cancellation they will designate more projects to be conducted secretly.
2. The bill would be liberals and rinos destroying our military bait from day 1

 

[ThLunarian]

It would be incredible to see a four-way race of Clinton vs Bush vs Trump vs Sanders. It's too bad I think Sanders ruled out the possibility of running as an independent.

 

[Fragamemnon]

You are all wrong. They are being very responsible. They are just thinking very long term. I don't expect a lot of people to understand but I expect better from PoliGAF.


On the AI danger stuff . . . I've actually done some work in the field. Personally, I think they are jumping the gun a bit. I don't think we are within 20 years of superpowerful AI. It might not even be possible within a 100 years due to technology limitations (hitting the end of the Moore's law, quantum effects, thermal issues, leakage, etc.). But it might be. And it doesn't hurt to throw a few million at looking at potential long term problems.

My comment was specifically hitting at their focus the article mentions on existential grade threats. I don't have a problem with something like a breakout session at a conference like this to talk about those, but a conference about 'effective global altruism' should be about effective capital distribution to benefit less advantaged populations and using technology to identify new and innovative ways to flow capital to those populations.

The article made it sound like they had something interesting they all agreed on, came up with the most ridiculous pseudoscience spin on the old Carter catastrophe concept, and then wanked the rest of the conference away talking about the massive EV you get for your dollar dealing with this existential threat while almost completely ignoring the opportunity cost elephant in the room.

1. What about all the secret projects that don't get press, if the military doesnt want to deal with the prospect of cancellation they will designate more projects to be conducted secretly.
2. The bill would be liberals and rinos destroying our military bait from day 1

1) makes for an extremely small actual amount of research work vs. the greater overall military budget mostly of open procurement, personnel, and operations. Those 'secret' items are not kept secret from Congress to boot.
2) Liberals are looking for reform in the way spending is allocated to prevent excess and abuse moreso than drawing back personnel and procurement. We'd like to at least have a conversation about those items since opportunity cost for their current levels is actually massive, but the way congress funds the military right now needs some change. We're literally building things the armed forces doesn't want.

 

[RustyNails]

It would be incredible to see a four-way race of Clinton vs Bush vs Trump vs Sanders. It's too bad I think Sanders ruled out the possibility of running as an independent.

Why is that bad? Sanders would spoil the race for Clinton. Even if Trump spoils it for Jeb, its too much of a risk for Clinton. She is not absolutely formidable.

 

[lednerg]

Um, so, Lawrence Lessig is running for president...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-for-president-in-a-most-unconventional-way/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaqrQz71bMk

 

[ThLunarian]

Why is that bad? Sanders would spoil the race for Clinton. Even if Trump spoils it for Jeb, its too much of a risk for Clinton. She is not absolutely formidable.

You're probably right, but I'm talking more about making history than anything else. A presidential election where four candidates each have a chance of receiving a substantial percentage of votes would be pretty momentous

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Um, so, Lawrence Lessig is running for president...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-for-president-in-a-most-unconventional-way/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaqrQz71bMk

I can't support a president who doesn't get properly sized glasses

 

[B-Dubs]

...

HA HA! GOT EM!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

HA HA! GOT EM!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/deez-nuts-is-running-for-president/

 

[Black Republican]

538 saying Bernie's poll surge is over

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/?ex_cid=story-twitter

 

[Plinko]

Come on, Biden. Now is the time.

 

[Jack Remington]

The presidential numbers from this Reuters/Ipsos poll (PDF Link) are staggering. The poll is Aug 6-10, all taken after the debate. It was the most watched primary debate ever, but it seems that all that coverage isn't helping to improve the image of this Republican field at all.

Primary numbers:

Trump - 24
Bush - 12
Rubio - 8
Huckabee - 8
Carson - 8
Walker - 7
Fiorina - 6
Cruz - 5


Presidential numbers:

Clinton - 41
Bush - 29

Clinton - 44
Walker - 24

Clinton - 42
Christie - 25

Clinton - 44
Carson - 24

Clinton - 41
Cruz - 27

Clinton - 41
Rubio - 28

Clinton - 43
Trump - 29

At this point, Trump holds up just as well as any of the other candidates in the general election.

Hillary's numbers don't look too good. She's got to be really concerned if she's only polling in the low 40s. Sure, the Republican numbers don't look so great at face value, but those people who answered "Neither" or "Don't know/Other" will come around by election night and bury Hillary.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Hillary's numbers don't look too good. She's got to be really concerned if she's only polling in the low 40s. Sure, the Republican numbers don't look so great at face value, but those people who answered "Neither" or "Don't know/Other" will come around by election night and bury Hillary.

She is polling like an incumbent. She is not going to win election day voting. She will as Obama did concentrate on early voting and turnout among the base. She and her opponent will only be contesting about 10 states. I assume Obama was polling this bad in 2011. Don't rule out her opponent also having underwater numbers.

15 months till election day, right ivysaur?

 

[Fragamemnon]

Hillary's numbers don't look too good. She's got to be really concerned if she's only polling in the low 40s. Sure, the Republican numbers don't look so great at face value, but those people who answered "Neither" or "Don't know/Other" will come around by election night and bury Hillary.

The number of undecideds in those head to heads is huge though and a far cry from what you would see even two months out from Election Day.

 

[HylianTom]

Hillary's numbers don't look too good. She's got to be really concerned if she's only polling in the low 40s. Sure, the Republican numbers don't look so great at face value, but those people who answered "Neither" or "Don't know/Other" will come around by election night and bury Hillary.

Those numbers will look better as more Democrats come home. She's winning, what, 70-75% of Dems here? Getting that up to around 90% will get her comfortably into the mid-40s, especially if the electorate still has Dem party ID anywhere near 2012.

For her GOP opponents, it looks like they have more room to expand from voters coming home (which is natural, given how divided their primaries currently are), but given how much lower their overall general numbers are, it looks like they'd have to win indies by a pretty large margin.

I really wish that this survey release had come with better crosstabs.

 

[ivysaur12]

There will be polls showing Republicans ahead of Hillary. There will be polls showing Hillary ahead of Republicans. She will be down in Iowa. She will be up in North Carolina. She will be neck-and-neck in Pennsylvania. She will be up in Nevada. She will be down in Nevada. These are how these things work.

Also, the election is in 15 months.

EDIT: Also, whoa, I didn't realize Roy Blunt was so unpopular:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/missouri-senate-governors-races-competitive.html

PPP's new poll for the Senate and Governor in Missouri finds pretty close races for both offices, defined by a mix of candidates who are either unknown or unpopular.

Roy Blunt is one of the least popular Senators in the country, with only 30% of voters approving of the job he's doing to 47% who disapprove. Blunt has become increasingly unpopular over the course of his first term in the Senate. When PPP last polled the state right before the 2012 election voters were closely divided in their feelings about him with 35% approving and 34% disapproving. Blunt is quite unpopular with independents (24/52) and Democrats (17/62) but what really makes his numbers soft is that he's only at 46/28 approval even with Republican voters. Those are the kinds of numbers that usually make you susceptible to a primary challenge.

Blunt leads Democratic challenger Jason Kander 40/35 for reelection with 25% of voters undecided. That high level of indecision may have a lot to do with voters just not being that familiar with Kander at this point- only 35% know enough about him to have formed an opinion either way.

The Governor's race looks like a sheer toss up at this point. Republican hopeful Peter Kinder leads Democratic candidate Chris Koster 40-37. But Koster has leads of 4-8 points over the rest of GOP field- it's 39/35 over Bob Dixon, 40/36 over Catherine Hanaway, 40/35 over Randy Asbury, 41/36 over John Brunner, 40/34 over Eric Greitens, and 39/31 over Bart Korman.

The high level of undecideds in all of those match ups reflects how little known the candidates are at this point. Kinder is the only candidate with greater than 50% name recognition, at 54%. The only other candidates over 40% name recognition are Koster at 47% and Hanaway at 42%.
That name recognition advantage also vaults Kinder to an early lead in the Republican primary for Governor. He gets 27% to 11% for Hanaway, 9% for Brunner, 7% for Dixon, 5% for Asbury, 4% for Greitens, and less than 1% for Korman. A plurality of voters at 37% remain undecided.

One final note from Missouri- Jay Nixon is now a pretty unpopular Governor with only 36% of voters approving of the job he's doing to 48% who disapprove. He was at 51/31 right on the eve of his reelection in 2012. Nixon's approval with African Americans is only 49/37, compared to 84/4 for President Obama in the state.

 

[Plinko]

Trump tweeted that he's getting the entire hour on Hannity. That seems like overkill. Perhaps they're taking the, "we'll just let him bring himself down" route.

 

[speculawyer]

I can't support a president who doesn't get properly sized glasses

LOL. He indeed looks goofy. It makes him look like a 1930's German physicist.

 

[NeoXChaos]

There will be polls showing Republicans ahead of Hillary. There will be polls showing Hillary ahead of Republicans. She will be down in Iowa. She will be up in North Carolina. She will be neck-and-neck in Pennsylvania. She will be up in Nevada. She will be down in Nevada. These are how these things work.

Also, the election is in 15 months.

EDIT: Also, whoa, I didn't realize Roy Blunt was so unpopular:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/missouri-senate-governors-races-competitive.html

Just like McConnell but once they find out Kander voted with Obama and Hillary 90% of the time he is toast. He will probably share the same fate as Grimes and Carnahan.

 

[PantherLotus]

Spec, that link and your reaction should be its own post. There's a lot to discuss there, not the least of which the very real concern of blowing off poverty as a 'rounding error,' which is profoundly insensitive.

In any case I'm with you in that their approach should at least be one approach. Just not sure doing so in the guise of a collection of charitable causes is the most appropriate place to do so.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Just like McConnell but once they find out Kander voted with Obama and Hillary 90% of the time he is toast.

What position did Kander hold that he could have voted 90% of the time with Obama and Hillary?

 

[ivysaur12]

Just like McConnell but once they find out Kander voted with Obama and Hillary 90% of the time he is toast.

Well, good think that Kander is just a Secretary of State and not a voting member of Congress.

But yes, I'm suspicious that a one-term Secretary of State is going to beat an incumbent Senator in a state Hillary will not win.

 

[Yellowtail]

New Morning Consult Poll. Trump again fairing better than Walker in general election matchups:

Clinton - 44%
Bush - 41%

Clinton - 46%
Paul - 39%

Clinton - 46%
Rubio - 39%

Clinton - 47%
Trump - 41%

Clinton - 48%
Walker - 35%

Clinton's national numbers are identical to Obama's in 2011. She's running worse than he did in heavily white states like MN and IA, but at least as well in more diverse states like FL, NV, AZ, and VA. I guess for her team that's got to be a win that she's holding his coalition together. White liberals will come home on election day. She's noticeably not doing any better than him among white women, but I don't think the historic nature of her candidacy will really start to really kick in among women until after the DNC convention.

But really none of these poll numbers matter till March.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/deez-nuts-is-running-for-president/

I know, I was just making a joke.

Come on, Biden. Now is the time.

Diamond Joe has entered the ring!

Spoiler

Please?

 

[ivysaur12]

We're all going to kill ourselves in the next 15 months, aren't we?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Honestly I don't buy the white women argument. They don't seem to like her, and aren't going to simply support her due to the "historic" nature of the pick. White women are smart. They saw how the last "historic" candidate turned out, why would they fall for that again?

 

[Konka]

Honestly I don't buy the white women argument. They don't seem to like her, and aren't going to simply support her due to the "historic" nature of the pick. White women are smart. They saw how the last "historic" candidate turned out, why would they fall for that again?

Because it's still much better for them than the alternative.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Honestly I don't buy the white women argument. They don't seem to like her, and aren't going to simply support her due to the "historic" nature of the pick. White women are smart. They saw how the last "historic" candidate turned out, why would they fall for that again?

she is not going to win white women but she as Tom mentioned earlier cut into the 14% margin Obama got in 2012.

 

[speculawyer]

There will be polls showing Republicans ahead of Hillary. There will be polls showing Hillary ahead of Republicans. She will be down in Iowa. She will be up in North Carolina. She will be neck-and-neck in Pennsylvania. She will be up in Nevada. She will be down in Nevada. These are how these things work.

Also, the election is in 15 months.

EDIT: Also, whoa, I didn't realize Roy Blunt was so unpopular:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/missouri-senate-governors-races-competitive.html

He's probably a victim of the general conservative anger.

Apparently conservatives are just incredibly angry these days. Angry that their politicians are not doing anything to stem the tide of liberalism, I guess? Gays in the military! A black president! Gays getting married! More dirty Immigrants!

Their impotent rage is real. They are pissed at their own politicians. And in defense of their politicians, their politicians can't do all that much except obstruct since they don't have the white house and they don't have 2/3's majorities to override vetoes.

But they are such assholes. They feel so entitled to run things that they can't understand why things are not getting done. They refuse to do what you are supposed to do . . . negotiate and compromise to keep things running.

And their impotent rage seems to express itself in the Boorish obnoxious j. Donald "When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo?" Trump. But it is INSANE. I heard this on the news the other day and I had to look for myself because I couldn't believe it was true. His web page literally HAS NO POLICY. It is a cult of personality.

Learn about Trump, volunteer, read Trump News, buy swag, donate to his campaign . . . but don't expect to get policy.
I'm wondering if it is worth creating a thread about the fact that the leading GOP presidential nominee's web page HAS NO POLICY WHATSOEVER.

And, yes, it is hilarious to read his web page with the Trump quote extension running.

Edit: Fuck it, I'm making the thread.

 

[Y2Kev]

New Morning Consult Poll. Trump again fairing better than Walker in general election matchups:

Clinton - 44%
Bush - 41%

Clinton - 46%
Paul - 39%

Clinton - 46%
Rubio - 39%

Clinton - 47%
Trump - 41%

Clinton - 48%
Walker - 35%

Clinton's national numbers are identical to Obama's in 2011. She's running worse than he did in heavily white states like MN and IA, but at least as well in more diverse states like FL, NV, AZ, and VA. I guess for her team that's got to be a win that she's holding his coalition together. White liberals will come home on election day. She's noticeably not doing any better than him among white women, but I don't think the historic nature of her candidacy will really start to really kick in among women until after the DNC convention.

But really none of these poll numbers matter till March.

Why would she be running worse than Obama in the "white" states? I guess I don't understand that. Because fewer non-white voters are polling for her?

 

[Abinash117]

I think general white women are more social liberal or moderate, but still really care about economic issues. If Democrats don't just focus exclusively on women's rights and abortion, she should do better than what Obama did.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Learn about Trump, volunteer, read Trump News, buy swag, donate to his campaign . . . but don't expect to get policy.
I'm wondering if it is worth creating a thread about the fact that the leading GOP presidential nominee's web page HAS NO POLICY WHATSOEVER.

And, yes, it is hilarious to read his web page with the Trump quote extension running.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who keeps that extension on. It makes politics right now bearable outside from the bananas "GONNA VOTE DONALD IF BERN DOESN"T WIN" types.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's numbers were atrociously bad around this time in 2011. The debt limit fight wore down everyone's approval ratings.

His didn't rebound until Jan 2012 or so.