US 2018 November elections

[Seabass]

Cruz could lose. I'm actually looking forward to tomorrow for that reason alone. The guy could only lose thanks to Trump, a man who insulted his wife and who he had vouch for him anyway!

I doubt it, but it would be one of the most hilarious political upsets in history.

[L'Emmerdeur]

In that respect, yes. I can't think of an equivalent to Shep Smith on MSNBC or CNN, can you?

Fill in the blanks: Shep Smith is to Fox News as ____________ is to MSNBC and ______________ is to CNN.

While some days I watch MSNBC, I watch Fox News more than I do CNN, so I can't honestly comment on CNN. Shepard Smith can only be viewed as a 'dissenting voice' because at least some of the time he refuses to join in the blatant dishonesty and shilling that characterizes the overtly partisan personalities that Fox News employs, like Pirro, Ingraham, Carlson, and Hannity. Given that MSNBC employs partisan personalities like Maddow and Hayes (though I don't think they approach the level of dishonesty of the Fox News crew), I suppose the closest equivalents on MSNBC to Shepard Smith on Fox News I can think of would be Steve Kornacki or maybe Ari Melber. Fox News in my opinion in a class of its own in regard to how it approaches the news, and it's only got worse since Trump was elected.

[Animavore]

[L'Emmerdeur]

[sarcasm][/sarcasm]Stepping in at the end of two world wars, one of which saw the end of the British Empire and our ascension, had a lot to do with chance and practically speaking did a hell of a lot more for us than your idealism.

These were European wars, which were world wars because the European participants had immense colonial empires. The wars causes and beginnings had nothing to do with the United States.

Take the first world war -- it was the epitome of a colonial war. A bunch of colonial empires going at it - Austria-Hungary's emperor declares war on Serbia. The Russian Czar leading the Russian Empire comes to its ally Serbia's defense and invades Austria-Hungary. Germany comes to the aid of Austria-Hungary. France, allied with Russia, comes to the aid of Russia, and so too Britain becomes involved.

Your pontificating on history never ceases to bemuse me. 'Epitome of colonial war' indeed. The term 'colonial war' has a couple of different definitions depending on context, but never have I seen it defined as war directly between states which happen to possess colonies. Your description of the alliances which drew pretty much all of Europe into the First World War is fairly accurate, but nowhere do you establish a causal link between the fact that these states possessed colonies and the origins of the war. While it is true that rivalry and conflict over colonial possessions existed before World War I, those conflicts had mostly died down by the turn of the century, and had little to do with the casus belli of the war.

The colonial empires drew on their overseas holdings to force subjugated peoples and colonies to fight.

Correct, but that doesn't make World War I a 'colonial war.'

So, the Guns of August 1914 --- it's very Eurocentric to think that anybody else would give a flying fuck that Austria went to war over a political assassination of a hereditary monarch's son, and the ridiculous interlocking alliances that drew all the colonial powers to war then had nothing to do with Africa, Asia, South America or North America.

It appears here that you've contradicted your earlier claim that this was a 'colonial war.' While it's not entirely true that the alliances had nothing to do with Africa et al. (some of them had been forged in previous conflicts over colonies) it is true that the colonial possessions of these countries had practically nothing to do with the origins of the war. It was a war between imperial powers certainly, but it was by no means a 'colonial war.'

The US was no more an ally of the UK back then than it was a German, French or Russian ally. In 1914, we were a mere hundred years from all out war with the UK, the countries were fierce enemies almost up to World War 1.

Yes, the US and the UK had been at war 100 years earlier. However, the War of 1812 cannot be correctly described as 'all out,' given that the UK was still preoccupied with its affairs in Europe. In fact British historians tend to view it as a minor theatre action, subsumed under the Napoleonic Wars. In the course of the 19th century the UK and the US had ceased to be 'fierce enemies.' Being intimately connected by culture and trade, relations between the two countries had become mostly cordial (aside from a few squabbles) well before the Great Rapprochement.

The Great Rapprochement occurred around the Spanish American War, where the Brits curried favor with the US, but Americans living in 1914 were not considering themselves or the country some major ally with Britain.

If the British 'curried favor' with the US by acceding to the US's position re Cuba, the US 'curried favor' with the British by remaining neutral during the 2nd Boer War while also selling supplies to them, despite pro-Boer sentiment in the US.

The US didn't enter WW1 until 1917 because it wasn't its business. And we got involved in second half of that bullshit war because the Europeans were sitting there in trenches for years butchering hundreds of thousands of troops at a clip with wild abandon. The leaders of the war effort at that time were shameful in their disregard for human life, continuing to order troops over the top to attack German positions even after the commanders themselves knew of the completed Armistice and that it would go into effect within a day or hours. They kept attacking -- on November 11, 1918, more troops were killed than in the entire Iraq War.

The US entered the war almost entirely because of German attacks on US shipping. I don't know where you get the idea that the horribly bloody stalemate the war had become had anything to do with it.

Also, WW2 - that war arose out of European stupidity. Against American advice and desires, after World War 1, the allied forces blamed Germany for the war, and exacted massive, massive punishment on Germany. This drove Germany into depression and subjugation, and created the very environment for another war - which was predicted by many decades before it started. It was a world war in name, but a European War in actual fact. In 1939, the US did not have anywhere close to a top military. WE were not a warlike country, and we were in no position to move a million men across the Atlantic ocean to help fight another European war. The Roosevelt admnistration concluded that we would have to eventually get involved, and we started helping the UK with Lend Lease, but it took actually getting attacked by Japan to bring us in. And, when we did get into the war, it wasn't "at the end." Even as late as June, 1944, the outcome of the war was in serious doubt.

Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and the rest of the unwilling 'members' of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere would disagree with your characterization of WWII as 'a European War in actual fact' as would I. Nor did it arise solely out of European stupidity, though I agree that the punitive provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were very much ill-advised.

But, again, the war was not our doing, and not our business.

While there's little to dispute in the first clause, the second is simply ludicrous.

[Svartalf]

[Scot Dutchy]

Some people here should study a bit of history about world wars and especially about America's violent history regarding other countries.

[Forty Two]

Anybody who's actually looked at the media outlets Forty Two implies are worse than Fox because they're so one-sided knows that he's either ignorant or being duplicitous.

Who said "worse?" Having people on is not making them unbiased. FoxNews has Democrats on. However, the pundits attack them, and castigate them, and argue them into corners, just like MSNBC and CNN do to Republicans. You're not watching or paying attention if you don't see how biased MSNBC and CNN are. They are plainly in the camp of the Democrats. And Fox News is plainly in the camp of Republicans.

I wrote that you implied that left-leaning media outlets are worse than Fox News because no 'dissenting voice' could be found on them, and that's exactly what you did.

Would 'twere such a dissenting voice could be found on CNN, MSNBC, ...

In that respect, yes. I can't think of an equivalent to Shep Smith on MSNBC or CNN, can you?

Fill in the blanks: Shep Smith is to Fox News as ____________ is to MSNBC and ______________ is to CNN.

OK, I can do this...

Shep Smith is to Fox News as Rachel Maddow is the MSNBC and Chris Cuomo is to CNN?

Is it April 1, already?

[Forty Two]

Jason? Why did you pick that boring name?

What's wrong with Jason?

Good enough for the Argonauts, good enough for Ratz.

[Forty Two]

One more day.

My prediction is that the Democrats will take the House of Representatives by a moderate majority. The GOP will likely retain the Senate.

The result will be two years of massive attack on Trump, with a view to impeachment. I predict an attempt by Trump to placate Democrats by opening up the candy store. Some Democrats will take him up on it, but most will want to keep focused on 2020. If the Democrats take the House, the wall is gone. Trump will attempt a deal with the Democrats on immigration, which will be resoundingly criticized by wall-proponents, but he will declare that he can't get it past the Democrats. The middle class tax cut he announced will be gone. There is a long-shot prediction that Trump will make a massive shift and become the President who ushers in single-payer health care.

Side prediction - shortly after the election, Mueller's report comes out and Trump is squeaky clean. Republicans will accuse Mueller of holding back the report until after the election because it was favorable to Trump, thus influencing the election in favor of Democrats by leaving the matter up in the air. If Mueller had released the report last week, the GOP would have shouted from the rooftops how it vindicates Trump.

Once in the majority in the House, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (for brains) will start more investigations, and continue to leak garbage to the media. The new speaker of the house, Nancy (chew my dentures) Pelosi, will move toward an impeachment vote some time in 2019. They backed off impeachment talk in the run up to the election, and the Democrats haven't said word-one about "Russia" in the last couple months because they could see it didn't hurt Trump. Once the election is over, that drumbeat will start up again.

Trump will not get reelected in 2020, if the Dems take the House. They'll do too much damage, and Trump won't get the independents, and when the economy takes a cyclic downturn in 2019 or 2020, Trump will be toast. Any economic downturn will be his baby.

If, however, the longshot takes place and the GOP takes the House, there is a 50-50 chance that the Republicans will not squander the opportunity. If Trump can keep them in line and crack the whip on the GOP rank-and-file, then he can get another tax cut through before the end of the year. He will get the Wall started. He will take another step forward toward peace with North Korea. He will reduce medical costs with his pro-competition measures that are quietly working under the radar (of the CNN/MSNBC media). The economy has a chance at growing at 5% clip by 2020. Trump will cut more regulation and costs of doing business in the states, and manufacturing will continue to rise. The US will enter the strongest period of economic growth in a century. Longshot prediction - Trump will become the immigration President, who not only builds the wall against illegal immigration, but INCREASES legal immigration to record levels in order to meet increased demand for quality labor and skilled employees in the United States.

But, alas, the relentless and unending drumbeat of negativity from every major media outlet in the country, except one (which is only listened to by die hard Republicans anyway), has succeeded in muddying Trump beyond repair. The media report negatively 90% of the time, even when Trump has a success, and the media are so politically biased that the reporters themselves don't even see themselves as biased, as they think that Trump successes are actually failures or things not to be desired. So, I sadly have to accept that the House is lost, and with it, any real chance of major American success in the next decade. We will have to endure bullshit talk of Medicare for all, free college, open borders, increased welfare, increased minimum wage (the next call will be to $40,000 per year, not just $30,000 per year like they say they want now), massive re-regulation, and massive tax hikes.

[Forty Two]

And the old man will go ranting for months. He can't just go golfing till next year.

After the Democrats take the House, the major media outlets will immediate report on the "New Democrat mandate" and the resounding rejection of "Trump's America." They'll overplay it and hype it for all it's worth. A normal midterm shift to the party out of power will suddenly make Trump a lame duck President.

[Svartalf]

bah, Fox will overplay the fact that the GOP will still be holding the senate and any number of governorships to show that frump is the greatest an d still adulated by the population.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump will ready tomorrow with his lies. If the repugs lose it will be everyone else's fault if they win it will be entirely due to him. Never mind the corrupt state of the American election system which makes many an African state a shining example of democracy.

[Forty Two]

Cruz could lose. I'm actually looking forward to tomorrow for that reason alone. The guy could only lose thanks to Trump, a man who insulted his wife and who he had vouch for him anyway!

That's one race that's unlikely. Cruz is solidly ahead of Beto, which is pretty amazing given how distasteful Cruz is, and how much the media sucked Beto O'Rourke's dick

Juxtapose CNN and MSNBC's coverage of Beto O'Rourke with this minority candidate who you've probably never heard of, John James. Why do you think CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the major media trumpeted "Beto" but not John James?

The winds of swoonery blasted through Texas this year and traveled halfway across the country to dust the Eastern media establishment with love eternal for senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke. Not since the press corps fell in love with Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign has such a sirocco of worshipful candidate profiles and commentaries appeared in the national press.

“Is Beto O’Rourke the Left’s Obama-like Answer to Trump in 2020?” asked Vanity Fair. “Beto O’Rourke Could Be the Democrat Texas Has Been Waiting For,” offered BuzzFeed. Still more positive Beto coverage sprinkled the pages of Yahoo News, Time, GQ, Rolling Stone, the Guardian, the New York Times, Politico and Esquire as they worked off the same template. The Washington Post indulged Betomania with a feature, another feature, a column and the sort of ancillary coverage it ordinarily gives the Washington Redskins.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... -gq-221304

The major media outlets have their tongue so far up Beto's asshole, it can't even be called bias anymore.

Here's what the media thinks of John James - https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/05/repo ... -midterms/ - I wish I could find a different site to report that, but CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and there rest of the gang just ignored it. Searching google for betoO'Rourke finds media report after media report about Beto, almost exclusively favorable - almost nothing about his shady background and criminal history. John James has very little coverage, mostly by the right wing sources, and most articles are questioning why the media is ignoring him. He's in just as big a race in Michigan (a very important swing state) against Debbie Stabenow who has been in the Senate for a long long time - unseating her would be an amazing feat. Crickets. Beto and Cruz, though -- I mean, he's so dreamy! Is he the new Barack Obama? Oh, he's tall and thin, and just sends those chills up the media pundits' legs.... oh my... so sexy.

[Forty Two]

Trump will ready tomorrow with his lies. If the repugs lose it will be everyone else's fault if they win it will be entirely due to him. Never mind the corrupt state of the American election system which makes many an African state a shining example of democracy.

We'll see. I bet he moves past it, and if he has to deal with a Democrat house, he'll adjust his tactics to deal with them. I doubt he will waste energy on blame. Although, that's going to be the first question the ridiculous media ask him - over and over again after that - "Mr. President, do you bear the blame for this loss?" "Mr. President, do you bear any blame for the loss at all? Even a little?" "Mr. President, who do you think is to blame for the loss of the House?" "mr. President, what do you say to those people who say you're now a lame duck President in your first term?"

It'll be endless. Rather than focus on the issues, the press will focus on figuring a way to get soundbites that show Trump not taking blame, blaming someone else, etc. And, then all the talk will be about how Trump is "more concerned with who is to blame than moving the country forward and working with democrats." One day, the media will be held to account by the people for their tactics, but it won't be now - the joy on the side of the media establishment will be uncontrollable. It will be as if they just received a supermajority vote for "do everything the Democrats want," and "impeach Trump."

Even a one seat majority in the House will be portrayed by CNN and MSNBC as a wholesale rejection of Trump, and almost to the degree of a mandate for the imposition of a communist utopia. I'm already throwing up in my mouth a little at the thought of what Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Chris Cuomo, and the gang will be doing - they'll be circle jerking for days or even weeks.

[Joe]

[sarcasm][/sarcasm]Stepping in at the end of two world wars, one of which saw the end of the British Empire and our ascension, had a lot to do with chance and practically speaking did a hell of a lot more for us than your idealism.

These were European wars, which were world wars because the European participants had immense colonial empires. The wars causes and beginnings had nothing to do with the United States.

Take the first world war -- it was the epitome of a colonial war. A bunch of colonial empires going at it - Austria-Hungary's emperor declares war on Serbia. The Russian Czar leading the Russian Empire comes to its ally Serbia's defense and invades Austria-Hungary. Germany comes to the aid of Austria-Hungary. France, allied with Russia, comes to the aid of Russia, and so too Britain becomes involved.

Your pontificating on history never ceases to bemuse me. 'Epitome of colonial war' indeed. The term 'colonial war' has a couple of different definitions depending on context, but never have I seen it defined as war directly between states which happen to possess colonies. Your description of the alliances which drew pretty much all of Europe into the First World War is fairly accurate, but nowhere do you establish a causal link between the fact that these states possessed colonies and the origins of the war. While it is true that rivalry and conflict over colonial possessions existed before World War I, those conflicts had mostly died down by the turn of the century, and had little to do with the casus belli of the war.

The colonial empires drew on their overseas holdings to force subjugated peoples and colonies to fight.

Correct, but that doesn't make World War I a 'colonial war.'

So, the Guns of August 1914 --- it's very Eurocentric to think that anybody else would give a flying fuck that Austria went to war over a political assassination of a hereditary monarch's son, and the ridiculous interlocking alliances that drew all the colonial powers to war then had nothing to do with Africa, Asia, South America or North America.

It appears here that you've contradicted your earlier claim that this was a 'colonial war.' While it's not entirely true that the alliances had nothing to do with Africa et al. (some of them had been forged in previous conflicts over colonies) it is true that the colonial possessions of these countries had practically nothing to do with the origins of the war. It was a war between imperial powers certainly, but it was by no means a 'colonial war.'

The US was no more an ally of the UK back then than it was a German, French or Russian ally. In 1914, we were a mere hundred years from all out war with the UK, the countries were fierce enemies almost up to World War 1.

Yes, the US and the UK had been at war 100 years earlier. However, the War of 1812 cannot be correctly described as 'all out,' given that the UK was still preoccupied with its affairs in Europe. In fact British historians tend to view it as a minor theatre action, subsumed under the Napoleonic Wars. In the course of the 19th century the UK and the US had ceased to be 'fierce enemies.' Being intimately connected by culture and trade, relations between the two countries had become mostly cordial (aside from a few squabbles) well before the Great Rapprochement.

The Great Rapprochement occurred around the Spanish American War, where the Brits curried favor with the US, but Americans living in 1914 were not considering themselves or the country some major ally with Britain.

If the British 'curried favor' with the US by acceding to the US's position re Cuba, the US 'curried favor' with the British by remaining neutral during the 2nd Boer War while also selling supplies to them, despite pro-Boer sentiment in the US.

The US didn't enter WW1 until 1917 because it wasn't its business. And we got involved in second half of that bullshit war because the Europeans were sitting there in trenches for years butchering hundreds of thousands of troops at a clip with wild abandon. The leaders of the war effort at that time were shameful in their disregard for human life, continuing to order troops over the top to attack German positions even after the commanders themselves knew of the completed Armistice and that it would go into effect within a day or hours. They kept attacking -- on November 11, 1918, more troops were killed than in the entire Iraq War.

The US entered the war almost entirely because of German attacks on US shipping. I don't know where you get the idea that the horribly bloody stalemate the war had become had anything to do with it.

Also, WW2 - that war arose out of European stupidity. Against American advice and desires, after World War 1, the allied forces blamed Germany for the war, and exacted massive, massive punishment on Germany. This drove Germany into depression and subjugation, and created the very environment for another war - which was predicted by many decades before it started. It was a world war in name, but a European War in actual fact. In 1939, the US did not have anywhere close to a top military. WE were not a warlike country, and we were in no position to move a million men across the Atlantic ocean to help fight another European war. The Roosevelt admnistration concluded that we would have to eventually get involved, and we started helping the UK with Lend Lease, but it took actually getting attacked by Japan to bring us in. And, when we did get into the war, it wasn't "at the end." Even as late as June, 1944, the outcome of the war was in serious doubt.

Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and the rest of the unwilling 'members' of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere would disagree with your characterization of WWII as 'a European War in actual fact' as would I. Nor did it arise solely out of European stupidity, though I agree that the punitive provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were very much ill-advised.

But, again, the war was not our doing, and not our business.

While there's little to dispute in the first clause, the second is simply ludicrous.

And naturally, all of this was a digression from the point he was responding to.

Stepping in at the end of two world wars, one of which saw the end of the British Empire and our ascension, had a lot to do with chance and practically speaking did a hell of a lot more for us than your idealism.