Showing posts with label Politics-USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics-USA. Show all posts

October 2, 2019

Mark Zuckerberg Thinks Elizabeth Warren Would Be Bad For Him, He Said Us but

Image result for arab spring birth
 Tahir Square, Egypt
    "What would really ‘suck’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices"  E.Warren                 
 The guy that accepted all those Million dollars and billion rubbles knowing It was Russian helping Trump, I mean He would not know they are Russians if the money is coming from Russians and some paying in Russian currency...What? Yeap.  That is what I mean when I say Dear Mark see us like as himself because that is who he has been battling for. because it is easy to see that what Facebook does it does for itself and to help those that it believes it will help FB corporate culture. Facebook is been a big dissapoitment for me. I thought in those early days that Facebook was good for the world because on those days of the Arab Spring the exchange of information was critical for people to check what their governments were selling to them. Yes, we had an exchange of many ideas and a lot of information but I think the misinformation and bad ideas have been greater (as in worse).  I find it funny he now speaks about who is bad for the Us. He has not mentioned anything about a President that is being impeached but he helped him get elected so I don't blame him.
Adam Gonzalez         (I am not Pro Elizabeth but pro-American Companies which keeps our economy going.  (My vote for President is not important) Of all people to be critical of a presidential candidate Zuckenberg should be at the end of the row.)
The following was written by By David Uberti on
Mark Zuckerberg sees how antitrust enforcement might look under an Elizabeth Warren presidency, and he’s ready for a legal battle if she wants to break up his company.
“I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge,” the Facebook CEO told employees in July meetings, of which transcripts were just published by The Verge. “And does that still suck for us? Yeah.”  
The Facebook co-founder and CEO made the comments during a pair of staff meetings, where he fielded questions from employees on the troubled rollout of the Facebook cryptocurrency Libra, a rising competitor in TikTok, and his own unchecked power within the company.
But the executive’s comments on a leading 2020 Democratic candidate stand out at a time when Washington has dialed up the heat. As Congress ramped up a web of inquiries into Big Tech in recent months, Warren has surged in the polls in part by arguing for new checks on corporate power. That includes a plan to break up Silicon Valley giants like Facebook.
Warren doesn’t appear fazed by the prospect of a huge legal battle. Soon after The Verge reported Zuckerberg’s remarks Tuesday, the Massachusetts Democrat took aim at his company on Twitter. 
“What would really ‘suck’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anti-competitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy,” she wrote, linking to her campaign website and fundraising page. 
Many Silicon Valley honchos have argued that breaking up tech companies would make problems like user privacy harder to solve. Zuckerberg, whose company acquired Instagram and WhatsApp in moves that are now being scrutinized by federal regulators, panned the idea in his July meetings.  “It’s just that breaking up these companies, whether it’s Facebook or Google or Amazon, is not actually going to solve the issues,” he said. “And, you know, it doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together. It doesn’t make any of the hate speech or issues like that less likely. It makes it more likely because now ... all the processes that we’re putting in place and investing in, now we’re more fragmented.” 
“It’s why Twitter can’t do as good of a job as we can,” he added. “Our investment on safety is bigger than the whole revenue of their company.”
Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, and Apple have already spent more than $26 million this year to shape potential regulations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Zuckerberg himself went to Washington last month to add his personal touch to this lobbying push. 
And for all the talk of antitrust enforcement by Warren and other lawmakers, Facebook may have a larger warchest for any legal battle than federal agencies. Zuckerberg doesn’t appear afraid to use it. 
“I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government,” he told employees in July. “I mean, that’s not the position that you want to be in when you’re, you know, I mean … it’s like, we care about our country and want to work with our government and do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”

September 6, 2019

Will Trump Win? Let's Apply Math Without Love Because if You Love a Politician, U Will Make It Loose

As a Store Manager in several stores, in different areas, my mantra came from my first DM. "Love them Adam, but Check Them!" The stores in which I was a superstar I had followed that Mantra. In the ones I could have done so much better, I didn't check because I love them and from that came to trust (bad). This rule applies to politicians as well. {Adam}

Editorial, Adam Gonzalez
Many heads got scratched this week when President Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim that Alabama had been in the path of Hurricane Dorian.
Apparently relying on a map that warned of high winds, or another showing hypothetical path for the storm, the president over the weekend insisted Alabama was "in the crosshairs." At midweek, sitting in the Oval Office, he held up a map on which someone using a marking pen had ballooned the area of actual hurricane threat to include Alabama.
The question had to be asked: Wouldn't it be enough to be worried about Florida, Georgia and the rest of the Southeastern coast without dragging in Alabama — a state outside the current danger zone?
Perhaps. But in seeking to understand the moment it was tempting to observe that Alabama is arguably the cornerstone of the president's base of support in seeking a second term.  
While 17 states have consistently shown the president at 50% job approval or better, according to Gallup, Alabama is one of just three states where Trump's approval has often topped 60% since Inauguration Day. According to the Morning Consult tracking poll, Trump's approval is 18 points positive in West Virginia and 21 in Wyoming. In Alabama, it is 26, and Alabama has more votes in the Electoral College than those two other states combined.
Do such things matter to a president seeking reelection? They just might, especially when that president is struggling to raise his public approval nationwide.
The president is setting his course on issues, from guns and trade to immigration and abortion, and his stances on those make it clear he is playing to his base. All politicians want as many voters as they can get, and all begin their calculations by relying on a core of support. But in American presidential politics, the ultimate question is not just how many voters one has but where they live, because in American presidential politics, the Electoral College rules. While much time and attention is devoted to tracking the president's approval rating nationwide, and his supporters can be found in any part of the country, all that matters in the end is the president's standing state by state. Examining trends in individual states offers a clearer picture of Trump's reelection prospects a little more than a year from now — and a rationale for his strategy. It also highlights the degree to which the country's issue conflicts and partisan rivalries are defined by differences in population density.
Where the urban- and inner-suburban metro areas are politically dominant, Democrats prevail; otherwise, the president and the Republican Party hold sway. And where the city-country balance is closer to even, we have a swing state.
That sets the landscape for 2020 — with President Trump hoping to again win the 30 states he won in 2016 with 306 votes in the Electoral College. That gives him a margin of 36 Electoral College votes, because it takes 270 to win for a majority 538 electors who make up the Electoral College.
So how's he faring in the effort to do it again?
When being "popular" isn't the answer
It's nice to win the popular vote, and the popular vote usually underscores the final decision. Not always, though. See 2000 and 2016. In reality, the national popular vote has no role in the choice of the president.
That choice is determined by the Electoral College, guided by the popular vote in each state. (Note: If no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, the choice is made in the House of Representatives, where, for just this one decision, each state gets one vote.)
With this in mind, defining Trump's base requires both defining his voters and counting the states where they will cast at least a plurality of the 2020 vote.
In 2016, Trump won those 30 states with 306 electoral votes, though there were two "faithless electors" in Texas who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, leaving Trump, technically, with 304.
Looking ahead to 2020, though, Trump looks to only be able to count on a little more than half of those states to continue backing him, come what may. Trump's approval rating averaged just 40% nationwide in 2018, according to Gallup, and his approval rating was above 50% in 17 states — all of which he had carried in 2016.
The Trump 17 are: Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming.
These numbers are based on the Gallup tracking poll that takes soundings 350 times a year. It is generally corroborated by the readings done by Morning Consult. Although Morning Consult had sub-50 readings for Trump in Utah at several points in the first two years, it was above 50% this summer, as are Texas and Missouri.
In the first weeks of 2019, during the government shutdown, both Gallup and Morning Consult found Trump dipping below 50% by a point or two in some of the larger states in this core. But in each, the rating quickly snapped back above 50% when the shutdown ended and has remained there since.
These 17 states then would have to be regarded as the purest definition of Trump's geographic base, the firmest foundation for his reelection. Beyond that, they easily provide most of the senators who make Republican Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader. The current Senate has 53 Republican members, 31 of whom hail from those same 17 states.
As a measure of how American politics has changed, consider that there were 15 Democrats from these states when Bill Clinton became president. One Democrat from that era, Richard Shelby of Alabama, is still around, but he switched to the GOP in 1994 right after that party became the Senate majority. He symbolizes how populists from largely rural states in the South and West have migrated from one party to the other and become the hard base for Trump.
It has long been noted that Trump, a former Manhattan socialite and billionaire, makes an odd champion for these voters and these regions of the country. But his willingness to take up their causes has largely won them over. And in 2016, his emergence from a field of 17 candidates to win the Republican Party nomination installed him atop a party that now commands the loyalty of rural America as never before.
The more rural, the more pro-Trump
Within the states, and across the national map, party loyalties can be perceived as a function of population density.
"All the social changes that have pulled cities and rural areas apart since the 1930s have come to be expressed in the party system," writes Jonathan Rodden, a political scientist at Stanford University. "American geographic polarization has emerged in large part because our political institutions have created a strict two-party system that has gradually come to reflect a set of social cleavages that are highly correlated with population density."
And Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank, has added: "The filtering/sorting dynamic of urbanization has produced a lower-density, mainly white [rural] population that is increasingly uniform in socially conservative personality, aversion to diversity, relative disinclination to migrate and seek higher education, and Republican Party loyalty." 
Trump's most loyal 17 states have in common a relatively low population. The two largest, Tennessee and Missouri, rank just 16th and 18th among all states in the Census Bureau estimates for 2018. Each has two major cities that vote Democratic, but the urban characteristics of Nashville and Memphis, and St. Louis and Kansas City, are not enough to counterbalance the exurban and rural characteristics of those states overall.
More typical of the group in the population in Kansas. With a little under 3 million residents last year, and ranking 35th nationally, Kansas is still more populous than half the rest of the 17 states. Next in size is West Virginia with 1.8 million. Five states among the 17 qualify for only a single seat in the U.S. House: Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming.
A glance at these 17 pro-Trump states on a map makes them appear to dominate the landscape, and indeed they do in a strictly geographic sense. They comprise some of the largest expanses of sparsely inhabited land America has to offer. That impression only strengthens when you add Texas, a megastate where Trump has not always been above 50% approval in the Gallup but has never been far from it. While the state is becoming more competitive, few doubt it will be in the president's column again in 2020.
Tacking on Texas also greatly expands the footprint of Trump's hardcore states in the Electoral College. Without Texas, their collective contribution is only 102 electoral votes. With Texas, they reach 140, just over half of what Trump will need to secure a second term.
On the contrary
The other side of the coin in the Gallup approval map is the group of 16 (plus the District of Columbia) states where Trump's approval was below 40% in his first two years in office. Here again, the Morning Consult tracking data generally corroborate these findings and extend them into 2019.
Not surprisingly, these 16 have a lot more people than the core Trump 17, as the below-40 states include three of the nation's most populous five (California, New York, and Illinois) and nine of the top 22. That translates to 201 electoral votes or nearly three-fourths of what a Democrat might need to win.
It is tempting to say this is the built-in base of Trump's opponent, whoever that may be.
But that still leaves a whopping 235 electoral votes in the 17 states that are not distinctly pro-Trump or con, the states where he has been at 40% to 49% approval (again, relying primarily on the Gallup tracking).
In 2016, Trump was able to pick off just enough states in the Great Lakes region — starting with pivotal Ohio — to win despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. He could win again, even losing by millions in the popular vote, if he can reassemble the same bloc of states — or close to it.
There seems little point in campaigning at all in the deeper blue states such as California, New York and Illinois. While millions of voters live there, the president has little or no chance of translating their votes into the electoral votes he needs to supplement his base in the rest of the country.
The president will campaign in the states where he has been polling in the 40s, including previously reliable blue states he shocked the world by winning in 2016 (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin). He won those three by fractions of a percentage point each (just under 78,000 votes aggregate total).
All three states elected Democratic governors in 2018. But the president maintains a loyal Republican base in each and will again appeal to non-Republicans who found him the better choice in 2016. He hopes they hold and lift him again next year.
Short Center Editorial by the Publisher, Adam Gonzalez:

 One of the problems with our voting system is One the Electoral vote and Second, the voters falling in love with politicians like if they were movie stars. These politicians are as honest as the best or worse actor in reading their lines and presenting something very far from what they are. However, our system is political and we have to vote for politicians but does not say you have to love them? I think it started with FDR and it got cemented with the short life of President John Kennedy. But because 17 states fell for Trump, a good for nothing New Yorker who never worked a day in his life but he hit the right tone with the people in 17 states that thought he was better than Hillary who only the ones closest to her loved her ( all 12 of them) and that was not many. Now we have people infatuated with the man least likely to run and win against a sleeky snake-like Trump. That is Biden of coarse. He never got the message that the time with Obama was going to be the end of the White House career and he had a lot of accomplishments and many loving fans. But loving Biden means you' re not thinking straight. Why is that? Simple! Most of us ignore the shortcoming of the people we love.
 On the other hand that is not the way, Trump is going to be feeling and treating him as such, which means Trump again might win. Even with a good candidate that knows how to take it but better yet to dish it out without looking hateful this person will have a tough time not because they won't be millions of voters ahead like Hillary(over 3million over Trump yet she lost) but is the College Electoral system in which states with 3 thousand people have more say than NYC, California or Washington state with its millions of residents and the drivers of the economy of this country. 
My point is simple: Please don't fall in love for Biden, He will loose and don't fall in love with any of the other. You need to get to know the strong political points of Trump, which is simple to see and not many and try to find someone to kick those on this bold head (sorry for the bold head comment guys, I like them very much). 
                                  Image result for I like you but don't love you

 Needless to say, the president will emphasize that strategic handful of "purple states" that have swung back and forth in recent presidential cycles. Most important are the ones he captured last time: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona and Iowa. But he will also be looking to compete in swing states he lost to Hillary Clinton: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire.
With all this predictable effort, however, Trump will not neglect the 17 base states that have stood by him most loyally so far. And he should find it natural enough to enlarge this group with the states that have at least kept him near 50% approval through his first 32 months in office.
These include the megastates of Texas and Georgia (No. 2 and No. 8), plus Louisiana and Indiana. He has held rallies in these states and stressed their issues and concerns from Inauguration Day forward. And he knows that without all these states on board, all other strategies and outreach will not be enough to ensure a second inauguration.

March 29, 2019

Buttigieg Is Leaving Beto Way Back in The Dust!

 Pete Buttigieg
 Yes, I’m a millennial. Yes, I speak for all of us. No, I’m not sorry for killing chain restaurants. Next up: the electoral college.

The Commentary

This is the week of Pete Buttigieg.
He’s a Rhodes scholar, Navy veteran, the young mayor of a midsize city (he was elected to lead South Bend, Ind., at age 29; he’s now 37), and apparently moonlights as an Arabic translator for hospital patients in tragic need. The hopeful gay millennial candidate has come out of nowhere and caught the nation’s eye — Cory Booker, formerly America’s Sparkliest Young Mayor™, must be grinding his teeth.
Buttigieg (it’s “Boot-edge-edge,” if you’re still struggling) has distinguished himself from the current Democratic field, and from most politicians generally, by seeming to have a well-thought-out and comprehensive position on almost any topic. He’s developed an opinion on everything from white nationalism (not just “economic anxiety,” but a larger context of disorientation and lost community and identity) to Chick-fil-A (does not approve of its politics, kind of approves of its chicken). Potential voters approve: Last weekend’s Emerson Poll showed him shooting up to third place in the race in Iowa, behind Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, but ahead of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. 
What are his chances of actually winning the nomination? Still slim — his experience is in governing a midsize city, he’s unusually young, and he’s still not really a household name. That said, in a field as wide as this one, anything could happen.
Other happenings?
Continuing in her role as the most policy-oriented candidate, Warren rolled out yet another substantive proposal, this one focusing on family farms and antitrust measures for agriculture. Is anyone listening? Hard to tell.
Kirsten Gillibrand released 12 years of her tax returns and called President Trump a “coward” from a stage outside a Trump-branded high-rise in Manhattan. She’s clearly trying to goad the president and increase her visibility, but it’s getting harder to pay attention to any candidate whose name doesn’t begin with the letter B. 
Meanwhile, rumors of Stacey Abrams as a potential Joe Biden VP pick continue to fly, and her team continues to bat them down in ever-sharper terms terms. One adviser: “What makes it particularly exploitative is that Biden couldn’t be bothered to endorse Stacey in the gubernatorial primary. Now he wants her to save his a--. That’s some serious entitlement.” (Biden did endorse Abrams, but he bowed out of a visit to campaign for her because of a “scheduling conflict.”)
Still… yikes.
— Christine Emba

The Ranking

1.Joe Biden
2.Bernie SandersUP 1
3.Kamala D. HarrisDOWN 1
4.Pete ButtigiegUP 4
5.Beto O’RourkeDOWN 1
6.Elizabeth WarrenUP 1
7.Cory BookerDOWN 2
8.Amy KlobucharDOWN 3
9.Kirsten GillibrandUP 3
11.John HickenlooperDOWN 2
12.Michael BennetDOWN 2
13.Julián CastroDOWN 2
14. (TIE)Jay InsleeDOWN 1
14. (TIE)Howard Schultz
Falls off ranking: Andrew Yang
Also receiving votes: Yang, Terry McAuliffe, Tim Ryan, Larry Hogan
Don’t forget to click on the yellow highlighted text above to expand the Ranking Committee’s annotations. Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments. We’ll see you for the next ranking. Until then, watch your back: We millennials are everywhere. One might even become president.

Featured Posts

Tenn. Gov. Bill Lee Signs Bill to Allow Adoption Agencies to Deny to Gay Couples

Every kid you see in all three photos are either homeless or orphans Joel Ebert   ...