USA - США - SAD

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:

Filipenko wrote:


Tebi je naravno jasno da Tramp nije na celu nikakve partije? Jeste, ima ogroman uticaj, ali kada on "pogura" nekog kandidata to znaci da taj medju republikancima ima vecinu. Odnosno, hocu da kazem, republikanci kao takvi su sljam, nema potrebe da se izgovaraju na Trampa sto na prajmarizima biraju njegove morone. Niko ih ne tera. Da ne pricamo sto vodjstvo republikanaca uvek ima izbor da se ostro suprotstavi Trampu, umesto da ga bockaju desesovsko-kuloarski.

Imaju opciju da mu se suprostave, lol. Pozdravila te Liz Čejni.

Filipenko wrote:

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:
Imaju opciju da mu se suprostave, lol. Pozdravila te Liz Čejni.

Kakve veze ima Liz Cejni, duboko nepopularna funjara iz tamo nekog Vajominga koja je lelujala izmedju demokrata i republikanaca i koja je ispusila najstrasnije u prajmarizima. Govorim o rukovodstvu republikanaca i njihovim najpopularnijim politicarima sa tvrdim bazama i jezgrom. Recimo Mic Mekonel je vrlo jasno protiv Trampa, ali je po prirodi republikanska fukara pa nece da ide do kraja. Liz Cejni je zlocinacka cerka zlocinca koja je pokusala da se umili raji laznim principima kojih se sama nije drzala, jer je sa Trampom ionako glasala u 95% situacija.

In a hypothetical contest between the two, Mr. DeSantis beats Mr. Trump, 52% to 38%, among likely GOP primary voters contemplating a race in which the first nomination votes will be cast in just over a year.
The poll found that Mr. DeSantis is both well-known and well-liked among Republicans who say they are likely to vote in a party primary or nominating contest, with 86% viewing the Florida governor favorably, compared with 74% who hold a favorable view of Mr. Trump. Only one in 10 likely GOP primary voters said they didn’t know enough about Mr. DeSantis to venture an opinion of him.
Among all registered voters, Mr. DeSantis is viewed favorably by 43%, compared with 36% for the former president. Favorable views of Mr. Trump were the lowest recorded in Journal polling dating to November 2021 and have been pulled down by a decline in positive feelings among Republicans. Since March, his favorable rating among GOP voters has fallen to 74% from 85%, while the share who view him unfavorably has risen to 23% from 13%.

Летећи Полип wrote:

In a hypothetical contest between the two, Mr. DeSantis beats Mr. Trump, 52% to 38%, among likely GOP primary voters contemplating a race in which the first nomination votes will be cast in just over a year.
The poll found that Mr. DeSantis is both well-known and well-liked among Republicans who say they are likely to vote in a party primary or nominating contest, with 86% viewing the Florida governor favorably, compared with 74% who hold a favorable view of Mr. Trump. Only one in 10 likely GOP primary voters said they didn’t know enough about Mr. DeSantis to venture an opinion of him.
Among all registered voters, Mr. DeSantis is viewed favorably by 43%, compared with 36% for the former president. Favorable views of Mr. Trump were the lowest recorded in Journal polling dating to November 2021 and have been pulled down by a decline in positive feelings among Republicans. Since March, his favorable rating among GOP voters has fallen to 74% from 85%, while the share who view him unfavorably has risen to 23% from 13%.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/just-in-desantis-holds-14-point-lead-over-trump-among-gop-voters-in-new-wsj-poll/ar-AA15gAE5

Peter Thiel has made his first public comments on this year’s US midterms, declaring the results “a depressing disaster” after ploughing more than $30mn into Republican races.
Thiel said the dire showing was particularly painful, given that the underlying fundamentals all seemed to be in Republicans’ favour. “The economy was a disaster; the inflation out of control; the energy policy terrible,” Thiel said. And yet still, Republicans had not been able to pull off a red wave victory.

The American left’s chronic Nimby problem
Progressives like to embrace worthy causes but not often at the cost of having their lives disrupted

Joe Biden’s clean energy bill rightly hit the headlines when it was passed in August. It was America’s biggest move by far to tackle global warming. Alas, there were few headlines last week to mark the torpedoing of that bill’s substantive hopes. An unholy alliance of leftwing Democrats and Republicans sank an accompanying bill that would have cut through red tape to ensure the clean energy projects can go ahead. The Republican motive was obvious: kill anything with Joe Biden’s name on it. The Democratic left’s motive was self-defeatingly familiar: “If it’s not perfect, we’re against it.” This trait is a feature not a bug of America’s progressive left. In this case, the 72 opposing Democratic lawmakers, including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, objected that the bill would also have enabled a West Virginia natural gas pipeline, which means fossil fuels. Yet it would also have shortened the Kafkaesque delays that stand in the way of building the new solar plants, clean-tech transmission lines and wind farms funded by last summer’s law. The net impact of the permitting bill’s demise is that it will now be all but impossible for Biden to meet his target of 50 per cent US net carbon reductions by the end of this decade.
This pinpoints two problems with America’s left. The first is an instinct for moral gesture over practical action. Many philosophers judge the goodness of an action by its outcome — in this case, sharply cutting carbon emissions. Others say an action’s morality should be judged by its intention — in this case, refusing to compromise on your reputational virtue. If you want to know why New York still lacks a congestion pricing system, or California’s high-speed rail system is a white elephant, you must confront the left’s moral preferences. In neither of those stymied projects are Republicans the main problem. The left’s second failing is hypocrisy. The “not in my backyard” instinct is hidden everywhere in plain sight. It explains why ultraliberal San Francisco’s housing is unaffordable: rich people do not want their property values marred by construction or their neighbourhoods filled with the wrong people. It explains why residents of the wealthy holiday island of Nantucket are blocking an offshore wind farm on the flimsy claim that it would disturb the local whales. The reality is they do not want their view spoiled. This could have been America’s first major offshore wind farm. The previous attempt in nearby Cape Cod was partly killed by the late Ted Kennedy, the local senator and scion of the family’s Hyannis Port compound.
Nimbyism captures both of the left’s worst traits: it is often those who most loudly profess their principles who are quickest to veto any disruption to their own lives. The economist Tyler Cowen labels the problem “Banana” — build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. The left and Republicans are strewing banana skins in the way of America’s clean energy transition. Under a 1970 environmental policy act, projects take an average of 4.5 years to complete their impact assessments. That is before litigation and other overruns. The law’s key flaw is that it emphasises the views of local communities over the benefits to millions who live elsewhere. Time and again, experience shows that “community participation” is captured by wealthy retirees and lawyers with time on their hands. The law was written before global warming became the issue. The same applies to America’s nuclear regulations. Virtually nothing has moved in the US civil nuclear industry since the Three Mile Island leak of 1979. Though no one died in that accident, Washington’s nuclear regulatory commission has made it nearly impossible to construct a new plant. The biggest mistake of Angela Merkel, Germany’s former chancellor, was to mothball the country’s nuclear energy sector in 2011. This gave Russia an even greater stranglehold on German energy and helped embolden Vladimir Putin. America’s allergy to new nuclear power is the slow-burning equivalent of Merkel’s blunder. Just 10 Americans have been killed by civil nuclear power, none from radiation. Last year tens of thousands of Americans died from air pollution. It is beyond obvious that the US must expand nuclear power if it is to reach net zero. Wind and sun on their own will not be enough. US progressives correctly insist that global warming poses the “greatest existential threat” to humanity. That line should be extended to “ . . . except for our wildly overdone fears of nuclear meltdown”, or “ . . . but not if it damages our property values”. At some point, America’s left must choose between having its cake and eating it.

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:

Die-hard fans of Trump who purchase 45 of these cards (that’s at least $4,455 worth of Trump NFTs) will be gifted a ticket to a dinner with the former president, according to the site. Less die-hard fans will be entered into “The Trump Sweepstakes,” where they can win one of “thousands” of prizes, including a one-hour golf game with Trump, autographed memorabilia, and a group zoom call. 

He has been charged with stealing a woman’s suitcase from a Minneapolis airport in September and another woman’s bag from a Las Vegas airport in July.

According to police in Las Vegas, Mr. Brinton was spotted on the baggage claim area’s surveillance cameras taking a $320 woman’s bag that contained more than $3,500 worth of jewelry, clothing and cosmetics.

Sean Hannity Testified He Didn't Believe Trump's Election Fraud Lies 'For 1 Second'
Sean Hannity was apparently willing to promote Donald Trump’s bogus election fraud claims on his Fox News show but unwilling to defend them while under oath.
The New York Times is reporting that when Hannity was deposed earlier this year as a part of a massive defamation lawsuit brought forward by Dominion Voting Systems against the right-wing network, he basically admitted his real thoughts about the 2020 election being stolen.
“I did not believe it for one second,” Hannity testified. (...)
In fact, Dominion lawyers argued in a Delaware courtroom on Wednesday that “not a single Fox witness” had produced anything that supported any of the bogus election fraud claims Trump and his supporters promoted after the 2020 presidential election.
Dominion lawyer Stephen Shackelford told the court that Hannity’s doubts were echoed in depositions with other Fox hosts and executives, including Tucker Carlson, who he said: “tried to squirm out of it at his deposition” when asked about what he really believed.

Tag yourself, we’re the war on MEAT! pic.twitter.com/xQOFBq8727

— The Recount (@therecount) December 24, 2022

The Great Gatsby Curve shows how hard it is for children to overcome their parents' income level. The easiest is for children in countries situated in the left-bottom part of the chart, i.e. low Gini coefficient and low Corak's score. The line in this chart has a positive slope.

The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940

One of the defining features of the “American dream” is the aspiration that children have a higher standard of living than their parents (1). (...)
Using this methodology, we found that rates of absolute upward income mobility in the United States have fallen sharply since 1940. Under the benchmark of copula stability, the fraction of children earning more than their parents fell from 92% in the 1940 birth cohort to 50% in the 1984 birth cohort. (...)
Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half century? There have been two important macroeconomic trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth (17). (...)
Together, these simulations show that increasing GDP growth without changing the current distribution of growth would have modest effects on rates of absolute mobility. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to the rates of absolute mobility seen in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small number of high income earners today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Hence, reviving the “American dream” of high rates of absolute mobility would require more broadly shared economic growth rather than just higher GDP growth rates.

Fig. 1 Baseline estimates of absolute mobility by birth cohort.
(A and B) The fraction of children earning more than their parents (“absolute mobility”) by parent income percentile for selected child birth cohorts (A) and on average by child birth cohort (B). Only parents with positive income are included in (A); within this group, parent income percentiles are constructed according to their ranks in the distribution of parents’ incomes within each child cohort. Parents with zero income are included in (B), defining absolute mobility as 100% for that subgroup when computing the mean rate of absolute mobility by cohort. Child income is measured at age 30 in the CPS March supplement as the sum of individual and spousal income, excluding immigrants after 1994. Parent income is measured in the census as the sum of the spouses’ incomes for families in which the highest earner is between ages 25 and 35. Children’s and parents’ incomes are measured in real 2014 dollars using the CPI-U-RS. Absolute mobility is calculated by combining these income distributions with the copula estimated for the 1980 to 1982 cohorts in tax data by (12).